Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Fighting Russophobia bulletin, 2015

Pathological Russophobia of the US elite  2017 2016 2015 2014 2013

2015 should be called the year when sanctions backfired. At least for EU. 


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Mar 05, 2019] Goldman Sees 15 Years of Weak Crude as $20 U.S Oil Looms

No we can check the quote of Goldman forecast. forecast of those arrogant and clueless jerks ;-)
Is squid talking his book again ? Compare with China Is Hoarding the World's Oil - Bloomberg Business. They are slightly schizophrenic those squid stooges, aren't they ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... with shale fields as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020, there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he said. ..."
"... U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12 months. ..."
Bloomberg Business

... ... ...

Goldman cut its crude forecasts this month, saying the global surplus of oil is bigger than it previously thought and that failure to reduce production fast enough may require prices to fall near $20 a barrel to clear the glut. Prices may touch that level when stockpiles are filled to capacity, forcing producers in some areas to cut output, Currie said Wednesday.

"The last time we saw a period that was similar to today was 1986, 29 years ago," he said. "We waited 15 years" for oil to start rising again.

Lower iron ore, copper and steel prices as well as weaker currencies in commodity-producing countries have reduced costs for oil companies, according to Currie. The world is shifting from an "investment phase" of a 30-year commodity cycle to an "exploitation phase," with shale fields as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020, there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he said.

U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12 months.

Should oil fall to $20, it would be "one touch," he said. Inventories would top out in parts of the world, some producers would shut production and the market would come into balance.

[Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
May 06, 2014 | mondoweiss.net

At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses "A Foreign-Policy Problem No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives. Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and David Brooks lamenting the decline of American power.

In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..

I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.

At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of Amos Elon's The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.

This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers. (Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that, driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .

Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles] Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.

Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one speaks about.

Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm

"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position by changing their neighbours".

The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth. For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.

Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never, I guess.

Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm

P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11, which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.

Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s, using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.

Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.

Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes, they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.

But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.

Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of '48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.

And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.

But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.

Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm

There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.

Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm

"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"

Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.

Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am

@ Bumblebye

Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves, despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat troops.

It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts, and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.

Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm

PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.

The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.

Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire.

So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.

ToivoS, May 7, 2014, 8:10 pm
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.

Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.

In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with the Bandera brigades.

RudyM, May 7, 2014, 9:36 pm
Interesting, meaty analysis here of the various players in Ukraine. This is unequivocally from a Russian perspective, incidentally:

link to wikispooks.com

(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)

I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these links:

I have only glanced at these:

American, May 6, 2014, 9:23 pm
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives. Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>

Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst, the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.

That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.

And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.

Citizen May 7, 2014, 9:46 am
@ yonah fredman

"The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal."

As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO. Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.

There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism "in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.

Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment? Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.

And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering sanctions on Russia.

Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.

Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores in the US Congress.

ToivoS, May 7, 2014, 8:49 pm

Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.

Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.

In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with the Bandera brigades.

ToivoSMay 7, 2014, 9:39 pm
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.

What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government. You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of the Bandera organization.

Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan? It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.

Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.

piotrMay 7, 2014, 10:18 pm
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic for that government.

yonah fredman, May 7, 2014, 10:38 pm

Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate. Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.

If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.

My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.

But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.

ToivoSMay 8, 2014, 12:51 am

Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?

yonah fredmanMay 8, 2014, 1:30 am

ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.

But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic, but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)

Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the Ukrainian desire for freedom.

CitizenMay 8, 2014, 9:18 am

@ yonah f

What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?

(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification what the US is doing.

irishmosesMay 8, 2014, 12:32 pm

Yonah said:

"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"

The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.

Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.

The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater Israel line.

Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.

Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.

The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future. It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to continue running with the Neocons.

seanmcbride, May 8, 2014, 1:01 pm

irishmoses,

Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.

What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran.

What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .

But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.

"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."

link to politico.com

Are there really any meaningful distinctions between neoconservatives in the Republican Party and liberal Zionists in the Democratic Party?

talknic, May 7, 2014, 3:24 am

@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"

Strange

"state into the Armageddon .. "

"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "

Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.

" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that."

You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".

BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere

JeffB, May 7, 2014, 9:06 am

I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.

Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on the left of most foreign policy positions.

Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.

But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?

lysias, May 7, 2014, 10:55 am

The neocons lost one last night: Antiwar Rep. Walter Jones Beats Neocon-Backed GOP Rival:

Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.

American, May 7, 2014, 11:24 am

Yep.

Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.

Citizen, May 8, 2014, 9:24 am

@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to cut off any aid to Israel.

Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.

traintosiberia, May 8, 2014, 9:12 am

Stockman's Corner

Bravo, Rep. Walter Jones -- Primary Win Sends Neocons Packing

by David Stockman • May 7, 2014 link to davidstockmanscontracorner.com

The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.

But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"

But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny.

[Sep 24, 2018] Why this Ukrainian revolution may be doomed, too

Blast from the past...
Notable quotes:
"... Kiev has become an accidental, burdensome ally to the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization only paid lip service to future Ukrainian membership, while the EU, which never had any intention of taking in Ukraine, pushed an association agreement out of bureaucratic habit more than strategic vision. ..."
"... The least charitably inclined claim that Poroshenko prosecuted the war in eastern Ukraine as a way of delaying reform. What's undeniable is that the shaky ceasefire leaves the Kiev government at the mercy of Putin and his proxies. Should anything start going right for Poroshenko, the fighting could flare back up at any moment. ..."
"... Everybody in Kiev understands that there's no way of reconquering lost territory by force. Ukrainian politicians publicly pledge to win back breakaway regions through reform and economic success. What they hope for is that sanctions will cause enough problems inside Russia that the Kremlin will run out of resources to sabotage Ukraine. Wishful thinking won't replace the painful reforms ahead. ..."
May 19, 2015 | http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/17/why-this-ukrainian-revolution-may-be-doomed-too/

At home, there is the possibility of more protests, a paralyzed government, and the rise of politicians seeking accommodation with Putin. "Slow and unsuccessful reforms are a bigger existential threat than the Russian aggression," said Oleksiy Melnyk, a security expert at Kiev's Razumkov Center. Even if Ukrainians don't return to the street, they'll get a chance to voice their discontent at the ballot box. Local elections are due in the fall - and the governing coalition between Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is so shaky that nobody can rule out an early parliamentary vote.

In its international relations, Ukraine is living on borrowed time - and money. A dispute over restructuring $23 billion in debt broke into the open last week with the Finance Ministry accusing foreign creditors of not negotiating in good faith ahead of a June deadline. An EU summit this week is likely to end in more disappointment, as Western European countries are reluctant to grant Ukrainians visa-free travel.

Kiev has become an accidental, burdensome ally to the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization only paid lip service to future Ukrainian membership, while the EU, which never had any intention of taking in Ukraine, pushed an association agreement out of bureaucratic habit more than strategic vision.

... ... ...

The least charitably inclined claim that Poroshenko prosecuted the war in eastern Ukraine as a way of delaying reform. What's undeniable is that the shaky ceasefire leaves the Kiev government at the mercy of Putin and his proxies. Should anything start going right for Poroshenko, the fighting could flare back up at any moment.

Ukrainian security officials say that the enemy forces gathering in the separatist regions are at their highest capability yet. The most alarming observation is that the once ragtag band of rebels - backed up by regular Russian troops in critical battles - is increasingly looking like a real army thanks to weapons and training provided by Russia.

... ... ...

Everybody in Kiev understands that there's no way of reconquering lost territory by force. Ukrainian politicians publicly pledge to win back breakaway regions through reform and economic success. What they hope for is that sanctions will cause enough problems inside Russia that the Kremlin will run out of resources to sabotage Ukraine. Wishful thinking won't replace the painful reforms ahead.

[Dec 27, 2017] Russian military to order major research to counter color revolutions

Jun 22, 2015 | rt.com

Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has told reporters that the military will sponsor a major research of coups conducted through mass protest – so called 'color revolutions' – to prevent the situations that Russia faced in 1991 and 1993.

"Some people say that the military should not be involved in political processes, some say the direct opposite. We will order a study on the phenomenon of color revolutions and the military's role in their prevention,"

Shoigu told the participants of the Army-2015 political forum Friday.

"We have no right to allow the repetitions of the collapses of 1991 and 1993," he said. "How to do it is another story, but it is clear that we must deal with the situation. We must understand how to prevent this and how to teach the younger generation so that it supported the calm and gradual development of our country."

The minister added that the consequences of color revolutions can be now observed in many Arab nations and also in Serbia. He also said that the Ukrainian crisis that started in 2014 also was "a major tragedy in the row of color revolutions."

In March this year the head of Russia's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev promised that this body would develop a detailed plan of action aimed at preventing color revolutions or any other attempts of forceful change of lawfully elected authorities through mass street protest. He also said that the Security Council had prepared a list of proposed measures that could negate the possible threat, including some steps against "network protest activities" and propaganda work against "romantic revolutionary stereotype."

Also in March, President Vladimir Putin addressed the dangers of color revolutions in his speech to the Interior Ministry.

"The extremists' actions become more complicated," he said. "We are facing attempts to use the so called 'color technologies' in organizing illegal street protests to open propaganda of hatred and strife on social networks."

In the same month, the Interior Ministry drafted a bill containing amendments to the law on rallies that covered car protests and sit-ins. The ministry experts said that the move would circumvent legal ambiguity in the interest of society as a whole.

In November, Putin blasted color revolutions as a main tool used by destructive forces in the geopolitical struggle.

"In the modern world, extremism is used as a geopolitical tool for redistribution of spheres of interest. We can see the tragic consequences of the wave of the so-called color revolutions, the shock experienced by people in the countries that went through the irresponsible experiments of hidden, or sometimes brute and direct interference with their lives,"

the Russian leader said.

In January, a group of Russian conservative activists, uniting war veterans, nationalist bikers and pro-Christian politicians launched an "anti-Maidan" political movement in Moscow to oppose any attempts to thwart the stable development of the country. Its first rallies were held on the same days as some anti-government protests and according to law enforcers the conservatives outnumbered the pro-revolution activists by almost 10-fold.

Read more

[Nov 24, 2017] Vanishing act: how global auditor failed to spot theft of 15% of Moldova's wealth

"..."We have organized crime specialized in finance. As a consequence of the discovery of the theft, the banks stopped issuing loans for a while. There was a domino effect which hit the leu.""
July 2, 2015

Local franchise of accountancy giant Grant Thornton was working for three of the country's largest banks when $1bn was embezzled

One of the world's leading auditors has been accused of negligence and incompetence after $1bn was siphoned out of Moldova from under its nose – a sum equivalent to 15% of the former Soviet republic's GDP.

Grant Thornton, the UK based accountancy giant with local franchises in dozens of countries, was the auditor for three of Moldova's largest banks through which the money was embezzled and spirited out of the country in complex financial transactions, some through UK companies.

As a result, the authorities had to rescue the three banks with a bailout equivalent to half the annual budget. The knock-on effect was a currency collapse and a plunge towards recession, ruining the economy almost overnight. Moldova is already Europe's poorest country.

The theft was discovered in November 2014 at Unibank, Banca de Economii and Banca Sociala , which the Moldovan member of Grant Thornton, a global network of independent firms, has been auditing since 2010, 2011 and 2013 respectively.

Iurie Chirinciuc, a Moldovan MP who was part of a commission set up to investigate the affair, believes Grant Thornton was negligent and obstructive.

"All the [audit] reports give positive opinions," he said. "How can you give a positive opinion when the situation at these banks was so grave?"

Grant Thornton said it drew the attention of the banks and relevant authorities to its concerns about the banks and that its audit reports contained alerts about loans. But Chirinciuc said it should not have given the banks a generally clean bill of health.

He claims repeated requests for the auditors to give testimony to the inquiry were "vehemently opposed".

"I have made a formal request for analysis of Grant Thornton to the central bank," Chirinciuc said. "In the commission, I was shocked to see that all state institutions were informed and updated as to the situation at the banks, but did not intervene. These circumstances make me think that very high-ranking dignitaries are involved in the theft of the billion."

Chirinciuc was also aghast that after the fraud was discovered, Grant Thornton's Moldova director, Stéphane Bridé, was appointed economy minister. Bridé told the Guardian his nomination "was made in conformity with the legislation of the Republic of Moldova, according to which my professional qualities and experience were exclusively considered".

Multiple spurious loans were granted by Banca de Economii and Unibank on the basis of false guarantees to companies that then transferred the money offshore. Some went to British companies controlled by entities registered in places where directors' identities are kept secret.Two preliminary reports – one by the parliamentary commission and the other by corporate investigation firm Kroll – suggest that fraud eventually became the main occupation of the banks.

The parliamentary report says: "The management of the banks have manifested evident lapses in professionalism and integrity … by giving credits that were compromised from the beginning" and made transactions of "fictional and fraudulent character". The MPs concluded the banks had knowingly endangered their "capacity to make basic operations" such as paying out pensions and public sector salaries.

The banks consistently misrepresented cash balances by using unorthodox "overnight deposits" – zero-interest deposits from Russian banks Interprombank, Gazprombank, Alef Bank and Metrobank – to disguise the lack of capital while continuing to give out nonperforming loans. "In essence these operations were operations of manipulation," the parliamentary report says.

So contaminated have the banks become that the IMF and World Bank have suspended programmes with Moldova, and the EU is considering following suit. World Bank country manager Alex Kremer said last week: "We are advising the authorities that the three banks ... should be liquidated." He said trying to nationalise or recapitalise the banks would risk wasting more taxpayers' money.

Moldovan prosecutors have since launched an investigation that has so far put about 30 people under criminal indictment, including bank executives. Among these is Ilan Shor, chairman of the board at Banca de Economii since April 2014, allegedly the mastermind. Shor was released from house arrest on 23 May, having agreed to cooperate with investigators. The chief prosecutor has not returned a request for comment. Shor denies wrongdoing. Earlier this month, he was elected mayor of the small town of Orhei.

Kroll's confidential report was published online in April by the speaker of the Moldovan parliament, Andrian Candu. It says a group of companies under Shor's control gradually took over the banks and in 2010 started giving never-to-be-repaid loans to themselves. When watchdogs closed in, "orders were given by management of the banks to archive loan documentation relating to the suspicious transactions". A vehicle belonging to another Shor company that collected the paperwork was subsequently stolen and burned.

Between 2011, when Shor's companies were allegedly beginning to sink their teeth into the banks, and October 2014 when the scam went bust, Kroll found the number of Shor-related companies involved grew from 10 to 39. By December 2014, 90% of Unibank's loans were to Shor group companies. Deposits recorded as being from Russian banks, which enabled Banca de Economii to make huge loans, were not received.

"Ilan Shor and individuals associated with him played an integral role in coordinating this activity," Kroll says in its report, claiming there was "a deliberate intention to extract as much benefit as possible for entities connected to Mr Shor and to the detriment of the bank". A Kroll representative said the report was leaked without consent and declined to comment further.

The "missing billion" contributed to a run on the Moldovan leu in which it lost a quarter of its value against the dollar in February.

Grant Thornton had no presence in Moldova before 2010, but its ascent has been startling. Seven of the country's 14 biggest banks became its clients in the space of four years, making it by far the biggest player in the market. International competitors such as KPMG and Deloitte steadily lost Moldova to Grant Thornton, with neither having more than two major banks on their roster in the country by 2013.

Representatives of the Moldovan Grant Thornton franchise deny impropriety and say that that auditors cannot be held responsible if clients do not disclose full financial information.

"While we would like to detect all fraud, according to International Standards of Auditing, the auditors' role is not to discover fraud, or to prosecute clients for fraud," they said in a statement. "We stand by the quality of our work – which is public record - and believe the audit opinions were correct under the circumstances."

A spokesman for the global office said Grant Thornton member firms acted autonomously and their work was only scrutinised by head office every three years. It did not respond to a question asking what it planned to do about its relationship with GT Moldova.

A Moldovan financial system insider who wishes to remain anonymous said: "It's clear Grant Thornton was at least negligent if not worse. How could it not have known what was going on, especially at Unibank where the scam was almost total?"

In its response, GT Moldova said: "Various observations were mentioned annually in the letters we addressed to management and shareholders of these banks and to the National Banks of Moldova.

"We wish to remind you that in 2013, the inquiry commission for the assets of Banca de Economii was based not only on the audit of the court and reports of the International Monetary Fund but also mentions of Grant Thornton audit."

The effect of the financial loss has been felt by ordinary Moldovans. Ion Preașcă, a finance journalist in ther capital Chișinău, said: "We have organised crime specialised in finance. As a consequence of the discovery of the theft, the banks stopped issuing loans for a while. There was a domino effect which hit the leu."

Alexei, who owns a small construction business, said: "They will invent some new taxes to make up for the damage. I had an account at Banca Sociala and have stopped using it since. I opened two new accounts in banks with foreign ownership."

Natasha, a bookkeeper, said: "The resulting price rises had bad effects. The electricity price nearly doubled from one month to the next. The bill was 300 lei [£10] and it's now 500. Pensions and salaries haven't increased."

The criminal investigation is ongoing. Neither the Moldovan National Bank or government returned requests for information. An estimated 50,000 Moldovans protested on 3 May in Chișinău, demanding justice and the recovery of the stolen money.

Thanks to Iurie Sanduta, editor of www.rise.md, for help researching this article.

[Sep 21, 2016] There are still a lot of "handshakable" (created by kreacks for kreakls) mass media outlets in Russia despite cries of neoliberal MSM about absence of "free press" in Russia

"Handshakable" is Soviet dissidents times term meaning a person not too in bed with "despicable" regime. Now used mainly in satical sense with the meaning almost identical to kreakls" -- useless person with strong opinions about everything and very active on the Internet.
Lyttenburgh, July 21, 2015 at 2:39 am

I've found this little gem 2 days ago and I'm still… "overjoyed" by it.

Despite Manichean claims of the Free and Independent ™ Western Media that in Russia "there are no free press", that everything is controlled by Kremlin and Putin, and only [Radio] Ekho Moskvy, Novaya Gazeta [Newspaper] and Dozhd [TV] are the few remaining honest sources of truth and independent journalism ™, there are still a lot of "handshakable" outlets created for kreakls by kreakls.

In one such handshakeble paper, the "Snob" [well, at least they are honest with themselves and their readers] recently was published this interview with another extremely handshakable, ah, "person", who used to be the Chief Editor of the "KommmersantЪ" paper in it's [even more] handshakable heyday. This particular excerpt seems especially "meaty" (translation is mine):

Snob: And when do you think the era of the "rich cooperators'" of the 90s came to an end?

AV: I think it happened when they arrested Khodorkovsky. Then not only the era of cooperators came to an end, the society in this country was finished also.

Snob: Why is society so easily reconciled with this and it's own end?

AV: And because it could not be otherwise! Because there are no such country – Russia! This is a huge geopolitical mistake … I do not know whose, Lord God's or Darwin's. This country never existed, don't exist now and never will be. This country is bad.

Snob: Even if it is so bad, it does not mean that it doesn't exist.

AV: Well, fuck with it! Here's my answer. Fuck with it, that it exists! I wish it to be healthy! But this is not interesting for me. It is a cancer on the body of the world! What, should I fight with it? I'm not a professor Pirogov, I will not cut out this tumor, I just do not know how. Honestly, I don't know how.

Snob: What are the symptoms of this cancer?

AV: There are two evidences of this cancer. Never in my life Russia and its people had any other national ideas then "we are surrounded by enemies" and "Russia for the Russians!". With such two fundamental attributes there can't be country. This is just savagery. Can you give me somw other Russian national ideas?

Snob: Empire from sea to sea.

AV: This is just "We are surrounded by enemies" and "Russia for the Russians!" in other words. It's just combined in a beautiful word "empire". Nothing else! And with such fundamental principles country of course, some country might even exist, but who needs it? I do not! It is necessary to those inside.

Needless to say, Andrey Vasiliev now is a proud and free emigre.

So, after reading this little interview I got a proverbial train of thoughts going in my head at a top speed,finally arriving to it's destination. Now I can say that I "understand" (as in "understand what makes them tic") all of them – liberasts, Byelarussian zmagars, Ukrainian svidomites, pint-sized Baltic patriots, sausage emigrants forming Brighton Beach Bitching Brigade etc.

But that's the topic for another post

ThatJ, July 21, 2015 at 2:50 am

Does Andrey Vasiliev live in Brighton Beach now?

yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:24 am

No, Vasiliev lives in Geneva, Switzerland.

And, no, he is not Jewish, in case that's what you are trying to get at.

He is of Russian ethnicity.

yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:27 am

Dear Lyttenburgh:

Thanks for this find.

These Fifth Columnists are all the same, aren't they?

For them, the true litmus test was, and always has been, Khodorkovsky.

They longed for a world in which Khodorkovsky owned every single thing in Russia that wasn't nailed down; and everybody else, including these kreakls, just getting crumbs from his table.

But the kreakls receiving bigger crumbs, plus an honored place at the master's side.

Moscow Exile, July 21, 2015 at 3:35 am
I regularly ask Russians – ordinary work-a-day Russians, be they of the working or the professional classes – if they could imagine leaving Russia forever, if they could consider emigrating, never intending to return. They all say they couldn't. They say they'd like to travel, but they always feel they would want to come "home".

I have never yet met one Russian person who speaks as does Vasiliev, no one who says "I hate this place and my fellow countrymen so much: it's a shithole; it's a dump; it's full of morons etc., etc….", though I often hear them speaking loudly and clearly in that way from afar through the bullhorn of the Western mass media.

I ask my children regularly if they would like to live in England. I get a resounding "No!" off them. They speak English fluently now (except the youngest) and say they like visiting the place, that it's "cool" and, curiously enough, all their pals think it's "cool" that they are "half-English". My children do as well, not least because I suspect they can already sense the great advantage that their bilingualism has given them – but they categorically state they are Russian and that Russia is their Motherland, their rodina, the land that "bore" them, their "Mother Russia".

My wife is the same.

None of them are nationalistic, but they are very, very patriotic.

People such as Vasiliev are a small yet vociferous minority that, I suspect, suffers from some psychological aberration.

I am so glad that many of them leap at the first opportunity to fuck off away from here.

Pavlo Svolochenko, July 21, 2015 at 3:46 am
The type is not unique to Russia.

America has a whole university set aside for people who hate America. A sort of open-air loonybin.

Your Russian anti-patriots can be corralled and stowed out of sight in the same way, if you wish. Market it right, and they'll do it entirely of their own accord.

yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:55 am
Dear Pavlo: Which open-air university is that? Berkeley?? :)
Pavlo Svolochenko, July 21, 2015 at 4:11 am
Naturally.
Moscow Exile, July 21, 2015 at 4:19 am
Why is Berkeley "open-air"?
Pavlo Svolochenko, July 21, 2015 at 4:23 am
In that nothing prevents the inmates from escaping but fear of employment.
Moscow Exile , July 21, 2015 at 4:28 am
I should add that I know many who have chosen to leave Russia in search of fame and fortune, education, a better standard of living etc., but none of them left because they loathe the land and its people.

I also have over the years come across a few who have returned: some because, having achieved success, they preferred to live out the rest of their lives in their Mother Russia; others because they could not adapt to an alien culture ("No 'soul' in the USA!" I have often heard such folk say; and others simply because they were homesick.

Interestingly, and unbeknownst to me, my sister emailed my wife last week when I was in the UK and told her that I was clearly "homesick".

I was: for Russia and my wife and children

Home is where the heart is.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Vladimir Putin Fights the War Party on All Fronts

readersupportednews.org

Ket's talk about "Russian aggression."

The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.

The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.

So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina, and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?

It's clear by now which party profited from the downing of the Russian Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force – a graphic act of war. The immediate result was the suspension – which could lead to the cancelling – of a crucial Pipelineistan plank: Turkish Stream, which is a bête noire for the Masters of the Universe as Turkey was about to become the key alternative bypassing failed state Ukraine for supplying natural gas to southern Europe.

On top if it the EU paid Ankara 3 billion euros for its "indirect" services (the official excuse is to allow Turkey to control Syrian immigration to the EU.) And EU sanctions to Russia were extended for another six months.

... ... ...

Putin – and Russian intel – didn't see it coming: Sultan Erdogan's "stab in the back." So a case can be made that Russian intel seriously underestimated Erdogan's massive investment on regime change in Syria.

Whatever happens on the ground – much more than in the Vienna-Geneva charade now passing for a "peace process" – the future of Syria bears two stark options; a neo-Ottoman colony, but essentially subordinated to the whims of the Masters of the Universe; or a unitary sovereign nation, not partitioned, with a strong relationship to both Russia and Iran.

The question, though, remains; how does Turkey get away with such a provocation, with Russia imposing just a few sanctions?

lorenbliss 2015-12-30 03:36

I fear that is indeed what we are watching, not so much in terms of Orwellian geopolitics as in terms of the One Percenters' tyranny literally surpassing human conception.

Picture not so much Orwell's world, which retained at least some small pretense of kindness, but rather the (fictional?) Borg hybrid with Nazi Germany, a ruthless global empire run by a capitalist Ruling Class whose bottomless Ayn Rand moral imbecility would make even a Ted Bundy flinch.

No doubt there will be scattered pockets of resistance, but in those realms, the unspeakable depredations of the Empire will eventually turn death into the ultimate synonym for freedom.

Which is why, as I said on another RSN thread, I am so very glad I have no living children -- no descendants to dwell in a world so inconceivably and irremediably malevolent toward the 99 Percent, the living will envy the dead.

That is the future that looms -- unless we the people of this planet somehow manage to overthrow capitalism, which is by far the most malignant evil we have ever unleashed upon ourselves.

cmp 2015-12-30 03:07

The 20th century, saw war, like none other before.

This century, the "War Party" (sadly, this sounds like a pun), but, their folly continues:
~" That follows a "tradition" Bill Blum, for instance, ... and the list goes on. "~

And:
~" .. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in "Eurasia", and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. "Eurasia" accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources. "~
~ Brzezinski, Zbigniew (2006). The grand chessboard : American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives ([Repr.] ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. p. 31. ~

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik…Absolutely!……..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Vladimir Putin Fights the War Party on All Fronts

readersupportednews.org

Ket's talk about "Russian aggression."

The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.

The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.

So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina, and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?

It's clear by now which party profited from the downing of the Russian Su-24 by the Turkish Air Force – a graphic act of war. The immediate result was the suspension – which could lead to the cancelling – of a crucial Pipelineistan plank: Turkish Stream, which is a bête noire for the Masters of the Universe as Turkey was about to become the key alternative bypassing failed state Ukraine for supplying natural gas to southern Europe.

On top if it the EU paid Ankara 3 billion euros for its "indirect" services (the official excuse is to allow Turkey to control Syrian immigration to the EU.) And EU sanctions to Russia were extended for another six months.

... ... ...

Putin – and Russian intel – didn't see it coming: Sultan Erdogan's "stab in the back." So a case can be made that Russian intel seriously underestimated Erdogan's massive investment on regime change in Syria.

Whatever happens on the ground – much more than in the Vienna-Geneva charade now passing for a "peace process" – the future of Syria bears two stark options; a neo-Ottoman colony, but essentially subordinated to the whims of the Masters of the Universe; or a unitary sovereign nation, not partitioned, with a strong relationship to both Russia and Iran.

The question, though, remains; how does Turkey get away with such a provocation, with Russia imposing just a few sanctions?

lorenbliss 2015-12-30 03:36

I fear that is indeed what we are watching, not so much in terms of Orwellian geopolitics as in terms of the One Percenters' tyranny literally surpassing human conception.

Picture not so much Orwell's world, which retained at least some small pretense of kindness, but rather the (fictional?) Borg hybrid with Nazi Germany, a ruthless global empire run by a capitalist Ruling Class whose bottomless Ayn Rand moral imbecility would make even a Ted Bundy flinch.

No doubt there will be scattered pockets of resistance, but in those realms, the unspeakable depredations of the Empire will eventually turn death into the ultimate synonym for freedom.

Which is why, as I said on another RSN thread, I am so very glad I have no living children -- no descendants to dwell in a world so inconceivably and irremediably malevolent toward the 99 Percent, the living will envy the dead.

That is the future that looms -- unless we the people of this planet somehow manage to overthrow capitalism, which is by far the most malignant evil we have ever unleashed upon ourselves.

cmp 2015-12-30 03:07

The 20th century, saw war, like none other before.

This century, the "War Party" (sadly, this sounds like a pun), but, their folly continues:
~" That follows a "tradition" Bill Blum, for instance, ... and the list goes on. "~

And:
~" .. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in "Eurasia", and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. "Eurasia" accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources. "~
~ Brzezinski, Zbigniew (2006). The grand chessboard : American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives ([Repr.] ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books. p. 31. ~

[Dec 31, 2015] The World According to Russia

Notable quotes:
"... "I believe," Putin tells Solovyov, "that no one should ever impose any sort of values he considers correct on anyone. We have our own values, our own conceptions of justice." ..."
"... Putin doesn't name names here, but the implication is clear throughout: World Order endeavors to incriminate American foreign policy and place the blame for the current chaos in the Middle East on the United States. The film's anti-Americanism is subtle but relentless ..."
"... some of its criticisms of wrongheaded U.S. policies and blundering interventions in the Middle East since September 11, 2001, would give American liberals, centrists, and even a few conservatives little cause for dispute ..."
"... Russia comes off as unjustly demonized and Russians themselves forced to suffer economically as a result ..."
www.theatlantic.com

"Do you realize what you have done?" Vladimir Putin demanded at the United Nations in September. The question was a rebuke to the American-led bloc of countries that initially viewed with optimism the Arab Spring, which began five years ago this month, but has since given way to chaos and Islamist violence across once-stable parts of the Middle East and North Africa. Those events, and much else, look different when viewed from Russia than they do from the United States, and a documentary that aired recently on Russian state television helps explain the worldview behind Putin's question.

The two-hour-plus film, Miroporyadok (World Order), explores, in the words of its narrator Vladimir Solovyov, "what is happening with us [Russians], what sort of world we have inherited from our parents, and what sort of world we will leave to our children." Partly through interviews with the Russian president himself, it also offers a window on Putin's own realpolitik perspective, one that I've found to be widely shared throughout Russia over many years of living in the country-a worldview according to which international relations consist of competing blocs of nations pursuing their interests, and the violation of sovereignty is a recipe for instability. This stands in contrast to Obama's own position, which he stated at the UN two years ago, that "sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder, or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter."

"I believe," Putin tells Solovyov, "that no one should ever impose any sort of values he considers correct on anyone. We have our own values, our own conceptions of justice."

Putin doesn't name names here, but the implication is clear throughout: World Order endeavors to incriminate American foreign policy and place the blame for the current chaos in the Middle East on the United States. The film's anti-Americanism is subtle but relentless, and the spin comes mostly from omission of relevant facts.

And though it originated within the Russian state propaganda machine, some of its criticisms of wrongheaded U.S. policies and blundering interventions in the Middle East since September 11, 2001, would give American liberals, centrists, and even a few conservatives little cause for dispute. Yet the documentary goes further, leaving the strong impression that greedy, bungling, incorrigibly myopic conspirators "from across the ocean" (a phrase Putin uses repeatedly in the film to describe the U.S. leadership) bent on world domination are to blame; Russia comes off as unjustly demonized and Russians themselves forced to suffer economically as a result. "

[Dec 31, 2015] Where to celebrate New year: the most interesting places to visit in Moscow

December 30, 2015 | ru-an-info.livejournal.com

A Kingdom of Light and Ice – New Year in Moscow. The city decoration this year has a record 100 kilometres of lights and dozens of tons of ice for sculptures. New Year's Eve Muscovites and guests of the capital will see grandiose first-class performances of the festival "Journey to the New Year", a colourful platform for festivals with fireworks and more fireworks, giant ice rinks and ice slides.

These days it seems that Moscow is the capital of not only the country but of the whole world. It is a way to become acquainted with the Russians' favourite holiday and perhaps to try some champagne. On New Year's Eve, you can also easily take part in something sportive. Health and fun is guaranteed on the home rink of the country of the Soviet era. Here you will be able see off the Old and welcome the New as many as five times: in China, in Siberia, in traditional Moscow, in Finland and and in France. [Albeit that the last two despise Russia! – ME]

In Gorky Park guests will be invited to dance. You will not get bored by the popular DJs. This December 31 Dyed Moroz will arrive from space. In the Museon every hour you can watch as the country celebrates the New year. The festival "Circle of light" is going to give a great show. Ice and light music will create the atmosphere. Here you can race around on an ice slide. Another track for skiing has arisen on Poklonnaya Hill. Here is the capital in miniature. Moscow in ice looks fabulous.

The warm weather has helped craftsmen create real masterpieces. All the sculptures are crystal clear. All this has happened just before the New year. After this has happened, who can no longer believe in miracles and the magic of the season! [Refers to the unseasonably warm weather of the past 2 weeks, which suddenly changed to real winter only a few days ago – ME] "A thousand tons of ice: here Ostankino tower, there – the Pushkin monument; over there – the Bolshoi Theatre and the Moscow state University building, and a collective farm. And, of course, the Kremlin", - says the President of the national programme "In the Family Circle", Aleksandr Kovtunets.

The peculiarity of this year is that celebrating the first few minutes of the New Year on Red Square will be impossible: it will be closed off this morning. [31 December – ME] An ice Kremlin shall serve as a replacement and whose chimes are frozen at twenty to midnight. The feeling is that here the New Year will arrive. And underfoot are real cobbles, too, and a Victory Park. On Nicholas Street you will be offered forged horseshoes for good luck. To warm up there will be sweets and hot drinks in booths. And should you wish to stock up on memories with hundreds of pictures there are luxurious lighting installations.

The entire centre – Tverskaya, Kuznetsky Most, Bolshaya Dmitrovka Street, Tverskoi Boulevard – are one big New Year fantasy. The sky, streets and buildings will be emblazed by hundreds of thousands of coloured lights. At midnight there are to be 12 firework displays in different parts of the capital: at Babushkinsky - a retromancer, actors on stilts, an interactive performance about a ballerina that has been imprisoned in a transparent ball; at Kuzminki and Sadovniki - jazz music; at Severnoye Tushino and Goncharovsky Park - a carnival night; at Izmailovo - a party in rockabilly style; at. In Sokolniki - hits of the 90s; at Bauman Garden – Soviet smash hits.

A New Year show will be in every metropolitan park. You will be able to plunge headlong into the festival from outside the Garden Ring. Public transport on New Year's Eve will be open longer than usual: the metro until 2 a.m. and buses until three o'clock. And here's wishing you all the best for the whole night!

[Dec 30, 2015] Ukrainian economy in depression: exports fall by about a third in 2015

Recession in Russia was the last nail on the coffin...
izvestia.ru

Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.

[Dec 30, 2015] Ukrainian economy in depression: exports fall by about a third in 2015

Recession in Russia was the last nail on the coffin...
izvestia.ru

Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.

[Dec 30, 2015] Ukrainian economy in depression: exports fall by about a third in 2015

Recession in Russia was the last nail on the coffin...
izvestia.ru

Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.

[Dec 30, 2015] Oil down more than 3 percent on U.S. crude build; Brent near 2004 low

Why MSM and those people try to push oil lower at the end of the year? Are they oblivious to the destiny of the US shale companies. Collateral damage ? The Saudi's have finally admitted that they longer limit production, i.e., they're producing flat out, in other words, they have no spare capacity.
Notable quotes:
"... Ali al-Naimi, oil minister of OPEC leader Saudi Arabia, said the kingdom will not limit production, the Wall Street Journal reported. ..."
news.yahoo.com

Stockpiles hit record highs at the Cushing, Oklahoma delivery hub for U.S. crude's West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures. Gasoline and heating oil also posted larger-than-expected stock builds.

"In all the years I have been doing this, I have never seen builds in the last week of December," said Tariq Zahir, crude futures trader at Tyche Capital Advisors in Long Island, New York.

"At least for tax consequence reasons, refiners always ramp up runs at the year-end, and there's a draw. This is a first for me."

Ali al-Naimi, oil minister of OPEC leader Saudi Arabia, said the kingdom will not limit production, the Wall Street Journal reported.

[Dec 30, 2015] Syrian troops backed by Russian jets enters rebel-held southern town army

Notable quotes:
"... Rebels still control large parts of the region, that also borders Israel, but have been largely on the defensive since their failed offensive in June to take the government-controlled part of Deraa city. ..."
"... In the course of actions aimed to cut terrorists' sources of income, the Russian aircraft eliminate large number of oil production, storing and transportation facilities on the ISIS-controlled territories in Syria. ..."
"... Russian Su-34 bomber performed a strike on the target and eliminated more than 20 oil trucks, which had been used by the ISIS for illegal oil transportation, two off-roaders equipped with ZU-23 AD systems. ..."
"... It is necessary to pay attention to the statement made by representative of the US State Department. Time is changed. Situation is changed. Representatives of the State Department are changed. However, speech writers are not. ..."
"... All these impersonal claims without evidences about performing strikes on civilian objects by allegedly Russian aviation in Syria close resemble performances held by hypnotists or chapiteau. ..."
"... It is about absurd: there are serious accusations referring to some "reputable non-governmental organizations". However, there is no information about the exact name of these organizations and who they are reputable for. ..."
"... All this is happening while actions and, the most important, results of the US air bombardment in this region are keeping absolute silent. ..."
"... If this continue the Syrian military will regain control of all Syrian cities and all these terrorist islamic groups supported by foreign countries will be defeated and expelled from Syria. ..."
"... Well thats interesting. A "mainstream anti Assa armed group", yet they go through all that without actually revealing the name. ..."
"... Is there any question now that the WH was simply letting Syria get demolished in the hopes Assad would fall? ..."
"... Theres a lot of people that support Assad. The WH knows this. The WH stated that Assad hasent a chance in hell of getting re elected. Well if thats the case, why does the WH refuse to see his name on a ballot. ..."
"... They are "Islamist" and the Christian genocide would continue on and on and on. Dont forget, not one of these guys came to power without holding on to a gun. Does that sound like someone you would vote for? ..."
"... hilarious, while this silly article says the syrin army is making gains only after the Russian bombing. They slipped an wrote that the terrorists lost in June against the syrian army!! The russians only got involved in october!! propaganda always has its draw back....the truth!! ..."
"... Until DC provides the list of Moderate Rebels that don't have any Islamic reference they ALL will be viewed as Islamic Terrorists Organizations. And until that list is provided let the Russians bomb the Hell out of them. ..."
"... Let's get this straight... IS militants are all TERRORISTS. Any rebel groups that are fighting alongside with the IS group are also part of the terrorist group. And if those so-called rebel groups are supported by the US or NATO or Turkey, it means that those nations are directly or indirectly supporting the ISIS or TERRORISTS. ..."
"... Sheikh Meskeen is vital and strategic due to its location along the second most important highway in the Dara'a province; it is also the key to the cities of Nawa and Jassim. ..."
"... The Russians are doing this right, get rid of all terrorist groups including the one Israel and the U.S. are supporting, funding and arming. ..."
"... Terrorists are no longer terrorists but are now called rebels? That would mean the Paris slaughter was done by rebels. ..."
"... Somebody please tell to these so called moderate rebels and their brothers in ISIS that their heydays are over. Run while you can. ..."
"... Wonder what the US response would be to Russian airdropping thousands of RPG's and millions of rifles and ammunition to the #$%$, Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam and various militia group in the US who feel they are being oppressed? ..."
"... Since there wasn't a single mention of ISIS in this article, then the emphasis should have been Obama's Syrian "rebel" allies are getting the krap kicked out of them by the Russians. ..."
"... But Reuters, being an Obama support group would only mention them as "backed by Western Powers". ..."
"... Does anyone see the connection between the terrorists, who are backed by the West, and the outright Lies the media tries to pass off as the truth. One other note here, they keep recycling parts of this article which appear almost verbatim in several other reports on Yahoo about Syria. ..."
"... The US is guilty of arming rebels against a government with representation at the United Nations. That is a crime. ..."
"... All the US resources are wasted on misguided and ill-convince military adventures that support corporations than its own citizens. ..."
"... Just like in the north of Syria....ALL the "rebel" groups in the south fight under Al-Nusra's umbrella and command structure. Al-Nusra plans ALL of their offensives, as well as ALL of their defense. You can call them moderate if you want. but ALL the "rebel" groups in Syria work hand-in-hand with the Salafist and Takfiri. ..."
"... Personally I think it's heartwarming the way Western governments and the 'free' press has lined up behind the radical Islamists against Russia and the secular regime in Syria where women can do such evil things as go outside without a sheet over their heads and men can drink beer and etc! This is madness! Russia is evil! ..."
"... stop this nonsense, no one believes it ny more... moderate rebels, barrel bombs ...they are all islamic terorrists, and very well funded and equipped by saudi arabia and qater and trained and supplied by turkey and the u.s. clear as day light ,they are all sunni muslim terrorists! ..."
"... I seriously doubt the "moderate" rebels would approve of anything Christmas-related. Assad looks a lot more moderate to me than the US-backed "moderates". ..."
news.yahoo.com
Rebels still control large parts of the region, that also borders Israel, but have been largely on the defensive since their failed offensive in June to take the government-controlled part of Deraa city.

Vladimir

Here's the latest from Russia's General Staff, with some interesting info about the US Air Force activities.

In the course of last two days, since December 28, aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic have performed 121 combat sorties engaging 424 terrorists' objects

In the course of last two days, since December 28, aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic have performed 121 combat sorties engaging 424 terrorists' objects in the Aleppo, Idlib, Latakia, Hama, Homs, Damascus, Daraa, Raqqah and Deir ez-Zor provinces.

Near Mahin (Homs province), Russian Su-34 performed a strike on a large terrorists' base of the ISIS. A hangar with military hardware, depots with weapons, materiel and munitions of terrorists were destroyed. Five off-road vehicles equipped with large-caliber machine guns, an infantry fighting vehicle, and four trucks loaded with munitions were eliminated.

Near Shawarighat al-Arz (Aleppo province), Russian Su-25 destroyed a terrorists' strong point. Direct hits caused elimination of a tank and three off-road vehicles equipped with large-caliber machine guns.

Near Lahaya (Hama province), a Su-25 of the Russian Aerospace Forces eliminated two artillery guns and an ammunition depot.

In suburbs of al-Khadr (Latakia province), Su-25 carried out a strike on a large strong point of terrorists and eliminated 2 pieces of hardware.

Command staff of the Russian aviation group continues receiving information about objects of the ISIS and other terrorist groups active in Syria from representatives of patriotic opposition forces.

Therefore, on Monday, Russian party received information from representatives of one of the Syrian opposition detachments active in northeastern Syria concerning a planned meeting of the ISIS field commanders in the suburbs of Raqqah.

The Russian Defence Ministry organized a day-and-night air observation of the object. After receiving confirmation on arriving of militants' leaders to the assigned point, Russian Su-34 bomber performed a strike on the building, where the meeting was taking place. As a result of direct hit with guided missile, the building was destroyed with all its contents.

Several days ago, representatives of a patriotic opposition formation active in the Idlib province presented information to the Russian Defence Ministry about location of a large ammunition depot of the Jabhat al-Nusra near al-Zerba.

After making research on the aerial photographs of the region and checking reconnaissance data, Russian Su-24M hit the target. Objective monitoring data confirmed elimination of the object.

Means of intelligence detected a hidden reinforced concrete shelter of the AD complex Osa. A Su-34 bomber received an order to liquidate the target. Direct hits of BETAB-500 air bombs caused destruction of the building with all its contents.

In the course of actions aimed to cut terrorists' sources of income, the Russian aircraft eliminate large number of oil production, storing and transportation facilities on the ISIS-controlled territories in Syria.

In the course of last two days, the Russian aviation group destroyed six objects of oil trafficking in the Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo provinces.

In the course of the aerial intelligence operation near Kafr Nabl (Idlib province), the Russian aircraft detected concentration of oil tankers moving to the Syrian-Turkish borders. They were escorted by off-roaders equipped with anti-aircraft systems.

Russian Su-34 bomber performed a strike on the target and eliminated more than 20 oil trucks, which had been used by the ISIS for illegal oil transportation, two off-roaders equipped with ZU-23 AD systems.

***

It is necessary to pay attention to the statement made by representative of the US State Department. Time is changed. Situation is changed. Representatives of the State Department are changed. However, speech writers are not.

All these impersonal claims without evidences about performing strikes on civilian objects by allegedly Russian aviation in Syria close resemble performances held by hypnotists or chapiteau.

It is about absurd: there are serious accusations referring to some "reputable non-governmental organizations". However, there is no information about the exact name of these organizations and who they are reputable for.

All this is happening while actions and, the most important, results of the US air bombardment in this region are keeping absolute silent.

However, every day aircraft and strike UAV's of the US Air Force carry out from six to twenty combat sorties with performing missile and bomb strikes on ground targets.

Therefore, all the public community learns information about effectiveness of operations held by the US Air Force, when their "flights" had caused mass killing. It is impossible to be hide or shift responsibility to any party.


kingn500

Russia carpet bombing is winning the war for the Syrian military that is a strong army that was losing due to lack of air force power and lack of cities war fare experience needed during the attack and defense of Syrian cities, Syrian military was not trained for guerrilla warfare inside the cities but with Russia carpet bombing and Russia retraining the Syrian military in cities warfare they begin to regain Syrian cities and defeating these terrorist rebels If this continue the Syrian military will regain control of all Syrian cities and all these terrorist islamic groups supported by foreign countries will be defeated and expelled from Syria. Good for the Syrian people that most of them don't want an islamic state in Syria. Go Russia go .

smlslk

Rebels from another mainstream anti-Assad armed opposition alongside some Islamist groups"

Well thats interesting. A "mainstream anti Assa armed group", yet they go through all that without actually revealing the name.

Is there any question now that the WH was simply letting Syria get demolished in the hopes Assad would fall?

Theres a lot of people that support Assad. The WH knows this. The WH stated that Assad hasent a chance in hell of getting re elected. Well if thats the case, why does the WH refuse to see his name on a ballot.

So lets get this strait. All the people that now back Assad including all the people that would now vote for him would then become the terrorist if the WH appointed one of these nameless "armed mainstream anti Assad terrorist groups". They are "Islamist" and the Christian genocide would continue on and on and on. Dont forget, not one of these guys came to power without holding on to a gun. Does that sound like someone you would vote for?

Ramsis

hilarious, while this silly article says the syrin army is making gains only after the Russian bombing. They slipped an wrote that the terrorists lost in June against the syrian army!! The russians only got involved in october!! propaganda always has its draw back....the truth!!

stefan

Until DC provides the list of Moderate Rebels that don't have any Islamic reference they ALL will be viewed as Islamic Terrorists Organizations. And until that list is provided let the Russians bomb the Hell out of them.

J M

Let's get this straight... IS militants are all TERRORISTS. Any rebel groups that are fighting alongside with the IS group are also part of the terrorist group. And if those so-called rebel groups are supported by the US or NATO or Turkey, it means that those nations are directly or indirectly supporting the ISIS or TERRORISTS.

DAVID

The Syrian Army announced minutes ago that its troops alongside the popular forces drove the militant groups back from the entire districts of the key town of Sheikh Meskeen North of Dara'a after killing, wounding and capturing a large number of the terrorists. "Sheikh Meskeen is now under the full control of the Syrian government forces," the army said.

"The militant groups have suffered a heavy death toll. Most of the militants in the town have been killed or wounded. In addition, a large number of the militants have surrendered, while the rest preferred to flee the war zone," the army added.

"The Syrian army is fortifying its positions in the town now," it went on to say.

"Pro-government troops are patrolling the town to find the rest of the militants," the army added.

"The Syrian soldiers are transferring the captured and injured militants to safer areas behind the frontline," the army went on to say.

"The engineering units of the army are defusing the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) planted by the terrorists groups across the government buildings," the army said.

Reports said earlier that the Syrian government forces' rapid advances in the town of Sheikh Meskeen have forced the militant groups to start pulling back forces and fleeing the battlefield to evade more casualties.

"The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) have continued to push back the militant groups from different districts of the town, including the residential area of the military forces and one of the main roundabouts of the strategic town," the army said.

"The militant groups, who have witnessed the heavy attacks of the Syria forces and the collapse of their defense lines in the Northeastern, Northern and Eastern parts of the city, have started to withdraw from more districts," the sources said.

"In the meantime, large groups of militants are fleeing the town in order to evade more casualties," the sources added.

"The militant groups have sustained a heavy death toll and are hopeless. The terrorists' commanders have called for fresh militants but have received no response from their comrades in other parts of the province thus far," the sources said.

"The government forces have completed their control over the Eastern part of the town, Pharmacy Street, al-Ra'esi Roundabout in the middle of the town, and Jame'a al-Omari and are advancing against the militants' strongholds," the sources said.

"The Syria forces also have surrounded the militant group of al-Wila Seif al-Sham in the city and are hunting them one by one," the sources said.

Reports said that the Russian and Syrian Air Forces' joint combat sorties over the militant groups' positions in Sheikh Meskeen North of Dara'a claimed the lives of large groups of terrorists and destroyed their military grid.

"The Russian and Syrian fighter jets, in over 25 sorties, massively bombed the militant positions in Sheikh Meskeen, which left many terrorists dead or wounded," the army sources said.

"The aerial coverage created by the Russian and Syrian fighter jets in Sheikh Meskeen battlefield was one the most important causes of the Syrian ground forces' advances against the militant groups on Tuesday," the army added.

The Syrian army and its allies have been significantly advancing against the militant groups in the province in the recent weeks, particularly in Sheikh Meskeen.

Army announced on Tuesday that its troops and their popular allies advanced in the Northern battlefronts of Sheikh Meskeen rapidly and pushed the militants back from more positions.

"Following the capture of Battalion 82 base and Tal al-Hish, the Syrian government forces captured the Sheikh Meskeen's Pool Facility, killing over 15 enemy combatants from the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the army said.

"The Syrian army, the National Defense Forces and other popular fighters are on a roll in the Dara'a province after launching a massive assault on the strategic town of Sheikh Meskeen over 72 hours ago," the army added.

Sheikh Meskeen is vital and strategic due to its location along the second most important highway in the Dara'a province; it is also the key to the cities of Nawa and Jassim.

Bill

MY FELLOW AMERICANS, the first "War on Terror" was during Jefferson's presidency. For nearly fifteen centuries the world has faced the disease of Islam, but our nation faced it head on when Thomas Jefferson, serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, servicing as the ambassador to Britain, went to London to meet with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli's ambassador to Britain. Of course they met with Abdrahaman to negotiate a peace treaty, but keep in mind that in Islam, the only peace is submission to Islam.

After independence, however, pirates often captured U.S. merchant ships, pillaged cargoes and enslaved or held crew members for ransom. Jefferson had opposed paying tribute to the Barbary States since as far back as 1785, and in 1801, he authorized a U.S. Navy fleet under Commodore Richard Dale to make a show of force in the Mediterranean, the first American naval squadron to cross the Atlantic ...this lead to the "First Barbary Wars".

America, though this victory proved only temporary, according to Wood, "many Americans celebrated it as a vindication of their policy of spreading free trade around the world and as a great victory for liberty over tyranny." My fellow Americans, I am a veteran, I have fought against terror for over a decade (2001 to 2011). These radicalists have been like this from generation to generation to as far back as the 7th century. I'm concerned on what we will leave behind for our next generation and the future of this great nation! So I say onto you, my fellow Americans, LET NO ONE -AND I MEAN NO ONE- COME INTO OUR HOUSE AND PUSH US AROUND!

Paul

The Russians are doing this right, get rid of all terrorist groups including the one Israel and the U.S. are supporting, funding and arming.


The

Terrorists are no longer terrorists but are now called rebels? That would mean the Paris slaughter was done by rebels.

Kevin

Somebody please tell to these so called moderate rebels and their brothers in ISIS that their heydays are over. Run while you can.

Detritus of Sloth

Wonder what the US response would be to Russian airdropping thousands of RPG's and millions of rifles and ammunition to the #$%$, Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam and various militia group in the US who feel they are being oppressed?

Vicious

Since there wasn't a single mention of ISIS in this article, then the emphasis should have been Obama's Syrian "rebel" allies are getting the krap kicked out of them by the Russians.

But Reuters, being an Obama support group would only mention them as "backed by Western Powers".

RT

insurgents on the ground told Reuters........you mean Terrorists don't you? This is a constant source of the media information, the terrorists themselves. We know what color pajamas the Jihadists wear to bed at night, and every move they make, and why, but our military seems to have missed this.......

Does anyone see the connection between the terrorists, who are backed by the West, and the outright Lies the media tries to pass off as the truth. One other note here, they keep recycling parts of this article which appear almost verbatim in several other reports on Yahoo about Syria.

jane

Who know, maybe in 2016 all "Sunni moderate rebels" and ISIS will be expelled. Then Syria will see peace and its refugees can return home. But I bet the blood-thirsty US Snake Department and the CIA probably will prefer continued bloodshed.

Peetie

The US is guilty of arming rebels against a government with representation at the United Nations. That is a crime.

Hezbollah:

Let's look at so-called "moderate rebels" supported by American taxpayers. Example: Jeysh Al-Islam:

- It means "Army of Islam"
- Its leader called for extermination of all minorities in Damascus
- Its leader called Alawites "more infidel than Jews and Christians"
- Is directly financed by Saudis
- Has clearly shown its support for Islamic Caliphate and vehemently opposes democracy
- Been involved in series of tortures, beheadings, murders and disappearances

Yep, "moderate rebels" all right.

J. de Molay

The two super powers, China and Russia, maneuvered on the global stage for supremacy while the US citizens politically in-fight with no clear future oriented goals or plans. Sadly, the US is slowly dissolving away from what is was supposed to be that was framed by the founders a mere 235+ years ago. All the US resources are wasted on misguided and ill-convince military adventures that support corporations than its own citizens.

Davin

Just like in the north of Syria....ALL the "rebel" groups in the south fight under Al-Nusra's umbrella and command structure. Al-Nusra plans ALL of their offensives, as well as ALL of their defense. You can call them moderate if you want. but ALL the "rebel" groups in Syria work hand-in-hand with the Salafist and Takfiri.

Relja

Seems 'the rebels' are regular troops from jordan and turkey. President Asad lost large teritorry because of turkish, joprdan and saudi 'rebels' loved by west/Us.

Reyter

Personally I think it's heartwarming the way Western governments and the 'free' press has lined up behind the radical Islamists against Russia and the secular regime in Syria where women can do such evil things as go outside without a sheet over their heads and men can drink beer and etc! This is madness! Russia is evil!

CRL

"Rebels from another mainstream anti-Assad armed opposition alongside some Islamist groups said they shelled the city of Izraa, a main government held town"

How many innocent civilians were killed? Did not see the number in the press.

Ramsis

stop this nonsense, no one believes it ny more... moderate rebels, barrel bombs ...they are all islamic terorrists, and very well funded and equipped by saudi arabia and qater and trained and supplied by turkey and the u.s. clear as day light ,they are all sunni muslim terrorists!

Mark

There is a news report "Christmas and New Year carnival in Damascus- Video" on SANA news website. I seriously doubt the "moderate" rebels would approve of anything Christmas-related. Assad looks a lot more moderate to me than the US-backed "moderates".

TruthMonger

Why our media is viewing Syrian events from the terrorists' perspective, never from the legitimate government's??

Scott

That GGAADDAAMMMM IDIOT BUSH & The AFFLUENZA Party (Republican Party) are 100% to Blame......for Creating ISIS....and The Whole Mess in Middle East.......Says RAND PAUL & TED CRUZ........92% of Americans Agree

analogy

I keep on reading "rebels , freedom fighters, moderates" that this means the Paris attackers and the ones that brought down the towers are one of the above?

[Dec 30, 2015] Putin rules out reconciliation with Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... On Thursday, Putin went as far as to say that the Islamic State group was a "secondary issue" in Syria as it was created as "cannon fodder under Islamist slogans" to protect economic interests of other players, although he did not name Turkey. ..."
news.yahoo.com

Moscow (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin fired off an angry tirade against Turkey on Thursday, ruling out any reconciliation with its leaders and accusing Ankara of shooting down a Russian warplane to impress the United States.

In comments littered with crude language, Putin dismissed the possibility that the downing of the warplane over the Turkey-Syria border last month was an accident, calling it a "hostile act".

"We find it difficult if not impossible to come to an agreement with the current leadership of Turkey," the Kremlin strongman said at his annual news conference.

"On the state level, I don't see any prospects of improving relations with the Turkish leadership," he said of Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Ties between Russia and the NATO member have hit rock bottom since the November 24 incident, which led to deaths of two Russian military officers.

Turkey has said the Russian jet strayed into its airspace and ignored repeated warnings, but Moscow insists it never left Syrian territory.

Putin said he did not rule out that Ankara was acting with tacit approval from Washington, possibly so that the United States would look the other way to let Turkey "go onto Iraqi territory and occupy part of it".

"I don't know if there was such a trade-off, maybe there was," Putin said.

"If somebody in the Turkish leadership decided to lick the Americans in one place... I don't know, if they did the right thing," he added.

"Did they think we would run away now? Russia is not that kind of country," Putin said, speaking of Moscow's increased military presence in Syria.

"If Turkey flew there all the time before, breaching Syrian airspace, well, let's see how they fly now."

Turkey has voiced concern about Russian air raids in northern Syria because of the Turkmen minority in the area, a Turkic-speaking people who have had an uneasy relationship with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

But Putin declared: "I've never heard anything about these so-called Turkmen.

"I know that there are our Turkmen, living in Turkmenistan," he said, referring to the ex-Soviet Central Asian country.

Putin also accused Turkey's leaders of overseeing a "creeping Islamisation" of the country "which would probably cause (modern Turkey's founding father Mustafa Kemal) Ataturk to turn in his grave."

- Not an 'enemy state' -

Putin and Erdogan have been locked in a war of words since the plane downing, and Moscow has even accused Erdogan's family of engaging in oil smuggling operations with Islamic State jihadists.

On Thursday, Putin went as far as to say that the Islamic State group was a "secondary issue" in Syria as it was created as "cannon fodder under Islamist slogans" to protect economic interests of other players, although he did not name Turkey.

However, he said he does not consider Turkey an enemy state. "They committed an enemy act against our aviation, but to say that we view Turkey as enemy state -- that is not the case."

Russia has imposed a number of sanctions on Turkey but Putin brushed aside questions from journalists about raids against Turkish firms and expulsions of Turkish students from Russian universities.

Putin said that had the downing of the plane been an accident, Turkish leaders should have tried to "pick up the phone and explain themselves".

Erdogan attempted to call Putin on the day of the incident, but the Kremlin ignored his request to speak to the Russian leader.

[Dec 30, 2015] Moscow demands arrest of rebel for 'murder' of Russian warplane pilot

Please note the AFP does not mentions that killing parachuted pilot is a war crime.
Notable quotes:
"... Zakharova said that the publication of Celik's comments in a major Turkish newspaper had angered and surprised Moscow, and accused the media outlet of being a "platform where terrorists and murderers brag about their crimes and spread hate of Russia and the Russian people through nationalist ideology." ..."
"... She added that Celik's comments constituted an admission of his "direct involvement in the murder of the Russian pilot". ..."
news.yahoo.com

Moscow (AFP) - Moscow on Wednesday called for Ankara to arrest a rebel it claims killed the pilot of the Russian jet downed by Turkey last month on the Syrian border.

"We demand that the Turkish authorities take immediate steps to apprehend Alparslan Celik and his accomplices and bring them to justice for the murder of the Russian pilot," foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement.

In an interview published Sunday in Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, Celik -- a Turkmen rebel and citizen of Turkey -- said that his "conscience cannot be bothered by a person who threw bombs at Turkmen civilians every day," referring to the slain Russian pilot.

Both pilots aboard the downed Su-24 jet ejected and parachuted to the ground on the Syrian side of the border, one of whom was killed by gun fire from the ground.

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death.

Moscow and Ankara have been locked in a bitter spat over the downing of the Su-24 jet on November 24, with the Kremlin imposing a raft of economic sanctions against Turkey.

Zakharova said that the publication of Celik's comments in a major Turkish newspaper had angered and surprised Moscow, and accused the media outlet of being a "platform where terrorists and murderers brag about their crimes and spread hate of Russia and the Russian people through nationalist ideology."

She added that Celik's comments constituted an admission of his "direct involvement in the murder of the Russian pilot".

Turkish authorities have accused Russia of "ethnic cleansing" in Syria, targeting Turkmen and Sunni population that oppose the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow's long-time ally.

Turkey says the Russian jet strayed into its airspace and ignored repeated warnings, while Moscow insisted it did not cross over from Syria and accused Ankara of a planned provocation.

[Dec 29, 2015] What Really Caused the Implosion of the Occupy Movement -- An Insider's View

Notable quotes:
"... The author may be too young to know about it. A detailed study of FBI and other infiltrations into various movements through the 50s , 60s, 70s would repay the effort. ..."
"... Perhaps field guides should be written on how to "spot the agent", "spot the plant", "spot the disruptor" etc. ..."
"... "Homeless people make up a significant proportion of participants in the Occupy Movement in cities across the United States, from Los Angeles to Atlanta, where at times they comprise an estimated third of the occupiers… Despite stereotypical beliefs that homeless people are not interested in politics, the homeless actually have perhaps the least to lose and the most to gain from being involved in the Occupy Movement." ..."
"... "[The social composition of the movement is] quite varied. Occupy Oakland, for example, is perhaps 50% black and Latino, whereas occupations in other parts of the country may be mostly white. Some occupations are primarily very poor people, homeless people, etc., others include a lot of white-collar workers. Young 'précaires' [people whose work situation and future prospects are precarious] are certainly among the most numerous participants." ..."
"... Yes, there was a 17-city, coordinated paramilitary crackdown. All in one night. I watched and chronicled the live stream. ..."
"... For about a year I've wondered why NC could be so hard on Syriza while continuing to run that embarrassing Occupy banner at the top of the page. And you're fond of quoting Gandhi, (you lose, you lose, they give up, you win). But while you're losing you're getting beat up. And that's the problem with Americans generally; can't take a punch. Glass jaw. ..."
"... When leadership isn't willing to make that commitment there is no organization. And with no organization we're left with "going postal". Americans are much more adept at that. ..."
"... Unlike the situation in Europe, however, there appears to be little effort among the dispersed elements of the movement in the United States to achieve political power. The stronger effort here is to create a viable alternative to the current corrupt and destructive political/economic system, to step outside it and grow something else again. ..."
"... L'Échaudée: "Would you say that State repression (especially the unified and coordinated raids against the camps) was the main cause of Occupy's decline?" Ken Knabb: "Yes." ..."
"... Yes. And the violent attack on the encampments didn't just disperse the people. Cops destroyed food and food service supplies, shelter, electronic equipment, libraries, and medical and first-aid supplies, much of it likely donated by people not necessarily able to be part of an encampment. For some campers this was maybe most of what they had or, for the homeless and other marginalized people who came to the camps, more than they had. If we do build a movement, if bringing about real change will require people to strike, or boycott, or occupy vacant land or buildings, this kind of community support is crucial. We ought not discount (the "authorities" certainly didn't) the material and psychological impact of this destruction beyond just the local participants; and we need to find more sustainable, less vulnerable ways of providing community support. ..."
"... There is a difference between "color revolution" style events which promote neoliberalism and Occupy style events that oppose it. In case of color revolution style events the participants can rely on all the power of Western embassies, NGO, intelligence agencies and flow of money and equipment. Training of leaders would be provided, "revolutionaries for hire" will emerge, etc. ..."
"... Many of us Professional-Managerial Class (PMC) activists are hampered by having been told implicitly and explicitly for our entire education that we are the leaders of the world when we are at best lieutenants of the 1%. ..."
"... The sort of utopianism on display here is not only callow and tiresome (and precisely why Occupy failed), but also depressing. And if it reflects the level of understanding held by "activists" of the nature of the crisis we face, I am not heartened. ..."
"... I agree completely. This recap is self-absorbed, naive, and absurd - it reminds me in many ways of the business plan of a start-up that has no clear route to actually making money. It's impossible to imagine a movement of people who think like this accomplishing anything, because they have no model for the outcome they want; what they do have is a model for how they want themselves to be. ..."
"... "As a life-long member of the working class I find the suggestion that I need to be schooled in the ways of courageous resistance breathtakingly arrogant" ..."
"... Whatever else you may say about Lenin, his goals, his means, or his beliefs, he had a remarkably clear-eyed and unsentimental view of power and how one goes about getting it and how one goes about holding on to it. ..."
"... From my perspective the Leninist alternative dismisses any interest in a democratically self-organized society. In postulating a disciplined revolutionary party to act in the name of society he completed the final arc in a profoundly undemocratic political trajectory from which the traditional Left has not yet recovered. ..."
"... May be the traditional Left has not yet recovered , but traditional right fully adopted Lenin's methods and organization under color revolution banner. ..."
"... "Occupy" failed because it had no goal, and having no goal, it didn't know how to get there. See: http://goo.gl/m6qmGn ..."
"... It goes on and on, protest after protest. Anti-racial profiling. Anti-union busting. Anti-tuition increases. Anti-school closings. Anti-mortgage fraud. Anti-unsustainable development. Anti-corruption. Anti-this, anti-that, anti-the other thing. ..."
"... For reasons unknown, the Occupy movement seems to take a perverse pride in being leaderless and directionless, preferring to run hither and yon, protesting whatever strikes their fancy. No focus. No plan. No idea. Just protest. ..."
"... The Tea Party has a simple, easily understood focus: Lower taxes. What is Occupy's simple, easily understood focus? ..."
"... The public grows weary of ineffectual, random, aimless protests, and Occupy, which began with such great promise, becomes last week's newspaper. A lost opportunity is a step backward, as people become discouraged and slide into lethargy. ..."
"... Somewhere, in board rooms around the world, the 1% is laughing. ..."
"... Do nothing? I'd be curious to hear what you mean on that. It took incredibly coordinated state action to defuse Occupy, not public weariness. ..."
"... It's unfortunate Occupy was not able to organize in a way to neutralize such action, but at the very least, it pulled back the curtain on the police state specifically and the power of government more generally in a way no one can deny moving forward. That's the spark of hope from the various events of the last few years. The elites want us to believe they are all powerful. But it is actually taking them quite a bit of effort to maintain that illusion. In reality, they are strategically weak and vulnerable. And they know it. ..."
"... Which is why the Democratic party has had to become so blatantly pro-inequality. Even a modest opposition to fascism on their part would ruin the efforts of the past few decades. ..."
Dec 28, 2015 | naked capitalism

Will, December 28, 2015 at 12:06 pm

Leaderlessness is very different than having many leaders. The strongest movements have many leaders that each know/feel when/how to lead and follow and cooperate in turn. Many powerful people, powerful enough to know that power does not mean dominating others in the movement. Such a movement will be much harder to stop than a leaderless one, where the FBI can easily insert its own leaders and derail the whole thing.

The author doesn't address it, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of those emotional bullies he describes were gov't plants. Building a movement full of physically and emotionally powerful people is how to combat such tactics.

different clue, December 28, 2015 at 3:10 pm

The author may be too young to know about it. A detailed study of FBI and other infiltrationism into various movements through the 50s , 60s, 70s would repay the effort.

Perhaps field guides should be written on how to "spot the agent", "spot the plant", "spot the disruptor" etc.

nobody, December 28, 2015 at 10:04 am

Anybody who says, of Occupy, that "everyone went home," doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about.

cf:

"Homeless people make up a significant proportion of participants in the Occupy Movement in cities across the United States, from Los Angeles to Atlanta, where at times they comprise an estimated third of the occupiers… Despite stereotypical beliefs that homeless people are not interested in politics, the homeless actually have perhaps the least to lose and the most to gain from being involved in the Occupy Movement."

(Matthew Charles Cardinale, "U.S.: Homeless Play Key Role in Occupy Movement," from December, 2011.)

**

"[The social composition of the movement is] quite varied. Occupy Oakland, for example, is perhaps 50% black and Latino, whereas occupations in other parts of the country may be mostly white. Some occupations are primarily very poor people, homeless people, etc., others include a lot of white-collar workers. Young 'précaires' [people whose work situation and future prospects are precarious] are certainly among the most numerous participants."

(Ken Knabb, "The Occupy Movement at Its Peak, November 10, 2011)

Yves Smith, December 28, 2015 at 1:45 pm

Yes, there was a 17-city, coordinated paramilitary crackdown. All in one night. I watched and chronicled the live stream.

Occupy had very much depended on "place" as in the actual occupations. They had a great deal of difficult regrouping after that.

In NYC some group continue to do good work, most notably Occupy the SEC and Alternative Banking. Occupy Sandy was VERY important, and some of the many Occupy Homes groups were effective but not give much credit or even notice in the media.


MarcoPolo, December 28, 2015 at 9:48 am

For about a year I've wondered why NC could be so hard on Syriza while continuing to run that embarrassing Occupy banner at the top of the page. And you're fond of quoting Gandhi, (you lose, you lose, they give up, you win). But while you're losing you're getting beat up. And that's the problem with Americans generally; can't take a punch. Glass jaw.

Jesse published a quote from Fredrick Douglas a couple of weeks ago. I can't find it now. But it speaks to that; the commitment and preparation necessary to take the kind of punishment you must. When leadership isn't willing to make that commitment there is no organization. And with no organization we're left with "going postal". Americans are much more adept at that.

Consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6YNlI8T4RE

Ché Pasa

Credit Yotam Marom and Alternet where this piece was posted on 23 Dec 15.

Ché Pasa, December 28, 2015 at 10:14 am

Interesting that I didn't see any recognition that Podemos has won electoral victory in Spain (May have missed it, long article and all). Podemos grew directly out of the Indignato movement which was a precursor and model for the Occupy movement in the US and latterly around the world.

Whether Podemos will go the way of Syriza and basically become the leftish face of neo-fascism and colonialism remains to be seen. They say they learned from the Greek tragedy and they won't make the same mistakes Syriza did, but power does strange things to its holders and implementers.

The occupied squares were cleared by police in Madrid and the rest of Spain, sometimes over and over again and with as much violence as the police displayed in the United States and elsewhere, but the movement did not die in Spain. It dispersed and in dispersion, it built a politically potent element that now has control of the Spanish government - at least in theory. We'll see what happens when "reality" sets in.

The movement was not destroyed, it was dispersed in the US as well. Hundreds of localized programs and projects grew out of the dispersal of the Occupy movement, many of which continue and grow. The dispersal of the movement was akin to the broadcast of seeds over fields.

Unlike the situation in Europe, however, there appears to be little effort among the dispersed elements of the movement in the United States to achieve political power. The stronger effort here is to create a viable alternative to the current corrupt and destructive political/economic system, to step outside it and grow something else again.

That's more in tune with the anarchist roots of the movement than trying to obtain control of government.

nobody

The secret truth is that Occupy Wall Street was supposed to work. And this is how it was supposed to work:

"A worldwide shift in revolutionary tactics is underway right now that bodes well for the future… The beauty of this new formula, and what makes this novel tactic exciting, is its pragmatic simplicity: we talk to each other in various physical gatherings and virtual people's assemblies … we zero in on what our one demand will be, a demand that awakens the imagination and, if achieved, would propel us toward the radical democracy of the future … and then we go out and seize a square of singular symbolic significance and put our asses on the line to make it happen.

"The time has come to deploy this emerging stratagem against the greatest corrupter of our democracy: Wall Street, the financial Gomorrah of America.

"On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat one simple demand in a plurality of voices.

"Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a straightforward ultimatum – that Mubarak must go – over and over again until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated demand?… something all Americans, right and left, yearn for and can stand behind."

And what happened to that idea? David Graeber and his friends derailed it:

"Two days later, at the Outreach meeting we were brainstorming what to put on our first flyer. Adbusters' idea had been that we focus on "one key demand." [sic] This was a brilliant idea from a marketing perspective, but from an organizing perspective, it made no sense at all. We put that one aside almost immediately. There were much more fundamental questions to be hashed out. Like: who were we? Who did want to appeal to? Who did we represent?"

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-%E2%80%93-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html

nobody

Yotam Marom: "But the truth is, it wasn't the state…"

**

L'Échaudée: "Would you say that State repression (especially the unified and coordinated raids against the camps) was the main cause of Occupy's decline?"

Ken Knabb: "Yes."

http://www.bopsecrets.org/recent/occupy-looking-back.htm

marym

Yes. And the violent attack on the encampments didn't just disperse the people. Cops destroyed food and food service supplies, shelter, electronic equipment, libraries, and medical and first-aid supplies, much of it likely donated by people not necessarily able to be part of an encampment. For some campers this was maybe most of what they had or, for the homeless and other marginalized people who came to the camps, more than they had. If we do build a movement, if bringing about real change will require people to strike, or boycott, or occupy vacant land or buildings, this kind of community support is crucial. We ought not discount (the "authorities" certainly didn't) the material and psychological impact of this destruction beyond just the local participants; and we need to find more sustainable, less vulnerable ways of providing community support.

different clue, December 28, 2015 at 2:54 pm

Weren't the very first few days of Occupy Wall Street conducted by semi-spontaneous contemporary young people in part responding to a slogan written and a call issued by Kalle Lasn of Adbusters Magazine ( "Occupy Wall Street") called-for to happen on a particular day? This is just sketchy memory to be sure. And it became worth much more than one day's involvement.

But after the very first few days, I read somewhere that David Graeber and other older-generation holdover-anarchist-nostalgiasts crashed the movement and infiltrated the leadership and degraded it into a live-action display of "this is what Anarchism looks like". If that is part of the problem of what happened, then younger people will have to analyse that very carefully and if they have another upsurge, they will have to rigidly exclude and reject any David Graberoid self-actualizing/validation-seeking aging Anarchist Nostalgiasts from any contact whatsoever from a genuine upsurge-of-the-young movement.

They might also do some careful thinking about what they actually DO want, and WHY they want it . . . in actionable specificity.

Jim

So what is the lesson from this type of response by the national security state?

It may be worthwhile to take a more careful look at successful occupation strikes.

For example, Solidarity in Poland, after 30 years of average citizen political defeats, managed, through a carefully thought-out and premeditated assertion of power to occupy the Lenin Shipyard, in August of 1980, and to also create an interfactory strike committee which at the beginning consisted of 20 supporting enterprises that insured lateral lines of communication between the occupying sites within the entire Baltic coastal region–in order to ultimately accomplish was was thought of as impossible–the achievement of a self-governing trade union independent of the party state.

When the strike was initially announced at the Lenin Shipyard Walesa said the following:

"I declare an occupation strike. I have been given the trust of the workers. We are occupying the shipyard. We aren't going anywhere until we're sure we've gotten what we wanted. We're staying. This is an occupation strike. I'll be the last one to leave."

They had a single strategic goal with some 20 additional demands backed by a self-created institutional structure (with significant leverage) that was able to protect its citizens and leadership within the shipyard from the State during the time of occupation.

Serious politics with extremely high stakes that managed, for a time, to shift the balance of power, within Poland–and people who participated in this success talked about how their personal fear, in the process of this democratic assertion of power, began to dissipate.

likbez

There is a difference between "color revolution" style events which promote neoliberalism and Occupy style events that oppose it. In case of color revolution style events the participants can rely on all the power of Western embassies, NGO, intelligence agencies and flow of money and equipment. Training of leaders would be provided, "revolutionaries for hire" will emerge, etc.

Occupy was against the most powerful state in the world without any substantial external support.

See

ElViejito December 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm
I would distill my history of activism since the 60's by claiming that the new society will grow within the cracks of the old. I turned from working on "the revolution" a long time ago and now focus on small, achievable projects that have a potential for lasting and making a difference – a progressive forum that brings in speakers to a monthly potluck, a progressive film festival that encourages wide-ranging political discussion, a small think tank consisting of volunteers researching local issues (tax increment financing, anyone?).

Many of us Professional-Managerial Class (PMC) activists are hampered by having been told implicitly and explicitly for our entire education that we are the leaders of the world when we are at best lieutenants of the 1%. For dealing with the rest of the (non-PMC) world, I recommend the strategy suggested by Lois Mark Stalvey in The Education of a WASP: (Loosely quoting from memory) Go to meetings run by minorities (or non PMC-types), do not take over the meeting or offer advice – just be there and help with whatever project they are working on; develop relationships.

Experience being the minority. Later, when you have become accepted as a member of the group, only make suggestions and proposals that promote progressive values and build on the group's already existing values. Always be respectful of the group and its members. This is the best training for dealing with the world and building connected centers of resistance.

GlobalMisanthrope, December 28, 2015 at 12:48 pm

Sorry everybody, but I'm going to go against the grain here. Putting to one side the intolerably wise-whimsical tone, I read this piece as hagiography posing as critique. (It's mortifying to read, especially the struggle as raison d'être trope where he's totally cribbing and doesn't even seem to know it, even though this has been put forth as recently as this year to much fanfare and criticism by Ta-Nehisi Coates. No, he thinks he made it up. Yikes!)

Human history is disheveled, spasmodic attempts by those of us who would really rather get on with our lives to stop the ruthless from making that impossible. This battle rages and recedes over and over, sometimes for centuries. Just look how the revolutions of Christianity and capitalism completely reshaped the world and in both cases for good and for bad. Good grief, son. Read a book.

What's more, if you need Gestalt therapy to evoke fear in your heart, then you either aren't paying attention or are on the safe side of the fray. The rest of us are daily made aware that power and powerlessness are not cosmetic and that those are the forces that shape our lives while we try to live in them as best we can. And yet we find the courage to smile at our children. As a life-long member of the working class I find the suggestion that I need to be schooled in the ways of courageous resistance breathtakingly arrogant. I am not charmed.

The sort of utopianism on display here is not only callow and tiresome (and precisely why Occupy failed), but also depressing. And if it reflects the level of understanding held by "activists" of the nature of the crisis we face, I am not heartened.

SRL, December 28, 2015 at 12:59 pm

I agree. Although I supported Occupy, it really had nothing to teach me.

Nick, December 28, 2015 at 3:40 pm

I agree completely. This recap is self-absorbed, naive, and absurd - it reminds me in many ways of the business plan of a start-up that has no clear route to actually making money. It's impossible to imagine a movement of people who think like this accomplishing anything, because they have no model for the outcome they want; what they do have is a model for how they want themselves to be. Naturally, it turns out after a while that they all have different models for how they want themselves to be, and then it breaks up like an unstable bunch of polyamorists who can't stand the constant negotiating anymore.

I'm trying to imagine a leader of the civil rights movement writing a post-mortem like this, and simply can't.

animalogic, December 28, 2015 at 6:59 pm

Thank you, GlobalMisanthrope, I agree.

Credit where due, the author has reached out for some knowledge of both self and circumstances, however, that knowledge is symptomatic of someone lost in the the land of PC idealism.

Frankly, the "bad conscience" is alive and well in these ones. Callow indeed. In the face of one of the most vicious oligarchies in history, these amateurs fret and fight over the simple VALIDITY of leadership.

Perhaps, I should not be unfair: after all, how could people cultivated lifelong in the playroom of PC/Identity politics ever gain the knowledge, let alone the INSTINCTS. sufficient to fight our oligarchs ?

Indeed, PC/identity politics has been one of the oligarchs greatest assets over the last few decades:

1. PC etc has usefully SPLIT workers etc into descrete, often contradictory, even isolated, movements. Divide and conquer politics.

2. PC etc has DISTRACTED effort away from core economic issues onto social/cultural ones, which have little to no real bearing on their wealth/power. Or does anyone really believe that the real elites give a SHIT whether (say) gay people marry or not ?

3. PC etc has given them a wonderful stick with which conservatives can beat their "liberal" enemies. Can we not admit that PC often slips over into the ludicrous ?

4. And, in some ways best of all, PC encourages a fearful self censoring citizenry. Indeed, the author is a perfect example of a guilt ridden, confused, trivial modern citizen…really, anything to fear there ? Lol.

Roll on the crypto (?)fascist state….

Ulysses , December 28, 2015 at 10:39 pm

"As a life-long member of the working class I find the suggestion that I need to be schooled in the ways of courageous resistance breathtakingly arrogant"

Well said!

sid_finster, December 28, 2015 at 4:53 pm

Y'all really really need to study the works of V.I. Lenin.

Whatever else you may say about Lenin, his goals, his means, or his beliefs, he had a remarkably clear-eyed and unsentimental view of power and how one goes about getting it and how one goes about holding on to it.

Jim, December 28, 2015 at 6:40 pm

Sid,

From my perspective the Leninist alternative dismisses any interest in a democratically self-organized society. In postulating a disciplined revolutionary party to act in the name of society he completed the final arc in a profoundly undemocratic political trajectory from which the traditional Left has not yet recovered.

likbez,

"In postulating a disciplined revolutionary party to act in the name of society he completed the final arc in a profoundly undemocratic political trajectory from which the traditional Left has not yet recovered."

May be "the traditional Left has not yet recovered", but traditional right fully adopted Lenin's methods and organization under "color revolution" banner.

sandra, December 29, 2015 at 12:37 am

We came out of the sixties with the idea that those people who pushed political and anti-war meetings into internal conflict that was intolerable to sit through were often undercover government agents. Sorry, it has happened and has been documented from the sixties and into the present. If it is a natural phenomenon that political movements move though that stage of participants attacking each other to the detriment of everyone, it is something that calls out for recognition as an historical phenomenon that is repeated, and that wider perspective is necessary somewhere in your analysis. The occupy movement may have been short-lived and crushed by the power of the state. But it was successful in my experience beyond our imaginings.

Your movement redefined everything that happened afterward. It is absolutely accepted that we live in an oligarchy, that wall street has destroyed the economy, that the banks are corrupt and the government is in their orbit. Your visceral reactions to the corruption that surrounds us made a profound mark upon the country's understanding of itself. Do not underestimate that. The thinking about what to do next had not yet evolved.

The corrupt capitalists are still in power and still control the major media, but they have lost the country. Sorry but there is no constituency there anymore to support their views. They must lie to us and trick us, as those in power have done. They must skew the elections. The path ahead was not clear to you or to us when your dramatic movement sprang up. And it is not clear now that we know these truths. We know how far away the power structure is from our values. And that is where we stand.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

"Occupy" failed because it had no goal, and having no goal, it didn't know how to get there. See: http://goo.gl/m6qmGn

Here is a quote from the above June 2012 article:

It goes on and on, protest after protest. Anti-racial profiling. Anti-union busting. Anti-tuition increases. Anti-school closings. Anti-mortgage fraud. Anti-unsustainable development. Anti-corruption. Anti-this, anti-that, anti-the other thing.

For reasons unknown, the Occupy movement seems to take a perverse pride in being leaderless and directionless, preferring to run hither and yon, protesting whatever strikes their fancy. No focus. No plan. No idea. Just protest.

The Tea Party has a simple, easily understood focus: Lower taxes. What is Occupy's simple, easily understood focus?

The business and political leaders, against whom Occupy protests, have learned one thing: Do nothing. Occupy will protest and then they will be gone, and we can resume business as usual.

The public grows weary of ineffectual, random, aimless protests, and Occupy, which began with such great promise, becomes last week's newspaper. A lost opportunity is a step backward, as people become discouraged and slide into lethargy.

Somewhere, in board rooms around the world, the 1% is laughing.

washunate, December 29, 2015 at 10:11 am

Do nothing? I'd be curious to hear what you mean on that. It took incredibly coordinated state action to defuse Occupy, not public weariness.

It's unfortunate Occupy was not able to organize in a way to neutralize such action, but at the very least, it pulled back the curtain on the police state specifically and the power of government more generally in a way no one can deny moving forward. That's the spark of hope from the various events of the last few years. The elites want us to believe they are all powerful. But it is actually taking them quite a bit of effort to maintain that illusion. In reality, they are strategically weak and vulnerable. And they know it.

Which is why the Democratic party has had to become so blatantly pro-inequality. Even a modest opposition to fascism on their part would ruin the efforts of the past few decades.

[Dec 29, 2015] The military strategy to defeat the Islamic State can be summed up as "isolate and eradicate"

Notable quotes:
"... "Our toothpaste will degrade and ultimately destroy cavities." ..."
"... D'oooooooooh! ..."
"... I suggest you read about the Boer War, where Roberts lost, and Kitchener, who replaced Roberts, won. Focus on the mechanism Kitchener employed to win – depopulation the countryside and gathering all the civilian (Afrikaans) population in camps, where a significant percentage died of diphtheria. ..."
"... "ISIS…ISIL..IS..(ok I prefer Daesh.. but whateva whateva)… is stockpiling RedBull for "The Long March" ..."
"... "I get the impression they are more a Wahhabi brand of ME Organized Crime in a religious jihadist wrapper than a bona-fide organizer of worldwide Caliphate." ..."
"... "Unlike, say the Taliban which has pursued a more modest goal of converting Afghanistan into a retro-fantasy barbaric Islamic fundamentalist State, IS has more ambitiously declared Jihad against the entire World. Now that's anyone and everyone including other Muslim sects that are not Wahhabis, or more precisely ANYONE including other Wahhabis not with the program!" ..."
www.nakedcapitalism.com
Andrew Watts

RE: A Fearful Congress Sits Out the War Against ISIS

I have no idea what they're talking about. There aren't any American troops fighting the Islamic State in Northern Syria or Iraq. Only advisers and volunteers who do not see much frontline action… right?

The problem with the Obama Administration is that they seem to believe that every issue is a matter of public relations. I mean take the "degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State" statement for example. One of those words doesn't mean what they think it means. It makes a great marketing line from a toothpaste salesman though. "Our toothpaste will degrade and ultimately destroy cavities." F- yeah! In any case it's probably asking too much of Congress to give their vote of confidence in a war that lacks a coherent plan from the administration and when the US military may have exceeded it's military prerogative.

As for the British/German response there are potential consequences at stake that need to be considered. Fallout… eh? That's an interesting choice of words. D'oooooooooh!

Andrew Watts

…and because Congress shouldn't get off that easy and the fact it's the holiday season I offer the Obama administration the plan and media spin they desire in the spirit of the season. The military strategy to defeat the Islamic State can be summed up as "isolate and eradicate". By attacking and cutting major supply lines to and from the Islamic State's centers of gravity, with the co-operation of local and other opposition forces, IS forces will find themselves in increasingly dire straits. This is the strategy being followed by the Syrian Democratic Forces and was previously pursued by the Kurdish YPG/J. ("Just in case anybody didn't get the memo the first time around…") The successful result that this strategy has produced is self-evident thus far.

With the capture of Tishrin Dam and the ongoing advance from that area west of the Euphrates River and the forthcoming SDF campaign for the remaining IS territory in Hasakah province the Islamic State will find itself isolated in Aleppo province and cut off one of the last major supply lines from Turkey to the rest of the alleged Caliphate. By securing the remaining IS territory located in Hasaka province SDF will have effectively closed the most direct path from Mosul to Raqqa leaving it vulnerable. Raqqa will fall.

Ultimately, facing isolation and eradication in Mosul and cut off from it's remaining city strongholds in Anbar the Islamic State will face two incredibly bad choices; a guerrilla war of attrition that it will eventually lose or a high risk "Long March" maneuver into Saudi Arabia. We should all know which choice Mao successfully made.

God, this is gonna be an exciting year!

Synoia

Ultimately, facing isolation and eradication in Mosul and cut off from it's remaining city strongholds in Anbar the Islamic State will face two incredibly bad choices; a guerrilla war of attrition that it will eventually lose

And how pray, will ISIS, with legions of faithful supporters and new converts, a process fueled by US policy, US Military actions, and unwavering US support for Israel's bashing fellow Muslims on a daily basis, lead to a loss of a guerrilla war?

One cannot "win" a guerrilla war by attrition, because the actions of attrition generate supporters for the war at a greater rate than the loss from so called attrition.

I suggest you read about the Boer War, where Roberts lost, and Kitchener, who replaced Roberts, won. Focus on the mechanism Kitchener employed to win – depopulation the countryside and gathering all the civilian (Afrikaans) population in camps, where a significant percentage died of diphtheria.

Then explain how the lessons learned from the Boer War, an insurgency, from1899 to 1902, apply to ISIS today.

Those who do not know their history, etc…

Andrew Watts

For all it's pretense the Islamic State doesn't come close to representing every Sunni Muslim in the world. Although the idea of the re-emergence of the Caliphate must be an appealing ideal. As for blaming the US for everything wrong in the region, why do you think that the Shia and other minorities are targeted for annihilation by Sunni jihadists is solely the fault of Uncle Sam?

There are quite a few ways to win a guerrilla war. The Boer War was won by the British through the eradication of the guerrilla's base of support. Similarly the America crushed the Filipino insurgency through similar methods. Their loss was almost destined from the beginning though. The Filipinos were already divided by class, ethnicity, and geography and it's the latter I am focused on in the context of the former.

As other historical examples will prove there are less gruesome ways of accomplishing that goal. The Chinese Civil War will furnish many lessons to the students of history. The Chinese Nationalists tried and failed to wage a insurgency after they fled to Taiwan. In no small part due to the repeated defeats that were inflicted upon their forces by both foreign and domestic enemies and the subsequential humiliation that resulted.

Nobody wants to fight and die for a losing cause. Only for glorious victory.

Synoia

Answer the question: How will the ISIS insurgency collapse when there appears to be a large supply of the disaffected?

You made the assertion, state the means.

Banana Breakfast

US/Western/capitalist imperial boondoggles will continue to create disaffected youths, who will continue to become guerillas, but if IS, having talked some big talk and taken the big step of capturing territory and making the pretense of being a state level actor, loses their territory, IS will not be such an attractive name to associate with. Al Qaeda shrank because they became associated with losing, and only the serious, long game playing, professional revolutionaries have the patience to stick that out. When IS becomes associated with losing, they'll be replaced as well.

Andrew Watts

Somebody gets it. Furthermore IS fighters can be divided by their status as conscripts, mercenaries, and even fewer who are true believers that'll stick out the jihadist revolution to the end. Plus more than a few infiltrators from foreign intelligence agencies. It's the Levant after all.

Everybody thinks they can manipulate jihadist sentiment and it's gotta be one of the reasons why there's a glass ceiling for the advancement of non-Iraqis in the Islamic State.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef

That's human nature.

And you see that towards the end of any war, with generals defecting, leading to a swift defeat of the losing side. 'Saving lives,' they tell themselves and anyone will listen.

Going with the winner is how the rich will always have followers and supporters.

optimader

ISIS…ISIL..IS..(ok I prefer Daesh.. but whateva whateva)… is stockpiling RedBull for "The Long March"
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2015/07/19/Western-products-showcased-in-ISIS-shopping-mall-.html

I get the impression they are more a Wahhabi brand of ME Organized Crime in a religious jihadist wrapper than a bona-fide organizer of worldwide Caliphate. I mean, let's be generous and say the "organization" is good for what 40k dingdongs,, against the world?.. Really? How many times in History has that not worked?, (or as the Military would ultimately frame such an operation: "… it has been less than a complete success…)

Unlike, say the Taliban which has pursued a more modest goal of converting Afghanistan into a retro-fantasy barbaric Islamic fundamentalist State, IS has more ambitiously declared Jihad against the entire World. Now that's anyone and everyone including other Muslim sects that are not Wahhabis, or more precisely ANYONE including other Wahhabis not with the program!

I think of them more along the lines of the overly ambitious but ultimately doomed to fail Virus strain that kills it's hosts. Maybe they'll be the cause of a lot of death and destruction directly and indirectly as sovereign countries are used as fullscale weapons proving grounds, but ultimately IS will be hoisted by it's own Petard.
In the long play, targeting the least critical thinking disaffected youth in the West and ME with stale packages of M&Ms, Cadbury Chocolates and an opportunity to enjoy the camaraderie of shooting an AK (or being summarily married off to a GoldStar member if you're female) until you're aerosolized is not a solid longterm plan IMO.

Andrew Watts

"ISIS…ISIL..IS..(ok I prefer Daesh.. but whateva whateva)… is stockpiling RedBull for "The Long March"

They call themselves Islamic State so that's what I call them. It's been tough over the years trying to keep up with their constant name changes. I forget what came before ISI > ISIS > ISIL > IS. And hey when you can't drink alcohol because your religion forbids it you need other stimulants.


"I get the impression they are more a Wahhabi brand of ME Organized Crime in a religious jihadist wrapper than a bona-fide organizer of worldwide Caliphate."

Who knows. I still haven't made up my mind if the revanchist Baathists are using the jihadists for their own self-interest or the other way around. Before the inception of Al Qaeda in Iraq it was some motley crew of jihadists trying to destabilize Jordan and overthrow the government which sounds like something the Iraqi intelligence apparatus would want. After the Iraqi invasion they relocated to Anbar to wage an insurgency against the American occupation… who just so happen to link up with Saddam regime loyalists drawn from the intelligence services?

If the Iraqis who comprise the leadership positions in the Islamic State are only in it for the money the whole Caliphate could collapse as the leaders abandon the cause when the prospects turn sour. That seems like wishful thinking though.


"Unlike, say the Taliban which has pursued a more modest goal of converting Afghanistan into a retro-fantasy barbaric Islamic fundamentalist State, IS has more ambitiously declared Jihad against the entire World. Now that's anyone and everyone including other Muslim sects that are not Wahhabis, or more precisely ANYONE including other Wahhabis not with the program!"

Undoubtedly the Islamic State will target other Wahhabis as their jihad is aimed at other Sunni Muslims. That's why I think of them as Wahhabi revolutionaries. They're trying to overthrow not just the state, secular or otherwise, but eradicate other sects of Islam.

Reply

john

I hear the Israeli Secret Inteligence Service isn't so happy about the "ISIS"-branding issue.

The elites tell us the truth right to our faces, but it is so terrible and offensive to our humanity we can only turn away.

The same narciscists who see us as animals, and cast themselves as gods are mere beasts.

Reply

different clue

Probably each thinks it is using the other. But because the Old Baathists are smarter, and they have the institutional memory of decades of conspiratorial activity, and then secret police activity, etc.; the Old Baathists will outlive ISIS in the end. The Old Baathists will not disappear on their own. They will either have to be invited to Come In From The Cold, or they will have to be separately and specially hunted down and killed.

Reply

Jim Haygood

'There aren't any American troops fighting the Islamic State in Northern Syria or Iraq.'

Things have changed, comrade. Jim Dandy Special Ops to the rescue:

WASHINGTON - They are taking on a larger combat role in Afghanistan, where the war was supposed to be over. They are headed to Syria to help fight the Islamic State in its stronghold. And President Obama recently ordered nearly 300 of them to Cameroon to assist African troops in their battle against a militant group that has pledged loyalty to the Islamic State.

Even as Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that he opposes American "boots on the ground" in far-flung parts of the world, his administration continues to carve out exceptions for Special Operations forces - with American officials often resorting to linguistic contortions to mask the forces' combat role.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/world/middleeast/more-and-more-special-forces-become-obamas-military-answer.html

This is how empires die: $58 billion for "overseas contingency operations" in the omnibus spending bill.

It would just as productive (and create more jobs) to build a giant marble sphinx on the Capitol Mall, featuring the fatuous mug of Obamamandias, King of Kings. Look on his works, ye mighty, and despair.

Reply

MyLessThanPrimeBeef

When the legions retreated from Britain (or, was it Dacia), the empire was over.

Perhaps the lesson is, never retreat.

Reply

Andrew Watts

The Romans didn't exactly go out with a whimper. So the potential lesson to be learned is that even when the empire is collapsing you can still annihilate some barbarians on the way out.

It's not a perfect world.

Reply

Synoia

Don't be ridiculous. Rome fell in 410 AD, well after Constantine moved the Roman Empire to Constantinople, where it continued for about another 1,000 years.

It was the western roman empire which crumbled in 410 ad.

Rome at that time was governed by the Church.

Reply

efschumacher

Lest We Forget: the Romans retreated from Britain because they needed to protect the 'heartland' that had already been sacked by Attila and his running dogs. The Romans retreated because the Germans were in the process of winning. That led to the 1500 year Reich that we are still enjoying.

Reply

Andrew Watts

I can still pretend that they're just advisers and volunteers even though the Obama administration is making it impossible to do so. That'd be the smart move as opposed to the other option.

…and where's your holiday spirit?!

Reply

Jim Haygood

Holiday spirit? I donated to Médecins Sans Frontières to help offset the damage that the Kunduz Killa did when he bombed their hospital.

Reply

Andrew Watts

Well, you know sure know how to poop in the punch bowl.

Reply

Carolinian

Reaganmandias. Oh wait, they already named the airport after him.

Reply

Katniss Everdeen

No surprise to most here, but the "affordable" care act is not so "affordable" after all.

"I love my family, and I'm not going to let them go without health insurance," said Kevin Broyles, a 63-year-old insurance broker from Knoxville, Tennessee.

Broyles, who had been paying $629 per month for coverage from a long-standing Blue Cross plan for himself, his wife and their three children, recently got an an "eye-opener" when Blue Cross canceled his plan because it was not compliant with ACA standards. He learned the lowest-priced "bronze" plan in his area would cost $1,161 per month, or $13,932 annually to cover himself, his wife, and their two teenage children who will remain on the family's plan.

"This is almost 14 percent of our pretax income," said Broyles. "If we could afford the [second least-expensive] 'silver plan' in our area, that would cost $1,568 per month, or $18,816 per year. That would be almost 19 percent of our pretax income."

Broyles makes about $100,000 per year. I can remember when that kind of income was considered "wealthy."

Gee, I wonder where all the "savings" from lower gas prices went.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/24/obamacare-plans-put-big-dent-in-customers-wallets.html

Reply

edmondo

See, under ObamaCare, he can get insurance, he just can't afford it!

And the clowns over at the DNC will sit there in wonderment why these "stupid people" continue to "vote against their own interests".

Reply

MyLessThanPrimeBeef

It sounds like they are in the infamous 1% circle.

Too bad they don't belong to the 0.01%.

Reply

allan

But as with a glass of red wine with dinner, too much of a good thing creates new problems. If people have insurance that pays for too much, they don't have enough skin in the game. They may be too quick to seek professional medical care.


(Mankiw&Summers, 2015).
The problem with the family in the story is that
they don't have enough skin to get in the game.
Which should incentivize them to get another job or two. Or vote GOP. I wonder which will happen.

Reply

Vatch

Huh. I wonder what kind of health insurance policies Summers and Mankiw have; pretty good, I would imagine. They're both tenured full professors (not adjunct professors) at Harvard. I suspect they're doing rather well financially, and will continue to do so whether or not they have the proper amount of skin in the game. It's easy for people like that to demand that others should pay more.

Reply

Katniss Everdeen

Always love that "skin in the game" bit. If they wanted "healthcare consumers" to have "skin in the game," they'd have put price tags on everything. That "shoppers" could see PRIOR to "purchasing."

Interesting concept those price tags. And pretty hilarious watching people try to "shop" without 'em.

Reply

flora

"Always love that "skin in the game" bit."
heh. It always comes out sounding like "pound of flesh."

Reply

ambrit

Or, as Obamas' "Uncle Shylock" would put it:
"My debtor! Oh my ducats! Oh my debtor,
Fled with an Austerian! Oh my Austerian ducats!
Justice, the Law, my ducats and my debtor!
A sealed bag, two sealed bags of ducats,
Oh double ducats, stolen from me by my debtor!
And jewels–two stones, two rich and precious stones–
Stolen by my debtor. Justice, find the churl!"

Reply

Katniss Everdeen

Always reminds me of the movie "Silence of the Lambs." The serial killer kidnapped his victims and starved them for a few days to loosen up their skin. Then he killed them and cut pieces of skin off to make a dress.

Sounds about right.

Reply

Pat

I always feel the need to point out the various things the insurance industry and Private Medical jettisoned when adapting the Swiss system for the Heritage/Dole/Romney/Obama health insurance plan.

In this case, the government also regulates all medical costs. In Switzerland if you get an appendectomy it costs X. There might be some differences of price based on Canton, but otherwise if you get it at one hospital it costs X, if you get it at another it costs X. If you have insurance it costs X, any insurance, if you don't it costs X, Same with drugs, medical tests and doctors visits. You may not chose not to have the appendectomy, but you know what it costs.

That and everything else they jettisoned is why the Swiss system still works. It may be the most expensive version of universal health care out there, but it still works. But we had to butcher it to have it because even though it was the most 'market friendly' it was highly regulated and controlled and so not market friendly. So we have the most expensive health care in the world and still do not have universal care – even with our piece of crap version of 'reform'.

Reply

Jagger

They may be too quick to seek professional medical care.

I don't know about everyone else but I don't want to go to the doctor. I suspect most people have other things to do and only go if they absolutely have to. The percentage of people who go to the doctor just because they have an urge has got to be pretty small.

Reply

cwaltz

I have co pay insurance for doctor's visits and I still can think of at least a half a dozen things I'd rather do with the $25 than sit in an office with other sick people waiting on a doctor that may or may not tell me what's wrong and how to fix it.

$25 buys flowers for my garden, it pays for the movies for the family, it pays for the indoor pool for the family in our burg, it could pay for a new book from the bookstore, etc, etc

All things I'd rather do with the money than visit with the doctor. I think it's absurd that the insurance community is selling this idea that people are visiting doctors too quickly for no reason whatsoever(which just so happens to cost them in profits.) When individuals go to the doctor they're going because something is wrong and they want help(whether the medical community can provide it or not is in my mind a different argument.)

[Dec 28, 2015] Collection of Vladimir Putins most notable speeches published

Walker, as usual, is just doing his paid job ;-). Bots have no Christmas vacations by definition: MTavernier, Metronome151, psygone, Alderbaran, MentalToo, Hektor Uranga, and one interesting new one Chukuriuk are all on duty. A deep observation by one of the commenters: "Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin..."
What some people doe not understand is that Putin represents a countervailing force to the US imperial expansionism (and neoliberal expansionism in general). As there is an inherent value in existence of countervailing force (neocons thing otherwise ;-) Putin deserve some level of support even if one does not agree with everything he is doing. In a way Putin is more valuable to the USA then to Russia as he prevents the USA elite from doing extremely stupid thing which were done during Yeltsin rule which led to overstretching of the US empire and contains seeds its subsequent decline.
Notable quotes:
"... For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it. ..."
"... Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin. ..."
"... Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International law ..."
"... Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of the free press? ..."
"... The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule. ..."
"... Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron. ..."
"... I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing - that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK. ..."
"... Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success. ..."
"... All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position. ..."
"... Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the people who live there. ..."
"... What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment, drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill. ..."
"... This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos he warned us of. ..."
"... However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. ..."
"... Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin... ..."
"... The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't know anything else but what they are fed. ..."
"... If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front of the cameras) ..."
"... They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin. ..."
The Guardian

Words That Change the World is a 400-page compilation of Vladimir Putin's most notable speeches, and has been sent out to all Russian MPs and other political figures as a gift from the presidential administration ahead of the country's new year holiday.

Anton Volodin of the pro-Kremlin youth group Network, which published the book, told the Guardian: "A year ago we noticed when reading one of his early speeches that it was exactly right in its predictions, so we decided to check all of his other speeches. And it turns out basically everything he said has either already come true or is in the process of coming true at this very moment."

There are 19 articles and speeches collected in the book, starting from 2003 and ending with Putin's speech to the UN general assembly earlier this year. Volodin said: "If you read through them all, you can see a clear pattern in his rhetoric and thoughts. A lot of people say he's unpredictable or untruthful, but actually everything he says is transparent, clear and fully formed."

Alderbaran -> Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:21

China's GDP is roughly five times that of Russia and China is already leasing land in Russia's east. I'm also assuming it is getting a pretty good deal on oil at the moment too - Don't expect an equal partnership

Russia needs the West, just as the West needs Russia. Do you agree?

Laurence Johnson 28 Dec 2015 16:19

For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it.

Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin.

KoreyD -> dyst1111 28 Dec 2015 16:19

Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International law

Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:18

"If those who had been present at the UN general assembly had listened to Putin's words, the world would be a very different place. Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive and Europe would not be full of refugees from the middle east."
Of course he was right but of course he wasn't the only one saying these things at the time. Such a shame our witless leaders didn't listen and perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 15:54

Russia is slowly moving out of the dollar system and Western sanctions will eventually have little impact on the Russian economy. Russia and China can easily survive and prosper without the dollar. Unfortunately Europe will lose out massively due to Russia's response to the sanctions and will continue banning imports from the EU, agricultural produce, as well as manufactured goods, leaving hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Just think what Putin has done even before he started bombing ISIS. He protects his country, his management of Russia's economy despite international sanctions are feats that are to be admired. Is it any wonder he is hated and feared by the West.

Fallowfield -> MTavernier 28 Dec 2015 16:16

I'm trying to work this out. Come on, you're not really saying that we have a free press in the west are you?

I believe it happened once, Watergate and all that. Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of the free press?

No, you're taking the piss. I'll stop there.

Fallowfield -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 16:10

The people I know were 'the younger generation'. Their illusions about the west were quickly shattered. Different mafias, you see.
Putin's message? How very unlike our own dear Queen's Speech.

Alderbaran -> SHappens 28 Dec 2015 16:03

A very fair point but you have to admit that a forum saturated with meaningless posts is frustrating for those who actually want to discuss the article. I feel compelled to challenge a number of these posters.

Personally I feel that Russia started on a very different track following Putin's return as president in 2012 and following the Bolotnaya square demonstrations - He was shaken by this!

I see a cult of personality blinding many Russians, including many of the commentators on this forum and it seems that in Russia what is important is not the facts but nationalism and a shared identity. This helps to protect Putin from criticism ans shores up his position but it is worrying when a government relies so much on one man and that there is nothing to indicate that Putin intends to change this. The publication of a book of speeches by "Network" is yet another indication of the reliance on this personality cult and to be very frank, it disturbs and saddens me.

Does any of this concern you too, or do you think that this is the best that Russia should hope for at the moment?

Equidom 28 Dec 2015 16:02

The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule.

Rantalot 28 Dec 2015 15:42

Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron.

Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 15:29

I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing - that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK.

They support Putin. Why? KGB indoctrination? Far from it, these are the people who wanted to get away. And they - just like you - love their homeland. And who protects their homeland? The President of the USA? The PM of the UK? You must be joking.
Putin. Nobody else.

SHappens -> apacheman 28 Dec 2015 15:26

Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success.

All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position.

This is part of Putin, and Lavrov's great achievements. Might be worth for you to read this book after all, you might be learning something.


Alderbaran -> WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 15:20

Who said you were Russian and why did you suggest that you might be if Putin has a lot of support outside the country?

What surprised me is your apparently unsupportable notion that Putin is trying to make Russia look amicable. Your post also brought up topics far from the bounds of this article, yet you state that you don't know what to believe in.

If you are sincere in wanting to understand Russia better, David Remnick's excellent book on Russia is a great start - see Lenin's Tomb. Chrystia freeland's 'Sale of the Century' brilliantly describes the Yeltsin years and the power struggles taking place following the fall of the wall. I'd also recommend listing to Mark Galeotti on the sublect of Russia, and he is a regular conrtibutor to both RT and RFERL.

Peter Evans -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:10

Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the people who live there.

Fallowfield -> CoinBiter 28 Dec 2015 15:09

After the USA, UK and other allied countries had invaded Russia in 1919 the eventual Soviet Republic did what it could to protect itself I suppose. And Russia still does. Ask where the USA bases are, and compare their distribution to those of Russia.

The USA didn't fancy one in Cuba, did they? A perfectly lawful international agreement. They threatened nuclear destruction as an ultimatum.

WalterCronkiteBot -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:04

Yes I'm an evil Russian. I can't possibly be from the west.

To answer your question though, I don't know what to believe hence me stating "What I don't get with Putin is...". I don't understand the actual situation because I don't have inside knowledge.

I'm saying on the face of it he appears to speak for those in the west against war in the ME, which is good, but we shouldnt trust him entirely.

If that makes me a Kremlin shill so be it.

Not4TheFaintOfHeart 28 Dec 2015 14:59

Can somebody please tell Shaun to come in from the cold... It's over Shaun: Syria saved from a Libya/Iraq fate x2, ISIS degraded very nicely, thank you, Crimea voted to be part of the RF, Mistrals now sold to Egept, BRICS bank created, colour revolution in Georgia thwarted...

What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment, drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill.


Fallowfield -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:49

Well we certainly jailed members of the WSPU for wanting to vote. 14 Northern Irish civil rights protest marchers, legal and unarmed, were shot dead on the street by British troops in 1972, as I remember. Striking workers have been jailed, and many more have had cases against them dropped in court for 'lack of evidence', ie when the police evidence presented was so obviously falsified. I wonder where the KGB got their ideas from?

apacheman -> Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 14:48

And the Soviet people could thank the West for the Lend-Lease supplies that allowed them to withstand the Nazi juggernaut, without which they would have collapsed.

WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 14:46

"Putin was correct to predict chaos in international affairs if the UN and other institutions of international law are ignored."

This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos he warned us of.

In 2013 Putin accused Kerry of lying when he told a senate hearing that AQ are not in Syria and as such pose no threat in that region. He warned us but noone listened. Now we have Syria overran by AQ affiliated groups toting US made weaponry.

What I don't get with Putin is the apparent naivety. As his speeches show he is well aware of the machinations of the western powers, yet puts faith in them time and time again. Hes either very naive or just wants to ensure that Russia look as amicable as possible in the history books.


Peter Evans 28 Dec 2015 14:34

The US loved Yeltsin, a weak leader, they do not like a strong Russian leader who does the best for his country.


mgeary -> rcil2003 28 Dec 2015 14:33

Oh, the results in the USA are the same as in Russia, the only difference being that they have a ruling elite there, who promote different faces every election for the Presidency.

This and the fact that, in contrast to Russia, they are being subtle about it...


Chuckman 28 Dec 2015 14:25

The most able leader of our generation. Simply a remarkable man.

Readers may enjoy:

https://chuckmanwords.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/vladimir-putin-the-worlds-last-true-statesman/

presstheredbutton 28 Dec 2015 14:14

This got me pondering on what an equivalent publication for George W Bush would contain. Chapter One - reading "My Pet Goat".

However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. The janitor wasn't best pleased; he had to find a new broom cupboard...

rcil2003 -> euphoniumbrioche 28 Dec 2015 14:16

western leaders are nothing but interchangeable game show hosts. Behind them is the real power, wielded in secret by utterly evil characters like Dick Cheney, who would have been right at home in the Third Reich.

presstheredbutton -> nonanon1 28 Dec 2015 14:15

Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin...

Parangaricurimicuaro -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:20

Now you are giving me the reason. The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't know anything else but what they are fed.

Parangaricurimicuaro -> hermionegingold 28 Dec 2015 14:01

If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front of the cameras)

greatapedescendant -> Strummered 28 Dec 2015 13:46

They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin.

ID7586903 28 Dec 2015 13:45

Putin is the savior of Europe, and its culture

[Dec 28, 2015] 2015 – The year Russia exposed Western barbarism

From Countervailing power - Wikipedia.
Countervailing Power, or countervailence, is the idea in political theory of institutionalized mechanisms that the wielding of power within a polity having two or more centers can, and often does, provide counter-forces that usefully oppose each other. This political organization stands in contrast to polities such as principalities where "various princes were absolute rulers in their domain"[1] or in modern examples of totalitarian governments.
In the 20th century, "Countervailing Power" is a theory of political modification of markets, formulated by American economist John Kenneth Galbraith in his 1952 book American Capitalism. In the classic liberal economy, goods and services are provided and prices set by free bargaining. According to Galbraith, modern economies give massive powers to large business corporations to bias this process, and there arise 'countervailing' powers in the form of trade unions, citizens' organizations and so on, to offset business's excessive advantage.[2]
Seventeenth century England was an active time for the development of countervailance theory. Although much political discourse during the period was focused on the matter of sovereignty, or absolutism for the sovereign as, for example, we observe in the writings of Thomas Hobbes, the principle "significance of seventeenth-century England for constitutional theory was that during this period the concept of sovereignty was replaced by the concept of checks and balances."[."[3] The evolution of political practice in England paralleled the evolution in theory, for it was during this period that "the operational dynamics of the system developed in accordance with the countervailance model of government."[3] While the trend reversed somewhat under the power of Oliver Cromwell and the era of the later Stuarts, and was therefore rather uneven over the flow of the 17th century, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 "firmly established the principles of dispersed power and checks and balances as the central pillars of English constitutionalism."[3]
Notable quotes:
"... The US, Britain and France have reportedly supplied weapons to so-called "moderate rebels" only for these weapons and indeed fighters to end up with the known extremist brigades of IS and Al Nusra. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also funded Islamist networks, such as Jaish al Fatah and Ahrar al Shams, which are known to be involved with IS and Al Nusra. ..."
"... A central part of the charade is how NATO member and EU aspirant Turkey has been involved in smuggling oil and weapons across the Syrian border. Russia's concerted airstrikes have exposed the Turkish connection to the Western-backed illegal regime-change operation in Syria, and no doubt that was a factor in why Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian warplane on November 24. ..."
"... The deterioration of legal standards, sovereignty and explosion of conflicts and terrorism in many parts of the world can be directly attributed to the machinations of the United States and its European partners. "Do you see now what you have done?" asked Putin before the UN. ..."
Dec 28, 2015 | RT Op-Edge

... ... ...

Russia's military intervention in the Syrian conflict in support of its long-time ally beginning on September 30 has transformed the dynamic. Russia's intervention, along with that of Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah resistance movement, is the only lawful foreign contingency in the five-year-old war, because it has been requested and approved by the Syrian government.

All other foreign interventions in Syria from the United States and EU members, Britain, France and Germany, are in violation of international law. Russia's intense aerial bombardment against all illegally armed militants, including the IS and Al Nusra Front, is not encumbered with the false dichotomy articulated by the US-led military coalition, which disingenuously divides militants into extremists and moderates. In three months of Russian aerial operations, the losses suffered by anti-government militants in Syria have been much greater than during 16 months of bombing by the US-led coalition. That is because Russia is working in close liaison with the Syrian Arab Army, which is now making sweeping ground advances. Also, the US and its allies are accused of not being fully committed to combating terrorist groups in Syria, because these militants are at the same time being used by Washington and its partners as proxy forces to illegally achieve regime change in Syria.

The US, Britain and France have reportedly supplied weapons to so-called "moderate rebels" only for these weapons and indeed fighters to end up with the known extremist brigades of IS and Al Nusra. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have also funded Islamist networks, such as Jaish al Fatah and Ahrar al Shams, which are known to be involved with IS and Al Nusra.

Oil smugglers are us

Russia's dramatic intervention in Syria has exposed what can only be described as a charade in which the US, European powers and their regional allies have been involved in trying to destroy a sovereign country through covertly supporting an array of illegally armed mercenary networks.

A central part of the charade is how NATO member and EU aspirant Turkey has been involved in smuggling oil and weapons across the Syrian border. Russia's concerted airstrikes have exposed the Turkish connection to the Western-backed illegal regime-change operation in Syria, and no doubt that was a factor in why Turkish fighter jets shot down a Russian warplane on November 24.

... ... ...

Putin made a seminal speech at the UN General Assembly in September when he clearly called out rogue powers who have trashed international law with illegal military, political and economic interventions overseas. The deterioration of legal standards, sovereignty and explosion of conflicts and terrorism in many parts of the world can be directly attributed to the machinations of the United States and its European partners. "Do you see now what you have done?" asked Putin before the UN.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

READ MORE:

[Dec 28, 2015] Wars Past and Wars to Come

Notable quotes:
"... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, elements within the U.S. ruling class came to believe that their country was militarily invincible. ..."
"... A long-heralded Revolution in Military Affairs was taking place, enabling the United States to reshape the world. New smart technologies would disperse the "fog of war," making it possible for the United States to kill its enemies without their being able to strike back, and the "Vietnam syndrome" could be overcome once and for all.… Even so, at this point in time, the U.S. government proceeded with considerable caution. ..."
"... Ten years later such caution had been replaced by an overweening self-confidence, by a belief that the United States could completely reshape the Middle East, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria and Iran. And, moreover, this could all be achieved with a comparatively small invading and occupying army. ..."
monthlyreview.org

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, elements within the U.S. ruling class came to believe that their country was militarily invincible. Indeed, they believed this newfound military superiority over any potential rival was something new in human history. So great was its technological advantage, the United States could destroy its enemies with complete impunity.

A long-heralded Revolution in Military Affairs was taking place, enabling the United States to reshape the world. New smart technologies would disperse the "fog of war," making it possible for the United States to kill its enemies without their being able to strike back, and the "Vietnam syndrome" could be overcome once and for all.… Even so, at this point in time, the U.S. government proceeded with considerable caution.

The then-secretary of defense, Dick Cheney no less, made clear that the United States did not invade and occupy Iraq at this time because of the danger of finding itself in a "quagmire" where it would be taking casualties while the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunnis fought it out. The administration decided not to involve itself in "that civil war."

Such a commitment would have had to involve the use of "overwhelming force" for an extended period if it was to have any chance of success. This was in 1991.

Ten years later such caution had been replaced by an overweening self-confidence, by a belief that the United States could completely reshape the Middle East, starting with Iraq, and then moving on to Syria and Iran. And, moreover, this could all be achieved with a comparatively small invading and occupying army.

[Dec 24, 2015] Obama s foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
The Washington Post

Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.

After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted next year.

At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.

"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm. "It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."

... ... ...

In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.

The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of 2016.

But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned from constrained oil exports a year ago.

Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were broadened in 2012.

"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."

Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output, its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's Urals oil, McNally said.

Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China, foreign policy and energy.

[Dec 24, 2015] European Leaders Cry Foul Against Germany's Support for Gas Pipeline

Dec 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com
There is a growing chorus in Europe against Germany's support to expand a major natural gas pipeline from Russia over fears that it will leave Europe more dependent on their eastern neighbor.

The Nord Stream 2 would build on the existing Nord Stream pipeline, a conduit that delivers Russian natural gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea. Crucially, the project cuts out Ukraine, a key strategic objective for Russia since the original project's inception.

The latest $11 billion expansion would double the pipeline's current capacity of 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year. From Russia's perspective, the project will increase market share and gas sales; from Germany's point of view, the project increases sources of supply. Nord Stream 2 was originally conceived of years ago, but in June 2015 Gazprom signed a memorandum with Royal Dutch Shell and OMV to move forward.

Nick Cunningham is a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter at @nickcunningham1

[Dec 24, 2015] Obama's foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
The Washington Post

Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.

After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted next year.

At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.

"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm. "It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."

... ... ...

In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.

The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of 2016.

But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned from constrained oil exports a year ago.

Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were broadened in 2012.

"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."

Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output, its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's Urals oil, McNally said.

Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China, foreign policy and energy.

[Dec 24, 2015] Israeli-made air-to-air missile may have downed MH17

Notable quotes:
"... "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects," ..."
"... "intricate shape" ..."
"... "most probably incorrect." ..."
Dec 24, 2015 | RT News

A report on Malaysian Airlines MH17 air disaster in Ukraine last year by a group of old-hand aviation security experts maintains that the Boeing might have been downed by an Israeli Python air-to-air missile.

Trends: Malaysia MH17 plane crash, Ukraine turmoil

The report was leaked via the private LiveJournal account of Albert Naryshkin (aka albert_lex) late on Tuesday and has already been widely discussed by social media communities in Russia.

The authors of the investigative report have calculated the possible detonation initiation point of the missile that hit the passenger aircraft and approximate number and weight of strike elements, which in turn designated the type and presumed manufacturer of the weapon.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

Malaysian Airline Boeing 777-200 performing flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014, crashed on the territory of Ukraine near the village of Grabovo, killing all 283 passengers and 15 crewmembers aboard.

The aircraft disintegrated in the air and the debris of MH17 were scattered across an area of about 50 sq. km.

The external view of MH17 hull pieces indicates that "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects," the report says, stressing that similar damage could be found on the inner side of the cockpit.

The report specifically points out that chips of the body coat around the holes in the fragment are typical of wave effects created by hypervelocity impacts.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

Some damage, though larger and less clustered, could be found near the air-scoop of the left-wing engine of the aircraft.

The nature of the damage allows for the identification of the source as a high-explosive fragmentation warhead from a modern anti-aircraft weapon, claims the report.

Apart from the large puncture holes, the debris of the nose and the cockpit of the aircraft bear a large number of scattered micro-craters resulting from the impact of high-velocity dust and tiny debris, such as an unburnt blasting agent and elements of the ordnance that accompany a shock wave from a blast that occurred very close to the target. In the case of MH17, the pilots' cockpit.

The report says that as a rule, the initial speed of the striking elements of modern anti-aircraft weapons vary between 1,500 and 2,500 meters per second.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

Altogether, the experts considered photos of five fragments of the cockpit and left port of the flight MH17, on which they counted some 230 "battle-damage" holes and punctures.

All this considered, the experts claim that the exact zone of the blast impact could be established with a fair degree of accuracy.

The warhead of the missile exploded very close to the cockpit, to its left side at a distance of 0.8-1.6 meters from the cockpit windows, exactly opposite the sliding window of the aircraft commander.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The dimensions and character of the puncture holes left by the strike elements allegedly allow their size and form factor to be established, which in its turn makes it possible to identify the type of weapon used in a particular case.

The cross dimension of absolute majority, 86 percent, of the 186 hull holes studied by experts measure between 6 and 13mm, with explicit maximum of them having cross dimension of 8mm.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

This fact brought the expert group to a conclusion about the size of the strike elements of the warhead. If the warhead had been armed with two types of strike elements, the majority of the holes would have been of two types, the reports notes.

The strike element has been established of being a rectangular block measured 8mm x 8mm x 6mm, with margin of error of 0.5 mm, a high probability it was made of steel and an estimated weight of 3 grams each. The total number of such elements should have varied between 2,000 and 4,000.

The bulk of the strike elements are estimated between 4.88 – 14.8 kilograms.

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The report confutes the argument of Russia's Almaz-Antey military concern that early claimed that "intricate shape" double-t steel fragments, similar to those used in warheads of surface-to-air Buk missile systems, have been extracted from the debris of MH17 flight.

Howwever, the double-t strike elements of a Buk missile weigh 8.1 grams, more than twice as much as a single damage fragment among those that pierced MH17's hull. Thus, according to the report, the hypothesis about a Buk missile system being involved in the crash is "most probably incorrect."

With 95 percent probability, the group of experts estimates the weight of the missile's warhead (explosives plus strike elements) that shot down MH17 of being between 10 and 40kg.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

This led the experts to determine the exact type of the weapon used against Malaysian Airlines flight MH17.

The report says that that Soviet- and Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems use more powerful warheads than the established maximum 40kg, as is the case with MH17.

Moreover, Soviet- and Russian-made air-to-air missiles which have a similar 10-40kg warhead capability use other types of strike elements within one warhead - obviously not the case with MH17.

A whole range of existing foreign air-to-air missiles have corresponding warhead characteristics, yet lack of physical elements of the missile used against MH17 prevented experts from establishing the exact type of the weapon used.

Still, the circumstances and conditions of the assault allowed experts to make certain assumptions.

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

©http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The missile that attacked MH17 had a passive radar homing head, which explains why the missile exploded so close to the cockpit. Under the radar-transparent nosecone of a Boeing 777-200 there is a surveillance radar station operable during the flight, so most likely the missile homed on to this radar as the target.

Apart from a radar homing head, the missile could also be equipped with an advanced, matrix type, imaging IR seeker, which enables the missile to determine the size and the type of the target and choose for attack its most vital element. For a huge Boeing aircraft, that's the cockpit.

A simulation of the missile attack has proved that missiles with that type of guidance choose to attack a big passenger plane from the front hemisphere.

There are four air-to-air missiles that fit the description established by the experts, namely: French Magis-2, Israeli Shafrir, American AIM-9 and Israeli Python – all short-range.

The first three have been struck off the list for various reasons, including type of warhead or guidance system specifications. The Python deserved a closer look.

The Python is equipped with a matrix-imaging IR seeker. It enables a relatively moderate power warhead to effectively engage big aircrafts. The warhead is armed with a set of ready strike elements. Even more importantly, some open military sources suggest that in early 2000s a number of Sukhoi Su-25 assault fighter jets we refurbished to use fourth and fifth generation Python missiles, which look very similar to the Su-25's standard air-to-air R-60 missile.

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com

The unofficial report leaked in LiveJournal has become yet another one among many other unofficial versions presented over the year that has passed since the catastrophe occurred on July 17, 2014.

The Dutch Safety Board that has been heading an international investigation into the cause of the crash is due to release its official report in October.

[Dec 24, 2015] Is The Russian-Turkish Standoff An Opportunity For The West

Notable quotes:
"... apparently, two USAF F-15C Eagle air superiority fighters (which had been deployed to Incirlik Air Force Base, Turkey, in November 2015) were in the air as back-up to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force: THK) F-16s, one of which shot down the Su-24. ..."
"... At best, Russia may now move to cover its tactical operations in northern Syria more effectively by offering its own deterrence of top cover by advanced fighters while the ground attack aircraft, such as the Su-24s, do their job. It is also clear that any further Turkish incursions into Syrian airspace were now at-risk, but the Turks already knew that. ..."
Dec 14, 2015 | OilPrice.com

It was, in this latest incident, Turkey, working with the U.S. Government of President Barack Obama, which planned and executed the November 24, 2015, interception of the Russian Air Force Su-24. The event was not a spontaneous occurrence, and, apparently, two USAF F-15C Eagle air superiority fighters (which had been deployed to Incirlik Air Force Base, Turkey, in November 2015) were in the air as back-up to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force: THK) F-16s, one of which shot down the Su-24. USAF sources subsequently said that the U.S. was taken by surprise when the THK shot down the Sukhoi, but that hardly squares with the historical Turkish practice of coordinating such actions with Washington. Moreover, the Turkish narrative that it "warned" the Russian aircraft several times over a period of five minutes before the THK F-16 shot it down also does not square with reality.

And in this particular ground attack operation, the two Su-24s - including the one which was destroyed - were engaged on missions which did not require them to enter Turkish airspace, even though an acci-dental entry into it was conceivable. Their targets were in the area of northern Syria: pro-Ankara Turkmen militia engaged in supporting the massive cross-border operations of ISIS (asad- Dawlah al-Islamiyah fi al-'Iraq wash-Sham, or Islamic State) moving oil, fighters, and weapons across the Syria-Turkish border.

Dave Majumdar, Defense Editor at the U.S. blogsite, The National Interest, on December 7, 2015, noted: "The United States and Turkey are working on an agreement that would allow the US Air Force F-15Cs to defend Turkish airspace. However, the precise rules of engagement and procedures have yet to be ironed out." It is possible that Turkey wanted to illustrate to the US that its airspace was, in fact, threatened. But what has been clear is that no credible Russian military threat to Turkey existed.

At best, Russia may now move to cover its tactical operations in northern Syria more effectively by offering its own deterrence of top cover by advanced fighters while the ground attack aircraft, such as the Su-24s, do their job. It is also clear that any further Turkish incursions into Syrian airspace were now at-risk, but the Turks already knew that.

Recently-retired U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt.-Gen. Michael Flynn publicly said in Moscow on December 10, 2015, that there was no possibility that the Turkish shootdown was undertaken without the express permission and direction of "the highest authority" in Turkey.

Indeed, Turkey has traditionally played the role of aggressor in terms of airspace violation. Not only did the THK lose an RF-4E Phantom II reconnaissance aircraft well into Syrian airspace on June 22, 2012, as a result of surface-to-air missile fire, it continues to consistently invade the airspace of fellow NATO member and neighbor Greece in a manner far more hostile than the penetration of Turkish airspace it alleged Russia undertook (for 17 seconds). THK F-16s entered Greek airspace some 2,200 times in 2014 alone. Moreover, Turkey consistently has violated Cypriot air-, sea, and land-space since its 1974 invasion and occupation of the northern 37 percent of Cyprus.1

So Turkey is hardly the victim. [Indeed, by deliberately starting the "civil war" to remove Pres. Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria, Turkey only incurred a "refugee problem" as a result of its own actions, and has subsequently sought to push those refugees onward into Europe as quickly as possible, seeking political rewards from Europe as the only power capable of stopping the refugee flows.]

In any event, Pres. Erdogan, three years ago said that "a short- term border violation can never be a pre-text for an attack". But that, of course, was when a THK aircraft was shot down by Syria when the THK F-4E deliberately and for some time penetrated Syrian airspace on a mission against Syria.

... .... ....

Turkey, too, will not remain inactive. It will resume its support for anti-Russian terrorism, including support for jihadist movements in the Caucasus. These have included such groups as Kvadrat (Quadrant), a Bos-nia-based Wahhabist unit, which had "laundered" its operations through Turkish-occupied Northern Cy-prus, thence into Turkey and on into the Russian Caucasus.4 But the reactivation of Turkish-backed terror-ism in the Russian Caucasus will be far wider than just Kvadrat: Turkey works extensively, even now, with Chechen and other Caucasus groups inside ISIS and in the jihadi operations in Syria.

Significantly, by early December 2015, President Erdogan assumed that the crisis had passed sufficiently for Turkey to expand its activities in the area. There was no indication that Turkey and ISIS had diminished their extensive and integrated operations in terms of oil transactions, the supply of weapons to ISIS via Turkey, and the use of Turkey as a medical support arena for ISIS wounded. But Turkey went further and deployed Turkish Army troops into northern Iraq near the ISIS-held city of Mosul in early December 2015. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi led calls for Turkish troops to be withdrawn immediately; they had not been withdrawn by the time this report went to press.

... ... ...

The path, however, is open for a great Russian cooperation with the Kurdish forces, as well as with other regional allies which are concerned about Turkey's strategic adventurism. The Kurds, particularly those led by the majority Kurdish force (under the PKK: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan, the Kurdish Workers' Par-ty), are now well underway in responding to Ankara. The civil war is underway inside Turkey, and it re-mains literally out-of-bounds to the international media. What is significant is that the Kurds have thus far not agreed to cooperate with Russia, but are awaiting a nod from their principal ally, Israel, before trust-ing Russia.

Thus Israel's position becomes critical in this debate.

Much of the Israeli leadership still hopes that a rapprochement might be achievable with Turkey, but that hope is fading. On the other hand, Israeli planners have to consider whether a broken Turkey - perhaps replaced by a patchwork of states, and with no non-Arab player other than Iran to monitor the region - is worse than a troublesome Turkey. There is also the question of whether unqualified Israeli support for the Kurdish "big push" against Turkey would then jeopardize Israeli strategic relations with Saudi Arabia, which is apparently undecided on whether, or how much, it favors a continuation of the Turkish state.

Without Turkey, according to the Saudi rationale, who would be the counterweight to Iran?

Israel is also not immune to this argument, although for Israel the prospect exists for an eventual reunion with Tehran, after the clerical leadership goes, or modifies.

So Russia is left with three potential regional allies - apart from Syria, Iraq, and Iran - against Ankara: Greece, Egypt, and Jordan. And Cyprus and Armenia to the limited extent that they can assist.

... ... ...

Articles 10 to 18 are the articles which allow for various states, including Russia, to transit military ships through the straits. In short, if Turkey invoked either Article 20 or Article 21, Russia would be legally blocked from moving any naval vessel through the Straits.

Moscow has clearly long gamed out this scenario, which accounts for President Putin's commitment to a measured response to Ankara. Thus it must be a proxy response, for the most part, as well as an economic one. But while it demonstrates the delicacy needed by Moscow, it also demonstrates the reality that Russia cannot continue to be strategically constrained by an increasingly hostile and ambitious Turkey.

So where Turkey is vulnerable is in its economy.

The effects of Russian economic embargoes against Turkey are far more significant than would seem to be the case because the Turkish economy is more vulnerable than it has been portrayed. It is far more leveraged with borrowings than at any time in the recent past. It has a discreet outflow of domestic capital and is heavily reliant on discreet financial injections, probably coming from Qatar, and possible Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia's ability to prop up Turkey is becoming limited.

...while Turkey may not be regarded as an entirely stable partner for the PRC in the region, Beijing would be wary of acting precipitously against it.

...Iran - like Russia - is constrained to act cautiously and indirectly against Turkey. Moreover, Iran cannot risk that its own Kurdish population could join with Syrian, Iraqi, and Turkish Kurds to form a new Kurdish state.

...And in the short-term, this all has hardened Ankara's position on remaining in control of the northern 37 percent of Cyprus, which it has occupied militarily since 1974.

...There is no doubt that Pres. Erdogan believes that continued brinkmanship will be possible, although he is not perhaps aware that he is losing the information war, or the psychological war.

Amvet on December 15 2015 said:

Thank you Mr. Copley for a well researched, honest, and very interesting article. Any chance of getting this published in any US mainstream
newspaper or magazine ?? .

Jim on December 15 2015 said:

...Nice information actually, most mainstream media doesn't even come close. Thanks. definitely a deliberate and pre-approved escalation of the conflict, pointing fingers back to Washington, D.C.

Chris on December 15 2015 said:

A great article that brings together much of what has been reported and provides a coherent framework for understanding it. This piece should be in a general interest publication such as the NY Times so that more Americans could understand what is really going on in the Middle East.

[Dec 23, 2015] The antipathy the Russian kreakly bear toward Matthew Lee

Notable quotes:
"... the antipathy the Russian kreakly ..."
"... the Russian intelligentsia ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile, December 20, 2015 at 3:09 am
Russian "oppositionist" tweets – don't you just love 'em?

Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors

No doubt the person who posted the above tweet thinks Psaki, Harf, Trudeau, Rear-Admiral Kirby et al. have all been unfairly tested by this Russian FSB colonel Matt Lee and he should not have been allowed to take part in the Dept. of State press briefings because he is an agent of the Dark Lord, whilst the above mentioned Dept. of State spokespersons are all on the side of righteousness.

marknesop , December 20, 2015 at 11:38 am
I do love them, actually. For anyone who is not stupid, the antipathy the Russian kreakly bear toward Matthew Lee and anyone like him who questions the pat and Manichean State Department narrative bespeaks an admiration for the way the United States government operates. Quite apart for an unhealthy devotion to 'Murkan nationalism and a clear belief that when America seizes something, it should be grateful because it is a compliment if America wants it, it is a preview of how they would govern if they had power. Russia's 'intellectuals' are great admirers of the disinformation and manipulation of the public consciousness with which the State Department gets about its daily work.

It is noteworthy that Matt Lee has never at any time expressed any gratuitous admiration for Russia or Putin or the way Russia conducts global affairs. He merely questions the State Department when its lies get too big or when it purports something as incontestable fact which it has gleaned from social media and Syrian activists. But the Russian intelligentsia view him as an impediment to a unipolar world ruled by America The Great And Good.

[Dec 23, 2015] Sensational government session in a European country. A historic precedent

You probably need to read the whole transcribed dialog to understand that the current situation in Ukrainian government. Here are just small except.
southfront.org

AVAKOV: You said that the cabinet of ministers itself was heading the corruption

SAAKASHVILI: …what do you mean I'm softer? Yes, your Martinenko is a criminal

... ... ...

00:46 AVAKOV: Then get the damn out of here if you don't give a damn

00:48 Poroshenko: Arsen Borisovich, I'm…

00:50 SAAKASHVILI: I'm calling you to politeness

00:53 AVAKOV: Shut up

... ... ...

1:13 AVAKOV: Shut up, you corrupt governor

... ... ....

1:39 AVAKOV: When we are speaking about the whole list of things that have been said

1:42 AVAKOV: Of course privatization

1:44 AVAKOV: Of course a total privatization

1:46 AVAKOV: including OPZ [Odessa Port Plant]

... ... ...

2:32 SAAKASHVILI: And I'm not going… not going to tolerate some corrupt minister

2:36 SAAKASHVILI: who, the entire country knows he's a thief

... ... ...

2:46 AVAKOV: I need to punch him or something?

2:47 POROSHENKO: I'm… I'm adjourning the meeting

2:51 AVAKOV: F4cking faggot!

2:52 POROSHENKO: Arsen… AVAKOV: Damn bastard!

2:55 SAAKASHVILI: Thief!

2:57 AVAKOV: Yes, a thief [irony]

2:58 SAAKASHVILI: So, you will be in a jail, or just because you are…

3:01 AVAKOV: Piss off!

3:02 SAAKASHVILI: We are going to restore the country and you'll be in a jail

... ... ...

OneFrame
This is incredible that that the functioning of the state cabinet behaves like this. Incredible the results the US delivers to the world. Very sad. I feel for the people of Ukraine and their suffering. This would not be happening if the coup had not happened. Sakashvilli is a wanted man in his own country and should not be in Ukraine. He should have been sent back to Georgia to face the charges. Unbelievable.

aprescoup

Afghanistan a basket case; Iraq a basket case; Libya a basket full of jihadi terrorists; Syria, if not for the Russian aid, would be ISIS central and a basket case, and then this example of American values playing out in the basket case of Ukraine...

WTF?!

[Dec 23, 2015] NATO in damage control mode.

marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al, December 19, 2015 at 3:51 am

Neuters: NATO agrees Turkey air defence package, seeks 'predictability'
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-crisis-turkey-nato-exclusive-idUKKBN0U123D20151218?

NATO allies agreed on Friday to send aircraft and ships to Turkey to strengthen Ankara's air defences on its border with Syria, the alliance's chief said.

Diplomats said the package is partly designed to avoid more shoot-downs of Russian planes…

…"We have agreed on a package of assurance measures for Turkey in view of the volatile situation in the region," Stoltenberg said, although he avoided any reference to Russia's military involvement in Syria and its air incursions…..

…Due to be assembled in the coming weeks, the package will include NATO's AWACS surveillance planes and what Stoltenberg described as "enhanced air policing, and increased naval presence including maritime patrol aircraft."

The ships will be provided by Germany and Denmark, which are exercising in the eastern Mediterranean.

AWACS monitor airspace within a radius of more than 400 km (250 miles) and exchange information via digital data links, with ground-based, sea-based and airborne commanders.

Asked if this was about managing Turkey's airspace with more caution than Ankara has shown in the past, Stoltenberg said: "This will give us a better situational awareness … more transparency, more predictability and that will contribute to stabilising the situation in the region and also calm tensions," Stoltenberg said.

AWKWARD POSITION

Spain has also agreed to extend its Patriot surface-to-air missiles along Turkey's border to shoot down any missiles from Syria's conflict fired into Turkish territory. Germany and the United States recently removed their batteries from the area….
####

NATO yet again in damage control mode. This is all about NATO's credibility. On the one hand it could be seen as a golden cage, that by having more NATO assets there that it would stop Turkey from future rash decisions, but on the other hand Erd & Dav would see it as NATO having their back whatever they do and will probably only encourage them further, much like the EU capitulating to Ankara over refugees. The government behaves badly, it gets presents from the West.

It smacks of 'do something', however stupid to show that NATO is relevant.

This is also a bad strategic situation and will without doubt be seen as upping the Ante against Russia, however much Stollenberg & the Pork Pie News Networks try to sell this as 'defensive' which they may well believe.

And what do we know from history about big countries pushing their militaries up against each other? A small spark sets of a conflagration.

marknesop , December 19, 2015 at 6:51 am
Why cannot Bashar al-Assad now complain stridently that NATO is "massing forces on his border" and is preparing an invasion? It worked just fine for Ukraine, and the western press was happy to report it every time Kiev mentioned it. Well, we all know why not – Assad has no ear in western media and nobody would print anything from him unless he threatened someone.

As someone else here discussed earlier, it is probable that NATO is merely taking over policing the border from the Turks because it fears another escalation by loose-cannon Erdogan or his nutty PM. NATO aircraft would have strict rules of engagement and would stay well away from the border themselves, knowing that if a Turkish aircraft penetrated Syrian airspace now it would be smacked out of the sky moments later. The S-400 provides local Russian forces with a capability they did not previously have in Syria, and Russia is likely keen for an opportunity to punish the Turks, although they would have to be in the wrong. NATO aircraft in this case are there to provide a more professional component and with a view to preventing another incident. Still, the more aircraft are flying around, the more likely an incident becomes.

I don't know why they are bothering to send AWACS; we learned from the shootdown of MH17 that AWACS has huge holes in its coverage, as it apparently didn't see a thing. Oh, except for an SA-11 being launched by Russian-backed separatists, which makes them technically not Ukrainians.

Patient Observer, December 19, 2015 at 9:04 am
There was an article a few weeks ago linked in Yahoo describing what it would take to overcome the S-400 system. AWACS, F-18G Growlers and an array of other electronic warfare equipment (some ground based) combined with drone decoys, cruise missiles, etc. to be successful in degrading the system. Hence, the reason for AWACS is to help challenge the S-400. The F-18s are carrier-based and the other stuff can be moved into Turkey

It defies rationality to package the deployment described by NATO as a way to ensure stability and to minimize accidental engagements. The claims have the same stink as the claims that the ABM systems in Eastern Europe were intended against Iran and North Korea. Pleeeassssseee

[Dec 23, 2015] The Ukraine declaration of bankruptcy today is a double victory for Putin

marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile, December 18, 2015 at 10:49 am

See: Die Welt

The Ukraine declaration of bankruptcy today is a double victory for Putin

According to the financial market today, the Ukraine is bankrupt. The country has not settled a debt that amounts to $3 billion, thereby making possible a double victory for its greatest enemy.

Not with weapons has Vladimir Putin won this greatest of victories in the Ukraine crisis – not with tanks or soldiers or militiamen. The battlefield where this victory has been won was not the streets of Donetsk, the embattled provinces of East Ukraine: it was on the financial market. The state, ripped asunder by an almost year-long conflict, failed on Friday to settle a $3 billion dollar loan – a loan that it owes Russia, and that means bankruptcy…

and so on and so forth.

The newspaper "Die Welt" is very much to the right of the German political spectrum, but it does not attempt to hide the enormity of the situation; it pulls no punches: this is an out and out victory for Russia.

Strange how there is no comment from our Finnish Russophile, expressing his pleasure over this apparent wonderful success for Russian policies as regards the Ukraine crisis.

Then again, all this would not have happened if a year ago the Russian army had made a Blitzkrieg lunge against Kiev…

[Dec 23, 2015] Turkey won't respond to Putin's insulting comments

nation.com.pk

On Thursday, Putin escalated the rhetoric by saying that Turks had decided to "lick the Americans in a certain place" as he accused of a "creeping Islamisation of Turkey that would have Ataturk rolling in his grave".

... ... ...

...He has been shown that if you poke Turkey and NATO in the eye, bad things happen," said Bryza, who is also former deputy assistant of the US secretary of state for the South Caucasus.

"I think this [combative rhetoric] is going to fade away. It already has on the Turkish side, they have been more restrained."

He added that it was likely that the Syrian conflict and Turkey's ties with Israel will take centre stage in the weeks ahead.

Israel and Turkey reached a preliminary agreement to normalise relations, including the return of one another's ambassadors to both countries, an Israeli official said on Thursday.

The deal came five years after relations reached a low point for the two countries over a deadly Israeli raid on a ship carrying Turkish activists attempting to break Israel's blockade on Gaza.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Friday that negotiations with Israel are "ongoing at the expert level", while in New York attending international and UN talks on Syria.

harry

Putin does not have to answer his parliament. He will show his teeth when the situation demands it. Turkey cannot afford to be on the wrong side of Putin.

[Dec 23, 2015] Russia Khodorkovsky: Court orders exiled tycoon's arrest

BBC News

Mr Khodorkovsky has been living in exile in Europe since he was pardoned by President Vladimir Putin in 2013 after 10 years in jail for fraud. He told the BBC he was considering applying for political asylum in Britain as one of several options.

... ... ....

Mr Khodorkovsky is accused of ordering several of his employees to kill both the mayor and a businessman, who survived.

Investigators allege Vladimir Petukhov, the mayor of Nefteyugansk, was killed on 26 June 1998 for demanding Mr Khodorkovsky's oil firm, Yukos, pay taxes that the company had been avoiding.

Local businessman Yevgeny Rybin was allegedly targeted because his activities "clashed with Yukos's interests", Russia's powerful Investigative Committee (SK) said in a statement (in Russian) as it announced his arrest in absentia.

Mr Rybin survived a gun attack in November 1998 and a second attack on his car in March 1999, when another man in the vehicle was killed and several people were injured.

[Dec 23, 2015] The antipathy the Russian kreakly bear toward Matthew Lee

Notable quotes:
"... the antipathy the Russian kreakly ..."
"... the Russian intelligentsia ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile, December 20, 2015 at 3:09 am
Russian "oppositionist" tweets – don't you just love 'em?

Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors

No doubt the person who posted the above tweet thinks Psaki, Harf, Trudeau, Rear-Admiral Kirby et al. have all been unfairly tested by this Russian FSB colonel Matt Lee and he should not have been allowed to take part in the Dept. of State press briefings because he is an agent of the Dark Lord, whilst the above mentioned Dept. of State spokespersons are all on the side of righteousness.

marknesop , December 20, 2015 at 11:38 am
I do love them, actually. For anyone who is not stupid, the antipathy the Russian kreakly bear toward Matthew Lee and anyone like him who questions the pat and Manichean State Department narrative bespeaks an admiration for the way the United States government operates. Quite apart for an unhealthy devotion to 'Murkan nationalism and a clear belief that when America seizes something, it should be grateful because it is a compliment if America wants it, it is a preview of how they would govern if they had power. Russia's 'intellectuals' are great admirers of the disinformation and manipulation of the public consciousness with which the State Department gets about its daily work.

It is noteworthy that Matt Lee has never at any time expressed any gratuitous admiration for Russia or Putin or the way Russia conducts global affairs. He merely questions the State Department when its lies get too big or when it purports something as incontestable fact which it has gleaned from social media and Syrian activists. But the Russian intelligentsia view him as an impediment to a unipolar world ruled by America The Great And Good.

[Dec 23, 2015] The Neocons - Masters of Chaos

Notable quotes:
"... It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the only effective fighters against Assad. ..."
"... By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit. ..."
"... But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words, the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Neocons' Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit. "] ..."
"... Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead. ..."
"... As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife" a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square. ..."
"... When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization of Yanukovych and Putin. ..."
"... Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression," touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe. ..."
"... While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs. ..."
Oct 17, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

If you're nervously watching the stock market gyrations and worrying about your declining portfolio or pension fund, part of the blame should go to America's neocons who continue to be masters of chaos, endangering the world's economy by instigating geopolitical confrontations in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

Of course, there are other factors pushing Europe's economy to the brink of a triple-dip recession and threatening to stop America's fragile recovery, too. But the neocons' "regime change" strategies, which have unleashed violence and confrontations across Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and most recently Ukraine, have added to the economic uncertainty.

This neocon destabilization of the world economy began with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush who squandered some $1 trillion on the bloody folly. But the neocons' strategies have continued through their still-pervasive influence in Official Washington during President Barack Obama's administration.

The neocons and their "liberal interventionist" junior partners have kept the "regime change" pot boiling with the Western-orchestrated overthrow and killing of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the proxy civil war in Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad, the costly economic embargoes against Iran, and the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.

All these targeted governments were first ostracized by the neocons and the major U.S. news organizations, such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, which have become what amounts to neocon mouthpieces. Whenever the neocons decide that it's time for another "regime change," the mainstream U.S. media enlists in the propaganda wars.

The consequence of this cascading disorder has been damaging and cumulative. The costs of the Iraq War strapped the U.S. Treasury and left less government maneuvering room when Wall Street crashed in 2008. If Bush still had the surplus that he inherited from President Bill Clinton – rather than a yawning deficit – there might have been enough public money to stimulate a much-faster recovery.

President Obama also wouldn't have been left to cope with the living hell that the U.S. occupation brought to the people of Iraq, violent chaos that gave birth to what was then called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and has since rebranded itself "the Islamic State."

But Obama didn't do himself (or the world) any favors when he put much of his foreign policy in the hands of Democratic neocon-lites, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Bush holdovers, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus. At State, Clinton promoted the likes of neocon Victoria Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, and Obama brought in "liberal interventionists" like Samantha Power, now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

In recent years, the neocons and "liberal interventionists" have become almost indistinguishable, so much so that Robert Kagan has opted to discard the discredited neocon label and call himself a "liberal interventionist." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's True Foreign Policy 'Weakness.'"]

Manipulating Obama

Obama, in his nearly six years as president, also has shied away from imposing his more "realistic" views about world affairs on the neocon/liberal-interventionist ideologues inside the U.S. pundit class and his own administration. He has been outmaneuvered by clever insiders (as happened in 2009 on the Afghan "surge") or overwhelmed by some Official Washington "group think" (as was the case in Libya, Syria, Iran and Ukraine).

Once all the "smart people" reach some collective decision that a foreign leader "must go," Obama usually joins the chorus and has shown only rare moments of toughness in standing up to misguided conventional wisdoms.

The one notable case was his decision in summer 2013 to resist pressure to destroy Syria's military after a Sarin gas attack outside Damascus sparked a dubious rush to judgment blaming Assad's regime. Since then, more evidence has pointed to a provocation by anti-Assad extremists who may have thought that the incident would draw in the U.S. military on their side. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Was Turkey Behind Syrian Sarin Attack?"]

It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the only effective fighters against Assad.

But the neocons and the "liberal interventionists" seemed oblivious to that danger. They had their hearts set on Syrian "regime change," so were furious when their dreams were dashed by Obama's supposed "weakness," i.e. his failure to do what they wanted. They also blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin who brokered a compromise with Assad in which he agreed to surrender all of Syria's chemical weapons while still denying a role in the Sarin attack.

By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit.

So, Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to sound the trumpet about Ukraine, which he called "the biggest prize."

But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words, the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons' Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit."]

Destabilizing the World

Beyond the recklessness of plotting to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia, the neocon strategy threatened to shake Europe's fragile economic recovery from a painful recession, six years of jobless stress that had strained the cohesion of the European Union and the euro zone.

Across the Continent, populist parties from the Right and Left have been challenging establishment politicians over their inability to reverse the widespread unemployment and the growing poverty. Important to Europe's economy was its relationship with Russia, a major market for agriculture and manufactured goods and a key source of natural gas to keep Europe's industries humming and its houses warm.

The last thing Europe needed was more chaos, but that's what the neocons do best and they were determined to punish Putin for disrupting their plans for Syrian "regime change," an item long near the top of their agenda along with their desire to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," which Israel has cited as an "existential threat."

Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead.

To get at Putin, however, the first step was Ukraine where Gershman's NED was funding scores of programs for political activists and media operatives. These efforts fed into mass protests against Ukrainian President Yanukovych for balking at an EU association agreement that included a harsh austerity plan designed by the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych opted instead for a more generous $15 billion loan deal from Putin.

As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife" a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square.

According to an intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland didn't think EU officials were being aggressive enough. "Fuck the EU," she said as she brainstormed how "to help glue this thing." She literally handpicked who should be in the post-coup government – "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who would indeed become prime minister.

When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization of Yanukovych and Putin.

Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to rejoin Russia.

Starting a Trade War

Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression," touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe.

While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs.

The dominoes soon toppled across the Atlantic as major U.S. stock indices dropped, creating anguish among many Americans just when it seemed the hangover from Bush's 2008 market crash was finally wearing off.

Obviously, there are other reasons for the recent stock market declines, including fears about the Islamic State's victories in Syria and Iraq, continued chaos in Libya, and exclusion of Iran from the global economic system – all partly the result of neocon ideology. There have been unrelated troubles, too, such as the Ebola epidemic in western Africa and various weather disasters.

But the world's economy usually can withstand some natural and manmade challenges. The real problem comes when a combination of catastrophes pushes the international financial system to a tipping point. Then, even a single event can dump the world into economic chaos, like what happened when Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008.

It's not clear whether the world is at such a tipping point today, but the stock market volatility suggests that we may be on the verge of another worldwide recession. Meanwhile, the neocon masters of chaos seem determined to keep putting their ideological obsessions ahead of the risks to Americans and people everywhere.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

[Dec 22, 2015] Destruction of the financial system of Ukraine is complete

Essentially it got "below junk" rating...
Notable quotes:
"... How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they talking about? ..."
"... First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only 4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost no revenues except from taxation. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 6:43 pm

According to Madame Jaresko, their decision not to pay the $3 Billion bond to Russia has set Ukraine free, free as a bird, and allowed it to now be in full compliance with the financing requirements of the IMF program.

Start shovelin' in the money, IMF, because Ukraine has the magic formula – just refuse to pay what you owe, call it a 'temporary suspension of payments' instead of 'a default', and reap the reward for your display of responsibility.

I foresee the mileage Russia is going to get out of this will far exceed the value of the $3 Billion.

marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:47 pm

How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they talking about?

"The proposed budget would work to reduce the government's deficit from 4.1% to 3.7%, with measures including an increase in revenue by widening the tax base."

First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only 4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost no revenues except from taxation.

And now the IMF expects to realize more revenue from widening the tax base – yes, I can imagine what a popular initiative that is. Now you know how Yushchenko felt, Yatsie, when the IMF denied him a second big loan because he refused to eliminate the gas subsidies to residents.

Now the IMF has finally realized that triumph through a different leader, and it wants to see even more tax revenue. You are about to be as popular as a turd in the punch bowl; have fun with that.

kirill, December 20, 2015 at 12:58 pm

I would not trust any GDP numbers from the Kiev regime either. They lost 25% of the economy in the Donbas alone not counting Crimea. This has knock on effects to the rest of Banderastan. Yet they are yapping about some 12% contraction in 2015 after a 7% contraction in 2014. I see no clear indication that they are counting the GDP only for regime controlled Banderastan.

As for the budget, according to regime officials, Banderastan lost 30% of its hard currency revenues with the loss of the Donbass. I estimate the tax loss to Kiev to be about 30% as well.

The Donbass was the industrialized part of the country while western Banderastan is primarily agrarian. So talk about 4% shortfalls in revenue is utter rubbish. In most countries the money making parts of the economy subsidize the rest and sure as hell it was not western Banderastan that was subsidizing the Donbass. That was just virulent blood libel such as the claim that Russians settled eastern Ukraine only after the Holodomor.

marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

Europe deserves Ukraine. Let them have it, the quicker the better. It's fine when Yats is selling that stinking mess to his simple-minded constituents, but European policymakers will see through it right away. Unfortunately, Brussels knows better than to bring Ukraine any closer into the fold, because if they get a visa-free regime, the place will empty out in a week as Ukrainians flee throughout Europe (which is already, everyone must know, full of refugees) looking for jobs.

[Dec 22, 2015] Seymour M. Hersh · Military to Military · LRB 7 January 2016

lrb.co.uk

Barack Obama's repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are 'moderate' rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon's Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration's fixation on Assad's primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn't adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington's anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.


The military's resistance dates back to the summer of 2013, when a highly classified assessment, put together by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, then led by General Martin Dempsey, forecast that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to chaos and, potentially, to Syria's takeover by jihadi extremists, much as was then happening in Libya. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told me that the document was an 'all-source' appraisal, drawing on information from signals, satellite and human intelligence, and took a dim view of the Obama administration's insistence on continuing to finance and arm the so-called moderate rebel groups. By then, the CIA had been conspiring for more than a year with allies in the UK, Saudi Arabia and Qatar to ship guns and goods – to be used for the overthrow of Assad – from Libya, via Turkey, into Syria. The new intelligence estimate singled out Turkey as a major impediment to Obama's Syria policy. The document showed, the adviser said, 'that what was started as a covert US programme to arm and support the moderate rebels fighting Assad had been co-opted by Turkey, and had morphed into an across-the-board technical, arms and logistical programme for all of the opposition, including Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. The so-called moderates had evaporated and the Free Syrian Army was a rump group stationed at an airbase in Turkey.' The assessment was bleak: there was no viable 'moderate' opposition to Assad, and the US was arming extremists.

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me. 'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'

'Our policy of arming the opposition to Assad was unsuccessful and actually having a negative impact,' the former JCS adviser said. 'The Joint Chiefs believed that Assad should not be replaced by fundamentalists. The administration's policy was contradictory. They wanted Assad to go but the opposition was dominated by extremists. So who was going to replace him? To say Assad's got to go is fine, but if you follow that through – therefore anyone is better. It's the "anybody else is better" issue that the JCS had with Obama's policy.' The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama's policy would have 'had a zero chance of success'. So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State.

[Dec 22, 2015] US imposes financial restrictions to reinforce Ukraine sanctions

www.theguardian.com

The new sanctions match those put in place by America's allies and demonstrate Washington's "unwavering resolve to pressure Russia to respect the security and sovereignty of Ukraine", Smith added.

Russia quickly decried the announcement.

"This is a continuation of the unfriendly line against Russia that runs counter to logic," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. His government would review the US decisions "and then gather proposals on possible countermeasures", he said.

HollyOldDog -> HHeLiBe 22 Dec 2015 16:45

There are no separatists in Ukraine. The East Ukrainians were upset with the American sponsored take over of the Kiev government and the brutal actions of the Right Sector firing on the Ukrainian Police and demonstrators. But instead of trying to calm down the rival fractions once the previous president who had to run for his life - the 'revised' Kiev administration decided to bomb and shell East Ukraine - they could have only learned such incompetence from their 'masters' in the USA.

Leondeinos 22 Dec 2015 16:28

The US has a number of requests of Russia. The "sanctions" won't help get the needed assistance, some of which might be important. Those sanctions also are causing far more damage to Ukraine. For example, since the beginning of 2015 the exchange rate for the Ukrainian Hryvnia is now such that $1 US costs 45% more than on 1 January (this has often been much higher during the year); for the Russian Ruble, the increase is 23%. How can that help people in Ukraine who need imports? (particularly since the country has lost its eastern industrial regions)

If Uncle Sam really wanted Russian cooperation (this is highly uncertain), he might just realize that, to them, NATO expansion is the most serious issue of all (as they have said all along). Useful agreement could be reached on this topic in various ways. How about combining dropping the proposed Ukrainian entry into NATO with an agreement to end foreign support, financial and with armament, for Ukrainian political factions [by all sides]? There are other possibilities for agreement. That's a big order given the history of US and Russian meddling in Ukraine, but it offers better prospects than more sanctions which are splitting the country apart-- forever-- and driving corruption in Ukraine to an intense level.

MurkyFogsFutureLogs 22 Dec 2015 16:24

"The US has been trying to find the right balance of carrots and sticks to push Russia into making a full withdrawal from eastern Ukraine, while securing its cooperation on ending Syria's civil war,"

So in one paragraph the Guardian states the U.S wants to push Russia into withdrawing forces it couldn't prove invaded in the first place and then touches upon the U.S's desire to co-operate with Russia in Syria even though the U.S is flying over Syria ILLEGALLY...

The Guardian along with the rest of the MSM really are becoming different departments within the "Ministry of Truth".

laticsfanfromeurope 22 Dec 2015 16:21

What a bunch of hypocrites...why no sanction against Saudi Arabia, guilty of genocide in Yemen, and guilty of syupporting extremism in the region and in the whole world?
Why nobody sanction the US and the other countries that support the islamist rebels in Syria?
So why not sanctions against Turkey, Qatar, England, France etc....

However the sanctions are not working at all, only the oil low price give problems to Russia...

[Dec 21, 2015] Ignorance is Strength

Notable quotes:
"... " it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries" ..."
"... It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al, December 19, 2015 at 11:02 am
Butnits Insider: Donald Trump left Joe Scarborough stunned after being asked about Vladimir Putin killing journalists
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-praises-vladimir-putin-125622048.html

…Scarborough pointed to Putin's status as a notorious strongman.

"Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked.

"He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have in this country."

"But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said.

The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.

"I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that's fine."

Scarborough was left visibly stunned.

"I'm confused," the MSNBC host said. "So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing journalists and political opponents, right?"

"Oh sure, absolutely," Trump said…

…But Friday during his "Morning Joe" interview, Trump said he always "felt fine" about Putin and touted the Russian president's poll numbers. Putin's position in his country is bolstered by the Russian government's control over much of the Russian news media.

"I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful leader … He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."

Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Obama's.

"I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low 40s. And he's up in the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think they're done by American companies, actually."
####

When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad the US is so far away. Damn modern technology.

Lyttenburgh, December 19, 2015 at 11:50 am
" it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries"

It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™.

P.S. "Ignorance is Strength"

[Dec 21, 2015] Journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within their own government power structure but the best journalists choose faction that actually embraces reality

"... Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. ..."
"... Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom index"? Samizdat here we come! ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 1:53 pm

Sy Hersh's latest via M of A:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military

marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Washington does not care who assumes power in Syria – whether it be feuding warlords or an Islamic mullah or Assad's cat. Washington knows that Islamic State needs money to survive and keep power, as does any individual or group who will rule, and that to remain in power, it will sell oil. Good enough, as far as Washington is concerned. If the place remains a seething cauldron of destabilizing hatreds, so much the better.
Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 8:50 pm
I read this carefully earlier today and wish I had made some notes.

It's an interesting article just in what it says about the politics of American journalism at this point in time almost regardless of the subject matter in a kind of Kremlinology vein. It almost reads like a ransom note. My impression is that Hersh is pulling punches at some key points in order not to overplay his hand.

My suggestion: don't get bogged down in the details. From my recollection of the piece from earlier today Hersh is basically championing a few figures and – most importantly – their perspectives here:

  • Michael Flynn, who led the DIA revolt against Syria policy
  • Dempsey, a pragmatic cold warrior who is allergic to making the enemy into a cardboard super-villan (good enough for this Putinista)
  • Patrick Lang (more below)
  • and that wonderfully clear-headed Hawaiin congress-critter (can't be arsed to look her up)

It's worth remembering that Hersh's articles on the Ghoutta attack immediately predated the great stand-down by Obama from all out air-war to destroy Syria.

Given that it's axiomatic that journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within their own government power structure and that the BEST journalists – like Hersh – actually embrace this reality, what does the appearance of this article augur?

I especially like the sign off:

"The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington's leadership of the jihadist threat in Syria, and of Turkey's support for it. The message was never listened to. Why not?"

That sounds kind of threatening. In a good way.

* Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In other words: we, the west, have basically made no progress fighting for reform of our leadership and political structures. Meanwhile the Russians seem to have gone "right round the horn" – as the dinosaur in Toy Story might put it.

Tim Owen, December 20, 2015 at 9:08 pm
Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom index"? Samizdat here we come!

[Dec 21, 2015] Australians has doubts about Dutch safety board conclusion about the type of monitions that destroyed the aircraft

Notable quotes:
"... "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …." ..."
"... What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart. ..."
"... It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
Jen, December 19, 2015 at 7:12 pm
Wooooh, this news is a doozy:

http://johnhelmer.net/?p=14787
http://investmentwatchblog.com/mh17-australia-say-russia-not-to-blame-evidence-tampered-with/

First two paragraphs:
"The Australian Federal Police and Dutch police and prosecutors investigating the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 believe the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) has failed to provide "conclusive evidence" of what type of munition destroyed the aircraft, causing the deaths of 283 passengers and 15 crew on board.

Testifying for the first time in an international court, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe, the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation, said a "tougher standard than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon which brought the aircraft down, or pinpoint the perpetrators.

Their criminal investigation will continue into 2016, Donoghoe told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments, and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. "Dutch prosecutors require conclusive evidence on other types of missile," Donoghoe said, intimating that "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …."

marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 7:31 pm
Great catch, Jen!! Wow, you're right – this is big, especially in view of the wavering by some EU members on sanctions. I wonder what Merkel has up her sleeve; she says Germany – while going ahead with Nord Stream II, which is "first and foremost a business proposition" – is "seeking ways to ensure that Ukraine is not completely excluded as a transit country".

Ummm…what role would that be? Because if, in exchange for pushing ahead on Nord Stream, Russia is maneuvered into still sending gas through Ukraine so that Ukraine can collect transit fees, the project would be self-defeating. I trust the business minds in Russia are sharp enough to stay ahead of that one. Ukraine will still receive gas from Russia, if it wants it and can pay in advance for it, but it will be for domestic supplies only and consequently not subject to transit fees. Russia must not weaken on this, because the EU still hopes to rebuild Ukraine using Russian money, and it cannot do it without Russian help and support. If that is withheld, Russia only needs to wait them out.

Needless to say, Tusk supports Renzi's position, not because he is an Italiophile but because he supports Ukraine and would like to see it remain a transit country, and pocketing $2 Billion a year in Russian cash.

What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart.

marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:37 pm

It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. There were revelations in the original post such as that Australia had sought permission from the Novorossiyan authorities to collect evidence and artifacts, as well as Kiev – thereby implicitly recognizing Novorossiya – and that when it solicited witnesses to testify, some agreed only on the condition their names would not be revealed, that the Ukrainian authorities would not be involved and that the investigators would protect them. Sure sounds like they want to say something they know the Ukrainian government will punish them for saying, if it can identify them. This whole inquiry just got interesting again.

At the moment it looks like a faction of the Australian investigation disagrees with the pat finding of the Dutch, but the Victorian state coroner is totally on board with the "Russia did it" scenario and is determined to have his way no matter how foolish it makes him look. This one could go anywhere from here.

Moscow Exile, December 19, 2015 at 11:28 pm

Clearly that Aussie cop is in the pocket of the Evil One!

Isn't he the one who said earlier that the Russian-backed terrorists at the MH-17 crash site behaved like decent human beings and treated the crash victims' remains with dignity and did not loot their belongings?

I mean, what a ludicrous thing to say!

Everyone knows that these Russian beasts are ….blah, blah, blah ...

davidt, December 20, 2015 at 2:03 pm

Donoghue is not the only AFP cop speaking up for the crash site locals. Their sensitivity and humanity is a rather at odds with a disparaging comment about the AFP on these pages over a year ago (and which I objected to at the time). I noticed last week that Patrick Armstrong is now reconsidering the Sukhoi did it scenario because of an apparent lack of fragments from a Buk warhead.

This has always been a serious concern to the Russian investigators, see
http://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/10/russians-angered-dutch-probe


[Dec 20, 2015] Michael Hudson The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia

Notable quotes:
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is ..."
"... KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and courts. ..."
"... After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20. [8] ..."
"... The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders. Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests. [10] ..."
"... China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion. ..."
"... It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against us". ..."
"... what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable basis for declaring war? ..."
December 18, 2015 | naked capitalism

By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy

The nightmare scenario of U.S. geopolitical strategists seems to be coming true: foreign economic independence from U.S. control. Instead of privatizing and neoliberalizing the world under U.S.-centered financial planning and ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring economies on terms that cement Eurasian economic integration on the basis of Russian oil and tax exports and Chinese financing. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) threatens to replace the IMF and World Bank programs that favor U.S. suppliers, banks and bondholders (with the United States holding unique veto power).

Russia's 2013 loan to Ukraine, made at the request of Ukraine's elected pro-Russian government, demonstrated the benefits of mutual trade and investment relations between the two countries. As Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov points out, Ukraine's "international reserves were barely enough to cover three months' imports, and no other creditor was prepared to lend on terms acceptable to Kiev. Yet Russia provided $3 billion of much-needed funding at a 5 per cent interest rate, when Ukraine's bonds were yielding nearly 12 per cent."[1]

What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and courts.

On December 3 (one week before the IMF changed its rules so as to hurt Russia), Prime Minister Putin proposed that Russia "and other Eurasian Economic Union countries should kick-off consultations with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on a possible economic partnership."[2] Russia also is seeking to build pipelines to Europe through friendly instead of U.S.-backed countries.

Moving to denominate their trade and investment in their own currencies instead of dollars, China and Russia are creating a geopolitical system free from U.S. control. After U.S. officials threatened to derange Russia's banking linkages by cutting it off from the SWIFT interbank clearing system, China accelerated its creation of the alternative China International Payments System (CIPS), with its own credit card system to protect Eurasian economies from the shrill threats made by U.S. unilateralists.

Russia and China are simply doing what the United States has long done: using trade and credit linkages to cement their geopolitical diplomacy. This tectonic geopolitical shift is a Copernican threat to New Cold War ideology: Instead of the world economy revolving around the United States (the Ptolemaic idea of America as "the indispensible nation"), it may revolve around Eurasia. As long as the global financial papacy remains grounded in Washington at the offices of the IMF and World Bank, such a shift in the center of gravity will be fought with all the power of the American Century (indeed, American Millennium) inquisition.

Imagine the following scenario five years from now. China will have spent half a decade building high-speed railroads, ports power systems and other construction for Asian and African countries, enabling them to grow and export more. These exports will be coming on line to repay the infrastructure loans. Also, suppose that Russia has been supplying the oil and gas energy needed for these projects.

To U.S. neocons this specter of AIIB government-to-government lending and investment creates fear of a world independent of U.S. control. Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's debt in their international reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their financial planning to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and austerity for debtor countries. There would be less need for foreign government to finance budget shortfalls by selling off their key public infrastructure privatizing their economies. Instead of dismantling public spending, the AIIB and a broader Eurasian economic union would do what the United States itself practices, and seek self-sufficiency in basic needs such as food, technology, banking, credit creation and monetary policy.

With this prospect in mind, suppose an American diplomat meets with the leaders of debtors to China, Russia and the AIIB and makes the following proposal: "Now that you've got your increased production in place, why repay? We'll make you rich if you stiff our New Cold War adversaries and turn to the West. We and our European allies will help you assign the infrastructure to yourselves and your supporters, and give these assets market value by selling shares in New York and London. Then, you can spend your surpluses in the West."

How can China or Russia collect in such a situation? They can sue. But what court will recognize their claim – that is, what court that the West would pay attention to?

That is the kind of scenario U.S. State Department and Treasury officials have been discussing for more than a year. The looming conflict was made immediate by Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia falling due by December 20, 2015. Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime has announced its intention to default. U.S. lobbyists have just changed the IMF rules to remove a critical lever on which Russia and other governments have long relied to enforce payment of their loans.

The IMF's Role as Enforcer of Inter-Government Debts

When it comes down to enforcing nations to pay inter-government debts, the International Monetary Fund and Paris Club hold the main leverage. As coordinator of central bank "stabilization" loans (the neoliberal euphemism for imposing austerity and destabilizing debtor economies, Greece-style), the IMF is able to withhold not only its own credit but also that of governments and global banks participating when debtor countries need refinancing. Countries that do not agree to privatize their infrastructure and sell it to Western buyers are threatened with sanctions, backed by U.S.-sponsored "regime change" and "democracy promotion" Maidan-style.

This was the setting on December 8, when Chief IMF Spokesman Gerry Rice announced: "The IMF's Executive Board met today and agreed to change the current policy on non-toleration of arrears to official creditors." The creditor leverage that the IMF has used is that if a nation is in financial arrears to any government, it cannot qualify for an IMF loan – and hence, for packages involving other governments. This has been the system by which the dollarized global financial system has worked for half a century. The beneficiaries have been creditors in US dollars.

In this U.S.-centered worldview, China and Russia loom as the great potential adversaries – defined as independent power centers from the United States as they create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an alternative to NATO, and the AIIB as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank tandem. The very name, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, implies that transportation systems and other infrastructure will be financed by governments, not relinquished into private hands to become rent-extracting opportunities financed by U.S.-centered bank credit to turn the rent into a flow of interest payments.

The focus on a mixed public/private economy sets the AIIB at odds with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its aim of relinquishing government planning power to the financial and corporate sector for their own short-term gains, and above all the aim of blocking government's money-creating power and financial regulation. Chief Nomura economist Richard Koo, explained the logic of viewing the AIIB as a threat to the US-controlled IMF: "If the IMF's rival is heavily under China's influence, countries receiving its support will rebuild their economies under what is effectively Chinese guidance, increasing the likelihood they will fall directly or indirectly under that country's influence."[3]

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov accused the IMF decision of being "hasty and biased."[4] But it had been discussed all year long, calculating a range of scenarios for a long-term sea change in international law. The aim of this change is to isolate not only Russia, but even more China in its role as creditor to African countries and prospective AIIB borrowers. U.S. officials walked into the IMF headquarters in Washington with the legal equivalent of financial suicide vests, having decided that the time had come to derail Russia's ability to collect on its sovereign loan to Ukraine, and of even larger import, China's plan for a New Silk Road integrating a Eurasian economy independent of U.S. financial and trade control. Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the NATO-oriented Atlantic Council, points out:

The IMF staff started contemplating a rule change in the spring of 2013 because nontraditional creditors, such as China, had started providing developing countries with large loans. One issue was that these loans were issued on conditions out of line with IMF practice. China wasn't a member of the Paris Club, where loan restructuring is usually discussed, so it was time to update the rules.

The IMF intended to adopt a new policy in the spring of 2016, but the dispute over Russia's $3 billion loan to Ukraine has accelerated an otherwise slow decision-making process.[5]

The Wall Street Journal concurred that the underlying motivation for changing the IMF's rules was the threat that Chinese lending would provide an alternative to IMF loans and its demands for austerity. "IMF-watchers said the fund was originally thinking of ensuring China wouldn't be able to foil IMF lending to member countries seeking bailouts as Beijing ramped up loans to developing economies around the world."[6] In short, U.S. strategists have designed a policy to block trade and financial agreements organized outside of U.S. control and that of the IMF and World Bank in which it holds unique veto power.

The plan is simple enough. Trade follows finance, and the creditor usually calls the tune. That is how the United States has used the Dollar Standard to steer Third World trade and investment since World War II along lines benefiting the U.S. economy.

The cement of trade credit and bank lending is the ability of creditors to collect on the international debts being negotiated. That is why the United States and other creditor nations have used the IMF as an intermediary to act as "honest broker" for loan consortia. ("Honest broker" means in practice being subject to U.S. veto power.) To enforce its financial leverage, the IMF has long followed the rule that it will not sponsor any loan agreement or refinancing for governments that are in default of debts owed to other governments. However, as the afore-mentioned Aslund explains, the IMF could easily

change its practice of not lending into [countries in official] arrears … because it is not incorporated into the IMF Articles of Agreement, that is, the IMF statutes. The IMF Executive Board can decide to change this policy with a simple board majority. The IMF has lent to Afghanistan, Georgia, and Iraq in the midst of war, and Russia has no veto right, holding only 2.39 percent of the votes in the IMF. When the IMF has lent to Georgia and Ukraine, the other members of its Executive Board have overruled Russia.[7]

After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20.[8]

Inasmuch as Ukraine's official debt to Russia's sovereign debt fund was not to the U.S. Government, the IMF announced its rules change as a "clarification." Its rule that no country can borrow if it is in default to (or not seriously negotiating with) a foreign government was created in the post-1945 world, and has governed the past seventy years in which the United States Government, Treasury officials and/or U.S. bank consortia have been party to nearly every international bailout or major loan agreement. What the IMF rule really meant was that it would not provide credit to countries in arrears specifically to the U.S. Government, not those of Russia or China.

Mikhail Delyagin, Director of the Institute of Globalization Problems, understood the IMF's double standard clearly enough: "The Fund will give Kiev a new loan tranche on one condition that Ukraine should not pay Russia a dollar under its $3 billion debt. Legally, everything will be formalized correctly but they will oblige Ukraine to pay only to western creditors for political reasons."[9] It remains up to the IMF board – and in the end, its managing director – whether or not to deem a country creditworthy. The U.S. representative naturally has always blocked any leaders not beholden to the United States.

The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders. Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests.[10]

IMF executive board member Otaviano Canuto, representing Brazil, noted that the logic that "conditions on IMF lending to a country that fell behind on payments [was to] make sure it kept negotiating in good faith to reach agreement with creditors."[11] Dropping this condition, he said, would open the door for other countries to insist on a similar waiver and avoid making serious and sincere efforts to reach payment agreement with creditor governments.

A more binding IMF rule is that it cannot lend to countries at war or use IMF credit to engage in warfare. Article I of its 1944-45 founding charter ban the fund from lending to a member state engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes in general. But when IMF head Lagarde made the last IMF loan to Ukraine, in spring 2015, she made a token gesture of stating that she hoped there would be peace. But President Porochenko immediately announced that he would step up the civil war with the Russian-speaking population in the eastern Donbass region.

The problem is that the Donbass is where most Ukrainian exports were made, mainly to Russia. That market is being lost by the junta's belligerence toward Russia. This should have blocked Ukraine from receiving IMF aid. Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force peace and adherence to the Minsk agreements, but U.S. diplomatic pressure led that opportunity to be rejected.

The most important IMF condition being violated is that continued warfare with the East prevents a realistic prospect of Ukraine paying back new loans. Aslund himself points to the internal contradictions at work: Ukraine has achieved budget balance because the inflation and steep currency depreciation has drastically eroded its pension costs. The resulting lower value of pension benefits has led to growing opposition to Ukraine's post-Maidan junta. "Leading representatives from President Petro Poroshenko's Bloc are insisting on massive tax cuts, but no more expenditure cuts; that would cause a vast budget deficit that the IMF assesses at 9-10 percent of GDP, that could not possibly be financed."[12] So how can the IMF's austerity budget be followed without a political backlash?

The IMF thus is breaking four rules: Not lending to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan breaks the "No More Argentinas" rule adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan. Not lending to countries that refuse in good faith to negotiate with their official creditors goes against the IMF's role as the major tool of the global creditors' cartel. And the IMF is now lending to a borrower at war, indeed one that is destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan. Finally, the IMF is lending to a country that has little likelihood of refuse carrying out the IMF's notorious austerity "conditionalities" on its population – without putting down democratic opposition in a totalitarian manner. Instead of being treated as an outcast from the international financial system, Ukraine is being welcomed and financed.

The upshot – and new basic guideline for IMF lending – is to create a new Iron Curtain splitting the world into pro-U.S. economies going neoliberal, and all other economies, including those seeking to maintain public investment in infrastructure, progressive taxation and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. Russia and China may lend as much as they want to other governments, but there is no international vehicle to help secure their ability to be paid back under what until now has passed for international law. Having refused to roll back its own or ECB financial claims on Greece, the IMF is quite willing to see repudiation of official debts owed to Russia, China or other countries not on the list approved by the U.S. neocons who wield veto power in the IMF, World Bank and similar global economic institutions now drawn into the U.S. orbit. Changing its rules to clear the path for the IMF to make loans to Ukraine and other governments in default of debts owed to official lenders is rightly seen as an escalation of America's New Cold War against Russia and also its anti-China strategy.

Timing is everything in such ploys. Georgetown University Law professor and Treasury consultant Anna Gelpern warned that before the "IMF staff and executive board [had] enough time to change the policy on arrears to official creditors," Russia might use "its notorious debt/GDP clause to accelerate the bonds at any time before December, or simply gum up the process of reforming the IMF's arrears policy."[13] According to this clause, if Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP, Russia's government would have the right to demand immediate payment. But no doubt anticipating the bitter fight to come over its attempts to collect on its loan, President Putin patiently refrained from exercising this option. He is playing the long game, bending over backward to accommodate Ukraine rather than behaving "odiously."

A more pressing reason deterring the United States from pressing earlier to change IMF rules was that a waiver for Ukraine would have opened the legal floodgates for Greece to ask for a similar waiver on having to pay the "troika" – the European Central Bank (ECB), EU commission and the IMF itself – for the post-2010 loans that have pushed it into a worse depression than the 1930s. "Imagine the Greek government had insisted that EU institutions accept the same haircut as the country's private creditors," Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov asked. "The reaction in European capitals would have been frosty. Yet this is the position now taken by Kiev with respect to Ukraine's $3 billion eurobond held by Russia."[14]

Only after Greece capitulated to eurozone austerity was the path clear for U.S. officials to change the IMF rules in their fight to isolate Russia. But their tactical victory has come at the cost of changing the IMF's rules and those of the global financial system irreversibly. Other countries henceforth may reject conditionalities, as Ukraine has done, and ask for write-downs on foreign official debts.

That was the great fear of neoliberal U.S. and Eurozone strategists last summer, after all. The reason for smashing Greece's economy was to deter Podemos in Spain and similar movements in Italy and Portugal from pursuing national prosperity instead of eurozone austerity. Opening the door to such resistance by Ukraine is the blowback of America's tactic to make a short-term financial hit on Russia while its balance of payments is down as a result of collapsing oil and gas prices.

The consequences go far beyond just the IMF. The fabric of international law itself is being torn apart. Every action has a reaction in the Newtonian world of geopolitics. It may not be a bad thing, to be sure, for the post-1945 global order to be broken apart by U.S. tactics against Russia, if that is the catalyst driving other countries to defend their own economies in the legal and political spheres. It has been U.S. neoliberals themselves who have catalyzed the emerging independent Eurasian bloc.

Countering Russia's Ability to Collect in Britain's Law Courts

Over the past year the U.S. Treasury and State Departments have discussed ploys to block Russia from collecting under British law, where its loans to Ukraine are registered. Reviewing the repertory of legal excuses Ukraine might use to avoid paying Russia, Prof. Gelpern noted that it might declare the debt "odious," made under duress or corruptly. In a paper for the Peterson Institute of International Economics (the banking lobby in Washington) she suggested that Britain should deny Russia the use of its courts as an additional sanction reinforcing the financial, energy, and trade sanctions to those passed against Russia after Crimea voted to join it as protection against the ethnic cleansing from the Right Sector, Azov Battalion and other paramilitary groups descending on the region.[15]

A kindred ploy might be for Ukraine to countersue Russia for reparations for "invading" it, for saving Crimea and the Donbass region from the Right Sector's attempt to take over the country. Such a ploy would seem to have little chance of success in international courts (without showing them to be simply arms of NATO New Cold War politics), but it might delay Russia' ability to collect by tying the loan up in a long nuisance lawsuit.

To claim that Ukraine's debt to Russia was "odious" or otherwise illegitimate, "President Petro Poroshenko said the money was intended to ensure Yanukovych's loyalty to Moscow, and called the payment a 'bribe,' according to an interview with Bloomberg in June this year."[16] The legal and moral problem with such arguments is that they would apply equally to IMF and US loans. Claiming that Russia's loan is "odious" is that this would open the floodgates for other countries to repudiate debts taken on by dictatorships supported by IMF and U.S. lenders, headed by the many dictatorships supported by U.S. diplomacy.

The blowback from the U.S. multi-front attempt to nullify Ukraine's debt may be used to annul or at least write down the destructive IMF loans made on the condition that borrowers accept privatizations favoring U.S., German and other NATO-country investors, undertake austerity programs, and buy weapons systems such as the German submarines that Greece borrowed to pay for. As Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted: "This reform, which they are now trying to implement, designed to suit Ukraine only, could plant a time bomb under all other IMF programs." It certainly showed the extent to which the IMF is subordinate to U.S. aggressive New Cold Warriors: "Essentially, this reform boils down to the following: since Ukraine is politically important – and it is only important because it is opposed to Russia – the IMF is ready to do for Ukraine everything it has not done for anyone else, and the situation that should 100 percent mean a default will be seen as a situation enabling the IMF to finance Ukraine."[17]

Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the Committee for International Affairs at the Federation Council (the upper house of Russia's parliament) accused the United States of playing "the role of the main violin in the IMF while the role of the second violin is played by the European Union. These are two basic sponsors of the Maidan – the symbol of a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014."[18]

Putin's Counter-Strategy and the Blowback on U.S.-European and Global Relations

As noted above, having anticipated that Ukraine would seek reasons to not pay the Russian loan, President Putin carefully refrained from exercising Russia's right to demand immediate payment when Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP. In November he offered to defer payment if the United States, Europe and international banks underwrote the obligation. Indeed, he even "proposed better conditions for this restructuring than those the International Monetary Fund requested of us." He offered "to accept a deeper restructuring with no payment this year – a payment of $1 billion next year, $1 billion in 2017, and $1 billion in 2018." If the IMF, the United States and European Union "are sure that Ukraine's solvency will grow," then they should "see no risk in providing guarantees for this credit." Accordingly, he concluded "We have asked for such guarantees either from the United States government, the European Union, or one of the big international financial institutions." [19]

The implication, Putin pointed out, was that "If they cannot provide guarantees, this means that they do not believe in the Ukrainian economy's future." One professor pointed out that this proposal was in line with the fact that, "Ukraine has already received a sovereign loan guarantee from the United States for a previous bond issue." Why couldn't the United States, Eurozone or leading commercial banks provide a similar guarantee of Ukraine's debt to Russia – or better yet, simply lend it the money to turn it into a loan to the IMF or US lenders?[20]

But the IMF, European Union and the United States refused to back up their happy (but nonsensical) forecasts of Ukrainian solvency with actual guarantees. Foreign Minister Lavrov made clear just what that rejection meant: "By having refused to guarantee Ukraine's debt as part of Russia's proposal to restructure it, the United States effectively admitted the absence of prospects of restoring its solvency. … By officially rejecting the proposed scheme, the United States thereby subscribed to not seeing any prospects of Ukraine restoring its solvency."[21]

In an even more exasperated tone, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev explained to Russia's television audience: "I have a feeling that they won't give us the money back because they are crooks. They refuse to return our money and our Western partners not only refuse to help, but they also make it difficult for us."[22] Adding that "the international financial system is unjustly structured," he promised to "go to court. We'll push for default on the loan and we'll push for default on all Ukrainian debts."

The basis for Russia's legal claim, he explained was that the loan

was a request from the Ukrainian Government to the Russian Government. If two governments reach an agreement this is obviously a sovereign loan…. Surprisingly, however, international financial organisations started saying that this is not exactly a sovereign loan. This is utter bull. Evidently, it's just an absolutely brazen, cynical lie. … This seriously erodes trust in IMF decisions. I believe that now there will be a lot of pleas from different borrower states to the IMF to grant them the same terms as Ukraine. How will the IMF possibly refuse them?

And there the matter stands. As President Putin remarked regarding America's support of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and other ISIS allies in Syria, "Do you have any idea of what you have done?"

The Blowback

Few have calculated the degree to which America's New Cold War with Russia is creating a reaction that is tearing up the world's linkages put in place since World War II. Beyond pulling the IMF and World Bank tightly into U.S. unilateralist geopolitics, how long will Western Europe be willing to forego its trade and investment interest with Russia? Germany, Italy and France already are feeling the strains. If and when a break comes, it will not be marginal but a seismic geopolitical shift.

The oil and pipeline war designed to bypass Russian energy exports has engulfed the Near East in anarchy for over a decade. It is flooding Europe with refugees, and also spreading terrorism to America. In the Republican presidential debate on December 15, 2015, the leading issue was safety from Islamic jihadists. Yet no candidate thought to explain the source of this terrorism in America's alliance with Wahabist Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and hence with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daish as a means of destabilizing secular regimes seeking independence from U.S. control.

As its allies in this New Cold War, the United States has chosen fundamentalist jihadist religion against secular regimes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and earlier in Afghanistan and Turkey. Going back to the original sin of CIA hubris – overthrowing the secular Iranian Prime Minister leader Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 – American foreign policy has been based on the assumption that secular regimes tend to be nationalist and resist privatization and neoliberal austerity.

Based on this fatal long-term assumption, U.S. Cold Warriors have aligned themselves not only against secular regimes, but against democratic regimes where these seek to promote their own prosperity and economic independence, and to resist neoliberalism in favor of maintaining their traditional mixed public/private economy.

This is the back story of the U.S. fight to control the rest of the world. Tearing apart the IMF's rules is only the most recent chapter. The broad drive against Russia, China and their prospective Eurasian allies has deteriorated into tactics without a realistic understanding of how they are bringing about precisely the kind of world they are seeking to prevent – a multilateral world.

Arena by arena, the core values of what used to be American and European social democratic ideology are being uprooted. The Enlightenment's ideals of secular democracy and the rule of international law applied equally to all nations, classical free market theory (of markets free from unearned income and rent extraction by special vested interests), and public investment in infrastructure to hold down the cost of living and doing business are to be sacrificed to a militant U.S. unilateralism as "the indispensible nation." Standing above the rule of law and national interests, American neocons proclaim that their nation's destiny is to wage war to prevent foreign secular democracy from acting in ways other than submission to U.S. diplomacy. In practice, this means favoring special U.S. financial and corporate interests that control American foreign policy.

This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to turn out. Classical industrial capitalism a century ago was expected to evolve into an economy of abundance. Instead, we have Pentagon capitalism, finance capitalism deteriorating into a polarized rentier economy, and old-fashioned imperialism.

The Dollar Bloc's Financial Iron Curtain

By treating Ukraine's nullification of its official debt to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund as the new norm, the IMF has blessed its default on its bond payment to Russia. President Putin and foreign minister Lavrov have said that they will sue in British courts. But does any court exist in the West not under the thumb of U.S. veto?

What are China and Russia to do, faced with the IMF serving as a kangaroo court whose judgments are subject to U.S. veto power? To protect their autonomy and self-determination, they have created alternatives to the IMF and World Bank, NATO and behind it, the dollar standard.

America's recent New Cold War maneuvering has shown that the two Bretton Woods institutions are unreformable. It is easier to create new institutions such as the A.I.I.B. than to retrofit old and ill-designed ones burdened with the legacy of their vested founding interests. It is easier to expand the Shanghai Cooperation Organization than to surrender to threats from NATO.

U.S. geostrategists seem to have imagined that if they exclude Russia, China and other SCO and Eurasian countries from the U.S.-based financial and trade system, these countries will find themselves in the same economic box as Cuba, Iran and other countries have been isolated by sanctions. The aim is to make countries choose between impoverishment from such exclusion, or acquiescing in U.S. neoliberal drives to financialize their economies and impose austerity on their government sector and labor.

What is lacking from such calculations is the idea of critical mass. The United States may use the IMF and World Bank as levers to exclude countries not in the U.S. orbit from participating in the global trade and financial system, and it may arm-twist Europe to impose trade and financial sanctions on Russia. But this action produces an equal and opposite reaction. That is the eternal Newtonian law of geopolitics. The indicated countermeasure is simply for other countries to create their own international financial organization as an alternative to the IMF, their own "aid" lending institution to juxtapose to the U.S.-centered World Bank.

All this requires an international court to handle disputes that is free from U.S. arm-twisting to turn international law into a kangaroo court following the dictates of Washington. The Eurasian Economic Union now has its own court to adjudicate disputes. It may provide an alternative Judge Griesa's New York federal court ruling in favor of vulture funds derailing Argentina's debt negotiations and excluding it from foreign financial markets. If the London Court of International Arbitration (under whose rules Russia's bonds issued to Ukraine are registered) permits frivolous legal claims (called barratry in English) such as President Poroshenko has threatened in Ukrainian Parliament, it too will become a victim of geopolitical obsolescence.

The more nakedly self-serving and geopolitical U.S. policy is – in backing radical Islamic fundamentalist outgrowths of Al Qaeda throughout the Near East, right-wing nationalist governments in Ukraine and the Baltics – the greater the catalytic pressure is growing for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, AIIB and related Eurasian institutions to break free of the post-1945 Bretton Woods system run by the U.S. State, Defense and Treasury Departments and NATO superstructure.

The question now is whether Russia and China can hold onto the BRICS and India. So as Paul Craig Roberts recently summarized my ideas along these lines, we are back with George Orwell's 1984 global fracture between Oceanea (the United States, Britain and its northern European NATO allies) vs. Eurasia.

... .... ....

RabidGandhi December 18, 2015 at 9:16 am

My issue with Hudson is that he tends to paint things in a "good guys/bad guys" dichotomy viz. the IMF vs. the AIIB. Personally, I think it's quite positive that the international sovereign finance institutions will now be more international and less unipolar, but his scenario where

Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's debt in their international reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their financial planning to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and austerity for debtor countries.

is rather pie-in-the sky. What reason do we have to believe that concentrated Chinese capital would somehow be more benevolent than our current overlords? Oh because AIIB has the word "infrastructure" in its title (just as the Interamerican Development Bank is all about development) /sarc.

Furthermore, if US planners had half a clue about economics, they would be jumping for joy that the AIIB and the CIPS will finally help release them (eventually) from the burden of having the USD as the global reserve currency, thus relieving the US of the albatross of having to ship its internal demand to China and other net exporters.

All in all, yes AIIB should be positive, but as Hudson himself points out, this is not so much about economics as it is geopolitics. The world should tread with the utmost caution.

Dino Reno December 18, 2015 at 9:48 am

I think his main point is not so much about economics or geopolitics, it's about the rule of law, specifically international law and how it applies to the debt collection brokered between counties.

China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion.

Even if they come up with a lending facility, the West will thwart their ability to collect on those debts at every turn by simply declaring those debts null and void and extending new funds using the infrastructure build by the bad (Russian/Chinese) debt as collateral. The thirst for power and profit will always be with us, but now it will not be tempered by any international order under the rule of law.

Nick December 18, 2015 at 10:15 am

China is learning the hard way how the game is played. For example, they're discovering that much of the tens of billions in no-strings attached loans given to Africa will not provide the returns initially thought (even accounting for massive corruption on all sides), which is why they have been reduced for the first time in a decade this past year.

Alejandro December 18, 2015 at 10:41 am

Don't see how "economics" and "social" can be de-linked from "politics"…understanding the limits of "local" may provide an awareness of the "quid pro quo" of extending, direction of extension, and what defines (in/inter) "dependency"…how sacrifice is "shared" or imposed, and how "prosperity" is concentrated or distributed…

OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL December 18, 2015 at 2:50 pm

It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against us".

It's like a playground with one big bully and lots of kids running scared, now a second bully appears and they all have to ask themselves whether Bully #2 will be nicer to them, in this case it appears Bully #2 is saying he won't tell them how to run their lives or steal their lunch money.

Post-comet in 2000 when everything started going to hell the worst casualty has been the rule of law, from hanging chads through to the Patriot Act, death by a thousand cuts of the Constitution, unprosecuted war crimes, unprosecuted financial crimes, and now the very fabric of international law being rent apart. I'm reminded of the Hunter Thompson scene where he has an expired driver's license and a cop pulls him over, he has two choices, hand over the license and get busted, or drive away and get busted… so he comes up with a third choice: he blows his nose all over the license and hands it over to the cop. The equivalent of Bully #1 taking the only soccer ball on the playground and kicking it over the fence so the game is screwed up for everybody, Pepe's "Empire of Chaos" indeed.

global123 December 18, 2015 at 9:47 am

stellar article michael hudson

1)Western economies depend on ocean transport…if chinese or ruskies destroy it, USA-EU will be bankrupt in weeks..USA-EU are consumers and not producers..their exports to rest of world are tiny..So,their position is very weak at this point
2)The asian countries like china-india will be forced to join hands under joint attack by US financial system and islamic jihadists..Russia and china,former enemies,are now friends…who could have imagines it?
Russo-chinese-iranian alliance is huge failure of US foreign policies
3)Using islamic terrorists and islamic countries like turkey-saudi arabia-pakistan-indonesia-egypt is not going to work for USA because muslims think USA as enemy no.1…
4)A military superiority can not guarantee permanent -everlasting victory against too many opponents
What i see here is USA has made entire islamic world their enemy,alongwith china and russia
In case of real war,USA position will be very weak

camelotkidd December 18, 2015 at 9:49 am

This is an amazing article. Bravo!
Now it's becoming clear just what Margaret Thatcher meant when she told everyone that there was no alternative to neoliberalism.

Steve H. December 18, 2015 at 10:00 am

Thank you for continuing to mark the historical specifics of the finance/legal wing of geopolitical conflict, and the perverse failings of Full Spectrum Dominance.

The Oceana/Eurasia dichotomy is a dangerous frame of reference. It essentially contrasts the transport efficiencies of water to the solid defensive capacity of the frozen steppes. But when things get bloody, they usually crack along language lines. Not only as a proxy for migrations of the gene, but also world-views. How horse-people see things, what metaphors they use, are very different than how cow-people categorize the world.

This highlights that Russia is continuing to operate within the language and legal framework of the Indo-European languages. In other words (!), it is a fight between the U.S. and Russia for European alliances. If this is the case, then the alliance of NATO with Turkic and Arabic lines is of convenience, in that they are not partners but proxies. Europe is faced with the habit of the U.S. in saying, Let's you and him fight. But there's an oceans difference between the U.S. and European interests.

It also means that Russia and China are being pushed together by western exclusion, like drops of oil on the water. I maintain that Russia has doubled down on global warming, to open up northern sea routes and make the steppes arable. China is already a sea-power, but its massive population will need lebensraum as the fossil-fuel support for the energy needs of megapoli decay. The mountains are a formidable barrier for them to take the steppes by force.

The question for the rest of the world then becomes, who do you want to have as a friend in a hundred years. Do you bet on the Wizards of Wall Street, with their Magic Money Wand of Fiat? Or do you think Russia will ground-n-pound the fairy dust into the mud?

SocietalIllusions December 18, 2015 at 11:17 am

what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable basis for declaring war?

The game of brinksmanship continues…

Jim Haygood December 18, 2015 at 11:18 am

'The Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring economies on terms that cement Eurasian economic integration.'

Whereas the U.S. is 'investing' in new military bases to cement U.S. global domination.

Guess which model actually benefits local living standards, and 'wins hearts and minds'?

Global domination as a policy goal bankrupted the USSR. It's not working for the USSA either, as the U.S. middle class (once the envy of the world) visibly sinks into pauperization.

Thus the veracity of Michael Hudson's conclusion that 'when a break comes, it will not be marginal but a seismic geopolitical shift.'

Steven December 18, 2015 at 1:56 pm

I get the same thrill reading Hudson the religiously devout must experience reading their bibles or Korans – a glimpse of 'truth' as best it can be known. My first encounter was this interview in Counterpunch: An Interview with Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism That led directly to "Super Imperialism" (and just about every book since its publication). After reading it, I was left with the uneasy feeling that no good would come from an international monetary system that allowed any one nation to pay its way in the world by creating money 'out of thin air' i.e. as sovereign and private debt or, almost the same thing, Federal Reserve Notes.

The race to the bottom of off-shored jobs and industries freed from all environmental restrictions, AKA 'globalization', had started to really kick in but it was just before Operation Iraqi Liberation (get it?). Fundamentally, it wasn't war for oil, of course, but a war to preserve the Dollar Standard. Recycling petrodollars bought a little time after the 1971 collapse of Bretton Woods. But with the world's treasuries filling up with US dollars and debt, the product of the Congressional-military-industrial-complex running wild and more recently the U.S. 0.01% successfully evading almost all forms of taxation, some kind of control more basic than controlling the world's access to money (which basically means credit) was required.

When people like Alan Greenspan (pretend to) come clean, you really want to look twice:

THOUGH it was not understood a century ago, and though as yet the applications of the knowledge to the economics of life are not generally realized, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally a struggle for energy, in which discovery after discovery brings life into new relations with the original source.

Frederick Soddy, WEALTH, VIRTUAL WEALTH AND DEBT, 2nd edition, p. 49
The world can live without American dollars, especially these days when the U.S. no longer makes much the world needs or can afford but most obviously because it already possesses more of them than can ever be redeemed ('debt that can't be repaid and won't be') What it can't live without is ENERGY.

So long as most of that energy needs to be pumped out of the ground, the nation that ultimately controls access to the pumps – or to the distribution networks required to deliver it to the ultimate user – controls the world. This is most likely why Reagan promptly dismantled Jimmy Carter's White House solar panels. It is why the US and its European vassals have been dragging their feet for a half-century on the development of renewable energy sources and the electrification of transportation. It is why the banks and Wall Street will stand solidly behind the various electrical utilities efforts to discourage the development of any alternative energy sources from which their executives and shareholders can not extract the last pint of blood or has Hudson more politely calls it 'economic rent'.

P.S. Hudson seems to have a dangerous monopoly on economic truth these days. Is there anyone else who even comes close?

[Dec 19, 2015] Russia opens black box of jet downed by Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... I believe it was not there on patrol, but specifically to shoot the Russian plane down and come back ..."
"... Although I believe the Turkish map, I still think the Turks proved themselves on the side of the terrorists. ..."
"... Crossing that strip of Turkish territory by a friendly plane should not have been reason for shooting it down, only a PRETEXT. That may be the reason why the plane was shot down, because the Russians were not expecting the Turks to shoot at them. ..."
news.yahoo.com

Mister 2 hours ago 0

[The air force commander said 14 countries had been invited to monitor the (Russian) investigation but only China and Britain had accepted the official offer]

Shameful.

Shelly Winters 1 day ago 5

Not sure what information this "black box" contains, but CVR's and FDR's in most all aircraft (especially commercial jetliners) records only what the flight crew says in the cockpit and what operational parameters the aircraft experienced i.e. throttle settings, aileron positions, pitch, etc. It's questionable if the downed fighter aircraft's actual flight path would be stored internally in any such device, especially a fighter aircraft operating in hostile airspace. This data the Russians claim to have, if it really exists, could be certainly manipulated. The only true data for flight path would be a ground radar tape pulled from two different locations in the area.

James

I said it before, I believe the radar map the Turks showed with the paths was correct. And here are the military, but also their Religious reasons.

"War of the maps: Turkey released a map showing where Russia violated its airspace, and Russia countered"

/finance[dot]yahoo[dot]com/news/war-maps-turkey-released-map-210422386.html

You can see there is a very narrow strip of Turkish territory, about a mile wide, protruding deep into the Syrian territory. I don't know exactly the frequency of the sweep of the Turkish radar, but still, looking at the distances between dots, you can figure out the speed. The time to cross the Turkish strip must have been no longer than 20seconds, my initial estimate was 8, the Turks later said 17, but that's not important. The Russian plane is seen to make a wide circle near the Syrian border, flying much below it's maximum speed, probably looking for terrorist bases and convoys, and which circles crossed that limb. It was flying slow and probably low, and in circles, to get a good look. During the next cycle, I do believe the Turks warned it while flying over Syria, 10 times during 5' not to cross that 1 mile strip again. The Russian Su-24 bomber is seen heading for the strip the second time. Notice the Su-24 is a bomber not a dog-fighter like the F-16 and it's older. And there were two F-16's. The Turkish map shows only one path though. But the Russian maps shows only one too! On the Turkish map though, the F-16 is seen lurking in the air, and at some point accelerated sharply, approaching very close and very fast, probably in full afterburner, which is specifically reserved for attack.

I believe it was not there on patrol, but specifically to shoot the Russian plane down and come back. At (probably) the same time, the Russian path is seen with a very sharp small quirk. A sort of a mini-loop. I am sure they were trying to avoid incoming missiles. Their plane got hit, and it is seen trying to accelerate, probably to flee, and then the record ends.

HOWEVER ----------------- Although I believe the Turkish map, I still think the Turks proved themselves on the side of the terrorists.

After all, if the Russian plane was trying to get rid of the terrorists at the Turkish border, and no HONEST state wants terrorists at it's border, and the Russians were trying to do the "dirty job" of getting rid of them, Turkey should have been glad the Russians are helping them. But the fact they shot the Russian plane down, proves Turkey is harboring and abetting terrorists, if not recruits and send them itself.

Crossing that strip of Turkish territory by a friendly plane should not have been reason for shooting it down, only a PRETEXT. That may be the reason why the plane was shot down, because the Russians were not expecting the Turks to shoot at them.

So the Turks are not technically lying, but they ARE! The Russians probably did go through that miserable strip, and that's the technical truth. But Turkey is defending terrorists, and claiming it is not, that's the lie!

There are very sharp Religious reasons why they should do that, and still show the correct map. INTERESTING.. Ever heard of Tawriyya? Let me explain it for you in short. The Koran forbids a Muslim to lie, under penalty of the white-hot fires of Hell. But.. We already know if he becomes a Martyr, all his sins including lies will be forgotten.

But.. for a lie, you will be forgotten, if it's technically, a truth. What does that mean? Say, a Muslim has a $100 bill in his pocket. Somebody comes and asks him for a nickel. He will say: I don't have a nickel in my pockets! That's Tawriya, and Allah will have no reason to send him to Hell, because indeed he does not have a nickel in his pockets! That's a technical truth.

Erdogan, if he were asked "Are the terrorists working for you"? He could answer "Not a single terrorist is working for me". Indeed. Not one, but thousands. Allah won't punish him for that.

He could be asked: "Why did you shoot the plane down"? and he could answer "It was flying over our territory". He will not mention the reason was to protect his terrorists and their oil convoys. That's "Kitman". Saying half the truth. Allah won't punish him for that either.

As for lying to the Infidels, Allah won't punish him if he does it out of fear of the Infidels. Yes, but Islam is at perpetual war with the Infidels, until they either convert or disappear from the face of the Earth by any means, so orders Allah. So being at war with ANY infidel, a Muslim can lie to an Infidel all day and all night long! BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS AT WAR WITH ALL INFIDELS, UNTIL THERE ARE NO MORE INFIDELS! SO ORDERS ALLAH! DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THAT MEANS?

BUT THE TOUGHEST OF ALL IS THE "MURUNA" DOCTRINE. That literally explains terrorism. If you get to understand, you will be very surprised, of how you didn't know it.

If you want to find what terrorism is, and why Erdogan himself, said "There is no moderate and extremist Islam. There is only Islam". And he knew what he was talking about, learn more. So find the MURUNA concept or doctrine. You can find a better explanation here:

You can look on Google for this: "Knowing Four Arabic Words May Save Our Civilization from Islamic Takeover"

And save it before it disappears.

Remember, you won't win any battle not knowing your enemy first.

BTW, did you know where the expression "the writing is on the wall" comes from? I's origin is also explained there.

[Dec 19, 2015] Turkey Blasts Breakthrough UN Resolution On Syria It Lacks Perspective. Assad Must Go!

Notable quotes:
"... "Now, is there a way of us constructing a bridge, creating a political transition, that allows those who are allied with Assad right now, allows the Russians, allows the Iranians to ensure that their equities are respected, that minorities like the Alawites are not crushed or retribution is not the order of the day? I think that's going to be very important as well." ..."
"... Seymour Hersh Links Turkey to Benghazi, Syria and Sarin ..."
"... The assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency is that the sarin was supplied by Turkey to elements in Ghouta with the intent of "push[ing] Obama over the red line. " Intercepted transmissions from Turkish operators in the aftermath of the attack are jubilant, and the success of their covert mission must have seemed well in hand. Obama's implicit call to war in the coming month was proof of that. ..."
Dec 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Following June elections in which AKP lost its absolute parliamentary majority thanks in part to a stronger than expected showing at the polls by the pro-Kurdish HDP, Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan began to lose his mind.

The vote put in jeopardy Erdogan's bid to effectively rewrite the country's constitution on the way to consolidating his power in an executive presidency. That decisively undesirable outcome could not stand and so Erdogan did what any respectable autocrat would do: he nullified the election. First, the President undermined the coalition building process so he could call for new elections. Next, he fanned the flames of civil war and reignited a long-simmering conflict with the PKK. The idea was to scare the electorate into believing that a "strong" AKP government was the only antidote to domestic and international terror. Finally, Erdogan cracked down on the press and anyone else critical of his rule. AKP was also suspected of covertly backing attacks on HDP offices and newspapers. Some (i.e. the PKK) went so far as to suggest that Erdogan secretly worked with Sunni extremists to orchestrate suicide bombings - in other words, there's speculation Erdogan terrorized his own people.

Sure enough, AKP had a better showing at re-do elections last month, but by that point, Erdogan was on the fast track to dictatorial delirium. On November 24, he shot down a Russian fighter jet near the border with Syria in the first such direct military confrontation between Russia and a NATO member in at least six decades. And the madness didn't stop there. After Putin and the Russian MoD laid out their case against Ankara's role in financing Islamic State via Turkey's complicity in the group's lucrative oil trafficking business, Turkey sent hundreds of troops and around two dozen tanks to Bashiqa in Iraq which is right on the crude smuggling route. The deployment infuriated Baghdad and after Turkey refused to pull the troops out, Iraq went to the UN Security Council. Subsequently, Turkish troops were "attacked" by Islamic State.

The Turks claim that Iraq invited them in the past, a contention Baghdad vehemently denies. Thanks to Barzani and the Kurds, Ankara gets to claim that at least someone welcomes the Turkish troop presence (remember, despite Erdogan's hatred of the PKK and the YPG, Turkey is friendly with Erbil, which relies on Turkey to get some 630,000 b/d of what is technically illegal crude to market).

Well, for anyone who thought Turkey might be set to bow to international pressure by moving its troops north and thus back towards the Turkey-Iraq border, think again because on Saturday, Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu was out with a series of declarations that seem to suggest Turkey is going full-belligerent-retard as Erdogan scrambles to preserve the "Assad must go" narrative on the way to securing whatever Ankara's interests are in both Iraq and Syria.

First, Davutoglu said that the provision of training to the Peshmerga and Mosul militiamen is "in line with a request from Iraq authorities and as such, the mission in Iraq will continue "until Mosul is freed" from ISIS.

Ok, so two things there. The deployment is not "in line with a request from Iraq." At this point, Turkey's position has moved from comically absurd to maddeningly obstinate. How many times does Baghdad have to say that Turkey isn't invited before NATO forces Turkey to drop the "they told us we could be here" line? Further, the idea that Turkey will stay until Mosul "is liberated" from ISIS, means Erdogan plans to remain in Iraq indefinitely. As we've documented on several occasions, an operation to retake Mosul is for all intents and purposes a pipe dream and if Turkey intends to wait it out, the troops and tanks could be there for years.

Next, Davutoglu claims that the Islamic State attacks on Turkish positions in Bashiqa prove Turkey "is right." "Right" about what, it's not clear, but what's interesting is that the attacks came just as ISIS launched its first major offensive in northern Iraq since July in a move that US officials say was likely designed to disrupt preparations for an assault on Mosul. The point: all of this is rather conveniently timed.

Davutoglu then slammed a UN Security Council resolution agreed in New York on Friday. The meeting of foreign ministers was tipped by John Kerry in Moscow on Tuesday and when discussions ended, diplomats adopted a resolution which purports to draw a road map for ending the war in Syria. As WSJ notes, the resolution "left unresolved divisions among world powers on key issues in the conflict."

Which "key issues", you ask? Well, the only ones that matter - namely, i) the fate of Bashar al-Assad and ii) which groups should be recognized as "terrorists" and which should be awarded the "moderate opposition" badge.

"Both issues were left out of the resolution after an hourslong meeting of foreign ministers in New York on Friday failed to reach a compromise and at one point verged on collapse," WSJ goes on the recount, adding that "Russian and Iranian diplomats said the question of Mr. Assad wasn't discussed on Friday because neither of their countries would accept a deal that calls for Mr. Assad's exit, even at the end of a political transition period."

As we've said on too many occasions to count, Syria is absolutely critical for Tehran when it comes to preserving Iranian influence and ensuring that the so-called "Shiite crescent" doesn't wane. For Russia, this is a chance to supplant the US as Mid-East superpower puppet master and Moscow isn't about to see it slip away by agreeing to a resolution that makes Assad's ouster a foregone conclusion.

For Turkey, the absence of a decision on Assad's future is maddening. The Security Council resolution "lacks realistic perspective," Davutoglu said on Saturday, before adding that the "Syria crisis can only be solved if Bashar al-Assad leaves power."

Consider that, and consider the fact that, as we reported yesterday, Ankara is now establishing a military base in Qatar in order that the two country's might work more closely on tackling "common enemies."

What we're beginning to see here is the formation of three alliances in the Mid-East: 1) Russia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq; 2) Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar; 3) Britain, France, and Germany. The first alliance is pro-Assad, anti-terror. The second is anti-Assad, pro-Sunni extremist. The third is anti-Assad (although less vehemently so), anti-terror (conspiracy theories aside). Note that we've left the US out. Why? Because Washington is now stuck. The US wants desperately to maintain coordination with Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha, but between stepped up media coverage of Saudi Arabia's role in underwriting extremism (via the promotion of Wahhabism) and hightened scrutiny on Erdogan's role in financing terrorists, the position is becoming increasingly untenable. But aligning solely with the UK, France, and Germany entails adopting a more conciliatory approach to Assad - just ask Berlin which, as we reported on Friday, is now working with Assad's intelligence police and may soon establish a base in Damascus.

With that in mind, we'll close with the following from Obama, which underscores the extent to which the US is now thoroughly confused as to what to do next:

"Now, is there a way of us constructing a bridge, creating a political transition, that allows those who are allied with Assad right now, allows the Russians, allows the Iranians to ensure that their equities are respected, that minorities like the Alawites are not crushed or retribution is not the order of the day? I think that's going to be very important as well."

JustObserving

First try the sarin gas supplying war criminal, Erdogan

Turkey supplied the sarin that killed over 1300 Syrians in Ghouta to try to get the Nobel Prize Winner to bomb Assad into oblivion

Seymour Hersh Links Turkey to Benghazi, Syria and Sarin

The assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency is that the sarin was supplied by Turkey to elements in Ghouta with the intent of "push[ing] Obama over the red line." Intercepted transmissions from Turkish operators in the aftermath of the attack are jubilant, and the success of their covert mission must have seemed well in hand. Obama's implicit call to war in the coming month was proof of that.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/06/seymour-hersh-links-turke...

WTFRLY

White House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015

Turkey killed and American reporter to protect the lies. British reporter Jackie Sutton was found dead a year to the day in Istanbul airport...

DeadFred
There aren't that many Turkish troops in Iraq, they can be removed with Iraqi Army and Shiite militia ground troops. The Russian can fly CAP but they shouldn't be involved beyond that. The purpose of Erdogan's insanities is to goad Putin into doing something that will bring NATO against him. He's been wise enough to avoid that so far. The Western economies are a gnats eyelash from collapse so all he needs to so is wait. Maybe selling a few shares of SPY at the right time would help or giving a few billion to some untracable players who call for delivery on their gold futures. I hope he's patient, the end-game is upon us but the fewer nukes that get used the better.
two hoots

Israel, where are you in all of this? Oh, see below:

Forget Qatar/Russia pipelines.

Israel/Turkey/US/NATO connection found here: "That would allow Turkey to reduce its energy dependence on Russia and open up a new market for Israeli and U.S. developers of a new natural gas project off the Israeli coast." (WSJ)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-turkey-poised-to-renew-diplomatic-relations-1450438539

Nat Gas in Israel waters: "Israel has proposed that EU countries invest in a multi-billion euro pipeline to carry its natural gas to the continent, noting that the supply from Israel would reduce Europe's current dependence on natural gas from Russia." (Start Up-Israel)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-pitches-massive-natural-gas-pipeline-plan-to-europe/

It could be a whole new NG game? And what thinks Russia/Qatar in all of this?

[Dec 19, 2015] The Exception

Notable quotes:
"... "Our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt, and that incompetence, ineptitude, lack of accountability is now dangerous Carly won the sound bite of the century award with that one! ..."
"... I voted for this turd because you Rightwingnut Fuckheads gave me the option of McCain the first time and Romney the second time. ..."
Zero Hedge

FireBrander

I expect the lies....but the level of lies when it comes to "fighting ISIS" is off-the-fucking-charts!...and no one calls him on it!

>The USA/NATO Created ISIS.

>The USA/NATO is using ISIS to oust ASSAD because he's too friendly with Russia/Iran.

>The USA/NATO FUNDS ISIS via Turkey.

Obama: "ISIS is a seriously threat, they are contained and we will destroy ISIS"

Bill Clintons' mouth has got to be gaping; and I'm sure thoroughly impressed that Obama could tell a whopper like that without question...NOT ONE REPUBLICAN at the debate even called Obama on ISIS!

Neil Patrick Harris

You gotta wonder how much money they promised him when he leaves office.

Peter Pan

Unfortunately Obama is beyond being a threat. He ( and whoever is pulling on his strings) is an actual attack on America.

FireBrander

"Our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt, and that incompetence, ineptitude, lack of accountability is now dangerous" Carly won the sound bite of the century award with that one!

..and the new budget bill will fully fund ALL OF IT's desires....

FireBrander

I voted for "this turd" because you Rightwingnut Fuckheads gave me the option of McCain the first time and Romney the second time.

You're welcome for my vote saving you from those fuckheads...McCain would have nuked the planet by now and Romney would have handed the country to his VC friends and you'd be living in a "dorm" putting together iPhones.

Romney criticised Obama in one of the debates because "The number of battleships in our fleet is the lowest since the 50's"...battleships? Romney, you stupid fuck, it's 20xx you moron...battleships are pretty irrelevent in today's "theater of war"...Obama held it together and replied, I give the Admirals EVERYTHING THEY ASK FOR...and Romney dropped it.

Great ZH piece on Romney; what a piece of shit:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-03-17/rip-truman-show-bubble-finance-...

[Dec 18, 2015] How low can oil prices go? Opec and El Niño take a bite out of crudes cost

Oil is a valuable chemical resource that is now wasted because of low prices... "The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers."
Notable quotes:
"... Iran wont flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference. ..."
"... Those who predict very low prices dont understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this years peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place. ..."
"... If oil prices remain very low until 2025 itll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. ..."
"... But Im with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again. ..."
"... Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? Theyre currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but lets take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day - 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day - 35 years. ..."
"... The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly? ..."
"... Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. Im betting the Saudis real target is the Russians. ..."
"... In 1975 dollars, thats $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal). ..."
"... I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time ..."
Dec 16, 2015 | The Guardian

Fernando Leza -> jah5446 15 Dec 2015 06:12

Iran won't flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference.

Those who predict very low prices don't understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this year's peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place.

Fernando Leza -> SonOfFredTheBadman 15 Dec 2015 06:05

If oil prices remain very low until 2025 it'll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. I prefer your vision, of course. But I'm afraid most of your talk is wishful thinking. Those of us who do know how to put watts on the table can't figure out any viable solutions. Hopefully something like cheap fusion power will rise. Otherwise you may be eating human flesh in 2060.

Fernando Leza -> p26677 15 Dec 2015 06:00

Keep assuming. I'll keep buying Shell stock.

MatCendana -> UnevenSurface 14 Dec 2015 03:36

Regardless of the breakeven price, producers with the wells already running or about to will keep pumping. Better to have some income, even if the operation is at a loss, than no income. This will go on and on right until the end, which is either prices eventually go up or they run out of oil and can't drill new wells.

But I'm with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again.

Billy Carnes 13 Dec 2015 19:52

Also this hurts the states...Louisiana is now in the hole over 1.5 Billion or more

TomRoche 13 Dec 2015 12:31

@Guardian: Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? They're currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but let's take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day -> 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day -> 35 years.

That's just Saudi (allegedly) proven reserves. But it's plenty long enough to push atmospheric GHG levels, and associated radiative forcing, to ridiculously destructive excess.

The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers.

TomRoche -> GueroElEnfermero 13 Dec 2015 12:14

@GueroElEnfermero: 'Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly?'

Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. I'm betting the Saudis' real target is the Russians.

Sieggy 13 Dec 2015 11:49

In 1975 dollars, that's $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal).

Carambaman 13 Dec 2015 10:25

I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time

[Dec 17, 2015] Putin hails Donald Trump as bright and talented

economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs said... December 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM
Putin hails Donald Trump as 'bright and talented'
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/12/17/putin-hails-donald-trump-bright-and-talented/CCIktxBPs0ax3bGNMz7yqO/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
Vladimir Isachenkov - Associated Press - December 17, 2015

MOSCOW - Russia and the US agree on a general approach to settling the Syrian crisis, President Vladimir Putin said Thursday, saying that Moscow stands ready to improve ties with Washington.

Putin also said that Russia will continue its air campaign in Syria until a political process starts, and lashed out at Turkey for trying to ''lick the Americans in some of their private parts'' by downing a Russian warplane. ...

Commenting on relations with Washington, Putin said that Russia supports a US-drafted U.N. Security Council resolution on settling the Syrian crisis, presented by US Secretary of State John Kerry during his visit to Moscow earlier this week.

''In general, we like it,'' Putin said. ''I believe that the Syrian authorities should be OK with it too, although they may not like something in it.''

He added that ''concessions must be made by both sides'' to end the conflict that has killed more than 250,000 and turned millions into refugees since 2011.

He said the Russian approach, ''strangely as it may seem, coincides with the US vision: joint work on a constitution, creation of instruments of control over future early elections, holding the vote and recognizing its results on the basis of that political process.''

''We will help settle this crisis in every possible way,'' Putin said. At the same time, he reaffirmed Russia's stance on the key issue that divided Russia and the West, the fate of Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the Syrians themselves must determine who rules them. ...

Already on his way out of the hall, he was asked about US presidential candidate Donald Trump and praised him as a ''very bright and talented man,'' adding that he welcomes the Republican's pledges to establish closer ties with Russia. ...

[Dec 17, 2015] The Putin-Did-It Conspiracy Theory

Notable quotes:
"... It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel has reported . Putin's only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act. ..."
February 15, 2015 | readersupportednews.org

The actually "incontrovertible" facts about the Ukraine crisis are these: The destabilization of President Viktor Yanukovych's elected government began in November 2013 when Yanukovych balked at a proposed association agreement promoted by the European Union. He sought more time after the sticker shock of learning from Kiev economic experts that the deal would cost Ukraine $160 billion in lost revenue by cutting trade with Russia.

It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel has reported. Putin's only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act.

Yanukovych's decision to postpone action on the EU association prompted angry demonstrations in Kiev's Maidan square, largely from western Ukrainians who were hoping for visa-free travel to the EU and other benefits from closer ties. Putin had no role in those protests – and it's insane to think that he did.

In February 2014, the protests grew more and more violent as neo-Nazi and other militias organized in the western city of Lviv and these 100-man units known as "sotins" were dispatched daily to provide the muscle for the anti-Yanukovych uprising that was taking shape. It is frankly nutty to suggest that Putin was organizing these militias. [See Consortiumnews.com's "When Is a Putsch a Putsch."]

Evidence of Coup Plotting

By contrast, there is substantial evidence that senior U.S. officials were pushing for a "regime change" in Kiev, including an intercepted phone call and various public statements.

In December 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover, reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations." In early February, she discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leaders of Ukraine should be. "Yats is the guy," she declared, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]

The Maidan uprising gained momentum on Feb. 20, 2014, when snipers around the square opened fire on police and protesters touching off a violent clash that left scores of people dead, both police and protesters. After the sniper fire and a police retreat - carrying their wounded - the demonstrators surged forward and some police apparently reacted with return fire of their own.

But the growing evidence indicates that the initial sniper fire originated from locations controlled by the Right Sektor, extremists associated with the Maidan's neo-Nazi "self-defense" commandant Andriy Parubiy. Though the current Ukrainian government has dragged its feet on an investigation, independent field reports, including a new one from BBC, indicate that the snipers were associated with the protesters, not the Yanukovych government as was widely reported in the U.S. media a year ago.

The worsening violence led Yanukovych to agree on Feb. 21 to a deal guaranteed by three European countries. He accepted reduced powers and agreed to early elections so he could be voted out of office. Yet, rather than permit that political settlement to go forward, neo-Nazis and other Maidan forces overran government buildings on Feb. 22, forcing Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.

The U.S. State Department quickly deemed this coup regime "legitimate" and Nuland's choice, Yatsenyuk, emerged as Prime Minister, with Parubiy put in charge of national security.

In other words, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukraine crisis was started by the EU through its mishandling of the association agreement, then was heated up by the U.S. government through the work of Nuland, Pyatt and other officials, and then was brought to a boil by neo-Nazis and other extremists who executed the coup.

[Dec 17, 2015] Neocon Influence on Angela Merkel

February 21, 2007 | Dialog International
Is Angela Merkel getting bad advice from Washington neocons through their representative in Berlin? Now we read that Jeff Gedmin - the head of the Aspen Institute in Berlin - is meeting on a regular basis with the Chancellor to instruct her on the Bush administration's line:

Angela Merkel relies on the advice of Jeffrey Gedmin, specially dispatched to Berlin to assist her by the Bush clan. This lobbyist first worked at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) [2] under Richard Perle and Mrs. Dick Cheney. He enthusiastically encouraged the creation of a Euro with Dollar parity exchange rate. Within the AEI, he led the New Atlantic Initiative (NAI), which brought together all the America-friendly generals and politicians in Europe. He was then involved in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority and that this would only be possible by "discouraging European calls for emancipation." [3] Finally he became the administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies (CCD), which argues in favour of a two-speed UN, and became director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin [4]. Subsequently he turned down the offer from his friend John Bolton [5] of the post of deputy US ambassador to the UN so as to be able to devote himself exclusively to Angela Merkel.

Elsewhere we read that Chancellor Merkel receives daily briefings from the neocon stalwart Gedmin:

Gedmin "brieft" die Kanzlerin täglich: Er hat damit die Rolle inne, die bei der Stasi die Führungsoffiziere hatten. Wenn wir uns noch Demokratie nennen wollen, dann muss Merkel gezwungen werden, die Inhalte dieser täglichen "Briefings" dem Land offenzulegen. In anderen Ländern gibt es dafür Gesetze, die "Freedom of Information Act" heissen.

Could this be true? I hope not. Gedmin is known for his columns in the conservative daily Die Welt where he reports on the marvelous successes the Iraq War. And who can forget Gedmin's column during last summer' s Israel/Lebanon War where he wrote about how Hezbollah fighters drank the blood of their victims in Lebanon? If Angela Merkel is looking for good advice, there are much more honest and intelligent resources than Jeff Gedmin.

[Dec 17, 2015] Why Merkel betrays Europe and Germany

Note that the quality of translation from German of this article is low.
Notable quotes:
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ..."
"... Bild and Die Welt ..."
"... In 2003, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder opposed the Anglo-American intervention in Ira q. Angela Merkel then published a courageous article in the Washington Post ..."
"... As Stanley Payne, the famous American historian said about Spain (or any western democracy) that now politicians are not elected but chosen by apparatus, agencies and visible hands of the markets ..."
"... Merkel is publicly supported by Friede Springer , widow of West German press baron, Axel Springer , whos publishing conglomerate, the Springer Group secretly received around $7 million from the CIA in the early 1950s. ..."
"... She is counseled by Jeffrey Gedmin. Gedmin is a regular columnist in Die Welt , a publication of the Springer Group. After becoming administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies and director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin in 2001, Gedmin devoted himself exclusively to Merkel . Gedmin was too involved in the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority and that this would only be possible by discouraging European calls for emancipation . ..."
"... In a few years, Merkel has destroyed European solidarity, annihilated the German nuclear power plants (an old American obsession too), impoverished Germans and their once efficient Rheinisch and solitary economy, backed the mad dog American diplomacy and created along with an irresponsible American administration (irresponsible because America will never win this kind of conflict) a dangerous crisis against Russia than can end on a war or a scandalous European partition. ..."
Mar 06, 2015 | PravdaReport

One must understand the reasons of Angela Merkel's behaviour. She obeys America and her Israeli mentor ('Israel is Germany's raison d'être'???), she threatens and mistreats Europe; she attacks Russia and now she builds a new sanitary cordon (like in 1919) in order to deconstruct Eurasia and reinforce American agenda in our unlucky continent. Now Merkel advocates for the rapid adoption on the most infamous and perilous treaty of commerce in history, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership). Dr Roberts has recently explained the meaning of 'Fast Track' expression and a courageous Guardian, last 27th may, has exposed the corruption of American Congress on this incredible yet terrible matter.

Why is Merkel so pro-American and anti-European?

Let us explain with the data we know the reasons of such nihilist and erratic behaviour.

  • Angela Merkel is not from East Germany (east-Germans are pro-Russian indeed, see lately the declaration of generals). She was born in Hamburg in 1954 (Federal Republic of Germany). Shortly after her birth, her family made the unusual choice of moving to the East. Her father, a pastor in the Lutheran church, founded a seminary in the German Democratic Republic and became director of a home for handicapped persons. He enjoyed a privileged social status, making frequent trips to the West.
  • She became politically involved in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (Free German Youth), the state organisation for young people. She rose within the organisation to the post of Secretary of the Agitprop department, becoming one of the main experts in political communication in the communist system. She enjoys selling her convictions.
  • In November 1989 The CIA attempted to take over by recruiting senior individuals. One month later, Merkel changed sides and joined the Demokratischer Aufbruch (Democratic Revival), a movement inspired by the West German Christian Democrat party. As we know from history, these political parties in Europe are neither Christian nor democratic. They just serve American and business agendas. In order to avoid a mass exodus from the East to the West, Merkel argued strongly in favour of getting the GDR to join the market economy and the Deutschmark zone. Ultraliberal but never popular in Germany, her thesis finally imposed itself in Germany, like that of Sarkozy, her fellow neocon in France who definitely ousted any rest of Gaullism in this country.
  • Her second husband, Joachim Sauer, was recruited by the US Company Biosym Technology, spending a year at San Diego at the laboratory of this Pentagon contractor. He then joined Accelrys, another San Diego company carrying out contracts for the Pentagon. Of course Accelrys is traded on NASDAQ...
  • Helmut Kohl and his closest associates had apparently accepted money from obscure sources for the CDU. Angela Merkel then published a heroic-comical article in the Foreign Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in which she distanced herself from her mentor. One can check that she repeatedly betrays her protectors... and electors (whose median age is of sixty).

Angela Merkel was then publicly supported by two press groups. Firstly, she was able to count on the support of Friede Springer, who had inherited the Axel Springer group (180 newspapers and magazines, including Bild and Die Welt). The group's journalists are required to sign an editorial agreement which lies down that they must work towards developing transatlantic links and defending the state of Israel. The other group is Bertelsmann.

Angela Merkel radically rejects European independence

In 2003, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder opposed the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq. Angela Merkel then published a 'courageous' article in the Washington Post in which she rejected the Chirac-Schröder doctrine of European independence, affirmed her gratitude and friendship for "America" and supported this scandalous and ridiculous war. I quote some lines of this interesting act of submission to her American lords:

  • Because of decisive events, Europe and the United States now must redefine the nucleus of their domestic, foreign and security policy principles.

  • Aid to Turkey, our partner in the alliance, is blocked for days in the NATO Council by France, Belgium and Germany, a situation that undermines the very basis of NATO's legitimacy.

  • The Eastern European candidate countries for membership in the European Union were attacked by the French government because they have declared their commitment to the transatlantic partnership between Europe and the United States. She then threatens France, then a free country run by Chirac and Villepin, and advocates for what Gore Vidal quoted 'the perpetual war'... involving a 'perpetual peace':

  • Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely.

  • Germany needs its friendship with France, but the benefits of that friendship can be realized only in close association with our old and new European partners, and within the transatlantic alliance with the United States.

Yet Merkel won the elections in 2007. She announced the abolition of graduated income tax, proposing that the rate should be the same for those who only just have what is necessary and those who live in luxury: maybe this is the a result of her Christian education?

The outgoing Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, severely criticized this proposal in a televised debate. The CDU's lead was decimated, and in the actual election, the CDU polled 35% of the votes and the SPD 34%, the remainder being spread amongst a number of small parties. The Germans didn't want Schröder any longer, but nor did they want Merkel. I repeat that she was imposed more than elected. As Stanley Payne, the famous American historian said about Spain (or any western democracy) that now politicians are 'not elected but chosen' by apparatus, agencies and 'visible hands' of the markets

These last weeks, "Mother" Merkel tries to re-launch the proposed merger of the North American Free Trade Area and the European Free Trade Area, thereby creating a "great transatlantic market" to use the words once pronounced by Sir Leon Brittan, a famous paedophile involved in scandals and bribes since, and mysteriously found dead a couple of months ago.

Let us se now some of their connections:

  • Merkel is publicly supported by Friede Springer, widow of West German press baron, Axel Springer, who's publishing conglomerate, the Springer Group secretly received around $7 million from the CIA in the early 1950's.
  • She is counseled by Jeffrey Gedmin. Gedmin is a regular columnist in Die Welt, a publication of the Springer Group. After becoming administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies and director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin in 2001, Gedmin devoted himself exclusively to Merkel. Gedmin was too involved in the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority and that this would only be possible by "discouraging European calls for emancipation".

We have never been so far from 'emancipation' now in Europe, and never been so near to a war with Russia and maybe (in order to satisfy American gruesome appetite) with Central Asia and China. In France, 61% of the people who had witnessed the war asserted in 1945 that we were saved by the Russian Army. Now, thanks to American propaganda backed by European collaborators, we are hardly 10% to know that fact. The rest is misled by propaganda, media, TV and films. Daniel Estulin speaks of a remade, of a re-fabricated past by US television and media agencies.

In a few years, Merkel has destroyed European solidarity, annihilated the German nuclear power plants (an old American obsession too), impoverished Germans and their once efficient Rheinisch and solitary economy, backed the 'mad dog' American diplomacy and created along with an irresponsible American administration (irresponsible because America will never win this kind of conflict) a dangerous crisis against Russia than can end on a war or a scandalous European partition.

See also: Germany Americanizes Europe

[Dec 17, 2015] A Blind Eye Toward Turkey's Crimes

Notable quotes:
"... The Official Story of the sarin attack – as presented by Secretary of State John Kerry, Human Rights Watch and other "respectable" sources – firmly laid the blame for the Aug. 21, 2013 atrocity killing hundreds of civilians outside Damascus on Assad. That became a powerful "group think" across Official Washington. ..."
December 16, 2015 | consortiumnews.com

A Blind Eye Toward Turkey's Crimes

To make the story even more compelling, an opposition leader braves the wrath of the autocrat by seeking to expose these intelligence schemes, including the cover-up of key evidence. The autocrat's government then seeks to prosecute the critic for "treason."

But the problem with this story, as far as the American government and press are concerned, is that the autocratic leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is in charge of Turkey, a NATO ally and his hated neighbor is the much demonized Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Major U.S. news outlets and political leaders also bought into the sarin deception and simply can't afford to admit that they once again misled the American people on a matter of war.

The Official Story of the sarin attack – as presented by Secretary of State John Kerry, Human Rights Watch and other "respectable" sources – firmly laid the blame for the Aug. 21, 2013 atrocity killing hundreds of civilians outside Damascus on Assad. That became a powerful "group think" across Official Washington.

Though a few independent media outlets, including Consortiumnews.com, challenged the rush to judgment and noted the lack of evidence regarding Assad's guilt, those doubts were brushed aside. (In an article on Aug. 30, 2013, I described the administration's "Government Assessment" blaming Assad as a "dodgy dossier," which offered not a single piece of verifiable proof.)

However, as with the "certainty" about Iraq's WMD a decade earlier, Every Important Person shared the Assad-did-it "group think." That meant - as far as Official Washington was concerned - that Assad had crossed President Barack Obama's "red line" against using chemical weapons. A massive U.S. retaliatory bombing strike was considered just days away.

... ... ...

But the "group think" was resistant to all empirical evidence. It was so powerful that even when the Turkish plot was uncovered by legendary investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh, his usual publication, The New Yorker, refused to print it. Rebuffed in the United States – the land of freedom of the press – Hersh had to take the story to the London Review of Books to get it out in April 2014. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Was Turkey Behind Syria Sarin Attack?"]

... ... ...

In statements before parliament and to journalists, Erdem cited a derailed indictment that was begun by the General Prosecutor's Office in the southern Turkish city of Adana, with the criminal case number 2013/120.

Erdem said the prosecutor's office, using technical surveillance, discovered that an Al Qaeda jihadist named Hayyam Kasap acquired the sarin.

At the press conference, Erdem said, "Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However, despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims that it is fighting terrorism."

Erdem said the released operatives were allowed to cross the border into Syria and the criminal investigation was halted.

Another CHP deputy, Ali Şeker, added that the Turkish government misled the public by claiming Russia provided the sarin and that "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a U.S. military intervention in Syria."

Erdem's disclosures, which he repeated in a recent interview with RT, the Russian network, prompted the Ankara Prosecutor's Office to open an investigation into Erdem for treason. Erdem defended himself, saying the government's actions regarding the sarin case besmirched Turkey's international reputation. He added that he also has been receiving death threats.

"The paramilitary organization Ottoman Hearths is sharing my address [on Twitter] and plans a raid [on my house]. I am being targeted with death threats because I am patriotically opposed to something that tramples on my country's prestige," Erdem said.

[Dec 16, 2015] Cornering Russia, Risking World War III

Notable quotes:
"... "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic partnership between 1985-89. ..."
"... "And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... "TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct. ..."
"... "Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the think tanks. … None of this exists today. … ..."
"... In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically. ..."
"... unfortunately, today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing America's leadership in the world. ..."
"... Washington's disinclination to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily reckless. ..."
"... As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically through sanctions and other financial measures , in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination to try to avoid war is leading to war. ..."
"... Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger," whom no one needs fear. ..."
"... In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon, or to prepare for war. ..."
Consortiumnews
Official Washington is awash with tough talk about Russia and the need to punish President Putin for his role in Ukraine and Syria. But this bravado ignores Russia's genuine national interests, its "red lines," and the risk that "tough-guy-ism" can lead to nuclear war, as Alastair Crooke explains.

We all know the narrative in which we (the West) are seized. It is the narrative of the Cold War: America versus the "Evil Empire." And, as Professor Ira Chernus has written, since we are "human" and somehow they (the USSR or, now, ISIS) plainly are not, we must be their polar opposite in every way.

"If they are absolute evil, we must be the absolute opposite. It's the old apocalyptic tale: God's people versus Satan's. It ensures that we never have to admit to any meaningful connection with the enemy." It is the basis to America's and Europe's claim to exceptionalism and leadership.

And "buried in the assumption that the enemy is not in any sense human like us, is [an] absolution for whatever hand we may have had in sparking or contributing to evil's rise and spread. How could we have fertilized the soil of absolute evil or bear any responsibility for its successes? It's a basic postulate of wars against evil: God's people must be innocent," (and that the evil cannot be mediated, for how can one mediate with evil).

Westerners may generally think ourselves to be rationalist and (mostly) secular, but Christian modes of conceptualizing the world still permeate contemporary foreign policy.

It is this Cold War narrative of the Reagan era, with its correlates that America simply stared down the Soviet Empire through military and – as importantly – financial "pressures," whilst making no concessions to the enemy.

What is sometimes forgotten, is how the Bush neo-cons gave their "spin" to this narrative for the Middle East by casting Arab national secularists and Ba'athists as the offspring of "Satan": David Wurmser was advocating in 1996, "expediting the chaotic collapse" of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that "the phenomenon of Baathism" was, from the very beginning, "an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy."

Moreover, apart from being agents of socialism, these states opposed Israel, too. So, on the principle that if these were the enemy, then my enemy's enemy (the kings, Emirs and monarchs of the Middle East) became the Bush neo-cons friends. And they remain such today – however much their interests now diverge from those of the U.S.

The problem, as Professor Steve Cohen, the foremost Russia scholar in the U.S., laments, is that it is this narrative which has precluded America from ever concluding any real ability to find a mutually acceptable modus vivendi with Russia – which it sorely needs, if it is ever seriously to tackle the phenomenon of Wahhabist jihadism (or resolve the Syrian conflict).

What is more, the "Cold War narrative" simply does not reflect history, but rather the narrative effaces history: It looses for us the ability to really understand the demonized "calous tyrant" – be it (Russian) President Vladimir Putin or (Ba'athist) President Bashar al-Assad – because we simply ignore the actual history of how that state came to be what it is, and, our part in it becoming what it is.

Indeed the state, or its leaders, often are not what we think they are – at all. Cohen explains: "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic partnership between 1985-89.

"And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia.

"Many people in politics and in the media don't want to call it this, because if they admit, 'Yes, we are in a Cold War,' they would have to explain what they were doing during the past 20 years. So they instead say, 'No, it is not a Cold War.'

"Here is my next point. This new Cold War has all of the potential to be even more dangerous than the preceding 40-year Cold War, for several reasons. First of all, think about it. The epicentre of the earlier Cold War was in Berlin, not close to Russia. There was a vast buffer zone between Russia and the West in Eastern Europe.

"Today, the epicentre is in Ukraine, literally on Russia's borders. It was the Ukrainian conflict that set this off, and politically Ukraine remains a ticking time bomb. Today's confrontation is not only on Russia's borders, but it's in the heart of Russian-Ukrainian 'Slavic civilization.' This is a civil war as profound in some ways as was America's Civil War."

Cohen continued: "My next point: and still worse – You will remember that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Washington and Moscow developed certain rules-of-mutual conduct. They saw how dangerously close they had come to a nuclear war, so they adopted "No-Nos,' whether they were encoded in treaties or in unofficial understandings. Each side knew where the other's red line was. Both sides tripped over them on occasion but immediately pulled back because there was a mutual understanding that there were red lines.

"TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct.

"Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the think tanks. … None of this exists today. …

"My next point is a question: Who is responsible for this new Cold War? I don't ask this question because I want to point a finger at anyone. The position of the current American political media establishment is that this new Cold War is all Putin's fault – all of it, everything. We in America didn't do anything wrong. At every stage, we were virtuous and wise and Putin was aggressive and a bad man. And therefore, what's to rethink? Putin has to do all of the rethinking, not us."

These two narratives, the Cold War narrative, and the neocons' subsequent "spin" on it: i.e. Bill Kristol's formulation (in 2002) that precisely because of its Cold War "victory," America could, and must, become the "benevolent global hegemon," guaranteeing and sustaining the new American-authored global order – an "omelette that cannot be made without breaking eggs" – converge and conflate in Syria, in the persons of President Assad and President Putin.

President Obama is no neocon, but he is constrained by the global hegemon legacy, which he must either sustain, or be labeled as the arch facilitator of America's decline. And the President is also surrounded by R2P ("responsibility-to-protect") proselytizers, such as Samantha Power, who seem to have convinced the President that "the tyrant" Assad's ouster would puncture and collapse the Wahhabist jihadist balloon, allowing "moderate" jihadists such as Ahrar al-Sham to finish off the deflated fragments of the punctured ISIS balloon.

In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. President Obama privately may understand the nature and dangers of the Wahhabist cultural revolution, but seems to adhere to the conviction that everything will change if only President Assad steps down. The Gulf States said the same about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. He has gone (for now), but what changed? ISIS got stronger.

Of course if we think of ISIS as evil, for evil's sake, bent on mindless, whimsical slaughter, "what a foolish task it obviously [would be] to think about the enemy's actual motives. After all, to do so would be to treat them as humans, with human purposes arising out of history. It would smack of sympathy for the devil. Of course," Professor Chernus continues, "this means that, whatever we might think of their actions, we generally ignore a wealth of evidence that the Islamic State's fighters couldn't be more human or have more comprehensible motivations."

Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically.

America lies far away from Syria and the Middle East, and as Professor Stephen Cohen notes, "unfortunately, today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing America's leadership in the world."

It is a meme of perpetual national insecurity, of perpetual fears about America's standing and of challenges to its standing, Professor Chernus suggests.

But Europe is not "far away"; it lies on Syria's doorstep. It is also neighbor to Russia. And in this connection, it is worth pondering Professor Cohen's last point: Washington's disinclination to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily reckless.

Cohen again:

"The false idea [has taken root] that the nuclear threat ended with the Soviet Union: In fact, the threat became more diverse and difficult. This is something the political elite forgot. It was another disservice of the Clinton Administration (and to a certain extent the first President Bush in his re-election campaign) saying that the nuclear dangers of the preceding Cold War era no longer existed after 1991. The reality is that the threat grew, whether by inattention or accident, and is now more dangerous than ever."

As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically through sanctions and other financial measures, in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination to try to avoid war is leading to war.

Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger," whom no one needs fear.

In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon, or to prepare for war.

Alastair Crooke is a British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West. [This article also appeared at the Conflicts Forum's Web site and is republished with permission.]

[Dec 14, 2015] Barack Obama warns leaders of Islamic State in speech: 'you are next'

Notable quotes:
"... There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions. ..."
"... Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state military alliance to fight terrorism. ..."
"... Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare? When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US, and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a future carve up of Iraq and or Syria. ..."
"... Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me. Just my opinion. ..."
"... Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. ..."
"... Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist. ..."
"... We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. ..."
"... The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance, munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive. ..."
"... The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan. ..."
"... The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism. ..."
"... I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil supplies - at sea and in their home countries. ..."
"... Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them. ..."
"... The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us. ..."
"... What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned, there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time. ..."
"... What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic. ..."
"... More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups. ..."
The Guardian


ricohflex 14 Dec 2015 22:26

Talk big but no action. Hot air. Everybody knows now.
After the Syria red line fiasco, the whole world knows US president makes empty promises.
In the next TV broadcast, he will give excuses why he cannot do it. Then he will repeat "No Boots On The Ground". Then the US president will blame Congress for not giving him permission to do the most basic things.
...
Now in end-2015 Obama has only ONE thing on his mind.
He wants to preserve the legacy of his presidency.
He does not want to do anything to risk the presidency being blamed.
He does not want to take any mis-step.
It is a Zero Risk environment in the White House now.
He dares not even reveal the truth on what country's air space the SU-24 was flying in, when it was shot down.
It will just be TALK from now on until the next president takes over in 2016.


wardropper -> LupusCanis 14 Dec 2015 22:21

There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions.


GerdT 14 Dec 2015 22:21

Looking out the window I can see the hills that mark the border to Cambodia and not far away Vietnam. I still remember the speeches given during the Vietnam War and how close victory was. The bombs dropped on these countries including North Vietnam during the war exceeded what was dropped during WWII in the Atlantic/European and the Pacific theater of war. Still, it was a US helicopter that left from the American Embassy in Saigon that concluded that war, with the US going home and into denial about the outcome of that war.

The apocalypse foreseen by the prophets of doomsday painting a picture of an Asian continent that would turn into a communist infested threat to human kind didn't happen.

I have been recently in Vietnam and Cambodia and seen that people get on with their lives and economies that try to improve for the coming ASEAN community. Without help from western countries they have started to rebuild what was left of their countries after the champion of democracy had left. As the peanut farmer and former President Jimmy Carter said, the destruction was mutual and hence Vietnam didn't deserve any compensation for the unbelievable collateral damage caused by US intervention in this country. If the US was really trying to protect democracy or as Bill Clinton described it protecting National Security, which he defined as US business interests and given the US a right to interfere in any country that tries to threaten them, is a debatable point.

During the following decades the US again would raise terror and war in countries to ensure that the branding of democracy they preferred would be exported. South Vietnam hadn't been a democracy when the US decided to send troops across and the political leaders of that country came from the military, granting themselves the titles of president and minister, but holding the country in the same grip as in the North the communist did. From South America to the Middle East the US supported groups and leaders that were favorable to US business interests. The Taliban were a useful tool to drive out the Soviet Union only to become a haven for Bin Laden and his followers. Iraq has turned into a political and humanitarian nightmare and ISIL that was as a startup supplied with weapons and training by the US to drive out Assad from Syria is now the greatest threat to world peace according to the US.

We only have to take a look at the close friends and allies of the US in the Middle East and South America to understand how they spell democracy and human rights. Maybe it is time to listen to the millions of people with families that want to live in peace and are tired of foreign interference in their countries. Instead of supplying arms and support to people that favor the western or eastern political view, we should start to invest and rebuild these countries to ensure they can become equal and respected partners within the global community.

Phil Atkinson 14 Dec 2015 22:18

What a joke! Ashton Carter to visit the Middle East to jockey along the Arab states - the same people that the USA supplies weapons to, that end up with terrorists. Or Turkey, that erstwhile NATO member which has been stealing Syrian oil and selling it to Israel and speaking of Israel, that country still illegally occupying the Golan Heights in Syria and aiding and abetting Al-Nusra Front fighters and bombing inside Syria.

Ashton Carter is a dangerous fool, who believes his own government's propaganda. He should be kept at home.

SomersetApples 14 Dec 2015 22:08

Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state military alliance to fight terrorism.

Informed17 14 Dec 2015 22:08

If ISIS does not do what Obama says, US-led coalition of 60+ countries will destroy another pair of Islamist excavators. I am sure ISIS leaders are scared shitless.

RocketSurgeon 14 Dec 2015 22:03

Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare?
When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US, and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a future carve up of Iraq and or Syria.

Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me.
Just my opinion.

readerofgrauniad -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 22:01

But who are the good boys in this? To end the war, Asad is probably the best option, and compared to IS he looks like a saint.


wardropper -> Lech1980 14 Dec 2015 21:59

Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. I would imagine our enemies over there number about 50 million by now, and nobody in human history has been able to survive having that many enemies...

Thomas Hancock 14 Dec 2015 21:55

Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist. The thing you learn from history is that no one learns anything from history. Maybe someone can get a time machine and go back to kill Ho Chi Minh, and Vietnam will be a capitalist paradise. This is the same strategy that helped create ISIS in the first place.

Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:55

We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. What is the point?

1ClearSense -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 21:48

Is that right? You mean when they hit 1050 oil tanker trucks, that's nothing? US followed up hitting 300. They stopped oil revenues for ISIS, and reduced their revenues by 50 %. The number of sorties they have run on ISIS has been considerably more than US. They have also hit other terrorists to secure the rear, so Syrian troops can move on ISIS. You guys are brainwashed.


Budovski Ximples -> AaronClausen 14 Dec 2015 21:42

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-turkey-and-saudi-arabia-shock-western-countries-by-supporting-anti-assad-jihadists-10242747.html


pierotg LupusCanis 14 Dec 2015 21:42

"the US has killed 23,000 ISIL members in airstrikes"

Who told you? Disney Channel? Anyone can lie to you as long as you are behind a TV screen. It's quite an easy task (having sufficient intelligence resources and money of course)... It's incredibly obvious it would be sufficient hitting the financing of those mercenaries or not to buy the oil they are selling. You know all that "intelligence resources, analysts, linguists, SIGINT experts...". If only the US government wanted really. And yet what is ISIS? Quite a volatile entity... looks like franchising terror... IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh will "desappear" when it won't be useful anymore. And they will only find a new name whenever a new proxy ground army should be required.

"Kremlinbot"? The cold war revamping has seduced you. Let me rimand you this facts:

  • In 2014 the USA has spent in its military expenditure more than 600 Bn $.
  • Russia is around 80.
  • It's been estimated that after WWII the USA caused the death of about 30 million people all over the planet (challenging Stalin scores).

You'll find the facts... Not on Disnet Channel though.

After the dissolution of USSR it was clear that it was not "the enemy" anymore. Yet the Ministry of Defence (and its industry) need powerful and fearsome enemies!
Et voilà, despite what the Ministry fo Truth says, after 20 years of tranquillity it's Russia getting sourranded by military bases along its borders, losing Ukraine (and possibly its strategic Crimea) and now directly challenged in Syria (where they have military bases). Doesn't Russia have the right to "defend" itself and have allies? They have a Ministry of Defense too...

What if Russia had intervened to topple king Salman of Suadi Arabia because of him being a fearsome dictator? Yet no one did nothing when the "arab spring" was brutally repressed in the region (with the help of the USA).

It's quite hard not to admit the USA has been quite agressive and active ... So whose to blame for this warfare and new cold war tensions? You might be more biased and less Whitehousebot.

PS
Of course I'm not russian.

Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:40

At it's core ISIS, ISL, DEASH, call them what you will, are a murderous death cult using jihad and the establishment of a califate as their raison d'etre. They are an ideology, an idea. No amounts of bombing or taking territory will annihilate that idea. Perhaps it should be the Islamic world that tackles this threat, starting with first and foremost, our foremost arms purchasers, Saudi Arabia.

Shatford Shatford 14 Dec 2015 21:34

Asked if Obama had consciously chosen to make his rhetoric more aggressive for public benefit, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said when the president meets the national security council, "he is not looking at public opinion polls".

Obvious bullshit. It's this kind of Hilary Clinton-like waffling rhetoric and pandering to opinion polls is what is driving the popularity of Donald Trump's campaign.

Nolan Harding 14 Dec 2015 21:25

The Islamic state is surrounded by hostile forces, they are under siege so how are they getting ammunition, refined gasoline, food, internet service and all thier Toyota trucks. Obviously the forces surrounding them are not that hostile. A real siege would have seen them starving to death years ago. Like in Leningrad...now THAT was a siege and REAL war, not this strategic game the deluded masses think is a ' war'.


JMWong 14 Dec 2015 21:24

Obama has missed the opportunity to announce that hw would the bunch of criminals consisting of Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rumsfeld, Allbright, McCain, Cameron, Hollande, etc. to the International Tribunal for trial for their crimes against humanity. They have murdered millions of people.


bunkusmystic -> burnel 14 Dec 2015 21:18

Have a look at the latest Isis videos they have all the latest American weapons ... How do you think they get them? Is it private citizens in Saudi who buy them or the government ... The Saudis want the Iraqi and Syrian oil fields and they are using this Isis fabrication to get them. If the coalition is so serious about fighting Isis how is it that thousands of oil tankers pass through turkey each day? With no one noticing??? It's only Russia who is taking real action


tjmars 14 Dec 2015 21:17

This is to draw the heat-seeker foreign press away from the Mad Turk Erdogan who is fake-begging the Russians to prove the accusations that Erdogan Jr is running "red-stained oil" to major buyers on the Turkish black market...
Ooops!...don't want to know who those 'terrorist supporting capitalists" are!...
Is this an example of 'laissez-faire" in Late Capitalism...a "bubble" for risk-taking investors?
Whew! Its a good thing "Soylent Green" was a fictional commodity in movies or the funeral homes would be void of any "dead meat" for ritual burials..
Thanlks to Capitalism, we will one day see the mythical "dog-eat-dog" aphorism come to light with "god-damned" good profits...
The western central bankers weren't 'standing behind the curtain" pulling the levers of power again were they?
Do a litmus test on their 'red tooth and claw' mentality...
Hey where did they go?
Obama made them disappear with his speech!


clashcr 14 Dec 2015 21:14

Hmm, not a word about Assad. Well US policy about radical Islam - take your pick there are nearly 20 groups in Syria - is about it being overt and not covert. So, they are pleased when radicals show their faces and establish territory because it attracts more radicals to leave the west to go there to be killed. The other result may be that the moderates like the Muslim Brotherhood who may seriously have been talking about a pan-Islamic Caliphate and Sharia law have seen their cause put back by decades.


JMWong -> sage10 14 Dec 2015 21:12


If the USA wants to fight ISIS, it must attack ISIS at its source, that is, the countries where the ISIS fighters originate. This means Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the USA itself, UK, France, etc. Bomb these countries and the sources of ISIS fighters will dry up.

sashasmirnoff 14 Dec 2015 21:09

I apologize for deviating slightly from this story, but I have a link to share concerning what would usually be considered a sensational story, but this paper has neglected to cover it. A Turkish Parliamentarian has come forward with documented proof that in 2013 Turkey supplied IS with the components to manufacture Sarin gas and facilitated their transport to the IS in Syria. I have no idea why the Guardian doesn't consider this to be newsworthy.

https://www.rt.com/news/325825-sarin-gas-syria-turkey/

sage10 14 Dec 2015 20:59

I still see nothing but a PR blitz here. The strategy has not changed. The claims of success are over-rated. ISIS still controls large swathes of territory; and more importantly, it has shown it can project power internationally...all the way to the US...through sleeper cells and lone wolf attacks. The only way to deal with such a pernicious organization is a full on-the-ground massive combined arms assault: armor, air power, and heavy infantry. It won't take a Desert Storm type campaign, as ISIS is no where near as large as Saddam's army; but it will take a real coordinated military campaign with boots-on-the-ground to seize and hold territory. No question about that. Obama won't commit to that type strategy, so it will be up to the next President to do so, as ISIS will still be around by then, given Obama's reliance solely on air power.


giorgio16 14 Dec 2015 20:59

...is Obama aware that Russia is already fighting isis,...and from the right side?... or he is pretending he is in charge now?
...Saudis are fighting shias in Yemen on one side, creating a humanitarian disaster no one wants to acknowledge, and Assad in Sirya on the other creating another disaster convenniently blamed on Assad by Obama and co...interesting times ahead...


TomGray 14 Dec 2015 20:43

Obama used the same decapitation tactic against Al Queda. Al Queda destabilized because of it and morphed into ISIS. There is no shortage of people who want to become leaders in any organization. Obama's tactics may hinder ISIS but they will not cause the organized violence that it currently represents to disappear. The players may change but the game remains the same.

Decapitation can only be part of an effective strategy and so far Obama has not demonstrated that he has the capability to draw together the other essential elements


ID4352889 -> DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 20:41

Saudi flew thousands of Jihadists out of Syria a while ago and sent them to Libya. It is well documented. The West did not interfere. Presumably for the same reasons they didn't interfere with the Turkey/Daesh oil scam.


DelOrtoyVerga 14 Dec 2015 20:35

Hurry up Obama before the Ruskies steal your thunder! or the few sparks that are left by now that is...
Mwahahaha...

I'm sure these special forces, these token "boots on the ground" you are sending will be exclusively focusing on ISIL and are not being sent to undermine the Syrian government or their allies, I repeat the special forces ARE NOT BEING SENT TO UNDERMINE THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT OR THEIR ALLIES.

HowSicklySeemAll 14 Dec 2015 20:26

Why did the US wait until now to 'drop more bombs than ever before'?

Russian foreign minister recently stated that:

"We have noticed that the US-led coalition stepped up its fight against IS only after Russia dispatched a combat air group to Syria. The coalition efforts undertaken in Syria earlier could be described as odd, to say the least This brings to mind NATO's operations in Afghanistan We don't want the fight to be feigned."

DomesticExtremist 14 Dec 2015 20:13

Can we assume from this that the fix is in: Kilary has been selected for Pres and Obomber has to roll the pitch on her behalf so that she can hit the ground running?

"We came, we saw, they died. (insane cackle)."

Look out for some killer blow to be landed on the Donald soon.

Sualdam -> meewaan 14 Dec 2015 20:10

The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance, munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive.

MrJanuary 14 Dec 2015 19:55

Well done Russia for mobilizing the worlds second largest military force, the USA, in Syria against ISIS.


robertthebruce2014 -> MasonInNY 14 Dec 2015 19:48

We love Putin here in Europe, at least he defends European interests. The USA is only defending Saudi and Israeli interest. We are currently in the process of breaking up the NATO coalition. The USA can stick with Turkey, Israel, and the Saudis.


pierotg 14 Dec 2015 19:43

December 2015: "We are hitting Isil harder than ever" .

July 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU

!!! Look at the eys of that general behind, please! He was falling almost asleep and then ... frozen! Is it just my impression? That would be really hilarious if we weren't talking about war and crimes against humanity.

Please, stop lying this way.
This is far too much. This is alienating.

The USA and UK governments are loosing all that was left of their credibility and reliability in the last decade and the only strategy left seems to make the big lie bigger than ever. This is like shouting at the world "I can do whatever suits me and f**k the rest!"
Even their relationships with their EU partners have proved slick.

I've been listening to politicians speeches and interviews lately and found myself thinking: "That autocrat and ex KGB agent ruling Russia sounds much less hypocrite and far more competent". What if you could choose between Putin or Trump to represent your country (just as if they were sport pros you could hire for your team)?

This is far too much. This won't do any good and nuclear weapons can still destroy our planet in 30 minutes. Whoever is behind this mess what's going to profit then? This is obscene incompetence and fearsome irresponsibility.

In my teens Steve Stevens's Top Gun Theme got me goosebumps... On my Strat guitar there has been a Union Jack pickguard for 25 years... What shall I tell my son when he will ask me why I removed the original white one? I'm getting quite embarrassed.

Is it the End of the World as We know it? Yet I don't feel fine.


1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 19:40

Yemen is the poorest Arab country with limited resources. The Saudis, along with a slew of other Arab regimes have been bombing the Yemeni military and Houthi militia who were clearing up Al Qaeda out of Yemen pretty good, for 9 months.

In the summer the Saudis and UAE sheiks decided to send ground forces to "liberate" Yemen. Other than taking some part of southern Yemen with the help of separatists and jihadis of all sort, they failed in their mission. A single attack on Saudi military caused dozens of Saudi and Emarati dead. The Emaratis decided on Colombian mercenaries, the Saudi paid Sudanese military to send troops. Yesterday the Yemenis killed a large number of these mercenaries (anywhere between 80 to 150) including the Saudi commander and another high official and a Emarati officer.

Southern Yemen, the "Saudi liberated" areas is being taken over by al Qaeda piece by piece, and also ISIS has become very active. The idea that these Arab regimes can be productive in anything to defeat jihadi terror is a pipe dream. It is all about public relations and having "Sunni Arabs" along to defeat "Sunni Arabs" jihadis. This is so completely miscalculation that will backfire. Saudis and their crew have no desire or ability to defeat the wahhabi terrorists. The time has come to see it as what it is, the only way to defeat the jihadi terrorists is teaming up with the people who are being successful, and that doesn't include the Arab tyrannies.


Panda Bear -> Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:33

Did your father know offices controlled by the \British at Suez were apparently given over to the Moslem Brotherhood? UK used Islamic extremists back then and US has continued the policy it appears.

I was recently reminded of Churchill's speech about the possibility of Germans invading Britain... "We'll fight them on the beeches" etc. Wonder if the Germans would have considered the British fighters terrorists if they had managed to occupy Britain?
Occupation by foreign forces is ok if it's our forces or our allies and our enemies cannot resist or they are designated as terrorists... National Sovereignty is disregarded whole sale by US/NATO and allies.

One rule for us, another for 'them'! Hypocrisy reigns supreme.


Steven Wallace -> Zara Thustra 14 Dec 2015 19:32

haha ok well thats too simplistic Mr Zarathustra . The issue with Islamic fundamentalism is that it uses a religion to kill innocents without targeting anyone of any real importance . The Koran has not changed like the New Testament but I really do not believe that modern day Muslims who pray would all wish to kill me because I am not a Muslim .

That scare mongering is simply a distraction ,as George Bush said " Who is this Bin Laden ?" Well I would have said " You know him George ,his family financed your oil business ,they are friends of your family ".

All Muslims are scary to us while the real issues are being ignored 24/7

The Bible is full of evil concepts ,why not consider ourselves in the West as evil Christians ?

Not me though ,I'm an atheist


LewisFriend -> Miramon 14 Dec 2015 19:32

Well Assad wasn't massacring people either till their was an uprising.. Yet in Syria people were a lot more free than Saudi.. They also don't have the CIA on the ground encouraging one. Be under no illusions the ruling Saudi clique are animals.


WatchEm 14 Dec 2015 19:30

Barack Obama warns leaders of Islamic State in speech: 'you are next'

Threats like that are enough to get my parrot squawking with laughter - forget any "terrorists" or anyone with a live brain cell.

Yet more tries to reassure a domestic audience, who unlike the majority of nations, apparently live in fear, and need convincing that the USG is doing something and "leading the way" in their declared "War on Terrorism". It's like having to tolerate listening to the banality of what purports to be US "news networks".

Unfortunately, after around 10,000 bombing runs and predictable time-wasting talk, the message is still not sinking in that the Grand Master Plan of 'leading the way' is a failure and reduced to hope that they can stop terrorism by 'taking out' some leadership. Yep, heard that one before. The USG 'defeated terrorism' by 'taking out' Al Queda leaders - a number of them 34+ times. Al Queda no longer exists - not.

Instead of 'leading from the rear' and expecting other nations to clean up the carnage and havoc left over by US adventures into the Middle East, perhaps the USG could find a few non-torturers, non rapists and no members of US death squads and clean the region up with their own trash collectors as 'boots on the ground'. Well... no harm in dreaming and fantasising it might work and "we can win, win, win" ...

So, bottom line, order more bombs with taxpayers funds Carter, and pretend you matter while the 'leader' continues the infantile rhetoric for US consumption, just as his predecessor did. May the US people and people in other victim nations be saved from US 'little men' - both 'generals' and politicians.


PS Try not to bomb innocent men, women and children on the ground during the bombing runs. They never deserved your slaughter, carnage, death squads and torture the last time around and don't need a US euphemism, "collateral damage", to justify their deaths. But of course, counting bodies is not a topic of conversation in the Rogue Regime of the West. It only matters if it is US men, women and children who are slaughtered while the US regime role play fighting for "democracy and freedom" by "leading from the rear".


Panda Bear -> MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:21

Some of them are very busy bombing Yemen to destruction and recruiting mercenaries in places such as Columbia to help! The situation for citizens in Yemen is dire, some areas described as on the verge of famine partly due to the embargo that is also imposed.

JMWong 14 Dec 2015 19:09

This speech shows the hypocrisy of the Americans. In fact, as it was made clear many times before, the real objective of the USA is to invade Syria, to destroy Syria and to murder as many Syrians as possible, including its President, Assad. The USA had the same objective with regards to Iraq and Lybia. Iraq was invaded and destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were murdered by the coalition of the willing led by the USA. The lives of tens of millions Iraqis have been destroyed. Its President, Saddam Hussein was murdered. In the case of Libya, the same coalition of the willing, led by the same USA, bombed Libya for six months. It was the greatest terrorist attack over the last ten years. It was six months of terror for millions of Libyans everyday for over six months. More than thirty thousand Libyans were murdered in this exceptional terror attack, including its President, Kaddafi. Now, the USA is leading the same coalition of the willing to murder hundreds of thousand Syrians. Assad must go, chant the USA and its f...king partners. We heard the same chant with regrda to Saddam Hussein and Kaddafi. Saddam Hussein must go. Kaddafi must go. As if the USA with its f.. Partners are the ones to choose who should and should not rule Iraq, Libya and Syria. ISIS was created, is funded, trained armed and supported by the USA and its willing partners. For more than one year that they are bombing Syria, they did not see the thousands and thousands of trucks carrying robbed oil from Syria to Turkey. And now Obama, flanked by thecriminal Ash Carter, a creature of McCain, claims that he is determined to fight ISIS. Since many of the ISIS fighters come from the USA, UK, France, why do you not start by bombing the USA, UK, France. Why start with Syria?

Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:05

Because truth has no place in the modern political theatre . Truth is down to perception and when you control the media you control the truth .Remember NORID ,when the US funded the IRA against the UK ? The IRA used bombs to kill many innocents in their resistance to the British occupation . My brother was a soldier in the British Army and believed he was doing the right thing by going to Northern Ireland . After reflection he now feels he was wrong to be a part of that situation .My father served in Egypt during the Suez Crisis and felt he was right to be there and later questioned why so many young lads were sent to such a inhospitable foreign land . The reason always comes down to money .

MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:04

"in recent weeks we've unleashed a new wave of strikes on their lifeline, on their oil infrastructure..."

I don't see no bombs falling on Turkey?

illbthr22 -> ObambiBot 14 Dec 2015 18:54

Your country provides nothing positive to the world. I watch American movies, eat American food, listen to American music. Russia doesn't exist to me. The only time i hear Russia mentioned is when Russia is threatening war with someone or 2 drunks are beating each other up on youtube.


supercool -> BG Davis 14 Dec 2015 18:49

Again read my comment. The way the war on drugs is waged and fought. It is never ending, murky and with so many dubious allegiances.

The war on terror is never ending, murky and with so many dubious allegiance. For example we exported Jihadism to Afghanistan to defeat the invading communist Soviet's, they eventually morphed to the Taliban who then gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda. Which formed an affiliate branch in Iraq after our invasion in 2003 and which morphed into the Islsmic state.


HollyOldDog -> stonedage 14 Dec 2015 18:48

Obama is the first black American President but that doesn't mean that he is the first sensible one.


Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:46

As someone who is old enough to have lived under two great Presidents and three great-but-flawed Presidents, I'm saying that Obama is a 2nd-rater at best. A hundred years from now he'll be a triva-question President like Millard Fillmore or Grover Cleaveland.

OscarAwesome 14 Dec 2015 18:44

Sure, this is typical political spruiking. Obama doing the Commander in Chief thing, proclaiming PROGRESS, reaffirming how bad the 'enemy' are, saying tough things as a response to the accusations of weakness by US conservatives (who are coy about what their actual alternative to Obama's approach is because it probably looks very much like catastrophic full invasion foolishness of George W's Iraq war), blah, blah, we've seen it all before on countless occasions.

The situation in Syria in particular is ridiculously complex and consists of a plethora of detail and options for action about which we will all have wildly divergent opinions.

But there is a part of this that is simple. There are practically zero options for dealing with ISIL/IS/ISIS/whatever besides killing them. They seek no negotiations, offer no potential compromise position and their take on politics is to simply kill everyone who isn't them. The lack of alternate, peaceful/diplomatic options ISIS and similar groups offer, with their preposterous Dark Ages philosophies, is in a macabre way almost refreshing.

The hard bit is how to kill/capture/degrade their capability without a) slaughtering bystanders and b) causing such carnage as to act as an ISIS recruitment agency.
For all the great many faults and excesses of the West and the larger Muslin world, ISIS

do not in any way offer a comprehensive socio-political alternate system of government with a vestige of logical appeal to humanity (unlike, say the threat communism represented in the 20th century). They have some vague pipe dream of apocalyptic conflict where the other 99.999% of the human race is either slaughtered or magically converted to embracing the reversal of human history by 1,500 years. Not going to happen. Silly.

The threat ISIS represent is largely emotional. Unless you are lightning-strike like unfortunate (or they get hold of nuclear weapons) ISIS disturb our assumptions of physical safety in a symbolic way only. The histrionics generated by that fear is our real enemy.

Popeyes 14 Dec 2015 18:44

What a disappointment, I was waiting for Obama to explain just why he didn't bomb IS oil facilities, and why the U.S. are still best buddies with Saudi who it seems supplies and finances most of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Nothing new here move along.

Horst Faranelli 14 Dec 2015 18:43

...but the spot oil price is squeezing the heart out of Russia.

Panda Bear -> GustavoB 14 Dec 2015 18:43

There have been reports for a while (since Russia began bombing) that Isis have been fleeing Syria and many commanders have relocated to Libya. Isis have overtaken one of the so called governments and are making gains, oil assets their next target I read yesterday.


Seasuka -> DoomGlitter 14 Dec 2015 18:41

Whatever America's position now, for decades they have supported and helped to arm Salafist jihadis through Saudi and the Muslim World league in opposition to any secular or perceived communist movements in the region which might threaten oil supplies. Ditto uk.


jmNZ 14 Dec 2015 18:40

The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan.

The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism.

And we wonder whether we should support Assad?
For the record, here are some undisputed facts:

30 countries, including South Africa, sent election observers to Syria and found them to be "reasonably free and fair". This was in 2014 when Basher al-Assad got 88% of the vote in the first multi-party presidential elections. Nearly half the population of Syria actually made it to the polls. Not half the electorate, half the population.

Syria is governed by 5 parties in coalition opposed by a 2 party coalition of 5 members and 77 "Independents". Assad's Baqath Party has a majority, 134 out of 250.

Syria is today's Czechoslovakia.


Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:34

"Compare his Presidency with George Bush or most previous American President's if recent years." - supercool
*
Considering that most of the Presidents that we've had over the last few decades have been mediocrities and that Bush Jr. was downright incompetent, that is truly an example of damning with faint praise.
*
*
"Obama goes into the history books as a great President who achieved so many first's"
*
To paraphrase the immortal Douglas Adams, this is obviously some strange usage of the word "great" that I was not previously aware of.


ByThePeople 14 Dec 2015 18:10

"in recent weeks'...'destroying hundreds of their (ISIL's) tanker trucks, wells and refineries. So far, ISIL has lost about 40% of the populated area it once controlled n Iraq."

Anyone else a bit shocked that after having several countries dropping bombs on ISIL for an extended period of time - that ISIL would still be in possession of hundreds of tanker trucks, wells and refineries - their 'life line'....?

A full fledged oil business in up, running and in the market to sell oil - which is obviously all being bought up and these revenues, combined with other revenue streams, have been supporting ISIL's efforts for an extended period of time.

I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil supplies - at sea and in their home countries.

Panda Bear -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:10

Homs has a cease fire, the 'moderate' terrorists have left. Syrian Arab Army and it's allies are making gains, an airport retaken yesterday. Much Isis oil trading infrastructure destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PauFSKZafr4
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/syrian-army-retakes-key-airbase-rebel-forces-eastern-ghouta-1589655831
I'm fascinated to know what the Henry Jackson Society is doing there/reporting...


ohhaiimark -> JackGC 14 Dec 2015 18:03

And here in lies the problem. The US is not serious about taking down ISIS. They are a convient bunch of psychopaths that can be used for various agendas the US has in mind. Including but not limited to weakening/removing Assad, getting Iran embroiled in costly war, terrifying domestic populations into giving up freedoms, justifying more military interventions that go against international law.

The list goes on


1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 17:59

The cult of Wahhabi terrorist supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Turkey need to be defeated. With all the public information available, we are here because of all the wrong moves by the US. It is about time to nip this in the bud. The root problem is in Saudi Arabia. In no uncertain terms US needs to tell the Arab tyrannies to stop the jihadi terror. It is obviouse US has listened to the Saudis and Qataris to create a Sunni militia in Iraq, Syria to "confront" Iran. The imaginary ghost that constantly scares Saudi tyranny. The result has been all the various head chopping terror groups. The "Sunni" Arab tyrannies will never supply troops to take over areas occupied by terrorists. Qatar demands sanitizing al Qaeda terrorist in Syria and giving them a say. It is stupid to even consider these as allies in fight against the wahhabi Islamist terrorists. Time has come to forget about removing Assad, just cooperate with Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq to take back land from all terrorists step by step, and have the legitimate government in Syria and Iraq, with their pro government militia control the ground.

TheBorderGuard -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:55

Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them.

The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us.

TonyBlunt 14 Dec 2015 17:51

"We are hitting Isil harder than ever."

Here is how hard the US and their regional allies have been hitting ISIL and the other jihadi terrorists:

bolobo -> impartial12 14 Dec 2015 17:50

Good docu about that recently. Might still be available on BBCiplayer. The Americans bought Saudi drilling rights for 2cents and the Brits bought Iraqi rights for tuppence. Twenty years later the middle easterns thought "hold on a minute," and offered a fifty-fifty split. The Americans pragmatically accepted, thus their relationship with the House of Saud, the Brits got all uppity at the natives and got kicked out.

TheSindhiAbbasi -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:45

What about billions of US military equipment in Iraq, that was captured by Daesh?

gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:40

Freeze Saudi assets and blockade all their exports until they send all that gee-whiz military equipment we sold them into this fight, and all the Saudi military we trained too.

Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them.

Panda Bear -> Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:36

"We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media."

Exactly. Russia is the old enemy, it is interfering and questioning US actions and has huge natural resources. Putin called them out in his speech at the UN...
US has been provoking Russia for some time, and is also provoking China. This may not end well for any of us and no one will stand up and demand it stops!

HAGGISANCHIPS -> ame1ie 14 Dec 2015 17:34

The nazi ideology was removed militarily. It couldn't survive because it was morally wrong and repugnant, like Daesh.

Edward Frederick Ezell 14 Dec 2015 17:27

Sending our professional agents of coercion and terror to kill people in foreign countries over which we somehow more or less claim jurisdiction is not something that is clearly beneficial in the long term although it does respond appropriately to the call for vengeance and blood from our own political actors.

Panda Bear -> Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:27

US has turned it into a proxy war with Russia and Iran and has called in the NATO allies to back them up. Obama seems to work differently to previous presidents like Bush, he seems to like to work quietly using drones and not much publicized actions and calls in the NATO and allied troops to cover their actions.

Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:23

America will do this America will do that. Well, guess what; you cannot do it on your own. You cannot make a successful strategic plan to fight Daesh without the Russians, Iranians and Syrian government forces being integral elements of such a plan.

Daesh is like an Hydra, so bombing alone cannot defeat it, it just spread it to new areas. You need to do an honest review of how Daesh was created; albeit, unintentionally, by ill-conceived American and EU/NATO policies in the Middle East and Africa.

America and EU/NATO cannot effective fight the war being waged by Daesh and Al Qaeda, until they have learned the lessons to be learned from their misguided policies, and openly acknowledged the mistakes they have made.

Sunrise_Song 14 Dec 2015 17:18

What would it be like to live in a truly peaceful and free world? All it takes is strength, foresight and the guts to be honest.

All the things the West is failing at. Obama like most Western leaders is a weaver of lies and half-truths.

How can we ever have peace until we challenge the core issue? This is an ideological fight. It's a war of minds. ISIS believe the West is a basin of sin. That our liberal and secular ways need to be destroyed and replaced by their ideologies and way of life.

Only, we can see they're wrong. That even with our faults and flaws, our belief in freedom, democracy and equality is the best way, still we defend that same ideology in our own nations.

Obama is failing the American people. Just like Merkel and Co are failing the European people.

Bombs won't stop IS.


Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:18

What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned, there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time.


TheBorderGuard 14 Dec 2015 17:13

Obama told reporters: "This continues to be a difficult fight. Isil is dug in, including in urban areas, and they hide behind civilians, using defenceless men, women and children as human shields. So even as we're relentless, we have to be smart, targeting Isil surgically, with precision."

Good luck, boss. Ask Netanyahu how it went for the Israelis when they tried to end Hamas' rocket attacks from Gaza. Because that's the kind of foe you'll be up against.


poechristy 14 Dec 2015 17:10

Someone has obviously told Obama that his Mr Nice Guy act was merely encouraging Islamic State and their supporters in the US. It's time for all Western nations to make clear that anyone involved in any way with Islamic State-funding them, promoting them, or returning from fighting for them- will feel the full force of the law. I can't understand why those returning from Syria are not immediately arrested and held to account.
I rather suspect we wouldn't be seeing the same appeasement if white supremacists were returning from a foreign land having been involved in the torture,rape and murder of ethnic minorities.


lefthalfback2 DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:06

NYT said a few days back that ISIS are looking to Surt in Libya as the spot to which they can decamp if the Heat comes down in Iraq. Does not seem likely to me since it is on the coast and could easily be struck from the sea.


Whitt DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:03

Weren't you paying attention?

(1) We have a coalition of the willing in the international War on Terror.
(2) ISIS is on their last legs. There's nothing left but a bunch of dead-enders.
(3) We're squeezing their heart in Iraq, their balls in Syria, and their spleen in Libya.
(4) There's a light at the end of the tunnel.
(5) Ve are vinning ze var!

Now get with the program and quit interfering with the narrative or it's off to Gitmo with you, me lad!


ohhaiimark 14 Dec 2015 16:58

Want to stop ISIS? It's rather simple. Sanction those who fund them. Sanction those who spread Wahhabism. Sanction those who buy oil off them....Basically sanction all of America's allies in the region.

Then work together with the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians and whoever else is willing to send ground troops in to take each town and city occupied by these scumbags one by one.

You can't defeat ISIS if your goal is also to remove Assad. That will only help ISIS. It's time to wake up from that delusion that Assad is going anywhere. Once the war is over, then we can let the Syrian people decide who will lead them through democratic elections.


Djinn666 14 Dec 2015 16:56

They've squeezed so hard that it oozed into Libya and other points on the compass, including San Bernardino.

Note to CIC Obama, However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results (Winston Churchill).


Fence2 14 Dec 2015 16:54

What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic.


DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 16:50

Meanwhile in Libya....http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/world-leaders-push-libya-peace-isil-fills-vacuum-151214044020934.html
Apparently there are 3,000 ISIL fighters in Libya at the moment. It's time President Obama and John Kerry gave us the whole story, but I guess with Saudi Arabia and Turkey being allies the US can't rock the boat too much.


dikcheney 14 Dec 2015 16:48

More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups.

The USA has been seduced and conned for decades until its entire policy is focused on fighting proxy wars to keep the middle east ablaze in the interests of others. SHAME on the dumb USA.

laguerre 14 Dec 2015 16:39

A load of rubbish. US supports the Saudis, who support ISIS. US attacks on ISIS are not serious, as the speech suggests.

[Dec 14, 2015] No Turkish fabric to make anti-Turkish T-shirts, say Russian designers

There are two possibilities here: iether Guardian pressitutes sometimes try to play degenarates or they consider their readers to be degenerates...
Notable quotes:
"... Typical The Moscow Times garbage. ..."
"... Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative. Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News. ..."
www.theguardian.com

cvneuves 13 Dec 2015 21:12

Typical The Moscow Times garbage.

Scipio1 13 Dec 2015 18:54

Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative.

Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News.

[Dec 14, 2015] The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a possible route out of the crisis

consortiumnews.com
anne,
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/12/blocking-democracy-as-syrias-solution/

December 12, 2015

Blocking Democracy as Syria's Solution By Robert Parry

The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a possible route out of the crisis – a ceasefire followed by elections in which President Assad could compete. The problem is there's no guarantee that Assad would lose and thus the dream might go unfulfilled.
By Robert Parry

The solution to the crisis in Syria could be democracy – letting the people of Syria decide who they want as their leaders – but it is the Obama administration and its regional Sunni "allies," including U.S.-armed militants and jihadists, that don't want to risk a democratic solution because it might not achieve the long-held goal of "regime change."

Some Syrian opposition forces, which were brought together under the auspices of the Saudi monarchy in Riyadh this past week, didn't even want the word "democracy" included in their joint statement. The New York Times reported on Friday, "Islamist delegates objected to using the word 'democracy' in the final statement, so the term 'democratic mechanism' was used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the meeting."

Even that was too much for Ahrar al-Sham, one of the principal jihadist groups fighting side-by-side with Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, the two key elements inside the Saudi-created Army of Conquest, which uses sophisticated U.S.-supplied TOW missiles to kill Syrian government troops.

Ahrar al-Sham announced its withdrawal from the Riyadh conference because the meeting didn't "confirm the Muslim identity of our people." Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has sought to maintain a secular government that protects the rights of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other religious minorities, but Sunni militants have been fighting to overthrow him since 2011.

Despite Ahrar al-Sham's rejection of the Saudi-organized conference, all the opposition participants, including one from Ahrar al-Sham who apparently wasn't aware of his group's announcement, signed the agreement, the Times reported.

"All parties signed a final statement that called for maintaining the unity of Syria and building a civil, representative government that would take charge after a transitional period, at the start of which Mr. Assad and his associates would step down," wrote Times' correspondent Ben Hubbard.

But the prospects of Assad and his government just agreeing to cede power to the opposition remains highly unlikely. An obvious alternative – favored by Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin – is to achieve a ceasefire and then have internationally supervised elections in which the Syrian people could choose their own leaders.

Although President Barack Obama insists Assad is hated by most Syrians – and if that's true, he would presumably lose any fair election – the U.S. position is to bar Assad from the ballot, thus ensuring "regime change" in Syria, a long-held goal of Official Washington's neoconservatives.

In other words, to fulfill the neocons' dream of Syrian "regime change," the Obama administration is continuing the bloody Syrian conflict which has killed a quarter million people, has created an opening for Islamic State and Al Qaeda terrorists, and has driven millions of refugees into and through nearby countries, now destabilizing Europe and feeding xenophobia in the United States.

For his part, Assad called participants in the Saudi conference "terrorists" and rejected the idea of negotiating with them. "They want the Syrian government to negotiate with the terrorists, something I don't think anyone would accept in any country," Assad told Spanish journalists, as he repeated his position that many of the terrorists were backed by foreign governments and that he would only "deal with the real, patriotic national opposition."

Kinks in the Process

Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters on Friday that he was in contact with senior Saudi officials and noted, "there are some questions and obviously a couple of – in our judgment – kinks to be worked out" though expressing confidence that the problems could be resolved.

A key problem appears to be that the Obama administration has so demonized Assad and so bought into the neocon goal of "regime change" that Obama doesn't feel that he can back down on his "Assad must go!" mantra. Yet, to force Assad out and bar him from running in an election means escalating the war by either further arming the Sunni jihadists or mounting a larger-scale invasion of Syria with the U.S. military confronting Syrian and now Russian forces to establish what is euphemistically called "a safe zone" inside Syria. A related "no-fly zone" would require destroying Syrian air defenses, now supplied by the Russians.

Obama has largely followed the first course of action, allowing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other Sunni "allies" to funnel U.S. weapons to jihadists, including Ahrar al-Sham which fights alongside Al Qaeda's Nusra Front as the two seek to transform Syria into a Islamic fundamentalist state, a goal shared by Al Qaeda's spinoff (and now rival), the Islamic State.

Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has termed Obama's choice of aiding the jihadists a "willful decision," even in the face of DIA warnings about the likely rise of the Islamic State and other extremists.

In August 2012, DIA described the danger in a classified report, which noted that "The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, later ISI or ISIS and then the Islamic State] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The report also said that "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in eastern Syria" and that "ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."

Despite these risks, Obama continued to insist that "Assad must go!" and let his administration whip up a propaganda campaign around claims that Assad's forces launched a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Though many of the U.S. claims about that attack have since been discredited – and later evidence implicated radical jihadists (possibly collaborating with Turkish intelligence) trying to trick the U.S. military into intervening on their side – the Obama administration did not retract or clarify its initial claims.

By demonizing Assad – much like the demonization of Russian President Putin – Obama may feel that he is deploying "soft power" propaganda to put foreign adversaries on the defensive while also solidifying his political support inside hawkish U.S. opinion circles, but false narratives can take on a life of their own and make rational settlements difficult if not impossible....

ilsm -> anne...
The Syria terror consortium was in Riyadh checking in with their bankers. To the Sunni democracy is apostate anathema.
anne -> ilsm...
I understand the frustration and beyond, after all I read about Yemen being bombed with American bombs and target sightings and I cannot imagine the policy incentives driving us.

Nonetheless, the Yemen bombings go on day on day on day.

anne -> ilsm...
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen? Who could possibly ever understand, but our policy makers act as though they do.

[Dec 14, 2015] Marine Le Pen is not alone, and that is a real problem for the EU

European nationalism is an allergic reaction to neoliberalism. Guardian does not mention Ukraine and Baltic states. also far right nationalist goverment with Baltic states imposing "Baltic version of apartheid" to Russian speaking minority.
Dec 07, 2015 | The Guardian

Such is the picture in western Europe. In eastern Europe, the nationalist right is already in power in Hungary and in Poland. Viktor Orbán in Budapest is the pioneering cheerleader. He has no opposition to speak of. His main "opposition" comes not from the centre-left but from the neo-fascist Jobbik movement. In Poland, Jarosław Kaczyński and his Law and Justice party in Poland are wasting little time in aping Orbán's constitutional trickery to entrench itself in power.

On the critical issues of the day – immigration, security and Euroscepticism – there is little to separate Orbán and Kaczyński from President Miloš Zeman in Prague and Robert Fico, prime minister of Slovakia, both on the left. Besides, on economics, the role of the state and welfare, the far-right parties are way to the left of social democracy, seeking to turn the clock back to state interventionism, full employment, generous pensions and welfare systems (for native whites, not immigrants).

What these far-right parties in east and west all share are chipped shoulders heaving with grievance – summed up as hostility to and rejection of globalisation and multiculturalism. They do not like modern life. They are anti-Muslim, anti-immigration, anti-EU, anti-American (Poland excepted), illiberal. And they like Vladimir Putin (again, except Kaczyński).

They are nationalists. This also militates against making common cause despite all the similarities in outlook, because nationalists usually see foes rather than friends in other nationalists.

... It is a tall order. The European Union has never looked so temporary and fragile.

[Dec 12, 2015] Guyenot Who are the Neocons

Notable quotes:
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.) ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Peak Prosperity

Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the deep state, that addresses the question of "Who Are The Neoconservatives." If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.

First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please put on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice or a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within a culture and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the Crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.

My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.

Who the hell are these people?!

Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):

1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)

Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism as a religious tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism, by Machiavellian means.

This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary. It is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God. This is a movement to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.

Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either.

He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.)

2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective of the radical Zionists.

The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee, which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren".

3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level

Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.

Other major points:

  • believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds.
  • nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for government and governance.
  • national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
  • to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
  • As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article "Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence" (1999), for Strauss, "deception is the norm in political life" – the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
  • George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its finest: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation, and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country. God bless America.

4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.

  • the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
  • the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
  • the second coming of Christ myth
  • the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for the Glory of God)

[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel… "the key to the harmony of civilizations", replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.

Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).

With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".

And Guyenot concludes:

Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".

Is it just a coincidence that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the biblical myths? …[W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself […] you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."

My summary:

  • We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
  • Among them are brilliant strategists
  • They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
  • They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy
  • This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
  • They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
  • They envision "winning" in the aftermath world war.
  • They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.

[Dec 11, 2015] How Far Can The Syria Conflict Spiral Out Of Control

Notable quotes:
"... By James Stafford, Editor in Chief of OilPrice. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
"... • How far the Russia-Turkey spat can go economically ..."
"... • The fallout effects for countries caught in between ..."
"... • What Russia wants ..."
"... • What Turkey wants ..."
"... • What other geopolitical purposes ISIS serves ..."
"... • Why ISIS can't be controlled ..."
"... • How Shi'ite radical groups differ ..."
"... • Why we're looking at a possible remapping of a significant part of the energy arena ..."
"... • Why we shouldn't listen to billionaire buffoons ..."
"... Larger picture of what's really going on with Turkey's intentions driven by Ergodan, Bensh's correct description of Ergo's character and flaws, and less explicitly stated US (he says "west") 1/2 ass efforts to defeat IS despite US leaders (from WH to Congress) emphatic claims otherwise… ..."
"... "Coupled with unparalleled levels of socioeconomic insecurity, Sunni marginalization produced a real social base whose attraction to ISIS goes beyond religious or ideological factors." ..."
"... ISIS may project a utopic promise of stability and prosperity, but this is far from the reality on the ground. We can be absolutely certain that it will experience its own internal revolts, as similarly declarative examples of Islamic "states" have faced in the past. ..."
"... Yet, from the point of view of Washington, a geostrategic problem lingered: how to break the Tehran-Damascus alliance. And ultimately, how to break the Tehran-Moscow alliance. ..."
"... The "Assad must go" obsession in Washington is a multi-headed hydra. It includes breaking a Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance (now very much in effect as the "4+1" alliance, including Hezbollah, actively fighting all strands of Salafi Jihadism in Syria). But it also includes isolating energy coordination among them, to the benefit of the Gulf petrodollar clients/vassals linked to US energy giants. ..."
"... Thus Washington's strategy so far of injecting the proverbial Empire of Chaos logic into Syria; feeding the flames of internal chaos, a pre-planed op by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the endgame being regime change in Damascus. ..."
"... Of course Turkey is the wild card – Erdogan is increasingly looking like he might be the spark that sets off a much larger conflict. To answer the question, I think there are a lot of really bad scenarios that could happen here, and they are a lot closer than people think (Turkey shutting down the Bosphorus, for starters.) ..."
"... It is way past time for the arrogant stupidity of Washington's neoconservatives to be exposed and for them to at a minimum be removed from the levers of power – if not tried for crimes against humanity. And that includes Obama if he is really one of them, i.e. if he believes in anything but the politics of power. ..."
"... Specifically with respect to Syria, it looks like about the best the 'West' (i.e. the US and its vassals) can hope for is some pipeline arrangement providing Europe with an alternative, a competing supplier for its energy needs. In exchange, the 'West' can agree to end its economic war against Russia, Iran et.al and get back to the business of business, i.e. exporting something other than debt and bombs. ..."
"... I remember reading years ago that the rise of the AKP, and the rising standard of living with it, was fueled directly by a large stream of cash that was funneled from the House of Saud. ..."
"... The interest must be paid… ..."
"... I think the waffling on ISIS is due to their location among Sunnis. The US would like to win Sunnis over, so they're cautious about bombing, which of course is to ISIS' advantage. ..."
"... From where I sit, the Syria conflict is an important part of a much larger one – between the 'West' and Russia. Things have been heating up again in the Ukraine. Biden gave a speech there just a couple of days ago in which he insisted that 'NATO would not rest until Crimea was returned to the Ukraine.' That's not going to happen without a war. ..."
naked capitalism

By James Stafford, Editor in Chief of OilPrice. Originally published at OilPrice

...No one can fight a war without oil, according to Robert Bensh, partner and managing director of Pelicourt LLC oil and gas company. But while the politically unhinged are coming out the woodwork, the more important aspects of this story remain elusive to the public. Is the dangerously unspoken theory that ISIS is a bulwark against Iran what's keeping the West from tackling the Islamic State wholeheartedly on its territory?

... ... ...

In an exclusive interview with James Stafford of Oilprice.com, Bensh discusses:

• How far the Russia-Turkey spat can go economically
• The fallout effects for countries caught in between
• What Russia wants
• What Turkey wants
• What other geopolitical purposes ISIS serves
• Why ISIS can't be controlled
• How Shi'ite radical groups differ
• Why we're looking at a possible remapping of a significant part of the energy arena
• Why we shouldn't listen to billionaire buffoons

... ... ...

Robert Bensh: Russia and Turkey have a great deal of economic interdependence, and nowhere more than in the energy sector. There has been no talk of cutting Russian gas to Turkey, and I don't see how Russia can afford this right now. Turkey is not only a significant customer for Russia, but it's also a key gas-transit point.

James Stafford: So what does Turkey want?

Robert Bensh: The better question is: "What does Erdogan want?" You know, Putin's probably not too far off in his statement referring to Erdogan's loss of "mind and reason". Erdogan has been going down this path little by little for some time and it's no secret that he has some megalomaniacal tendencies that grow more and more out of control every year. It would seem that he has dreams of a return of the Ottoman Empire-and that ISIS could be a logical ally to that end. Of course, ISIS is not likely looking to be beholden to another Ottoman Empire controlling a greater Sunni-Arab dominion. Many, many Turks fail to share this dream with their leader, and his ambitions will also be his eventual downfall unfortunately.

For the Turkish regime, there is also the idea that ISIS will ostensibly give them more power against the rise of the Kurds, both in southeastern Turkey and in northern Syria. It will even raise the Turks' status in the face of the Saudis whose oil wealth has make them more powerful than the Turks in many ways.

Jim McKay

Yves: I think your "quibble" is… indeed minor.

Larger picture of what's really going on with Turkey's intentions driven by Ergodan, Bensh's correct description of Ergo's character and flaws, and less explicitly stated US (he says "west") 1/2 ass efforts to defeat IS despite US leaders (from WH to Congress) emphatic claims otherwise…

These are realities. Whatever small portion of US electorate reads here, at least a few are being introduced to this. We are heading into another election with… in my view, more deeply entrenched public opinions on this based on lies, then maybe any time I recall my entire life. It's just, the game is bigger now with more potential for longer lasting catastrophe if we don't find a way to right our ship.

I appreciate this article… it's on the right track. Only other thing I'd mention: amidst all this, we've had recent international climate meetings with little progress. Clearly, this is bigger problem for entire planet that nobody will escape. I'm stuck by Bensh's comments on protecting their investments (oil) and how the various players he mentions all make decisions based on… oil. It over rides, it seems…everything else that matters.

The planet needs to get behind renewables, and develop them… fast. It's not so hard to see how doing so would change these other geo-political games forever.

financial matters

I think taking the 'businessman' look at this is not a bad way to look at it. As Adam Hanieh has pointed out

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/isis-syria-iraq-war-al-qaeda-arab-spring/

"Coupled with unparalleled levels of socioeconomic insecurity, Sunni marginalization produced a real social base whose attraction to ISIS goes beyond religious or ideological factors."

and also

"ISIS may project a utopic promise of stability and prosperity, but this is far from the reality on the ground. We can be absolutely certain that it will experience its own internal revolts, as similarly declarative examples of Islamic "states" have faced in the past.

Despite all the setbacks of the last few years, the potential growth of a genuinely left alternative has not been extinguished and, most importantly, has never been more necessary."

--

William Polk echoes this idea of the importance of a non-military and non-police response.

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/17/falling-into-the-isis-trap/

"–The results of insurgency are described in my book Violent Politics. There I have shown that in a variety of societies over the last two centuries in various parts of Africa, Asia and Europe, guerrillas have nearly always accomplished their objectives despite even the most draconian counterinsurgency tactics."

His point being that dealing with the fundamental socioeconomic imbalances/repression can be more effective.

Eureka Springs

Interesting to me as much for what is not considered by oil businessmen.

A few quick points:

  • No mention of human suffering, not even in cost/opportunity terms.
  • No mention of rule of law.
  • No mention of what happens to the earths climate/ecosystem if all the oil and gas at stake is unleashed.
  • No mention of who many of the business players are, certainly not in detail. No mention of Erdogans family, Tony Hayward, trafficking / selling this stolen oil…
  • Nor mention of Israel being the major end buyer.
  • When mentioning Assad buys oil from IS (U.S Turk Israel Saudi Qatari Qaeda Nusra) no mention of the point Assad is buying his countries own oil at the point of a gun from the thieves who stole it.
  • No mention that this uncertainty/chaos is both deliberate and a constant feature of big oil and MIC's business model.
  • No concern that more tyrants of the head chopping variety are bound to achieve or maintain power.
cassandra

…and

  • No mention of strategic significance of naval base at Tartus
  • No mention of "legal" Saudi arms purchasing and trafficking, and extremist support in Syria, Yemen and about the globe.

Brooklin Bridge

This is a good interview. Along with other posts on the subject, this is bringing a little clarity to why there is no clarity.

participant-observer-observed

Hmmm. No mention of Saudi and others in the dynamic…

for more details, read above with Escobar's Pipelineistan,
here c/o Tom Dispatch.

Jack Heape

Thanks for that link. Escobar always has some good insights. I also suggest Juan Cole. He recently had a good piece on President Erdogan.

camelotkidd

Pepe Escobar has been all over the back story of what he calls pipelineistan– http://counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipelineistan-war /

"Yet, from the point of view of Washington, a geostrategic problem lingered: how to break the Tehran-Damascus alliance. And ultimately, how to break the Tehran-Moscow alliance.

The "Assad must go" obsession in Washington is a multi-headed hydra. It includes breaking a Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance (now very much in effect as the "4+1" alliance, including Hezbollah, actively fighting all strands of Salafi Jihadism in Syria). But it also includes isolating energy coordination among them, to the benefit of the Gulf petrodollar clients/vassals linked to US energy giants.

Thus Washington's strategy so far of injecting the proverbial Empire of Chaos logic into Syria; feeding the flames of internal chaos, a pre-planed op by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the endgame being regime change in Damascus."

participant-observer-observed

Yes, thanks for that most recent Escobar piece at Counterpunch; the one i linked above is already old but still interesting.

The regime change recipe of DC has already been tried and has failed in Iraq, Libya, etc., no one can fathom any improvements replacing Assad + Isis with Isis alone, aka rag tag coalitions of jihadis! Even Saudis can hardly wish for it.

ChrisFromGeorgia

Based on reported facts on the ground (well, reported by non-US media that is) the SAA is making slow but steady progress in retaking key towns and the highway between Aleppo and Damascus. No doubt Russian air and logistical support has made a difference.

If things keep going this way, Assad will likely regain the upper hand and the Saudi/US sponsored jihadis will be confined to the eastern part of the country. It's looking like Washington will have to make a choice – accept Assad as the legitimate ruler (for now) or continue to provoke the situation with guerrilla tactics. We know from history that there is precedent for long wars against legitimate governments that displease Washington (see Daniel Ortega, Sandanistas.) My guess is they go this route and hope to eventually install a stooge.

Of course Turkey is the wild card – Erdogan is increasingly looking like he might be the spark that sets off a much larger conflict. To answer the question, I think there are a lot of really bad scenarios that could happen here, and they are a lot closer than people think (Turkey shutting down the Bosphorus, for starters.)

Steven

It is way past time for the arrogant stupidity of Washington's neoconservatives to be exposed and for them to at a minimum be removed from the levers of power – if not tried for crimes against humanity. And that includes Obama if he is really one of them, i.e. if he believes in anything but the politics of power.

This 'Arrogance of Power' has characterized US foreign policy making since the end of WWII. The U.N. was sold to the public as an arrangement for collective security so the U.S. would not have to 'make the world safe for democracy' (sic) a third time. It has been in reality nothing more than a tool for the pursuit of (perceived) US interests, promptly discarded when the principles in its charter became inconvenient.

Short of initiating the world's Mutually Assured Destruction, the U.S. is running out of options – in Syria and around the world. It may be too late for the U.S. to get serious about collective security, to tell the world 'this time we really mean it'. Having squandered economic and "too good to waste" military power in a successive string of needless wars, it may no longer be possible to convince especially those who hold the levers of power in Russia and China that we are serious about collective security and willing to accept a multi-polar world.

Specifically with respect to Syria, it looks like about the best the 'West' (i.e. the US and its vassals) can hope for is some pipeline arrangement providing Europe with an alternative, a competing supplier for its energy needs. In exchange, the 'West' can agree to end its economic war against Russia, Iran et.al and get back to the business of business, i.e. exporting something other than debt and bombs.

kgw

I remember reading years ago that the rise of the AKP, and the rising standard of living with it, was fueled directly by a large stream of cash that was funneled from the House of Saud.

The interest must be paid…

susan the other

This was really to the point, without actually making it. One thing is becoming clear – the oil wars are distilling down to natural advantage. It currently belongs to SA – but the future looks like it prefers to use Levant & east Mediterranean oil because it will be easier to pipe to southern Europe. And maybe cleaner? So everybody and their dog is fighting for access to it.

It explains Netanyahu's trip to Moscow & the French clearly in league with Russia for achieving access to this resource (why else?). And it is partly being driven by decisions to leave current oil reserves in the ground. As Palast said it is a "war for no oil."

Which in turn makes sense of Kerry's admonishing the Senate about the Iran deal – that if they want to continue to be oil brokers (petrodollar brokers) they have to come to terms with Iran because there are plenty of other nations who can step up; and of course we want our EU cousins to get a cut of Levant oil, and etc. And Russia is clearly protecting its oil interests. I wonder how long this feeding frenzy will continue.

Horatio Parker

I think the waffling on ISIS is due to their location among Sunnis. The US would like to win Sunnis over, so they're cautious about bombing, which of course is to ISIS' advantage.

tgs

From where I sit, the Syria conflict is an important part of a much larger one – between the 'West' and Russia. Things have been heating up again in the Ukraine. Biden gave a speech there just a couple of days ago in which he insisted that 'NATO would not rest until Crimea was returned to the Ukraine.' That's not going to happen without a war.

[Dec 11, 2015] Caught On Tape Ukraine Premier Assaulted In Parliament

Notable quotes:
"... lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and dragging him from the rostrum. ..."
"... As The FT reports, ..."
Zero Hedge
& Fighting broke out in parliament among members of Ukraine's ruling coalition on Friday after a member of President Petro Poroshenko's bloc physically picked up Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk and pulled him from the podium.

Yatseniuk was defending his embattled government's record when lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and dragging him from the rostrum.

Members of Yatseniuk's People Front party waded in, pushing Barna and throwing punches, sparking a brawl in the assembly.

You just can't make this up...

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2zgTl6-KWqg

The PM later said there were "a lot of morons," so he would not comment on the incident.

* * *

As The FT reports,

Ukraine's parliament has indefinitely postponed a vote of no-confidence in the government of Arseniy Yatseniuk, but not without highlighting the fragility of the country's pro-western coalition.

Citing a flurry of corruption scandals and the lacklustre pace of reforms, an increasing number of MPs - even within the ruling majority - have in recent weeks called for the ousting of Mr Yatseniuk via a no-confidence vote on Friday.

Ukraine's western backers, namely the US and EU, feared such a move could plunge the war-torn and recession-ravaged country into a deep political crisis as it continues to battle Russian-backed separatists in eastern regions - and jeopardise a $40bn international bailout led by the International Monetary Fund.

Such concerns are believed to have been expressed by US vice president Joe Biden in closed door discussions during a visit to Kiev early this week in which he publicly called for political unity, swifter reforms and deeper anti-corruption efforts.

And this is the nation's government who US-taxpayer-backed IMF just forgave their debt, implicitly backing them, and entering The Cold War...

Instead, the IMF is backing Ukrainian policy, its kleptocracy and its Right Sector leading the attacks that recently cut off Crimea's electricity. The only condition on which the IMF insists is continued austerity. Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia, has fallen by a third this years, pensions have been slashed (largely as a result of being inflated away), while corruption continues unabated.

Despite this the IMF announced its intention to extend new loans to finance Ukraine's dependency and payoffs to the oligarchs who are in control of its parliament and justice departments to block any real cleanup of corruption.

For over half a year there was a semi-public discussion with U.S. Treasury advisors and Cold Warriors about how to stiff Russia on the $3 billion owed by Ukraine to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund. There was some talk of declaring this an "odious debt," but it was decided that this ploy might backfire against U.S. supported dictatorships.

In the end, the IMF simply lent Ukraine the money.

By doing so, it announced its new policy: "We only enforce debts owed in US dollars to US allies." This means that what was simmering as a Cold War against Russia has now turned into a full-blown division of the world into the Dollar Bloc (with its satellite Euro and other pro-U.S. currencies) and the BRICS or other countries not in the U.S. financial and military orbit.

[Dec 09, 2015] Declassified CIA Manual Shows How US Uses Bureaucracy to Destabilize Governments

www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Jake Anderson via TheAntiMedia.org,

When most people think of CIA sabotage, they think of coups, assassinations, proxy wars, armed rebel groups, and even false flags - not strategic stupidity and purposeful bureaucratic ineptitude. However, according to a declassified document from 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which later became the CIA, used and trained a curious breed of "citizen-saboteurs" in occupied nations like Norway and France.

The World War II-era document, called Simple Sabotage Field Manual, outlines ways in which operatives can disrupt and demoralize enemy administrators and police forces. The first section of the document, which can be read in its entirety here, addresses "Organizations and Conferences" - and how to turn them into a "dysfunctional mess":

  • Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
  • Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.
  • When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committee as large as possible - never less than five.
  • Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
  • Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
  • Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
  • Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.

On its official webpage, the CIA boasts about finding innovative ways to bring about sabotage, calling their tactics for destabilization "surprisingly relevant." While they admit that some of the ideas may seem a bit outdated, they claim that "Together they are a reminder of how easily productivity and order can be undermined."

In a second section targeted at manager-saboteurs, the guide lists the following tactical moves:

  • In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that important jobs are assigned to inefficient workers.
  • Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw.
  • To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions.
  • Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
  • Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, paychecks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.

Finally, the guide presents protocol for how saboteur-employees can disrupt enemy operations, too:

  • Work slowly.
  • Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can.
  • Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing you from doing your job right.
  • Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.

The CIA is proud of its Kafkaesque field manual and evidently still views it as an unorthodox but effective form of destabilizing enemy operations around the world. Of course, so too might an anarchist or revolutionary look at such tactics and view them in the context of disrupting certain domestic power structures, many of which are already built like a bureaucratic house of cards.

It seems if any country should refrain from showcasing how easy it is to disrupt inefficient federal agencies, however, it would be the United States.

[Dec 08, 2015] France's cowardly elite is to blame for the rise of Marine Le Pen

That looks like a French backlash against neoliberal globalization, Against the society that cares only about top 1%.
Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit. ..."
"... the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers. ..."
"... the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is. ..."
"... France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible for the rise of far-right. ..."
"... The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term. ..."
"... Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it. ..."
"... If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will. ..."
"... What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe. It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions. ..."
"... For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also be extremely unsettling. ..."
"... Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out again. ..."
"... Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN. ..."
"... Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is to be forced on people whether they like it or not. ..."
"... The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right (or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that. The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal. ..."
www.theguardian.com
umbofreddy smarty78, 7 Dec 2015 22:01

Nougarayde was a journalist at the" Monde"; you know, this "french elite newspaper", who hate the front national and despise its supporters!

viscount_jellicoe, 7 Dec 2015 21:39

Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit.

Daniele Gatti, 7 Dec 2015 21:46

Your economic history is missing a few very important details, namely:

1) the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers.

2) there is no mention at all of the failed European monetary experiments, namely the ERM and the euro. The first was de facto dismantled in 1993 (by setting ridiculous oscillation bands) to avoid a French Black Wednesday after it had destroyed competitiveness pretty much everywhere apart from Germany and the Deutschemark area, the second is doing pretty much the same, only it was slower to compromise France than other countries because its economy is stronger than others.

The fact remains that while relatively high public spending, in violation of the Maastricht parameters, directly translates into higher inflation than Germany, which leads to loss of competitiveness, which leads to a CA deficit.

Sorry, but the French school system has absolutely nothing to do with all of the above, and the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is.

Andu68, 7 Dec 2015 21:49

Why exactly is the FN far right? The only controversial position they have is their belief there is an urgent need to restrict immigration, yet this is a position held by the majority of European's public opinion, though not by mainstream politicians and certainly not by members of the left intellectual elite like Miss Nougareyde.

LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 21:49

If I were French, I would vote FN! Why should the French give up their country to become something else. Not everyone wants to end up like Sweden...

finnrkn -> LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 22:22

Not even Sweden wants to end up like Sweden nowadays.

ClaudeNAORobot,

Perhaps the rise of the FN reflects its offering to the electorate something that they want. It's something you don't want, so, rather in the spirit of the EU's rejection of result of a referendum that gives the 'wrong' result, you seek some excuse for that that you perceive to be the ill judgement of a portion of the electorate. Democracy can be irritating, can't it?

euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:46

France's cowardly elite is to blame for the rise of Marine Le Pen

France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible for the rise of far-right.

allom8 -> euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:55

An inadequate explanation given the far right's continued rise all over Europe. The elephant in the room gets bigger with every passing day.

GodzillaJones, 7 Dec 2015 20:48

It's a reflection of politics in the West at the moment. When voters are not represented by their politicians, they look for something else, even if it's a bit unsavoury.

ID9969553, 7 Dec 2015 20:48

The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term.

WagerObe -> gunforhire, 7 Dec 2015 22:01

Interestingly though, LR did not get the voting shares lost by the PS. They went to the FN. This is not a vote. against socialism, indeed on economic questions the FN is closer to the communists than classic right-wing parties.

This is a vote against the main stream parties, and frankly it is not surprising. A succession of UMP - PS governments have changed nothing. Remains to be seen if FN can confirm the try next Sunday. If they win PACA

finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:49

Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it.

ID7475021 -> finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:57

The Nazi party in Germany used democracy to help itself climb to power... one of the problems democracy has not managed to address is how to deal with parties who use that democracy with the ultimate aim of destroying it.

finnrkn -> ID7475021, 7 Dec 2015 21:04

True enough; communist parties also subverted democracy in Eastern Europe. Beyond nationalism, though, I can't see there's much of a comparison to be made between the FN and the Nazis.

elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 20:49

If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will.

What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe. It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions.

ltm123 elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 21:09

Unfortunate those very real concerns about immigration are not very legitimate. You only have to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame for most of the things the main stream media would have you believe.

huzar30 ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:14

That really isn't the point. For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also be extremely unsettling.

elliot2511 -> ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:23

"You only have to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame for most of the things "
You may be right...but people do not want mass immigration, and more particularly, do not want mass immigration from Islamic countries. That might be fair or unfair, justified or unjustified, but surely the greater population should have some say in what their country looks like.

Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 20:50

Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out again.

Dave Beardsly -> Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 21:13

Democracy in action. Unlike the UK

Is it a better democracy? Or is it something to do with a more impartial, fairer, press? Because however bad our democracy is or isn't, we know for sure our press can make and break anyone it chooses.

Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 20:51

"But the fact that such a question can now legitimately be raised is in itself a trauma for all those who care about democracy."

In plain English: a democratic party that has managed to purge its past, re-defined itself and convinced 6 million citizens to vote for it....is nothing more than a trauma. If anything, the democratic trauma is a system whereby party A. can win the most votes only to be knocked out in round two by party B. dropping out and lending its votes to party C.

This is a recipe for allowing bland, elitist politicians to stay in power forever.

Mark Steven -> Conway Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 22:22

Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN.

Magicmoonbeam2, 7 Dec 2015 20:53

The so called elite have become accustomed to ruling independently of their electorates because for years their electorates had nowhere else to go. Now that their electorates have somewhere else to go, the brown squishy stuff is hitting the fan.


Quiller -> Dave Beardsly, 7 Dec 2015 21:29

Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is to be forced on people whether they like it or not.

Any nation, people or politician who questions the new ideology is categorised as backward and reactionary. Secret meeting are held to push the issues forward. People of the sovereign nations of Europe have not signed up to the Federal Europe - France and other nations rejected the European Constitution. Nonetheless the ideologues press the issues forward onto the people.

The latest revolt has been over the issue is immigration by Germany and Sweden - their initial action was - "we can do it !". When it dawned on them that they could not, they have tried to bully their way through the other sovereign nations via government structures, the European Union and the UN.

Following the atrocities in France, Beirut, Ankara, Nigeria, Syria - the people are deciding they do not want to be a part of the change to the multicultural environment. Why would they when they perceive the change to be a retrograde step. If the current political party that one has voted for does not serve one's interests or they appear to be a political party with no clothes, then it is time to move on to a different political representative party. Of course - the smear continues against political parties that do not have the ideologues view.

allom8, 7 Dec 2015 20:57

The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right (or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that.

The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal.

Koolio, 7 Dec 2015 21:03

"none of the mainstream parties have been able to address the many social and economic ailments"

They've never tried. French politicians promise bold visions of the past as they keep trying to reheat and perpetuate policies that generate the record unemployment and entrenched structural inequalities while hoping if they say "républicain" ten times a day nobody will question their consistent failure.

Even the politicians are stale, for example the Républicains are fighting over whether to back proven failure Sarkozy or convicted criminal Juppé (albeit gifted a crony-style presidential pardon by his ex-boss Chirac). Given choices like this no wonder millions of voters dissatisfied by Hollande and Valls skip to the FN.

bally38, 7 Dec 2015 21:08

Marine Le Pen has no solution for France's problems, her economic programme is all about retreating from the outside world and Europe.

My understanding of the FN economic policy. Withdraw from the Euro. Close the borders. Put up a high tariff wall around france. (Which would mean de facto withdrawal from the Single Market).

Quite how they think jobs are created in a global economy I really don't know. In some ways it would be great if they did win. Currently the eurosceptics can act all cosy with each other. Whereas in fact, their policies would amount to a mutual trade war.

MrBojangles007, 7 Dec 2015 21:08

Political dogma from the EU federalists and the invite from Merkel to all the worlds refugees is naive in the extreme. The people still love their country and most do not want a country called Europe.

Too much too soon, we do not even speak the same language around 28 countries, until we do - a country called Europe is for the birds. The Euro has not worked, open borders have not worked, the EU is in an utter mess.

FN - will always make progress when chaos reigns.

PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:29

"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy ... and a very correct one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are invariably disastrous." -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard, USS Enterprise

flowerssoft, 7 Dec 2015 21:32

France's cowardly elite are responsible because they have refused to tackle issues which negatively affect the white working class in France.

PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:35

People across the West are still scratching their heads as to why, given the large numbers of un and under employed young people, we need mass immigration, even in the face of austerity.

The only answer I ever here is: If you're not for it, you're a xenophobe. Regardless of the sharp cuts to social programmes and the lack of housing throughout Europe. And if a European Country genuinely needs unskilled workers, there are plenty of Eastern and Southern Europeans who would be happy to bridge the gap.

haunsk PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:54

There you have it in a nutshell. We are being spun,we are being played.

smarty78, 7 Dec 2015 21:37

'France's cowardly elite...'

Natalie, it's rare I agree with you, so I'll focus on our consensus with the headline.

That the other parties are now looking to form a block against FN demonstrates quite perfectly the arrogance of the French political elite and their utter contempt for democracy.
I dearly wish FN the very best of luck - at least they attend to the legitimate grievances of a significant proportion of people.
Fascist, Nazi, extremist blahblah... Bring it on and watch this space.

André Pampel, 7 Dec 2015 21:51

Ironic being that as far as economics goes extreme left and right speak almost from the same page....Mainly protectionism. What Nougayréde conviently does not say is how many people from the extreme left have gone over to the fn and that their vote is extremely high in the 18-34 age group, and the well educated in that group too. And herself was and is still part of the "establishment" so ironic criticising her chums like that....

Anneke Ruben, 7 Dec 2015 21:52

If people feel threatened, they tend to be more conservative. And frankly, I don't see a reason why France or the rest of Europe shouldn't feel threatened.. Mass unemployment, the Euro zone mess, thousands of migrants that pose as "refugees", migrants that mostly follow an unreformed religion, the mass shootings in Paris... So... Why is the left blaming the "elite" and not the ones responsible for creating this mess?

[Dec 07, 2015] If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed

ourfiniteworld.com
Fast Eddy, December 6, 2015 at 1:11 am
"If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed." – Mark Twain

We all like to know what's happening in the world, and for good reason… understanding our surroundings is essential to survival. We instinctively seek information… we need information. There is, however, a problem that we face:

No matter how much "news" you consume, you won't really know what's going on in the world.

We can't know, because 'the news' is half illusion, provided by government-dependent corporations that are paid to keep you watching and to keep you joined to the status quo.

Granted, they are quite good at providing pictures from disaster areas, but when it comes to explaining why the disaster happened, they mislead almost every time. Yes, some truth makes its way through the news machine, but most of it is wrapped in layers of manipulation. If, for example, you watch the news feeds all day, you'll find a good deal of truth, but you'll find it amongst a pile of half-truths. Do you really have enough time to analyze them all?

[Dec 07, 2015] Did Erdogan Commit Political Suicide Shahir ShahidSaless

www.huffingtonpost.com
Erdogan, desperate and angry over his losing battle to oust Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, ordered the shooting down of a Russian fighter jet. Erdogan has been actively pursuing the ouster of Assad since 2012, but Russia's recent intervention in Syria, in alliance with Iran and its highly ideologically and politically motivated proxies, has resulted in a serious setback for Erdogan's plans.

Putin's determination to destroy Turkey's proxies at the Syrian borders and to thwart Erdogan's plan to create a no-fly/buffer zone in the area has derailed Erdogan's plans for Syria. Erdogan hoped to use the buffer zone as an operational hub aimed at bringing down President Assad.

Russian attacks on Turkmen-dominated areas in Bayirbucak, where the Russian plane was downed, would also inflict serious collateral damage to Turkey. The Turkish government regards the area in north-west Syria, presently under the control of the Bayirbucak Turkmens, as an important buffer zone preventing the territorial expansion of Syria's Kurdish-minority militias, whom it regards as terrorists linked to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

Erdogan's objective in shooting down the plane was to provoke Russia into a harsh response. He hoped the response would bring Russia into conflict with the whole of NATO, which would help reverse Turkey's declining fortunes in the Syrian war.

Erdogan's calculations went terribly wrong. Following the incident, Turkey requested an emergency meeting with NATO members. Contrary to Erdogan's expectations, although, members did not support Russia, neither did they wholeheartedly support Turkey. Many members questioned Turkey's action and, according to Reuters, "expressed concern that Turkey did not escort the Russian warplane out of its airspace." In a clear indication of the suspicion among NATO members regarding Turkey's real intention behind its adventurism, some diplomats told Reuters, "There are other ways of dealing with these kinds of incidents."

Not only didn't Cold War II happen, French President Francois Hollande, who promised "merciless" revenge in the aftermath of Paris attacks, met with Putin and they agreed to form an alliance against Daesh (also known as ISIS/ISIL) in Syria. The outcome of such an alliance is that the "Assad must go" mantra will be overshadowed by the war against Daesh--something that Erdogan hated to occur. Erdogan's plan to bring the West and Russia into conflict became even more unattainable when France's move was followed by Britain and then Germany.

Turkey also lost significant room to maneuver in the post-shootdown of the Russian fighter jet. Russia, by deploying the powerful S-400 surface-to-air missile system in Hmeymim airbase near Latakia, sent a strong signal to Turkey--a de facto no-fly zone already in effect south of the Turkish-Syrian border.

Russia also sent Turkey and NATO a clear message by arming its fighter jets with air-to-air missiles. On November 30, the Russian Air Force announced that "today, for the first time ‪Su34‬ fighter-bombers departed for combat sorties with air-to-air short- and medium-range missiles.... The usage of such weaponry is necessary for providing security of the aircraft of the Russian" air force, the announcement read. ‬‬‬

Moscow also authorized numerous economic sanctions against Ankara ranging from tourism to agricultural products as well as sanctions on energy and construction projects.

Erdogan took a conciliatory stance after the incident. In a speech in Ankara, he said, "We are strategic partners ... 'Joint projects may be halted, ties could be cut'? Are such approaches fitting for politicians?" Erdogan even requested a meeting with Putin while both leaders were in Paris for the COP21 climate change conference on November 30, but Putin rejected the request.

Russians launched a heavy campaign to damage Erdogan's credibility and reputation. Vladimir Putin and numerous other Russian politicians leveled accusations regarding Turkey's sponsorship and cooperation with ISIS as well as allegations of buying oil smuggled by ISIS.

On November 30, on the sidelines of the climate change summit in Paris, Putin stated, "At the moment we have received additional information confirming that that oil from the deposits controlled by Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on industrial scale." He even went further to say, "We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil's delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers."

In response, Erdogan said he will resign as the country's president if Russia provides evidence that implicates Turkey in any oil trade with ISIS.

Later, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said, "We have repeatedly publicly stated that oil from the IS-controlled territories is transported abroad, particularly to Turkey. The facts that substantiate these claims will be formally presented in the UN in particular, and to all parties concerned."

Then on December 2, the Russian Defense Ministry held a briefing concerning ISIS funding. During the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, satellite images, and videos, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said, "According to our data, the top political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family - is involved in this criminal business."

Antonov added, "In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son-in-law has been appointed energy minister. What a marvelous family business."

On December 3, without mentioning specifics, Putin declared there was more evidence to come. "We are not planning to engage in military saber-rattling," he said. "But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime ... are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken."

At this point, it is apparent that Putin's ultimate objective is to take advantage of the opportunity presented to him to severely damage Erdogan's name and trustworthiness, both domestically and internationally, or, even better, bring him and his regime down as a perceived power behind the extremists and the anti-Assad forces in Syria. This is in line with Russia's plan for realizing its strategic objectives in Syria.

[Dec 06, 2015] With allies like Turkey, who needs enemies

Notable quotes:
"... Turkey and the U.S. State Department scoffed when Russia accused the Turkish government of being involved with smuggling ISIS oil. However, after Moscow presented convincing proof of Turkey's involvement, the Obama Administration changed its story. ..."
"... "If the American colleagues are not satisfied with those ones, they should watch videos gained by their own UAVs," the Russian Defense Ministry said on Facebook. ..."
"... The ever-changing political spin in Washington to avoid admitting the obvious looks increasingly dishonest. ..."
"... The deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, during the latter's visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4. ..."
www.dailykos.com

Turkey has sent 2,000 troops into Iraq without getting permission from Baghdad.

The Iraqi government has demanded they withdraw, calling it a "hostile act", but Ankara has decided to ignore Baghdad's wishes.

This is only the latest act that undermines the wisdom of having Turkey as a military ally.

Turkey and the U.S. State Department scoffed when Russia accused the Turkish government of being involved with smuggling ISIS oil. However, after Moscow presented convincing proof of Turkey's involvement, the Obama Administration changed its story.

While the US has long hyped the problem of ISIS oil smuggling, the recent Russian Defense Ministry presentation, showing significant evidence of Turkey being involved in buying ISIS oil and taking it to refineries run by the Turkish government, has changed their tune.
After a previous denial of the allegation against Turkey, the US is now admitting that the oil is ending up smuggled into Turkey, but insists it is "of no significance" because so much of the oil produced in ISIS-controlled parts of Syria is consumed inside Syria.
"The amount of oil being smuggled is extremely low and has decreased over time," claimed US special envoy Amos Hochstein, a stunning admission which suggests the US was well aware of oil smuggling into Turkey even before the Russian evidence.

Just in case we don't want to believe the Russian videos, Moscow has a solution.

"If the American colleagues are not satisfied with those ones, they should watch videos gained by their own UAVs," the Russian Defense Ministry said on Facebook.

The ever-changing political spin in Washington to avoid admitting the obvious looks increasingly dishonest.

With the U.S. government knowing about Turkey's government involvement (Russia's photos show ISIS oil smuggling trucks passing through border crossings without stopping), it begs the question of what our objectives actually are?

gjohnsit

Erdogan Moves To Annex Mosul

Should Mosul be cleared of the Islamic State the Turkish heavy weapons will make it possible for Turkey to claim the city unless the Iraqi government will use all its power to fight that claim. Should the city stay in the hands of the Islamic State Turkey will make a deal with it and act as its protector. It will benefit from the oil around Mosul which will be transferred through north Iraq to Turkey and from there sold on the world markets. In short: This is an effort to seize Iraq's northern oil fields.

That is the plan but it is a risky one. Turkey did not ask for permission to invade Iraq and did not inform the Iraqi government.

The Turks claim that they were invited by the Kurds:

Turkey will have a permanent military base in the Bashiqa region of Mosul as the Turkish forces in the region training the Peshmerga forces have been reinforced, Hürriyet reported.

The deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, during the latter's visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4.

There are two problems with this. First: Massoud Barzani is no longer president of the KRG. His mandate ran out and the parliament refused to prolong it. Second: Mosul and its Bashiqa area are not part of the KRG. Barzani making a deal about it is like him making a deal about Paris.

mookins

Al-masdar news-feed-thing had guncam footage of a night attack, by frogfoots with their cannons, on an ISIS truck park. Magnified view at first so you could see they were full-sized like semi's; and no casual agglomeration, these were parked efficiently in a herringbone pattern, at least 400 and I think closer to a thousand. At the film's end the whole thing is just large, neat rectangles of brightness.

So little did ISIS have to fear from an American-coalition airstrike that they had it set up like this. And now these White House statements that it was no big deal.

And Europe sees all this on the news, the ISIS we didn't fight, the flood of refugees that resulted, and sees Russia and Iran being the good guys.

I read where Putin was worried, called Merkel and Hollande to see if they were still on board with 'Minsk 2', the current ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, and they said yes they were. He was worried because Ukraine's President had said he rejected it and the U.S. had said we support that, we reject it too.

We've lost Europe. World getting better fast.

MrWebster, Dec 06 · 04:28:32 PM

Your observations are right on, but only if you assume that thee enemy is IS and Al Queda in Syria. At this point, I don't believe it is. Assad/Russians are perceived as the bigger and more important enemy for the Obama administration and the neocons to focus on. In this case, what Turkey is doing is acceptable-they are enabling opposition forces to Assad/Russians. Heck, when the Russians started bombing, the Al Nusrat Front (Al Queda in Syria) was magically transformed by the administration and the mass media into "rebels", "moderate rebels", "insurgents", "opposition".

native -> MrWebster

I wonder who gets to claim Mosel, after all the dust settles? Abadi seems to have lost all control over his nominal countrymen in the north. But will the Iraqi Kurds side with Turkey, and against their brethren just across the border?

[Dec 06, 2015] US elite strategy toward Russia is replica of UK strategy a century before

Notable quotes:
"... The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience... ..."
"... Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence ..."
russia-insider.com

merchantsofmenace

The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience...

Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence...

https://medium.com/the-eastern-project/greece-s-nazi-problem-continues-5b92ca57dc6d#.kfiaixvdm 1

YoringeTBE -> merchantsofmenace
russia-insider.com

Stratfor Chairman Straight-Talking: US Policy Is Driven by Imperative to Stop Coalition between Germany and Russia

George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor, or what is called by many "private/shadow CIA" for its well known connections and close cooperation with the CIA, gave a very interesting speech to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs on subject Europe: Destined for Conflict? in February of this year.

[Dec 06, 2015] More Planes Than Targets Why the Air War on ISIS Will Fail

www.counterpunch.org
Even if Britain's role is symbolic at this stage, it has joined a very real war against an enemy of great ferocity and experience, not least of air attacks. The highly informed Turkish military analystMetin Gurcan, writing on Al-Monitor website, says that air strikes may have been effective against Isis communications and training facilities, but adds that "it is extraordinary that there is not a single [Isis] control facility that has been hit by allied air strikes".

This is not for lack of trying and shows that talk of destroying Isis command and control centres in Raqqa is wishful thinking, given that 2,934 American air strikes in Syria have failed to do so over the last 14 months.

Air strikes have had an impact on Isis's tactics and casualty rate, above all when they are used in close co-operation with a well-organised ground force like the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). Isis may have lost as many as 2,200 fighters at Kobani which is a small and closely packed city. On the other hand, the length of time it took to drive Isis out of it with 700 air strikes demonstrated their fighters' willingness to die.

Many Isis commanders reportedly regard their tactics at Kobani as a mistake which cost the group too many casualties and which it should not repeat. To do so it sacrificed two of its most important military assets which are mobility and surprise. This does not mean that it will not fight to the last bullet for cities like Raqqa and Mosul, but it did not do so for Tikrit and Sinjar where it used snipers, booby traps and IEDs, but did not commit large detachments of troops.

Isis has modified its tactics to take account of the continuing risk of air strikes. It now has a decentralised command structure, with tactical decisions being taken by leaders of small units of eight to 10 men, whose overall mission is determined from the centre – but not how it should be accomplished. This limits the ability of its opponents to monitor its communications.

Its forces assemble swiftly and attack soon afterwards with multiple diversionary operations, as was seen when Mosul was captured in June 2014 and again when they took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, this May.

They had been fighting their way into Baiji refinery, but this turned out to be a diversion and Isis units pulled back from there as soon as Ramadi fell.

Isis's approach is to use a mixture of conventional, guerrilla and terrorist tactics, none unique in themselves, but they have never been used before in combination. Air strikes mean that it is less able to use captured tanks or big concentrations of vehicles packed with fighters. Instead it uses IEDs, booby traps, snipers and mortar teams in even greater numbers.

Public martyrdom as an expression of religious faith is such a central part of its ideology that it can deploy suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles in great numbers to destroy fortifications and demoralize the enemy. Some 28 suicide bombers were reportedly used in the final stages of the battle for Ramadi. Psychological warfare has always been an important element of Isis's tactical armory. It has sought to terrify opposition forces by showing videos in which captured Iraqi or Syrian soldiers are filmed being ritually decapitated or shot in the head.

Sometimes, the families of Syrian soldiers get a phone call from their son's mobile with a picture of his body with his severed head on his chest. Mass killings of prisoners have taken place after all Isis's victories (the al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra Front, does the same thing).

Heavy air attack will increase Isis's losses and it will be more difficult to bring in foreign volunteers through Turkey because most of the border is now closed. But Isis rules an area with a population of at least six million and conscripts all young men, who often want to become fighters because there is no other employment. Isis may have a fighting force of 100,000 men, as is strongly suggested by the very long front lines it holds and its ability to make multiple attacks simultaneously. Whatever Britain's role, we will be fighting a formidable military machine.

[Dec 04, 2015] The Neoconservative Movement is Trotskyism

"... Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy. ..."
"... Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that "Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back. ..."
"... These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement. ..."
"... As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world. ..."
"... In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had. ..."
"... For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. ..."
"... Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel. ..."
January 22, 2013 | Veterans Today

Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy.

We have to keep in mind that America and much of the Western world were scared to death of Bolshevism and Trotskyism in the 1920s and early 30s because of its subversive activity.

Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that "Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them, they keep on coming back.

These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement.

... ... ...

As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are largely extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as the Bradley Foundation were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.

Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish groups such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organization which has been known to have "co-opted" several "non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq."

Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the CATO Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas "have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour," which is another way of saying that this revolutionary movement is not what the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United States would serve the American people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign entities.

As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.

Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that the Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle East. For that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.

In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had.

... ... ...

Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals, including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.

The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel's espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward and declared it explicitly in the media because most political pundits value mammon over truth.

For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them.

In the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel is a major country that pops up quite often. This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents and U.S. officials for years.

One former U.S. intelligence official declared, "There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active countries targeting the United States.

They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons… aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable."

[Dec 04, 2015] Turkish Stream is now officially cancelled. All the eggs are now in the same basket: Nord Stream II.

Notable quotes:
"... "Firstly, Ukraine is an energy-deficient country and the tendency we observe today will continue and develop: gas production in Ukraine will decline and consumption will grow. We proceed from the assumption that the Ukrainian economy will develop successfully. The present-day level of gas consumption clearly shows that Ukraine has not solved all of its economic problems. In this regard, gas supplies to Ukraine will increase in the medium and long term. Secondly, if a merger takes place, we will load Ukraine's gas transmission system to the extent possible and it surely means additional income that is significant for the Ukrainian budget. At the same time, if the Ukrainian gas transmission system is loaded with some 95 billion cubic meters of gas per year, we know well that it may deliver 120 and even 125 billion cubic meters with a particular level of investments in modernization and reconstruction, of course. And if small investments are made in new compressor stations and pipeline loops, we may probably speak of 140 billion cubic meters of gas. However, we realize that European gas consumption will grow. According to our estimates, gas demand in Europe may grow up to 130-140 billion cubic meters of gas by the turn of 2020." ..."
"... Remember the story with biogas, wonderful – 20 per cent by 2020, and mass media start writing that it will enable escaping from dependence on Russia. Then we find out that biogas is there, together with food supply problems, etc. Then we observed the European Union's wonderful program – "20-20-20". I think, there's no need of deciphering it – everyone knows about it. And again mass media say that it will enable reducing dependence on Gazprom and Russia. The same thing is with shale gas. First, no one will cope with shale gas transportation, because it is too expensive, add transport – and it is already a business with no prospects. I have a plea for mass media – would you please stop frightening Europe, stop frightening everyone around with Russia and Gazprom. For Europe it is a real blessing that it has such a powerful neighbor with such conventional gas reserves. Exploration of non-conventionals [N.B.: Non-conventional energy resources] may end with no results, as experience of certain countries shows. So let's live in peace and friendship and contribute to strengthening Russia's contacts and ties with the European Union and Ukraine . ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
karl1haushofer, December 3, 2015 at 9:42 am
Turkish Stream is now officially cancelled. All the eggs are now in the same basket: Nord Stream II. Hopefully the US/UK/Baltics/Poland front will not be able to stop it. Because otherwise Russia is stuck with Ukraine as a transit country.
marknesop, December 3, 2015 at 10:45 am
Well, I don't think they want to stop it. They want the gas the same as before – they just want it on their own terms. Brussels wants to exercise control over whose gas goes through the pipeline, so that if they are have a "spat" with Russia, they can stop orders of Russian gas and bring some at-this-moment-unknown supplier's gas through the same pipeline, probably Azerbaijan.

Read this 2011 press conference with Gazprom; I found it while looking for a layman's explanation of what the Third Energy Package actually entails. Because it appears what is most unappealing to it from Gazprom's point of view is that it limits vital investment in gas futures, considering it would substantially restrict long-term contracts. They could be happy with you today, buying off your competitors tomorrow. According to Brussels, that's healthy competition which ensures the customer gets the best price, while Gazprom naturally prefers to deal in long-term contracts which lock the customer in, although they are usually willing to talk out a deal if it looks like the customer is really unhappy because unhappy customers are bad for business, even in the gas industry.

Right away, you notice that Europe accepts long-term contracts, but nonetheless takes the position that long-term capacity supply orders upset the market. As Gazprom correctly points out, these two views cannot reasonably coexist.

In 2011, Gazprom was still considering a joint venture with NaftoGaz Ukraine, and intended to actually increase gas transit through Ukraine while simultaneously building South Stream. They were also considering a merger, and Miller said if that came about, Ukrainian gas consumers would pay the same prices as Russia. Look how far they are away from that now – funny old world, innit? Here was Miller's vision, at the time, for a Gazprom-NaftoGaz merger:

"Firstly, Ukraine is an energy-deficient country and the tendency we observe today will continue and develop: gas production in Ukraine will decline and consumption will grow. We proceed from the assumption that the Ukrainian economy will develop successfully. The present-day level of gas consumption clearly shows that Ukraine has not solved all of its economic problems. In this regard, gas supplies to Ukraine will increase in the medium and long term.
Secondly, if a merger takes place, we will load Ukraine's gas transmission system to the extent possible and it surely means additional income that is significant for the Ukrainian budget. At the same time, if the Ukrainian gas transmission system is loaded with some 95 billion cubic meters of gas per year, we know well that it may deliver 120 and even 125 billion cubic meters with a particular level of investments in modernization and reconstruction, of course. And if small investments are made in new compressor stations and pipeline loops, we may probably speak of 140 billion cubic meters of gas. However, we realize that European gas consumption will grow. According to our estimates, gas demand in Europe may grow up to 130-140 billion cubic meters of gas by the turn of 2020."

You can see, I'm sure, why Brussels didn't like it. Under the Third Energy Package, the operator of the gas transit system will be elected by the European Union on a tender basis. You can see, I'm sure, why Gazprom didn't like that. If the merger between Gazprom and NaftoGaz Ukraine had come about, Ukrainians would have paid Russian domestic prices, in a word, forever.

What Europe's position boils down to is it wants a system whereby its suppliers do not own anything of the transit system, and the operator could be anyone depending on who sucks up to Europe the most, so that it can make its suppliers fight with one another and be assured of the cheapest prices. Until that magical sugar-daddy supplier appears that can provide steady and sustained competition to Russia, Europe is not in a very good bargaining position. But you bet that would change fast if the western alliance could get rid of Assad, partition Syria and get a Qatari gas pipeline laid across it.

Here's a poignant reminder of what might have been, which serves to point up who are the real troublemakers:

"Remember the story with biogas, wonderful – 20 per cent by 2020, and mass media start writing that it will enable escaping from dependence on Russia. Then we find out that biogas is there, together with food supply problems, etc. Then we observed the European Union's wonderful program – "20-20-20". I think, there's no need of deciphering it – everyone knows about it. And again mass media say that it will enable reducing dependence on Gazprom and Russia. The same thing is with shale gas. First, no one will cope with shale gas transportation, because it is too expensive, add transport – and it is already a business with no prospects. I have a plea for mass media – would you please stop frightening Europe, stop frightening everyone around with Russia and Gazprom. For Europe it is a real blessing that it has such a powerful neighbor with such conventional gas reserves. Exploration of non-conventionals [N.B.: Non-conventional energy resources] may end with no results, as experience of certain countries shows. So let's live in peace and friendship and contribute to strengthening Russia's contacts and ties with the European Union and Ukraine."

kirill , December 3, 2015 at 2:17 pm
See above. It is time for Russia to lay down the law. Russia can go without the $25 billion per year of lost revenues. But whole EU economies will crash into epic depressions without this energy supply. In other words, the EU is looking at TRILLIONS of DOLLARS in economic damage. The Brussels Uncle Scam cocksuckers will have to justify their actions. Russia does not have to since it is the vendor. If you are not happy, then shop the fuck elsewhere, idiots.

[Dec 03, 2015] Russia won't forget downed jet, Putin warns Turkey in annual address

The Guardian

Russian president says Ankara will not 'get away with a tomato ban' in response to 'cynical war crime'

... ... ...

The Russian president said he was still bemused by the Turkish decision to shoot down the Su-24. He said: "Perhaps only Allah knows why they did this. And it seems Allah decided to punish the ruling clique in Turkey by relieving them of their sense and judgment."

Russia has implemented a series of economic sanctions against Turkey, including banning fruit and vegetable imports and ordering Russian tour operators not to send tourists to the country. Putin emphasised that this limited response was not an attempt to move on and start afresh, however.


"There will not be a nervous, hysterical reaction, that would be dangerous for us and for the whole world," he said. "We will not engage in sabre rattling. But if people think that after carrying out a cynical war crime, killing our people, they'll get away with a tomato ban or some limits in the construction sector, they're very wrong. We will keep remembering what they did. And they will keep regretting it."

The day before, Russia's defence ministry had called journalists to a briefing at its command centre, showing slides and satellite imagery claiming to show proof that Turkey was profiting from the trade in Isis oil.

"A unified team of bandits and Turkish elites operates in the region to steal oil from their neighbours," deputy defence minister Anatoly Antonov said on Wednesday. Erdoğan later dismissed the accusations as "slander".

... ... ...

Putin again called for a unified coalition to fight terrorism, and said it was unacceptable to delineate between different terrorist groups. The Russian airstrikes have hit many groups that western countries do not consider terrorists. Putin also made it clear once again who he blames for the current terrorist threat.

"Iraq, Libya and Syria have turned into zones of chaos and anarchy which threaten the whole world," he said. "And of course we know why this happened. We know who wanted to change inconvenient regimes, and crudely impose their rules. And what was the result? They made a mess, ruined the states, turned different peoples against each other and then, as we say in Russia, washed their hands of the places, opening the road for radicals, extremists and terrorists."

[Dec 03, 2015] It's a pretty tough situation for Putin

Recently annonced: Too Late for Apologies: Russia Halts Turk Stream Gas Pipeline
marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile, December 3, 2015 at 4:39 am

Just announced:

Too Late for Apologies: Russia Halts Turk Stream Gas Pipeline

Earlier, during his address to the nation, the Evil One questioned the sanity of the Turkish political leadership, stressing that Russia is nor criticising the Turkish nation for the recent downturn in Russo-Turksh relationships.

marknesop, December 3, 2015 at 7:37 am

Washington will be delighted, as it was one of the hoped-for consequences of the major downturn in relations. Hoped for by Washington and Brussels, I mean. Brussels will now ramp up its rhetoric against Nord Stream II, and if the coalition building it have not got all their ducks in a row the EC will be all too ready to put a stop to it. The objective will be leaving Russia no option but to continue transit through Ukraine, because the transit fees are vital to its solvency. The EU can't afford to give it $2 Billion a year for nothing for as far as the eye can see.

kirill, December 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm

As I posted elsewhere, Russia needs to make a formal announcement that the transit of gas via Ukraine will stop at the end of 2016 regardless of the state of alternative routes. Brussels can then go and eat shit.

likbez, December 3, 2015 at 8:21 pm

It's a pretty tough situation for Putin. No friends anywhere. Everybody want a peace of Russia economically or otherwise. The situation reminds me a Russian cruiser Varyag at the Battle of Chemulpo Bay with the Japanese squadron of Admiral Uriu.

Fledging political alliance of Turkey and Ukraine is not a very good development. Also while economic sanctions are not that damaging to Russia per se as they are for Turkey, they still increase isolation of Russia. Exactly what the USA wanted from the very beginning.

So this whole incident with shooting down Russian Su-24 looks like another victory of the US diplomacy in its efforts to isolate Russia. And it might well be a plot similar to MH17 plot, if you wish. It does not matter if Erdogan acted on his own initiative or with gentle encouragement. The net result is the same.

Also a new Saudi leadership is a pretty impulsive and aggressive folk. And the are definitely adamantly anti-Russian.

[Dec 03, 2015] Who are those moderate rebels in Syria

marknesop.wordpress.com
yalensis, December 3, 2015 at 4:48 pm

You are burying the lede, which is Congressman Ed Royce's not-so veiled threat against Russia:

"I think what Vladimir Putin should think on, for a minute, is the fact that Moscow itself IS a target. The attack on the Metro-Liner from Russia over Egypt clearly is another message from ISIS. So, at this point what we would like to see is a recalibration on the part of the Russian military. So that instead of attacking the Free Syrian Army and the more secular Syrian forces, they should begin to attack ISIS. So far we haven't seen that."

Translation from American B.S. into plain talk:
"Putin: Stop attacking our guys, we know they are ISIS but we have to pretend they're not. If you keep attacking them, we'll have them commit ever more terror attacks against the Russian people."

marknesop , December 3, 2015 at 6:15 pm

The USA is perhaps the worst choice on the planet to ask who is a "moderate rebel" and who is ISIS, as witnessed by their sad-sack training plan for moderate rebels which produced 5 or so whom they say are reliable after spending $500 Million. Obviously they trained many more than 5, but they have no idea where those people or their equipment are now. The real hot button in that article is the mention of General Steven Groves and his operation to "oversee the suppression of assessments showing the war on a perilous trajectory." That's what the American intelligence organs do now – blow smoke up people's asses so they can't see reality.

[Dec 03, 2015] Germany Rebukes Its Own Intelligence Agency for Criticizing Saudi Policy

Notable quotes:
"... "The cautious diplomatic stance of the older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention," said the memo, which was titled " Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation" and was one and a half pages long. ..."
"... Since taking the throne early this year, King Salman has invested great power in Prince Mohammed, making him defense minister and deputy crown prince and giving him oversight of oil and economic policy. The sudden prominence of such a young and untested prince - he is believed to be about 30, and had little public profile before his father became king - has worried some Saudis and foreign diplomats. ..."
"... Prince Mohammed is seen as a driving force behind the Saudi military campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which human rights groups say has caused thousands of civilian deaths. ..."
"... In its memo, the BND said that Saudi rivalry with Iran for supremacy in the Middle East, as well as Saudi dependency on the United States, were the main drivers of Saudi foreign policy. ..."
"... The Saudi-Iranian rivalry plays out throughout the region, the memo said, most recently and strikingly in the Saudi military intervention in Yemen. There, it said, "Saudi Arabia wants to prove that it is ready to take unprecedented military, financial and political risks in order not to fall into a disadvantageous position in the region." ..."
"... In Syria, Saudi Arabia's aim was always to oust President Bashar al-Assad, and that has not changed, the memo said. ..."
"... "The concentration of economic and foreign policy power on Mohammed bin Salman contains the latent danger that, in an attempt to establish himself in the royal succession while his father is still alive, he could overreach with expensive measures or reforms that would unsettle other members of the royal family and the population," the memo observed, adding, "That could overstrain the relations to friendly and above all to allied states in the region." ..."
The New York Times

The intelligence agency's memo risked playing havoc with Berlin's efforts to show solidarity with France in its military campaign against the Islamic State and to push forward the tentative talks on how to end the Syrian civil war. The Bundestag, the lower house of the German Parliament, is due to vote on Friday on whether to send reconnaissance planes, midair fueling capacity and a frigate to the Middle East to support the French.

The memo was sent to selected German journalists on Wednesday. In it, the foreign intelligence agency, known as the BND, offered an unusually frank assessment of recent Saudi policy.

"The cautious diplomatic stance of the older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention," said the memo, which was titled "Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation" and was one and a half pages long.

The memo said that King Salman and his son Prince Mohammed bin Salman were trying to build reputations as leaders of the Arab world.

Since taking the throne early this year, King Salman has invested great power in Prince Mohammed, making him defense minister and deputy crown prince and giving him oversight of oil and economic policy. The sudden prominence of such a young and untested prince - he is believed to be about 30, and had little public profile before his father became king - has worried some Saudis and foreign diplomats.

Prince Mohammed is seen as a driving force behind the Saudi military campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which human rights groups say has caused thousands of civilian deaths.

... ... ...

In its memo, the BND said that Saudi rivalry with Iran for supremacy in the Middle East, as well as Saudi dependency on the United States, were the main drivers of Saudi foreign policy.

The Saudi-Iranian rivalry plays out throughout the region, the memo said, most recently and strikingly in the Saudi military intervention in Yemen. There, it said, "Saudi Arabia wants to prove that it is ready to take unprecedented military, financial and political risks in order not to fall into a disadvantageous position in the region."

In Syria, Saudi Arabia's aim was always to oust President Bashar al-Assad, and that has not changed, the memo said.

But it suggested that the recent shift in Saudi leadership has added new factors in the Middle East. "The concentration of economic and foreign policy power on Mohammed bin Salman contains the latent danger that, in an attempt to establish himself in the royal succession while his father is still alive, he could overreach with expensive measures or reforms that would unsettle other members of the royal family and the population," the memo observed, adding, "That could overstrain the relations to friendly and above all to allied states in the region."

[Dec 03, 2015] Murder And Mayhem In The Middle East

Notable quotes:
"... Because you live in the real world, you know that NATO knew exactly where Gaddafi was at all times and that he was in that convoy attempting to escape NATOs bombing raid. Further, you wont be surprised to learn that many of these vehicles were pickup trucks that really posed no military threat to NATO. The point was to kill Gaddafi, and numerous resources were brought to bear on that mission. ..."
"... Gaddafis killing was the assassination of a foreign leader by Western interests. In this case, Gaddafi was just yet another target in a long line of leaders that attempted to keep those same interests at bay. ..."
"... While imperfect by many standards, all of these countries were stable and increasingly prosperous before outside interests came in and turned them into a living nightmare. ..."
"... It is this context that explains why such reactionary and violent groups as ISIS arose. They are the natural response of violated people seeking to assert some control over lives that otherwise have no hope and even less meaning. ..."
"... Islamic State militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations, the United Nations said on Monday in a further illustration of the North African states descent into anarchy. ..."
"... All sides in Libyas multiple armed conflicts are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, according to a U.N. report. ..."
"... Islamic State (IS) has gained control over swathes of territory, committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance , the joint report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya said. ..."
"... The U.N. had documented IS executions in their stronghold city of Sirte, in central Libya along the Mediterranean coast, and in Derna to the east, from which they were later ousted by local militias. Victims included Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Eritreans and a South Sudanese, the report said. ..."
Dec 1, 2015 | Safehaven.com

Why it matters to those living in the West

To understand what's happening in Syria right now, you have to understand the tactics and motivations of the US and NATO -- parties sharing interwoven aims and goals in the Middle East/North African (MENA) region.

While the populations of Europe and the US are fed raw propaganda about the regional aims involved, the reality is far different.

Where the propaganda claims that various bad dictators have to be taken out, or that democracy is the goal, neither have anything at all to do with what's actually happening or has happened in the region.

For starters, we all know that if oil fields were not at stake then the West would care much much less about MENA affairs.

But a lot of outside interests do care. And their aims certainly and largely include controlling the region's critical energy resources. There's a lot of concern over whether Russia or China will instead come to dominate these last, best oil reserves on the planet.

Further, we can dispense with the idea that the US and NATO have any interest at all in human rights in this story. If they did, then they'd at least have to admit that their strategies and tactics have unleashed immeasurable suffering, as well as created the conditions for lots more. But it would be silly to try and argue about or understand regional motivations through the lenses of human rights or civilian freedoms -- as neither applies here.

Divide And Conquer

Instead, the policies in the MENA region are rooted in fracturing the region so that it will be easier to control.

That's a very old tactic; first utilized to a great extent by Britain starting back in the 1700s.

Divide and conquer. There's a reason that's a well-worn catch phrase: it's hundreds of years old.

But to get a handle on the level of depravity involved, I think it useful to examine what happened in Libya in 2011 when NATO took out Muamar Gaddafi and left the country a broken shell -- as was intended.

I cannot really give you a good reason for NATO involving itself in taking out Gaddafi. I only have bad ones.

The official reason was that after the Arab Spring uprising in Libya in early 2011 (with plenty of evidence of Western influences in fanning those flames) things got ugly and protesters were shot. This allowed the UN to declare that it needed to protect civilians, and the ICC to charge Gaddafi with crimes against humanity, declaring that he needed to stand trial.

Here's how it went down:

On 27 June, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, head of state security, for charges concerning crimes against humanity.[268] Libyan officials rejected the ICC, claiming that it had "no legitimacy whatsoever" and highlighting that "all of its activities are directed at African leaders".[269]

That month, Amnesty International published their findings, in which they asserted that many of the accusations of mass human rights abuses made against Gaddafist forces lacked credible evidence, and were instead fabrications of the rebel forces which had been readily adopted by the western media.

Source

After the ICC's indictment, it was a hop, skip and a jump to declaring a NATO-enforced 'no fly zone' over Libya to protect civilians.

From there it was just a straight jump to NATO actively shooting anything related to the Gaddafi government. NATO had thereby chosen sides and was directly supporting the rebellion.

The pattern in play here is always the same: cherry-picked events are used as a pretext to support the side seeking to topple the existing government and thereby leave a sectarian wasteland to flourish in the inevitable power vacuum.

If you are like most people in the West, you know almost nothing of any of this context. It's not well reported. And Libya is rarely in the news even though it's going through increasingly desperate times.

I found a speech given by Gaddafi a few months before he was killed to be especially compelling and revealing. I will reproduce it in its entirety here:

For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.

I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from us.

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.

I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...

In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

Source

Gaddafi's great crime seems to be giving away too much oil wealth to his people. Was he a strongman? Yes, but you have to be to rule in that region right now. Was he the worst strong man? No, not by a long shot.

As bad as he was, at least he didn't kill a million Iraqis on trumped up charges of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor was he chopping off 50 heads per week and stoning females for adultery as is the case with Saudi Arabia right now.

But again, whether he killed protestors or not, or committed war crimes or not, is irrelevant to the power structure. What mattered was that he had locked out Western interests, and instead used his country's oil wealth to provide free or extremely cheap health care, education and housing to a wide swath of Libyans.

So let's cut to the murder scene. Here's how it went down:

At around 08:30 local time on 20 October, Gaddafi, his army chief Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr, his security chief Mansour Dhao, and a group of loyalists attempted to escape in a convoy of 75 vehicles.[7][8] A Royal Air Force reconnaissance aircraft spotted the convoy moving at high speed, after NATO forces intercepted a satellite phone call made by Gaddafi.[9]

NATO aircraft then fired on 11 of the vehicles, destroying one. A U.S. Predator drone operated from a base near Las Vegas[8] fired the first missiles at the convoy, hitting its target about 3 kilometres (2 mi) west of Sirte. Moments later, French Air Force Rafale fighter jets continued the bombing.[10]

The NATO bombing immobilized much of the convoy and killed dozens of loyalist fighters. Following the first strike, some 20 vehicles broke away from the main group and continued moving south. A second NATO airstrike damaged or destroyed 10 of these vehicles. According to the Financial Times, Free Libya units on the ground also struck the convoy.[11]

According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. NATO stated that in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1973, it does not target individuals but only military assets that pose a threat. NATO later learned, "from open sources and Allied intelligence," that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike likely contributed to his capture.[11]

Source

To believe NATO, it had no idea Gaddafi was in that convoy (honest!), but just managed to have a Predator drone handy as well as a large number of jets armed for ground targets (not anti-aircraft missiles, as a no-fly zone might imply). It merely struck all of these vehicles over and over again in their quest to kill everyone on board because they were "military assets that posed a threat."

Because you live in the real world, you know that NATO knew exactly where Gaddafi was at all times and that he was in that convoy attempting to escape NATO's bombing raid. Further, you won't be surprised to learn that many of these vehicles were pickup trucks that really posed no military threat to NATO. The point was to kill Gaddafi, and numerous resources were brought to bear on that mission.

Gaddafi's killing was the assassination of a foreign leader by Western interests. In this case, Gaddafi was just yet another target in a long line of leaders that attempted to keep those same interests at bay.

After NATO was finished making a mess of Libya by taking out Gaddafi and leaving a right proper mess of a power vacuum, it simply departed -- leaving the country to fend for itself. Libya descended, of course, into an outright civil war and has remained ever since a hotbed of sectarian violence and increasing ISIS control and presence.

If NATO/US had to follow the Pier I rule of "you break it, you buy it" they would still be in Libya offering money and assistance as the country settles down and begins the long process of rebuilding.

But no such luck. That's absolutely not how they operate. It's disaster capitalism in action. The idea is to break things apart and then make money off of the pieces. It's not to help people.

Otherwise, how do we explain these images?

While imperfect by many standards, all of these countries were stable and increasingly prosperous before outside interests came in and turned them into a living nightmare.

It is this context that explains why such reactionary and violent groups as ISIS arose. They are the natural response of violated people seeking to assert some control over lives that otherwise have no hope and even less meaning.

I'm not justifying ISIS; only explaining the context that led to its rise.

Speaking of which, let's turn back to Libya:

ISIS is tightening its grip in Libya

Nov 15, 2015

GENEVA (Reuters) - Islamic State militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations, the United Nations said on Monday in a further illustration of the North African state's descent into anarchy.

All sides in Libya's multiple armed conflicts are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, according to a U.N. report.

Islamic State (IS) has gained control over swathes of territory, "committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance", the joint report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya said.

The U.N. had documented IS executions in their stronghold city of Sirte, in central Libya along the Mediterranean coast, and in Derna to the east, from which they were later ousted by local militias. Victims included Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Eritreans and a South Sudanese, the report said.

Some were accused of "treason", others of same-sex relations, but none were given due legal process, according to the report, which covered the year through October.

Four years after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is locked in a conflict between two rival governments - an official one in the east and a self-declared one controlling the capital Tripoli - and the many armed factions that back them.

Source

After that atrocious summary, how bad does life under Gaddafi sound now? Again, he was targeted for execution by Western interests and the resulting mess is of little surprise to anybody with even modest curiosity about how violent overthrows tend to work out in the MENA region.

But where is the UN security council denouncing the war crimes? And where is the ICC leveling crimes against humanity charges? Nowhere. There's no more Western political interest in Libya now that it has been broken apart.

As they say in the military: once is bad luck, twice is a coincidence, but three times is enemy action. This pattern of eliminating "a very bad man" and leaving the country in a complete mess has happened three times of late, with Syria targeted to be the fourth. So enemy action it is.

ISIS and other extreme jihadist groups arose because of brutal conditions that made such harsh interpretations of ancient religious texts make sense by comparison. When you have nothing left to believe in, one's belief system can compensate by becoming rather inflexible.

I know I have greatly simplified a terribly complex dynamic, but -- speaking of beliefs -- I don't believe that terrorists are born, I believe they are raised. When one has nothing left to lose, then anything becomes possible, including strapping on a suicide belt and flicking the switch.

What I am saying is that this is not a battle between Christians and Muslims, nor is it a battle between good and evil, both characterizations that I've read recently in great abundance. That's all nonsense for the masses.

This is about resources and true wealth that is being siphoned from the people who have had the misfortune to be born on top of it, and towards other regions with greater power and reach.

There's nothing different in what I am reading today from what the British redcoats did in India from the late 1700's throughout the 1800's. Their military might assured that the East India Tea Company could continue to extract resources from the locals.

At the time the locals were called heathens, implying they were subhuman and therefore could be safely dispatched. Now they are called terrorists -- same thing. Dehumanize your foe to help rationalize one's behaviors. It's a tried and true practice of war propaganda.


How This Affects You

While we might be tempted to sit in our Western environs, secure in the idea that at least we aren't 'over there' where all the bad things are happening, it would be a mistake to think that this turmoil will not impact you.

I'm not talking about the ultra-remote chance of being a victim of blow-back terrorism either. I am referring to the idea that it would be a mistake to think that any government(s) that think nothing of ruining entire MENA countries will hesitate to throw anybody else under the bus that gets in their way.

Ben Bernanke gave no thought to throwing granny under the bus in order to help the big banks get even bigger. He willingly and knowing transferred over a trillion dollars away from savers and handed it to the big banks.

Similarly, we shouldn't expect enlightened behavior to emerge from the shadows of leadership once things get even dicer on the world stage. In fact, we should expect the opposite.

It would be a mistake to think that powers in charge would not turn their malign intent inwards toward their own populace if/when necessary. Today it's Syria, yesterday it was Libya, but tomorrow it might be us.

The people of France recently got a small taste of the horror that has been visited upon the people of Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. And while I have no interest in seeing any more violence anywhere, perhaps the people of France will finally begin to ask what happened and why. I don't mean the fine details of the night of the massacre, but how it came to be considered a 'thing to do' at all by the people who did it. (For those unaware, France has been particularly involved for years in fomenting revolt within Syria)


Conclusion

My intention in stringing these dots together is so that we can have an informed discussion about what's happening in Syria and the Middle East at large. I am not at all interested in trying to understand events through the framing lenses of religion and/or 'terrorism', both of which are tools of distraction in my experience.

Instead, I want to understand the power dynamics at play. And to try to peel back the layers, to understand why the powers that be consider this region so important at this moment in history.

I think they know as well as we do that the shale oil revolution is not a revolution at all but a retirement party for an oil industry that has given us everything we hold economically dear but is on its last legs.

I think that the power structures of the next twenty years are going to be utterly shaped by energy - who has it, who needs it and who's controlling it.

Saudi Arabia is acting increasingly desperate here and I think we know why. They have a saying there: "My father rode a camel, I drove a car, my son flies a jet and his son will ride a camel."

They know as well as anyone that their oil wealth will run out someday; and so, too, will the West's interest in them. With no giant military to protect them, the royalty in Saudi Arabia should have some serious concerns about the future.

Heck, it's even worse than that:

Saudi Wells Running Dry -- of Water -- Spell End of Desert Wheat

Nov 3, 2015

Saudi Arabia became a net exporter of wheat in 1984 from producing almost none in the 1970s. The self-sufficiency program became a victim of its own success, however, as it quickly depleted aquifers that haven't been filled since the last Ice Age.

In an unexpected U-turn, the government said in 2008 it was phasing out the policy, reducing purchases of domestic wheat each year by 12.5 percent and bridging the gap progressively with imports.

The last official local harvest occurred in May, although the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization projects that a small crop of about metric 30,000 tons for traditional specialty bakery products will "prevail" in 2016. At its peak in 1992, Saudi Arabia produced 4.1 million tons of wheat and was one of the world's top 10 wheat exporters.


Source

The Saudis did something very unwise - they pumped an aquifer filled over 10,000 years ago and used it to grow wheat in the desert. Now their wells are running dry and they have no more water.

And yet their population is expanding rapidly even as their oil fields deplete. There's a very bad intersection for Saudi Arabia, and the rulers know it.

It helps to explain their recent actions of lashing out against long-standing regional foes and helps to explain the increasing desperation of their moves to help destabilize (and even bomb) their neighbors.

My point here is that as resources become tight, the ruling powers can be expected to act in increasingly desperate ways. This is a tenet of the Long Emergency of which James Kunstler wrote.

The only response that makes any sense to me, at the individual level, is to reduce your needs and increase your resilience.

This is something we cover in great detail in our new book, Prosper!: How To Prepare for the Future and Create a World Worth Inheriting, so I won't go into all the details here. Instead, my goal is to help cast a clarifying light on recent events and add some necessary detail that can help us more fully appreciate what's happening around the world and why taking prudent preparations today is becoming increasingly urgent.

[Dec 03, 2015] ISIS Oil Plot Thickens Turkish MP Has Evidence Erdogans Son-In-Law Involved In Illegal Crude Trade

Notable quotes:
"... Underscoring that contention is CHP lawmaker Eren Erdem who says he, like Moscow, will soon provide proof of Erdogan's role in the smuggling of Islamic State oil. I have been able to establish that there is a very high probability that Berat Albayrak is linked to the supply of oil by the Daesh terrorists," Erdem said at a press conference on Thursday (see more from Sputnik ). ..."
"... There is one company, headquartered in Erbil, which in 2012 acquired oil tankers, and which is currently being bombarded by Russian aircraft," Erdem said. "I am now studying this companys records. It has partners in Turkey, and I am checking them for links to Albayrak. ..."
"... Note that this is entirely consistent with what we said last week , namely that in some cases, ISIS takes advantage of the Kurdish oil transport routes, connections, and infrastructure in Turkey. It will certainly be interesting to see if theres a connection between Albayrak, the energy ministry, and Bilal Erdogans BMZ Group. ..."
"... Many loose ends now for Erdogan popping up. How long he can play whack-a-mole until one illuminates paper trail implication between ISIS and Erdogans masters like McCain, Graham, Nuland? ..."
"... Maybe Erdogan will come up with a massive distraction that makes oil-thievery insignificant. Hope not. ..."
Zero Hedge
... ... ...

Underscoring that contention is CHP lawmaker Eren Erdem who says he, like Moscow, will soon provide proof of Erdogan's role in the smuggling of Islamic State oil. "I have been able to establish that there is a very high probability that Berat Albayrak is linked to the supply of oil by the Daesh terrorists," Erdem said at a press conference on Thursday (see more from Sputnik).

Berat Albayrak is Erodan's son-in-law and is Turkey's Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Erdem isn't the only person to mention Albayrak this week. Recall that in his opening remarks at the dramatic Russian MoD presentation on Wednesday Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov said the following:

"No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business!"

"There is one company, headquartered in Erbil, which in 2012 acquired oil tankers, and which is currently being bombarded by Russian aircraft," Erdem said. "I am now studying this company's records. It has partners in Turkey, and I am checking them for links to Albayrak."

Note that this is entirely consistent with what we said last week, namely that in some cases, ISIS takes advantage of the Kurdish oil transport routes, connections, and infrastructure in Turkey. It will certainly be interesting to see if there's a connection between Albayrak, the energy ministry, and Bilal Erdogan's BMZ Group.

If you know anything about Erdogan, you know that he doesn't take kindly to this kind of thing and as Erdem goes on to account, he's already been the subject of a smear campaign:

"Today, the Takvim newspaper called me an American puppet, an Israeli agent, a supporter of the [Kurdish] PKK, and the instigator of a coup…all in the same sentence. I am inclined to view this attack on me as an attempt to belittle my significance, to attack my reputation in the eyes in the public, given that my investigation is a real threat to the government. Such a sharply negative reaction suggests that my assumptions are fair, and I am moving in the right direction to find the truth."

The lawmaker says that type of attack has "only convinced [him] further on the need to carry this investigation through to the end."

In the meantime, we can only hope that, for the sake of exposing the truth, "the end" doesn't end up being a Turkish jail cell, or worse for Erdem.

Troll Magnet

Do they make nail guns in Turkey?

Truther

Yep, with top brands for JPM, Goldman, RBS, WF, CITI and Deutche. They even self point at you too.

Baby Bladeface

Many loose ends now for Erdogan popping up. How long he can play whack-a-mole until one illuminates paper trail implication between ISIS and Erdogan's masters like McCain, Graham, Nuland?

o r c k

Maybe Erdogan will come up with a "massive" distraction that makes oil-thievery insignificant. Hope not.

Anonymous User

The shit is hitting the fan for the turks

GhostOfDiogenes

Go figure huh?

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-main-buyer-isis-oil-report/...

[Dec 03, 2015] On That Video Where Some Egyptians Allegedly Say Obama Is Insane And On Drugs And Should Be Removed From Office

EconoSpeak

An old and close, but very conservative and increasingly out of touch with reality friend of mine posted a video some days ago on Facebook. He indicated that he thought it was both funny and also insightful. It seemed highly suspicious to me, so I googled it and found that the person who uploaded it onto you tube stated in the comments on it that it is a spoof. Here is a link that discusses why it is known it is a spoof as well as linking to the video itself and its comments. It has reportedly been widely distributed on the internet by many conservatives who think it is for real, and when I pointed out it is a spoof, my friend defriended me from Facebook. I am frustrated.

So, for those who do not view it, it purports to show a talk show in Egypt where a brief clip of Obama speaking last May to graduating military officers about how climate change is and will be a serious national security issue, something the Pentagon has claimed. He did not say it was the most serious such issue, and at least in the clip he said nothing about Daesh/ISIS/ISIL, although of course he has said a lot about it and not only has US drones attacking it but reportedly we have "boots on the ground" now against them in the form of some Special Ops.

So, the video then goes back to the supposed talk show where they are speaking in Arabic with English subtitles. According to these subtitels, which are partly accurate translations but also wildly inaccurate in many places (my Arabic is good enough that I have parsed out what is what there) the host asks, "Is he insane?" A guest suggests he is on drugs. Another claims he just does what Michelle says and that his biceps are small. Finally a supposed retired general pounds the table and denounces him over Libya policy (that part is for real, although his name is never mentioned) and suggests that Americans should act to remove him from office. Again, conservative commentators have found hilarious and very insightful, with this even holding among commenters to the video aware that it is a mistranslated spoof. Bring these guys on more. Obviously they would be big hits on Fox News.

So, I would like to simply comment further on why Egyptians would be especially upset about Libya, but that them being so against the US is somewhat hypocritical (I also note that there is reason to believe that the supposed general is not a general). Of course Libya is just to the west of Egypt with its eastern portion (Cyrenaica under Rome) often ruled by whomever was ruling Egypt at various times in the past. So there is a strong cultural-historical connection. It is understandable that they would take Libyan matters seriously, and indeed things in Libya have turned into a big mess.

However, the move to bring in outside powers to intervene against Qaddafi in 2011 was instigated by an Egyptian, Abu Moussa. This was right after Mubarak had fallen in the face of massive demonstrations in Egypt. Moussa was both leader of the Arab League and wanting to run for President of Egypt. He got nowhere with the latter, but he did get somewhere with getting
the rest of the world to intervene in Libya. He got the Arab League to support such an intervention, with that move going to the UN Security Council and convincing Russia and China to abstain on the anti-Qaddafi measure. Putin has since complained that those who intervened, UK and France most vigorously with US "leading from behind" on the effort.went beyond the UN mandate. But in any case, Qaddafi was overthrown, not to be replaced by any stable or central power, with Libya an ongoing mess that has remained fragmented since, especially between its historically separate eastern and western parts, something I have posted on here previously.

So, that went badly, but Egyptians blaming the US for this seems to me to be a bit much, pretty hypocritical. It happens to be a fact that the US and Obama are now very unpopular in Egypt. I looked at a poll from a few months ago, and the only nations where the US and Obama were viewed less favorably (although a few not polled such as North Korea) were in order: Russia, Palestinian Territories, Belarus, Lebanon, Iran, and Pakistan, with me suspecting there is now a more favorable view in Iran since the culmination of the nuclear deal. I can appreciate that many Egyptians are frustrated that the US supported an election process that did not give them Moussa or El-Baradei, but the Muslim Brotherhood, who proceeded to behave badly, leading to them being overthrown by an new military dictatorship with a democratic veneer, basically a new improved version of the Mubarak regime, with the US supporting it, if somewhat reluctantly.

Yes, this is all pretty depressing, but I must say that ultimately the Egyptians are responsible for what has gone down in their own nation. And even if those Egyptian commentators, whoever they actually are, are as angry about Obama as they are depicted as being, the fact is that Obama is still more popular there than was George W. Bush at the same time in his presidency, something all these US conservatives so enamored of this bizarre video seem to conveniently forget.

Addenda, 5:10 PM:

1) The people on that video come across almost like The Three Stooges, which highlights the comedic aspect that even fans of Obama are supposed to appreciate, although it does not add to the credibility of the remarks of those so carrying on like a bunch of clowns.

2) Another reason Egyptians may be especially upset about the situation in Libya is that indeed Daesh has a foothold in a port city not too far from the Egyptian border in Surt, as reported as the top story today in the NY Times.

3) Arguably once the rest of the world got in, the big problem was a failure to follow through with aiding establishing a central unified government, although that was always going to be a problem, something not recognized by all too many involved, including Abu Moussa. As it was once his proposal got going, it was then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton who was the main person leading the charge for the US to get in over the reluctance of Obama. This was probably her biggest mistake in all this, even though most Republicans think the irrelevant sideshow of the unfortunate incident in Benghazi is the big deal.

4) Needless to say, Republican views at the time of the intervention were just completely incoherent, as symbolized at one point by Senator Lindsey Graham, who within the space of a single sentence simultaneously argued for the US to do nothing and also to go in full force with the proverbial "boots on the ground."

Further Addendum, 7:10 PM:

One of the pieces of evidence given that supposedly shows that the video is a spoof is that the supposed retired Brigadier General Mahmoud Mansour cannot be found if one googles his name, except in connection with this video. There are some other Egyptians named Mansour who show up, but this guy does not. However, it occurs to me that he might be for real, but simply obscure. After all, Brigadier is the lowest rank of General, one star, with Majors being two star, Lieutenants being three star (even though Majors are above Lieutenants), and with four and five star not having any other rank assigned to them. Furthermore, Egypt has a large military that has run the country for decades, so there may well be a lot of these Brigadier Generals, with many of them amounting to nothing. So, if he is for real, his claim to fame will be from jumping up and down, pounding on a table and calling for the overthrow of the POTUS.

Barkley Rosser

[Dec 03, 2015] The history of the Arab conquest of Byzantium is purposefully ignored

economistsview.typepad.com
Syaloch said in reply to anne...,

Yep. I sometimes think that the history of the Arab conquest of East Roman (Byzantine) provinces is purposefully ignored because it doesn't fit into a Western narrative of what Arab Muslim peoples are like.

The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements we see today are actually a fairly recent invention -- Wahhabism for example originated in the 18th century. And their rise to dominance is largely due to meddling by Western governments, which backed these groups to prevent Soviet expansion into the Middle East and southern Asia and to undermine nationalist movements that might oppose Western interests.

[Dec 03, 2015] ISIS oil hub with 3000 parked oil trucks escaped detection by the USA and its eagle-eyed coalition

marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 2:10 pm
Here's the evidence that the USA rejects. I particularly enjoyed the satellite imagery of the "ISIS oil hub", at which were parked 3,000 oil trucks. Apparently it escaped detection by the USA and its eagle-eyed coalition. Does it seem realistic that a country which was offered a major and legitimate pipeline deal would rather move its oil around in thousands of tanker trucks? If the oil trucking business were benefiting Assad's regime, don't you think ISIS would have blown it sky-high by now? It's in a region they control and apparently in the middle of open ground, completely unguarded.

The battle lines have been drawn in yet another field of conflict – Russia aims to take down Erdogan, and Washington aims to keep him in his position. It remains to be seen just how embarrassing that will become.

marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 1:10 pm
Moscow is not backing away at all from accusations that Erdogan's family is personally involved in receiving and trafficking in ISIS oil. In a phenomenon pointed out by others of late, Yahoo comments are now overwhelmingly supportive of Russia on these issues. Not only that, mainstream news are picking up the accusation rapidly. The USA may reject Russia's evidence, but we knew they would do that anyway – the USA would reject a signed confession by Erdogan if they got it from Russia. I don't know why Moscow even bothers to show evidence to the Americans, it would do far better to approach Europeans – especially Germany and France – with its proof. If it could convince Germany, the USA would look a lot more foolish if it said it was all more Russian propaganda and lies.

The USA will shield Erdogan for so long as it can, because his country is in a tremendous strategic position and is studded with NATO military installations. Washington certainly does not want to be confronted with a leadership transition it cannot micromanage. It might throw Erdogan under the bus, but not until it has identified and groomed a successor.

It is also significant that rather than groveling for mercy, Russia continues to attack the alliance's credibility, and it is scoring hits.

Patient Observer, December 2, 2015 at 2:11 pm
The comment with the most "likes" on a yahoo article on Russian claiming that Turkey is buying ISIS oil (lost the link):
" 542 – likes
First it does not require a high school education to understand in order for ISIS to sell any oil from captured oil fields and or refineries it must have buyers of said oil. Our govt claims to watch everyone and know everything yet with all their tax payer space observations, massive fleet of drones to track ants in the sand they cannot figure out where all the oil goes to fund ISIS?
Our govt is intentionally not stopping this oil from being sold and our leaders aware of this need to be exposed then put on trial then executed. In fact political figures in our country need to be facing firing squads monthly until they tell the truth and serve just our citizens. This in turn makes for a huge employment opportunity both in firing squads and new politicians."
marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 2:21 pm
The European Union voted to give itself permission to buy oil from "Syrian rebels" to help them overthrow Assad. The only stipulations of who could not benefit from it were "regime-associated" individuals and companies. The agency that must be consulted – the Syrian National Coalition – is based in Turkey and its president is chummy with Erdogan. Come on. Washington is ready to indict and convict Moscow on a hell of a lot less evidence than this on any day you care to name.
et Al, December 2, 2015 at 2:43 pm
Neuters: Russia says it has proof Turkey involved in Islamic State oil trade
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUKL8N13R2KV2015120

…U.S. officials say coalition air strikes have destroyed hundreds of IS oil trucks while the Russian campaign has mainly targeted opponents of the Syrian government who are not from Islamic State, which is also known as ISIL.

"The irony of the Russians raising this concern is that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that the largest consumer of ISIL oil is actually Bashar al-Assad and his regime, a regime that only remains in place because it is being propped up by the Russians," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

The State Department's Toner said U.S. information was that Islamic State was selling oil at the wellheads to middlemen who were involved in smuggling it across the frontier into Turkey…

…The ministry said the Western route took oil produced at fields near the Syrian city of Raqqa to the settlement of Azaz on the border with Turkey.

From there the columns of tanker trucks pass through the Turkish town of Reyhanli, the ministry said, citing what it said were satellite pictures of hundreds of such trucks moving through the border crossing without obstruction.

"There is no inspection of the vehicles carried out … on the Turkish side," said Rudskoy.

Some of the smuggled cargoes go to the Turkish domestic market, while some is exported via the Turkish Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Dortyol, the ministry said.

Another main route for smuggled oil, according to the ministry, runs from Deir Ez-zour in Syria to the Syrian border crossing at Al-Qamishli. It said the trucks then took the crude for refining at the Turkish city of Batman….

…The defence ministry officials said the information they released on Wednesday was only part of the evidence they have in their possession, and that they would be releasing further intelligence in the next days and weeks.
####

I can't wait for that twitter evidence from the State Department and the Pentagon. It should be devastating.

[Dec 03, 2015] Why did Turkey shoot down the Russian Soukhoï 24

Notable quotes:
"... It was agreed that the Turkish army would be allowed to penetrate Syrian territory, within a limit of 8 kilometres, in order to ensure that the PKK could not fire mortars from Syria. ..."
"... Since the beginning of the current aggression against Syria, the Turkish army has used and abused this privilege - no longer to prevent attacks by the PKK, but to set up training camps for jihadists. ..."
"... In October 2015, when the Russian military campaign was just starting, and Salih Muslim was beginning the operation of forced Kurdisation of Northern Syria, the famous Turkish whistle-blower, Fuat Avni, announced via Twitter that Turkey was preparing the destruction of a Russian aircraft. This occurred on the 24th November. ..."
www.voltairenet.org

At the end of the Turkish civil war, Turkey threatened to invade Syria with the help of NATO if it continued to offer asylum to the leader of the PKK, Abdullah Öcallan. President Hafez el-Assad thus asked Öcallan to find another refuge, and was obliged to conclude an oral agreement with Turkey. It was agreed that the Turkish army would be allowed to penetrate Syrian territory, within a limit of 8 kilometres, in order to ensure that the PKK could not fire mortars from Syria.

Since the beginning of the current aggression against Syria, the Turkish army has used and abused this privilege - no longer to prevent attacks by the PKK, but to set up training camps for jihadists.

In October 2015, when the Russian military campaign was just starting, and Salih Muslim was beginning the operation of forced Kurdisation of Northern Syria, the famous Turkish whistle-blower, Fuat Avni, announced via Twitter that Turkey was preparing the destruction of a Russian aircraft. This occurred on the 24th November.

From the perspective of the Third Syrian War [1], the attack was designed to send a message to Russia in order to scare it into defending only Damascus and Lattakia, leaving the rest of the country in the hands of Turkey and its allies.

Technically, the aerial defence of Turkey, like that of all NATO members, is co-ordinated by the CAOC in Torrejón (Spain). The chief of the Turkish air force, General Abidin Ünal, should therefore have given advance warning of his decision to CAOC commander General Rubén García Servert. We do not know if he did so [2]. In any case, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan confirmed that he himself had validated the order to destroy the Russian plane.

The Russian chief of staff had provided NATO with the flight plans of their aircraft in advance, so that neither the Alliance nor Turkey could ignore the fact that the plane was Russian, despite Turkish allegations to the contrary. Besides this, a NATO AWACS had taken off beforehand from the Greek base in Aktion (close to Preveza) in order to survey the area [3].

The Russian army bombarded the Sultan Abdülhamid Brigade – from the name of the last Ottoman sultan, infamous for organising the massacre of Oriental Christians. Since the beginning of the war against Syria, the Turkish secret services have never stopped supplying weapons to the Turkmen militias in Northern Syria, and overseeing their operations. The Turkish Press has documented the transfer of at least 2,000 truck-loads of weapons and ammunition - which President Erdoğan has admitted [4] – the majority of which was immediately distributed to Al-Qaïda by the Turkmen militias. In particular, in 2011, these militias dismantled the 80,000 factories in Aleppo, the Syrian economic capital, and sent the machine tools to Turkey [5]. So, contrary to Turkish allegations, the Russian bombing was not intended to target the Turkmen, but effectively to destroy a terrorist group guilty of organised pillage, according to the definition in international conventions [6]. The Russian bombardment had provoked the flight of 1,500 civilians and caused vigourous protests by Turkey [7], which addressed a letter to the Security Council [8].

The Turkish – not Syrian – jihadist, member of the Grey Woves, Alparslan Çelik, is commander of the Turkmen militias in Syria.

The main leader of the Turkmen militias in Syria is Alparslan Çelik, a member of the Grey Wolves, the Turkish neo-fascist party, which is historically linked to the NATO secret services [9]. He claims to have given the order to kill the Russian pilots as they parachuted down [10].

The Russian plane which was shot down only entered Turkish air-space for 17 seconds, and was hit after it was already in Syrian air-space. However, since Turkey considered that it had annexed the 8-kilometre corridor which it was authorised to enter according to the agreement with ex-President Hafez el-Assad, it may have believed that the intrusion lasted longer. In any case, in order to shoot down the Sukhoï 24, the Turkish fighter had to enter Syrian air-space for 40 seconds [11].

The Russians had taken no particular measures to protect their bombers, considering that Turkey is an official participant in the fight against terrorist organisations. And an intrusion lasting only a few seconds has never been considered as a " threat to national security " " particularly since Turkey had been informed of the flight plan, and also that it regularly violates the air-space of other states, such as Cyprus.

Immediately solicited by Turkey, NATO called a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, which was unable to issue a resolution, but did its best by asking for a reading of a brief declaration by their General Secretary which called for ... de-escalation -- [12]. Various sources reported profound disagreement within the Council [13].

The official Saudi Press published an audio recording of an appeal by Turkish military air controllers to the Russian plane warning it against an entry into Turkish air-space [14]. Several AKP politicians commented on this recording and denounced the risks taken by the Russian army. However, the Russian military has denied the authenticity of the recording, and has proved that it is a fake. The Turkish government then denied any implication in the publishing of the recording.

President Putin qualified the destruction of the Soukhoï 24 as a " knife in the back ". He publicly questioned the rôle of Ankara in the financing of Daesh, particularly because of the free transit of stolen petrol across Turkey. The Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs has asked the 4.5 million Russians who had planned to travel to Turkey to cancel their trip, and has restored entry visas for Turkish nationals. By decree, the Kremlin has forbidden all new contracts between Russian persons or organisations and Turkish persons or organisations, including the employment of personnel, the import/export of merchandise, and tourism [15].

[Dec 03, 2015] Putin says Turkey 'will regret' shooting down of Russian bomber

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

Turkey will regret "more than once" about its shooting down of a Russian bomber jet near the Syrian-Turkish border, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Dec. 3.

President Vladimir Putin said Turkey's shooting down of a Russian military jet was a "war crime" and that the Kremlin would punish Ankara with additional sanctions, signaling fallout from the incident would be long-lasting and serious.

Putin, who made the comments during his annual state of the nation speech to his country's political elite on Dec. 3, said Russia would not forget the Nov. 24 incident and that he continued to regard it as a terrible betrayal.

"We are not planning to engage in military saber-rattling [with Turkey]," said Putin, after asking for a moment's silence for the two Russian servicemen killed in the immediate aftermath of the incident, and for Russian victims of terrorism.

"But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime, the murder of our people, that they are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken."

Turkey would have cause to regret its actions "more than once," he said, promising Russia's retaliatory actions would be neither hysterical nor dangerous.

In his aggressive remarks unusual in diplomatic tongue, Putin said "it appears that Allah decided to punish the ruling clique of Turkey by depriving them of wisdom and judgment."

Putin said Moscow's anger over the incident was directed "at particular individuals" and not at the Turkish people.

[Dec 03, 2015] Tomgram Andrew Bacevich, An Invitation to Collective Suicide

Notable quotes:
"... Aside from long-shots Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, any candidate likely to enter the Oval Office in January 2017 will be committed to some version of much-more war, including obviously Donald Trump, Marco (" clash of civilizations ") Rubio, and Hillary Clinton, who recently gave a hawkish speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on her version of war policy against the Islamic State. ..."
"... Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what? Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself -- a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it , "We came, we saw, he died." End of story. In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. "Liberation" turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval. ..."
"... Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists. ..."
"... Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. ..."
"... True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality. ..."
"... Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker. ..."
"... American Interest ..."
"... Now I happen to think that equating our present predicament in the Islamic world with the immensely destructive conflicts of the prior century is dead wrong. Yet it's a proposition that Americans at this juncture should contemplate with the utmost seriousness. ..."
"... With so much on the line, Cohen derides the Obama administration's tendency to rely on "therapeutic bombing, which will temporarily relieve the itch, but leave the wounds suppurating." The time for such half-measures has long since passed. Defeating the Islamic State and "kindred movements" will require the U.S. to "kill a great many people." To that end Washington needs "a long-range plan not to 'contain' but to crush" the enemy. Even with such a plan, victory will be a long way off and will require "a long, bloody, and costly process." ..."
"... Nor were Americans sufficiently willing to die for the cause. In South Vietnam, 58,000 G.I.s died in a futile effort to enable that country to survive. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the stakes were presumably much higher, we pulled the plug after fewer than 7,000 deaths. ..."
"... In the meantime, U.S. forces would have to deal with the various and sundry "kindred movements" that are already cropping up like crabgrass in country after country. Afghanistan -- still? again? -- would head the list of places requiring U.S. military attention. But other prospective locales would include such hotbeds of Islamist activity as Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, and Yemen, along with several West African countries increasingly beset with insurgencies. Unless Egyptian, Pakistani, and Saudi security forces demonstrate the ability (not to mention the will) to suppress the violent radicals in their midst, one or more of those countries could also become the scene of significant U.S. military action. ..."
"... At first glance, $1.8 trillion annually is a stupefyingly large figure. To make it somewhat more palatable, a proponent of World War IV might put that number in historical perspective. During the first phases of World War III, for example, the United States routinely allocated 10% or more of total gross domestic product (GDP) for national security. With that GDP today exceeding $17 trillion, apportioning 10% to the Pentagon would give those charged with managing World War IV a nice sum to work with and no doubt to build upon. ..."
"... In other words, funding World War IV while maintaining a semblance of fiscal responsibility would entail the kind of trade-offs that political leaders are loathe to make. Today, neither party appears up to taking on such challenges. That the demands of waging protracted war will persuade them to rise above their partisan differences seems unlikely. It sure hasn't so far. ..."
"... In my view, Cohen's World War IV is an invitation to collective suicide. Arguing that no alternative exists to open-ended war represents not hard-nosed realism, but the abdication of statecraft. Yet here's the ultimate irony: even without the name, the United States has already embarked upon something akin to a world war, which now extends into the far reaches of the Islamic world and spreads further year by year. ..."
"... Andrew J. Bacevich, a ..."
"... , is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of ..."
"... , among other works. His new book, ..."
"... is due out in April 2016. ..."
"... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's ..."
"... , and Tom Engelhardts latest book, ..."
Dec 03, 2015 | TomDispatch

Let's consider the two parties in Washington. I'm not referring to the Republican and Democratic ones, but our capital's war parties (there being no peace party, of course). They might be labeled the More War Party and the Much (or Much, Much) More War Party. Headed by President Obama, the first is distinctly a minority grouping. In a capital city in which, post-Paris, war seems to be the order of the day, it's the party of relative restraint, as the president has clearly grasped the obvious: for the last 14 years, the more wholeheartedly the U.S. has gone into any situation in the Greater Middle East, militarily speaking, the worse it has turned out.

Having promised to get us out of two wars and being essentially assured of leaving us in at least three (and various other conflicts on the side), he insists that a new invasion or even a large-scale infusion of American troops, aka "boots on the ground," in Syria or Iraq is a no-go for him. The code word he uses for his version of more war -- since less war is simply not an option on that "table" in Washington where all options are evidently kept -- is "intensification." Once upon a time, it might have been called "escalation" or "mission creep." The president has pledged to merely "intensify" the war he's launched, however reluctantly, in Syria and the one he's re-launched in Iraq. This seems to mean more of exactly what he's already ordered into the fray: more air power, more special forces boots more or less on the ground in Syria, more special ops raiders sent into Iraq, and perhaps more military advisers ever nearer to the action in that country as well. This is as close as you're likely to get in present-day America, at least in official circles, to an antiwar position.

In the Much (or Much, Much) More War party, Republicans and Democrats alike are explicitly or implicitly criticizing the president for his "weak" policies and for "leading from behind" against the Islamic State. They propose solutions ranging from instituting "no-fly zones" in northern Syria to truly intensifying U.S. air strikes, to sending in local forces backed and led by American special operators (à la Afghanistan 2001), to sending in far more American troops, to simply putting masses of American boots on the ground and storming the Islamic State's capital, Raqqa. After fourteen years in which so many similar "solutions" have been tried and in the end failed miserably in the Greater Middle East or North Africa, all of it, as if brand new, is once again on that table in Washington.

Aside from long-shots Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, any candidate likely to enter the Oval Office in January 2017 will be committed to some version of much-more war, including obviously Donald Trump, Marco ("clash of civilizations") Rubio, and Hillary Clinton, who recently gave a hawkish speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on her version of war policy against the Islamic State. Given that stark reality, this is a perfect moment to explore what much-more war (call it, in fact, "World War IV") might actually mean and how it might play out in our world -- and TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich is the perfect person to do it. Tom

Beyond ISIS: The Folly of World War IV
By Andrew J. Bacevich

Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what?

Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself -- a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it, "We came, we saw, he died." End of story.

In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. "Liberation" turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval.

Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists.

The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.

That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that "caliphate" is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.

In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its "capital," in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.

In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone -- the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted -- favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, "I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there."

It's an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.

Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker.

Embracing Generational War

Why this repeated disparity between perceived and actual outcomes? Why have apparent battlefield successes led so regularly to more violence and disorder? Before following Kristol's counsel, Americans would do well to reflect on these questions.

Cue Professor Eliot A. Cohen. Shortly after 9/11, Cohen, one of this country's preeminent military thinkers, characterized the conflict on which the United States was then embarking as "World War IV." (In this formulation, the Cold War becomes World War III.) Other than in certain neoconservative quarters, the depiction did not catch on. Yet nearly a decade-and-a-half later, the Johns Hopkins professor and former State Department official is sticking to his guns. In an essay penned for the American Interest following the recent Paris attacks, he returns to his theme. "It was World War IV in 2001," Cohen insists. "It is World War IV today." And to our considerable benefit he spells out at least some of the implications of casting the conflict in such expansive and evocative terms.

Now I happen to think that equating our present predicament in the Islamic world with the immensely destructive conflicts of the prior century is dead wrong. Yet it's a proposition that Americans at this juncture should contemplate with the utmost seriousness.

In the United States today, confusion about what war itself signifies is widespread. Through misuse, misapplication, and above all misremembering, we have distorted the term almost beyond recognition. As one consequence, talk of war comes too easily off the tongues of the unknowing.

Not so with Cohen. When it comes to war, he has no illusions. Addressing that subject, he illuminates it, enabling us to see what war entails. So in advocating World War IV, he performs a great service, even if perhaps not the one he intends.

What will distinguish the war that Cohen deems essential? "Begin with endurance," he writes. "This war will probably go on for the rest of my life, and well into my children's." Although American political leaders seem reluctant "to explain just how high the stakes are," Cohen lays them out in direct, unvarnished language. At issue, he insists, is the American way of life itself, not simply "in the sense of rock concerts and alcohol in restaurants, but the more fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion, the equality of women, and, most essentially, the freedom from fear and freedom to think."

With so much on the line, Cohen derides the Obama administration's tendency to rely on "therapeutic bombing, which will temporarily relieve the itch, but leave the wounds suppurating." The time for such half-measures has long since passed. Defeating the Islamic State and "kindred movements" will require the U.S. to "kill a great many people." To that end Washington needs "a long-range plan not to 'contain' but to crush" the enemy. Even with such a plan, victory will be a long way off and will require "a long, bloody, and costly process."

Cohen's candor and specificity, as bracing as they are rare, should command our respect. If World War IV describes what we are in for, then eliminating ISIS might figure as a near-term imperative, but it can hardly define the endgame. Beyond ISIS loom all those continually evolving "kindred movements" to which the United States will have to attend before it can declare the war itself well and truly won.

To send just tens of thousands of U.S. troops to clean up Syria and Iraq, as William Kristol and others propose, offers at best a recipe for winning a single campaign. Winning the larger war would involve far more arduous exertions. This Cohen understands, accepts, and urges others to acknowledge.

And here we come to the heart of the matter. For at least the past 35 years -- that is, since well before 9/11 -- the United States has been "at war" in various quarters of the Islamic world. At no point has it demonstrated the will or the ability to finish the job. Washington's approach has been akin to treating cancer with a little bit of chemo one year and a one-shot course of radiation the next. Such gross malpractice aptly describes U.S. military policy throughout the Greater Middle East across several decades.

While there may be many reasons why the Iraq War of 2003 to 2011 and the still longer Afghanistan War yielded such disappointing results, Washington's timidity in conducting those campaigns deserves pride of place. That most Americans might bridle at the term "timidity" reflects the extent to which they have deluded themselves regarding the reality of war.

In comparison to Vietnam, for example, Washington's approach to waging its two principal post-9/11 campaigns was positively half-hearted. With the nation as a whole adhering to peacetime routines, Washington neither sent enough troops nor stayed anywhere near long enough to finish the job. Yes, we killed many tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but if winning World War IV requires, as Cohen writes, that we "break the back" of the enemy, then we obviously didn't kill nearly enough.

Nor were Americans sufficiently willing to die for the cause. In South Vietnam, 58,000 G.I.s died in a futile effort to enable that country to survive. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the stakes were presumably much higher, we pulled the plug after fewer than 7,000 deaths.

Americans would be foolish to listen to those like William Kristol who, even today, peddle illusions about war being neat and easy. They would do well instead to heed Cohen, who knows that war is hard and ugly.

What Would World War IV Look Like?

Yet when specifying the practical implications of generational war, Cohen is less forthcoming. From his perspective, this fourth iteration of existential armed conflict in a single century is not going well. But apart from greater resolve and bloody-mindedness, what will it take to get things on the right track?

As a thought experiment, let's answer that question by treating it with the urgency that Cohen believes it deserves. After 9/11, certain U.S. officials thundered about "taking the gloves off." In practice, however, with the notable exception of policies permitting torture and imprisonment without due process, the gloves stayed on. Take Cohen's conception of World War IV at face value and that will have to change.

For starters, the country would have to move to something like a war footing, enabling Washington to raise a lot more troops and spend a lot more money over a very long period of time. Although long since banished from the nation's political lexicon, the M-word -- mobilization -- would make a comeback. Prosecuting a generational war, after all, is going to require the commitment of generations.

Furthermore, if winning World War IV means crushing the enemy, as Cohen emphasizes, then ensuring that the enemy, once crushed, cannot recover would be hardly less important. And that requirement would prohibit U.S. forces from simply walking away from a particular fight even -- or especially -- when it might appear won.

At the present moment, defeating the Islamic State ranks as Washington's number one priority. With the Pentagon already claiming a body count of 20,000 ISIS fighters without notable effect, this campaign won't end anytime soon. But even assuming an eventually positive outcome, the task of maintaining order and stability in areas that ISIS now controls will remain. Indeed, that task will persist until the conditions giving rise to entities like ISIS are eliminated. Don't expect French President François Hollande or British Prime Minister David Cameron to sign up for that thankless job. U.S. forces will own it. Packing up and leaving the scene won't be an option.

How long would those forces have to stay? Extrapolating from recent U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, something on the order of a quarter-century seems like a plausible approximation. So should our 45th president opt for a boots-on-the-ground solution to ISIS, as might well be the case, the privilege of welcoming the troops home could belong to the 48th or 49th occupant of the White House.

In the meantime, U.S. forces would have to deal with the various and sundry "kindred movements" that are already cropping up like crabgrass in country after country. Afghanistan -- still? again? -- would head the list of places requiring U.S. military attention. But other prospective locales would include such hotbeds of Islamist activity as Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, and Yemen, along with several West African countries increasingly beset with insurgencies. Unless Egyptian, Pakistani, and Saudi security forces demonstrate the ability (not to mention the will) to suppress the violent radicals in their midst, one or more of those countries could also become the scene of significant U.S. military action.

Effective prosecution of World War IV, in other words, would require the Pentagon to plan for each of these contingencies, while mustering the assets needed for implementation. Allies might kick in token assistance -- tokenism is all they have to offer -- but the United States will necessarily carry most of the load.

What Would World War IV Cost?

During World War III (aka the Cold War), the Pentagon maintained a force structure ostensibly adequate to the simultaneous prosecution of two and a half wars. This meant having the wherewithal to defend Europe and the Pacific from communist aggression while still leaving something for the unexpected. World War IV campaigns are unlikely to entail anything on the scale of the Warsaw Pact attacking Western Europe or North Korea invading the South. Still, the range of plausible scenarios will require that U.S. forces be able to take on militant organizations C and D even while guarding against the resurgence of organizations A and B in altogether different geographic locations.

Even though Washington may try whenever possible to avoid large-scale ground combat, relying on air power (including drones) and elite Special Operations forces to do the actual killing, post-conflict pacification promises to be a manpower intensive activity. Certainly, this ranks as one of the most obvious lessons to emerge from World War IV's preliminary phases: when the initial fight ends, the real work begins.

U.S. forces committed to asserting control over Iraq after the invasion of 2003 topped out at roughly 180,000. In Afghanistan, during the Obama presidency, the presence peaked at 110,000. In a historical context, these are not especially large numbers. At the height of the Vietnam War, for example, U.S. troop strength in Southeast Asia exceeded 500,000.

In hindsight, the Army general who, before the invasion of 2003, publicly suggested that pacifying postwar Iraq would require "several hundred thousand troops" had it right. A similar estimate applies to Afghanistan. In other words, those two occupations together could easily have absorbed 600,000 to 800,000 troops on an ongoing basis. Given the Pentagon's standard three-to-one rotation policy, which assumes that for every unit in-country, a second is just back, and a third is preparing to deploy, you're talking about a minimum requirement of between 1.8 and 2.4 million troops to sustain just two medium-sized campaigns -- a figure that wouldn't include some number of additional troops kept in reserve for the unexpected.

In other words, waging World War IV would require at least a five-fold increase in the current size of the U.S. Army -- and not as an emergency measure but a permanent one. Such numbers may appear large, but as Cohen would be the first to point out, they are actually modest when compared to previous world wars. In 1968, in the middle of World War III, the Army had more than 1.5 million active duty soldiers on its rolls -- this at a time when the total American population was less than two-thirds what it is today and when gender discrimination largely excluded women from military service. If it chose to do so, the United States today could easily field an army of two million or more soldiers.

Whether it could also retain the current model of an all-volunteer force is another matter. Recruiters would certainly face considerable challenges, even if Congress enhanced the material inducements for service, which since 9/11 have already included a succession of generous increases in military pay. A loosening of immigration policy, granting a few hundred thousand foreigners citizenship in return for successfully completing a term of enlistment might help. In all likelihood, however, as with all three previous world wars, waging World War IV would oblige the United States to revive the draft, a prospect as likely to be well-received as a flood of brown and black immigrant enlistees. In short, going all out to create the forces needed to win World War IV would confront Americans with uncomfortable choices.

The budgetary implications of expanding U.S. forces while conducting a perpetual round of what the Pentagon calls "overseas contingency operations" would also loom large. Precisely how much money an essentially global conflict projected to extend well into the latter half of the century would require is difficult to gauge. As a starting point, given the increased number of active duty forces, tripling the present Defense Department budget of more than $600 billion might serve as a reasonable guess.

At first glance, $1.8 trillion annually is a stupefyingly large figure. To make it somewhat more palatable, a proponent of World War IV might put that number in historical perspective. During the first phases of World War III, for example, the United States routinely allocated 10% or more of total gross domestic product (GDP) for national security. With that GDP today exceeding $17 trillion, apportioning 10% to the Pentagon would give those charged with managing World War IV a nice sum to work with and no doubt to build upon.

Of course, that money would have to come from somewhere. For several years during the last decade, sustaining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pushed the federal deficit above a trillion dollars. As one consequence, the total national debt now exceeds annual GDP, having tripled since 9/11. How much additional debt the United States can accrue without doing permanent damage to the economy is a question of more than academic interest.

To avoid having World War IV produce an endless string of unacceptably large deficits, ratcheting up military spending would undoubtedly require either substantial tax increases or significant cuts in non-military spending, including big-ticket programs like Medicare and social security -- precisely those, that is, which members of the middle class hold most dear.

In other words, funding World War IV while maintaining a semblance of fiscal responsibility would entail the kind of trade-offs that political leaders are loathe to make. Today, neither party appears up to taking on such challenges. That the demands of waging protracted war will persuade them to rise above their partisan differences seems unlikely. It sure hasn't so far.

The Folly of World War IV

In his essay, Cohen writes, "we need to stop the circumlocutions." Of those who would bear the direct burden of his world war, he says, "we must start telling them the truth." He's right, even if he himself is largely silent about what the conduct of World War IV is likely to exact from the average citizen.

As the United States enters a presidential election year, plain talk about the prospects of our ongoing military engagement in the Islamic world should be the order of the day. The pretense that either dropping a few more bombs or invading one or two more countries will yield a conclusive outcome amounts to more than an evasion. It is an outright lie.

As Cohen knows, winning World War IV would require dropping many, many more bombs and invading, and then occupying for years to come, many more countries. After all, it's not just ISIS that Washington will have to deal with, but also its affiliates, offshoots, wannabes, and the successors almost surely waiting in the wings. And don't forget al-Qaeda.

Cohen believes that we have no alternative. Either we get serious about fighting World War IV the way it needs to be fought or darkness will envelop the land. He is undeterred by the evidence that the more deeply we insert our soldiers into the Greater Middle East the more concerted the resistance they face; that the more militants we kill the more we seem to create; that the inevitable, if unintended, killing of innocents only serves to strengthen the hand of the extremists. As he sees it, with everything we believe in riding on the outcome, we have no choice but to press on.

While listening carefully to Cohen's call to arms, Americans should reflect on its implications. Wars change countries and people. Embracing his prescription for World War IV would change the United States in fundamental ways. It would radically expand the scope and reach of the national security state, which, of course, includes agencies beyond the military itself. It would divert vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes. It would make the militarization of the American way of life, a legacy of prior world wars, irreversible. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it would also compromise American freedom in the name of protecting it. The nation that decades from now might celebrate VT Day -- victory over terrorism -- will have become a different place, materially, politically, culturally, and morally.

In my view, Cohen's World War IV is an invitation to collective suicide. Arguing that no alternative exists to open-ended war represents not hard-nosed realism, but the abdication of statecraft. Yet here's the ultimate irony: even without the name, the United States has already embarked upon something akin to a world war, which now extends into the far reaches of the Islamic world and spreads further year by year.

Incrementally, bit by bit, this nameless war has already expanded the scope and reach of the national security apparatus. It is diverting vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes even as it normalizes the continuing militarization of the American way of life. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it is undermining American freedom in the name of protecting it, and doing so right before our eyes.

Cohen rightly decries the rudderless character of the policies that have guided the (mis)conduct of that war thus far. For that critique we owe him a considerable debt. But the real problem is the war itself and the conviction that only through war can America remain America.

For a rich and powerful nation to conclude that it has no choice but to engage in quasi-permanent armed conflict in the far reaches of the planet represents the height of folly. Power confers choice. As citizens, we must resist with all our might arguments that deny the existence of choice. Whether advanced forthrightly by Cohen or fecklessly by the militarily ignorant, such claims will only perpetuate the folly that has already lasted far too long.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, among other works. His new book, America's War for the Greater Middle East (Random House), is due out in April 2016.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

Copyright 2015 Andrew J. Bacevich

[Dec 02, 2015] BOMBSHELL Ambush of Russian Bomber Was Guided by US Reconnaissance

Looks like Obama revenge to Putin for entering Syria...
Notable quotes:
"... The American E-3A was supposed to determine the activity of the Su-24M2s onboard targeting radar, to determine if it was in search mode or if it had already locked on to a target and was processing launch data. It is known that the AWACS can direct the activity of aircraft in battle, conveying information to their avionics and flight computers. ..."
"... This plane [the F-16CJ] had been specifically built for Turkey. Its distinctive feature is a computer that controls a new, AN/APG-68 radar system, and which fulfills the role of a copilot-navigator. ..."
"... Indeed, the interception accuracy of the F-16CJ fighters was augmented by ground-based U.S. Patriot air defense systems, which are deployed in Turkey, or more precisely, their multirole AN/MPQ-53 radars. The Patriot can work with an E-3 or with MENTOR spy satellites, and it cant be ruled out that the satellite assets involved the Geosat space system as well. ..."
"... The flight trajectory of the F-16CJ indicates a precision interception of its target by means of triangulation: A pair of E-3s plus the Patriots air defense radar plus the geostationary MENTOR spy satellites plus, possibly, the Geosat space system. ..."
"... Of course. A pair of F-16CJs flew to the [missile] launch zone and, at a distance of 4-6 kilometers, practically point blank!, launched an AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile into the rear hemisphere of our Russian bomber. Besides which, the AN/APG-68 onboard radar of the fighter which launched the missile, was working in "target illumination" mode. That is, it turned on at the moment of launch, and turned off as soon as the missile definitively locked on to its target. ..."
"... The Turks nonetheless committed one mistake, which led to their provocation not quite working out. The F-16CJ went out on its interception two minutes late, when the Su-24M2 had already left the disputed 68-kilometer zone in the north of Syria [this may be referring to the Turks self-styled no-fly-zone against Assad]; to leave it required at most 1.5 minutes. But the "kill" command to the F-16CJ had not been revoked; thus the missile launch was carried out a bit further than the intended point. This is confirmed by the fact that the [Turkish TV] footage of the Su-24M2s fall was planned to be filmed from both Syrian territory and Turkish territory; however, the "Syrian footage" is more detailed. It appears that this saved our navigator. He was able to go into the woods and wait for a rescue team. ..."
russia-insider.com

A Russian military expert and columnist of the journal Arsenal of the Fatherland explains the details of the downing of the bomber and why not all went smoothly in an interview to the news agency Regnum

How did it all happen?

A U.S. Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS plane took off on 24 November from the Preveza airbase in Greece. A second E-3A of the Saudi Arabian air force took off from the Riyadh airbase. Both planes were executing a common task-determining the precise location of Russian aircraft. It is they that picked the "victim."

The American E-3A was supposed to determine the activity of the Su-24M2's onboard targeting radar, to determine if it was in search mode or if it had already locked on to a target and was processing launch data. It is known that the AWACS can direct the activity of aircraft in battle, conveying information to their avionics and flight computers.

That is, to determine how defenseless was our plane?

As it turns out, yes. As we know, the Su-24M2 was returning from its mission, and its flight computer was operating in "navigation" mode in tandem with the GLONASS [Russian GPS system.] It was returning to base and was not preparing for action. The whole time, the E-3s were transferring detailed information about the Su-24M2 to a pair of Turkish F-16CJ's. This plane [the F-16CJ] had been specifically built for Turkey. Its distinctive feature is a computer that controls a new, AN/APG-68 radar system, and which fulfills the role of a copilot-navigator.

But this information is obviously not enough to precision-strike a small target. Was something else used?

Indeed, the interception accuracy of the F-16CJ fighters was augmented by ground-based U.S. Patriot air defense systems, which are deployed in Turkey, or more precisely, their multirole AN/MPQ-53 radars. The Patriot can work with an E-3 or with MENTOR spy satellites, and it can't be ruled out that the satellite assets involved the Geosat space system as well.

The flight trajectory of the F-16CJ indicates a precision interception of its target by means of triangulation: A pair of E-3s plus the Patriot's air defense radar plus the geostationary MENTOR spy satellites plus, possibly, the Geosat space system.

Besides which, the E-3s provided guidance as to the location of our plane in the air; they determined its route, speed, and the status of its weapons control systems; and the Patriot's air defense radar together with the MENTOR spy satellite provided telemetry on the SU-24M2's movement relative to the ground surface-that is, it provided a precise prediction as to where our plane would be visible relative to the mountainous terrain.

So it turns out that the Turkish fighters knew with absolutely certainty where to wait in ambush for our plane?

Of course. A pair of F-16CJ's flew to the [missile] launch zone and, at a distance of 4-6 kilometers, practically point blank!, launched an AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missile into the rear hemisphere of our Russian bomber. Besides which, the AN/APG-68 onboard radar of the fighter which launched the missile, was working in "target illumination" mode. That is, it turned on at the moment of launch, and turned off as soon as the missile definitively locked on to its target.

Did our pilots have a chance to save their plane?

No. The Su-24M2 crew's probability of escaping destruction was equal to zero…

…Turkey does not have its own capabilities for such a detailed and very precise operation. And don't forget about the second E-3, from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The whole scenario was very fast-moving, lasting just seconds.

Did it really happen that smoothly?

The Turks nonetheless committed one mistake, which led to their provocation not quite working out. The F-16CJ went out on its interception two minutes late, when the Su-24M2 had already left the disputed 68-kilometer zone in the north of Syria [this may be referring to the Turk's self-styled no-fly-zone against Assad]; to leave it required at most 1.5 minutes. But the "kill" command to the F-16CJ had not been revoked; thus the missile launch was carried out a bit further than the intended point. This is confirmed by the fact that the [Turkish TV] footage of the Su-24M2's fall was planned to be filmed from both Syrian territory and Turkish territory; however, the "Syrian footage" is more detailed. It appears that this saved our navigator. He was able to go into the woods and wait for a rescue team.

[Dec 02, 2015] Russia Presents Detailed Evidence Of ISIS-Turkey Oil Trade

Notable quotes:
"... Now obviously, conclusive evidence that Ankara is knowingly facilitating the sale of ISIS crude will probably be hard to come by, at least in the short-term, but the silly thing about Erdogans pronouncement is that were talking about a man who was willing to plunge his country into civil war over a few lost seats in Parliament. The idea that he would ever step down is patently absurd. ..."
"... Whats critical is that the world gets the truth about whos financing and facilitating Raqqas Rockefellers. If a NATO member is supporting this, and if the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks for 14 months as part of an understanding with Erdogan, well then we have a problem. ..."
"... In the opening address, the Deputy says the ISIS oil trade reaches the highest levels of Turkeys government. He also says Erdogan wouldnt resign if his face was smeared with stolen Syrian oil. Antonov then blasts Ankara for arresting journalists and mocks Erdogans lovely family oil business. Antonov even calls on the journalists of the world to get involved and help Russia expose and destroy the sources of terrorist financing. ..."
"... I might be too harsh, but at the hands of the Turkish military killed our comrades. The cynicism of the Turkish leadership is unlimited. Look what theyre doing ?! Climbed to a foreign country, it shamelessly robbed. And if the owners interfere, then they have to be addressed. ..."
"... No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business! ..."
"... National intelligence agencies watch Facebook, Twitter, Google and other search engines to see if they have to do damage control. If a few sites come out with articles implicating Bilal but the little people dont do many searches for him or re-tweet links, then theres no reason to react. They simply ignore the story. ..."
"... The government defines the narrative, and MSM stenographers fill in the pieces. Facebook, Twitter and Google are checked to see if they had the desired effect. They can also use a bit more direct techniques like massaging the Google search result rankings or blowing away Facebook and Twitter accounts they dont like. Israel is insane about collecting this data from Americans and reacting. Uncle Sugar isnt going to cough up that free $3 billion a year handout to them if the people are in the streets with pitchforks and torches. They are especially interested in de-ranking Google results that make Israel look bad, and promoting sites that deliver the message they want. Google is the worst search engine to look for Israeli current events. ..."
"... Obama Administration Supporting Islamic State -- OASIS. It certainly is if youre a terrorist rebel or well-connected oil pimp... ..."
"... The US made a deal with OPEC: the US would help to remove Assad, and in return, OPEC would dump oil to weaken Russia and Iran, fulfilling PNAC/Cheneys pet dream of consolidating the remaining oil reserves under US-friendly control. ISIS was a tool to that end. ..."
"... Now that the cat is out of the bag, now that Chinas overdue correction has been triggered, now that Brazil and Canada know who is largely responsible for their collapsing economies, now that Europe knows why they are overrun by refugees, I wonder how friendly those countries will be moving forward. ..."
"... As I read it, according to traditional international law, the Russian Federation may legally seize Erdogans Maltese-flagged neutral tankers carrying ISIS crude oil, because that crude oil constitutes a significant portion of ISIS war making potential, that tanker then effectively constituting an enemy merchant vessel, with the tankers subsequent condemnation in Russian prize courts, as the capturing belligerent power. ..."
"... A former police commander from Tajikistan was featured in an ISIS video recently where he admitted he was trained by the U.S. State Department and former military contractor Blackwater all the way up until last year. ..."
"... It was Turkeys national intelligence agency, known as MIT, that first organized Syrian military defectors into Western-backed groups under the banner of the Free Syrian Army. ..."
"... Free Syrian Army factions still convene on Turkish soil in the Joint Operations Center, a CIA-led intelligence hub that gives vetted rebels training as well as U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles used to destroy Syrian army tanks and armored units. ..."
"... Islamist groups, however, have benefited from Turkeys pro-opposition policy as well. In May, the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet published video from 2014 showing customs agents impounding a truck owned by the MIT. The trucks manifest said it was carrying humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Instead it was bearing a cache of ammunition and shells the newspaper said were destined for Islamist rebels. The videos release caused a furor. Erdogan vowed to prosecute Cumhuriyet, a threat he carried out Friday when authorities arrested two of the papers journalists on charges of espionage and aiding a terrorist organization. ..."
"... According to a 2015 United Nations study, two border crossings controlled by a faction of the Army of Conquest handle more than 300 trucks a day, a figure that exceeds prewar levels. The traffic yields an estimated $660,000 a day. ..."
Zero Hedge
On Monday, Turkey's sultan President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said something funny. In the wake of Vladimir Putin's contention that Russia has additional proof of Turkey's participation in Islamic State's illicit crude trade, Erdogan said he would resign if anyone could prove the accusations.

Now obviously, conclusive evidence that Ankara is knowingly facilitating the sale of ISIS crude will probably be hard to come by, at least in the short-term, but the silly thing about Erdogan's pronouncement is that we're talking about a man who was willing to plunge his country into civil war over a few lost seats in Parliament. The idea that he would ever "step down" is patently absurd.

But that's not what's important. What's critical is that the world gets the truth about who's financing and facilitating "Raqqa's Rockefellers." If a NATO member is supporting this, and if the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks for 14 months as part of an understanding with Erdogan, well then we have a problem. For those who need a review, see the following four pieces:

Unfortunately for Ankara, The Kremlin is on a mission to blow this story wide open now that Turkey has apparently decided it's ok to shoot down Russian fighter jets. On Wednesday, we get the latest from Russia, where the Defense Ministry has just finished a briefing on the Islamic State oil trade. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Turkey may be in trouble.

First, here's the bullet point summary via Reuters:

  • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS RUSSIA'S AIR STRIKES IN SYRIA HELPED TO ALMOST HALVE ILLEGAL OIL TURNOVER
  • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS TURKISH PRESIDENT AND FAMILY INVOLVED IN BUSINESS WITH ISLAMIC STATE OIL
  • RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS WILL CONTINUE STRIKES IN SYRIA ON ISLAMIC STATE OIL INFRASTRUCTURE
  • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS KNOWS OF THREE ROUTES BY WHICH ISLAMIC STATE OIL IS DIRECTED TO TURKEY
  • RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS TO PRESENT NEXT WEEK INFORMATION SHOWING TURKEY HELPING ISLAMIC STATE

That's the Cliff's Notes version and the full statement from Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov is below. Let us be the first to tell you, Antonov did not hold back.

In the opening address, the Deputy says the ISIS oil trade reaches the highest levels of Turkey's government. He also says Erdogan wouldn't resign if his face was smeared with stolen Syrian oil. Antonov then blasts Ankara for arresting journalists and mocks Erdogan's "lovely family oil business." Antonov even calls on the journalists of the world to "get involved" and help Russia "expose and destroy the sources of terrorist financing."

"Today, we are presenting only some of the facts that confirm that a whole team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from their neighbors is operating in the region," Antonov continues, setting up a lengthy presentation in which the MoD shows photos of oil trucks, videos of airstrikes and maps detailing the trafficking of stolen oil. The clip is presented here with an English voice-over. Enjoy.

... ... ...

Oh, and for good measure, Lieutenant-General Sergey Rudskoy says the US is not bombing ISIS oil trucks.

* * *

Full statement from Anatoly Antonov (translated)

At a briefing for the media, "the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the fight against international terrorism. The new data "

International terrorism - is the main threat of our time. This threat is not illusory but real, and many countries, primarily Russia, knows this firsthand. The notorious "Is Islamic state" - the absolute leader of the terrorist international. This is a rearing monster of international terrorism can be countered. And you can win. Over the past two months, Aerospace Russian forces is clearly demonstrated.

We are firmly convinced that victory over LIH need to deliver a powerful and devastating blow to the sources of its funding, as repeatedly mentioned by President Vladimir Putin. Terrorism has no money - is a beast without teeth. Oil revenues are a major source of terrorist activity in Syria. They earn about $ 2 billion. Dollars annually, spending this money on hiring fighters around the world, providing them with weapons, equipment and weapons. That's why so LIH protects thieves oil infrastructure in Syria and Iraq.

The main consumer of stolen from legitimate owners - Syria and Iraq - the oil is Turkey. According to the data entered in this criminal business involved the highest political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family.

We have repeatedly talked about the dangers of flirting with terrorists. It's like that stokes. The fire from one country can spill over to others. This situation we are seeing in the Middle East. Today, we present only part of the facts, confirming that the region has a team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from the neighbors.

This oil in large numbers on an industrial scale, for the living pipelines from thousands of oil tankers entering the territory of Turkey. We are absolutely convinced today present you the hard facts about what the final destination of the stolen oil - Turkey. There is a large number of media representatives, and Our briefing will see more of your colleagues. In this regard, I would like to say the following. We know and appreciate the work of journalists. We know that in the journalistic community, many courageous, fearless people honestly do its job. Today, we have clearly shown you how the illegal trade in oil, the result of which - the financing of terrorism. Provided concrete evidence that, in our opinion, may be the subject of investigative journalism.

We are confident that the truth with your help will, will find its way. We know the price to Erdogan. He has already been caught in a lie again Turkish journalists who opened Turkey delivery of arms and ammunition to militants under the guise of humanitarian convoys. For this imprisoned journalists.

Do not resign Turkish leaders, particularly Mr. Erdogan, and did not recognize, even if their faces will be smeared by oil thieves. I might be too harsh, but at the hands of the Turkish military killed our comrades. The cynicism of the Turkish leadership is unlimited. Look what they're doing ?! Climbed to a foreign country, it shamelessly robbed. And if the owners interfere, then they have to be addressed.

I stress that Erdogan's resignation is not our goal. It is - it is the people of Turkey. Our goal and the goal to which we urge you, ladies and gentlemen, - joint action to block the sources of funding for terrorism. We will continue to provide evidence of robbery by Turkey of its neighbors. Maybe I'll be too straightforward, but the control of these thieves in business can be entrusted only to the most close people.

No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business!

This, in general, may elsewhere? Well, once again, of course, such cases can not be charging anyone, only the closest people. Votes this fact in the Western media we do not see much, but it sure can not hide the truth. Yes, of course, dirty petrodollars will work. I am sure that there are now discussions about the fact that everything you see here, - falsification. Well. If it did not - let be allowed in those places that we showed journalists.

It is obvious that today the publicity was devoted only part of the information about the monstrous crimes of the Turkish elites who directly finance international terrorism. We believe that any sane journalist should fight this plague of the XXI century. The world experience has repeatedly argued that the objective journalism is able to be an effective and formidable tool in the fight against various financial corruption schemes. We invite colleagues to investigative journalism on the disclosure of financial schemes and supplies oil from the terrorists to the consumers. Especially since the oil produced in the controlled militants territories in transit through Turkish ports shipped to other regions. For its part, the Ministry of Defense of Russia will continue to disclose new evidence on the supply of terrorists oil to foreign countries and to talk about the conduct of aerospace forces of Russia operations in Syria.Let's unite our efforts. We will destroy the sources of financing of terrorism in Syria, as you get involved in the kind of work abroad. "

Latina Lover

Doesn't matter what evidence Putin offers, the USSA Minion Mainstream Media liars will bury, distort or outright lie to defend Turkey. If Putin wanted any media play, he should photoshop the detailed evidence on a picture of Kim Kardasians ass.

The good news is that the Turks will figure it out, along with the rest of the world.

The9thDoctor

The main difference between al-CIAduh and CIsisA is that even the dumbest of the dumb have figured out that ISIL is controlled and equipped by Western Intelligence.

two hoots

John Kerry can explain this....to his own satisfaction.

Gaius Frakkin' ...

I've already seen more evidence for ISIS-Turkey oil trading than Saddam's WMDs... still waiting for that BTW.

farflungstar

NATO cunts supporting terrorists deserve whatever they get.

There was a lull when the Russians made their entrance into Syria, as Thinktank Land had to recalibrate their bullshit and get on message for the sheep. A couple weeks later the AmeriKans are crying crocodile tears over civilians and Russia killing kinder, gentler terrorists rather than ISIS.

LOL AmeriKans concerned over civilian casualties.

Kirk2NCC1701

And yet, we are still suppose to "Support Our Troops"

If they had 'truth in advertising', they'd call it "Support Our Storm-Troopers", to serve the Empire

Wise up, people. We have a MERCENARY ARMY -- by Definition.

MERCENARY =

a. You Volunteered 1,

b. You are getting Paid,

c. You have a Contract (with or w/o a Retirement Package)

d. After said Contract has expired, and if Released from further Duty (at sole discretion of Employer), you may enter a new Contract with a private 'security firm', i.e. "Mercs R US", or retire to pursue other activities (work for Gov.US, or one of its para-Gov units known as NGOs). In some cases, you may be so disillusioned or burned out, that you actually join the private sector. In some rare cases, assuming you haven't killed yourself, you may actually have become an open or closet anti-war activist. Which makes you a Born-Again Citizen, and a genuine Hero. If you are married with children, you are a mutha-facking hero, aka... 'Dad'.

[1] It matters not/naught if you're a well-meaning 'Patriot' (10%), a Economic Desperado (85%) or a Closet Psycho (5%). They'll take you even if you're not a US Citizen. In which case, you can become one after a mere 2 years, and in the Naturalization Process their Look-back Window is literally 2 years. I know this for fact. If you want to challenge me on this, you'll have to put your money where your mouth is, and pony up some serious Cash/BTC

McMolotov

For people of a certain age, "Russia is evil" is their default setting. They literally had that message pounded into their brains for decades, and unless they frequent alternative media sites, it's hard to overcome.

I see it with my parents. I can talk to them about this stuff for a few hours and gradually get them to see glimmers of the truth, but they usually completely revert to their normal thinking by the next time I see them. It doesn't help that they have Fox News on all the time.

rwe2late

UndergroundPost

Su-24 you say?

There is fair certainty that the SU-24 was hit (inside Syria) by radar-guided missiles(s) fired by the Turk jets,

and the missiles were guided and the SU-24 targeted by airborne US AWACS.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/bombshell-turkish-attack-russian-s...

The Chief

Im not sure which is worse, domestic frackers and their rape of the the american consumer and retiree with ridiculous oil and gas prices, junk bond sales to pensioners, etc, or ISIS. ISIS, in my view is no threat at all. These are contractors working for deep state functionaries intent on a long-term rape of the global population...but really, just hoodlums intent on taking a vig from illegal oil sales. Just ask Bush, Cheney, and now the democratic machine. New guys at the trough.

Frackers, however, are scum of the fucking earth. The business doesnt work unless oil prices are high. Fuck that. They pay their bills with a junk bond ponzi.

As for frackers themselves...its a tiny fraction of the workforce. Go be auto mechanics or go back to selling meth, fuckers.

847328_3527

Canada could take 50,000 refugees by end of 2016

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/governor-general-urges-support-fo...

The Canadian Gubmint will need to cut benefits to its citizens for the benefit of newcomers just as Barry wants to cut SS for Senior Americans so he can import thousands more.

"Yes we can!"

kralizec

Must be Vlad is daring the Turk to invoke Artcile 21 of Montreux: Erdogan has a trump card against Putin that would transform the Syrian war

You have to admire their bold manner, they are fearless.

They love warning NATO to back off. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-nato-montenegro-invite-111359017.html

But who doesn't? They are a paper tiger, seems pointless to join them.

They get to build on newly seized territory ala China. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-building-military-bases-islands-claimed-jap...

The annexation of Crimea and Donbas is secure. Oil, gas and currency deals with China, India...nuclear deals with Iran.

And nobody is stopping him. Who can? That Muzzie faggot pretender in Washington? The toothless NATO police? The bed-wetting Euro's submitting to Islam?

Ha!

It is a de facto Russian/Chinese world now. Most still have no clue. The kabuki is so strong, the illusion of states and freedom and wealth...all an illusion.

Pah, who cares? Put on the DWTS, snort some lines and pop the bubbly! All is well!

Life of Illusion

Kralizec, you need to complete the illusion......wheres the oil goes when in Turkey.....

http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/news/Pages/210714-goldman-sachs-buys-turkish-petkim-aegean-port.aspx

Goldman Sachs buys into Turkish Petkim's Aegean port 21.07.2014

Hurriyet Daily News – Global leader US investment firm Goldman Sachs has become a partner in Turkey's largest integrated port, operated by petrochemicals maker Petkim, in a deal that will boost Petkim's plans to develop the port as the largest in the Aegean region.

Petkim announced that it has reached a preliminary agreement to sell its 30 percent stake in Petkim Limanc?l?k (Petlim) for USD 250 million, after months of talks beginning in February of this year.

Petkim and Petlim are controlled by the Turkish branch of Azeri energy giant SOCAR. Petlim was founded to run the financial operations of Petkim's port in the Alia?a district of the Aegean province of ?zmir.

"For one of the world's biggest investors to become a partner in our port company means approval of the value and finance of our project," SOCAR Turkey President Kenan Yavuz said, speaking after a ceremony to mark the signing of the deal

Urban Redneck

The yahoos at Yahoo!News should really stick to message boards and perhaps one day expand to fringe blogging (if they can ever pull their heads of their asses). Neither the Russians nor the Turks are interested in seeing the Straights closed.

The purpose of the Montreaux Convention is to prevent another Russo-Turkish war by guaranteeing Russia (and other States that border the Black Sea) will have full military and commercial access to the Straights, while foreign powers will have only limited access. In return for providing this guarantee Turkey was allowed to build fortification to support its obligations under the treaty, while maintaining Turkey's natural right to self defense.

Any attempt by Turkey to prevent Russian access to the Straights, is an act of blockade, and invites either a blockade of Turkish ports (and pipelines) on the Mediterranean, if not another Russo Turkish war. Closing the Straights is simply not some trump card, and even the Sultan of Ankara isn't dumb enough to view such an action as a step towards extending his grip on power.

moonshadow

Putin with "checkmate". Erdogan can only flip the board over and walk away muttering to the int'l crowd somethin bout "Putin...cheater". Great article, Antonov's comments priceless, and video worth a smirk a minute

Noplebian

The NATO led escalation and it's push towards WW3, continues unabated……

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

JustObserving

Will Erdogan resign?

How about detailed evidence on the shooting of the Russian jet?
BOMBSHELL: Ambush of Russian Bomber Was Guided by US Reconnaissance

A U.S. Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS plane took off on 24 November from the Preveza airbase in Greece. A second E-3A of the Saudi Arabian air force took off from the Riyadh airbase. Both planes were executing a common task-determining the precise location of Russian aircraft. It is they that picked the "victim."

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/bombshell-turkish-attack-russian-s...

JustObserving

Erdogan and his oil-smuggling son, Bilal, will be welcomed as heroes in Neocon-controlled Washington. Argentina and Paraguay are now for minor criminals only.


Calmyourself

Erdogan you Islamist bastard Ataturk is laughing at you from beyond the grave, GTFO

edit: why the hell has no one dropped cluster munitions on that truck park? US has been there a year and just missed it? Apparently Obama's (Stalin's) purge of the military has been quite successful because none of them have any balls.

RockySpears

Because cluster bombs are illegal. Not that this is exactly what they were designed for, but people cried about the little bomblets that failed to go off and were subsequently "ploughed" up by civilian farmers.

War is bad, but sometimes it is made worse by the intention to do good.

Same as Chemical weapons, for the most part, they kill no one, they just incapacitate. And anyway, why is a 1,000lb of TNT NOT chemical?

Calmyourself

Only against civilians and nobody signed on anyway.

"During Desert Storm US Marines used the weapon extensively, dropping 15,828 of the 27,987 total Rockeyes against armor, artillery, and personnel targets. The remainder were dropped by Air Force (5,346) and Navy (6,813) aircraft.[1]"

Chairman

2003-2006: United States and allies attacked Iraq with 13,000 cluster munitions, containing two million submunitions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. At multiple times, coalition forces used cluster munitions in residential areas, and the country remains among the most contaminated by this day, bomblets posing a threat to both US military personnel in the area, and local civilians.

When these weapons were fired on Baghdad on April 7, 2003 many of the bomblets failed to explode on impact. Afterward, some of them exploded when touched by civilians. USA Today reported that "the Pentagon presented a misleading picture during the war of the extent to which cluster weapons were being used and of the civilian casualties they were causing." On April 26, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the US had caused only one civilian casualty.

margincall575

Follow up

Breaking: Did the US and Saudis use AWACS to help target the SU-24?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/01/breaking-did-the-us-and-saudis-u...

zeroboris

I used to read the soviet newspaper Pravda and am reading modern western media. And know what? Pravda was many times more truthful. Many of us, Russians, didn't understand this in soviet times (we had no access to western papers). But now I can tell this without any doubt. Most of modern Russian papers are less truthful too.


ThanksChump

I'd be surprised if the WPost ignores this. They did cover the Iraqi claim that the US is backing ISIS.

Paveway IV

National intelligence agencies watch Facebook, Twitter, Google and other search engines to see if they have to do damage control. If a few sites come out with articles implicating Bilal but the 'little people' don't do many searches for him or re-tweet links, then there's no reason to react. They simply ignore the story. If they notice enough little people start Googling Bilial and illegal oil sales or retweeting damaging articles, then they let the boss know. The U.S. MSM is ordered to send out a few stories quoting each other to spin it one way or another.

The government defines the narrative, and MSM stenographers fill in the pieces. Facebook, Twitter and Google are checked to see if they had the desired effect. They can also use a bit more direct techniques like massaging the Google search result rankings or blowing away Facebook and Twitter accounts they don't like. Israel is insane about collecting this data from Americans and reacting. Uncle Sugar isn't going to cough up that free $3 billion a year handout to them if the people are in the streets with pitchforks and torches. They are especially interested in de-ranking Google results that make Israel look bad, and promoting sites that deliver the message they want. Google is the worst search engine to look for Israeli current events.

You'll notice none of the MSM ISIS oil sales articles will mention U.S. stooge Barzani's involvement, and they for damn sure won't mention Israel as a destination for much of the stolen oil. They'll simply steer the narrative to focus on Turkish oil sales, and somehow blame it on Assad.

krispkritter

Obama Administration Supporting Islamic State --> OASIS. It certainly is if you're a terrorist 'rebel' or well-connected oil pimp...

ThanksChump

Occam's Razor.

The US made a deal with OPEC: the US would help to remove Assad, and in return, OPEC would dump oil to weaken Russia and Iran, fulfilling PNAC/Cheney's pet dream of consolidating the remaining oil reserves under US-friendly control. ISIS was a tool to that end.

That's the easy obvious part.

Less obvious is the tie to Ukraine. Ukraine should have been "converted" after Assad was driven out, and not before. This has me confused. Was it only a mistake in timing?

Now that the cat is out of the bag, now that China's overdue correction has been triggered, now that Brazil and Canada know who is largely responsible for their collapsing economies, now that Europe knows why they are overrun by refugees, I wonder how friendly those countries will be moving forward.

Mike Masr

https://www.rt.com/news/324252-russian-military-news-briefing/

US pal and NATO ally Turkey

  • 12:26 GMT

    2,000 fighters, 250 vehicles and over 120 tons of ammo have been sent in the past weeks from Turkey to terrorists in Syria, fuelling the violence in the country.

  • 12:31 GMT

    Russia cannot comprehend that such a large-scale business as oil smuggling could not have been noticed by the Turkish authorities. Russia concludes that the Turkish leadership is directly involved in the smuggling.

  • 12:35 GMT

    Russia doesn't expect Turkish President Erdogan to resign in the face of the new evidence, even though he had promised to do so. His resignation is not Russia's goal and is a matter for the Turkish people.

SoDamnMad

I' m watching the rebroadcast live right now. Video of all these trucks. Damn good video and stills. Gee, why can't the USSA produce these(oh yeah, the MSM isn't allowed to show the truth. Better to show some college campus protest rather than the truth about whose side is really trying to stop terrorism.) Maybe our reconaissence equipment isn't as good as Russian equipment and our satelittes can't find the Turkish-Syrian border. Never seen so many trucks back to back, even on the Jersey Turnpike or the Long Beach Freeway before a holiday when the economy was good.s a lot of bucks going into Erdogan son's pocket (and Israel's)

fel.temp.reparatio

Erdogan: "So what if the MIT trucks were filled with weapons?"

Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

Statements available in English here:

http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/news/more.htm?id=12070726@cmsArticle

Duc888

....another interesting point here...

http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/11/26/raqqas-rockefellers...

"The Islamic State group uses millions of dollars in oil revenues to expand and manage vast areas under its control, home to around five million civilians.

IS sells Iraqi and Syrian oil for a very low price to Kurdish and Turkish smuggling networks and mafias, who label it and sell it on as barrels from the Kurdistan Regional Government.

It is then most frequently transported from Turkey to Israel, via knowing or unknowing middlemen, according to al-Araby's investigation.

The Islamic State group has told al-Araby that it did not intentionally sell oil to Israel, blaming agents along the route to international markets."

no1wonder

Official media release (and speech translation into English) by Russia's Defense Ministry:

http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/brief.htm

cn13

This story is finally hitting the MSM in the U.S. after being reported here for the past week. The powers to be must have needed time to get their lies straight. Anyway, check out the comment section on Yahoo regarding this story. It is almost 100% pro-Russian and anti-NATO/U.S.

I have never seen anything like this before.

The U.S. public has lost total confidence in the government. They are finally catching on to the lies and deceit of those in power.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-proof-turkey-main-consumer-islamic-state-124337872.html

MadVladtheconquerer

Looks like Putin is simply trying to maintain what little remains of the status quo in Syria:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/is-russia-fighting-isil-or-occupying-sy...

gregga777

As I read it, according to traditional international law, the Russian Federation may legally seize Erdogan's Maltese-flagged "neutral" tankers carrying ISIS' crude oil, because that crude oil constitutes a significant portion of ISIS' war making potential, that tanker then effectively constituting an enemy merchant vessel, with the tanker's subsequent condemnation in Russian prize courts, as the capturing belligerent power.

I hope that the Russian Federation's Navy seizes all of Erdogan's tankers, bankrupting Erdogan's company. Let them then sit in port for the next several years awaiting disposition in a Russian prize court.

dot_bust

Then there's this rather enlightening bit of information:

ISIS Colonel was Trained By Blackwater and U.S. State Department for 11 Years

A former police commander from Tajikistan was featured in an ISIS video recently where he admitted he was trained by the U.S. State Department and former military contractor Blackwater all the way up until last year.

http://theantimedia.org/isis-colonel-trained-by-blackwater-and-us-state-...

Amun

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-turkey-20151201-stor...

"It was Turkey's national intelligence agency, known as MIT, that first organized Syrian military defectors into Western-backed groups under the banner of the Free Syrian Army.

Free Syrian Army factions still convene on Turkish soil in the Joint Operations Center, a CIA-led intelligence hub that gives vetted rebels training as well as U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles used to destroy Syrian army tanks and armored units.

Islamist groups, however, have benefited from Turkey's pro-opposition policy as well. In May, the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet published video from 2014 showing customs agents impounding a truck owned by the MIT. The truck's manifest said it was carrying humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Instead it was bearing a cache of ammunition and shells the newspaper said were destined for Islamist rebels. The video's release caused a furor. Erdogan vowed to prosecute Cumhuriyet, a threat he carried out Friday when authorities arrested two of the paper's journalists on charges of espionage and aiding a terrorist organization.

Turkish assistance has been instrumental in empowering the Army of Conquest, a loose coalition of hard-line Islamist factions including Al Nusra Front, which seized control of Idlib province in March in an offensive backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Economic ties also have been forged between Turkey and rebel factions.

According to a 2015 United Nations study, two border crossings controlled by a faction of the Army of Conquest handle more than 300 trucks a day, a figure that exceeds prewar levels. The traffic yields an estimated $660,000 a day. "

[Dec 01, 2015] US Intervention Before And After

Zero Hedge
WhackoWarner

Before death in Libya....Ghadaffi's crime was in "not playing along and selling out". Kinda like Iraq and all. They all should just hand over everything and say thanks...but they did not . There is disinfo on both sides, But the "madman" and people who actually live there never seem to make the NYTimes.

"For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.

I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from us.

Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.

I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...

In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

Kirk2NCC1701
"they hate us for our freedoms"

No, "They hate us for our freebombs" that we keep delivering.

Suppose you lived in a town that was run by a ruthless Mafioso boss. Sure he was ruthless to troublemakers and dissenters, but if you went about your business (and paid your taxes/respects to him), life was simple but livable, and crime was negligible.

Now imagine that a crime Overlord came from another country and decided to wreck the town, just to remove your Mafioso Don. In the process, your neighborhood and house were destroyed, and you lost friends and family.

Now tell me that YOU would not make it YOUR life's mission to bring these War Criminals to justice -- by any and all means necessary. And tell me that these same Criminals could not have foreseen all this. Now say it again - but with a straight face. I dare you. I fucking double-dare you!

Max Cynical
US exceptionalism!
GhostOfDiogenes
The worst one, besides Iraq, is Libya.

The infrastructure we destroyed there is unimaginable.

Sure Iraq was hit the worst, and much has been lost there....but Libya was a modern arab oasis of a country in the middle of nothing.

We destroyed in a few days what took decades to build.

This is why I am not proud of my country, nor my military.

In fact, I would like to see Nuremberg type trials for 'merican military leaders and concentration gulags for the rest of enlisted. Just like they did to Germany.

Its only proper.

GhostOfDiogenes
The USA did this murder of Libya and giving ownership to the people who did '911'? What a joke. http://youtu.be/aJURNC0e6Ek
Bastiat
Libya under Ghadaffi: universal free college education, free healthcare, free electricity. interest free loans. A very bad example of how a nation's wealth is to be distributed!
CHoward
The average American has NO idea how much damage is being done in this world - all in the name of Democracy. Unbelivable and truly pathetic. Yet - most sheeple still believe ISIS and others hate us because of our "freedoms" and i-pods. What bullshit.
Bioscale
Czech public tv published a long interview in English with Asad, it was filmed in Damascus some days ago.Very unusual thing, actually. Terrorism being transported by US, Turkey and France to Syria is being openly debated. http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/svet/1628712-asad-pro-ct-rebelove-jsou-...

Overfed

Compare and contrast Assad, giving an interview very well in a second language, with O'bomb-a, who can't even speak to school children without a teleprompter. Sad.

Razor_Edge

Along with President Putin, Dr al Assad is consistently the most sane, rational and clearly honest speaker on the tragedy of Syria. By contrast, our satanic western leaders simply lie outrageously at all times. How do we know? Their lips are moving. They also say the most absurd things.

We in the west may think that at the end of the day, it's not going to harm us, so why discomfort ourselves by taking on our own elites and bringing them down. But I believe that an horrific future awaits us, one we richly deserve, because we did not shout stop at this ocean of evil bloodshed being spilt in our names. We pay the taxes that pay for it, or at least in my countrys case, (traditional policy of military neutrality), we facilitate the slaughter (troop transports through Shannon airport), or fail to speak out for fear it may impact FDI into Ireland, (largest recipient of US FDI in the world).

We are our brothers keepers, and we are all one. It is those who seek to separate us to facilitate their evil and psychopathic lust for power and money, who would have us beieve that "the other" is evil. Are we really so simple minded or riven by fear that we cannot see through the curtain of the real Axis of Evil?

Demdere

Israeli-neocon strategy is to have the world's economy collapse at the point of maximum war and political chaos.

Then they can escape to Paraguay. Sure as hell, if they stay here, we are going to hang them all. Treasonous criminals for the 9/11 false flag operation.

By 2015, every military and intelligence service and all the think tanks have looked at 9/11 carefully. Anyone who looks at the evidence sees that it was a false flag operation, the buildings were destroyed via explosives, the planes and evil Arab Muslims were show. Those agencies reported to their civilian leaders, and their civilian leaders spread the information through their societies.

So all of the politically aware people in the world, including here at home, KNOW that 9/11 was a false flag operation, or know that they must not look at the evidence. Currently, anyone who disagrees in MSM is treated as invisible, and I know of no prominent bloggers who have even done the bits of extention of 'what it must mean' that I have done.

But it certainly means high levels of distrust for the US and for Israel. It seems to me that World Domination is not possible, because the world won't let you, and the means of opposition are only limited by the imaginations of the most creative, intelligent and knowledgable people. We don't have any of those on our side any more.

L Bean

In their farcical quest to emulate the Roman empire...

Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant - Tacitus

They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace.

[Nov 30, 2015] The Spanish General could give the order to shoot down Russian su-

This is not very probably hypothesis, but if this is true then it was NATO organized provocation...
"All the airspace in southern Europe from the Azores to the Eastern border of Turkey (Syria, Iraq, Iran) controlled by the radars mounted on towers airbase in Torrejon near Madrid. Command there 57-year-old General Ruben Garcia Servert. The final decision in the center of the Combined Air Operations takes it.
Notable quotes:
"... There is, of course, is an option that responsibility for the attack on "Drying" took over the Turkish General 62-year-old Abidin Unal, but in this case, a high-ranking Spanish military became the main witness giving orders. "If you want to shoot down the aircraft of the enemy, I is the person taking final decision" is a quote from an interview Garcia of Servert given in January of this year to the newspaper "El Mundo". ..."

"All the airspace in southern Europe from the Azores to the Eastern border of Turkey (Syria, Iraq, Iran) controlled by the radars mounted on towers airbase in Torrejon near Madrid. Command there 57-year-old General Ruben Garcia Servert. The final decision in the center of the Combined Air Operations takes it.

There is, of course, is an option that responsibility for the attack on "Drying" took over the Turkish General 62-year-old Abidin Unal, but in this case, a high-ranking Spanish military became the main witness giving orders. "If you want to shoot down the aircraft of the enemy, I is the person taking final decision" is a quote from an interview Garcia of Servert given in January of this year to the newspaper "El Mundo".

Who actually gave the order to shoot down the su-24, still we do not know. But do know that the recent crash of the UAV happened at the command of a Turkish General unknown, what was not slow to inform the military. In October two cases of violation by Russian planes of air space of Turkey Abidin conceded right to make the final decision to the Spaniard".

[Nov 30, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts Rages At The Arrogance, Hubris, Stupidity Of The US Government

Notable quotes:
"... No, except make a fool of itself by supporting ISIS. We brought ISIS in there (to Syria) - everybody knows that. Just the other day the former head the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said on television that 'Yes, we created ISIS and we used them as henchmen to overthrow governments.' (Laughter). ..."
"... And the polls in Europe show that the people are on Russia's side regarding the shooting down of their aircraft. They don't believe (the West's) story at all. So I think what you are seeing here is the arrogance, hubris, and stupidity of the United States government. They are just handing every possible advantage over to the Russians. ..."
"... Read more here and listen to the full interview... ..."
Zero Hedge

On the heels of the Chinese stock market plunging 5.5%, continued turmoil in the Middle East and the price of gold hitting 5 year lows, former U.S. Treasury official, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts told Eric King of King World News that Putin and the Russians are now dominating in Syria and the Middle East as the West destroys itself.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: "It could well be that this is going to work out so much in Russia's favor that Putin will send a letter of thanks to the Turkish President and say, 'Thank you very much. You've done us a huge favor. (Laughter). We lost a pilot and a naval marine but we sure have gained a lot. That was only two deaths for winning a war."…

"So that looks to me like the most likely outcome. The unintended consequence of this are so positive for Russia that it's got Washington quaking and Europe wondering about the idiocy of being in NATO."

Eric King: "What I'm hearing from you Russia is dominating in Syria. The Russians have completely taken over and there's really nothing Washington can do."

Paul Craig Roberts: "No, except make a fool of itself by supporting ISIS. We brought ISIS in there (to Syria) - everybody knows that. Just the other day the former head the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said on television that 'Yes, we created ISIS and we used them as henchmen to overthrow governments.' (Laughter).

And the polls in Europe show that the people are on Russia's side regarding the shooting down of their aircraft. They don't believe (the West's) story at all. So I think what you are seeing here is the arrogance, hubris, and stupidity of the United States government. They are just handing every possible advantage over to the Russians.

This American government is the most incompetent government that has ever walked the earth. Those people don't have any sense at all. Just look at what they've done. In 14 years they've destroyed 7 countries, killed millions of people, and displaced millions of people. And where are those displaced people? They are overrunning Europe.

This is all because those Europeans were stupid enough to enable our wars. Now the political parties in Europe are under tremendous pressure from these refugees and the populations who object to them, and from the rising dissident parties who are saying, 'Look at what these people who you trusted have done. They've changed your country. It's not Germany anymore - it's Syria.' (Laughter).

This is a disaster. Only the stupid Americans could have produced such a disaster. Does Putin need to do anything? We're doing it all for him. So he doesn't need to do anything. He's not going to attack anybody. What does he need to attack anybody for? The idiot Americans are destroying themselves and their allies. This is an amazing fiasco."

Read more here and listen to the full interview...

Chupacabra-322

"This American government is the most incompetent government that has ever walked the earth. Those people don't have any sense at all. Just look at what they've done. In 14 years they've destroyed 7 countries, killed millions of people, and displaced millions of people. And where are those displaced people? They are overrunning Europe."

So true, it must be repeated.

chubbar

It's so incompetent it is looking deliberate.

KingFiat

King World News always says the price of gold is going to the moon tomorrow when the financial system collapses. After a while you realize no real news comes from there, and ignore them.

Not the same for Paul Craig Roberts, And I am glad to read his insights here, even if originated from KWN.

CaptainDanite

There is no denying that the KWN site is hokey, and that Eric King has a limited repertoire of "stunning" adjectives, and that the frequent employment of bold red and blue fonts can be annoying, etc., etc. However, the simple fact remains that he CONSISTENTLY conducts well-directed and well-edited interviews with some of the most respected voices in the alternative media arena. I routinely look forward to his interviews with Nomi Prins, Eric Sprott, Ronald Stoeferle, and Bill Fleckenstein -- among many, many others. At least KWN is not entirely inundated with ads like ZH is, nor is the mobile version of the site repeatedly susceptible to adware browser hijacks like ZH's mobile version is.

Furthermore, while I frequently find points of disagreement with Paul Craig Roberts, this most recent interview is PCR at his ever-loving best; it strikes to the heart of the matter of the increasingly frightening conflict brewing between the US, NATO, and the Russians. I highly recommend this interview to everyone out there who is starting to get very uncomfortable about the foreign policy incompetence of the Obama administration as it appears to be deliberately steering us into the maw of WWIII.

Lore

PATHOCRACY

"The ultimate cause of evil lies in the interaction of two human factors: 1) normal human ignorance and weakness and 2) the existence and action of a statistically small (4-8% of the general population) but extremely active group of psychologically deviant individuals. The ignorance of the existence of such psychological differences is the first criterion of ponerogenesis. That is, such ignorance creates an opening whereby such individuals can act undetected.

The presence of such 'disease' on the individual level is described in the Almost Human section of this website. However, depending on the type of activity of psychopathic and characteropathic individuals, evil can manifest on any societal level. The greater the scope of the psychopath's influence, the greater harm done. Thus any group of humans can be infected or 'ponerized' by their influence. From families, clubs, churches, businesses, and corporations, to entire nations. The most extreme form of such macrosocial evil is called 'pathocracy'.

Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes

"If the many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient abilities to feel and understand the majority of other people, and who also exhibit deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills - (faculties indispensable for governing economic and political matters) - this then results in an exceptionally serious crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international relations. Within, the situation becomes unbearable even for those citizens who were able to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also behave with great circumspection." (2nd. ed., p. 140)

LetThemEatRand

It's long by today's standards, but another great PCR link for those who are interested. Intelligent and thoughtful debate where the two participants actually allow each other to make their points. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/25/pcr-debates-the-intelligent-a...

Killdo

this is a pretty good book on how to spot psychos and prevent being screwed over by them:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915828?keywords=the%20sociopath%20n...

I've read about 10 books on the subject and I find this one very intresting, well written and based on realaity (I think the author is a prof frm harvard).

It really helped me connect the dots while I lived in LA (according to the author one of 3 world'scapitals of psychopathy together with London and NY)

[Nov 30, 2015] Erdogan Says Will Resign If Oil Purchases From ISIS Proven After Putin Says Has More Proof

Notable quotes:
"... "There are security officers who are sympathizing with ISIS in Turkey. They are allowing them to go from Istanbul to the borders and infiltrate ... Syria and Iraq." ..."
Nov 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
"I've shown photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products," Vladimir Putin told reporters earlier this month on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Antalya. Putin was of course referencing Islamic State's illicit and highly lucrative oil trade, the ins and outs of which we've documented extensively over the past two weeks:

Turkey's move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 warplane near the Syrian border afforded the Russian President all the motivation and PR cover he needed to expose Ankara's alleged role in the trafficking of illegal crude from Iraq and Syria and in the aftermath of last Tuesday's "incident," Putin lambasted Erdogan. "Oil from Islamic State is being shipped to Turkey," Putin said while in Jordan for a meeting with King Abdullah. In case that wasn't clear enough, Putin added this: "Islamic State gets cash by selling oil to Turkey."

To be sure, it's impossible to track the path ISIS oil takes from extraction to market with any degree of precision. That said, it seems that Islamic State takes advantage of the same network of smugglers, traders, and shipping companies that the KRG uses to transport Kurdish crude from Kurdistan to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. From there, the oil makes its way to Israel and other markets (depending on which story you believe) and if anyone needs to be thrown off the trail along the way, there's a ship-to-ship transfer trick that can be executed off the coast of Malta. The maneuver allegedly makes the cargoes more difficult to track.

Some believe Erdogan's son Bilal - who owns a marine transport company called BMZ Group - is heavily involved in the trafficking of Kurdish and ISIS crude. Most of the ships BMZ owns are Malta-flagged.

In light of the above, some have speculated that Turkey shot down the Su-24 in retaliation for Russia's bombing campaign that recently has destroyed over 1,000 ISIS oil trucks. Here's what Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoub said on Friday:

"All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well."

Al-Zoub isn't alone in his suspicions. In an interview with RT, Iraqi MP and former national security adviser, Mowaffak al Rubaie - who personally led Saddam to the gallows - said ISIS is selling around $100 million of stolen crude each month in Turkey. Here are some excerpts:

"In the last eight months ISIS has managed to sell ... $800 million dollars worth of oil on the black market of Turkey. This is Iraqi oil and Syrian oil, carried by trucks from Iraq, from Syria through the borders to Turkey and sold ...[at] less than 50 percent of the international oil price."

"Now this either get consumed inside, the crude is refined on Turkish territory by the Turkish refineries, and sold in the Turkish market. Or it goes to Jihan and then in the pipelines from Jihan to the Mediterranean and sold to the international market."

"Money and dollars generated by selling Iraqi and Syrian oil on the Turkish black market is like the oxygen supply to ISIS and it's operation," he added. "Once you cut the oxygen then ISIS will suffocate."

"There isn't a shadow of a doubt that the Turkish government knows about the oil smuggling operations. The merchants, the businessmen [are buying oil] in the black market in Turkey under the noses – under the auspices if you like – of the Turkish intelligence agency and the Turkish security apparatus."

"There are security officers who are sympathizing with ISIS in Turkey. They are allowing them to go from Istanbul to the borders and infiltrate ... Syria and Iraq."

"There is no terrorist organization which can stand alone, without a neighboring country helping it – in this case Turkey."

That's pretty unequivocal. But it gets better.

On Monday, Putin was back at it, saying that Russia has obtained new information that further implicates Turkey in the Islamic State oil trade. "At the moment we have received additional information confirming that that oil from the deposits controlled by Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on industrial scale," Putin said on the sidelines of the climate change summit in Paris. "We have traced some located on the territory of the Turkish Republic and living in regions guarded by special security services and police that have used the visa-free regime to return to our territory, where we continue to fight them."

"We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil's delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers," he added, taking it up another notch still.

As for Erdogan, well, he "can't accept" the accusations which he calls "not moral":

  • ERDOGAN: TURKEY CAN'T ACCEPT RUSSIA CLAIMS THAT IT BUYS IS OIL

Hilariously, the man who just finished starting a civil war just so he could regain a few lost seats in Parliament and who would just as soon throw you in jail as look at you if he thinks you might be a threat to his government, now says he will resign if Putin (or anyone else) can present "proof": "We are not that dishonest as to buy oil from terrorists. If it is proven that we have, in fact, done so, I will leave office. If there is any evidence, let them present it, we'll consider [it]."

Hold your breath on that.

And so, the Turkey connection has been exposed and in dramatic fashion. Unfortunately for Ankara, Erdogan can't arrest Vladimir Putin like he can award winning journalists and honest police officers who, like Moscow, want to see the flow of money and weapons to Sunni militants in Syria cut off.

The real question is how NATO will react now that Turkey is quickly becoming a liability. Furthermore, you can be sure that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar (who are all heavily invested in the Sunni extremist cause in Syria), are getting nervous. No one wants to see this blown wide open as that would mean the Western public getting wise to the fact that it is indeed anti-ISIS coalition governments that are funding and arming not only ISIS, but also al-Nusra and every other rebel group fighting to wrest control of the country from Assad. Worse, if it gets out that the reason the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks until now is due to the fact that Ankara and Washington had an understanding when it comes to the flow of illicit crude to Cehyan, the American public may just insist on indicting "some folks."

Remember, when it comes to criminal conspiracies, the guy who gets caught first usually ends up getting cut loose. It will be interesing to see if Erdogan starts to get the cold shoulder from Ankara's "allies" going forward.

[Nov 30, 2015] Russia Bans Soros Foundation As A Threat To National Security And Constitutional Order Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... "A lot of what we do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA" Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy. Although it promotes itself as a "non-governmental organization", NED receives at least 90% of its funding from the US Congress, earmarked to USAID. ..."
"... Around that time, Soros Foundation 'appeared' in our country and started usual advertising and promises how they will give money to 'promising' projects made by young people. Of course, we had an amazing thing (it was really hard to make a printed computer magazine while having civil war and sanctions, heh) and were certain that we would easily qualify for grant. We got rejected. A guy printing black and white A4 pamphlet saying shit about government got the money. ..."
www.zerohedge.com
AlaricBalth

"A lot of what we do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA" Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment for Democracy. Although it promotes itself as a "non-governmental organization", NED receives at least 90% of its funding from the US Congress, earmarked to USAID.

JRobby

Maybe the USSA will do the same with "The Council On Foriegn Relations"??

What would we call it when a controlling faction of the USSA Government outlawed itself and declared itself a threat to national security and Constitutional order?

Schizophrenia?

Government need...

That's an organization that needs to go. I know some of its membership in NYC. . . It's not evil, per se, but it places self-enrichment above ethics. That, and since they all have fancy degress and like to pass their resumes around the table, they naturally believe they know better than the little people what's best for the little peons.

nmewn

"In a statement released on Monday, prosecutors said the activities of the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation were a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national security. They added that the Justice Ministry would be duly informed about these conclusions and would add the two groups to Russia's list of undesirable foreign organizations."

Yet here, somehow, he is still a major donor to the National Socialist Democrat Party and BlackLiesMatter.

The world, as I once knew it, has been completely turned upside down...lol.

#SafePlace!

/////

Now wut little trolls...how could that possibly offend you? I mean outside of me being absolutely correct about this worthless POS all these years ;-)

conscious being

I'm suprised it took this long.

Quinvarius

Looks like buying Russian politicians is not so easy. The West however is is craven and corrupt. This is huge set back for Obama's transvestite, looter, gay, racist agenda of destroying civilization.

blentus

So, there I was, 18 years old, and living in a shitty civil war torn country. Not giving a fuck about anything, me and few of my friends managed to print a computer magazine and keep it going for a while. It was impossible to make money with it, and we never did it for the money anyway. It was a good 'distraction' from everything around us, and it also helped other curious kids. This was before Internet became popular/accessible, so good information was not so easy to obtain.

Around that time, Soros Foundation 'appeared' in our country and started usual advertising and promises how they will give money to 'promising' projects made by young people. Of course, we had an amazing thing (it was really hard to make a printed computer magazine while having civil war and sanctions, heh) and were certain that we would easily qualify for grant.

We got rejected. A guy printing black and white A4 pamphlet saying shit about government got the money.

I was lucky enough to learn early how these pieces of shit work.

Every time I hear phrase 'NGO' my brain simply translates it to 'cunts'. Can't help it.

smacker

Something tells me that some very smart people in Moscow have been carefully studying who is creating all this global unrest.

Russia's actions to kick out "Soros Open Society" and the "US National Endowment for Democracy" - neither of which have anything to do with what their names suggest - is to prevent Russia becoming another victim.


[Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

Notable quotes:
"... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
"... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
"... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
"... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
Zero Hedge

As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

Yes, he really said that:

We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

Brilliant.

As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

Looney

Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

Buckaroo Banzai

The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

Ignatius

There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

Pladizow

  • ----> Not OK to spill oil
  • ----> OK to spill blood

JustObserving

2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

prmths2

It's not that simple:

"In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

"Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

"Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

Urban Redneck

It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

Lore

I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

NoDebt

So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

KesselRunin12Parsecs

"We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

Kirk2NCC1701

Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

Normalcy Bias

He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

me or you

Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

Chris88

We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

Junerberno

After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

earleflorida

when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

Raymond_K._Hessel

No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

coast

But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

marcusfenix

this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

why bother bombing them at all?

these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

really?

and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

Johnny Horscaulk

http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

For Israel.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

And to block the Iran pipeline
http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

[Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

Notable quotes:
"... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
"... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
"... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
"... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
Zero Hedge

As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

Yes, he really said that:

We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

Brilliant.

As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

Looney

Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

Buckaroo Banzai

The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

Ignatius

There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

Pladizow

  • ----> Not OK to spill oil
  • ----> OK to spill blood

JustObserving

2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

prmths2

It's not that simple:

"In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

"Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

"Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

Urban Redneck

It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

Lore

I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

NoDebt

So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

KesselRunin12Parsecs

"We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

Kirk2NCC1701

Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

Normalcy Bias

He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

me or you

Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

Chris88

We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

Junerberno

After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

earleflorida

when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

Raymond_K._Hessel

No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

coast

But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

marcusfenix

this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

why bother bombing them at all?

these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

really?

and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

Johnny Horscaulk

http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

For Israel.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

And to block the Iran pipeline
http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

[Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

Notable quotes:
"... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
"... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
"... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
"... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
Zero Hedge

As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

Yes, he really said that:

We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

Brilliant.

As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

Looney

Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

Buckaroo Banzai

The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

Ignatius

There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

Pladizow

  • ----> Not OK to spill oil
  • ----> OK to spill blood

JustObserving

2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

prmths2

It's not that simple:

"In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

"Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

"Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

Urban Redneck

It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

Lore

I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

NoDebt

So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

KesselRunin12Parsecs

"We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

Kirk2NCC1701

Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

Normalcy Bias

He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

me or you

Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

Chris88

We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

Junerberno

After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

earleflorida

when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

Raymond_K._Hessel

No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

coast

But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

marcusfenix

this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

why bother bombing them at all?

these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

really?

and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

Johnny Horscaulk

http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

For Israel.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

And to block the Iran pipeline
http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

[Nov 29, 2015] Turkish militants kill russian pilot while he is decending

yudenich.ru

watch-v=tiR8E-SwVeI

Terrorism is typically ideologically driven and as such has no nationality. But this case looks like an e4xception: Turkish media machine has already asssigned this crime to certain mythical "Syrian Turkomans".

But in reality this looks like Grey Wolfs not "Turkomans", and their leader is a Turkish neo-fascist Alpaslan Celik - son of the mayor of a small Turkish town. Golden youth so to speak.

http://ntv.livejournal.com/426110.html?mode=reply#add_comment

So, all those dances over the body of pilot are very similar to explosions in Suruç and Ankara.

[Nov 29, 2015] Turkey hands over body of Russian pilot to Russia

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

Turkey has initiated the process to hand over the body of a Russian pilot to Moscow after his jet was shot down by Turkey, a day before a United Nations climate conference starts in Paris that could bring a "saddened" Turkish president and his Russian counterpart together.

In a press briefing held at Ankara's airport prior to his departure for a EU-Turkey Summit in Brussels on Nov. 29, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said the body of Russian pilot Oleg Peshkov, who died after his plane was downed by Turkish F-16s on Nov. 24 when it reportedly breached Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, had been taken by Turkey and would be sent to Russia on its request.

[Nov 29, 2015] How ISIS is financed

Notable quotes:
"... Their main source of income is oil sales, but they also resource to taxes to the population, sales of antiquities, bank raids, appropriation of part of Iraq salaries to government employees in occupied areas that are still being paid, extortion to businesses, appropriation of part of crops, ransoms and slave sales. Some of the magnitudes are estimated. ..."
"... The income from oil is estimated at 1.5 million dollars per day from 34-40,000 barrels per day at 20-35 $ per barrel. ..."
"... Their main expense is calculated at 10 million dollars per month (0.33 mill $/day) in salaries. They pay almost a fifth of their income in salaries, and that is one of the reasons of their popularity. ..."
"... Recently the international coalition, with France taking a very active role, has started bombing their oil facilities, thus attacking the jugular of ISIS. They must be desperate because they see no way of protecting their oil financing from air attacks. After a very long time of successes, ISIS is now having problems to hold its ground in parts of Syria and Kurdistan. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Javier, 11/14/2015 at 11:03 am

OFM,

This article in Spanish from one of the main journals explains how ISIS is financing. Their main source of income is oil sales, but they also resource to taxes to the population, sales of antiquities, bank raids, appropriation of part of Iraq salaries to government employees in occupied areas that are still being paid, extortion to businesses, appropriation of part of crops, ransoms and slave sales. Some of the magnitudes are estimated.

The income from oil is estimated at 1.5 million dollars per day from 34-40,000 barrels per day at 20-35 $ per barrel.

Their main expense is calculated at 10 million dollars per month (0.33 mill $/day) in salaries. They pay almost a fifth of their income in salaries, and that is one of the reasons of their popularity.

http://www.elmundo.es/papel/historias/2015/11/11/56422776268e3efc608b45e5.html

Recently the international coalition, with France taking a very active role, has started bombing their oil facilities, thus attacking the jugular of ISIS. They must be desperate because they see no way of protecting their oil financing from air attacks. After a very long time of successes, ISIS is now having problems to hold its ground in parts of Syria and Kurdistan.

I have family in Paris. My niece, her husband and all his family are in Paris. None of them was present in the attacks, but we are all shocked by the magnitude.

Caelan MacIntyre, 11/13/2015 at 8:02 pm

"Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians.

The term was first used in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind,[citation needed] to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces , returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times." ~ Wikipedia

Ironically, much of it is and will be the result of the nation states' monopolies on violence enacted.

[Nov 29, 2015] Top U.S. Air Defense Commander Turkey's Shootdown of Russian Jet "Had to Be PRE-PLANNED"

See also Ambush of Russian Su-24 over Syria
Notable quotes:
"... Yesterday, McInerney told Fox News – much to the surprise of the reporter interviewing him – that assuming the Turkish version of the flight path of the Russian jet is accurate, Russia wasn't ..."
"... As the International Court of Justice ruled in the seminal Nicaragua case (1986), any use of force even in alleged self-defense must also fulfill the basic customary international law requirements of (1) necessity and (2) proportionality. Even accepting the government of Turkeys version of events, it does not appear that there was any necessity for Turkey to destroy the Russian jet. ..."
"... From another [International Court of Justice] case, the basic test for "necessity" is that the necessity of self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Clearly, that was not the case here. ..."
Zero Hedge
In his role as Norad commander for Alaska, McInerney dealt with more Russian fighter jet incursions (which he calls "bear penetrations") than anyone else in the world.

So McInerney knows how to tell innocent from hostile incursions by foreign fighter jets, standard rules of engagement of foreign fighter jets, how to read radar tracks, and the other things he would need to know to form an informed opinion about the shootdown of a foreign jet.

Yesterday, McInerney told Fox News – much to the surprise of the reporter interviewing him – that assuming the Turkish version of the flight path of the Russian jet is accurate, Russia wasn't threatening Turkey, and that Turkey's shoot down of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned", as the jet wasn't in Turkish air space long enough for anything other than a premeditated attack to have brought it.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

McInerney is right … especially given that a U.S. official told Reuters that the Russian jet was inside of Syria when it was shot down:

The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

... ... ...

International law expert Francis Boyle - Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, who was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 – said by email:

The Russian bombing of Syria is technically legal because they have the explicit permission of the Syrian government, but of course Putin will ultimately act in accord with his interests, not what is best for the Syrian people.

***

As the International Court of Justice ruled in the seminal Nicaragua case (1986), any use of force even in alleged self-defense must also fulfill the basic customary international law requirements of (1) necessity and (2) proportionality. Even accepting the government of Turkey's version of events, it does not appear that there was any "necessity" for Turkey to destroy the Russian jet.

Washington's Blog asked Boyle whether this is analogous to the "use of force" by someone with a gun who claims he was threatened by someone else. He answered affirmatively, explaining:

Necessity and Proportionality are each separate requirements for the use of force in self-defense.

From another [International Court of Justice] case, the basic test for "necessity" is that the necessity of self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Clearly, that was not the case here.

[Nov 28, 2015] Russias Intervention in Syria and What Washington Should Do

Standard neocon drivel... Standard Republican hawk mentality (he is a junior senator from Arkansas). The only interesting detail is that this guy was both in 1977.
Notable quotes:
"... In Syria, Putin professes that he wants to fight ISIS, but this is mere posturing. Even with new Russian strikes on ISIS-controlled areas in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks and the downing of the Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, Russian forces have trained the large majority of its bombs on coalition-backed opposition fighters. Putin has also explicitly stated that he wants to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, which directly contrasts with stated U.S. policy. Turkey, a NATO ally, has suffered repeated violations of its airspace as Russia pursues its offensive against Syrian opposition forces. ..."
"... Putin is very consciously challenging the United States and the U.S.-led international order, and is now waging a proxy war against it. It is well past time for the West to recognize his challenge, rise up to it, and move to win the proxy war ..."
Nov 28, 2015 | Foreign Affairs
he attacks by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) in Paris have forced a major rethinking of U.S. strategy in the Syrian conflict. A part of that rethinking must be U.S. President Barack Obama's unwise decision to treat Russia as a legitimate partner in negotiations over Syria's future.

At the G-20 meeting in Turkey this week, Russia quickly offered itself as a key partner in the fight against ISIS and the stabilization of Syria, and Obama again expressed his willingness to entertain that notion.

This is a grave mistake. Rather than being a constructive partner, President Vladimir Putin's Russia has been engaged in a proxy war against the United States in Syria, despite Obama's protestations to the contrary. And when an enemy wages war against the United States, it does not get to choose whether it is at war; its only choice is to win or lose. Right now, the United States is losing the proxy war in Syria-and a wider competition for regional influence-against Russia. And it will continue to do so without a dramatic shift in policy to confront Russian aggression.

A PROXY WAR AND THE WIDER STRUGGLE

In Syria, Putin professes that he wants to fight ISIS, but this is mere posturing. Even with new Russian strikes on ISIS-controlled areas in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks and the downing of the Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, Russian forces have trained the large majority of its bombs on coalition-backed opposition fighters. Putin has also explicitly stated that he wants to prop up Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime, which directly contrasts with stated U.S. policy. Turkey, a NATO ally, has suffered repeated violations of its airspace as Russia pursues its offensive against Syrian opposition forces.

Russia is engaged in a shooting war against the United States' clients to undermine U.S. policy. If that's not a proxy war, what is?

But this proxy war is only the most recent and dramatic front in a wider competition between the United States and Russia. Ukrainians overthrew former President Viktor Yushchenko, who was aligned with Putin, in 2013 and sought to reorient their country toward the West. In short order, Russia invaded Crimea-which it still illegally occupies-and fomented the ongoing civil war in the Donbass. Likewise, Russia illegally occupies the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions in Georgia, one of the most pro-Western countries in Eastern Europe. In fact, Russia has continued to seize more Georgian territory in recent months.

Russia also continues a campaign of provocations against NATO allies in northern and Eastern Europe, threatening their air and naval boundaries and putting civil aviation at risk. Meanwhile, Central and Eastern European countries-who suffered under Soviet domination-report that Russian propaganda in traditional and social media has become pervasive.

Russia has become so emboldened that it does not even demur from direct provocations against the United States. Last month, Russian ships and submarines operated near U.S. undersea data cables and Russian bombers buzzed the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier, forcing it to scramble for fighters. And last week, it was revealed by Russian media-perhaps inadvertently, perhaps not-that the Russian military is developing an unmanned underwater vehicle capable of carrying nuclear payloads that is invulnerable to interception. A nuclear attack on U.S. port cities is the only reasonable rationale for such a weapon.

... ... ...

Finally, assertive diplomacy must be a part of U.S. policy toward Russia. The Department of State should create a new "country-at-risk" designation that would entitle nations under threat from external destabilization to a basket of U.S. and NATO assistance programs, including the intelligence assistance described above. This basket of assistance could also include programs aimed at helping these nations diversify their industrial bases and their sources of energy to be less dependent on trade with Russia. The overall effect of the new designation would signal increased commitment from the United States, and indicate to Putin that any escalation by Russia would automatically invite greater Western engagement.

The United States should also energize its public diplomacy and information strategies. It could take the lead in funding translation services to make Western media available in Russia. The United States needn't create content. Unlike in Russia, robust debate and diverse viewpoints already exist in U.S. media. The United States simply needs to ensure that this content is disseminated widely in Russia and Eastern Europe to provide a counter-narrative to Russian-controlled media and an example to the Russian people of what free media looks like.

... ... ...

Putin is very consciously challenging the United States and the U.S.-led international order, and is now waging a proxy war against it. It is well past time for the West to recognize his challenge, rise up to it, and move to win the proxy war. Otherwise, Washington may find itself in a genuine war against a nuclear peer

Tom Cotton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thomas Bryant "Tom" Cotton[1] (born May 13, 1977) is an American politician who is the junior United States Senator from Arkansas. A member of the Republican Party, Cotton has been serving in the Senate since January 3, 2015.

[Nov 28, 2015] An Invisible US Hand Leading to War Turkey's Downing of a Russian Jet was an Act of Madness

www.counterpunch.org

In considering the terrifying but also sadly predictable news of a Russian fighter jet being downed by two Turkish fighters, let's start with one almost certain assumption - an assumption that no doubt is also being made by the Russian government: Turkey's action, using US-supplied F-16 planes, was taken with the full knowledge and advance support of the US. In fact, given Turkey's vassal status as a member of US-dominated NATO, it could well be that Ankara was put up to this act of brinksmanship by the US.

... ... ...

Russia - knowing that this is really not about Turkey, but about push-back by the US against growing Russian power and influence, both globally and in the Middle East region - could also choose to respond in a venue where it has more of an advantage, for example in Ukraine, where it could amp up its support for the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, perhaps by downing a Ukrainian military plane, or more broadly, providing air cover to protect those regions. Russia could also, less directly, provide aid to Kurdish rebels in both Syria and in Turkey itself who are fighting against Turkish forces.

... ... ...


It is all terribly dangerous and it is hard to predict where things will lead. One thing seems certain, though. This outrageous shootdown of a Russian plane that was in no way posing a threat to Turkey or Turkish forces, will not end here, because Russia and President Putin cannot allow Turkey and NATO to so blatantly act against Russia and its pilots and go unpunished, particularly as it is Russia that is acting legally in Syria, while the US, Turkey and other nations backing rebel forces there are in all acting blatant violation of international law.

Unless saner heads start prevailing in Washington, this could all quickly spiral into the kind of situation in 1914, where a lot of ill-conceived treaties led to a minor incident in the Balkans turning inexorably into World War I.


Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Nov 28, 2015] Violence Erupts In Turkey After Prominent Lawyer Is Assassinated On Live TV

Notable quotes:
"... While Erdogan is indeed a nasty piece of work, it does seem like someone IS trying to topple him and destablize Turkey. As a vassal, he doesnt quite know his place and had actually contemplate joining the East as shown by Blue Stream and negotiations to purchase Chinese Red Flag missile system. ..."
"... Quite possilbly being encoraged to shoot down the Russian fighter and led to believe NATO would back him up. Once relationship with Russia is being torn and completely isolated in teh world by having his relationship with ISIS exposed, Turkey is ready for destablisation and eventual carved-up. Its no wonder the western press has only good things to say about the Kurds. ..."
"... Reminds me of Iraq/Kuwait. ..."
"... The only regional power counter to Iran on the ground is Turkey, so now you will see that place put through the wringer as well. Population is around 75 million, so its heavy density, old culture, access to NATO and western security interests and all the other trappings compel Turkey to fill the vacuum to be created in Syria. ..."
"... The arrival of the Russians in Syria seems to have awoken NATO. NATO has started its response to Russia and will penalize it for the support for the Assad government. ..."
"... We know that Turknam commander Alparslan Celik, deputy commander of a Syrian Turkmen brigade turned out to be the son of a mayor of a Keban municipality in Turkey's Elazig province. He is a member of the Grey Wolves. ..."
"... We know that use of the BGM-71 TOW missiles – which cost $50,000 a piece – is up over 850% in October with the American-made weapons responsible for the destruction of scores of Syrian army tanks. These are being passed through Turkey. ..."
"... They dont share our values Maybe not your values but certainly Washingtons values ..."
"... the bigger question is why is there even a NATO at all? The big bad Soviet Union Warsaw Pact are long gone. Truth is NATO now is the Atlanticists + some puppet regimes in eastern Europe/Turkey. ..."
"... It is obvious the west is trying to stretch Russia via Ukraine and Syria and now Turkey; the further you stretch an any, the more difficult it is to focus on the bigger picture. China better step up to the Russian plate and soon if anyone expects to reign in the NATO terrorists. ..."
"... Seems like everything in the Middle East is going tribal, sectarian, and vigilante. Bad day for established government and power for the people in a general sense ..."
Zero Hedge
Dame Ednas Possum

I read the UK's weekend FT (Financial Times) over lunch. There was no mention whatsoever of the Russian bomber being shot down several days ago.

This paper supposedly prides itself on objective analysis of important events.

Not one single mention of this blatant, premeditated act of war.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?

No mention of Turkey's active support of Isis.

No mention of the oil sales or the arms supplies.

The mainstream media is complicit in the crimes.

Pathetic, piece of shit shill presstitutes.

trader1

Dame,

Last updated: November 24, 2015 6:44 pm
Turkey shoots down Russian fighter jet on Syrian border
FT reporters

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d2b1abb0-9287-11e5-94e6-c5413829caa5.html

Optimusprime

And I have friends--staunch "progressives"--who think reading FT and The Economist (both Rothschild organs) somehow keeps one realistically abreast of the news.

Killdo

you are right - FT is pathetic - I stopped reading it about 6 months ago after many years. Even their best books of they year section is not that good any more.

I've noticed the Guardian is pretty anti-Russian (but comments are almost like ZH)

fleur de lis

Ergodan is giving us a real time profile of the typical violent psychopath dragging entire nations into a ditch. It is rare that they spin out of control in public so badly. The Matrix must be furious. He wrecked their little scheme and gave the Russians the upper hand.

Psychopaths are everywhere at the helms of power, destroying entire social structures, looting resources, triggering wars and leaving a trail of bloodshed to keep the NWO in control.

But these things must be done quietly. The target populations must not be alerted that they are being terrorized and robbed. They might catch on and revolt.

That is why NATO is so angry with him -- they don't care about the Russian jet or the murders of the pilot and the marine. It's just that Ergodan made such an absolute mess of it. Maybe it was being planned along those lines anyway but he got out in front and did things his way, thus overplaying his hand and NATO's.

By becoming the biggest loose cannon on Earth he has attracted the negative attention of his handlers. He will be reprimanded in no uncertain terms.

Fractal Parasite

Well, the Erdogan regime has scored so many own goals lately, it's hard not to imagine that he is being purposefully chucked under the bus.

rwe2late

A familiar road travelled often. Erdogan strives to retain power by a crackdown on domestic dissent coupled with expansionist war abroad.

Major US news media champion for Turk-run "safe zone" inside Syria. Turk troops as well as operatives have already invaded Syria.

Turk media has proclaimed: "Aleppo to become the 82nd province of Turkey"

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/08/09/18775960.php

US about to back escalated Turk invasion/annexation of Northern Syria??

http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-turkey-edging-up-to-syrian-border-pretex...

To Hell In A Handbasket

Turkey invented the DEEP STATE. Everything is fucked and our generation will be officially be viewed as fucking USELESS, as it was on our watch that tyranny and plutocracy made a come back. How many good men and women around the world have died standing up to political bullying and the plebs have stood by and did nothing?

Cindy6

While Erdogan is indeed a nasty piece of work, it does seem like someone IS trying to topple him and destablize Turkey. As a vassal, he doesn't quite know his place and had actually contemplate joining the East as shown by Blue Stream and negotiations to purchase Chinese Red Flag missile system.

Quite possilbly being encoraged to shoot down the Russian fighter and led to believe NATO would back him up. Once relationship with Russia is being torn and completely isolated in teh world by having his relationship with ISIS exposed, Turkey is ready for destablisation and eventual carved-up. It's no wonder the western press has only good things to say about the Kurds.

Reminds me of Iraq/Kuwait.

If he has any brain cell left, he should immediately patch up relationship with Russia and China. Else he's toast and Eurasia having another failed state.

Parrotile

Well, it seems that Erdogan may NOT have any functioning brain cells left - russia-turkey-war-of-words-escalates.

So we have:

  1. Shootdown of Russian aircraft in Syrian airspace;
  2. "Pretence" that the aircraft "violated" Turkish airspace for a few seconds (this is the same Turkey that regards 2000 violations of Greek airspace to be perfectly OK;
  3. Support of oil smuggling – let's be honest, oil THEFT, by a known terrorist group (and we know who is a direct beneficiary from this trade – "Keep it in the Family".)

This being an Aussie MSM publication, notice that none of the above points have been mentioned even in passing. Got to keep feeding the masses "Government Approved" information, lest that might have ideas of their own . . . .

Linoleum Blownapart

In my mind, there's a difference between an ongoing feud with tension and jabs, vs. an all-out fist fight to the death.

Events so far have been isolated enough that diplomats can still sit around the table and talk. Personally, I'm not calling WW3 until U.S. and Russia have severed diplomatic relations, which they haven't at all:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/g20-barack-obama-and-vladim...

bankonzhongguo

The only regional power counter to Iran on the ground is Turkey, so now you will see that place put through the wringer as well. Population is around 75 million, so its heavy density, old culture, access to NATO and western security interests and all the other trappings compel Turkey to fill the vacuum to be created in Syria.

That's a tall order to fill, but one easily paid for using the same model in Saudi and Egypt over the decades.

Good time to be in the black markets in Turkey witness all the refugees in the pipeline to Berlin and Washington.

Not sure of what kind of Alevi-Sufi capacity Quds has in the east, but given how the Sons of Noah operate in Chechnya who knows what the future holds.

atthelake

www.kingworldnews.com has some good tapes, including Paul Craig Roberts on Russia and Turkey.

SgtShaftoe

Agreed, I just got done listening to the PCR piece about an hour ago. It was very good analysis.

Ms No

People will start disappearing in mass and they will find them 15 years down the road in mass graves. This is a pattern which is constant throughout history any time there is a military dicatorship or tyranny of whatever variety... and yes they will likely be tortured. This is right out of the CIAs South America playbook. Same MO every time with only slight variations.

Moccasin

Things are moving quickly, what's next is what's important. Each criminal act inside a NATO country is used by NATO to its advantage in the escalation of war in Syria. With emphasis on Turkey where its most recent criminal activities appear premeditated. NATO is rushing to war in Syria after the recent criminal act in Paris. The arrival of the Russians in Syria seems to have awoken NATO. NATO has started its response to Russia and will penalize it for the support for the Assad government.

The criminal act in Turkey, the assassination of a "Prominent Kurdish Lawyer" is just another move that will be used to justify more war. The slippery slope of war is getting steep. I will expect Turkish ground troops to arrive in Syria soon to create a 'buffer zone' and that slice of dirt will be the ground where the Turks will put the Kurds backs to the wall again. What's next is what is important. War Pigs!

flapdoodle

I suspect the problem for Turkey invading Syria is that Putin told Erdogan that anything that crosses into Syrian territory near Latakia will have the shit bombed out of it.

The US and NATO is trying desperatly to put in ground troops (hence the Paris false flag to try to get the French (NATO) in, but I still think Turkey (also NATO) is reluctant to do this openly), and they may succeed in getting troops into Eastern Syria, but Putin, with SAA, Quds, and Hezbullah, has the advantage in Western Syria and will make a move there very difficult for NATO. If Western Syria was a crucial part of the Zionazi gameplan, they better come up with something else quick. Putin has reached the high ground first.

The fact that Turkey has grounded their flights into Syria is telling. They don't know what the fuck to do.

Its quite possible that Putin maneuvered the Turks into downing the Su-24. or at least set up the environment propitious to its occurring - unfortunately for Turkey.

Putin really knows his judo and used his opponents own move against him. The S-400 timing was just right, and the downing gave Russians the perfect excuse to smash the hell out of the Turkey/Syria border.

Whatever happened to Turkey's vaunted 5mi exclusion zone at the border??? Its gone, baby, gone...

GreatUncle

Think most people know what Erdogan is about ...

Cynically the US pipes up condemming the killing but support Erdogan. US foreign policy is a fucking shambles ain't that the truth. So once again Turkey shows it should never be allowed to join the EU because it does not support human rights.

2 pillars of the EU are already crumbling, the euro and the schengen agreement, then allowing Turkey into the EU club you just dismantled a 3rd pillar and the EHCR.

So which supporting pillar of the EU crumbles next then ? Or alternatively you might want to consider the Lisbon Treaty a worthless piece of paper.

debtor of last ...

So the gas pipeline from Quatar stops at the Syrian-Turkish border. For now.

Dutch Geert Wilders (our Marine le Pen) called Erdogan a madman, about 3 years back. But he's raciss of course....

green dragon

We know that Turknam commander Alparslan Celik, deputy commander of a Syrian Turkmen brigade turned out to be the son of a mayor of a Keban municipality in Turkey's Elazig province. He is a member of the Grey Wolves.

We know that use of the BGM-71 TOW missiles – which cost $50,000 a piece – is up over 850% in October with the American-made weapons responsible for the destruction of scores of Syrian army tanks. These are being passed through Turkey.

We know that Turkey has focused their bombing efforts on Kurdish sites.

We know that so called nice Terrorists supported by Turkey seized Kurds from buses travelling from the town of Afrin to the city of Aleppo.

We know that Erdogan's government is planned to place reporters who exposed weapons in Aid shipments from Turkey in jail.

We know much but do nothing!

I-am-not-one-of-them

they won't denounce their own foreign policy, they want that policy to succeed

you seem to think criminals should have a concience or morals

smacker

Westerners should boycott all travel and tourism to Turkey. Too much civil unrest, cold blooded street assassinations, riots, police violence etc. "Turkey has become a terrorist country and is unsafe"

Dark Daze

Why are the Turks in NATO? They don't deserve to be. They don't share our values, our traditions, our religion or our style of government. They are nothing more than evil, back stabbing, slimey bags of Sunni shit, and always have been. And now that Erdogan is becoming a dictator things are only going to get worse. I would not support my government sending one soldier, one plane or one ship to defend those animals. Let the Russians have at them I say.

Omen IV -> Dark Daze

"They don't share our values" Maybe not your values but certainly Washington's values

ross81 -> Dark Daze

the bigger question is why is there even a NATO at all? The "big bad" Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact are long gone. Truth is NATO now is the Atlanticists + some puppet regimes in eastern Europe/Turkey. They want the entire Middle East and wont tolerate a Russian or BRICS influence there at all. Good to see though that the Shiite Bloc are tired of all this fucking chaos & mayhem and are joining the Russian side.

Joe Plane

The Warsaw pact was created after NATO and as a counter act.

Don't know how many people know this but in 1954 the USSR, Belorussia and Ukraine (the latter two being seperate members of the UN) applied for membership in NATO. And were rejected.

Crocodile

It is obvious the west is trying to stretch Russia via Ukraine and Syria and now Turkey; the further you stretch an any, the more difficult it is to focus on the bigger picture. China better step up to the Russian plate and soon if anyone expects to reign in the NATO terrorists.

... ... ...

farflungstar

Kurdistan is being groomed to be israel's latest manufactured ally in the region - they've been stroking the Kurds for quite some time.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html

I wonder just how willing Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey (nations with significant Kurdish pops.) are going to be to cede territory to what will be an israeli ally - a little? not too much? not at all?

Eventually they may have no choice.

nah

Seems like everything in the Middle East is going tribal, sectarian, and vigilante. Bad day for established government and power for the people in a general sense


[Nov 28, 2015] Remaking the Middle East: How the US Grew Tired and Less Relevant

Notable quotes:
"... In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H. W. Bush described them with demeaning terminology , according to his biographer, quoted in the New York Times . Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths? ..."
"... comparing the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations' foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although they applied soft power differently. ..."
"... In essence, Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion. ..."
"... In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era. ..."
"... The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5 billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. ..."
"... The Russian military campaign in Syria, which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East. Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956. ..."
"... It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power is already under way, which also means that new alliances will be formed while others fold. ..."
November 14, 2015 | original.antiwar.com
US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is often perceived as one of the "good ones" – the less hawkish of top American officials, who does not simply promote and defend his country's military adventurism but reaches out to others, beyond polarizing rhetoric.

His unremitting efforts culminated partly in the Iran nuclear framework agreement in April, followed by a final deal, a few months later. Now, he is reportedly hard at work again to find some sort of consensus on a way out of the Syria war, a multi-party conflict that has killed over 300,000 people. His admirers see him as the diplomatic executor of a malleable and friendly US foreign policy agenda under President Obama.

In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H. W. Bush described them with demeaning terminology, according to his biographer, quoted in the New York Times. Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths?

If one is to fairly examine US foreign policies in the Middle East, for example, comparing the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations' foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although they applied soft power differently.

In essence, Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion.

Obama has even gone a step further when he recently decided to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan well into 2017, thus breaking US commitment to withdraw next year. 2017 is Obama's last year in office, and the decision is partly motivated by his administration's concern that future turmoil in that country could cost his Democratic Party heavily in the upcoming presidential elections.

In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era.

Nevertheless, much has changed as well, simply because American ambitions to police the world, politics and the excess of $600 billion a year US defense budget are not the only variables that control events in the Middle East and everywhere else. There are other undercurrents that cannot be wished away, and they too can dictate US foreign policy outlooks and behavior.

Indeed, an American decline has been noted for many years, and Middle Eastern nations have been more aware of this decline than others. One could even argue that the W. Bush administration's rush for war in Iraq in 2003 in an attempt at controlling the region's resources, was a belated effort at staving off that unmistakable decay – whether in US ability to regulate rising global contenders or in its overall share of global economy.

The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5 billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. That misconception carries on to this day, where military spending is already accounting for about 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, itself nearly a third of the country's overall budget.

However, those who are blaming Obama for failing to leverage US military strength for political currency refuse to accept that Obama's behavior hardly reflects a lack of appetite for war, but a pragmatic response to a situation that has largely spun out of US control.

The so-called "Arab Spring", for example, was a major defining factor in the changes of US fortunes. And it all came at a particularly interesting time.

First, the Iraq war has destroyed whatever little credibility the US had in the region, a sentiment that also reverberated around the world.

Second, it was becoming clear that the US foreign policy in Central and South America – an obstinate continuation of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which laid the groundwork for US domination of that region – has also been challenged by more assertive leaders, armed with democratic initiatives, not military coups.

Third, China's more forceful politics, at least around its immediate regional surroundings, signaled that the US traditional hegemony over most of East and South East Asia are also facing fierce competition.

Not only many Asian and other countries have flocked to China, lured by its constantly growing and seemingly more solid economic performance, if compared to the US, but others are also flocking to Russia, which is filling a political and, as of late, military vacuum left open.

The Russian military campaign in Syria, which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East. Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956.

The region's historians must fully understand the repercussions of all of these factors, and that simply analyzing the US decline based on the performance of individuals – Condoleezza Rice's hawkishness vs. John Kerry's supposed sane diplomacy – is a trivial approach to understanding current shifts in global powers.

It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power is already under way, which also means that new alliances will be formed while others fold.

For now, the Middle East will continue to pass through this incredibly difficult and violent transition, for which the US is partly responsible.

Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is a media consultant, an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press).

[Nov 28, 2015] Turkey's Erdogan Expresses Regret Over Russian Plane Downing

He already flip-flopped his reaction on staged by his government ambush several times. This is probably not the last.
www.huffingtonpost.com

Turkey (AP) -- Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Saturday voiced regret over Turkey's downing of a Russian warplane, saying his country was "truly saddened" by the incident and wished it hadn't occurred.

It was the first expression of regret by the strongman leader since Tuesday's incident in which Turkish F-16 jets shot down the Russian jet on grounds that it had violated Turkey's airspace despite repeated warnings to change course. It was the first time in half a century that a NATO member shot down a Russian plane and drew a harsh response from Moscow.

"We are truly saddened by this incident," Erdogan said. "We wish it hadn't happened as such, but unfortunately such a thing has happened. I hope that something like this doesn't occur again."

Addressing supporters in the western city of Balikesir, Erdogan said neither country should allow the incident to escalate and take a destructive form that would lead to "saddening consequences."

He renewed a call for a meeting with President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of a climate conference in Paris next week, saying it would be an opportunity to overcome tensions.

[Nov 28, 2015] ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal Raqqas Rockefellers, Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection

Notable quotes:
"... "All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well. ..."
"... "First and foremost, the Turks help the militants sell stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil for $20 a barrel, which is half the market price. ..."
"... According to a European official at an international oil company who met with al-Araby in a Gulf capital, Israel refines the oil only once or twice because it does not have advanced refineries. It exports the oil to Mediterranean countries - where the oil gains a semi-legitimate status - for $30 to $35 a barrel. ..."
"... The oil is sold within a day or two to a number of private companies, while the majority goes to an Italian refinery owned by one of the largest shareholders in an Italian football club [name removed] where the oil is refined and used locally, added the European oil official. ..."
"... Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of IS oil. Without them, most IS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel, said the industry official. ..."
Zero Hedge
One person who definitely thinks the Erdogans are trafficking in ISIS oil is Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi who said the following on Friday:

"All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well."

And then there's Iraq's former National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie who posted the following to his Facebook page on Saturday:

"First and foremost, the Turks help the militants sell stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil for $20 a barrel, which is half the market price."

Meanwhile, the US is preparing for an all-out ISIS oil propaganda war. As WSJ reported on Wednesday, "the Treasury [has] accused a Syrian-born businessman, George Haswani, who his a dual Syrian-Russian citizen, of using his firm, HESCO Engineering and Construction Co., for facilitating oil trades between the Assad regime and Islamic State." Why Assad would buy oil from a group that uses the cash at its disposal to wage war against Damascus is an open question especially when one considers that Assad's closest allies (Russia and Iran) are major oil producers. Of course between all the shady middlemen and double dealing, there's really no telling.

Ultimately we'll probably never know the whole story, but what we do know (and again, most of the evidence is either circumstantial, anecdotal, of largely qualitative) seems to suggest that in addition to providing guns and money to the FSA and al-Nusra, Turkey may well be responsible for facilitating Islamic State's $400+ million per year oil enterprise. And as for end customers, consider the following bit from Al-Araby al-Jadeed:

According to a European official at an international oil company who met with al-Araby in a Gulf capital, Israel refines the oil only "once or twice" because it does not have advanced refineries. It exports the oil to Mediterranean countries - where the oil "gains a semi-legitimate status" - for $30 to $35 a barrel.

"The oil is sold within a day or two to a number of private companies, while the majority goes to an Italian refinery owned by one of the largest shareholders in an Italian football club [name removed] where the oil is refined and used locally," added the European oil official.

"Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of IS oil. Without them, most IS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel," said the industry official.

Finally, you'll note that this is all an effort to answer what we called "the most important question about ISIS that no one is asking" - namely, "who are the middlemen?" As we noted more than a week ago, "we do know who they may be: the same names that were quite prominent in the market in September when Glencore had its first, and certainly not last, near death experience: the Glencores, the Vitols, the Trafiguras, the Nobels, the Mercurias of the world." Consider that, and consider what Reuters says about the trade in illicit KRG oil: "Market sources have said several trading houses including Trafigura and Vitol have dealt with Kurdish oil. Both Trafigura and Vitol declined to comment on their role in oil sales."

Similarly, FT notes that "both Vitol and Trafigura had paid the KRG in advance for the oil, under so-called 'pre-pay' deals, helping Erbil to bridge its budget gaps."

Indeed, when Kurdistan went looking for an advisor to assist in the effort to circumvent Baghdad, the KRG chose "Murtaza Lakhani, who worked for Glencore in Iraq in the 2000s, to assist finding ships."

"He knew exactly who would and who wouldn't deal with us. He opened the doors to us and identified willing shipping companies to work with us," Ashti Hawrami (quoted above) said.

Indeed. And given everything said above about the commingling of illegal KRG crude and illicit ISIS oil shipments, it's probably a foregone conclusion that these same firms are assisting in transport arrangements for Islamic State

Noplebian

Interesting, but not surprising......

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

Occident Mortal

Outstanding work. And Raqqafellers will stick.

I pointed to these assholes yesterday...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-27/how-turkey-exports-isis-oil-wor...

quintago

Right after 9/11, the Israelis swept in and starting building links with the Kurds. Google it. They are using the Kurds as a destabilizer and as a source for oil. Ashkelon and Haifa moving oil to europe is their grand dream.

BuddyEffed

If there has been ship to ship transfers I bet someone, and maybe several recon capable countries have spy photos. That could be part of the over the top game here. Let's bargain or we will release photos.

BuddyEffed

This just in : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/erdogan-russian-plane-downing_5659bd...
Erdogan expressing regrets for the downed plane. Also probably regretting ZH analysis.

I'm guessing the photos of the ship to ship transfers won't be released at this time.

jefferson32

Once again Meyssan's analysis proves extremely accurate. In July 2014, he writes:

On June 20, Israel bought the oil that the local Kurdish government had stolen in Kirkuk despite the international opinion voiced by the Iraqi federal government. The transit of the oil had been facilitated by the ISIL which controls the pipeline and Turkey which allowed the goods to be loaded onto a tanker at the port of Ceyhan.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article184669.html

jefferson32

To understand how Turkey can, on one hand, cooperate with the Kurds in northern Irak - and enable their oil commerce - and, on the other hand, be fighting Kurds in Syria (and Turkey itself), it is important to realize these two populations, although both ethnically kurdish, have little in common.

For starters, they don't speak the same language, and killed each other throughout the Cold War.

Nowadays, the Iraki Kurds are pro-West and lead by Barzani (admitedly a Mossad agent put in place by the Americans and British). The Syrian Kurds are aligned with Iran and Russia.

Thierry Meyssan's exposé is much better than mine:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html

Paveway IV

Half of all Turks live under the poverty line. A quarter of those live underneath the starvation line = eat from dumpsters. Erdogan and his crime family live in a three-quarters of a billion dollar palace.

The Kurds have it worse, from Be Very Worried About Barzani Family Power Struggle

"...Masud Barzani is president and lives in a palace complex in a resort inherited from Saddam Hussein. His nephew, Nechirvan Barzani, is prime minister. His uncle, Hoshyar Zebari, was Iraq's foreign minister and is now finance minister. Masud's eldest son, Masrour Barzani, leads the intelligence service; and his second son Mansour is a general, as is Masud's brother Wajy. Barzani's nephew Sirwan owns the regional cell phone company which, while purchased with public money, remains a private holding. Barzani's sons are frequently in Washington D.C. They have their wives give birth in Sibley Hospital in order to ensure the next generation has American citizenship, and Masrour Barzani acquired an $11 million mansion in McLean, Virginia. Hanging out in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, some of Masoud Barzani's daughters-in-law have, according to Kurdish circles, been known to introduce themselves as "Princesses of Kurdistan" as they visit high-end shops accompanied by their own rather unnecessary (while in the United States) security details..."

Kurds hate Barzani - he's in power because Israel and the U.S. back him. Time to strip the Barzani babies of their U.S. citizenship and bar their entire clan from ever setting foot on U.S. soil for the rest of their lives.

Everything the U.S. touches turns to shit. Every country we have anything to do with is ruled by psychopathic, money-grubbing gangsters. Every country we "freedomize and liberate" ends up knee-deep in the blood of their own citizens while the wars have turned out to be neocon chickenhawks grudge against a leader they don't like.

When Syria and Iraq have been sufficiently destroyed, U.S. and U.K. oil companies will own the oil and gas production destined for the EU or Israel. The U.S. will continue to turn a blind eye to the tin-pot dictators they have empowered and made profanely rich while their 'little people' eat out of garbage cans. If those peons rise up to kick the dictator's asses (Erdogan, Barzani, and whoever is in charge if the Iraqi hell-hole of death), then we will be there with weapons, armor, aircraft and troops to kill those dumpster-diving terrorists.

If we don't like the Saddam Husseins or Bashar al-Assads of the world, WHY THE FUCK DO WE KEEP MAKING MORE OF THEM?


Paveway IV

The Tylers do a good job of showing the trail of breadcrumbs in these oil operations. If you need a PowerPoint deck and streaming video of Israeli brokers negotiating legally-questionable and terrorist-supporting stolen oil purchases and scans of bill-of-sales from ISIS from Erdogan's son, then you're probably on the wrong site.

There are plenty of accounts of Israel buying Kurdish oil directly, or acting as a middleman for EU sales. Any Israeli brokers can legally claim ignorance of the source of the oil, but everyone involved knows exactly where some it comes from and why it's so cheap. The legality of ANY Kurdish oil sales are still in legal limbo - the U.S. courts won't permit its import. The fact that a substantial quantitiy of Kurdish (or Turkish terminal spot sales of 'Kurdish') oil is in fact ISIS oil stolen in Syria and Iraq really isn't a secret to anybody. To show what is (or should be) obvious to a reasonably intelligent person is not the same thing as concrete proof with a documented legal trail. Israel probably regrets the ISIS connection, but ISIS won't be around forever. Israel plans on buying oil from the Kurds for a long, LONG time, so I don't expect them to ask too many questions now.

We're talking a few Israeli brokers and refinery buyers, not ten million Israelis conspiring to buy and sell ISIS oil. If it wasn't Israeli oil dealers, it would be someone else.

Urban Redneck

It's not tenuous, it's politely phrased, but there are actually a lot more people and institutions involved. The physical oil trade is a black art, and all the practitioners know each other, and as many times as a title to cargo may trade hands at sea, ONE party is responsible for legitimizing black market product (after which it can be traded more freely). Unfortunately, the simplest and least bloody solution is unlikely at this point, international sanctions on Turkey and an embargo on all oil from Ceyhan not originating from the Baku pipeline.

Lurk Skywatcher

Why Assad would buy oil from a group that uses the cash at its disposal to wage war against Damascus is an open question especially when one considers that Assad's closest allies (Russia and Iran) are major oil producers.

Only an open question for trolls and dullards. Syria has lost a lot of its oil infrastructure, and it needs oil to operate. The Assad government probably isn't buying directly, but unscrupulous middlemen will try to make a profit no matter what their nationality.

Watch how the MSM will pump the US version, and ignore the Russian version, of who benefits from ISIS oil sales... it fits their agenda like a glove.

Kayman

Perversely Obama was correct in saying ISIS is the JV team. A small cog in a very illegal, immoral but lucrative trade in stolen oil. A lot of dirty money to pass around, deposit in Swiss bank accounts in Potus' name, or members of the family, Congress vendors, etc.

If the U.S. and Nato wanted to- they could strangle the neck of the ISIS chicken by cutting off all oil going through Turkey and all newbie ISIS recuits and arms heading back into Raqqa.

But there is too much dirty money being made by the real players in the game. Can't have a peace settlement with dirty hands in the game. I now wonder if the ISIS internet recruitment videos are being made in Turkey, Israel or Hollywood.

Neochrome

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b8234932-719b-11e5-ad6d-f4ed76f0900a.html#axzz...

According to this it is Syrian REBELS who are dependent on ISIS oil, it would also partially explain why is US unhappy with turn of events. It is safe to say that the line between ISIS and "rebels" is practically non-existent:

"It's a situation that makes you laugh and cry," said one Syrian rebel commander in Aleppo, who buys diesel from Isis areas even as his forces fight the group on the front lines. "But we have no other choice, and we are a poor man's revolution. Is anyone else offering to give us fuel?"

Indeed, diesel and petrol produced in Isis areas are not only consumed in territory the group controls but in areas that are technically at war with it, such as Syria's rebel-held north: the region is dependent on the jihadis' fuel for its survival.

"At any moment, the diesel can be cut. No diesel - Isis knows our life is completely dead," says one oil trader who comes from rebel-held Aleppo each week to buy fuel and spoke to the Financial Times by telephone.

Palladin

According to this article the US destroyed 116 oil trucks, and the Russians destroyed another 500. I don't know how many barrels of oil that is but that has to make a real mess with all that oil leaking all over the place.

Where are all the Envrionmentlists wringing their Dawn covered hands over all of this. Probably no Seagulls were harmed, but still somebody has to clean up the mess.

And it seems to me the MSM should be paying more attention to this "Envrrionmental Disaster" like they love to do whenever an offshore oil rig spills any amount of oil.

Kayman

Palladin

Obama couldn't risk killing "innocent" truck drivers- a direct acknowledgement that everyone but the public knew Turkey was the oil conduit. Now you are offering him the opportunity to stop incinerating the trucks for environmental reasons- you ought to be on Obama's staff.

I-am-not-one-of-them's picture

the US used Russian footage of destroying 116 oil trucks as proof. I doubt they did, it's their mercenaries and their operation

that's why nothing happened in the 2 years they pretended to destroy ISIS and Russia has immediate success, one is genuine and the other is fake

harleyjohn45

This article says 1300 transports have been destroyed. I read an article that ISIS is using smaller trucks as tankers now, instead of 36,000 liters to 9000 liters per load. Soon they will be carrying oil in 5 gallon buckets.

Noplebian

This just about sums up the whole ISIS situation......

http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2015/11/cowardly-isiss-terrorist-...

Perfecthedge

This is outstanding, investigative journalism. Not the trash that we get from CNN, Fox and the BBC.

I just checked Trafigura.com and whenever I see a corporation talking about "ethics and transparency" (on their home page). I get suspicious. I am sure KPMG or whatever hooker-accounting firm is auditing this firm, is doing a fine job.

On another side note, Paypal thinks I am a terrorist and money-laundering criminal, because I wanted to transfer 20 Euros from my Bank account to my Paypal, to buy swimwear on Ebay.

FUCK THEM. FUCK THEM HARD IN THE ASSHOLE.

Herdee

Americans need to look at the world through different perspectives.Use alternative media and open up your minds:

http://russia-insider.com/en

Teh Finn

Russian media claims the men are "ISIS leaders who it is [thought] participated in massacres in Syria's Homs and Rojava, the Kurdish name for Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan."

How do you say "Chris Matthews" in Rus?

PoasterToaster

The other unasked question is, "After they trade the oil for money, who the hell is selling them all the weaponry?".

smacker

"[...] the trucks that haul oil north just might have, maybe, a teensy-weensy, tiny, itsy-bitsy chance of carrying weapons back from Turkey."

I think you're right. Recall that convoy Russian jets bombed yesterday which ended up in flames.

Erdogan bellyached about it in a press interview claiming it was "humanitarian aid" (ho-ho). Too bad. Video pix showed the trucks had crates of shells and other weaponry. Some of the shells appeared to have Ukraine/Cyrillic markings on them.

green dragon

Veterens Today makes a case that

[Turkey did this all during the Bush era, having cut a deal with US "manager" Paul Bremmer, a deal VT insiders helped manage for Bremmer and that I was witness to personally.

The game involved playing Baghdad against Erbil and bleeding off oil revenues from the Kirkuk Oil Fields, largest oil reserves in the world, as they moved by pipeline through Kurdistan and into Turkey. There they were offloaded onto American tankers in the Mediterranean where these huge ships, largest in the world, were filled with oil but it was never recorded and the oil never paid for.

Turkey got their cut, certain Turkish naval officers became fabulously wealthy while the Bush cabal poured billions into their Cayman offshore accounts managed by Bain Capital.]

[Nov 28, 2015] John Helmer The Classic Rules for Combatting Turkish Aggression

Even if it was some forces not controlled by Erdogan committed this ambush, his reaction was a typical reaction of ultranationalist, panturkist. All this talk about out turkish brothers is just a smoke screen for territorial and regional ambitions of Erdogan government. He is becoming kind of Saudi Arabia Nop.1 but without oil. and that spell trobles for the edonomy and his regime.
Notable quotes:
"... To me Erdogan and his government more and more look like members of Grey Wolf organization, a copycat of Ukrainian Svoboda with the same level of ultra-nationalism and neofascism in their brains. ..."
"... Has anyone considered the possibility this was not Erdogan's decision – perhaps his son's oil partners in ISIS had the right connections in the Turkish military, or suppose Uncle Sam just directed Erdogan to ratchet it up or watch his career dissolved by that same military, or maybe something worse, for males. ..."
"... It's not like going after Syria was Erdogan's idea – he'd had good relations with Assad for years ..."
naked capitalism
... Igor Sechin, the former deputy to President Vladimir Putin, was a leading advocate of forgetting Russia's historical lessons for dealing with the Turks, and disdaining to learn new ones. Putin was reluctant to learn them until yesterday.

Here they are:

1. Turkey never makes a military move without getting Pentagon approval first. In order for yesterday's shoot-down of the Su-24 to take place as it did, a battery of signals intelligence and other electronic warfare means would have been deployed by a joint US-Turkish command unit, giving the Turkish F-16 pilot confidence he was taking the Russian pilot unprepared. It was not, as the Turkish Government has announced, "an automatic response to our airspace being violated" because the airspace was Syrian, unilaterally claimed by the Turks to be their "exclusion zone". Neither was it, as Putin has announced, a "stab in the back" from the Turks. Nor was it, as Putin added, "despite the agreement we have signed with our American partners to prevent air incidents". What happened was full frontal – it was because of the agreement the Turks have with the US military command. Nor can Putin have been genuinely surprised that "instead of immediately establishing contacts with us, as far as we know Turkey turned to its NATO partners to discuss this incident." Had Putin said he suspected that Turkey turned to "its NATO partners" before the "incident", he would have been closer to the truth.

2. Aggression by Turkey and the US can be defeated by a smaller force, but it must be in constant readiness, employing every form of early warning and disguising its force by surprise. Putin has said the Russian Su-24 was struck by a missile fired by a Turkish F-16 when the Russian aircraft was one kilometre inside the Syrian side of the border. That being true, Russian air defence support for the fighter must have been tracking the Turkish aircraft from the second it started its take-off roll. It ought to have tracked its course upward, and monitored its missile-arming electronics and such fire orders as came from elsewhere. The Russian warning and control operators and the Su-24 crew should have detected the hostile fire-radar, and had the option to jam it. If none of these things was done on the Russian side, alerting the Su-24 crew to their peril, the Russian forces weren't ready, and the Su-24 was taken by surprise. The consequences cannot be explained by the commander-in-chief telling a visitor – the King of Jordan pretending to call the Russian president his "brother": "we will never turn a blind eye to such crimes as the one that was committed today." Blind is the word for it – before, not after.

THE RUSSIAN SU-24 FLIGHT PATH – TURKISH, BBC VERSION

SU-24-FLIGHT-PATH-

THE RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY VERSION

RDMmap

Source: http://sputniknews.com/military/20151124/1030695406/mod-su-24-flight-path.html

3. In western Europe, in the Balkans, and in the Middle East the Turks have no durable friend or ally. For Russian strategy not to be ambushed by the Turks, it must have strong allies like Iran, weak ones like Cyprus and Serbia, and vacillating ones like the Bulgarians, and listen to their experience of warfighting with the Turks. It is a waste of breath to try reassuring Ankara that Russia's "plane and our pilots were in no way a threat to the Turkish Republic in any way." That's because the Turks know we know they are threatening, as well as financing the break-up of the Russian Caucasus. It's because they know Russia is committed to blocking Turkish expansion, and to protecting Shiite Iraq and the Kurds from Turkish attack. If these aren't the new strategic commitments, then Russia should hasten to withdraw its forces before it falls into more bloody ambushes. If they are the new commitments, then the consequences are as obvious as they are immediate.

All Russians are now at risk if they travel to Turkey, so President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's exclusion zone should stop all Russian flights and all Russian nationals from entering the country.

Time, too, for the Turks to warm their houses and cook their dinners with someone else's gas.

liberal, November 26, 2015 at 10:08 am

IMHO Turkey didn't consult with the US first. It smells of a stupidity that Ergodan would commit.

I mean, here's the idiot who apparently didn't game out the overthrow of Assad, and the likely impact it would have on the Kurds.

timbers, November 26, 2015 at 10:33 am

Great article. It's implication of how Russia should respond might be:

Russia should concentrate on protecting it's fighters near Turkish border and be prepared to protect and respond to head off Turkish aggression, and not directly escalate militarily but instead stay focused on it's original mission.

Putin's past behavior may suggest he will choose a good course not unlike the above, weather he knows of the lesson Helmer describes, or not. Putin is not rash, realizes that while Russia is powerful and has options it is not the only powerful nation and faces constraints as well (if only the US did, too), considers before he moves. Hopefully this will keep him focused on what he wants to achieve in Syria and not get side tracked with Turkey even if it makes him look "weak" in the media. Read that Putin is looking at sealing the Syrian-Turkish border, which would freeze out the biggest influx of trouble makers in Syria. Am thinking Putin should slowly move to freeze out all Western access to Syrian airspace, perhaps with the much discussed S-400's and another methods.

Positioning more defensive missiles, jet fighter escorts, and using the radar warning Helmer discusses to deter and preemptively defend against Turkey repeating this incident, is the best corse IMO. It appears Russia is doing at least some of these things from what I'm reading.

mike, November 26, 2015 at 3:16 pm

Fair enough assessment; I would not expect a second Russian plan to be shot down! Your right Putin is not rash!

kl, November 26, 2015 at 10:59 am

The West forgot Turkey. We forgot something it never did, that its main role is ultra-nationalism and ripping off the West.
Apparently, Russians forgot this too. As a Russian passport offers few travel opportunities, Turkey and Egypt are prime destinations. I see Russian women suck up to Turkish and other middle Eastern men regularly. It's sad and shows a complete lack of understanding of the Turkish aggression, including enslaving slaves not that any centuries ago (officially) and the extant burgeoning sex slave trade (unofficially) today.

al apaka, November 27, 2015 at 1:43 am

uhhh regarding Russian passports, that is just plain wrong. go to Asia sometime. or Africa.
the rest of your screed is sad, you've obviously got issues with swarthy folks, me senses projection in your focus on Russian women…lose your wife to a raghead, did you?

digi_owl, November 26, 2015 at 3:16 pm

Turkey has always been a wild card in NATO. Heck, the reason they are a member at all is that USA needed a standing ground army near the USSR that was not made up of US troops. And turkey had the biggest such after WW2 (and still has the biggest one next to USA within NATO). Their physical location also provided a "second front" deterrent to a land war in Europe.

Then again while a land war was perhaps a risk during Stalin, afterwards it was more about having a buffer between Russia and Germany than anything else. the Soviet leadership was more worried about a offense from USA than planning some kind of grand takeover of Europe.

kj1313, November 26, 2015 at 9:44 pm

Tbh Turkey is the one country where I would have trusted the military to depose the tin pot dictator.

Jon, November 27, 2015 at 8:33 am

Turkey is no longer the solid Nato member and unflinching US ally that it was during the Cold War, or indeed even 15 years ago. The AKP government has new friends in the World and is happy play its cards against the EU and US when it chooses.

Most like this move was part of Turkey's soft-on-ISIS/hard-on-PKK-and-other-Kurds playbook and most unlikely to be cleared with the US – though of course playing the Nato membership card after the event makes sense.

Mustafa, November 27, 2015 at 2:58 pm

Whenever Russian and Turks are fighting our enemies win. When they come together the history is changing its direction. This the a lesson from the history. There is a saying in Russian " The Russian-Turkish war from 1877 is a war where we have lost 100 million golden rubles and 100.000 lives and won nothing." Turkey have lost the Balkans and Cyprus in this very same war. But Atatürk and Lenin made it differently and the course of the history has changed. The battle in Galipoli where Atatürk defeated the super powers at that time the British and French and opened the door for the success of the Soviet revolution in 1917. Then Lenin gave his hand to Atatürk in 1920 and opened the door for the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. This was the end of British and French dominance in the east. Putin and Erdogan have to learn from the history…

likbez, November 27, 2015 at 11:16 pm

To me Erdogan and his government more and more look like members of Grey Wolf organization, a copycat of Ukrainian Svoboda with the same level of ultra-nationalism and neofascism in their brains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Wolves_(organization)

Looks like in several countries we are returning to 1930th. Talleyrand complain about the restoration of the monarchy "These people have learned nothing and for­gotten nothing" is perfectly applicable to nationalism Renaissance we experience today. It this an allergic reaction on neoliberalism or may be nationalism is once in a century epidemics that hit mankind to regulate its numbers is unclear to me.

The sad side of this incident is that will damage Russia economically by increasing economic isolation. So the winner of Peace Nobel Price and all neocons around him got a good Thanksgiving present. Or, from another point of view, Putin's decision to save Alawite community from extermination by Islamic radicals backfired. No good deed is left unpunished in high politics.

Fiver, November 28, 2015 at 4:47 am

Has anyone considered the possibility this was not Erdogan's decision – perhaps his son's oil partners in ISIS had the right connections in the Turkish military, or suppose Uncle Sam just directed Erdogan to ratchet it up or watch his career dissolved by that same military, or maybe something worse, for males.

It's not like going after Syria was Erdogan's idea – he'd had good relations with Assad for years, but he (and everyone else outside and in) was relentlessly pushed from the 'west' (yes, no capital 'W' earned this century) even as the European portion of it again failed to open for Turkey – the big payoff of Admission to the EU/EZ that is just recently promised yet anew for Turkey, but with events will recede again as the ink dries. So Erdogan cast his lot with Uncle re the 'Arab Regime Change Spring' and like the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, GCC et al, Erdogan took deeply of the sort of Kool Aid that makes bad ideas look good – and so Erdogan got religion in both supporting ISIS by enabling ISIS oil operations and trade in Syria and profiting from it, even while assuring the west it was taking the fight to ISIS.

This is what they call a 'fluid' situation, and I can well imagine other events that place one or more other allied leaders in even worse political jams. The collateral damage this confrontation has already inflicted is stupendous, and being borne by all the wrong people. I'm sure this will give Erdogan plenty of future reasons for him want to flip back to a more pro-Syria, or pro-Russia footing. Or more.

[Nov 28, 2015] Who is buying ISILs oil

Al Jazeera English
On the face of it, it looks like any state-run oil industry. Engineers, managers and traders all help extract, refine and distribute oil, which makes its way across Syria and Iraq, as well as overseas. But this is no state-run company. This is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's (ISIL) lifeline - a business that provides the armed group with more revenue than any other source.

Oil helps to fund its war in Syria and Iraq, as well as to provide electricity to the 10 million people living under ISIL control. But despite the oil trade being targeted by the US-led coalition against ISIL, the business continues to thrive. And many people are increasingly asking why.

Russia has accused Turkey of buying oil from the armed group. Ankara in turn threw this allegation back at Moscow because of Russian support for Bashar al-Assad, who is also accused of buying oil from ISIL.

And to complicate matters, ISIL oil is also being sold to other rebel groups in Syria, most of whom are opposed to ISIL but have no alternative sources of fuel.

So, who are the individuals and groups involved in refining and selling ISIL's oil? And where does that oil end up?

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2015/11/buying-isil-oil-151127173736852.html

Presenter: Hazem Sika

Guests:

Shwan Zulal - Managing Director of Carduchi Consulting

Carole Nakhle - Director of Crystol Energy

Afshin Shahi - Director of the Centre for the Study of Political Islam

[Nov 28, 2015] Jonathan Marshall

Nov 27, 2015 | The Scott Horton Show

Jonathan Marshall, an independent researcher living in San Anselmo, California, discusses the Obama administration's failure to broker a peace deal in Syria due to its neocon-like focus on regime change.

[Nov 28, 2015] Shooting down the Russian jet a symptom of Turkey's central malaise - GÜVEN SAK

Notable quotes:
"... President Recep Tayyip Erdo an has said he would do it again if he could go back, but he also said we might have reacted differently had we known that the unidentified aircraft was Russian. I'm not sure which statement to believe. ..."
"... In Turkish, we sometimes say "I am telling this to my daughter with the hope that my daughter-in-law will get the message." People in this part of the world communicate obliquely. What is Turkey's overriding concern in Syria? It is keeping the PKK/PYD in check, plain and simple. ..."
"... Thanks to the civil war, the PYD has in some ways surpassed Öcalan's dreams. It has become a governing institution of the Syrian Kurds, and the YPG, its armed wing, has become the main instrument of the Western coalition against ISIL. That means Turkey cannot fight it directly. Meanwhile, Turkey's reconciliation process with its own Kurdish population has come to an abrupt halt. Why? Because the civil war in Syria shifted the balance of power in the Kurds' favor. ..."
www.hurriyetdailynews.com

The million dollar question is: Why did Turkey do it? The Russians were violating Turkish airspace on an almost daily basis. Did it feel like it had to make good on its threats for earlier violations? Why now?

Since the start of this war in Syria, Turkey has wanted to be taken seriously. Syria shot down a Turkish plane in 2012, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Turkish Consulate staff in Mosul hostage for months, and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)-affiliated Democratic Union Party (PYD) is steadily gaining ground with Western backing. Russia's blatant disregard for Ankara's concerns was only the straw that broke the camel's back. The Turkish leadership felt it necessary to show it means business, and shooting down a Russian plane, they thought, might have been a way to show that. But was it the right move? President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has said he would do it again if he could go back, but he also said we might have reacted differently had we known that the unidentified aircraft was Russian. I'm not sure which statement to believe.

In Turkish, we sometimes say "I am telling this to my daughter with the hope that my daughter-in-law will get the message." People in this part of the world communicate obliquely. What is Turkey's overriding concern in Syria? It is keeping the PKK/PYD in check, plain and simple. Turks are obsessed with this, to the extent that talking about fighting ISIS makes them uncomfortable, not necessarily because they like the group, but because they don't want to overshadow the threat of the PYD. They have not forgotten that the PYD was established by Abdullah Öcalan during his exile as a small Syrian arm of his operations. Thanks to the civil war, the PYD has in some ways surpassed Öcalan's dreams. It has become a governing institution of the Syrian Kurds, and the YPG, its armed wing, has become the main instrument of the Western coalition against ISIL. That means Turkey cannot fight it directly. Meanwhile, Turkey's reconciliation process with its own Kurdish population has come to an abrupt halt. Why? Because the civil war in Syria shifted the balance of power in the Kurds' favor.

Why did Turkey down that Su-24? Because it needed its Western allies to know that it means business, even if it won't hit PYD bases directly. That would not normally be a problem, but the range of responses from Ankara shows that it was not a very calculated step. Rather, it was a product of our tangled feelings toward Kurdish politics, which manifested obliquely in the debris of that plane. Similar to the Mavi Marmara incident, the episode will probably be useful in domestic politics but it will end up disproportionately hurting Turkey's foreign policy.

Ankara must learn to measure its actions based on realities out there on the ground, not its emotional and ideological echo chamber at home. In the case of Syria, this means facing up to our feelings about the Kurds, at home and across the border, once and for all.

[Nov 28, 2015] Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Notable quotes:
"... It's no secret by now that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq ..."
"... Frida Ghitis says the Syrian conflict "pitted moderates against extremists, and then extremists against ultra-extremists." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/opinions/ghitis-russia-jet-shot-down/index.html So I suppose the United States is now on the side of the "extremists." We certainly would never approve of backing the "ultra-extremists," the way our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia do. ..."
"... Not Turkmen commander-Turkish ..."
"... So Putin may have to put some of his other goals in the region on the back burner in order to actually wage war on ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups. ..."
"... Putin is right in saying that Turkey, a NATO member, is backing ISIS, not only financially but militarily. For Turkey their main interest is in Syrian Kurds not getting organized, armed, and in control of their own territory. When Turkey says they are fighting ISIS, they are dropping most of the bombs on Syrian Kurds. And they have never respected Iraq borders when attacking Iraqi Kurds. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is also supporting ISIS, not only because they also defend an extremist Sunni Islam as Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, but also because it is part of their proxy wars against Shia Iran, and Syria is one of the Shia States with Sunni majority. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism. ..."
"... Holland stupidly wants to march on ISIS, but nobody else wants to put troops on the ground. The only ones with troops on the ground fighting ISIS are Syrian army and Kurds. The latter ones are unacceptable to Turkey, so the former ones might become our new ally. ..."
"... Alawites, the core of the Syrian army, are paying a very high price for the war. About a third of their manpower has died in the 5 year war. They only keep fighting because they know they face extermination if they lose the war, whether from Syrian Sunnies or from ISIS. ..."
"... who want higher oil prices might have had their wish granted today after the downing of the russian SU-24 inside syria from a turkish F-16 (you will hear loads of shit in CnnAbcFoxNbcNewYotkTimes…please feel free to complete the alphabet soup here …they are all the SAME! that it was in turkish air space but THAT IS A LIE!!!!) ..."
"... It is your right to believe that Erdogan/Turkey -and they alone- are "brave" enough to shoot down a Russian aircraft while flying OUTSIDE their territory; It is your right to believe that Maidan/Kiev protests and the ousting of Yanukovich happened/grew genuinely from the Ukrainian people; It is your right to believe that the pro-russian rebels shut down the MH17 in Ukraine; It is your right to believe that our army and air force cannot destroy a bunch of white-basketball-shoe-wearing-mid-eval -lunatics after a year of bombing campaign and that we cannot disrupt their tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of barrels of oil per day production/selling which brings them millions of dollars per day in hard currency (…yet somehow russians did it in a month); It is your right to believe that russians are threatening Europe even though we are expanding NATO right at their borders; It is your right to believe that a bunch of illiterate, ugly, smelly morons with rusted AK-47 can defeat France and Belgium; It is your right to believe that: "…they hate us for our freedoms…" and "…our troops are fighting over there to keep us safe over here…" and other "lovely" narratives as such. It is your right! ..."
"... Are you absolutely sure of that? The Russians are saying that's not true, that the plane never entered Turkish air space. Russia's side is presented in this video: https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/ ..."
"... If a person is indeed on a truth-finding mission, is it not incumbent upon that person to listen to what all sides have to say, and then make up one's mind based on the evidence which is presented? ..."
"... RT, for instance, has a short clip of an interview with retired U.S. Airforce general Thomas McInery where he asserts that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned." ..."
"... If what General McInery says is correct - that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned" - then there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity. ..."
"... Well as far as I am concerned, President Obama circling the wagons around Turkey hardly qualifies him as being one the brightest lights on the Christmas tree. Obama is attempting to defend the indefensible. Why do you believe that is? ..."
"... It is clear that this was an hostile deliberate act by Turkey against Russia regardless of where that plane was at the moment. Where the plane was is only relevant to see if it was legal or illegal, but the deliberate hostile act remains either case. ..."
"... Turkey doesn't like the way Russia is helping the Syrian government, but they just proved to NATO that they are unreliable and more a liability than a trustworthy ally. This is how wars start, by unjustified escalation. ..."
"... If one watches the RT video I linked above, Erdogan can be heard saying exactly that same thing back in 2012 after Syria shot down a Turkish jet because of an air space violation. Here's what Erdogan said then: ..."
"... But whether the US might have given the green light for such an act, and the potential reasons for such a thing. Well, now that's interesting, despite Ron's insistence that it's absolutely untenable position. I say, very tenable for a country that has invaded and overthrown dozens of governments in just my short lifetime. ..."
"... personally think Ves' comment below about Turkey's desperation about losing their proxies is probably closer to the mark though. I've seen over the past couple decades Turkey has seen itself as a regional player linking the middle east and Europe and global economic hub. ..."
"... Hey Petro, yeah, just on the face of it I didn't see your comment as being that outlandish. the united states has a very very very long history of making moves that seem quite "beyond the pale" ..."
"... To say, if he did, that the US directly said, "shoot a plane down ASAP" is probably unlikely. But Turkey, a member of NATO, might be a little hesitant to take such an action unless it felt that the United States had its back. Now Turkey has been a bit "rogue" in recent years – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis . I mean the final answer is really above my pay grade, but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation and I'm beginning to agree with wimbi – can we go back to how much drag there would be on a bomber if it lost its tail section? ..."
"... That Turks are so desperate to stop their proxies in Syria being annihilated within next few months? Shooting down Russian plane is what desperate party does in order to change war dynamics on the ground. ..."
"... Unlike US, Russia is very active attacking oil trucks that smuggle ISIS oil to Turkey. Those trucks belong to a shipping company BMZ that belongs to the son of Erdogan. Russia is causing a personal economic loss to the Erdogan family. ..."
"... The international coalition against Syria and Russia is beginning to crack on the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS. Turkey doesn't want that to happen. This explains the shooting of the plane and the rushed going of Turkey to NATO to ask for support. It is intended to dynamite any possibility of understanding between US-lead coalition in Syria and Russia against ISIS. Obama has his hands tied, as he needs to use his base in Turkey. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Glenn Stehle, 11/24/2015 at 5:34 pm

Opening up natural gas supplies to Turkey and Europe which are not controlled by Russia and its allies? This requires a pipeline across Syria but Assad nixed the deal.

No wonder Saudi Prince…told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

THE GUARDIAN, "Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

Jimmy, 11/24/2015 at 7:55 pm

Something tells me Putin is gonna turn up the dial on Turkeys little Kurdish problem. Putin has a lot of levers to choose from in dealing with Turkey. Whilst Russia does need Turkey perhaps more than Turkey needs Russia they certainly don't need Erdogan.

Watcher, 11/24/2015 at 5:18 pm

btw given these short time periods quoted, you also have to add the seconds req'd for all these alleged warnings.

ZH commenters are saying Turkish PM's son is the primary recipient of ISIS oil flowing thru Turkey. That was motivation, allegedly. Shrug.

I can say one thing for sure, no way in hell there were 10 warnings of this jet in the time frame available.

Jimmy, 11/24/2015 at 8:00 pm

Russia seems to be getting in the way of the Turkish Presidents family business of smuggling ISIS oil. FOX missed it.

http://olympia.gr/2015/11/24/erdogans-son-bilal-erdogan-smuggles-illegal-isiss-oil-russianplane-syria/

Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 7:18 am

It's no secret by now that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq:

Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad's regime that includes al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria….

The decision by the two leading allies of the West to back a group in which al-Nusra plays a leading role has alarmed Western governments and is at odds with the US, which is firmly opposed to arming and funding jihadist extremists in Syria's long-running civil war.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-turkey-and-saudi-arabia-shock-western-countries-by-supporting-anti-assad-jihadists-10242747.html

Frida Ghitis says the Syrian conflict "pitted moderates against extremists, and then extremists against ultra-extremists." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/opinions/ghitis-russia-jet-shot-down/index.html

So I suppose the United States is now on the side of the "extremists." We certainly would never approve of backing the "ultra-extremists," the way our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia do.

twocats,11/25/2015 at 9:28 pm

I thought Russia and US both agreed to start bombing oil shipments. Of course, the US didn't WANT to do that as it weakens their proxy allies. It's an a great game of thrones episode that's for sure.

Opritov Alexandr, 11/25/2015 at 9:25 am

"A Turkmen commander said they shot the pilots."
--–
Not Turkmen commander-Turkish : http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2491068.html#comments

twocats,11/25/2015 at 9:23 pm

I'm calling "completely irrelevant due to the fact that it's irrelevant". Is Turkey at war with Russia? Are they in a direct conflict in any way really? Does ISIS have bombers? So there's absolutely positively no way they could have "mistaken" the bomber for something else. And unless they are ready to declare war directly with Russia, the attack is on the verge of insanity.

I know sovereignty is important and all, and they could certainly buzz and even fire "shots across the bow" pretty easily. If we are disputing between 19 and 10 seconds of air space violations, we are idiots. Geeky idiots, but idiots nonethe less.

Fernando Leanme, 11/26/2015 at 5:06 am

The Turks were defending Turkmen on the Syrian side. Erdogan said so. The Russians may sit down with turkey and concede a portion of Latakia to Turkey. The excuse will be the fact that it's populated by Turkmen. If Turkey agrees and redraws the border it will be huge win for Russia. It will give them the precedent to justify taking over the Crimea and the Donbas.

Glenn Stehle says: 11/25/2015 at 6:49 am

Germany apparently has come to a similar conclusion.

German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said:

This incident shows for the first time that we are to dealing with an actor who is unpredictable according to statements from various parts of the region – that is not Russia, that is Turkey.

https://www.rt.com/news/323240-russia-turkey-warplane-downed/

NATO, however, has closed ranks with Turkey. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance backs Ankara:

We stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally.

https://www.rt.com/news/323240-russia-turkey-warplane-downed/

Obama joined NATO in closing ranks with Turkey:

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/plane-shootdown-could-lead-to-nato-conflict-with-russia/

and

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hollande-and-obama-address-isis-threat/

The MSM talking heads are also swinging into action to defend Turkey, arguing that even if the Russian jet was not shot down over Turkey (something an anonymous Pentagon official told Reuters is the case, since video evidence makes further denials by Anakra and Washington unplausible) then Russia still had it coming. Nick Burns, former National Security Council Director for Russian Affairs, charged:

There's an important principle at stake here… Every nation has a right to protect its own borders. And President Obama sided with the Turks today in saying that they have that right. It was a gross violation of international law for the Russians to even fly close to that border…

The Russians may have thought that the Turks weren't serious but they found out today they were.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/analysis-of-russian-plane-shootdown/

This incident should shed light on the fact that neither the great powers (like the US, France or Russia) nor the regional players (like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Iran) are participating in this conflict to fight a common enemy, ISIS. They are there for other reasons.

Russia, however, is in a tough spot. Pepe Escobar, for instance, noted in Asia Times that Russia has eight times the Islamic extremists living on its soil as does France:

Bajolet tells us that at least 500 French jihadis from "Syraq" might present a threat; compare it with 4,000 in respect to Russia (and that explains Putin's determination to go after all shades of jihadism).
http://www.sott.net/article/306819-Pepe-Escobar-Paris-terror-attacks-who-profits

So Putin may have to put some of his other goals in the region on the back burner in order to actually wage war on ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups.

Javier, 11/25/2015 at 7:37 am

Glenn,

It is a very complex issue as every player has different interests. Putin is right in saying that Turkey, a NATO member, is backing ISIS, not only financially but militarily. For Turkey their main interest is in Syrian Kurds not getting organized, armed, and in control of their own territory. When Turkey says they are fighting ISIS, they are dropping most of the bombs on Syrian Kurds. And they have never respected Iraq borders when attacking Iraqi Kurds.

Saudi Arabia is also supporting ISIS, not only because they also defend an extremist Sunni Islam as Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, but also because it is part of their proxy wars against Shia Iran, and Syria is one of the Shia States with Sunni majority. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism.

The Alawites of Syria (including the al-Assad family) are also happy that ISIS is in Syria. Without them they have no chance of keeping power, but in a three sides war with one of them being unacceptable to Occident, they are no longer looking so bad.

Syrian opposition is the big loser here. They are bombed by Turkey and Russia (different targets) and attacked on land by Alawites and ISIS as each one wants to expand first at their expense.

This is why refugees are coming out in droves now as the war is getting much worse.

Turkey feels pretty safe. NATO has no choice but to close ranks, and the European Union is paying big money to Turkey to keep a lid on the refugee problem, as Spain does with Morocco.

Holland stupidly wants to march on ISIS, but nobody else wants to put troops on the ground. The only ones with troops on the ground fighting ISIS are Syrian army and Kurds. The latter ones are unacceptable to Turkey, so the former ones might become our new ally.

Alawites, the core of the Syrian army, are paying a very high price for the war. About a third of their manpower has died in the 5 year war. They only keep fighting because they know they face extermination if they lose the war, whether from Syrian Sunnies or from ISIS.

Ves, 11/25/2015 at 8:40 am

Javier,
You got all ingredients right but all your conclusions are not correct.

Paulo, 11/26/2015 at 10:33 am

I wonder what Obama will say about the right of a country to shoot down an aircraft for airspace violation….when one of theirs gets shot down over the Spratleys by China?

Petro, 11/24/2015 at 4:04 pm

A bit off topic Ron, but maybe not by much:

-Shallow Sand et al.

who want higher oil prices might have had their wish granted today after the downing of the russian SU-24 inside syria from a turkish F-16 (you will hear loads of shit in CnnAbcFoxNbcNewYotkTimes…please feel free to complete the alphabet soup here …they are all the SAME! that it was in turkish air space but THAT IS A LIE!!!!)

Let us ALL hope and pray that Putin does not take this at face value (Act of WAR!….which indeed is….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC)….for if He does, oil prices are going to be the last thing we have to worry about, dear Shallow Sand!!!!

Be well,

Petro

P.S.: sorry for the off topic comment Ron and thank you for the post!

Ron Patterson , 11/24/2015 at 5:17 pm

(Act of WAR!….which indeed is….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC)…

Petro, that that the shooting down of this Russian plane was probably ordered by the President, or the Pentagon, is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this blog. Any goddamn fool with half a brain would know better than that.

Sorry for the strong language but when someone posts something so utterly stupid just to take a swipe at our President, or government, really pisses me off.

That being said, I agree that Turkey shooting down that Russian plane was a very stupid and dangerous thing for Turkey to do. But to say such action was ordered by the US is beyond belief.

Petro, 11/24/2015 at 10:45 pm

Dear Ron,

First, I would like to apologize for being caught in your "cross-hairs" as the result of my unorthodox comment. It will not happen again!

Second, I genuinely respect the tremendous amount of time and information with which you so generously enable all of us frequenting this great forum each and every week! As I have mentioned on numerous comments of mine here, I feel lucky and empowered every time I read one of your well written "mind-teasers".
I truly do!
-For those reasons (and a couple of others) I will not engage on answering:
"…is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this blog. Any goddamn fool with half a brain would know better than that…."
and
"…when someone posts something so utterly stupid…".

I would sincerely hope however, that in this forum we refrain from using word concoctions such as : "goddamn fool", "utterly stupid", "most ignorant thing I have ever read" aimed at the PERSONAL level – even when scientifically and logically (with regard to this blog) they are "deserved"

– i.e. when Peter writes "If 2015 is the peak Oil year, then it is the $45 per barrel peak.

This should give people pause for thought. How on earth can we really be at peak oil, with prices this low. We cannot."

-or RDG writes "Peak Oil is irrelevant because the world's methane potential is underestimated…"

-or Arceus writes"I suspect if the Saudis could double their production to 20 million boepd they could almost double their market share. The only downside would be oil would likely be selling at 20 dollars per barrel."

-to which you (to my delight-I might add) replied:

"That's the funniest thing I have read in weeks."

It is your right to believe that Erdogan/Turkey -and they alone- are "brave" enough to shoot down a Russian aircraft while flying OUTSIDE their territory;
It is your right to believe that Maidan/Kiev protests and the ousting of Yanukovich happened/grew genuinely from the Ukrainian people;
It is your right to believe that the pro-russian rebels shut down the MH17 in Ukraine;
It is your right to believe that our army and air force cannot destroy a bunch of white-basketball-shoe-wearing-mid-eval -lunatics after a year of bombing campaign and that we cannot disrupt their tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of barrels of oil per day production/selling which brings them millions of dollars per day in hard currency (…yet somehow russians did it in a month);
It is your right to believe that russians are threatening Europe even though we are expanding NATO right at their borders;
It is your right to believe that a bunch of illiterate, ugly, smelly morons with rusted AK-47 can defeat France and Belgium;
It is your right to believe that: "…they hate us for our freedoms…" and "…our troops are fighting over there to keep us safe over here…" and other "lovely" narratives as such.
It is your right!

What I am trying to suggest however, is that there is quite a bit of very logical and credible evidence that points to other versions of the "truth".
…and NO!
I do not follow idiots akin to Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh…, nor do I wear a tin foil hat.
You say: "…our President, or government…"
I say that the LAST president to be considered truly OURS was JFK.
How did we go from Jefferson/Adams/Payne/…..JFK to ReaganBushClintonBushWO and worse- seriously considering idiots like TrumpHillarious – is beyond me and only Heavens know (I guess A.Bartlet applies even with regard to "worse" and "worse-er" and "worse-rer-rer" people).
What is really done in our name and with our money dear Ron, shall give a "heart attack" to us all …very soon.

In any case, I tried to follow up with Shallow since he was worried about oil prices and I have replied to him (and others) about that on several previous comments.

Again, I apologize for my unorthodox comment and for any unintentional insult.

Be well,

Petro

Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 6:59 am

Petro, I stand by my comment. The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds. If you think someone in Washington said "shoot the goddamn thing down" then you are a fool.

There was not time to notify anyone except Turkish officials on the ground. Turkey does not take orders from Washington.

Nothing else going on in France, Belgium or anywhere else had anything to do with what I wrote or what I was replying to. You simply saw an opportunity to blame the US government for something they very obviously had nothing to do with. I would have agreed with everything you wrote in that one post had you not took the opportunity to blame it on Washington. If you are going to post on this blog then you have the obligation to use a little common sense.

Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 8:39 am

Ron Patterson said:

The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds.

Are you absolutely sure of that? The Russians are saying that's not true, that the plane never entered Turkish air space. Russia's side is presented in this video: https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/

If a person is indeed on a truth-finding mission, is it not incumbent upon that person to listen to what all sides have to say, and then make up one's mind based on the evidence which is presented?

RT, for instance, has a short clip of an interview with retired U.S. Airforce general Thomas McInery where he asserts that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned."

One could probably do no better than to heed the advice which Thomas Jefferson gave his nephew in a letter dated August 10, 1787:

[S]hake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear….

Caelan MacIntyre, 11/25/2015 at 8:52 am

The Fog of War

Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 8:59 am

Hey, that was not my point. My point was that the shoot down was not ordered by the US Government in Washington.

Shooting down that Russian warplane was an extremely stupid thing for Turkey to do. But what is even more stupid is to say that the shoot down was ordered by Washington.

Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 11:37 am

Ron,

I was referring to your argument:

The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds. If you think someone in Washington said "shoot the goddamn thing down" then you are a fool.

If what General McInery says is correct - that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned" - then there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity.

I have a feeling like these cat-and-mouse games between pilots probably go on continuously during conflict situations. However, I have no experience in these matters, and oddly enough, the only fighter pilot I've ever known in my entire life was transgendered:

I also worked for "T" vets inclusion in GLBVA during those years and VA support of "T" vets (which finally happened recently) – I'm a retired USAF Major and Command Pilot. During the '90s I was a rather prolific writer; although, quite a bit of it is probably lost to transgender antiquity. I've been lecturing on gender, gender roles, and the "T" topic at Trinity University for the past 16 years.

http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/03/09/tere-fredrickson-interview/

Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 12:08 pm

there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity.

Goddammit, will the stupid shit never stop. It is just down in the dirt stupid to suggest that the President would want such a thing. It could lead to the break-up of NATO. Also, the very idea that Turkey would cot-tow to Washington's wishes is also stupid.

To shoot this plane down was the stupidest thing Turkey could possibly do. But a lot stupider things have been done by Middle East Islamic rulers causing things to get a lot worse. But to suggest that our President is just as stupid is beyond the pale. Can you guys just not use a little common sense?

To suggest that Washington was behind this smacks of a conspiracy theory. I think all conspiracy theorists have a screw loose.

Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 4:06 pm

Ron,

Well as far as I am concerned, President Obama circling the wagons around Turkey hardly qualifies him as being one the brightest lights on the Christmas tree. Obama is attempting to defend the indefensible. Why do you believe that is?

And you don't believe that reinforces the appearance of impropriety, of him being complicit in Turkey's shooting down the plane? Talk about bad optics!

Mark Ames minces no words:

Russia will just have to play and replay the shooting down of its jet, and the Syrian rebels gloating over the dead pilots, to see Putin's already sky-high popularity ratings push even higher….

Point being: this is working out wonderfully for Putin.

In fact, if there's any conspiracy I can make sense of with what's gone on over the past year and a half, it's that anti-Russia neocons and their pals have been doing everything possible to increase Putin's popularity and power at home, in order to build him up as an even more plausible villain over here. Or maybe they're straight-up Putin moles. But that of course gives everyone, especially these idiots, too much credit.

https://pando.com/2015/11/24/turkey-shoots-down-russian-plane-wars-have-funny-way-taking-life-their-own/eba0108e463df65f823e3f435b3eead1d41c6e25/

Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 5:05 pm

Glenn, the idea that Obama ordered the shooting down the Russian plane is pure ignorance, stupidity gone to seed. I will not lower myself by arguing such an utterly stupid scenario.

One more point. This is not a conspiracy theory website. We do not discuss conspiracy theories here.

Bye now.

twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:08 am

What if this conversation happened:

Turkey, "A lot of recent missions by Russia has put them very close to our borders if not outright in our airspace. What do you want us to do."

White House, "You have the right to defend the sovereignty of your airspace by any means you deem necessary. We feel that Russia is being very reckless in their choice of targets and are endangering stability in the area."

NATO, "You do realize that if Turkey provokes Russia it could draw us directly into the conflict."

White House, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

I mean, if you can't see some version of the above dialogue happening then all I can say to you that you'll understand is, "God Bless America, the greatest country that ever existed."

Javier, 11/25/2015 at 9:09 am

Glenn,

Does it really matter? There is international consensus that planes are not shot down for briefly entering foreign airspace without permit when the nations are not belligerent. Airspace is not clearly delimited up in the air and pilots are often too busy to check.

It is clear that this was an hostile deliberate act by Turkey against Russia regardless of where that plane was at the moment. Where the plane was is only relevant to see if it was legal or illegal, but the deliberate hostile act remains either case.

To me it looks like the Russian plane was flying in circles and was passing over a small tip (~2 km wide) of Turkish territory each time. This was used as an excuse to shoot down the plane in what cannot be claimed as a self-defense act, but clearly a hostile warning.

Turkey doesn't like the way Russia is helping the Syrian government, but they just proved to NATO that they are unreliable and more a liability than a trustworthy ally. This is how wars start, by unjustified escalation.

Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 9:26 am

This time I agree 100% with Javier's assessment of the situation.

Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 11:02 am

Javier said:

There is international consensus that planes are not shot down for briefly entering foreign airspace without permit when the nations are not belligerent. Airspace is not clearly delimited up in the air and pilots are often too busy to check.

If one watches the RT video I linked above, Erdogan can be heard saying exactly that same thing back in 2012 after Syria shot down a Turkish jet because of an air space violation. Here's what Erdogan said then:

A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack.

https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/

Now, however, the Ministry of Truth in Washington, Anakra and Brussels is saying just the opposite.

Ves, 11/25/2015 at 11:06 am

Blowback. Sinking fast due to their own narrative.

Javier, 11/25/2015 at 11:56 am

Hahahaaa, that's a good one.

Politicians, or the art of defending one thing and the opposite without any blush.

twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:02 am

fuck an A glen, you're back to the minutiae of that!! stop derailing these conversations about whether or not the plane was in airspace of turkey. I mean really does it matter?! 1km, 40 km, I don't know, irrelevant.

But whether the US might have given the green light for such an act, and the potential reasons for such a thing. Well, now that's interesting, despite Ron's insistence that it's absolutely untenable position. I say, very tenable for a country that has invaded and overthrown dozens of governments in just my short lifetime.

I personally think Ves' comment below about Turkey's desperation about losing their proxies is probably closer to the mark though. I've seen over the past couple decades Turkey has seen itself as a regional player linking the middle east and Europe and global economic hub.

Or it could just be the pilot took the wrong pills getting into the cockpit.

Petreo, 11/25/2015 at 11:04 pm

"If you are going to post on this blog then you have the obligation to use a little common sense."

Dear Ron,
I clearly was!
Not just a little, but a lot of common sense.
In my comment to Shallow I wrote: "…sorry for the off topic comment Ron…"
In my second comment to you I wrote: "…First, I would like to apologize for being caught in your "cross-hairs" as the result of my unorthodox comment.
It will not happen again!…"

I did that, for I did not want to remind you of our first exchange on this site -in which you got a taste of how good I am at "shooting back" (just as Erdogan shall taste how good Putin is at shooting back …very soon!)
-Yet, you continued with your hysterical, inflammatory bursting!
I am not certain what pricked your "bubble" -holiday shopping not going well, perhaps – my condolences!
In any event, you GROSSLY misunderstood and misrepresented what I wrote.
Nowhere did I write that: " …ourPresident ordered: shoot the goddamn thing down…" – as you so eloquently put it.
Let me repeat to you what I wrote (short term amnesia – especially when one is enraged – is a bitch!):
"….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC…".

-What I was trying to convey (obviously fruitlessly!) was that even though Erdogan/Turks pulled the trigger (or maybe you prefer: "pushed the button") and shot the SU24 down, our un-Kosherly dumb (at the very best!) policies for the last 15 years (and maybe longer!) in the region (and wider), have GREATLY empowered "Erdogan" types.
Key word is "at the very best" here, for there is unmistakable and unambiguous evidence to suggest the other extreme of that spectrum (hint: intent)!

-Whether you consider a senior senator (i.e.McCain) posing with known international criminal be-headers, or viceSercretaryOfState (i.e.V.Nuland) hand picking puppets for the head of KievGovrmt after orchestrating, directing and financing a CLASSIC "coup d'etat" to overthrow the previous govmt there, part of ourGovrmt, or NOT – is your business.
However, that does not give you the moral and social (let alone the common sense one!) right to engage in hysterical, inflammatory and wildly accusational burstings against somebody – even on your blog site!
If that is your idea of patriotism, you surely missed it!

-Yes!
It was theTurks who shot down theRussian aircraft – not us!
But to put it in a historical context, SIMPLER for you to understand:
it was NOT Great Britain, France and US (among others) that in 1933 made Adolf Hitler Reich Chancellor;
it was the Germans – whether they be German elites, or German plebes!

Behavior(s) and decisions by political and economical/financial leaders in those Countries however, GREATLY facilitated Hitler's ascend to power!
In December 1938, less than 10 months before starting the carnage that killed 100 million people worldwide , Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year".

I would strongly suggest to you sources other than NYT and Fox for your world news updates – you would be enlightened!
If you do not want me to comment here and this is personal, be a man and say so without wild explosions of nastiness!
We are all adults here (one can only hope!) and can take it.
And stop throwing the "conspiracy" label around, as well!
Makes you sound very foolish and brainwashed.

-Have a good Thanksgiving tomorrow and maybe/hopefully by Friday feel more relaxed…

Be well,

Petro

twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:50 am

Hey Petro, yeah, just on the face of it I didn't see your comment as being that outlandish. the united states has a very very very long history of making moves that seem quite "beyond the pale"

http://www.amazon.com/KILLING-HOPE-William-Blum/dp/B007K517VE

in this specific case, ron's point that this move seems really really stupid does ring true for me. but i think we need to wait a little longer and see how it plays out to know for sure.

Ron Patterson, 11/26/2015 at 8:00 am

Back in 2010 I was living in Pensacola, FL. Right after the Deep Water Horizon disaster everyone was pointing the finger, blaming somebody. And there was a lot of blame to go around but I met several folks here that blamed Obama. Yes, they said, Obama planned and ordered the whole disaster. Just why he would order such a thing no one seemed to know. A few came up with a reason, but no one had the same reason as the other nut cases.

I see the same thing in almost every other disaster throughout the world, "Obama planned and ordered the whole disaster". So whenever I see someone blaming Obama, or Washington, for this or that disaster, it really pisses me off.

And like the other nut cases that blamed Obama for the Macondo disaster, they cannot come up with a reason that Obama would do such a thing, but he is the US president and they hate everything that comes out of Washington so he must have been somehow responsible.

Some people never ever miss a chance to blame Obama, or Washington, for some evil act especially when it cannot be proven otherwise.

twocats, 11/26/2015 at 11:45 am

Yep I'll definitely give you the anti-Washington, and vehement anti-Obama thing (gotta be a lot of rascism wrapped up in that). But I'm assuming you are aware of the fairly well known shenanigans of the United States in terms of intervening and influencing countries in order to make terrible terrible things happen:

1) training Saddam to help overthrow Qasim which led to, well Saddam
2) overhthrowing Mossadeg to install Shah which led to Iranian Revolution
3) giving Saddam chemical weapons to kill 100s thousands of Iranians
4) training Al-Qaeda to fight Russia in Afghanistan, and latter trained again to fight in Kosovo
5) Backed wahabi tribe of Saud and backed their play for power in Arabian penninsula which led to of course Saudi Arabia, despised totalitarian regime which regularly beheads and then crucifies people.

i mean i could go on for hours. so the idea that United States hinted to Turkey that it wouldn't be upset if it 1) defended its border, 2) defended Turkmen majority cities on Syrian side (thanks Fernando), these are not such crazy notions. (see article from oriental review – http://orientalreview.org/2015/11/25/whys-the-us-hanging-turkey-out-to-dry/)

twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:00 pm

and just for giggles here is a more direct corollary

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/

Petro's post was a little long and poorly written so i didn't read it all and he may have been overstating it.

To say, if he did, that the US directly said, "shoot a plane down ASAP" is probably unlikely. But Turkey, a member of NATO, might be a little hesitant to take such an action unless it felt that the United States had its back. Now Turkey has been a bit "rogue" in recent years – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis. I mean the final answer is really above my pay grade, but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation and I'm beginning to agree with wimbi – can we go back to how much drag there would be on a bomber if it lost its tail section?

Ron Patterson, 11/26/2015 at 12:05 pm

but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation

I am beginning to see there is a lot of bullshit in this equation and it is getting deeper and deeper. As I said, it is very easy to throw out bullshit when it cannot be proven otherwise. You can seem like a master of knowledge when all you really are is a master of bullshit.

Reply

AlexS, 11/25/2015 at 7:37 am

Russian jet hit inside Syria after incursion into Turkey: U.S. official

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-impact-idUSKBN0TE04M20151125

The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said that assessment was based on detection of the heat signature of the jet.
---------------

Russia to move S-400 air defense system to Syria - defense minister

http://tass.ru/en/defense/839109

MOSCOW, November 25. /TASS/. Russia will move its air defense system S-400 Triumf to the Hmeimim air base in Syria, accommodating its air and space group, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Wednesday.
The Russian General Staff has warned that Russia will be destroying all potentially dangerous targets over Syria and moved towards the Syrian shores its guided missile cruiser The Moskva armed with the Fort system (the sea-launched equivalent of S-300).
-----------------–
Second pilot of downed Su-24 jet safe, brought to Russian base - Russian defense minister

http://tass.ru/en/defense/839080

MOSCOW, November 25. /TASS/. The second pilot of the Su-24 bomber downed by Turkey has been rescued by the Russian and Syrian forces and is safe and sound, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Wednesday.
"The operation ended successfully. The pilot has been taken to our base. Safe and sound," Shoigu said.
He said the rescue operation lasted for 12 hours.
-------------------–

Turkey's Erdogan says does not want escalation after Russian jet downed

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-erdogan-idUSKBN0TE0QT20151125

President Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday that Turkey did not want any escalation after it shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border, saying it had simply acted to defend its own security and the "rights of our brothers" in Syria.
But while neither side has shown any interest in a military escalation, Russia has made clear it will exact economic revenge through trade and tourism. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday that important joint projects could be canceled and Turkish firms could lose Russian market share.
Increased tensions could have significant economic and political repercussions which are in neither Moscow nor Ankara's interests, analysts warned. But both Putin and Erdogan are strong-willed leaders ill-disposed to being challenged.

"If Erdogan becomes involved a cycle of violence, FDI (foreign direct investment), tourism, and relations with the EU and U.S. will all be in jeopardy," risk analysis firm Eurasia Group said in a note.
"Our bet is that the episode will not escalate … National interest will probably prevail over emotion, but given the players, that's not a sure bet."
Turkey imports almost all of its energy from Russia, including 60 percent of its gas and 35 percent of its oil. Russia's state Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom) is due to build Turkey's first nuclear power station, a $20 billion project, while plans are on the table for a gas pipeline from Russia known as TurkStream.
Turkish building and beverage companies also have significant interests in Russia.
Shares in Enka Insaat, which has construction projects in Russia and two power plants in Turkey using Russian gas, fell for a second day on Wednesday. Brewer Anadolu Efes, which has six breweries in Russia and controls around 14 percent of the market, also saw its shares fall on Tuesday.
Russians are second only to Germans in terms of the numbers visiting Turkey, bringing in an estimated $4 billion a year in tourism revenues. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday advised them not to visit and one of Russia's largest tour operators to the country said it would temporarily suspend sales of trips.

Javier, 11/25/2015 at 8:52 am

Interesting, Alex,

Turkish might have built themselves a no-fly zone at their Syrian border. Russians have Syrian permit to fly their space, while Turkish have not. After what has happened any Turkish plane over Syrian space can be considered a dangerous target by the Russians and shot down.

I don't understand Turkish actions. If it was a military decision from some commander, they should have tried to apologize, and not run to NATO for cover. If it was a presidential decision, I fail to see what good can come from it for Turkey.

Anyway, I hope those Russian tourists going to Egypt or Turkey can find some solace in Spain [grin].

Ves, 11/25/2015 at 11:18 am

Javier: " I don't understand Turkish actions."

It is very obvious what they want. They want NATO boots on the ground. Do you want to go? Do you know any of Germans that want to go? Greeks, Italians? There are no takers in Europe. Even Obama is not biting.

Javier, 11/25/2015 at 12:13 pm

I've never been in favor of bombing other countries, much less of sending troops.

NATO is a defensive pact in theory. I could understand NATO troops in Turkey if invaded by Russia, but not NATO troops in Syria because Turkey shoots down Russian planes. And I don't believe Turkey is trying to trigger a Russian aggression. Too much to lose.

Your words still don't make sense to me.

Ves, 11/25/2015 at 12:23 pm

What part does not make sense?

That Turks are so desperate to stop their proxies in Syria being annihilated within next few months? Shooting down Russian plane is what desperate party does in order to change war dynamics on the ground.

Javier, 11/26/2015 at 5:10 am

Found a much better explanation than yours over at Euan Mearn's blog in a Syrian drought article in the comments.

Unlike US, Russia is very active attacking oil trucks that smuggle ISIS oil to Turkey. Those trucks belong to a shipping company BMZ that belongs to the son of Erdogan. Russia is causing a personal economic loss to the Erdogan family.

The international coalition against Syria and Russia is beginning to crack on the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS. Turkey doesn't want that to happen.

This explains the shooting of the plane and the rushed going of Turkey to NATO to ask for support. It is intended to dynamite any possibility of understanding between US-lead coalition in Syria and Russia against ISIS. Obama has his hands tied, as he needs to use his base in Turkey.

Putin is probably too smart to respond. He'll find another way. Perhaps supporting Kurds.

Ves, 11/26/2015 at 8:22 am

Javier,
Drought? So we have all armadas of the world, including Lichenstain's one plane, circling Middle East for the last 30 years because of – drought??!!!
No wonder you believe that one of the stated EU goals is for everybody to hold hands and sing Kumbaya at Eurovison contest. Javier, it's always having been delusions of power, control and mucho dinero that caused the conflict- not drought.

Glenn Stehle, 11/26/2015 at 10:27 am

https://twitter.com/ijattala/status/669389283225026560?refsrc=email&s=11

Ves, 11/26/2015 at 10:54 am

Glenn,
that is exactly what explained to Javier. Cutting the oil line for the finance of the Turkish proxies. Once the money line is cut even the proxies don't fight for free.

Javier, 11/26/2015 at 11:33 am

Ves

Did I say anything about drought being related to the conflict?
I just pointed where I got the information.

You seem to like to engage in straw man arguments. Please continue, don't let yourself be bothered by reality.

Ves, 11/26/2015 at 1:48 pm

Javier said: "Found a much better explanation than yours over at Euan Mearn's blog in a Syrian drought article "

I am sorry but I don't know who is Euarn Mearn's and what Syrian drought article has to do with all this. Leave a link or something.

Javier, 11/26/2015 at 2:06 pm

Ves,

Euan Mearns is a frequent visitor and commenter in this blog. He was also a frequent contributor of The Oil Drumm. He has a very good blog on Energy and also some Climate. If you just google his name you get there. The link to the article is this:
http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terrorism-and-syria/
The information I posted was in one of the comments.
The article actually argues against the climate change-Syrian war-ISIS connection that has appeared in some media.

Ves, 11/26/2015 at 3:25 pm

Thanks Javier. Okey with that little bit of info from you I know what to expect when I click on that link. I will read it.

You have to understand that I limit my reading to only few limited sources just not to corrupt my mind. You see there are expert internet oil "analysts" who claim that US is oil exporter so there are very dangerous stuff out there in cyber space.

Ves, 11/26/2015 at 9:33 pm

Javier,
I agree with article but I am floored that he actually spent all that energy debunking that nonsense that drought caused all this. Who armed all these people, who financed illegal oil operations, where thousands oil tankers are from, why after 4 years of civil war refugees just suddenly start flowing to Europe this summer, so someone let them purposely go, who is blackmailing Europe?

twocats, 11/26/2015 at 2:59 am

the most ignorant, craziest, stupidest, outrageously reasonably explained plausible fitting into global and regional goals possible thing that's ever been said on this blog:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/guest-post-why-us-hanging-turkey-out-dry

[Nov 28, 2015] Experts Turkey might be tried for financing ISIL, arms trafficking

www.todayszaman.com
Russia's pledge to take the issue of Turkey's alleged financing of terrorist factions within Syria -- such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) -- to the United Nations after Turkey recently shot down its jet, has stirred speculation that Turkey could be tried in international courts.

Tensions between Turkey and Russia have been running amok over the past few days, as on Tuesday NATO's second largest army the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) downed a Russian Su-24 jet near the Syrian border, after repeatedly warning it over airspace violations.

Moscow blames Turkey and has set about bolstering its military presence in the region, dispatching several S-400 air defense systems to bolster its Khmeimim air base in Syria's Latakia province. The Kremlin is also determined to punish its one-time friend with economic sanctions such as refusing to buy poultry from Turkey and ordering Russian tourists not to visit the country.

However, the biggest damage Turkey may incur in the fallout of the fallen jet may come after the statements made by Russian leaders, which claim that they will take the issue of ISIL's financial avenues to the UN Security Council -- and that may cause Turkey a much-unneeded headache.

President Vladimir Putin called the downing of the jet a stab in the back administered by "the accomplices of terrorists," referring to Turkey and ISIL.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov echoed Putin, when he said on Wednesday that the Turkish action came after Russian planes successfully targeted the oil infrastructure used by ISIL.

More importantly, Lavrov alleged that Turkey benefited from the oil trade and said Russia will ask the UN Security Council to examine information on how terrorists are financed.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan defied those claims on Thursday saying, "Those who claim we [AK Party] have brought petrol from Daesh [the Arabic term for ISIL], are required to prove their claims, otherwise I will call them [Russian leaders] slanderers."

This is not the first time Turkey has been accused of intermediating ISIL's oil. In July a senior Western official claimed that information gathered at the compound of Abu Sayyaf, ISIL's officer responsible for oil smuggling operations, pointed to high-level contacts between Turkish officials and high-ranking ISIL members, according to a report by the UK-based Guardian newspaper.

Turkey, which only started to take an active part in the international coalition against ISIL, reluctantly, and after two years, has also been accused of turning a blind eye to the crossing of militants into Syria to join ISIL, if not openly facilitating militants' border crossings to join ISIL in Syria.

While giving voice to veiled criticisms of Turkey's dubious dealings with ISIL, Western officials had refrained, until very recently, from directly critiquing Turkish authorities. Russia's recent disclosures indicate that Turkey may be the target of international scrutiny.

Law professor gives al-Bashir example, says trial of Turkey ruler may be possible in future

Günal Kurşun, a professor of criminal law and the president of the Association for Human Rights Agenda, maintained that the current administration could only be tried in international tribunals if and when a new administration comes along and wants to clear the name of the country.

Kurşun gave the example of Omar al-Bashir, the internationally ostracized leader of Sudan, who is currently being tried on 10 counts of crime, including five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of war crimes, and three counts of genocide according to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The law professor added that even though the legal aspects of Turkey's rulers such as Erdoğan being tried in the ICC may not be certain, the political ramifications will be far reaching, even as far as to confine the rulers within Turkey by way of entry restrictions to other countries.

He explained to Today's Zaman that there are three parties that can bring up a court case in the ICC against an individual.

To begin with, the prosecutor of the ICC can initiate an investigation, as can a state party to the Rome statute and also the UN Security Council (UNSC) may refer investigations to the ICC, acting to address a threat to international peace and security.

There are four instances where individuals can be tried at the ICC. Those are on charges of genocide, aggression, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Kurşun said it is possible for the UNSC to ascertain Turkey as aiding ISIL, which is held as an international terrorist organization, but added that without the cooperation of the member state, not much could be done in terms of the investigation.

Erdoğan's tacit acknowledgment of weapons filled trucks en-route Syria

Also, the question of whether President Erdoğan should be tried at the (ICC) as an individual stemming from allegations that he had knowledge of, if not actively facilitated, the transfer of weapons-filled trucks to radical groups in Syria, claimed by many to be ISIL.

The issue of Turkey's transportation of arms to Syria came to the fore early in 2014, when an anonymous tip led to the search of a number of trucks on the suspicion of weapons smuggling. It was later discovered that the vehicles where actually en route to Syria and belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT).

The first stop-and-search took place in Hatay province on Jan. 1, 2014. Another anonymous tip led to three more trucks being intercepted in Turkey's southern Adana province on Jan. 19, 2014.

Erdoğan who was prime minister at the time, said in a TV program immediately after the search of the trucks became public that they were carrying aid supplies to Turkmens in Syria. On the program, Erdoğan appeared to be particularly angry with the prosecutor for having demanded the search of the trucks to be recorded on video and described the search as "treason."

However, Syrian-Turkmen Assembly Vice Chairman Hussein al-Abdullah said in January 2014 no trucks carrying aid had arrived from Turkey.

Then, this Tuesday, Erdoğan seemingly validated claims that the Turkish government was sending weapon-filled trucks to radical groups in Syria by sarcastically asking, "So what if MİT trucks were filled with weapons?"

Speaking to a room full of teachers on Tuesday gathered for Teachers' Day, Erdoğan said, "You know of the treason regarding MİT trucks, don't you? So what if there were weapons in them? I believe that our people will not forgive those who sabotaged this support."

In May, Selahattin Demirtaş, the leader of the Pro-Kurdish Peoples' Democracy Party (HDP) said in an election rally in the run up to the June 7 general election; "They [the AK Party and Erdoğan] have committed many crimes. They have committed grave sins domestically and internationally, and now there is the possibility that they may be tried at the ICC."

Former ECtHR judge says US-Nicaragua case sets precedent

Rıza Türmen, a former judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and one of Turkey's leading expert in international law, told Today's Zaman that a powerful country like the United States was in the past tried and found guilty by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of aiding and abetting militants in the Central American country of Nicaragua, and that Turkey is no exception.

In 1984, the hitherto relatively unknown country of Nicaragua took the US to the ICJ on the ground that it was responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua between 1981 and 1984.

In April 1981, US terminated aid to Nicaragua and in September 1981, according to Nicaragua, the United States "decided to plan and undertake activities directed against Nicaragua."

The armed opposition to the new Nicaraguan government was mainly conducted by the Fuerza Democratica Nicaragüense (FDN) and Alianza Revolucionaria Democratica (ARDE). Initial US support to these groups fighting against the Nicaraguan government (called "contras") was covert.

"Turkey does not have the right to intervene in the affairs of another state. However, if the trucks of weapons may be true, as the President [Erdoğan] said, then Turkey will have intervened in the internal affairs of another country," Türmen said.

He added that the UN Security Council is able to initiate the investigations at the ICC, which tries individuals who are charged with committing crime against humanity rather than countries, such as the example with Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir.

The former judge did note however that Turkey does not recognize the ICC and that it was very unlikely for Erdoğan to be tried there, but added that even being uttered in the same breath as such allegations would be enough to tarnish the reputation of any leader in the international forum.

Professor: Erdoğan hoped to lead bloc of countries from Tunisia to Syria

According to Baskın Oran, a professor at Ankara University's Faculty of Political Sciences, Erdoğan hoped, after the Arab Spring revolts began in 2011, to lead a bloc of countries, ranging from Tunisia to Syria, all headed by Islamist Muslim Brotherhood governments.

Oran wrote in a June article that when Erdoğan saw "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was blocking this dream; [he] gave orders that arms were to be sent to opposition forces in Syria with the intent of helping to topple Assad."

Oran stated that in sending those weapons, the Erdoğan government clearly violated the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution 2,625 made on Oct. 24, 1970.

Resolution 2,625 clearly reads that "no State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State."

Hariri Tribunal set up UN Security Council serves as reminder

In 2005 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1,595, to establish a commission to assist Lebanese authorities in their investigation of the assassination of former Prime Minister Refik Hariri in Beirut, which took place on Feb. 14, 2005.

Under the resolution, the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC) was formed and investigated the assassination for four years, but was later superseded by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), also referred to as the Hariri Tribunal, in March 2009.

The United Nations investigation initially implicated high-level Lebanese and Syrian security officers in Hariri's killing, according to the online news portal gulfnews.com. Arrest warrants were issued by the tribunal, demanding the arrests of four Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists.

[Nov 28, 2015] The Iraqi Pissing Match - John Kiriakou on RAI (4-10)

therealnews.com
JAY: It's crazy. There's an interview with Lyndon Johnson near the end of his presidency in the Vietnam War, and he's asked, why do you keep continuing this? What is this about? And he actually, apparently, pulls down his fly and brings out his organ--as this is how it's described by one of his biographers--and he says, this is what it's about.

KIRIAKOU: I believe that story.

JAY: At the time, how much do you understand that's what it's about, that it's just a pissing match?

KIRIAKOU: I did understand it, and I grew frustrated with it. I grew frustrated with American policy toward Iraq and decided I've got to do something completely different. And that's when I began looking for new job.

JAY: Within the CIA

KIRIAKOU: Within the CIA

JAY: And you go to Greece.

KIRIAKOU: Well, there was a position advertised that called for either a Greek or Arabic speaker. And it turned out that at the time--.

JAY: You know what? I'm sorry. I want to go back to where you said you can believe the Johnson story.

Alright. So you're a professional analyst. You're analyzing what's going on in Iraq, what should be done. I mean, it sounds like you're coming to the conclusion, like, all of this is unnecessary in terms of real U.S. national interest. You're saying this is essentially a pissing match. I mean, and I don't think we should make that too banal. What I mean by that: it isn't just a personality thing. I think ingrained in U.S. foreign policy is this, that we must make everyone believe we are stronger than they are. And it's sort of like a loan shark. I said this in another interview. If you let someone get away with not paying back their interest that week, then everyone else isn't going to pay back. That's the theory. So you've got to break some knees, and if somebody's really defiant, for that, for its own sake, you have to prove you can put that person in their place.

But, as an analyst, you can see this isn't good foreign policy.

KIRIAKOU: No, it was quite bad foreign policy. It was a waste of resources and people were getting killed. But at the same time, it goes beyond the president and the State Department and the Defense Department. You have congressional leaders hammering the president for being weak on Iraq and to bomb more and to fight harder and to make sure that Saddam is humiliated. And so you have this spiral of bad policy that you just can't get out of.

JAY: And how much do you think that for certain sectors of the economy--'cause it's certainly not true for all of the economy, but if you're in fossil fuels or if you're in military production and associated high tech, war's damn good for business.

KIRIAKOU: It is good for business. And when you think about it, though, if we--. Look at it this way. We bought much, much more Libyan oil than we ever bought Iraqi oil. Iraqi oil mostly went to Europe. And when Libya collapsed and their oil industry came to a screeching halt, it had virtually no effect on our own economy. Virtually none. So did we really need to hammer the Iraqis like this over more than a decade to protect the oil? We really didn't need the oil anyway.

JAY: But by fossil fuel I mean as long as there's conflict, the price of oil's high.

KIRIAKOU: Mhm. It stays high.

JAY: We know big oil companies make more money the higher the price of oil.

KIRIAKOU: That's right.

JAY: People selling arms, the more stuff you blow up, the more stuff you've got to buy to replace it, and the more threat of conflict, the more--.

KIRIAKOU: Right. It's good for business.

JAY: How much do you think that drives U.S. foreign policy?

KIRIAKOU: I think that's an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. I really do. You know, we've got not just arms manufacturers, but now we have drone manufacturers, for example, that are having to compete against Israeli drones and Chinese drones and Russian drones. So we need for there to be conflicts so we can sell our drones. It's the same with aircraft. You know, Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers would go under if we couldn't sell F-15s and F-16s and F-whatever they are, 23s, the new ones that are coming out, both for our own military and for foreign militaries. So war is good for business.

JAY: I mean, if you're thinking of the current situation, the more potential conflict there is between the Saudis and the Iranians, that's a gold mine If you're selling arms.

KIRIAKOU: Especially when the Saudis have a bottomless pit of money that they can dip into. The same with the Qataris and the Emiratis. It's very lucrative for us to be in the Gulf.

JAY: Now, let's go back. As you're leaving, you go back to Arlington. You're back on the Iraq file. You're starting to see how crazy all this stuff is. Are you starting to question now? KIRIAKOU: Yeah, now I'm starting to get frustrated. This policy is broken, it's not working, and there's no hope of changing it. So I decided to do something completely different. JAY: Okay. KIRIAKOU: And that was operations. JAY: So--oh. Now you're going to leave analysis go to operations. Now, this to me sounds a little contradictory. You're starting to see the pattern of some of the underlining rot of the policy, but now you're going to go over to operations, where some of the dark stuff gets done. KIRIAKOU: Yeah, but some of the dark stuff was meant to save and to protect American lives, and that's really what I wanted to focus on. I ended up going to Greece and spending two years in Greece. And my job in Greece was to try to disrupt terrorist attacks committed by a group that was called Revolutionary Organization 17 November. 17 November had murdered the CIA station chief in Athens in 1975. They murdered two defense attaches. They had shot and severely wounded several embassy officers. And they murdered an American Air Force technical sergeant who was just--the poor guy was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. And they had murdered almost two dozen Greek nationals as well, important people--cabinet ministers, the heads of the central bank, university professors, prominent business leaders. And I thought, this is something I could sink my teeth into. JAY: But when you decide to join ops, you don't know that's where you're going. KIRIAKOU: Oh, yeah. JAY: You do? KIRIAKOU: Oh, yeah. JAY: Oh, you know it's Greece. KIRIAKOU: I applied specifically for that job. JAY: And what's the training? KIRIAKOU: It was all of the traditional operational training at--. JAY: Tradecraft they call it. Is that right? KIRIAKOU: Tradecraft, right,-- JAY: Yeah. KIRIAKOU: --at a facility they call "the Farm", which is located south of here. JAY: And how long is the training? KIRIAKOU: Well, because I was midcareer, I didn't have to go through what they called CIA 101. So I went straight into the shooting and the car crashing and the explosives training. And that lasted four and a half months.

[Nov 27, 2015] Russia imposes sanctions on Turkey over downed plane

Notable quotes:
"... He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences" ..."
www.theguardian.com

...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes in Syria.

Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages. He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences"

... ... ...

Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned provocation.

[Nov 27, 2015] Russia continues to block Turkish goods amid lingering jet crisis

www.todayszaman.com
Trucks carrying Turkish products on international routes have been facing numerous obstacles encouraged by Russia over the four days since Turkey shot down a Russian jet, and many drivers are waiting in long lines to enter Russia at border crossings in Ukraine and Georgia.

"Earlier, Russian custom officials used to take samples from each truck and let them cross the border but now they have halted all entrances saying that they need to check the whole load even though no inspection has been underway since Tuesday," said Fatih Şener, the executive president of the İstanbul-based International Transporters' Association (UND).

Turkish and international media reported after the outbreak of the crisis that Russia immediately launched economic retaliatory steps on its southern border after Turkey's military shot down a Russian fighter near the country's Syrian border. Official statements from Russia revealed that joint economic projects had been placed under risk while many Turkey-bound tourism ventures were cancelled. Amid such restrictions, product transporters have been complaining of the new barriers they have been facing for the past three days. On Friday, Turkish lira hit 2.9345 versus the US dollar, its lowest since Oct. 29.

"I need to underline that barriers are being imposed not only on Turkish trucks but also on Bulgarians and others that carry Turkish products to Russia," Şener added.

Explaining that most of the trucks were loaded with fresh fruits and vegetables, Şener said exported machinery products that had been on their way to Russia, were also hampered.

But the Kremlin has said it will not impose official sanctions on Turkish products, a statement that Şener said the UND was pinning all its hopes on, adding that he hopes the barriers will not be here to stay in the long-term.

Tension threatens $1 bln worth in produce exports


Of the $2.3 billion in fresh fruit and vegetable exports of Turkey in 2014, Russia-bound sales made up 40 percent of the total, or roughly $1 billion. Turkey mostly exports tomatoes, citrus fruits, grapes, pomegranates and cherries to its northern neighbor.

"I don't want to predict disaster but the situation is very gloomy," Hasan Yılmaz, the head of Aegean Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Exporter Unions told the Cihan news agency.

Cihan also reported on Friday that exporters of produce in the southern province of Antalya, who conducted sales worth around $350 million to Russia in 2014, resorted to releasing their goods on the domestic market.

Necati Zengin, a representative at the Antalya-based Kalyoncu Group, a giant exporter company that used to send around a hundred truckloads of produce to Russia via its seven to eight freighters before the crisis, reportedly said all his trucks are now waiting idle at Russian borders. "It is hard to calculate the losses given that a truck is loaded with some $45,000 worth of goods a day," Zengin said.

[Nov 27, 2015] James Winnefeld, the deputy chief of General Staff of the US military, was in Ankara when the incident occurred

marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop, November 25, 2015 at 11:16 pm

Great post up at Moon of Alabama on the possibility of American involvement in this caper – James Winnefeld, the deputy chief of General Staff of the U.S. military, was in Ankara when the incident occurred. Although it appeared yesterday to have been Erdogan acting on his own, who knows? If he was persuaded into it, you can chalk up another country that will be an avowed enemy of the USA before a year is out, because it is the Turks who will pay for it in lost revenue and economic reprisals. I agree with a lot of B's conclusions as well.

yalensis, November 26, 2015 at 6:00 am

Of course Americans were involved – duh!

Americans played on Erdogan's Islamist streak and flattered the regional ambitions of this "sick man of Europe".
Under Erdie's incompetent rule, Turkey has become just another two-bit goon to put into play against Russia.
Americans sub-contracted out to Erdogan, to control other Turk-based "goon franchises" such as Djemiliev's fake "Crimean Tatars", Chechen "Caliphate" types such as Osmaev, some Azerbaijani types, and obviously the "Turkmen" sub-brigades of ISIS.
Erdogan is the designated "Team Leader" for all of these dubious elements.
Erdogan himself reports back to the "big guy", shown here pardoning a Turkey owned by a certain Dr. Jihad. Coincidence? I think not!

kirill, November 26, 2015 at 2:14 pm

Thanks for the link and great post! Outside of science and other non-politicized parts of academia, all these academics are regime bootlicks. One such "academic" is Nina Khruscheva. They all spew intellectually insulting drivel.

ucgsblog, November 26, 2015 at 1:35 am

Beautiful article Mark! I completely agree with it. Of note:

1. The Turkmen on the Syrian side of the border, who enjoy Erdogan's protection and intervention, machine-gunned the Russian fighter's pilot and navigator while they were hanging in their parachutes, falling from the sky. Is that a war crime? You bet it is.
2. This knee-jerk defense of a lying shitbag like Erdogan is why Russians are grim and filled with resolve.
3. Lavrov likely does have a point, and the Turks were probably lying in ambush for a Russian plane.
4. [The] official response from Washington was that Turkey has a right to defend its territory and its air space, and President Obama blamed the incident on "an ongoing problem with Russian operations near the Turkish border."

These are the reasons why Russia is going to overreact. Add to this that the EU, at the behest of Obama, the only political national leader who didn't offer condolences to Russia after ISIS bombed a Russian civilian plane, imposed sanctions on Russia over an accidental shooting, that Erdogan's been excessively aggressive, and that Russia is just sick and tired of being treated without any respect by the same elites that back Erdogan, it's no surprise that Erdogan will be hit hard from all directions. The economic damages from the tourism market alone is going to be at least $9 billion. Turkish Stream is probably going to be cancelled, as will generous loans. I'm surprised that there's no official break off in relations just yet, but I think that's also coming. And if Erdogan goes into Syria, well, then it gets interesting.

[Nov 27, 2015] Syrian Turkmen commander who killed Russian pilot turns out to be Turkish ultranationalist

RT News
A Syrian rebel commander who boasted of killing a Russian pilot after Turkey downed Russian jet on Tuesday appeared to be Turkish ultranationalist and a son of former mayor in one of Turkish provinces.

Alparslan Celik, deputy commander of a Syrian Turkmen brigade turned out to be the son of a mayor of a Keban municipality in Turkey's Elazig province.

He also turned out to be the member of The Grey Wolves ultranationalist group, members of which have carried out scores of political murders since 1970s.

READ MORE: Russian Su-24 pilots shot dead while parachuting over Syria - Turkmen militia

Celik came under spotlight after he announced that as the two Russian pilots descended by parachute after the Su-24 jet was downed by Turkish military, both were shot dead by Turkmen forces on Tuesday.

A graphic video posted earlier on social media purported to show a Russian pilot lying on the ground surrounded by a group of armed militants.

[Nov 27, 2015] Turkish F-16 attacked Russian Su-24 without warning, both were above Syria – commander

Notable quotes:
"... "unprecedented backstab." ..."
"... Both aircraft remained in the area for 34 minutes. During this time there was no contact between the crews of the Russian bombers and the Turkish military authorities or warplanes. ..."
"... Commander Bondarev noted that a pair of Turkish F-16Cs had been in the area close to the attack zone for more than an hour prior to the attack, which explains their presence in the area. The time needed to get the aircraft ready at the Diyarbak r airfield and travel to the attack zone is an estimated 46 minutes. ..."
"... One of Turkish F-16Cs stopped its maneuvers and began to approach the Su-24M bomber about 100 seconds before the Russian aircraft came closest to the Turkish border, which also confirms the attack was pre-planned, Commander Bondarev stressed. ..."
"... The chief of Russia's Air Force also called attention to the readiness of the Turkish media, which released a professionally-made video of the incident recorded from an area controlled by extremists a mere 1.5 hours after the Su-24 was downed. ..."
"... The Turkish military not only violated all international laws on protecting national borders, but never delivered an apology for the incident or offered any help in the search and rescue operation for the Su-24 crew. ..."
"... "more than massive, devastating" ..."
Nov 27 , 2015 | RT News
Get short URL A Turkish fighter jet launched a missile at a Russian bomber on Tuesday well ahead of the Su-24 approaching the Turkish border, the chief of Russia's Air Force said. The bomber remained on Turkish radars for 34 minutes and never received any warnings. TrendsSu-24 downing

The attack on the Russian Su-24 bomber was intentional and had been planned in advance, Viktor Bondarev, the chief of Russia's Air Force, announced Friday, calling the incident an "unprecedented backstab."

The commander shared with the media previously unknown details of what happened on Tuesday.

On November 24, a pair of Russian Sukhoi Su-24 tactical bombers took off from Khmeimim airbase in Latakia at 06:15 GMT, with an assignment to carry out airstrikes in the vicinity of the settlements of Kepir, Mortlu and Zahia, all in the north of Syria. Each bomber was carrying four OFAB-250 high-explosive fragmentation bombs.

Ten minutes later, the bombers entered the range of Turkish radars and took positions in the target area, patrolling airspace at predetermined heights of 5,800 meters and 5,650 meters respectively.

Both aircraft remained in the area for 34 minutes. During this time there was no contact between the crews of the Russian bombers and the Turkish military authorities or warplanes.

Some 20 minutes after arriving at the designated area, the crews received the coordinates of groups of terrorists in the region. After making a first run, the bombers performed a maneuver and then delivered a second strike.

Immediately after that, the bomber crewed by Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov and Captain Konstantin Murakhtin was attacked by a Turkish F-16 fighter jet operating from the Diyarbakır airfield in Turkey.

Read more FSA video claims Russian-made helicopter hit with US-made TOW missile near Su-24 crash site

To attack the Russian bomber with a close-range air-to-air missile, the Turkish fighter jet had to enter Syrian airspace, where it remained for about 40 seconds. Having launched its missile from a distance of 5-7 kilometers, the F-16 immediately turned towards the Turkish border, simultaneously dropping its altitude sharply, thus disappearing from the range of Russian radars at the Khmeimim airbase.

The Turkish fighter moved two kilometers into Syrian airspace while the Russian bomber at no stage violated Turkish airspace, Bondarev stressed.

The crew of the second Su-24M had a clear view of the moment the missile was fired from the Turkish F-16, and reported this to base.

Commander Bondarev noted that a pair of Turkish F-16Cs had been in the area close to the attack zone for more than an hour prior to the attack, which explains their presence in the area. The time needed to get the aircraft ready at the Diyarbakır airfield and travel to the attack zone is an estimated 46 minutes.

One of Turkish F-16Cs stopped its maneuvers and began to approach the Su-24M bomber about 100 seconds before the Russian aircraft came closest to the Turkish border, which also confirms the attack was pre-planned, Commander Bondarev stressed.

The chief of Russia's Air Force also called attention to the readiness of the Turkish media, which released a professionally-made video of the incident recorded from an area controlled by extremists a mere 1.5 hours after the Su-24 was downed.

Commander Bondarev also mentioned the memorandum of understanding regarding the campaign in Syria, signed by Moscow and Washington on October 26. In accordance with this agreement, the Russian side informed its American counterparts about the mission of the two bombers in the north of Syria on November 24, including the zones and heights of operation.

Read more A Russian Aerospace Defense Force jet bombs Islamic State facilities in Syria © Terrorists in Su-24 search operation area killed - Russian Defense Ministry

Taking this into account, the Turkish authorities' statement on not knowing which aircraft were operating in the area raises eyebrows, Bondarev said.

The Turkish military not only violated all international laws on protecting national borders, but never delivered an apology for the incident or offered any help in the search and rescue operation for the Su-24 crew.

The Su-24's pilot, Lieutenant-Colonel Oleg Peshkov, was shot dead by militants while parachuting to the ground, having ejected from the stricken aircraft. His partner, navigator Captain Konstantin Murakhtin, survived being shot at while parachuting and managed to stay alive on the ground in an area full of terrorists.

The rescue operation took several hours and eventually recovered Murakhtin, although one Russian Marine in the team was killed when the rescue helicopter was destroyed by a US-made tank missile launched by the extremists – an incident they filmed and published online.

Commander Bondarev specifically stressed that the Russian pilot who survived the attack was actively looked for not only by the jihadists, but also by a number of unidentified and technically well-equipped groups.

After Captain Murakhtin was rescued, the Russian Air Force delivered "more than massive, devastating" airstrikes against the militants in the region where the operation had been taking place, Bondarev reported.

[Nov 27, 2015] Putin Hard to imagine Turkish gov't unaware of oil supplies from ISIL

Notable quotes:
"... He also said that the shooting down by Turkey of a Russian jet was an act of betrayal by a country Russia considered to be its friend. ..."
www.todayszaman.com

It is hard to imagine that the Turkish government is unaware of oil supplies to Turkey from areas controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday after talks with French leader Francois Hollande.

Putin used the opportunity of the joint news conference with Hollande to repeat his accusations against Turkey of turning a blind eye to oil smuggling by ISIL. He said it was "theoretically possible" that Ankara was unaware of oil supplies entering its territory from ISIL-controlled areas of Syria but added that this was hard to imagine.

He also said that the shooting down by Turkey of a Russian jet was an act of betrayal by a country Russia considered to be its friend.

[Nov 27, 2015] Russian economic retaliation rains down on Turkey as tension lingers

Notable quotes:
"... Turkeys economy will grow only under 3 percent this year, below the governments target, weighed down by political uncertainty at home and conflict in the Middle East. ..."
"... There are also a whole range of deals, investments and commercial relationships that could be threatened in the fallout from the downing of the Russian jet. ..."
"... Tourism is already being hit. After Russian officials on Tuesday advised holidaymakers against traveling to Turkish resorts ..."
www.todayszaman.com
Moscow made public a series of economic retaliation steps against Turkey on Thursday, after efforts to defuse tensions between Ankara and Moscow over the downing of a Russian jet fighter on Tuesday failed to pay off.

Russia said on Thursday it may impose various economic restrictions on Turkey, including measures to restrict the planned TurkStream gas pipeline, ending cooperation in building Turkey's first nuclear plant and limiting civilian flights to and from Turkey. Such moves would heap serious pain on either Turkey or Russia, both of which are already struggling economically, experts agree.

Russia said on Thursday it would be looking to cut economic ties with Turkey and scrap investment projects in a matter of days in the aftermath of the Turkish downing of a Russian warplane. The televised statement by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev came a day after Russian media reported hundreds of trucks bringing Turkish goods stranded at the border. Medvedev ordered the Russian government to draw up measures that would include freezing some joint investment projects with Turkey, in retaliation for the downing of a Russian warplane by Turkey. He also told a meeting of Cabinet ministers on Thursday that the measures would include restrictions on food imports from Turkey.

Shortly after Medvedev, Russian Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said on Thursday that the restrictions against Ankara may include the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant, which is currently under construction in the southern province of Mersin in Turkey. He said the restrictions, drawn up in retaliation for the downing of a Russian warplane by Turkey, may also include limits to civil flights to and from Turkey and a halt to preparations for a Free Trade Zone. Moscow will also halt the creation of a single Turkish-Russian investment fund, Ulyukayev added. Meanwhile, cooperation between Russia and Turkey in tourism will "obviously" be halted, the head of Russia's tourism agency, Rostourism, said on Thursday, the Interfax news agency reported. Separately on Thursday, local authorities in Crimea also said a dozen of planned Turkish investment projects in the region were cancelled.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, however, on Thursday dismissed as "emotional" and "unfitting of politicians" the suggestions that projects with Russia could be canceled.

Turkish stocks fell more than 2 percent while the lira weakened to above 2.9 against the US dollar on Thursday.

Crackdown on Turkish food imports

Russia has increased checks on food and agriculture imports from Turkey, its Agriculture Ministry said on Thursday, in the first public move to curb trade in a dispute with Ankara for downing a Russian fighter jet.

The government told food safety watchdog Rosselkhoznadzor to increase controls after Agriculture Ministry research showed about 15 percent of agriculture imports from Turkey did not meet regulations, the ministry said.

Rosselkhoznadzor normally only checks some food deliveries. The decision to start checking all supplies from Turkey means that while imports will continue, they could be significantly delayed. Moscow often uses Rosselkhoznadzor regulations in diplomatic spats, imposing bans on imports of certain products, citing health reasons. Officials deny the agency's actions are politically driven.

Moscow banned most Western food imports in 2014 when Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on Thursday the government was not planning to impose any embargo on Turkish imports. Turkey accounts for about 4 percent of Russia's total food imports, supplying mainly fruits, nuts and vegetables. Agricultural and food product imports from Turkey were worth $1 billion in the first 10 months of 2015, according to customs data. But 20 percent of Russia's vegetables come from Turkey.

Russian Agriculture Minister Alexander Tkachev said any shortfall could be made up with supplies from Iran, Morocco, Israel and Azerbaijan. Citrus imports could come from South Africa, Morocco, China and other countries if necessary, he said in a statement. Russia's biggest food retailer Magnit said it was still buying fruits and vegetables from Turkey and declined to provide further comment. Food retailer Dixy said it would do its best to find other suppliers if needed.

Russian retailers were forced to find new suppliers in 2014 after Russia banned most Western food imports.

Fragile economies

Russia's economy will shrink around 4 percent this year from the combined effects of the low oil price and sanctions over the conflict in Ukraine.

Andrei Kostin, the head of Russian state-owned bank VTB, told reporters at a forum in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg that politics and economics should be kept separate. "I would not be inclined to whip up the situation right now," he said, adding: "I think that one has to approach this very calmly. There are always negative events going on in the world."

Meanwhile, Turkey's economy will grow only under 3 percent this year, below the government's target, weighed down by political uncertainty at home and conflict in the Middle East. "Erdoğan is a tough character, and quite emotional, and if Russia pushes too far in terms of retaliatory action, I think there will inevitably be a counter reaction from Turkey [like] tit-for-tat trade sanctions," Nomura strategist Timothy Ash wrote in a note. "But I think there is also a clear understanding that any such action is damaging for both sides, and unwelcome."

There are also a whole range of deals, investments and commercial relationships that could be threatened in the fallout from the downing of the Russian jet.

Russia's state Atomic Energy Corporation, known as Rosatom, is due to build Turkey's first nuclear power station, a $20 billion project. Rosatom said it has no comment on the issue.

Shares in Turkish firm Enka İnşaat, which has construction projects in Russia and two power plants in Turkey using Russian gas, fell for a second day on Wednesday. Turkish brewer Anadolu Efes, which has six breweries in Russia and controls around 14 percent of the market, also saw its shares fall on Tuesday.

Tourism is already being hit. After Russian officials on Tuesday advised holidaymakers against traveling to Turkish resorts, at least two large Russian tour operators said they would stop selling packages to Turkey. Russians are second only to Germans in terms of the numbers visiting Turkey, bringing in an estimated $4 billion a year in tourism revenues.

[Nov 27, 2015] Kremlin Cutting Economic Links With the Turks

Notable quotes:
"... Oh, Turkey is in a lot of trouble, but this country essentially committed succeed de and I cannot fathom the lack of decent press coverage on that fact. First, Turkey's account of a 17 second overflight of Turkish airspace is mathematically impossible. Worse, Russian, in an attempt to cooperate with the Obama White House, released details of the flight path of that Russian plane to the Turks. Someone in the US government told Turkey exactly when and where that plane would be and Turkey, shot it down for them. WikiLeaks attributes this madness directly to Obama. ..."
"... Claiming Russia gave flight information to the US and therefore Turkey (isn't this a real coalition, he asks, mockingly?) further exacerbates one tension in this complex matrix of relations. ..."
"... President Bush said Saddam must go! That led to a catastrophe in Iraq with unfathomable losses on all sides. President Obama said Assad must go! Now we another catastrophe evolving in Syria and it's neighbors. ..."
"... This superficial assessment of things fails to capture the great gravity of the current situation caused by Turkey's foolish crime. ..."
"... It also reveals that Turkey sides with the Daesh Takfiri terrorists, the same ones who blew up a filled Russian plane just a few weeks ago. ..."
"... The decision to down the Russian plane regardless of whether it was in Turkish airspace for 20 seconds or not, was a major error on the part of Erdogan. He is rapidly losing what few friends in the West and the Middle East he may ever have had. The Turks were doing OK before this guy came on the scene. ..."
"... Obama was in Turkey one week before this incident. His remarks following the incident implicitly threatened Russia with more of the same. It is unlikely that Erdogan would have taken such a step without the support of his buddy Obama. ..."
"... Erdogan is trying to calm the storm and hold France 24 television: "We might have been able to prevent this violation of our airspace differently." ..."
"... Perhaps he realises that Ankara might have over-reacted. Turkish airforce could have fired warning shots, without hitting the plane. It was essential to remind Russia of violating Turkish air-space, although Russian planes are not a direct threat to Turkey. ..."
"... Turkey staged a provocation with full knowledge of where and when this Russian airplane will be. And after that NATO fully supported their member. I wonder why Russia sees NATO as threat. The message is loud and clear - NATO countries may provoke Russia under the protection of the allies. ..."
Nov 27, 2015 | www.nytimes.com
The New York Times

"One gets the impression that the Turkish leaders are deliberately leading Russian-Turkish relations into a gridlock," Mr. Putin said, adding later in the day: "Turkey was our friend, almost an ally, and it is a shame that this was destroyed in such a foolish manner."

... ... ...

During a news conference with Mr. Hollande late Thursday, Mr. Putin suggested that the United States, an ally of Turkey, was responsible for the fate of its warplane, since Moscow had passed on information about where and when its bombers would fly.

"What did we give this information to the Americans for?" Mr. Putin asked, rhetorically, before adding: "We proceed from the assumption that it will never happen again. Otherwise we don't need any such cooperation with any country."

... ... ...

Maria Zakharova, the spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, objected to the failure of Turkish or NATO officials to offer condolences over the two Russian military men who died after the plane was shot down. She also demanded an explanation from Turkey about the death of the pilot, who was killed after he parachuted from the plane. It is believed he was shot by Turkmen insurgents who live along the border on the Syrian side and who are supported by Ankara.

... ... ...

Hundreds of trucks bearing Turkish fruits, vegetables and other products were lining up at the Georgian border with Russia, Russian news media reported, as inspections slowed to a crawl and Russian officials suggested there might be a terrorist threat from the goods.

"This is only natural in light of Turkey's unpredictable actions," Dmitri S. Peskov, the presidential spokesman, told reporters.

jamil simaan, Boston

If you compare Russia as a whole today to a person reacting to unexpected slights and/or attacks from people they used to trust, I don't think its response would seem irrational. Russia will definitely take an economic hit for applying sanctions to Turkey, but who respects a person who always prioritizes making money over self-respect? The way Turkey took down this jet made it all but impossible for Russia not to respond very aggressively because the Russian military has quickly become a moral pillar of Russian society, where the economy is flagging and politics stagnant. What did they expect Russia to do, just take it?

No matter how you slice it, though, Turkey's behavior has been much much worse for Turkey than anybody else. The American perspective is pretty pragmatic, and I'm sure a lot of people in the Obama administration are thinking they'd be pretty angry, too, if that happened to the US. It appears that behind closed doors the American and NATO leadership is not happy with Turkey, especially Erdogan. It couldn't be clearer right now how little any other NATO country would like to go to war for Turkey, especially when it is doing stupid things like this.

Wandering Jew, Israel 1 hour ago

It was reckless and dangerous move on the part of Turkey as a member of NATO. There was no reason to escalate the already sensitive situation shooting down Russian plane that was no real threat for Turkey's security.
Erdogan is more dangerous as a partner than he is as an enemy.

ngop, halifax, canada 4 hours ago

Erdogan is hardly in a position to criticize Russia for violating Turkish airspace (for all of 20 seconds at most) when his forces routinely do much worse things in Syria. His unconscionable and indiscriminate bombing of Kurds, both in Turkey and Syria, as well as doing everything possible to dislodge Assad has the objective result of helping the Islamic State. And speaking of territorial integrity, let's not forget about the forty years of illegal Turkish occupation of Cypress. With friends like Erdogan and his Saudi mentors, we don't need any enemies.

courther, USA 3 hours ago

Can we bottom line this situation? Turkey has really messed up by not only shooting down the bomber but killing the Russian pilot while he was in his parachute floating to the ground. I guess the barbaric Turkmen didn't realize that they were violating the Geneva Convention when they shot the pilot.

The US has also messed up when Russia gave the US its flight plan for the bombers in which the US apparently shared with Turkey. Both the US and Turkey have now backed themselves into a corner with Russia in Syria.

Putin has ordered the S-400 anti-missile defense system to be located 30 miles from the border of Turkey. The S-400 is one of the most advanced anti-missile systems in the world. The US military doesn't have an answer for this powerful and precise anti-defense system. The system is designed to target and destroy 75 targets simultaneously. This include Tomahawks missiles, stealth fighter planes such as the F-22 and the F-35 fighter jets. The system is accurate and precise. It doesn't miss its target. It is fully effective within a 250 miles radius.

Here is where most of you missed the point. With this type of weapon Putin can establish a no-fly zone in Syria and any plane that violate Syrian airspace can be shot down and there is nothing NATO or the US can do because of international law. Russia is a legitimate ally to Syria and can act on Syria's behalf. Whoever let Turkey join NATO messed up.

Julien, Canada

Turkey Violated only Greek Airspace 2,244 Times Last Year!!! Not to mention vialation of other countries.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/24/turkey-violated-greek-airspace-2244-ti...

A formation of Turkish fighter jets violated Greek airspace a total of 20 times!!! in a sigle day engaging in dogfight with Greek defenders. Clear provocation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/turkish-and-greek-jets-engaged-in-dogfigh...

Moreover when Syrian air defence downed Turkish F-4 Phantom, as a reaction Erdogan said in 2012: "Brief Airspace Violations Can't Be Pretext for Attack".

I let you decide what you think about it.

Paul, Virginia 3 hours ago

Considering the facts that both the US and Russia are nuclear powers and that Turkey is a member of NATO requiring NATO to go to war if Turkey was attacked, Turkey's shooting down the Russian jet and calling for an emergency NATO meeting was at the height of irresponsibility and recklessness and stupidity. The tepid reaction from the US and NATO indicates that Turkey was acting alone or without explicit consent from NATO. Russia's reaction so far has been confined to trade and tourism but Russia will surely and shortly begin to take actions that will intimidate Turkey short of an outright military attack, which will again raise at worst verbal tension with NATO for NATO will not risk a war with Russia over Turkey's behavior. It's overdue for the US and NATO to assess and downgrade alliance with Turkey.

Simon, Tampa 3 hours ago

I just hope that Putin takes revenge on Turkey, the Saudis, and other Gulf States by having the FSB leak to the media all the evidence that they are the ones financially supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda. This will embarrass our government, the French and other European countries doing business with them as they support terrorists who kill their citizens. Hollande wants to stop ISIS, then he should do stop doing business with these countries and call for international sanctions against them until they stop their indefensible behavior.

Knorrfleat Wringbladt, Midwest 3 hours ago

Turkey is lying in their effort to support Daesh and appropriate Syian territory. As the conflict worsens Turkey hopes to gain through suppression of its own citizens (Kurds) as well as stealing resources from surrounding weakened states. The fact that their strategy may cause serious setbacks for Western Civilization is an added bonus.
The West is foolish to ally themselves with a nation that for thousands of years has been the pivot between east and west. Turkey has learned to play both sides against each other. We need to do an end run apology to Russia (on Turkeys behalf), severely sanction Turkey for their non cooperation or kick them out of NATO altogether. If we do nothing they will continue to undermine us.

Mike Brooks, Eugene, Oregon 5 hours ago

Oh, Turkey is in a lot of trouble, but this country essentially committed succeed de and I cannot fathom the lack of decent press coverage on that fact. First, Turkey's account of a 17 second overflight of Turkish airspace is mathematically impossible. Worse, Russian, in an attempt to cooperate with the Obama White House, released details of the flight path of that Russian plane to the Turks. Someone in the US government told Turkey exactly when and where that plane would be and Turkey, shot it down for them. WikiLeaks attributes this madness directly to Obama.

Hamid Varzi, Spain 3 hours ago

Let us view the world, for as second, from an Iranian and Russian perspective:

The U.S. directly caused the rise of Islamic Extremism with 60 years of oppressive geopolitical policies in the Middle East. The U.S.'s current allies in the "War on Terror" are Wahhabi-infested Saudi Arabia, Palestine-baiting Israel, increasingly regressive Turkey and Al Qaeda refuge Pakistan. (Instead of focusing on the 50 nuclear weapons that already exist in the nation that created and supported the Taleban, the U.S. is focused on the nuclear programme of Iran that helped it defeat the Taleban in Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11!).

Having seen the disastrous results of removing Middle Eastern dictators in Iraq and Libya, the West has now decided to remove the dictator in Syria, but in the expectation of different results.

All the while, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey are laughing their heads off at the discomfort faced by Iran and Russia as a result of crashing oil prices, seemingly ignorant of the far greater threat to their own security posed by the so-called Islamic State. The West, like deer caught in the Saudi, Israeli and Turkish headlights, has become paralyzed and has become easy pickings for radical Islamists, as we saw recently and tragically in Paris.

The West must realize it has become the victim of its own policies: It must urgently reappraise its geopolitical strategies by tackling Islamic Extremism at the source.

Tom, Fl Retired Junk Man 3 hours ago

Turkey is way out of line with their actions, they should apologize immeadiately and never be so foolish as to play with people's lives as though they were chess pieces.
This is not a game, if you screw with Russia there will be a strong response, and it is so unneccesary.

The Obama administration has messed up this relationship with Russia, that stupid reset button that Hillary presented to the Russian's should be reset again.

You get a lot more of a result with honey than with vinegar, and don't forget " Bears like Honey ".

So leave that Russian Bear alone.


This is news? Eugene, OR

Ignore Putin's pleas of outrage in this instance. This is about something other than a lost Russian pilot.

It is all about driving a wedge among NATO members, most specifically France and others inclined to cooperate with Putin in Syria, both practically and in terms of optics, and Turkey.

European-Turkish relations were already strained (human rights, Turkey abetting fighters travelling to join Daesh, rifts over the Kurds, failure to make progress on EU membership, and on) and Putin, believing he is needed by the West newly-energized to attack Daesh, is pressing on the sore point. He knows, for instance, that Turkey is 1) absolutely committed to Assad succession and 2) unwilling to see anything that doesn't hurt the Kurds develop.

With France leading Europe closer to Putin, the previous Western insistence on Assad leaving is weakening (for better or worse), giving way to the desire for tighter coop with Russia. Putin is framing this diplomatically as the only "serious" way to combat Daesh, putting Europe and Turkey increasingly on opposite sides of the Assad question in the short-term.

Claiming Russia gave flight information to the US and therefore Turkey (isn't this a real coalition, he asks, mockingly?) further exacerbates one tension in this complex matrix of relations.

Unlike Republicans I do not see Putin as some master strategist but this play is reasonably smart if transparently obvious.

Concerned. Michigan 2 hours ago

Plain and simple.

The only way ISIS criminals can get in and out of Syria is through Turkey. Why is it so hard to see how complacent are the Turks in allowing free access for these thugs in and out of Syria? It is high time for the world to confront the obvious. The Saudis and Qataris with their financial might have lobbied the Turks and the rest of the world to allow this to go on. Isis existence depends on human flow and money supply from gulf Arab donors and its oil trade through the Turkish border, address these main issues and Isis will be easier to defeat....

Dr. MB, Irvine, CA 4 hours ago

In the land of the Great Atarturk, this gentleman Mr. Erdogan does not fit in! Nations suffer when cynical persons wiggle into power, Turkey will not be an exception, unfortunately!

Barrie F. Taylor, Miami, Florida 4 hours ago

I was born in 1939 and have always been optimistic that war would eventually disappear after WW2 as a method for resolution of disputes between humans. Also I never thought that a nuclear war was likely to happen. The current state of discord in the world is astounding when one considers what we know about our world and existence. Religion should have died out by now but there are still ignorant people who still believe in God and immortality! Warfare and violence only beget violence and warfare - that should clear to anyone. Clearly our educational systems have failed.
As for warfare, it is always the average people who pay the price not our "leaders" who keep well out of harms way. They no longer lead the cavalry charge.
The West should keep out of the Middle East and let them resolve their problems - we've already messed up the area with colonialism , and that includes the US. The most important problem is the is a real likelihood of nuclear conflict due the abundance of nuclear weapons in the region. Because of the lunacy of religion this is probably bound to happen sometime soon.

NY 4 hours ago

The only way to ease the tensions is that Erdogan offers an apology to the Russian people and pays for the damage of the fighter Jet and compensation to the Pilots family. Bar the above he and the Turks will pay a much bigger price.

I would not be surprised if a Turkish F-16 or two being shot down in the future. Erdogan do the smart thing go down on your knees and apologize.

Byron Jones, Memphis, Tennessee 4 hours ago

Points to ponder
1. The Russian jet was in Turkish airspace for a few seconds in face of Turkish allegations that the pilots were warned for several minutes in advance.
2. Why shoot down the jet when a strong, morally outraged response from the Turks would play better internationally?
3. Both Putin and Erdogan have problems at home and there is a long history of bad blood between the two countries.

Putin and Erdogan -- two bullies playing a dangerous game of chicken.

Sridhar Chilimuri, New York 2 hours ago

What a mess!

President Bush said Saddam must go! That led to a catastrophe in Iraq with unfathomable losses on all sides. President Obama said Assad must go! Now we another catastrophe evolving in Syria and it's neighbors.

There is lesson for us to learn. We or any other country should not be participating in leadership changes of other countries - let their people do it!

MN, New York 1 hour ago

Russia had a choice between Assad and Turkey and they chose Assad. They started bullying Turkey repeatedly since their campaign in Syria begun, they went as far as putting eight Turkish F-16s under radar lock by both MiG-29 and anti-aircraft missiles in October. They also specifically targeted Turkmen villages and Turkey backed rebels on Syrian-Turkish borders since October. The list of provocation goes on and on. The Russian ambassador was summoned by Turkey at least 5 times since Russia started its campaign in Syria. Turkey complained to UN more than one time too about Russia.

So if you think Russia has not been asking for this, you're wrong. It's exactly what Russia wants. The provocation started by Russia and Turkey was patient with Russia until they started to bomb the Turkmen. Despite Turkey's effort to de-escalate after the incident, Russia has cut economic ties and the Kremlin even rejected a request to Putin-Erdogan meeting in upcoming Paris convention. Russia continued their path of further provocation by intensifying air strikes on every single Syrian-Turkish border held by Syrian rebels and on Turkmen villages. They even started giving air support to Kurd's PYD in their new push against Syrian rebels.

Turkey on the other hand is under pressure to respond to Russia provocation especially by nationalists who voted to the AKP government for the first time instead of their preferred extreme nationalist MHP party.


ZHR, NYC 2 hours ago

Turkey is not very accurate. Last week Turkish nationalists -- no doubt at the behest of the Erdouan government--protested Russian air strikes in Syria in front of the Dutch Consulate. They got the wrong consulate.

In July, it was reported that Turkish "demonstrators angry about the Chinese government's treatment of its Muslim Uighur minority attacked a Chinese restaurant. It turned out to be owned by a Turk, and worse still the chef was in fact an Uighur Muslim."

Don't blame the Turks. They probably thought they were downing a Bulgarian plane or maybe one from Lichtenstein.


Syed Abbas, Dearborn MI 4 hours ago

What Russia could not do in 70 years, ISIL has done in 1. Break up NATO.

Now, it is France, Russia, Germany Iran against Turkey, US, and ISIL, a conflict that will go on for the rest of the century.

Today, it is not the end, but beginning of the end.


Buckeye, Ohio 1 hour ago

This superficial assessment of things fails to capture the great gravity of the current situation caused by Turkey's foolish crime. This is the first time in over 50 years in which a NATO force attacked and destroyed a Soviet/Russian military target with fatal consequences. This reckless military aggression by Turkey deserves the condemnation, to support, of the USA and all other NATO countries.

It also reveals that Turkey sides with the Daesh Takfiri terrorists, the same ones who blew up a filled Russian plane just a few weeks ago. The most rational outcome of this criminal act of war by Turkey is to expel it from NATO which needs to join the Syrian government in annihilating the Daesh terrorists, their roots and current sources of support. Tragically, rationality does not guide the US verbal war on the Daesh terrorists, who, like it, still has regime change in Syria as their irrational goal.

Kosovo, Louisville, KY 2 hours ago

I'm with the Russians, the Turks are double dealing. They support ISIS and are becoming more of an Islamic state themselves...

Simon Sez, Maryland 2 hours ago

Turkey is being relentlessly pulled deeper and deeper into the morass of Islamism from which there is no return.

Ironic that all that Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern, secular Turkey, fought for is now being undone by Erdogan, an Islamic dictator who will brook no dissent.

While Putin is no saint, quite the opposite, his response is less aggressive than it might be. Many Russian nationalists, and there are a lot of them, are loudly criticizing him for not responding more forcefully to the downing of the Russian plane and murder of one of the survivors.

Turkey is going to lose more than Russia from all of this.

The decision to down the Russian plane regardless of whether it was in Turkish airspace for 20 seconds or not, was a major error on the part of Erdogan. He is rapidly losing what few friends in the West and the Middle East he may ever have had. The Turks were doing OK before this guy came on the scene.

Moral of the story: Be careful when you tangle with the Russian Bear.

Especially, when it is wearing the mask of Putin.

Victor O, NYC 2 hours ago

Obama was in Turkey one week before this incident. His remarks following the incident implicitly threatened Russia with more of the same. It is unlikely that Erdogan would have taken such a step without the support of his buddy Obama.

Does the U.S. truly wish to be drawn into a showdown with Russia? While it may be true that Russia is outclassed when it comes to conventional arms, Russia will resort to nuclear weapons if sufficiently challenged. Putin does not see the world through rose-colored glasses, and does not see gay marriage and global warming as the seminal issues of our time.

FromBrooklyn, Europe 2 hours ago

Yes, and the US, Russia and Europe should cooperate without reviving cold-war posturing and work together to defeat ISIS. Turkey can't be trusted; the Erdogans are getting rich from illegal oil and covertly support the terrorists.

anthony weishar, Fairview Park, OH 2 hours ago

There is a glaring problem with the Turkish version of the incident. The pilots ejected and landed in Syria, where "terrorist" captured or killed them. The Turkish map is not valid. If the pilots did land in Turkey, that would mean Turkey is protecting ISIS members and Syrian rebels.

Nick Zucker, San Francisco, CA 1 hour ago @Tolga

Nice revisionism there. All meant to justify a bellicose Turkish military of course. And what about the disputed landbetwwen syria and turkey this article talks about?

Turkey is the only country that doesn't not respect Greek territorial integrity and the only country that recognizes the northern regime in Cyprus. Face it, in the absence of true democracy, Turkish politicians have been feeding Turks a steady diet of imagined external threats (really, from Greece?) to consolidate public opinion around nationalist sentiment.

j. von hettlingen, is a trusted commenter switzerland 4 hours ago

Erdogan is trying to calm the storm and hold France 24 television: "We might have been able to prevent this violation of our airspace differently."

Perhaps he realises that Ankara might have over-reacted. Turkish airforce could have fired warning shots, without hitting the plane. It was essential to remind Russia of violating Turkish air-space, although Russian planes are not a direct threat to Turkey.

But since Russia embarked on the intervention in Syria, its arbitrary shelling of Turkmens in Syria, who are Turkish allies and rebels, backed by the West and the Arabs, has set the cat among the pigeons.

The US stands by NATO, which defended Turkey's action, because nobody wants to upset Ankara and jeopardise its access to the vital Turkish airbase at Incirlik.
That the Kremlin is considering severe economic ties to Turkey may just be rhetoric for domestic consumption because the Imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire had fought a series of wars in the 17th-19th century. In recent years Moscow's support for Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian-controlled breakaway enclave in Azerbaijan, is a thorn in Ankara's side, because Azerbaijan and Turkey are seen as "one nation with two states. The annexation of Crimea has led to the marginalisation of the Tartars, a Turkic ethnic group, for whose wellbeing Ankara sees itself responsible.

Maxim, Canada, BC 2 hours ago

Please read what really happened:
https://www.rt.com/news/323651-turkey-su24-downing-syria/
Turkey staged a provocation with full knowledge of where and when this Russian airplane will be. And after that NATO "fully supported" their member. I wonder why Russia sees NATO as threat. The message is loud and clear - NATO countries may provoke Russia under the protection of the allies.

John Warnock, Thelma KY 2 hours ago

Webster can add a new definition to the dictionary for "Middle East"; Quagmire. We need to seriously weigh our long term strategic interests in regard to this region. Put rhetoric aside. Put the infatuation of some with the Holy Land aside. Keep our support for Israel in balance with our commitment to Human Rights.
Ultimately the Moslem Nations of the Middle East need to sort this mess out. The continued interjection of the USA, Russia and Europe only delays the sorting out that must come to pass.

This sorting out must neutralize ISIS and similar groups and probably result in new national boundaries and new nation states. So be it. ISIS is an idea, a terrible idea, not territory.

You cannot destroy it by bombing physical things. The Moslem world must sort it out; just as we have some adherents to various forms of fundamentalism in this country that we need to address. We attract the attention of ISIS because we are there and foolishly do things like maintain the prison at Guantanamo. We are not and should not consider ourselves the World's Cop!

Syed Abbas, Dearborn MI 5 hours ago

The world has decided Russia is clearly on the right on this one.

However, Putin should not punish Turkish (and Russian) people for the sins of Erdogan. Moral high ground is to protest, provide evidence, forgive, and forget, and move on.

Let the universe unfold as it should. Soon the sins of Erdogan will catch up with him.

[Nov 27, 2015] Putin Accuses Obama Of Leaking Flight Details To Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... which the US knew about well in advance, ..."
"... It looks like the shootdown was a planned ambush, and they were trying to capture a Russian pilot. ..."
www.zerohedge.com
This is what Putin said:

"We told our US partners in advance where, when at what altitudes our pilots were going to operate. The US-led coalition, which includes Turkey, was aware of the time and place where our planes would operate. And this is exactly where and when we were attacked. Why did we share this information with the Americans? Either they don't control their allies, or they just pass this information left and right without realizing what the consequences of such actions might be. We will have to have a serious talk with our US partners.

In other words, just like in the tragic bombing of the Kunduz hospital by US forces (which has now been attributed to human error), so this time the target was a Russian plane which the US knew about well in advance, was targeted however not by the US itself, but by a NATO and US-alliance member, Turkey.

strannick

America gave ISIS the TOW rocket that exploded Russia's helicopter on a search and rescue mission to save the remaining pilot.

America gave Turkey the co ordinates to shoot down the Russian bomber, so Turkeys corrupt leader could continue profiting from selling oil for ISIS to fund ISIS terrorism.

Putin's patience is what keeps the world from the brink of nuclear war.

God bless and keep Vladimir Putin.

America is a piece of shit nation with a piece of shit president .

America ruins the world to rule it.

God help us all.

turtle

U.S. knew Russian jet flight path: https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30212396/us-knew-flight-path-of-plane-downed...

HowdyDoody

The US says ISIS doesn't have an air force?

Is it April 1 already?

Turkey ,a prime supporter and enabler of ISS, just gagging to open a consulate for ISIS, shot down a Russian aircraft involved in attacking ISIS. That seems like an ISIS airforce attack to me, even if we ignore the fact that the USAF attacks Assad instead of ISIS etc.

socalbeach

Russian MOD briefing on the rescue of the navigator, and other subjects. Terrorists and "other mysterious groups" with "special purpose locators" to find the pilot were eliminated by Russian airstrikes and Syrian artillery. "Western" special forces maybe? It looks like the shootdown was a planned ambush, and they were trying to capture a Russian pilot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdtQpfwOoSg

Rakshas

I thought this one was funny as well.....

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30178705/suspected-isis-recruiter-bombed-dur...

It's unclear when the footage was filmed, but video shows a man being hit by a strike.

The French launched airstrikes on Islamic State following the tragic Paris attacks, which killed 130 people, but it's unclear if they were responsible for this bomb.

France has since released video of their strikes against ISIS.

It's believed the video was filmed between November 15 and 17, it was uploaded to YouTube on November 18.

O Tempora O Morons

Directly from the troll house

Max Steel
I find it amusing when muritards can't use logic against facts and truth they conveniently
paint others as trolls ( Ever thought why West MSM never reported on CIA disinfo agent
and State Deptt of US trolls , do you think they don't exist? Ha! They do but western
censor media is not allowed to report it even rest Google browser being american will
flash non-usa troll msm articles first.

Western Media is a Troll Army

[Nov 27, 2015] Turkeys attack on Russian jet is foreign policy nightmare Austrian ex-chancellor

Notable quotes:
"... Turkey can do much more to fight ISIS, but they are concentrated to fight or to separate or to isolate the Turkish fighters. The Peshmerga, as you know, is a staunch ally against ISIL or ISIS, and Turkey could also do more to stop the influx of foreign recruits a route to Syria. You mentioned the oil smuggling... so I think, a lot can be done, also to stop refugees, uncontrolled flow of refugees from Turkey to Europe. So I think Turkey should do more and on the summit of the EU and Turkey, Im sure a lot of our member-states will ask Turkey to do much more. ..."
RT - SophieCo
Sophie Shevardnadze: Wolfgang Schussel former Chancellor and foreign minister of Austria, welcome to the show, it's really great to have you with us. Now, a NATO country, Turkey, has shot down a Russian bomber in Syria, claiming it strayed into Turkish airspace. When a Turkish plane was shot for violating Syrian airspace, mr. Erdogan dubbed it an "attack with no excuse" - now, when a Russian plane is shot by Turkey in similar circumstances, it's an "appropriate self-defence". How this ambiguous stance of a NATO member and an EU candidate is viewed in Europea? Why is Turkey changing its stance when it feels like it? What's European take on that?

Wolfgang Schussel: I think it's a nightmare incident, what happened a few days ago. This is exactly what some military experts warned about - there were repeated warning that there could be a clash between two nations in this already overcrowded Syrian sky. I think, what is needed is more cooperation and coordination. And, I think, the response of Turkey, even if there would be some incidents, let's say, for 2-5 seconds crossing a border land, it's not an appropriate reaction for that. So, I think, what is needed is a military coordination in this very disputed area.

SS: But also, the way we look at it, this incident with the fighter jet has only highlighted Turkey's dubious behaviour towards ISIS. I mean, the alleged buying of smuggled oil from terrorists, allowing militant movement back and forth over the border and attacking Kurds who are fighting ISIS. Why has this been tolerated by members of the anti-ISIS coalition for so long?

WS: I think it was criticised. Turkey can do much more to fight ISIS, but they are concentrated to fight or to separate or to isolate the Turkish fighters. The Peshmerga, as you know, is a staunch ally against ISIL or ISIS, and Turkey could also do more to stop the influx of foreign recruits a route to Syria. You mentioned the oil smuggling... so I think, a lot can be done, also to stop refugees, uncontrolled flow of refugees from Turkey to Europe. So I think Turkey should do more and on the summit of the EU and Turkey, I'm sure a lot of our member-states will ask Turkey to do much more.

SS: So you think on that summit Turkey is going to be asked by the allies to get its anti-terror act together? Because, "criticising" and actually pressuring Turkey to do this are two different things.

WS: Yeah, but you know, summit is a diplomatic effort to bring up different ideas and to coordinate the political actions, and I think it's an important meeting. I would not underestimate the impetus and a potential influx on the Turkish policy. I hope it will work.

SS: NATO said in October it is ready to defend Turkey against Russia. It now has taken a much more cautious tone. Why the change?

WS: It should not be, so to say, confrontation of NATO and Russia. I think what is needed is direct talks between Turkey and Russia and I hope, I got some information that there's an already planned meeting between Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Turkish foreign minister. They should discuss it, and, anyway, there is a strong need to coordinate military efforts. If Russia - and I would support it - would become a member of the coalition against ISIS and ISIL, there's a need to coordinate the actions, the moves, the targets, et cetera.

SS: Now, while the anti-terror campaign in Syria is ramping up, in Europe operations following the Paris attacks are also in full swing. All of Austria's neighbors - Italy, Hungary, Germany - they're on high terror alert in case of another attack. Why isn't Austria on such an alert? Is Austria confident it's safe, I mean, feeling no need to raise the threat level? Is Austria equipped to handle such a threat?

WS:I think, everybody is on alert and rightly so: because nobody can feel safe and secure or exempt from terror attacks from Al-Qaeda, Daesh, ISIL, ISIS - call it what you want. I think what we learned during the last years, months, or weeks or days is that nothing is guaranteed. We're fighting for our way of life, to entertain us, to love, to listen to music, to meet, to speak freely. This is an attack against all of us, an attack against our values. So I think we all have to be united and no one should think he or she is exempt from being a target of these terrorists. This is our common enemy, and we should also prioritise our action. In the moment, the most urgent priority is to fight against ISIS, and then the rest should be settled. Political, diplomatic effort to settle something, a diplomatic or political solution for Syria - that's for sure, this is needed, but now the most important priority is to fight the Islamic forces.

[Nov 27, 2015] If these other foreign goupes searching for pilot include Americans and that might be the reason that after the plane was shot down, Russia was slapped with additional sanctions

marknesop.wordpress.com

Erika, November 26, 2015 at 11:21 am

Russian Pilot Rescued by Iran's General Soleimani

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940905000553

I am wondering if these other foreign forces they refer to are Americans and perhaps be the reason that after the shooting of the plane, Russia ended up getting additional sanctions.

[Nov 27, 2015] Reckless Turkey

Interesting discussion, Opinion of Charles Shoebridge is quite interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia fighting ISIS, among other purposes, can divide NATO in Russia's interest. Downing of Russia fighter is to distract Russia focus under encouragement of U.S. Russia must not lose sight of the ball and fall into the trap by revenging Turkey. ..."
RT CrossTalk
And now for the consequences: In the wake of Turkey's intentional downing of a Russian military aircraft over Syrian airspace, the Russia-Turkey relationship is in steep decline. Ankara says it merely acted in self-defense, but it appears to be protecting Islamic State.

CrossTalking with Charles Shoebridge and Yenal Kucuker.

William Bellah

The bigger picture is at stake and it all depends on China. The bigger picture is world domination and Russia alone is not enough of a deterrent to stop the U.S. And NATO but with China onboard, backing Russia in Syria, it is a whole different ball game

George Rizk -> Yancey Tobias

Yancey Tobias

Kucuker: "Turkey misunderstood,..." ???? This is nonsense. In the ME, the role of Turkey is well understood. more...

You are correct. A couple of years ago, Egypt ousted a Muslim Brotherhood President, who had sent terrorist to Syria, and looked the other way as Islamists in Egypt torched 75 churches. Mr. Erdoghan at the UN podium chose to condemn Egypt's more than 30 millions revolution against the Muslim extremists. Erdoghan, has exposed himself as a supporter of Muslim extremism, barbarism right at the UN a couple of years ago, and the news are full of information about the terrorist training camps and arms smuggling from Turkey into Syria.

George Rizk

The way this issue should be framed is: gangs of savages have been armed and encouraged by Muslim Sunni fanatic countries to oust Assad. The savages behaved in extremely barbaric fashion, and went after European targets, which made the West repulsed by their actions. Nevertheless, no country had enough guts to send forces to support these barbarians.

Russia decided after four years of such devastation to fight them. Hence Russia is attempting to protect human kind from such subhuman gangs. Any one defending these subhumans is a supporter of forces of darkness. Tukey should be ousted from the UN, and NATO.

Chunde Shi

Russia fighting ISIS, among other purposes, can divide NATO in Russia's interest. Downing of Russia fighter is to distract Russia focus under encouragement of U.S. Russia must not lose sight of the ball and fall into the trap by revenging Turkey.

Vidas Jack

One i can say , Russia is not Great World Power as it was USSR, and that the reason how NATO took down Su-24 in the manner of engagement Russia to WW3.

[Nov 27, 2015] Turkish President Erdo an warns Russia not to play with fire

Notable quotes:
"... Erdo an also touched on the joint press conference held by Putin and French President François Hollande on Nov. 26, describing the former's comments as "unacceptable." Denying allegations that Turkey has been purchasing oil from ISIL, Erdo an said the oil trade between ISIL, Russia and the Syrian regime had been documented by the United States. ..."
www.hurriyetdailynews.com

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has warned Russia "not to play with fire" in the wake of a crisis between Ankara and Moscow following the downing of a Russian jet by Turkey on Nov. 24 near the Syrian border.

"[Russian President Vladimir] Putin says 'those who have double standards on terrorism are playing with fire.' I totally agree with him," Erdoğan said Nov. 27 in the northern province of Bayburt.

"Indeed, supporting the [Bashar] al-Assad regime in Syria, which has killed 380,000 people, is playing with fire. Striking opposition groups that have international legitimacy with the excuse of fighting against Daesh [an acronym of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL] is playing with fire. Using an incident in which Turkey's righteousness is accepted by the whole world as an excuse to torment our citizens who were in Russia to attend a fair is playing with fire. Irresponsibly hitting trucks in the region that are there for trade or humanitarian reasons is playing with fire. We sincerely advise Russia not to play with fire," he added.

Erdoğan also expressed his willingness to meet Putin during the upcoming climate change summit in Paris in order to find common ground and avoid a further escalation of tension.

"We are uncomfortable with efforts to take the dispute over the downed jet into other areas of relations. Let's not allow that to happen," he said, underlining that maintaining good relations was beneficial for both countries.

Claiming that Turkey's shooting down of the Russian jet was not "intentional" but simply a result of an automatic enforcement of rules of engagement, Erdoğan nevertheless argued that Turkey was right to do so.

"Turkey has proved its honesty" by releasing audio recordings of the warnings issued to the Russian pilots, he added.

Erdoğan also touched on the joint press conference held by Putin and French President François Hollande on Nov. 26, describing the former's comments as "unacceptable." Denying allegations that Turkey has been purchasing oil from ISIL, Erdoğan said the oil trade between ISIL, Russia and the Syrian regime had been documented by the United States.

[Nov 27, 2015] Turkish minister says trade retaliation by Russia will hurt its farmers

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

Any trade retaliation by Russia over Turkey's downing of a jet flying sorties in Syria would hurt Russian farmers more, Turkish Agriculture Minister Faruk Çelik said on Nov. 27, pointing to import-export figures.

Turkey has not yet received official notification of any embargo by Russia, Çelik also told reporters.

However, it would be wrong to let the tensions between Russia and Turkey impact farming, commercial and economic ties, he said.

Russia has increased checks on food and agriculture imports from Turkey, the Agriculture Ministry said on Nov. 26, in the first public move to curb trade in a dispute with Ankara for the downing a Russian fighter jet.

The Russian government told Russia's food safety watchdog Rosselkhoznadzor to increase controls after agriculture ministry research showed about 15 percent of agriculture imports from Turkey did not meet regulations, the Russian ministry said.

Çelik said Turkey exports around $1.3 billion of agricultural goods to Russia and buys $.2.9 billion of agricultural products from Russia.

"Any trade retaliation move will hurt mainly Russian farmers, not Turkish farmers," he said.

[Nov 27, 2015] Russia imposes sanctions on Turkey over downed plane

Notable quotes:
"... He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences" ..."
www.theguardian.com

...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes in Syria.

Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages. He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious consequences"

... ... ...

Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned provocation.

[Nov 27, 2015] Suspiciously well-equipped group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24,

Notable quotes:
"... Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti". This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev. ..."
"... According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown. ..."
www.gazeta.ru
Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti". This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev.

According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown.

November 24 in the Syrian province of Latakia has fallen downed Russian bomber su-24. This responsibility took on the Turkish authorities, accusing Russia of violating its airspace. Moscow claims that the plane was flying solely over the territory of Syria.

[Nov 27, 2015] Guest Post Why Is The US Hanging Turkey Out To Dry

Notable quotes:
"... It can safely be assumed that the US influenced Turkey into shooting down the Russian jet over Syrian airspace, predicting quite accurately that this would immediately lead to the deterioration of ties between the two states. An elementary forecast of the specific counter-measures that Russia may take stipulates that these will likely relate to the diplomatic, economic, and energy sectors, which is just what the US wants. ..."
"... Furthermore, Turkish Stream looks to be indefinitely put on hold, thus delaying Russia's game-changing pivot to the Balkans. ..."
Zero Hedge

Authored by Andrew Korybko via OrientalReview.com,

Turkey's shooting down of the Russian anti-ISIL aircraft was an unprecedentedly direct aggression against Moscow that trumps even the tense and hostile militarism of the Old Cold War era. The world stands on edge in the immediate aftermath of this attack, with tabloid-esque commentators warning that the beginning of World War III awaits. President Putin, for his part, has been much more measured in responding to the incident, but still couldn't contain his shock at having received this "stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists."

The question now comes down to how Russia will respond to what happened, but perhaps even more important for observers to ponder is why the US is unofficially distancing itself from its ally's aggression. Despite both NATO and Obama giving full backing to Turkey's fateful decision, Reuters has quoted an anonymous American military official that purposely leaked that the Russian plane was downed while over Syrian airspace, basing the assessment on heat signature detection. This raises questions about why the US is playing both sides of the fence – on one hand, publicly supporting Turkey, while on the other, strategically releasing information that conflicts with Turkey's official depiction of events.

The Setup:

This dichotomy is suggestive of a Machiavellian plan whereby the US manipulates both Turkey and Russia into behaving according to what it has already forecast as their most likely responses, knowing full well that these could be guided into supporting grander American strategic interests. For starters, the US likely intimated to Erdogan that not only does he have the 'legal' right to shoot down any Russian aircraft he chooses, but that the US would actually prefer for him to take this course of action sooner than later. This is reminiscently similar to how the US put Sakkashvili up to bombing Tskhinval and invading South Ossetia – it may not have directly issued an official, on-paper order for this to occur, but it left no ambiguity as to how it wanted its proxy to act in each situation.

According To Plan:

For the most part, this explains the public pronouncements of NATO and the US' support for Turkey's actions, and it also goes a long way in soothing Erdogan's nerves and reassuring him that he did the right thing. The predicted aftereffect of the plane's downing was an immediate deterioration of Russian-Turkish relations, with the full consequences potentially affecting the diplomatic, military, economic, and energy spheres. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cancelled his upcoming trip to Turkey and advised Russian tourists to refrain from visiting the country due to the terrorism level being similar to Egypt's. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has spoken about the possibility of barring Turkish companies from the Russian market and cancelling planned nuclear and gas projects with the country.

All of these prospective actions are fully justifiable and grounded in the self-respect that Russia feels in not aiding what has proven itself to be a militantly hostile state no matter the economic stakes involved, but at the same time, one can't help but wonder whether this is exactly what the US wanted. There's no doubt that Russia would react this way, as even a cursory glance of its potential 'response toolkit' indicates that these are the most likely to be taken amidst any deterioration of relations. Therefore, it can't be discounted that the US put Erdogan up to shooting down the Russian jet precisely to provoke the predictable Russian response in threatening to cancel its forthcoming energy projects with Turkey, the core of the strategic partnership between the two. If this is the case, and it certainly seems likely, then it shows exactly how far the US is willing to go to make sure that Russian energy (and subsequently, all of the soft power and multipolar advantages that come with it) doesn't enter the Balkans through the Turkish Stream megaproject, likely because it understands the transformative impact that this would eventually have on the entire region.

The Curveball:

Thus far, everything seems reasonable and well within the realm of predictability, but the curveball comes with the Reuters revelation that an unnamed American military source is essentially saying that the Russian position is justified. Unexpectedly, it now seems as though the US is also playing to Russia's side to an extent, and this raises questions about what it really wants. After all, it's been proven beyond any doubt that American-supplied TOW anti-tank missiles were used to down the Russian rescue helicopter that attempted to retrieve the two pilots. With this indisputable evidence of indirect American aggression against Russia, it certainly is a curious fact that the US establishment would purposely leak a statement saying that the Turkey downed the Russian plane in Syrian airspace, and basically take Russia's side on this behind the scenes.

Playing The Kurdish Card:

Explaining this diplomatic twist requires knowledge about the popular response that Russian citizens and global supporters worldwide are requesting to Turkey's aggression. They quite reasonably propose that Russia intensify its arms shipments to anti-ISIL Kurdish fighters, with the wink-and-a-nod approval that some of them would be siphoned off to the PKK and be used against the Turkish military. This is an effective and pragmatic plan, and in reality, it actually doesn't even require a policy shift from Moscow because support is already being rendered to some Kurdish groups as part of their joint cooperation in the anti-ISIL struggle. The Kurdish Insurgency hasn't gone away since Erdogan unwittingly unearthed it this summer as an electioneering tool, and the fact that it's still going strong even after the elections has scared him so much that he might have been the one who ordered the recent assassination attempt against pro-Kurdish HDP co-chairman Selahattin Demirtas. Thus, if Russia chooses to inflict an asymmetrical response to Turkey by beefing up its indirect support for the PKK and other Turkish-based anti-government Kurds or disrupting Blue Stream gas supplies in order to provoke an intensified rebellion, then it could certainly inflict a heavy amount of strategic damage to Erdogan and increase the likelihood either of a military coup in Turkey (explained more in detail as part of a different article accessible here) and/or the creation of an independent Kurdistan.

That being said, the US has traditionally been the out-of-regional power that has the greatest interest in Kurdistan, seeing the possible state as a 'geopolitical Israel' from which it can simultaneously exert influence on the rump portions of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. The strategic trajectory of a theorized Kurdish state has been complicated by the anti-ISIL campaign, however, since many Kurds have shown themselves to be pragmatic in cooperating with Russia and Iran against this shared threat. The positive multipolar cooperation that each of these countries has engaged in with the Kurds challenges the US' planned hegemony over them and their territory, and it thus means that any forthcoming independent Kurdish political entity could theoretically go either towards the multipolar or the unipolar camps. At this point in time, and given all of the dynamic military and diplomatic developments of the past couple of months, the loyalty of a future Kurdish state (no matter if its boundaries are confined only to present-day Turkey and/or Iraq) is totally up for grabs, and it's impossible to accurately forecast which way it will go.

The strategic ambiguity that this entails means a few things to the US and Russia. For the US, it indicates that the time is now for it to bunker down and support Kurdistan's independence before it loses the strategic initiative to Russia, which might be moving in this direction (whether formally or informally) out of grand geopolitical spite for Turkey. Moscow, as was just mentioned, seems inclined to hit Ankara where it hurts most, and that's through supporting the Kurdish Insurgency in one way or another. However, it's not yet known how far this would go, and whether Russia would pursue this strategy as a form of short-term vengeance or if it would resolutely go as far in recognizing Kurdish Independence if it could ever be de-facto actualized. Of course, Russia wouldn't do anything that could endanger the territorial integrity of its Syrian, Iraqi, and Iranian allies, but if the Turkish-based Kurds contained their ambitions solely within the borders of Russia's historical rival, then it might be able to rectify itself with this reality, especially if they even refrain from legal independence and instead seek a sort of broadly de-facto independent federative or autonomous status within a unified Turkey (which could only realistically be brought about by an intensified insurgency and/or a coup in Ankara).

Joining Hands For Kurdistan:

Having explained all of this, it's now clear that a remarkable convergence of strategic interests has developed between the US and Russia focusing on Turkish-administered Kurdistan. Understanding the changing calculations that Russia may now be having towards this topic as a response to Turkey's aggression against it, one can't necessarily preclude the possibility that the Reuters leak was actually a strategic overture to Russia. Washington might be sending a signal that it wants to speak to Moscow about ways to cooperate in this regard, knowing that each of them possibly have an interest now in seeing the proto-state rise to the fore of the global arena. A shared understanding has likely developed by now that a New Cold War competition for Kurdistan's loyalty could be fought after the entity is legally formalized (whether as an independent state or a de-facto independent sub-state entity modeled off of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq), and that the two Great Powers need to put aside some of their differences in joining hands to see this happen first.

Such a strong signal could have been discretely and secretly communicated to Russia via secure diplomatic and intelligence channels, but the reason it was so publicly broadcast via Reuters, the global newswire service, is because the US also wants to send a signal to Turkey as well. Despite taking its side on the matter before the global eye, the US is also "stabbing its ally in the back", to channel President Putin, by purposely leaking the information that the Russian jet was shot down over Syrian airspace. It's not news that the US has been unhappy with Erdogan for not behaving more submissively in the past and refusing to blindly go along with the previous plans to invade Syria (rendered useless after Russia's anti-terrorist military intervention there), so it might be trying to convey the message it's had enough of his games and is now playing their own in return. Of course, the US has always been manipulating Turkey ever since it joined NATO and allowed the Americans to operate out of Incirlik airbase, but this time, the treachery is being taken to a higher level by implicitly throwing out suggestions to Russia, Turkey's new foe (and only because the US manipulated Turkey into taking aggressive action against it), that it might want to team up in undermining Ankara's control over its volatile southeast.

Concluding Thoughts:

It can safely be assumed that the US influenced Turkey into shooting down the Russian jet over Syrian airspace, predicting quite accurately that this would immediately lead to the deterioration of ties between the two states. An elementary forecast of the specific counter-measures that Russia may take stipulates that these will likely relate to the diplomatic, economic, and energy sectors, which is just what the US wants. Because of Turkey's aggression against Russia, the strategic partnership between the two is now broken (although not necessarily irreversibly), and Ankara has become the fourth and perhaps most geopolitically significant member of the anti-Russian Intermarum coalition. Furthermore, Turkish Stream looks to be indefinitely put on hold, thus delaying Russia's game-changing pivot to the Balkans. While the 'unintended' consequence of the crisis has been Russia's foreseeable and absolutely legitimate decision to deploy the S-400 SAM system to Syria, this in a way also plays to the manipulated Turkish-Russian rivalry that the US wanted to produce in order to solidify the completion of the Intermarum project and simultaneously counter Russia's growing influence in the Mideast.

The reaction that no one could have predicted, however, is the US purposely leaking comments to Reuters that support the Russian version of events, namely, that the anti-terrorist jet was shot down while flying over Syrian airspace. This completely conflicts with what the US and NATO have said in public, but it shows that the US has had enough time to game out the plane-shooting scenario well in advance, and that it's playing a sinister divide-and-conquer game against Turkey and Russia. Put in the position where its decision makers are scrambling for responses to the unprecedented aggression against them, Russia can now more easily be led into supporting the Kurdish struggle for sovereignty (whether formally independent or de-facto so) in Turkey, which coincides with one of the US' premier geopolitical projects.

From an American perspective, a divided Turkey is doubly useful for its grand strategic designs, as the large pro-NATO Turkish military would remain mostly intact, while the US could gain a major base for force projection (both hard and soft) right in between some of the most important states in the region. It can't, however, go fully forward with this project unless it has the support of the diplomatic leader of the multipolar world, Russia, otherwise Kurdistan will be just as illegitimate as Kosovo is and might not even come to geopolitical fruition if Moscow and Tehran work to stop it.

Seen from the Russian standpoint, the US' intimations actually seen quite attractive. An increase of Russian support to anti-ISIL Kurdish fighters would be a plausibly deniable but strategically obvious way to funnel weapons and equipment to anti-Turkish PKK insurgents. Weakening Turkey from within would be a strong asymmetrical response to a country that has lately been a major thorn in Moscow's side, and it might create the conditions either for a military coup against Erdogan, a divide between him and Davutoglu (which could be used to Russia's diplomatic advantage so long as the constitution remains unchanged and Davutoglu legally remains more powerful than Erdogan), or a weakening of Erdogan and a tempering of his anti-Russian and anti-Syrian positions.

Importantly, the emergence of an independent or semi-independent Kurdish entity in Turkey could create a tempting piece of geopolitical real estate in the New Cold War, but of course, it would then be contested between the multipolar and unipolar worlds. Still, however, it would represent a positive multipolar development in the Mideast, since under the present state of affairs, the entirety of Turkish territory is under unipolar control. If a large chunk of it suddenly became the object of competition between both blocs, then it would definitely signify a strategic advancement at the expense of unipolarity. Of equal importance, this would also significantly impact on the Turkish state and whatever government is in power by that time, and it could possibly make it more amenable to returning to the previously pragmatic relationship with Russia and perhaps even resurrecting Turkish Stream.

Therefore, Russia surprisingly has nothing to lose and everything to gain by covertly supporting the Kurdish cause in Turkey, no matter if it's full-out independence or relatively more restrained autonomy, and even if this is objective is shared by the US and done in semi-coordination with it. Turkey would immediately be put on the defensive (although it could try desperately responding by supporting Tatar terrorists in Crimea), the multipolar world have a chance at competing for the loyalty of an ultra-strategically positioned entity, and the consequences that this has for the Turkish government (whether it remains the same or is changed via a [military] coup) could recreate the political conditions for Turkish Stream's feasibility.

Main_Sequence

The shooting down of the Russia's SU-24 that had allegedly crossed into Turkish airspace was highly likely architected by the USSA and executed directly by CIA assets to drive a wedge between Russia and Turkey to further isolate Russia, and try to prevent any construction of natural gas pipelines from Russia via Turkey, that will eventually feed into Europe.

Due to Turkey's geo-strategic location between the Middle East, Europe, and Central Asia for gas pipelines, Turkey becomes the lynchpin for controlling the entire energy distribution network across the aforementioned regions.

DeadFred's picture

Whoa! Who says this un-named military official was doing what the Kenyan guy wanted? There are a lot of them left who detest him and some even remember that their oaths were to the constitution. Not much left of it but that's what they swore to protect.

pretty bird

America is doing the right thing. Obama wants to take charge of a chaotic situation. He's playing both sides against each other. Then the USA will take the lead role. God bless America. And God bless Israel.

Main_Sequence

I wish there was a timestamp for the post at the link below, since I called it earlier.

Moscow Warns CIA, Not Turkey, Downed Russian Fighter Plane Over Syria: http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1946.htm

The Navigator
America always fucks over their "friends". It's only when you're their enemy that you know where you stand. After 60 years on this spinning globe and having lived and seen from abroad, it's all a lie, American Pie, American Dream.

Welder

I'd love to see the Turks driven out of Asia Minor back to the steppes of Central Asia where they came from. And Istanbul's name changed back to Constantinople. It's a nice piece of real estate. Strategic too.

Coke and Hookers

This is an interesting analysis though. The only real action the US has apparently taken against ISIS is to support the Kurdish offensive. It seems clear that the US has some sort of plan for future Kurdistan and that ain't the same plan Turkey has. This discrepancy has gotten little attention so far. It makes sense that the US is grooming Kurdistan as a future client state in the area. The Kurds have been semi allied with Iran and Assad for a long time and neutralizing that would be a major bonus.

r0mulus

I don't buy the argument in this article.

The leaking of info to the media by the US general does not necessarily signify the desire of the US to undercut Turkey- it just as easily could suggest a power struggle between elite circles within the overall power structure, or it could simply be a whistleblower coming forward.

The author seems to have jumped to conclusions with their assertion regarding the intention of the leak.

fleur de lis

NATO is hellbent for a war with Russia.

Notice how none of the other NATO club members dare to rough up the Russians. But they needed a point man so they somehow convinced Turkey to shoot down a fighter jet. They must have promised something very sweet to the Turks. What could go wrong?

Did they mention that the FSA, ISIS, etc., would be on the ground waiting? And the cold blooded murder of a Russian pilot was part of the deal? And that their kinfolk the ethnic Turkmen would be so stupid as to boast about it on video for all the world to see?

Now the Turks realize that they have been poisoned. And they have been abandoned by their NATO friends and left to face a very angry bear all alone. The Turks had better wake up and realize that they have never been respected by NATO and are considered expendable by Western warmongers.

Winston Churchill

As I said on the other article, I'm begining to think that shooting down the jet was aimed at getting the S400's deployed. The west doesn't want anymore Russian surprises like
the radar jamming tech Breedlove keeps whining about.

No way this pre planned ambush was not OKed by Uncle Scam. Deploying 400's instead of the nearly obsolete S300's may have been a mistake.

[Nov 27, 2015] Who's-who--Syria's-terror-list

Al-Ahram Weekly

When the foreign ministers of 17 countries met in Vienna on 30 October, they agreed, among other things, that "Daesh [Islamic State] and other terrorist groups, as designated by the UN Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated."

With this rallying cry in mind, Russia's chief diplomat, Sergei Lavrov, is now pressing for preparation of a list of all terrorist groups operating in Syria, so that the country may be rid of them through concerted international action.

When the same ministers convened again in Vienna, on Saturday, 14 November, the idea had gained some traction.

"It is time to deprive the terrorists of any single kilometre in which to hide," US Secretary of State John Kerry said.

The Russians are now pressing for two lists to be prepared: one for terrorist groups that must be annihilated, and one for friendly groups that can take part in the fight against the former. Jordan has been asked to prepare the list of terrorist groups.

But Syrian opposition groups are wary of the Russian approach. They fear that what Moscow is trying to obtain is not a list of groups involved in human rights abuses, but a list of groups opposed to Bashar Al-Assad's regime.

Sifting through the 800 or so armed groups operating in Syria today the Russians identified only 40 groups that they consider to be "moderate".

However, opposition figures told Al-Ahram Weekly that there are many more groups that have never been accused of human rights violations, never hired foreign fighters and never committed atrocities. These groups have for the past four years fought against both Islamic State (IS) and the regime.

Many of these groups are small, often operating within the perimeters of their villages or towns. They operate mostly in self-defence, and many have sworn to abide by the international laws of war and human rights principles.

At the recent meeting in Vienna, it was clear that neither Russia nor Iran is willing to discuss the fate of President Hafez Al-Assad. Indeed, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif threatened to pull out of the Vienna talks if Al-Assad's fate was placed on the agenda.

So, without tackling this thorny issue, the foreign ministers came up with an 18-month plan, starting from early next year, to form an interim government and hold elections.

UN special envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura described the plan as "challenging but possible."

According to the plan, delegates from the government and the "whole spectrum of opposition forces" should meet no later than 1 January 2016 to discuss the formation of an interim government. This interim government, the ministers agreed, will draft a new constitution and hold new elections within the next 18 months.

This will be a "Syrian-led process", Lavrov said during the talks, which were infused with a sense of urgency in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.

Mohamed Sabra, chief of the Syrian Republic Party, took issue with the Russian proposals. "The Russian proposal is based on dividing combatant groups into those who agree to a political deal and those who oppose it," he told the Weekly.

"Once the UN Security Council endorses [the terror lists], this would allow the shelling and extermination of those armed groups that Moscow seeks to destroy," he added.

According to Sabra, Moscow is also trying to isolate Islamic groups that disagree with the principles of a democratic and secular state, and thus exclude them from the political process.

"This will lead to a realignment of forces, change the essence of the military conflict in Syria, and sow the seeds of civil war in the country," Sabra remarked.

Among the many armed groups working in Syria today are some that have Gulf backing, others that are supported by Turkey, and some that are homegrown. Kurdish groups have taken up arms, as have the Turkmen, Assyrians, Druze, Christians, Sunnis and Shias.

Then there is the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which is an alliance of all of the above. Some of these groups have no more than 100 members, while some have tens of thousands of men under arms.

Deciding which of these groups is terrorist in nature is not going to be an easy task. Sayeed Muqbil, a prominent Syrian opposition figure, said that well-defined criteria must be set to differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists.

"Before preparing the lists, we must bear in mind that the Syrian regime is responsible for 96 per cent of civilian casualties," Muqbil said, adding that the remaining four per cent were killed by other armed groups, including IS.

"So the forces of the regime and its affiliated militia should be subject also to the same norms. Also, the Lebanese, Iraqi and Iranian outfits fighting in Syria must be brought under the same scrutiny," said Muqbil.

In the flurry of diplomatic efforts to find a quick fix for the war in Syria it must not be forgotten that officials in the current regime have ordered massacres to be carried out, barrel bombs to be dropped from planes, and chemical weapons to be used against civilians.

Armed groups affiliated with the regime have killed and abducted its opponents and pillaged areas deemed hostile to the regime. These groups include the National Defence Militia (Milishyat Al-Difaa Al-Watani), Baath Battalions (Kataeb Al-Baath), People's Committees (Al-Ijan Al-Shaabiya), Tempest Eagles (Nosour Al-Zawbaah), Orchard Society (Jamiet Al-Oustan), Hatay Liberation Movement (Harakat Tahrir Iskandarun) and Syria's Hezbollah.

Iraqi groups affiliated with Iran have also committed atrocities. These include the Brigade of Abul Fadl Al-Abbas (Liwa Abul Fadl Al-Abbas), Fatimids Brigade (Liwa Fatimiyun), Zeinab Followers Brigade (Liwaz Zeinabiyun), Mahdi Army (Jeish Al-Mahdi) and Iraq's Hezbollah.

Palestinian factions fighting alongside the regime have also committed human rights abuses, including documented massacres. These groups include the Popular Front Militia (Milishia Al-Jabha Al-Shaabiya), Quds Brigade (Liwa Al-Quds), Thunderbolt Forces (Quwat Al-Saiqa) and Palestine Liberation Army (Jeish Al-Tahrir Al-Filastini).

The IRGC (the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and Lebanon's Hezbollah have also been implicated in war crimes.

Members of Syria's opposition that the Weekly spoke with say that the international community must examine all these groups. If terror is to be isolated, it must be done using clear criteria - criteria that is applied to all parties in the conflict.

[Nov 27, 2015] Downing of Russian Jet Over Turkey was Inevitable

Notable quotes:
"... Ankara may have simply decided it had to nip Russia's incremental aggressions in the bud, with the ruling AK Party feeling particularly confident on the heels of an election sweep last month. ..."
"... Ankara may also have been acting under domestic political pressure to defend the Syrian Turkmen rebels - who are considered ethnic Turks - active on the Syrian side of the border in Hatay province ..."
"... At the very least, many expect an escalation in Russian strikes on Turkey-backed rebels in Syria, including the Turkmens, in retaliation. ..."
"... increase Russian assistance to the Syrian Kurds, whom Turkey views as "a clear and present danger" due to their ties to the Kurdish PKK insurgency in southeast Turkey. ..."
Al Jazeera America

... Ankara may have simply decided it had to nip Russia's incremental aggressions in the bud, with the ruling AK Party feeling particularly confident on the heels of an election sweep last month.

Soner Cagaptay, a Turkey analyst at the Washington Institute think thank in Washington, D.C., noted that Ankara may also have been acting under domestic political pressure to defend the Syrian Turkmen rebels - who are considered ethnic Turks - active on the Syrian side of the border in Hatay province, where the plane was shot down. Russian targeting of Turkmen fighters, who are said to number in the thousands, has been a sore spot for many Turks.

But Turkey didn't appear to have NATO's backing in its decision to shoot down the plane, analysts said...

... Still, analysts said there was a sense of inevitability that this sort of incident could happen again. The Kremlin has sent out signals that Tuesday's events won't deter its mission in northern Syria, where Russian air power has been critical in rolling back rebel gains against Moscow's client, the Assad regime. At the very least, many expect an escalation in Russian strikes on Turkey-backed rebels in Syria, including the Turkmens, in retaliation. Fadi Hakura, a Turkey analyst at the Chatham House think tank in London, pointed out that an even more provocative step would be to increase Russian assistance to the Syrian Kurds, whom Turkey views as "a clear and present danger" due to their ties to the Kurdish PKK insurgency in southeast Turkey.

[Nov 27, 2015] Turkey has spent years allowing jihadist groups to flourish - so beware its real reasons for shooting down a Russian plane

independent.co.uk

Turkey is getting desperate. Under President Recep Tayip Erdogan and his party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), its policies toward the conflict in Syria over the past four years have been misguided and costly. When conflict broke out in 2011, Ankara mistakenly under-estimated the strength of the Assad regime and supported hardline Islamist groups seeking its downfall. In the process, Turkey also marginalised the Kurds and alienated regional powers like Iran.

Four years on, Assad looks set to hold onto power and his regime will be a central part of a transition plan, one that foreign powers were negotiating last weekend. Turkey's regional rival, Iran, is a key player which can no longer be ignored by the West. Not only does the pro-Assad alliance now have Russian support firmly on its side, but the international community is no longer focused on defeating the regime – instead, it is concerned with defeating jihadist groups like Isis.

The shift in focus is a significant drawback for Erdogan. Years of support for, and investment in, Islamic fundamentalist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria) and Ahrar al-Sham are about to go to waste. Ankara has played a significant role in allowing Isis and other jihadists to flourish in Syria and the region. Turkey has acquiesced to jihadist groups entering Syria via Turkey as well as their use of Turkey as a transit point for smuggling arms and funds into Syria.

...The Kurds in Syria, meanwhile, have established themselves as a reliable Western ally and have created, in the process, an autonomous Kurdish region that has reinvigorated Kurdish nationalism in Turkey and across the region - much to Turkey's dismay as it continues a brutal military campaign to repress the Kurds.

\...The West appeased and bolstered Erdogan in Turkey in the run-up to the country's elections, with the aim of securing a deal with Ankara on the refugee crisis. It may now regret that. Erdogan is not only likely to drive a hard bargain but he may also walk away.

[Nov 27, 2015] President Erdogan hits out at 'shameful' accusations Turks profit from Isis

Notable quotes:
"... Western diplomats believe that, at best, Turkey for too long turned a blind eye to jihadist fighters using Turkey as a conduit for fighters and weapons. ..."
independent.co.uk

He hit back at claims that Turkish officials profited financially from the sale of oil from Isis-held territory, telling his critics: "Shame on you."

In a claim likely to raise eyebrows not only in Moscow but also in Washington, Mr Erodogan insisted that Turkey's fight against jihadists was "undisputed". Western diplomats believe that, at best, Turkey for too long turned a blind eye to jihadist fighters using Turkey as a conduit for fighters and weapons.

[Nov 27, 2015] We need an asymmetrical responce

Notable quotes:
"... All journalists in one voice say that the resulting shooting - professional, and obviously not filmed with a single camera. ..."
"... That is, the provocation was really well prepared. But then the question arises, what we want to achieve this provocation? And whose is it? Erdogan? Or the United States? Or NATO? Or military Turkish intelligence? ..."
"... Now Erdogan clumsily backtrack his previous statements. He stated that the Turkish authorities did not know what brought down the Russian plane, thinking it was Syrian. This is an outright lie. Erdogan gave in to the pressure of his corrupt son who asked his father to avenge for the the trucks burned by Russia's air strikes. ..."
"... Ambush of Russian aircraft is not accidental and is rooted in the psychology of Erdogan. He just won the parliamentary elections: for this purpose he destroyed the peace with the Kurds and started a war with them - in fact, only in order to obtain a parliamentary majority. He is very militant. And due to successes he lost the sense of reality. Now he says that he does not want escalation of the conflict. ..."
izvestia.ru

I think, for anybody not a secret that the impact on Russian aircraft was a well-calculated provocation. Recently I visited "al-Jazeera international, al-Jazeera, the Them", Sky News and other international channels. I had the opportunity to consult with different and very professional operators. All journalists in one voice say that the resulting shooting - professional, and obviously not filmed with a single camera.

That is, the provocation was really well prepared. But then the question arises, what we want to achieve this provocation? And whose is it? Erdogan? Or the United States? Or NATO? Or military Turkish intelligence?

Before you respond to provocation, you need to comprehend the situation. However, it is clear that this was a treacherous blow and the lies of the officials. Turkish plane flew into Syrian territory for the attack by Russian aircraft. Even in NATO, Turkey has presented evidence that Russian aircraft flew for 17 seconds. During this time, 10 times no one would be able to warn our pilot.

Turkish officials, of course, completely lost face. They lie that the plane was shot down over Turkish territory. Even if the plane flew for 17 seconds when he got hit, he was away over Syria. Lie that warned of the Russian pilots. Lying, that didn't mean it. It is clear that this is a trap. They lie that they do not consider Russia as the enemy. Lying that Russian planes, when they even flew into Turkish territory, pose a threat to the security of Turkey. The same Erdogan has repeatedly said that short-flown aircraft is not an excuse to open fire.

Now Erdogan clumsily backtrack his previous statements. He stated that the Turkish authorities did not know what brought down the Russian plane, thinking it was Syrian. This is an outright lie. Erdogan gave in to the pressure of his corrupt son who asked his father to avenge for the the trucks burned by Russia's air strikes.

Ambush of Russian aircraft is not accidental and is rooted in the psychology of Erdogan. He just won the parliamentary elections: for this purpose he destroyed the peace with the Kurds and started a war with them - in fact, only in order to obtain a parliamentary majority. He is very militant. And due to successes he lost the sense of reality. Now he says that he does not want escalation of the conflict.

And Russia does not want escalation, but to forgive treacherous murder of our pilot Russia too. Erdogan needs to understand that. He has a chance to apologize and pay the damages. To do this, Turkey should recognize that shot down Russian aircraft over Syrian territory. Erdogan should apologize to the family of the Russian pilot and assign her a huge lifetime pension. He also needs to give the order to stop military support to Islamic state terrorists and to prosecute those who organized the attack on the Russian plane.

If you meet those conditions, Russia might be satisfied. If Erdogan going to insist that the Turkish military have the right to kill any Russian citizen, whenever and wherever you want, then Russia needs to radically change its position on all issues which are sensitive for Erdogan. And first of all on Kurds.

Russia's response should be asymmetric. We need to fins set of measures the most painful for Erdogan, while maximally avoiding the negative consequences for the Russian population and for Turkish. First of all, the response must be to change the attitude of Russia to the Kurdish resistance and struggle of the Kurds with Turkey. Even minor efforts of Russia in this direction can jeopardize the stability of Erdogan regime and, most likely, will lead to its collapse.

But what we don't need is anti-Turkish hysteria. Neither Russia nor Turkey as the government is not interested to be drawn into conflict with each other. Only our strategic opponents profitable to pit Russia and Turkey against each other ans see from the sidelines the destructive effects of this.

Responsibility for this crime lies with the President Erdogan and the elite around him. It is foolish to blame the Turkish people. We should stop insulting a whole nation.

But the answer should follow. The answer should be tough but limited. And it should hit both Erdogan and his close associates guilty of this vile provocation. In no case we need a prepetition of events near the Turkish Embassy with stones knocking out Windows. Embassies in Russia of all countries should be inviolable. Only in this case we can claim a similar relationship to our embassies abroad.

I would also like to warn against hasty measures in trade and the economy. Cooperation with Turkey is beneficial not only her, but also of Russia and Russian citizens. Any economic sanctions should be applied only in case if we are confident that they minimally affect our population. Again, good work with the Kurds, and the destruction of the joint Turkish-ISIS oil transportation channel might help to created problems for Erdogan regime.

[Nov 26, 2015] Russian Foreign Ministry recommended Russian not to fly to Turkey

svpressa.ru

tour operators and travel agents have been asked to refrain from selling tours that involve flights (including commercial flights) from the Russian Federation to Turkey

The Russian foreign Ministry confirms the recommendation for Russian citizens to refrain from visiting Turkey, and those who are on the territory of the Republic, advises to return to their Homeland. This is stated in an official statement the Russian foreign Ministry.

The report stressed that it involves "continuing in Turkey for terrorist threats".

Earlier, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov has decided to celebrate his visit to Turkey. Also he recommended that the Russians to refrain from traveling to this country. However, he stressed that this recommendation is not even involved with the crash of the Russian plane su-24.

[Nov 26, 2015] Russia targets Turkish economy in retaliation for downing of warplane

The Washington Post

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday called for tough sanctions against Turkey that could bite into more than $30 billion in trade ties between the two countries, as police here began seizing Turkish products and deporting Turkish businessmen.

Russian officials are seething after Turkish F-16s downed a Russian warplane over the Syrian border in a debacle that ultimately left two Russian servicemen dead. Turkey says that the Russian plane breached its airspace and was warned five times to turn back, charges that Russia denies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the act as "a stab in the back from the accomplices of terrorists," and on Thursday said in televised remarks that Turkey still had not apologized over the incident.

On Thursday, it became clear that the Russian government was now turning its ire on whatever extensions of the Turkish economy it could get its hands on.

At a cabinet meeting, Medvedev said that joint investment projects with Turkey would be frozen or canceled. Negotiations over a proposed preferential trade regime with Turkey would also be scrapped, he said. Medvedev called for recommendations from government agencies to be submitted within two days.

[Nov 26, 2015] Why did it take Turkey just 17 seconds to shoot down Russian jet?

Galeotti is just a tool...
Notable quotes:
"... In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called the attack a provocation and an ambush. ..."
"... This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go away. ..."
"... USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37 ..."
"... Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort ..."
"... I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello, you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested. ..."
"... Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far. As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning. ..."
"... "The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity, Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" ..."
"... Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that adventure. ..."
"... The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known? ..."
"... Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up. ..."
"... A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks. ..."
"... In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling. ..."
"... They were waiting for the Russian bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement. ..."
"... Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world, there are no good guys. ..."
"... Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game. ..."
"... The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by. ..."
"... The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds" as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the Kurds. That's all that matters to him. ..."
"... Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to follow. ..."
www.theguardian.com

...Airspace incursions, granted usually in less politically tense contexts, happen all the time, and generally you'd expect warning shots to be fired and then attempts to force the intruder to leave or to land.

That the Turks shot down the jet and did so within 17 seconds – with the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, saying he gave the order to fire himself – suggests very strongly they were waiting for a Russian plane to come into or close enough to Turkish airspace with the aim of delivering a rather pyrotechnic message.

Turkish military releases audio recordings said to be warnings to Russian jet

In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called the attack a provocation and an ambush.

... ... ...

Moscow may put greater emphasis on countering Turkey's efforts to establish regional influence (Azerbaijan is an obvious place of contention) and could support problematic non-state actors inside Turkey, from Kurds to criminals (at least, those criminals not already tied to the Turkish state).

This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go away. Nor is it just going to become another chapter in the histories of Russo-Ottoman rivalry. Expect to see this play out in snide, deniable, but nonetheless bitter actions for months to come.


samstheman 26 Nov 2015 10:40

How the West can excuse the reaction of Turkey to a 17 second incursion is beyond me

As for the Turkmen rebels killing the pilot as he descended in possible "self defence" according to US State Department spokesman, please spare us the sophistry if such a description is apt

Vladimir Makarenko -> Dweezle 26 Nov 2015 10:40

...to shoot fish in a barrel. Unarmed bomber going under 300 mph. Well, we see what kind of training is really there now when Russians setting up S 400. This will be fun to watch, especially for Kurds.

psygone USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37

Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort - its became a rather comical routine.

Nivedita 26 Nov 2015 10:37

It's obvious that Turkey shot the Russian plane to defend the ISIS barbarians. Why would any decent country would want dangerous criminals like Turkey or GCC tyrants for allies?

copyniated 26 Nov 2015 10:36

I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello, you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested.

SallyWa 26 Nov 2015 10:35

and could support problematic non-state actors inside Turkey, from Kurds. Are Kurds more problematic than Turks? It seems they are more helpful, at least, when it comes to ISIS.

If_Not_Why_Not -> DarthPutinbot 26 Nov 2015 10:34

Russia denies it was in Turkish airspace. The wreckage was found well in Syria.(as were the pilots.)
Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far. As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning.
Both sides map production proves nothing also.

USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:30

I think that Mr. Erdogan will be terribly disappointed with what awaits him in the coming months and years. And I find it positive that Russia is no longer necessary to keep moral standards towards Turkey as Turkey never did it.


SallyWa 26 Nov 2015 10:30

Wow, quite harsh article towards Turkey.

Also, Turkey won't apologize for downing Russian warplane, Erdogan says.

It is nice that Erdogan not even shows any condolences to those dead and their families.

Proves, that Turkey planned it in advance and it wasn't about airspace or accident.


FGMisNOTOK -> Hottentot 26 Nov 2015 10:29

You are totally correct. There is no way it could be done. They were waiting to fire on the Russian plane as soon as it even slightly overshot the border. Give me a break... 17 seconds. Turkey itself (as the article above says) claimed that this was no cause for attack when its own planes flew over Syria. Hypocrites and liars.


photosymbiosis 26 Nov 2015 10:29

According to many reports, Erdogan's son is a central figure in ISIS cash-for-oil smuggling into Turkey, (which is incidentally heavily reliant on Russian oil and gas imports, for which they must pay full market price, unlike the 50% discount ISIS offers). Maps of the oil smuggling routes to Turkey show that the oil tanker convoys must pass through "moderate rebel anti-Assad" forces, to which should be appended, 'pro-ISIS?'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president

"The reason we find this line of questioning fascinating is that just last week in the aftermath of the French terror attack but long before the Turkish downing of the Russian jet, we wrote about "The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking" in which we asked who is the one "breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?" - Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge

So was this Turkey's effort to stop Russian attacks on the oil tanker convoys (which supply ISIS with several million dollars a day - perhaps several hundred tanker trucks a day, that is)? Is this retaliation by Erdogan for lost revenue?


Jeremn 26 Nov 2015 10:27

Would NATO stand by Turkey even if Turkey acted against the law? Probably, but an interesting question (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international/261300-russians-may-have-a-strong-case-in-turkish-shootdown)

In short, it appears at this point that the Turkish case justifying the use of deadly force is, at best, weak. Nevertheless, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO stands "in solidarity with Turkey." However, it may have been more prudent to withhold judgment until all the facts are definitively known and a full legal analysis is complete. Why? Article 5 of the NATO treaty governing self-defense tracks almost exactly with the Article 51 of the U.N. charter, so if the facts show illegality under international law, that would undercut the wisdom of NATO standing "in solidarity" with any nation.

ChristianAnsgar -> Rahere2015 26 Nov 2015 10:27

You missed the shooting of the pilots while parachuting bit in your rant,isn't that a war crime?


cheetah43 26 Nov 2015 11:08

"The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity, Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" - Russian Foreign Office spokeswoman today during press briefing.

SallyWa -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:07

Russia is fighting a different, conflicting war to everyone else in Syria.

Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that adventure.

Russia repeatedly violated Turkish airspace,

Turkey should learn from better countries how to act in this. European ones. They showed proper examples, while Turkey screwed up.


dyatel42 26 Nov 2015 11:07

It's almost as if Turkey was waiting for an SU24 to stray over it's border for a few seconds. How could they have issued 10 warnings to turn south in 17 seconds and asked the president for his OK to shoot it down in that time? Fairy stories. Given that the aircraft fell into Syria it must have been heading there when it was hit and was obviously not on a surprise mission to bomb Ankara for example. Two men's lives terminated for no real reason at all.

It would seem possible that Turkey was acting on a request from the USA to carry out this murderous attack - what other logical reason could they have had to do it? Given the US hatred of Russia / The Soviet Union and their growing irritation at Russia's involvement in Syria, (at the request of the ruling government of that country) it would be a way of punishing Putin without putting their own aircraft at risk from retaliation and possibly a dangerous escalation in the ongoing American persecution of Russia.


ID4352889 -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:06

And obviously you were in the cockpit to verify the warning that has been belatedly claimed by a notorious terror state which has been in cahoots with Daesh all along?


Hoppolocos -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:03

As is usual in these cases it may be they are both telling a version of the truth, credible deniability? The Turks may well have broadcast warnings, but on which frequency? The Russians may have elected to not be listening to any frequency the Turks may use ergo it's the other's that were at fault. The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known?

In the current situation the possibility of an aircraft straying into the wrong airspace must be a consideration, thus as strong diplomatic protect would have seemed the more obvious reaction. Have there been such incursions in the recent past? Has Russia been pushing it's luck? If not then one has the feeling that Turkey is deliberately trying to push it's luck and push Russia away from the Turkmen bases. Would they have dared if they weren't confident of NATO support and if so, who has allowed them to think this would automatically be forthcoming given the circumstances?

Roger Hudson -> Ipek Ruacan 26 Nov 2015 11:00

Turkey violates Syrian airspace at will, it also violated Greek airspace over 2000 times last year.
The Russian plane flew over a small 'appendix' of true Turkey that is 2 miles wide, somebody worked out a jet can't fly slow enough to do it in 17 seconds. How long did the warning take?.' Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up.

kritter 26 Nov 2015 11:00

Galeotti talks about this like there are good guys and bad buys here, when clearly there aren't.

It is simply another play in a proxy war between two very countries, led by two very similar presidents. A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks.

fireangel 26 Nov 2015 10:58

The smashing of ISIS' oil industry will not only be a blow to the entire ISIS death squad project, but will directly affect Turkey, widely thought to be involved in the transportation of ISIS-produced oil, and even Erdogan's family itself, as it is the company run by his son Bilal that is believed to be running the illicit trade.
Well well well....Bilan Erdogan

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president

*Bilal Erdo?an owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil wells. Bilal Erdo?an's maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that are transporting ISIS' smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.*

In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling.

camerashy -> blogbath 26 Nov 2015 10:58

Listen, as an American I'm telling you, you're wrong and a victim of the billionaire owned propaganda machine they call the news media. You've got your facts all wrong, it's the US who's constantly sticking it to Russia/others because somehow we can't stand anyone opposing us and has independent opinions. From the cooked up US backed coup in Ukraine to provoking China in Asia, and shooting down Russian jets over Syria, look no further than the US/NATO alliance to find your answer.

Erdogan on his own couldn't kill time let alone shooting down Russian jets. Just imagine what would happen if one of our jets had been shot down, they'd have made movies on it already. Also I don't think you really know much about any of these other countries you so freely label! Don't be naive, things aren't always what they seem, you have access to the Internet, well, don't take my word for it, use it and find out from different sources ... here's one:

https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck/videos/882104321854519/

SallyWa -> USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:57

Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and readers described as the two nations will destroy each other

There is nothing jolly about it, actually. Even this article says situation is not looking hunky dory, it could fester underneath for quite some time.

secondiceberg 26 Nov 2015 10:54

1. "Smuggling weapons in the guise of humanitarian convoys (something we saw the Russians doing in Ukraine)". The constant repetition of unfounded charges against Russia seem to have become engrained in arsenal of MSM writers. If they have received and read the OSCE daily reports from Ukraine, they should note that those humanitarian convoys were opened and examined at a Russian checkpoint, at Customs, and by a Ukrainian checkpoint before crossing the border. If the Ukrainian officials found any weapons, where is the evidence?

2. "Turks are acting in support of their national interests in Syria with equal ruthlessness." An objective journalist would balance this with the claim by Russia and others that the Turks are illegally buying oil from ISIS, thereby funding them and that their "interests" are in continuing to buttress ISIS existence and actions. We still wait for journalistic investigation of the information given to G20 leaders that some of their own countries are similarly buying oil from ISIS thus keeping funding for that group flowing and giving them strong incentive not to "defeat" ISIS despite their ostensible reason for bombing Syria in the first place.

3. When are we going to find out exactly who the "moderate" Syrian rebels are? And where is the investigation regarding Putin's claim that a lot of the groups fighting with ISIS and against the Assad regime are, in fact, mercenaries? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww

Newmacfan 26 Nov 2015 10:54

But it took longer than that according to Mr Erdogan, so many warnings, so many different time parameters quoted by Turkey, even their own maps would suggest that there was not enough time to warn the aircraft, await a reply, fire the weapon and for it to hit the target within the time it was in Turkeys air space, according to Mr Erdogan......in short it is a pack of lies, like the ISIS oil, the porous borders, this is something which should be followed up. There is more to this and Turkeys connection with ISIS and the destabilisation of Syria that warrants a cursory glance.....something possibly very deep and very nasty could well be lurking here and it would be foolhardy not to look!

LiviaDrusilla -> If_Not_Why_Not 26 Nov 2015 10:51

My only doubt is, did NATO know of this before hand?

Good question. I think the answer is 'no'.

To me, it's fairly obvious that the Turks had itchy fingers waiting for a chance to shoot down a Russian jet on the pretext of 'invading their airspace'. They then hoped to trigger the NATO 'an attack on one is an attack on all' clause, something which would, at the very least, lead to the closure of the Bosphurus to Russian shipping, hence making it extremely difficult for them to re-supply their troops. Look at how the very first thing they did was run crying to NATO.

However, it appears their cunning plan backfired. Even the Americans seemed to want to play down the 'violation', saying that the Russian jet was only over Turkish airspace for a grand total of 17 minutes. So Erdogan didn't get the declaration of war he has hoping for, and Turkey is now almost certain to be subjected to various retaliatory measures by Russia.

Bad move, Erdogan. Bad move.

IndependentScott -> raffine 26 Nov 2015 10:50

Wrong. The Turks can shoot down one single plane. They were waiting for the Russian bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement.

The Islamic extremists on the ground, be it ISIS or Al Qaeda (in this case it was an Al Qaeda affiliate) cannot do anything against the planes. They do not have anti aircraft weapons which are effective.

nishville -> UralMan 26 Nov 2015 10:52

Now that we have established that Ankara is as murderous, cheating, morally corrupt and evil as Moscow, what are the reasons nowadays for Turkey to remain a member of the NATO

Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world, there are no good guys.

mkwasp -> will2010 26 Nov 2015 10:48

The radar tracks of both sides show the downed plane flying parallel to the frontier, not into Turkey. Regardless of where it actually was (i.e which track is correct, if either of them were), it manifestly wasn't threatening Turkey. Turkey can't really claim provocation here. Le Monde is also reporting that the Turkish pilots couldn't identify the plane they shot at - which is even more worrying, given very few (US, French, Russian) air forces are operating over Syria.

IndependentScott 26 Nov 2015 10:48

Russia is bombing Turkmen. Turkey is protecting them.

The problem is, these Turkmen are allies of Al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate which is strong right next to the Turkmen areas. They, alongside the Islamic Front in the area, are fighting Assad troops just a few km away from the largest Russian navel base outside of Russia. Of course, Russia is bombing them. And of course Turkey wants to protect them.

Whether or not that Su-24 actually passed through Turkish airspace for 17 secs or not is completely irrelevant. This was a statement by Turkey to its own people and the Turkmens in the area that they will "help their fellow Turks".

The real awful thing is that a Russian pilot died in the process.

USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:48

Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and readers described as the two nations will destroy each other. Something like that British journalists probably experienced in 1941, when Adolf Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, and Turkey, by the way, was with him in alliance.

callaspodeaspode -> anatianblogger 26 Nov 2015 10:42

It is a decent bit of kit, even though old, but it not equipped to fend off fighters in actual combat. It will presumably have some ECM and ability to dispense flares to act as decoy when attacked by heat-seeking missiles, but I've no idea how effective it is against Western NATO standard fighters like up to date block versions of F-16s, which Turkey uses.

And it certainly isn't capable of 2000mph. I don't know where you get that from.
That's nearly Mach 3. Very few military aircraft are able to go at such speeds.
The Fencers top out at around Mach 1.35 at altitude. Are you perhaps confusing it with a Mig-31 fighter?

What I want to know is why the Turkish F16s didn't fly alongside to make themselves visually present and demand to the Russian pilots that they leave the area and then escort them out.

Like the UK's Typhoons do when Russian bombers come too near.

spearsshallbebroken -> anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:19

Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game.

The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by.

I think the unrepresented swill that is Turkey is going to be done very slowly by Putin.

Leondeinos 26 Nov 2015 10:17

The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds" as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. Once again the Kurds are being used and soon will be pounded by all hands. Five years ago Turkey was declaring its desire to be at peace with all its neighbors and doing well at it. It stayed out of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the Kurds. That's all that matters to him.

Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to follow.

It's easy to make a handy ex post facto recording of pilots talking. Happens all the time after premeditated air attacks.

anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:11

Are you sure about the 17 seconds? Does anyone do the math here?

1.15 miles / 17 seconds x 60 x 60 = 243 miles/hour = 391 km/hour

The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.

So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5 seconds? Or perhaps even less?

[Nov 26, 2015] Russia says 'destroyed' Syria rebels in area where jet brought down News , Middle East

THE DAILY STAR

Russia Thursday said its forces had wiped out Syrian rebel groups operating in the area where one of its jets was brought down, unleashing a huge bombardment after rescuing a pilot.

"As soon as our pilot was safe, Russian bombers and artillery of the Syrian government forces carried out massive strikes in the indicated area for an extended period," military official Igor Konashenkov told Russian news agencies.

"The terrorists operating in that area and other mysterious groups were destroyed," he said.

Turkey on Tuesday shot down a Russian jet in northern Syria alleging that it had crossed over into its air space and sparking a war of words with Moscow.

One pilot that parachuted out was later rescued by Russian and Syrian special forces, while a second pilot from the jet and a soldier sent to rescue him were killed by rebels on the ground.

Konsahenkov said that over the past three days its jets carried out 134 combat sorties over the war-torn country and struck 449 targets in the Aleppo, Damascus, Idlib, Latakia, Hama and Homs and Deir al-Zor provinces.

[Nov 26, 2015] Turkey would have acted differently if it had known jet was Russian Erdogan News , Middle East

dailystar.com.lb

THE DAILY STAR

ISTANBUL: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Thursday that Turkey would have acted differently if it had known that a warplane its forces downed on the Syrian border this week was Russian.

"If we had known if it was a Russian plane maybe we would have warned it differently," Erdogan told France 24 television, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin had not answered his call after Tuesday's incident that has seriously damaged ties.

[Nov 26, 2015] Turkey and Russia on collision course in Syria

Al Arabiya News

...Ankara and Moscow, given their diametrically opposed political and operational roadmaps for the conflict in Syria, have been on a clashing trajectory since Russia entered the Syrian military fray last September. One of Russia's many objectives in Syria is to cut into Turkish influence in order to boost the Assad regime, and now that they are in each other's crosshairs, more clashes directly or via proxies seem inevitable.

...Moscow is attempting to shore up the authoritarian security structure of the Assad regime as it flirts with key minorities, while Turkey has pitted itself on the side of the anti-Assad rebels and is embracing the Islamist factions from the country's Sunni majority.

...Almost 1.5 million Syrians are members of the Turkmen community, including the head of the largest Syrian opposition coalition Khaled Khoja. The Turkmen community is historically, linguistically and culturally close to Turkey and their brigades are critical in the fighting against both Assad and ISIS. If Turkey has any hopes of securing a 100-km long safe zone "west of the Euphrates River and reaching into the province of Aleppo" as reported last summer by the Washington Post, the weight of governing and securing it from ISIS and Assad would fall on the Turkmen brigades, Ahrar Sham and Kurdish forces cooperating with Ankara.

...In their statements from the White House on Tuesday, both U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and his French counterpart Francois Hollande called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to focus his strikes on ISIS and refrain from targeting the rebel forces near Turkey's border. Hollande even hinted indirectly at possibility of a humanitarian safe zone, stating that "Turkey plays an important role, and it is together with Turkey that we must find solutions so that the refugees can stay close to their country of origin." Erdogan went a step further, saying Ankara "will soon put into practice humanitarian safe zone between Jarablus and Mediterranean coast" according to CNN Turk.

Easier set than done, however, as the task of securing any safe zone in Syria and managing the day to day services will be threatened by both Russia's and Assad's air force, as well as questions surrounding the opposition's ability to govern those areas.

... ... ...

_________________
Joyce Karam is the Washington Correspondent for Al-Hayat Newspaper, an International Arabic Daily based in London. She has covered American politics extensively since 2004 with focus on U.S. policy towards the Middle East. Prior to that, she worked as a Journalist in Lebanon, covering the Post-war situation. Joyce holds a B.A. in Journalism and an M.A. in International Peace and Conflict Resolution. Twitter: @Joyce_Karam

[Nov 26, 2015] France's Hollande Calls for Anti-isil Coalition

It' unclear who in the West exactly is supporting IISIS/ISIL and Al Nusra.
Notable quotes:
"... Both Obama and Hollande, however, insisted that a political transition in Syria must lead to Assad's departure. Russia, on the other hand, has been Assad's staunchest ally. ..."
Al Jazeera America

French President Francois Hollande told Russia's Vladimir Putin on Thursday that world powers must create a "grand coalition" to combat Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) fighters who control swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq.

...Germany, meanwhile, has decided to send reconnaissance aircraft, tanker planes and a warship to help in the fight against ISIL.

Following his meeting with the French president, Obama said Russian cooperation in the fight against IS would be "enormously helpful." Both Obama and Hollande, however, insisted that a political transition in Syria must lead to Assad's departure. Russia, on the other hand, has been Assad's staunchest ally.

Last week, Hollande called for the U.S. and Russia to set aside their policy divisions over Syria and "fight this terrorist army in a broad, single coalition." But his office acknowledges that "coordination" sounds like a far more realistic goal.

[Nov 26, 2015] Putin: Turkey 'knew downed fighter jet was Russian'

The most interesting part is " President Putin even suggested that Turkey had shot down the Russian bomber this week after receiving information about its location from the US." The USA elite like British elite in the past are master of." To pull the hot potato from the hot ashes using somebody else hands" Taking into account Obama warnings, t he USA government was clearly interested that such accident happened and may well play the role of facilitators via AWACS planes (according to Russian military two were in the air: one from Turkish and one for Saudis side) Erdogan is now lying trying to avoid consequences: consequences that are extremely beneficial to the USA not so much to Turkey and Erdogan personally. In other words Sultan of Turkey was used. And the events are very detrimental to Russians. But Russians are masters to even the game even when they have bad cards on hands. The incident is bad for Turkey and Erdogan in sense that it highlighted the fact that Turkey is the chief sponsor of radicals (the assertion provable by the available facts) and one of the major financial backer of ISIS and Al Nusra. It also highlighted the fact that Erdogan son is involved in smuggling oil from ISIS. "A stab in Russia's back by the accomplices of terrorists." is a very precise description of what happened. "There was no warning. Not via radio, or visually. There was no contact at all," the surviving co-pilot of the plane told journalists, safely back at Russia's airbase in Syria after his emergency mid-air ejection. He says the jet was shot down from behind. "If they had wanted to warn us, then they could have shown themselves - flown in parallel," Captain Murakhtin said. President Putin has already accused Ankara of siding with Islamic State (IS) by hitting the Russian jet; he also claimed some in Turkey are benefitting from the illicit sale of IS oil exports. The message to Turkey and its allies is clear: don't dare try it again.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking at a news conference after the talks, President Putin even suggested that Turkey had shot down the Russian bomber this week after receiving information about its location from the US. ..."
"... Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has rejected calls by Russia to apologise, saying Turkey does not need to say sorry for the violation of its airspace. ..."
"... But Mr Putin insisted it was impossible for Turkey not to have known it was shooting at a Russian plane. It's got insignia, and you can see that very clearly . He went on: In advance, in accordance with our agreement with the US, we gave information on where our planes would be working - at what altitude, and in what areas. Turkey is part of that coalition and they had to know it was the Russian airforce working in that area. ..."
www.bbc.com

Russia has rejected Turkey's claims that it did not know the plane it shot down on the Syria border was Russian.

President Vladimir Putin said Russian planes were easily identifiable and the jet's flight co-ordinates had been passed on to Turkey's ally, the US.

Turkey's president said earlier if it had known the plane was Russian "maybe we would have warned it differently".

Mr Putin was speaking after meeting his French counterpart and pledging closer co-operation against Islamic State.

Russia and France have agreed to co-operate more closely in fighting terrorism in Syria. The two countries will exchange intelligence on Islamic State - and co-ordinate air strikes.

But differences remain over the fate of the Syrian leader. President Hollande made it clear that Bashar al-Assad could play no role in his country's future. President Putin said that was up to the Syrian people to decide.

And there is no sign of the kind of "grand coalition" against terror that France had been calling for, one that would include America.

Speaking at a news conference after the talks, President Putin even suggested that Turkey had shot down the Russian bomber this week after receiving information about its location from the US.

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has rejected calls by Russia to apologise, saying Turkey does not need to say sorry for the violation of its airspace. However, he told France 24 television: "If we had known it was a Russian plane, maybe we would have warned it differently".

But Mr Putin insisted it was "impossible" for Turkey not to have known it was shooting at a Russian plane. "It's got insignia, and you can see that very clearly". He went on: "In advance, in accordance with our agreement with the US, we gave information on where our planes would be working - at what altitude, and in what areas. Turkey is part of that coalition and they had to know it was the Russian airforce working in that area.

"If it was an American aircraft, would they have struck?"

Earlier on Thursday, Russia's military suspended all communication channels with the Turkish military, including a "hot line" to help avoid air accidents.

Russia's prime minister also warned the government was planning wide-ranging economic sanctions against Turkey within the coming days.

He warned that food products, Turkish interests in Russia and a number of joint investment projects could be affected.

Russia has also advised its nationals against visiting Turkey, and urged those already there to return home "due to the terrorist threats that remain on Turkish territory".

Turkey and Russia have important economic links. Russia is Turkey's second largest trading partner, while Turkey is the biggest foreign destination for Russian tourists.

On the ground inside Syria the changes have been more immediate. A cruiser has been despatched to help bolster air defences around the Russian base. The sophisticated S400 anti aircraft system is also being deployed and Russian planes will now be protected on bombing raids by fighter jets. The message to Turkey and its allies is clear: don't dare try it again. As for the rescued co-pilot, he says he is impatient to return to the skies. "I want to stay here," he said, referring to the Russian airbase. "I want payback for my commander."


[Nov 26, 2015] Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President

Notable quotes:
"... And people STILL don't understand this whole ISIS thing is entirely scripted. As if the us govt doesn't know exactly who is doing what with this illicit oil trade. Of course, maybe they don't. Maybe they are too busy spying on innocent us citizens to be bothered with actually doing their fucking jobs.... ..."
"... I'm sure we will get a press conference from Obama soon, where he will tell us that he just learned this by reading the newspaper and is just as shocked as we are. What a fucking clownshow we live in. ..."
"... It is inconceivable that the CIA does not already know all of this and a whole lot more. There are geostationary satellites over Iraq spamming Tb/s of data back to Langley. You only need to see the resolution of Google Maps over Iraq to know how much installed aerial surveillance covers that part of the world. Iraq has higher resolution than Manhattan. ..."
"... I would not be surprised if the CIA was tracking and analysing the movements of every single vehicle in Mosul. The technology to do it exists, it's the same technology that will manage driverless car fleets. ..."
"... What makes you think he doesn't know? Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is. It is well known that Obama regularly fails to heed real experts advice or ignores it completely. It's claimed that in many briefings he doesn't even pay attention. His close circle of advisors, like the Kagan family, Victoria Nuland, Valerie Jarret, and such are war mongering conquer the planet types. ..."
"... For the US ISIS serves a purpose thus the pure propaganda that most US air strikes against ISIS are not approved because they might hurt civilians. Obama could care less about civilians or he never would have bombed Libya into a failed state and walked away, would not have supplied arms and money to Syrian foreign jihadists which comprise 90% of those fighting Assad, and he certainly would never run his drone campaign in at least 7 countries that has killed thousands of innocent people. ..."
"... Better to be looked upon in the history books as a tragic figure inexperienced and overwhelmed by the enormity of the office rather than the real Obama who loves spilling blood in world conquest. Recently the head of the UN called on all parties to stop this stuff in Syria and let the Syrians decide for themselves who leads them. Obama's reply was Assad must go which meant business as usual supplying weapons and cash for Syrian terrorists. ..."
"... As per videos and published reports Turkish trucking companies are making nice money hauling goods into Syria, especially to ISIS, with long lines at the border waiting to get across. The Russians are po'd about the Turks taking down their plane so they are targeting convoys entering Syria. Some nice videos of this. It's a wake up call for those trucking companies that it is now too dangerous and unprofitable to continue. They may be insured but close to all insurance companies will not pay off for damages in a war zone. ..."
"... When the Russians first entered the fray in Syria Obama's response was to drop over 100 pallets of weapons, and promises of anti tank and plane weapons, in the Syrian desert and hoped the proper rebels retrieved them. Look it up, it was all over the news. Does this sound like a peace loving leader to you? ..."
"... The US was *never* attacking ISIS (before the Bear showed up) - rather they were carrying out air-strikes on pro-Assad forces and claiming they were ISIS. Nobody outside of the MIC or on the ground there could tell the difference, so they got away with it ... until they didn't. ..."
"... This is directly related the the Su-24 shoot-down. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Turkey's overt and covert military intervention through its Turkmen Jihadis because one of the main CIA arms-smuggling rat-lines is through the Turkmen Mountain region. The U.S. has willingly and eagerly supplied TOW-2As to the Turkmen jihadis there in order to preserve those smuggling routes. There were probably plenty of Xe/Academi military advisors helping the Turkmen and they were getting killed by Russian air strikes. The CIA is frantic to do something to prevent Syria/Russia from closing those routes, and will back any hair-brained Turkish scheme in desperation. CIA arms smuggling routes IN are also Turkish jihadi smuggling routes IN and ISIS stolen oil routes OUT. They're all related and all threatened by Russia. Same as the Aleppo-Aziz-Killis route - it's multi-purpose for many kinds of smuggling. ..."
"... Erdogan's crime family is a complex issue in already complex environment of Turkish politics - you did a great job of breaking down Bilal's motivations and the oil angle. I feel sorry for all the unfortunate Turks saddled with these psychopathic losers in charge (and I speak from the authority of experience here in the U.S.). ..."
"... Shim said she was among the few journalists obtaining stories of militants infiltrating into Syria through the Turkish border, adding that she had received images from militants crossing the Turkish border into Syria in World Food Organization and other NGOs' trucks. ..."
"... Plus, makes all the sense as to why NATO immediately bought off on the Rooskie fighter shoot-down ..."
"... Wow. I must say. Thanks a lot for this informative article ZH. I always taught that Erdogans many evil plots and insane schemes was really bad , but all the things that are brought into light now are even worse than I imagined. It all makes sense now and it actually explains why Obama and the rest of the western world has done about nothing to stop ISIS and their many war crimes around the globe. ..."
"... What Erdogan and his gangs of thugs are doing is plain out illegal and they should have been prosecuted and treated as ordinary criminals in the war criminal court in haag , but as the article tells us, also former France politicians and Obama has things to explain. ..."
"... If the Turkish President is shooting down anti-ISIS planes in order to save his son's business, and the NATO nations are excusing that action, then we really are in a filthy swamp of criminality. It's going to be very hard to climb out of it. Any high moral ground is way out of NATO's reach - now, if not before. ..."
"... A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.) ..."
"... Alain Juppe is pursuing the other movements privatizations initiated between 1986 and 1988 and since 1993 with the metallurgical group Pechiney and Usinor Sacilor in 1995, the French Foreign Trade Bank (BFCE, sold over the counter at the National Credit to give birth to Natixis), the Compagnie Générale Maritime (CGM also sold over the counter to the charter shipping company to create the group CMA - CGM), the General Insurance of France (AGF with the purse-up 51% of the capital, the State retaining only 2%) and the French Rhine Shipping Company (RNFL, sold over the counter at the Technical Association of the coal import ATIC) in 1996 . ..."
Nov 26, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Erdogan's Dirth Dangerous ISIS Games

More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA Turkey, as a result of Erdogan's pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.

In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdogan's regime was backing ISIS with "hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…" Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdo?an's permission to use Turkey's Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdogan's backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.

According to French geopolitical analyst, Thierry Meyssan, Recep Erdogan "organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch…with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. "

Meyssan claims that the Syria strategy of Erdo?an was initially secretly developed in coordination with former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Erdogan's then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu, in 2011, after Juppe won a hesitant Erdogan to the idea of supporting the attack on traditional Turkish ally Syria in return for a promise of French support for Turkish membership in the EU. France later backed out, leaving Erdogan to continue the Syrian bloodbath largely on his own using ISIS.

greenskeeper carl

And people STILL don't understand this whole ISIS thing is entirely scripted. As if the us govt doesn't know exactly who is doing what with this illicit oil trade. Of course, maybe they don't. Maybe they are too busy spying on innocent us citizens to be bothered with actually doing their fucking jobs....

I'm sure we will get a press conference from Obama soon, where he will tell us that he just learned this by reading the newspaper and is just as shocked as we are. What a fucking clownshow we live in.

strannick

Ahh. It all makes sense now.

The Russian Su24 Bomber wasnt violating Turkish airspace much as it was violating Baby Bilal Erodagans dirty oil concession and destroying his supply tankers.

Daddy Erodagan risks WW3 so his precious can exploit a NATO oil embargo and sell oil for ISIS . Fork out on your own and get a real job and make poppa proud, Go be a Chambermaid in Munich, or show some real grit and open a kebab stand in Berlin, and so spare the planet a nuclear winter.

Ghordius

cosmos, is that the same French government that is currently in Moscow talking with Russia about how to bomb ISIS in Syria? You know, the ISIS that is producing propaganda videos accusing France and Russia to be an "Alliance Of Devils"? This while Germany is discussing about how to support this Franco-Russian cooperation?

giovanni_f

"while Germany is discussing"

"Germany" doesn't "discuss" anything, with Merkel a full-fledged CIA asset. Germany exists as economic exploitation area for Anglosaxon Fiat-money. Forget Germany. I know for I have lived in this country probably for longer time than anyone on ZH.

remain calm

So how hard is it Mr Obama to kill this dude, after all you said, "we are going to hunt down isil where every they are and destroy them and their infrastructure" Well if you kill the money guy the operation falls apart. But you don't want that, do you? You want little crisis's all over the world so you can divert attention from the economy and use the terrorism as a scapegoat. You and your policies are evil.Isil if it really wanted to be powerful needs to kill its true leader and that is you.


Occident Mortal

It is inconceivable that the CIA does not already know all of this and a whole lot more. There are geostationary satellites over Iraq spamming Tb/s of data back to Langley. You only need to see the resolution of Google Maps over Iraq to know how much installed aerial surveillance covers that part of the world. Iraq has higher resolution than Manhattan.

I would not be surprised if the CIA was tracking and analysing the movements of every single vehicle in Mosul. The technology to do it exists, it's the same technology that will manage driverless car fleets.

The problem here is that for whatever reason, the US intelligence agencies are clearly NOT sharing information with the US executive government.

Something has clearly broken in the chain of command inside .gov, and the rest of the world can see this clear as day. Obama is not being told anything.

Maybe to maintain plausible deniability, maybe for some other reason? But I don't think Obama knows squat about any of this. John Kerry must know, he is the guy who gets sent to meet ALL of the involved parties. Notice that they always send Kerry, never Obama. Kerry must hear it from the other side, he meets Lavrov, Assad, Bandar, Erdogan, et al.

This whole 5yr period is just weird.

I think that come 2017, the apple cart is gonna get flipped 50ft in the air as the USA strides back into geopolitics.

not dead yet

What makes you think he doesn't know? Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is. It is well known that Obama regularly fails to heed real experts advice or ignores it completely. It's claimed that in many briefings he doesn't even pay attention. His close circle of advisors, like the Kagan family, Victoria Nuland, Valerie Jarret, and such are war mongering conquer the planet types.

For the US ISIS serves a purpose thus the pure propaganda that most US air strikes against ISIS are not approved because they might hurt civilians. Obama could care less about civilians or he never would have bombed Libya into a failed state and walked away, would not have supplied arms and money to Syrian foreign jihadists which comprise 90% of those fighting Assad, and he certainly would never run his drone campaign in at least 7 countries that has killed thousands of innocent people.

Better to be looked upon in the history books as a tragic figure inexperienced and overwhelmed by the enormity of the office rather than the real Obama who loves spilling blood in world conquest. Recently the head of the UN called on all parties to stop this stuff in Syria and let the Syrians decide for themselves who leads them. Obama's reply was Assad must go which meant business as usual supplying weapons and cash for Syrian terrorists. If he really was serious about peace he would have dropped all funding and arms for Syrian terrorists and forced others doing the same to stop and would have all parties join Assad to irradicate ISIS and the rest. The US has never seriously bombed ISIS, just around the edges to contain not kill them. ISIS has been selling oil for years yet the US never seriously bombed their tankers until the Russians did. Obama lost face and was compelled to finally take out a few tankers and broadcast it to the world to "prove" he was serious about stopping ISIS. Many times Obama claimed the war against ISIS was going to take 20 to 30 years yet the Kurds, who are on the ground fighting, claim if all parties make the effort ISIS could be destroyed in a few weeks.

As per videos and published reports Turkish trucking companies are making nice money hauling goods into Syria, especially to ISIS, with long lines at the border waiting to get across. The Russians are po'd about the Turks taking down their plane so they are targeting convoys entering Syria. Some nice videos of this. It's a wake up call for those trucking companies that it is now too dangerous and unprofitable to continue. They may be insured but close to all insurance companies will not pay off for damages in a war zone.

When the Russians first entered the fray in Syria Obama's response was to drop over 100 pallets of weapons, and promises of anti tank and plane weapons, in the Syrian desert and hoped the "proper rebels" retrieved them. Look it up, it was all over the news. Does this sound like a peace loving leader to you?

new game

never underestimate the enemy, they know wtf is going on. isis is the new commie to fuel the fear needed to keep the juice flowing. moar war, moar fiat financed by banksters. reasons vary depending on the hatred stirred. we are bystanders funding this shit show with our taxes, all captivated by fiat/debt in a closed system with no exits, unless of course, you live in a wood burning, no electric home w/ hand pump well, outdoor shitter, and exist like it is 1850, garden, root cellar and all that.

Trogdor

Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is...

I seem to remember the Halfrican bragging, "I'm really good at killing people" which is something only an infantile psychopath would be proud of. Believing that he's just a simple dupe - or incompetent - is the result of not paying attention.

The US was *never* attacking ISIS (before the Bear showed up) - rather they were carrying out air-strikes on pro-Assad forces and claiming they were ISIS. Nobody outside of the MIC or on the ground there could tell the difference, so they got away with it ... until they didn't.

Oldwood

Plausible deniability

Obama doctrine: nothing that happens under his administration is his responsibility. Even his Obamacare, with all of its disasters, is blamed on him. Nothing. He always claims to be the outsider when in actuality he is in charge of everything.

Kayman

As if the U.S. isn't complicit in this. Look at a map- the oil can't go west thru Assad territory, it can't go south thru Shia Iraq, and it isn't going east thru Iran. So it has no other way to go but thru Turkey.

Turkey is a NATO member. The U.S. and Europe are supporting Turkey, therefore the U.S. and NATO are supporting ISIS. Period. Full stop.

Kick Turkey out of NATO and Blockade Turkey. And ISIS will wither and die.

Coke and Hookers

There will be three priorities now for Russia: 1) No-fly zone south of the Turkish-Syrian border enforced with S 400, 2) Hitting everything moving on every transit route from Turkey and 3) Bombing the shit out of the border area and the Turkmen scum/CIA agents hanging out there and then capturing it.

assistedliving

34 up arrows nowwithstanding, stick to the coke & hookers.

1. S400 deployment will be delayed

2. Nothing more will be hit from Turkey

3. less bombing now let alone "Bombing the shit out....?

Hard to imagine more wrong analysis; Easy to see ZH chickenhawk, Putin loving adoration

OldPhart

Ok, just an observation from the linked video. Your convoy just got bombed by a first world nation's advanced technologies.

You're fucking lucky to be alive. Yet you bunch up all the rest of the convoy, then stand around in the middle of it all watching, recording, the burning of some trucks. Doesn't it occur to these ignorant mother-fucks that what they just created is the biggist classical military strike of all time?

Russia is being merciful to fly by shit like this without strike. I thought Putin was a hard ass, maybe he does have a heart. Well, being a decent person in politics could make one look pretty fuckin' odd in these days of elected psychopaths.

Paveway IV

The ISIS-miniE oil sales are temporary. It was a bone the U.S. (and indirectly Israel) threw to Erdogan so the CIA could run arms through Turkey without questions. Same thing for the Barzani crime cartel in Iraqi Kurdistan. It's all just temporary because, long-term, U.S./U.K./Israeli interests will own and control every oil asset in Syria and Kurdistan. Genel is sliming their way into control of the oil fields stolen first from Iraq and soon from the Kurds. Tony "Deepwater Horizon" Hayward runs that shop for the Rothschilds. At the appropriate time, Mini-Erdogan and Barzani will cease to be useful to the Anglo-Zio cabal and liquidated, just like al Nusra and ISIS. Israel wants to replace Ceyhan with Haifa and control all the oil from their port, and they want to make sure nobody can turn the tap to them off. Rothschild and the U.K./U.S. Israeli-firsters just want their cut of the eventual loot and to preserve their dying petrodollar. They let Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the club for funding, and probably promised them their pipelines through Syria.

This is directly related the the Su-24 shoot-down. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Turkey's overt and covert military intervention through its Turkmen Jihadis because one of the main CIA arms-smuggling rat-lines is through the Turkmen Mountain region. The U.S. has willingly and eagerly supplied TOW-2As to the Turkmen jihadis there in order to preserve those smuggling routes. There were probably plenty of Xe/Academi military advisors helping the Turkmen and they were getting killed by Russian air strikes. The CIA is frantic to do something to prevent Syria/Russia from closing those routes, and will back any hair-brained Turkish scheme in desperation. CIA arms smuggling routes IN are also Turkish jihadi smuggling routes IN and ISIS stolen oil routes OUT. They're all related and all threatened by Russia. Same as the Aleppo-Aziz-Killis route - it's multi-purpose for many kinds of smuggling.

The backup act of desperation is already playing out. While Syria/Russia tries to take back the two main corridors mentioned above, Turkey and the U.S. are trying to create an entirely new corridor through Afrin canton before Russia gets there. The U.S. may abhor another Kurd slaughter like they were party to in Kobane and Sinjar, but the CIA needs new rat-lines, damn it - that means some Afrin Rojava are going to have to die. Minne-E needs new oil smuggling routes (and a few new tankers), and daddy needs a reliable route to funnel Uighur, Uzbek and Chechen head-choppers to keep the pressure on Assad. Erdogan himself probably has a boner at the thought of another 25,000 dead Kurds. Barazani won't complain too much. The Rojava Kurds don't want to join his criminal gang and swear obedience to him, so he has no use for them. He just needs to convince the world that he is the supreme leader of the Kurdish cause, not the Kurds. See why he likes Erdogan so much?

For the anglo-zio oil cartel, the Syrian war isn't so much about replacing Assad right away. They would be delighted if that happened, but now they just want to preserve what they have in Syria in the face of Russian involvement. If worse comes to worse, all the parties will just retract their jihadis back across Turkish borders and wait for another opportunity. There's plenty of land-grabbing and bribery work in Iraqi Kurdistan to keep them busy for now. The long game is to own all the oil and gas possible in Syria and Iraq when the smoke clears, and then 100% control where it flows to and who sells it for what price. They'll kill every last Syrian, Iraqi and Kurd if necessary to make sure they control the spice.

Paveway IV

That was a damn fine article, Tyler. +1000. I should have offered that thought first before scratching out my rant.

Erdogan's crime family is a complex issue in already complex environment of Turkish politics - you did a great job of breaking down Bilal's motivations and the oil angle. I feel sorry for all the unfortunate Turks saddled with these psychopathic losers in charge (and I speak from the authority of experience here in the U.S.).

Escrava Isaura

Turkey needs this conflict to distract its population. Second, Turkey is a main supported of jihadi organizations such as al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. Even the US trained rebels were killed by these jihadists with the help of Turkey.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/03/pentagon-syria-rebels-trained-by-us-to-get-defensive-air-cover.html

Noplebian

WW3 – Turkey/ISIS/Russia – The Countdown Has Begun......
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

Nostradumbass

The reason people have not talked about Turkey is because they tend to end up dead from accidents and suicides while passing through that country.

Yes, tragically, yes they do.

Press TV's correspondent in Turkey, Serena Shim, has been killed in a suspicious car accident near the Turkey-Syria border.

Shim was killed on Sunday as she was on a working mission in Turkey to cover the ongoing war in the strategic Syrian town of Kobani.

She was going back to her hotel from a report scene in the city of Suruç in Turkey's Urfa Province when their car collided with a heavy vehicle. The identity and whereabouts of the truck driver remain unknown.

Shim, an American citizen of Lebanese origin, covered reports for Press TV in Lebanon, Iraq, and Ukraine.

On Friday, she told Press TV that the Turkish intelligence agency had accused her of spying probably due to some of the stories she has covered about Turkey's stance on the ISIL terrorists in Kobani and its surroundings, adding that she feared being arrested.

Shim said she was among the few journalists obtaining stories of militants infiltrating into Syria through the Turkish border, adding that she had received images from militants crossing the Turkish border into Syria in World Food Organization and other NGOs' trucks.

Shim flatly rejected accusations against her, saying she was "surprised" at this accusation "because I have nothing to hide and I have never done anything aside my job."

Kobani and its surroundings have been under attack since mid-September, with the ISIL militants capturing dozens of nearby Kurdish villages.

Turkey has been accused of backing ISIL militants in Syria.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/19/382854/press-tv-reporter-in-tur...

MrBoompi

Well of course Turkey sides with ISIS. Many of the ISIS fighters come across the border into Syria from Turkey, where they have been trained. Turkey is on board with the US and the rest of NATO. I suppose we have no choice but wait and see what the US pulls to get rid of Assad now. It won't be pretty.

Main_Sequence

Erdogan has a raging hard-on for the multiple gas pipelines from Libya, Egypt, Israel, and Qatar that will provide tens of billions of dollars in revenues in transit fees. Of course Turkey will do whatever it takes to ensure that Assad falls as it is literally costing Turkey billions of dollars every month that Assad is in power. None of what I have read about Turkey supporting ISIS surprises me in the slightest knowing what Turkey is losing.

knukles

Plus, makes all the sense as to why NATO immediately bought off on the Rooskie fighter shoot-down even though via the NATO documents, it technically puts NATO in a HOT war with Russia aside from the Hot Proxy wars...

Oh my....

REQUIRED READING: Tells it like it really is

http://turoks.net/Cabana/PoohGoesApeshit.php

Rusty Shorts

This U.S. Army film describes Turkey's history, economy, urban areas, industry, and its role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUEEPN9gWc

Bay of Pigs

Yeah, okay. The US is totally solvent, is that what youre saying....lol.

PeakOil

^This. But I would go further - Russia is fighting for its very existence.

The psychotic megalomaniacal Anglo-Zionist hegemon wishes to rule the world. Totally. Who is standing in their way? Pretty obvious what this is all about wouldn't you say?

AlaricGaudiTheSecond

So Russia is funding terrorists around the globe for profits too? Give me a f*** break!!! Liar!!

captain-nemo

Wow. I must say. Thanks a lot for this informative article ZH. I always taught that Erdogans many evil plots and insane schemes was really bad , but all the things that are brought into light now are even worse than I imagined. It all makes sense now and it actually explains why Obama and the rest of the western world has done about nothing to stop ISIS and their many war crimes around the globe.

What Erdogan and his gangs of thugs are doing is plain out illegal and they should have been prosecuted and treated as ordinary criminals in the war criminal court in haag , but as the article tells us, also former France politicians and Obama has things to explain.

I am simply overwhelmed over how bad it all turns out to be in reality. It explains why the western world was so reluctant to welcome the Russians in their fighting against ISIS, they were afraid that all their little secrets and rotten plots probably would come out. Thanks to Russia, that's exactly what has happened now.

There are absolutely no news about these things in my country, the mainstream media are only publishing the western political correct version of everything, and thus most people are probably still unaware of the real truth.

ISIS is responsible for terror attacks and the lifes of thousands of civilians all around the world. They are off course to blame and should be routed out. However. It is actually Erdogan and his thugs that are their real generals. It is Erdogan who has blood on his hands. It is Erdogan that should be wanted by the courts in Haag.

I am looking forward to read more about Erdogans son and the evil activities these people are involved in. Thank you ZH an keep up the good work.

Fuku Ben

This guy is shaping up to be like another Uday Hussein, Saddam's son. Does he have any rape, torture or murder under his belt, like Uday, in addition to his alleged war crimes and terrorist activities? Do the Turks realize they're going to be ceding a portion of their country for the greater glorious mission of rebuilding The Levant if ISIS/ISIL/Israel (see below) succeed in Syria?

Here is an old quote from a Kurd on the alleged details of the ISIS operation. "Housed in Turkey, trained in Jordan, logistics by Pakistan, literature from Saudi Arabia, funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, on the ground day to day running by Israel, arms by the U.S., intelligence by the British, Germans and French and original arms for ISIS came from the Muslim Brotherhood helping them take it from Libya."

One big happy family isn't it. This seems very plausible and explains why they would all be so pissed off at what Russia has done. Again at the last press conference Hollande and Obama openly refused to cooperate with Russia. Obama again insisting that Russia work through his coalition and that Assad be removed.

I wonder how many U.S. citizens even realize they are
under a declared state of Nation Emergency due to that deadliest of threats to the U.S. known as Syria. What a fraudulent joke.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/06/notice-continuati...

Is anyone operating inside Syrian airspace yet actually doing so lawfully besides Russia? Or are lawful authority and international law now just more fraudulent misrepresentations and treated as a joke? Similar to how the global corporations fraudulently act as Countries and pretending that by being a Citizen you have freedoms that they protect.

I'm struggling to find any U.N. authorization for the lawful use of force inside Syria without the consent of the Syrian government. Not that the U.N. has that authority anyway. If anyone finds any please feel free to post it.

http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm


XXL66

The ISIS-Turkey list :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke...

smacker

That's a good document.

It places Turkey up to its neck at the scene of the ISIS crime.

Turkey are actively involved in supporting ISIS: recruitment, training, financing, supplying weapons and other goods to ISIS. Recep Erdogan himself is in control and his son Bilal is handling ISIS stolen oil.


Volkodav

US Sanctions Syria for buying oil from Islamic State...

https://in.news.yahoo.com/us-sanctions-syria-buying-oil-163505807.html

HowdyDoody

Syrian uses Syrian oil - sanctions.

Turkey deals in Syiran oil stolen by ISIS - no sanctions.

css1971

"Turkey's actions appear premeditated, planned, and undertaken with a specific objective."

Or put another way. We think you're evil, not stupid.

localizer

To sum it up: Erdogan has put his family income above his country's interests since the math is simple - family pockets gain a fraction of the billions that will not be collected by the Turkish companies now due to "sanctions" imposed by Russia, this has already begun - no Russian tourists (that is about $3 billion/year), suspended construction contracts in Russia for Turkish companies, extra "inspections" on ALL Turkish goods (textiles, food) entering Russia etc...

Lumberjack

You forgot Hillary

viator

And RT chimes in:

https://www.rt.com/business/323391-isis-oil-business-turkey-russia/

Maybe this is among the reasons that some people are mad: "Islamic State is selling oil at $15–25 per barrel"

https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopTurkeySuppportOfISIS

Hannibal

Mystery over who bombed Turkish convoy allegedly carrying weapons to militants in Syria

https://www.rt.com/news/323538-turkey-convoy-syria-attack/

BarnacleBill

If the Turkish President is shooting down anti-ISIS planes in order to save his son's business, and the NATO nations are excusing that action, then we really are in a filthy swamp of criminality. It's going to be very hard to climb out of it. Any high moral ground is way out of NATO's reach - now, if not before.

When I wrote about the famous ISIS Toyotas a year ago (link below), I reckoned the CIA might have bought them on ISIS's behalf - but now I wonder if perhaps Turkey's top oligarch didn't do it on his own. I also presumed the Toyotas had been manufactured in the US, but I've since learned that the Toyota company also manufactures left-hand-drive trucks in Thailand. This story has a lot of angles still to uncover - and not just which tax-haven was used to facilitate the transactions. More likely Hong Kong or Singapore than any one over in this part of the world, in this instance.

http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-sold-isis-all-those-toyotas.html

viator

"Russia is preparing wide-ranging economic sanctions against Turkey over the downing of one of its jets on the Turkey-Syria border."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34933608

"Mr Medvedev said: "The government has been ordered to work out a system of response measures to this act of aggression in the economic and humanitarian spheres."He said the focus would be on "introducing limits or bans" on Turkish economic interests in Russia and a "limitation of the supply" of products, including food.He said tourism, transport, trade, labour and customs as well as "humanitarian contacts" could all be affected. "The same rules may apply to a whole range of investment projects," he said."

Wahooo

Do not focus on Ergodan, focus on the US:

Seymour Hersh, April 2014:

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

Wrascaly Wabbit

The following article is an eye opener in terms of how ISIL finances itself!

http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/03/isis-financial-sources/

The bottom line is you can't sell anything, unless you have someone willing to buy it!

Whoa Dammit

Hey Tyler (or anyone else who wants to do the research,

It might not be a bad idea to look further into Alain Juppe who was mentioned in Engdahl's article. He was responsible for the privatization of a French foreign trade bank and two French shipping companies years back. But old ties run deep in politics and shady deals.

This is what I found from a cursory look at French Wiki:

Alain Juppe is pursuing the other movements privatizations initiated between 1986 and 1988 and since 1993 with the metallurgical group Pechiney and Usinor Sacilorin 1995, the French Foreign Trade Bank (BFCE, sold over the counter at theNational Credit to give birth to Natixis), the Compagnie Générale Maritime (CGM also sold over the counter to the charter shipping company to create the group CMA -CGM), the General Insurance of France (AGF with the purse-up 51% of the capital, the State retaining only 2%) and the French Rhine Shipping Company (RNFL, sold over the counter at the Technical Association of the coal import ATIC) in 1996.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Jupp%C3%A9

ISIS support in Turkey could have nothing at all to do with any of these companies today, but then again it might. Seeing the foreign trade bank and shipping connections here just alerted my spidey senses.

Joenobody12

http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/25/israeli-colonel-caught-with-is-pants-d...

It is about oil and the disintegration of the Arab countries. Destruction of nations and killing of their people mean absolutely nothing to these psycopaths. In fact , the chosen people have planned the destruction of the Arab countries just so there will be no centralized pwer to threaten Israel.

Gulag

Turkey is facilitating selling ISIS stolen oil from Iraq and Syria oilfields to G20 membership countries on the black market at a dumping price. Has been estimated that as much as $800mil of oil has been sold in Turkey by ISIS using Turkey / Syrian border in direct dealings between Turkish officials and ISIS members under the blind eye of UK and USA.

Turkey is a corrupt, jihadist sh*t hole that hosts, protects, finances and offer intelligence and logistics to ISIS under cover of NATO membership and alliance with USA.

Turkey is considered a USA ally while ISIS is considered a terrorist faction in war with America.

Turkey is s state sponsor of ISIS with a NATO membership. NATO is harboring a state that sponsors ISIS. That makes NATO and all nations within NATO membership accomplices of sponsoring terrorism.

... ... ...

me or you

Turkey is buying and selling ISIS oil while NATO is smuggling Taliban opium.

johmack2

What irks me the most is the lack of investigative journalism during this whole middle east fiasco. It was as if after the watergate scandal, washington vowed never again and thus began the death of journalism. In the day and age when you have have alternative media giving more indept analysis than CNN/BBC on geopolitical issues and sites like muddywaters using investigation as means of peeling away the corporate veil of corruption, one has to wonder the nature of the illusion we find ourselves in.

As i have assimilated more information, the words from morpheous in the matrix to neo in the training simulation continuously ring true.

"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. "

[Nov 26, 2015] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Who Is Protecting ISIS And Why

Notable quotes:
"... The US and its allies have allowed their desire for regime change in Syria to outweigh their stated desire to get rid of ISIS. What does that result in? Implicit or explicit protection for ISIS and related extremist groups inside Syria. Turkey was enjoying big business in Syrian underground oil shipments...until the Russians bombed ISIS's oil infrastructure. Then Turkey attacked a Russian plane. What does it mean? ..."
ronpaulinstitute.org

The US and its allies have allowed their desire for regime change in Syria to outweigh their stated desire to get rid of ISIS. What does that result in? Implicit or explicit protection for ISIS and related extremist groups inside Syria. Turkey was enjoying big business in Syrian underground oil shipments...until the Russians bombed ISIS's oil infrastructure. Then Turkey attacked a Russian plane. What does it mean? Tune in to the Liberty Report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvFQ_Kp-GwU

Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Nov 26, 2015] Syrian Rebels Make Intensive Use of US Missiles

Nov 26, 2015 | Antiwar.com

US provision of advanced missiles to Syrian rebel factions once again came into close focus this week, when a faction affiliated with the Free Syrian Army (FSA) attacked and destroyed a Russian helicopter trying to rescue pilots from a plane shot down by Turkey.

According to Syrian military officials, however, the US TOW missiles are not the rare sight they once were in the war, and many factions, including those allied with al-Qaeda, are making "intensive" use of the US missiles in northwestern Syria.

TOW missile shipments are seen going through Turkey, with Saudi Arabia subsidizing the program. The US escalated the shipments after Russia began its involvement in the Syrian Civil War, despite insistence that the arms are purely targeted at the Syrian military.

Russia has warned the US the provision of those arms is a "major mistake," and that those arms are going to inevitably wind up in the hands of terrorist organizations, and not just the "vetted" groups. This has been the case in past US arms shipments, and hardly a terror faction exists in Syria anymore that isn't awash in US arms.

[Nov 26, 2015] Turkey won't apologize for downing Russian jet Erdo an

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said on Nov. 26 that Turkey would not apologize for the Nov. 24 downing of a Russian jet near the Syrian border.

"I think that if there is a party that needs to apologize, it is not us," Erdoğan said in an interview with CNN International.

He also added that the Turkish pilots who shot down the Russian jet had "done their duty within the rules of engagement."

"Those who violated our airspace are the ones who need to apologize. Our pilots and our armed forces, they simply fulfilled their duties, which consisted of responding to ... violations of the rules of engagement. I think this is the essence of the issue," Erdoğan said.

[Nov 25, 2015] Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey accomplices of terrorists ?

Notable quotes:
"... You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident. ..."
"... Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../ ..."
"... Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. ..."
"... According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day. ..."
"... ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards. ..."
"... "Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly." ..."
"... Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is. ..."
"... His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well. ..."
"... Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists. ..."
"... Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine. ..."
"... Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? ..."
"... Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS. ..."
"... Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders. ..."
"... All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it. ..."
"... It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally. ..."
"... Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime. ..."
"... Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory. ..."
"... The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. ..."
"... The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil. ..."
"... Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine. ..."
"... I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all??? ..."
"... And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law. ..."
"... In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this. ..."
"... The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free ..."
"... 'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.' ..."
"... Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime. ..."
"... "Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July." ..."
"... By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey. ..."
"... Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth. ..."
"... Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting... ..."
"... Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high. ..."
"... So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!! ..."
"... Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf. A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications". ..."
"... Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think. ..."
"... "the US could potentially extract a lot out of it " ..."
"... And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all. ..."
"... Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ..."
"... From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand. ..."
"... Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad. ..."
"... Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests. ..."
"... Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad. ..."
"... Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned. ..."
"... Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land. One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing? ..."
"... That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations. ..."
"... "Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client." ..."
"... Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers... ..."
www.theguardian.com

The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior Isis figures and Turkish officials

Wirplit 24 Nov 2015 20:43

Turkey under Erdogan is turning out to be a real problem for the West. Supporting Isis and other jihadist groups and attacking the Kurds. Maybe now the Russians will support the PKK. Tragedy for the liberal Turks that Erdogan won


Phil Atkinson moreblingplease 24 Nov 2015 19:57

The evidence is out there if you want to look for it. Erdogan's son runs a shipping company that transports - guess what? Oil.

Alexander Marne 24 Nov 2015 19:53

It is an obvious attempt of Turkey trying to make the European+American+Christian Civilization wage war against Russia with the NATO war pact argument. NATO at these times is the perfect ingredient needed for a Christian Winter, having Christian Nations disobey the whims of a secular NATO alliance that has everything bus dissolved since the Iron Curtain fell. We all know the radical Muslims and their cousins are our enemy now, not the Soviet WARSAW pact which NATO was created to defend against. NATO members that go to war against Russia would risk internal revolution lead by the Majority Christian Population that has grown evermore dissatisfied of their Frankenstein Secular Ethic governments and sellout leadership.

hfakos Fiddle 24 Nov 2015 19:51

No Russian gas pipeline and, thus transit fees, to Hungary either. Germany shut down SouthStream, only to sign a deal with evil Putin to double the capacity of NorthStream. Who wouldn't love an EU like that? We are all equal, but Germany and Western Europe are more equal than others.

Phil Atkinson -> marph70 24 Nov 2015 19:50

Agreed. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a misnomer, given its current membership (28 countries). NATO was formed by 12 countries in 1949 and today, is a tool for encirclement of Russia.

yianni 24 Nov 2015 19:47

You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident.

somethingbrite -> KevinKeegansYfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:46

I think we can probably ask that chap in his semi in Coventry where ISIS plan to attack next...the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is it? The man seems to have a hotline to Raqqa and every other ISIS held territory.

That said....the Guardian doesn't appear to have quoted him for a week or so....

Have they been unable to reach him since Paris?

Is he on the run? Hiding out in Belgium maybe?

SystemD 24 Nov 2015 19:40

I listened to Ashdown on Today yesterday. His comments about links between Gulf states and the Tories were extremely interesting and unexpected. The same questions should be asked regarding Turkey. Why has the report about the funding of jihadism in the UK not been published?

Phil Atkinson -> GemmaBlueSkySeas 24 Nov 2015 19:38

Would Turkey have shot down the SU-24 if Turkey wasn't a NATO member? Think on it.

camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:31

Yeah right, that's the western propaganda machine for you. They were saying the same thing last year ... Only misguided minds believe such nonsense!

Neutronstar7 -> Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 19:31

Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../

I cannot believe it, but I feel ashamed of my own country and all the other western governments and our proxy's involved in this vile conspiracy. Blow us up, we deserve it.

WankSalad 24 Nov 2015 19:30

All of this should just make us more furious about the Paris attacks.

The attackers; ISIS, are quite literally being armed, supported and facilitated by our "friends and allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Meanwhile Turkey directs it's fire at the Kurds - a group of moderate Muslims and secularists who have only ever wanted independent statehood - whom we are supposed to be helping fight ISIS.

Saudi Arabia has also been quite clearly the source of most of the extremist Islamism that has repeatedly attacked our civil societies. They have funded and set up Islamist mosques all throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Are we really getting good value out of our relationships with these nations?

^Our leaders refuse to say any of this openly. It's infuriating. Sooner or later something has to give.

Omniscience -> James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:30

How can a dictator, who took over from his father (a dictator) be called a legitimate government ? Even by a Russian...

hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:28

Sounds like everyday Western duplicity. Car bombs and suicide bombers are fine as long as they only target Damascus. But when the people the West has nurtured attack Paris, the world ends.

camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:27

You're such a feeble minded person! At least Puting didn't sell $hitloads of arms to Saudi Arabia enabling them to support and nurture Isis. Look in the mirror once in a while, will ya ...

camerashy 24 Nov 2015 19:19

There's nothing to worry about here ... Putin is one cool customer, he'll have his revenge when time is right, and it'll be nothing like a Cameroneasque thoughtless, hurried, knee jerk reaction. Turkey on its own wouldn't dare do anything like they've done, they're just being manipulated by NATO warmongers who are desperate to justify their existence.

DrKropotkin 24 Nov 2015 19:17

Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. But he has strayed very far from the path of sanity and I think NATO will soon start looking for ways to get rid of him.

According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day.

ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards.

KevinKeegans -> Yfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:17

"Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly."

So people in the Guardian are in contact with "senior" members of Isis? Was it a meeting over tea and scones? Perhaps you could stop being their mouthpiece and ask them which public area they intend to blow up next. After that you could give the authorities their contact details so that they can solve this issue quickly. That would be most helpful. Of course you might lose a couple of years worth of potential headlines.

moria50 -> Rubear13 24 Nov 2015 19:14

ISIS started back in 2009.Jordan has a Centcom underground training centre, and 2,000 US special Forces came to train them.Gen Dempsey oversaw this training camp.

Jordanian special forces were instructors along with the US.

James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:10

Four years of providing money, transport, training, air and artillery cover against legitimate Syrian government forces to terrorists and Guardian asks this question? Turkey = #1 supporter of Islamic terrorism. Open your damn eyes.

hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:09

Given that ISIS was created with significant Western help, why would Putin do anything about it? He finally acted when the head-choppers got totally out of control and started to threaten Russia too. The downing of the Russian airliner, the several failed terror attacks in France, and the Paris massacre should have opened your eyes.

NATO has an abysmal foreign policy record. In a mere decade they managed to turn Europe into a place where one has to fear going to the Christmas market. Well done, "winners" of the Cold War.

pdutchman -> PMWIPN 24 Nov 2015 19:07

Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is.

His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well.

Once you see what is going on and what the results are, you have to consider the possibility Europe is threatened by fundamentalists, also inside Turkey and Turkish government.

Just read the political program of grand vizier Davutoğlu, or the speeches of Erdoğan on the glorious pas of the Ottoman empire when he visits former territory.

His vision is one of a regional Islamic state run by Turkey, that would be a superpower.

He detests western democracy and 'European' western humanitarian values and has not made a secret of this. He is a convinced islamist and his support for ISIS and Al Nusra has sadly enough been very successful.

elvis99 -> tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 19:06

I agree. Its all about the oil.
Not only that there is a huge fracking industry at risk. It costs approx. $80 a barrel to produce and it selling approx.$50 at present. They are running at a loss as most finance for these enterprises were secured when it was $120 a barrel. Yellen could not afford to raise interest rates as it would crush a fossil fuel industry within the USA. Get the war machine moving though and watch the price climb and save that profit margin

hfakos -> kohamase 24 Nov 2015 19:01

It's mostly the Western establishment, not the people. Hungary is not the West but we are in the EU and unfortunately NATO as well, and the vast majority of the population supports Russia on this imho. Russia made the mistake of trusting the West under Yeltsin. What you have to understand, and Putin has got it I think, is that Western Europe has a paranoid obsession to bring Russia to its knees. It's been like this for centuries, just think about how many times the civilized West has invaded your country. And old habits die hard. They prefer head-choppers and acid-throwers to having a mutually beneficial civilized relationship with Russia. But you are not alone, Eastern Europe, although formally in the EU, is also looked down upon by the West.

ID9793630 24 Nov 2015 19:01

It's possible Erdogan is rattled at the possibility that the Russians might be about to pull off a secretive realignment of external participants against ISIS - the possibility of unstated coordination between American, Russian and French armed actions in the air and on the ground, with various local allies - and this incident shooting down the jet, created for the cameras, is also intended to overturn that potential applecart.

underbussen -> DenisOgur 24 Nov 2015 19:00

Yeah, so what then, countries violate others airspace all the time - we don't see them downing each others aircraft do we? Maybe sometimes it happens, this is action by Turkey is outrageous, and very, very aggressive. Turkey will pay, one way or the other, lets see if that gas price goes up and now might they fare should they loose it?

Angelis Dania 24 Nov 2015 18:55

"The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers."

Assad's allies enabled and supported ISIS? Such an embarrassing thing to say.

"Assad, who had, until his brutal response to pro-democracy demonstrations in 2011, been a friend of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. "After that he became an enemy," said one western official. "Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."

Armed infiltrators in the protest groups fired first at police according to numerous eyewitnesses. How poor a journalist do you have to be to continue to write articles on the basis of widely debunked allegations? Lol, "Erdoğan tried to mentor President Bashar Al-Assad". What on Earth would motivate you to even quote that? Like an inferiority-complex ridden backwards terrorist supporter like Erdoğan can approach the sagacity and popularity of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad.

MelRoy coolGran 24 Nov 2015 18:55

He did use his spy power to find out the source of Isis funding and was told the funding was coming from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.


hfakos Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:53

Because we, our governments that is, are not serious about tackling Islamist extremism. Scoring points against Russia is still the main motivation of the West. This strategy had a low cost for the West in 1980s far-away Afghanistan. But Syria is in our neighborhood and the world has become much more open. The yanks can still play this nasty game without repercussions, because they are an island protected by two oceans. But it's a mystery to me why Europeans are stupid enough to favor the nearby chaos of the head-choppers to secular regimes. ME oil and gas could be replaced to a large extent by Russia, but this again would go against the paranoid Western desire to see that crumble. So you see France, the UK, and the US bombing ISIS with one hand and giving it money through Saudi and Qatar with the other. It's insanity.

NotWithoutMyMonkey 24 Nov 2015 18:45

This is all you need to know:

Vice President Joe Biden stated that US key allies in the Middle East were behind nurturing ISIS

MelRoy 24 Nov 2015 18:43

Yes, I'm afraid he's right.

The problem is, nobody else is able to say it, because the Obama and Cameron administrations are up to their necks in it. They knew that Turkey was responsible for the gas attacks on civilians in Syria. They know (who doesn't?) that the Turks are killing the people who are fighting terrorists inside Syria. They know that the money, the weapons and the foreign fighters are being funnelled into Syria through Turkey, with the Turkish government's not just knowledge, but cooperation and even facilitation.

They can't say it, because over and over again they have bald-faced lied to the public. They can't say that the "good guys" in the fight against Isil are not just the Kurds, but the Iranians, Hezbollah, Assad and the Russians - our supposed "enemies", and the "bad guys" are the ones we are sending all the money and munitions to - our supposed "allies".

tr1ck5t3r northsylvania 24 Nov 2015 18:41

Oil.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Without oil, the Western economies would crash, we are so dependent on it, but the US military are the biggest dependents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174810/

the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.

Take away the oil and you will see the US military industrial complex die on its knees.

salfraser 24 Nov 2015 18:40

It would be as well to understand the ultimate motives of the current day Saladin. Look what was said in May this year.
27th. May 2015 : President Erdogan And The Prime Minister Of The Turkey Dovotogolu Just Made This Declaration To The Entire Islamic World:
'We Will Gather Together Kurds And Arabs, And All Of The Muslim World, And Invade Jerusalem, And Create A One World Islamic Empire' By Allah's will, Jerusalem belongs to the Kurds, the Turks, the Arabs, and to all Muslims. And as our forefathers fought side by side at Gallipoli, and just as our forefathers went together to liberate Jerusalem with Saladin, we will march together on the same path [to liberate Jerusalem]."

Erdogan and Dovutoglu at their speech in which they spoke of the revival of the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of Jerusalem The amazing speeches by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu were given at the inauguration ceremony at the country's 55th airport in Yuksekova district of southeastern border province of Hakkari, in which they made an entire declaration to the Islamic world, on their desire to conquer Jerusalem and form a universal Islamic empire.

Looks like our American friends are about to create yet another conflict of interest!


Rubear13 Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 18:39

ISIS was created in 2013-2014 and proclaimed itself chalifate after taking much territory in 2014. During this year russian had a lot of problems with crisis, civil war and ~2-3 millions of refugeers from Ukraine. And he did much. Both in terms of weapons and policy.
By the way, Assad was actually winning war during 2012-2013 before creation of ISIS in Iraq.


RudolphS 24 Nov 2015 18:37

So the jet flew allegedly for 17 seconds in Turkish airspace. As Channel 4 News' international editor Lindsey Hilsum accurately asked today 'How come a Turkish TV crew was in the right place, filming in the right direction as a Russian plane was shot down? Lucky? Or tipped off?'

R. Ben Madison -> leonzos 24 Nov 2015 18:35

I suspect that Erdoğan switched sides when the West began to look like it was going to impose 'regime change' on Syria and wanted to be on the winning side. It took a herculean, bipartisan effort here in the US to keep Obama from obtaining Congressional support for a war on Syria. At the time, I (and many others) condemned the normally warmongering Republicans for tying the president's hands purely out of hypocritical spite, but the Democrats were against it too and the whole effort collapsed.

Having taken an early lead in the "get rid of Assad" race, Erdoğan seems to have had the rug pulled out from under him. Sorry for the mixed metaphor.


johnmichaelmcdermott -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:33

How about evidence such as an article from the notorious 'troofer' site, The Jerusalem Post, quoting that other infamous conspiracy site, The Wall Street Journal?

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862


Robert Bowen -> hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:31

Gladio B.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-sibel-edmonds/


Celtiberico 24 Nov 2015 18:27

"Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."

Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists.


tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 18:25

Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine.

Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oHbrF8ADs

Theres a pattern here.

Likewise Russia have released their version of events regarding the shot down jets route, claiming it didnt enter Turkish airspace.

Whats interesting is this Russian data was released at 8pm UK time, and yet the British press are still running with the rhetoric from this morning, where at 4am UK time a Russia jet was shot down according to Reuters..

So it would seem the UK press are sitting on this latest inconvenient news, perhaps trying to come up with a way to spin it or waiting for the UK Govt to advise how to spin it if its even to be mentioned so the Govt looks innocent in the eyes of the electorate.

Whilst the availability of data from Turkey was very quickly made available, perhaps it was fabricated and released too quickly in order to maintain momentum with todays news agenda?

All the while GCHQ and NSA sock puppets & other Nato countries flood various media outlets comments sections to drown out critical analysis.

I wonder if I'll be approached by more US and UK military personal "unofficially" whilst out walking the dog in Thetford forest, and be spoken to?

Its interesting watching the news from other countries, certainly watching Russia Today and their spin is interesting.

I can only conclude there will be another massive financial crisis coming for one or more countries, so in order to divert the masses a war is needed, as wars always boost economies.


Hyperion6 -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:24

Sensible people would realise that only one of ISIS and Assad can be brought to the negotiating table. Sensible people would realise that Turkey is playing the same duplicitous game that Pakistan played, namely supporting the most despicable fundamentalists while being an 'ally' of the West.

Frodo baggins -> Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:24

Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS.

Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders.

Jan Burton 24 Nov 2015 18:23

Cut the bullshit.

Turkey is little more than an ISIS and al Qaeda support base, and now they're even providing an Air Force.

Get these scumbags out of NATO now

kohamase 24 Nov 2015 18:19

I don't understand you western guys. Am Russian and not a big fun of Putin but in this situation Russia fights terrorists , same people who organized massacre in Paris . Why , why shoot them down??? What is the meaning of this ? We can disagree on many questions but we should agree on One : ISIS must GO !!! If you don't want to do it then at list don't stand on our way cleaning up the mess you've created!!!


Tiberius2 24 Nov 2015 18:17

Crystal clear, the Turks are profiteering from stolen oil, the whole Turkish establishment is involved on this corrupted trade namely : border guards, police and the military, all of them being involved, plus business men with political connections .

ISIS get also weapons and training, Jihadist from the world over, gets red carpet treatment and supply with passports.

The Jihadist can travel unmolested, to and from Syria via Turkey in order to carry out atrocities like Paris and Tunisia.

The West looks the other way to this situation and try to ignore it ,until it gets hit in the hearth, like Paris.

fantas1sta -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:17

Oh, I do think Russia was wrong to send troops into Crimea, but I also think the west was wrong to back the coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government. NATO gambled that they could interfere in Ukraine and lost, now they know that Putin is difficult to intimidate and that Russia defends its sphere of influence like the US defends its own. All powers are hypocrites, such is the nature of their global interests, but Turkey are both hypocrites and cowards, shooting down a plane and then hiding their heads under Uncle Sam's sweater.

grish2 Tommy Thrillbigger 24 Nov 2015 18:16

Majority of people in Europe support the Russians. The governments are making excuses for the turks. And the turks are with the head choppers.

theoldmanfromusa -> ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:15

You have a strange opinion of the situation. The major problem is that the ruling classes (politicians, imams, etc.) use the most inflammatory rhetoric to stir up the population (most of it) that is not intellectual and/or clever. These intellectual/clever types can then make obscene profits from their rabble rousing.

Apollonian 24 Nov 2015 18:12

All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it.

It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally.

Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:11

If we are really serious about tackling Islamic extremists, then why is it that we are allied those states directly aiding them? Cameron is demanding the right to bomb Syria, while at the same time he's grovelling to the Saudis, crawling to the Gulf States and defending Erdogan. Hammond nearly bust a blood vessel when Skinner said what everyone knows. The whole thing is an utter sham, you have to wonder if ISIS and the other extremist groups aren't actually hugely convenient for some.

ElDanielfire -> Canuckistan 24 Nov 2015 18:05

Yes the Saudi's created ISIS. but the west helped build them up thinking they were something else because the west kept their fingers in their ears because they had a gard -on for yet anotehr regime change in the middle east, despite none of the previous ones (Afghan, Iraq, Libya) having worked and become hell for the citixens of those countries. Also the west always let Saudi and Qutar get awya with anything, even if they fund groups who attack western citizens. It's tragic.

hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:04

Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime.

Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory.

But Western Europe is complicit too. With all the spying reported by Snowden how is it impossible to prevent thousands of European citizens from traveling to Turkey and onward to Syria and getting radicalized? It is obvious that we have turned a blind eye to the jihadi tourism. Funny that only after the Paris attacks did Hollande and co. start to take this constant flow of Europeans into Syria seriously.

NATO says, two minutes after this incident, that Turkey is right and its airspace has been violated. But all powerful NATO countries cannot track the returning jihadists and the mastermind of the Paris attacks has just been reported to have mingled with Paris policemen after the Bataclan massacre. And one guy is still on the run. The first chickens have come home to roost and there will be more to follow. The West has been playing with fire and will get burned. This is a much more global world with open borders than what we had in the 1980s, when NATO was supporting the Bin Ladens and Gulbudding Hekmatyars in Afghanistan. These jihadists will cause more havoc in Europe for certain. And Russia is more right again than NATO, when it comes to jihadists in Syria.

ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:04

Turkey's territorial expansionist ambitions have backfired, just as the ambitions of their Islamism has. The emperor has no clothes and yet it's difficult to deal with this maniac Erdog effendy who is pushing Turkey towards chaos internally and internationally... A country which has intellectuals and clever people has fallen under the power of a group of thugs, the story of the region.

i_pray thinkorswim 24 Nov 2015 18:03

One actually feels sorry for Putin. He is bound by a Treaty he signed along time ago with Assad. He is doing what he is obliged to do under that Treaty and at
the same time he is helping to destroy ISIS.

Then he is attacked up by Turkey a member of NATO, who are supposedly also committed to destroying ISIS .

If I were Putin, I would just walk away and leave the West to sort the mess out . I am sure that Russia feels that it has already lost too many lives.


Wehadonebutitbroke -> Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 18:00

Erm, yes. The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS.

The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil.

Many of the 'moderate' rebels are Al Qaeda by another name or Al Qaeda affiliates. The Turkmen are Al Qaeda affiliates. The line between Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria is vague and has been crossed both ways on numerous occasions.

Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine.

anewdawn 24 Nov 2015 18:00

I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all???

And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law.


Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 17:56

Dudes, Turkey is losing some valuable oil supply due to Russia's 'indiscriminate' bombing of ISIS oil-field territory.

Turkey has some real-politik collateral in the form of 'refugees' to mainland Europe. So Turkey, politically, is in a strong position - EU is shoving money towards them.

Will NATO stand behind Turkey's real-politik?

twosocks 24 Nov 2015 17:54

Just watched the videos and listened to the turkish warnings. The SU24 appears to have been heading south as requested by the turks and in syria when it was hit. It also looks like the turks entered Syrian airspace before they fired on the Russians - just like the 1000+ times they have entered greek airspace in the last year, including one time with 8 planes at the same time.

In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this.

Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 17:54

The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free

rumelian -> kmw2402 24 Nov 2015 17:49

YES, and the lesson for the West should be: Please stop supporting Erdogan and his fellow islamists. Watching events for a decade and praising the relentless efforts of a single party and it's (now former) leader to suppress secular Turks and eroding the pillars of the secular Turkish Republic, in the name of stability in the region, you actually create much instability and threat, both for the region, and for Europe. Squeeze down these so called "moderate" islamists, and with real pro-European Turks taking lead again, you will not have unexpected and complicated acts from Turkey .

thorella -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 17:48

'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.'

Totally logical

jaybee2 24 Nov 2015 17:46

Well said Pres Putin and hats off to Denis Skinner in parliament!

Turkey is a disgrace and should be booted out of NATO.

It bombs the Kurds fighting lsis barbarians, buys oil from lsis, protects anti Assad terrorists from the Syrian army, helps finance various 'moderate' terrorists as to its shame does this Tory government!

As the 'heir to Blair' Cameron is drooling at the thought of joining in on the bloodlust!

Thank you Mr Skinner, and Hammond, what a silly man!


MatthewH1 24 Nov 2015 17:46

Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?

Yes.

Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime.

quaidesbrumes 24 Nov 2015 17:43

Guardian reports:

"Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July."

By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey.

Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth.

lisbon_calling 24 Nov 2015 17:43

The answer to the question in the title is absolutely clear after reading the very informative text.

Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting...

MrMeinung DavidJayB 24 Nov 2015 17:38

Turkish fighters are violating Greek airspace habitually since decades. And not for mere seconds. The Greeks intercept them but do not shoot them down. The Greeks have brought all kinds of electronic documentation to both NATO and EU - no result.

It is ironic that Turkey of all nations is raising such arguments.

This action is inexcusable and the barbarity that followed (by all information) - the execution of the pilot/pilots - by Turkish friendly fighters, even more so.

LordJimbo -> CommieWealth 24 Nov 2015 17:38

Countries are operating on the basis of their national interests, Assad and Kurds represent threats to Turkey, Russia wants Assad to remain and sees IS and rebel groups (some of whom are reportedly backed by Turkey) as threats, so we see a classic clash of national interests in an already complicated region of the world, topped off by a brutal civil war that has cost the lives of over 200,000 and seen one of the worst humanitarian crises since WWII. The very definition of a perfect political and military storm. I suspect the Russian position will eventually win out in Syria especially now that Hollande wants IS targeted by a 'grand coalition'. For Turkey the major headache has to be the Kurds who will get arms, training and are winning huge amounts of territory.

powercat123 24 Nov 2015 17:36

Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high.

ManxApe 24 Nov 2015 17:36

Which Turkish businessmen did they strike deals with? Specifically which Turkish businessman's shipping company had their oil tankers bombed the other day by Russia? Is this businessman actually a very close relative of Erdoğan? A clue perhaps?Allegedly the shipping company is BMZ.


196thInfantry -> Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:35

The Russian plane was never in Turkish airspace. ATC systems have recorders that record voice communications, radar tracks and controller actions all synchronized. You can be sure that the Turks will not release the raw recorded data.

aLLaguz 24 Nov 2015 17:32

So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!!
This is the long awaited war for the Syria-Turkey border, a border that must be closed. Whether for stop jihadists joining ISIS or to stop oil sales.

No fly-zone in northern Syria ?! The only affected parties with this is Assad allies and it is the same reason.... the Syria-Turkey border. For Assad, It is a key region, Kurds must be stopped to reach the Mediterranean sea, the border must be closed to stop jihadists or rebels to join the fight, to stop the oil sales of ISIS, etc, etc, etc.
Russia will fight for the control of the border whether NATO like it or not. Once it is Russian, Kurds will be pushed back.

Cecile_Trib -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:32

Turkey must learn to stop invading Greece airspace. Or you think it's OK for them as a member of NATO to do that? Or will you say it's OK for Greece to down a couple of Turkish jets?

"In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times, Gurcan reports."

http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/07/17/turkish-fighter-jets-violate-greek-airspace-again/

vivazapata38 -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:31

Ha ha, your post is bordering on...no is, sheer arrogance and complete ignorance.The Russian planes are defined as entering "an area of our interest".Which is really vague and is really international airspace.Both the US and UK do the same but more often.Moreover Russia is being surrounded by NATO firepower,missile systems and US paid for coups!


NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 17:31

Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'? Yes

Turkey are directly linked to Al Qaeda as is Saudi Arabia yet they are our allies in the never ending war against terrorism, a war it seems we forgot about when the terrorists became repackaged as freedom fighters. Many of us have been warning that this would inevitably lead us to become victims of the Jihadists but Cameron would not listen, he has a mania to get rid of Assad and has been prepared to get into bed with some of the nastiest people in the world. A New take on the Nasty party.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11697764/Isil-reenters-key-Syria-border-town-of-Kobane-live.html

Turkey 'let Isil cross border to attack Kobane': as it happened

Today's early morning, a group of five cars, loaded with 30-35 of Isil elements, wearing the clothes and raising the flag of the FSA [Free Syrian Army rebels] has undertaken a suicide attack.

The nationalist Southern Front, which includes US-trained fighters, has confirmed that it is taking part in the fight for Daraa, alongside the powerful Islamist groups Ahrar al-Sham and the Al Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra.


BigNowitzki -> BeatonTheDonis 24 Nov 2015 17:29

Turkish government giving military support to ethnic Turks in a neighbouring country = good.

Russian government giving military support to ethnic Russians in a neighbouring country = bad.

Good point. I imagine the Putinbots will try and rationalise it away via cognitive dissonance, or some other bogus reason. As I said, Russia's position would be much stronger had they not invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. They were warned....

MaxBoson 24 Nov 2015 17:26

Thanks to the author for pointing out the role Turkey has played in the rise of ISIS, and its instrumentalization of the conflict in Syria for its own ends. Taking this, and Turkey's support for the Turkmen rebels-or terrorists, or freedom fighters, depending on which alliance one is supporting-into account, it is pretty obvious that the main reason why Turkey shot down the Russian planes was that they were bombing Turkmen targets in what Turkey has the cheek to call a no-fly zone, not because their wings were in its airspace for a few milliseconds.

deathbydemocracy 24 Nov 2015 17:23

Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?

Answer below.

Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf.

A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications".

That would be a 'Yes'.

Of course Turkey has a right to defend it's borders. In this case though, their borders were not under attack. The Russian plane strayed into Turkish air space for just a few seconds, and it was clearly not part of an attack force against Turkey. The correct move would have been to complain about the Russians, not shoot them down.

robitsme -> BillyBitter 24 Nov 2015 17:23

Most states would show some restraint under the tinderbox circumstances. Erdogan is either completely insane, or he is playing a game, he as an agenda to provoke Russia in some way

rumelian -> JaneThomas 24 Nov 2015 17:21

You are right. Erdogan with his "conservative" comerades is rapidly and relentlessly ruining the the pillars of the secular Turkey for more than a decade, and for much of this time he was actively aided by the Western powers, frequently praized and portrayed as a "moderate" islamist and a reliable partner. The more power he gained, the more he showed his real nature.

Dreaming of becoming a "leader" of the muslim world (in the Middle East), countless times he showed his sympathy towards the fellow "islamists" in the whole region. USA and Western European leaders, still assume that Erdogan is better option than anyone else in Turkey, providing stability and a "buffer zone" to Europe, they ignore the fact, that Turkey was indeed a reliable partner for decades, when ruled by secular governments ,backed by a secular army, but now that's not the case. Western governments now don't know how to deal with it. When you look at the photos of the current Turkish ministers, and their wives (almost all are headscarved) you realize that they had nothing in common with millions of Turkish people who embraced Western lifestyle and customs. Ataturk has created a secular nation, suppressed these islamists almost a century ago for good, knowing their true nature, but now Turkey needs a new Ataturk-style leader to eradicate this pestilence. Until then, Turkey will not be a stable and reliable partner in the Middlle East.

Darook523 24 Nov 2015 17:20

Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think.

vr13vr -> WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:19

"the US could potentially extract a lot out of it "

It could but at the end of the day, can't and won't. The US is not going to split NATO so it will have to offer its support for Turkey. Nor can Europeans do much as they have this "refugees" problem to which Turkey hold the key. And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all.


PaniscusTroglodytes -> MrConservative2015 24 Nov 2015 17:18

NATO has had no legitimate purpose for 25 years now. Will this finally give the nudge to wind it up? One can but hope.

Yarkob -> Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:17

The first reports said it was a Turkish F-16 with an AA missile. Some reports are still saying that. Damage limitation or diversion by Erdogan? The 10th Brigade Turkmen that Debka said carried out the attack are aligned with the US. That conveniently shifts the blame from Turkey back to the US by proxy. Back stabbing going on. Julius Ceasar shit going down I reckon

vgnych 24 Nov 2015 17:10

It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates. Syria and Asad has been just a dry run of the concept.

Putin must be seeing it very clear at this point.

Yarkob Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:07

Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

LordJimbo 24 Nov 2015 17:06

From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand.


Gideon Mayre 24 Nov 2015 17:05

Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad.


Michael Cameron 24 Nov 2015 17:05

Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests.

The idea they're an imminent threat and immediate concern of Cameron and co suddenly hoves into view as hogwash on stilts. Their grandstanding over bombing ISIS while at once supporting their biggest enabler (Can anyone doubt Turkey's laissez-faire stance?) makes sense as an admission of complete powerlessness to resolve an issue above his pay grade i.e. taking on Putin. The extent to which all of these actors are clueless is terrifying. Foreign policy operations as fitful and faltering as anything this side of the Christmas board game.

fantas1sta 24 Nov 2015 17:04

Turkey has been looking for reasons to invade Syria for a long time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/high-level-leaks-rattle-turkey-officials.html?_r=0

Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:03

A quote from Erdoğan about todays events.

"The reason why worse incidents have not taken place in the past regarding Syria is the cool-headedness of Turkey," Erdoğan said. "Nobody should doubt that we made our best efforts to avoid this latest incident. But everyone should respect the right of Turkey to defend its borders."

The arrogance of this man is beyond belief, as Al Jazeera reported that the plane, believed to be a Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24, crashed in Syrian territory in Latakia's Yamadi village and NOT in Turkish Airspace. What I love about this statement is the "cool-headedness of Turkey".

What about the headless act of supporting ISIS, and what about the fact that Turkey has some of the worst crackdown of journalist and freedom of speech of any country. Far worse then China.

I truly don't understand how Nato and Turkey's allies support its actions, especially the US. Could someone please explain.

WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:03

Turkey is kinda fucked now, the US could potentially extract a lot out of it in return for 'protection'... For instance stop murdering Kurds or cut off all ISIS links, hell maybe even both. There's no way Erdoğan can play Putin as the counterbalance card now.


arkob 24 Nov 2015 17:02

Methinks the wheels are falling off the Syrian project and there is a scramble for the door and people are getting stabbed in the back all over the shop.

Look at the leaks over the last few weeks implicating the US DoD, Turkey, France and soon the UK, now Obama is telling us his intel assessments were "tainted" *cough*

Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad.

More to come in the next few days, I reckon.

Branislav Stosic 24 Nov 2015 17:01

Cards can definitely be open to see :who wisely silent is on the terrorists side( read USA) and who is really against. There wont be some of the current uncertainties and media acting in this struggle. I hope that at least the European countries together wake up their unhealthy slumber after the terrorist actions in the neighborhood and together, not only in words ,start to put out the source of the fire and of terrorism in which some cunning players constantly topping oil on the fire.

madtoothbrush -> QueenElizabeth 24 Nov 2015 17:00

It's a well known fact that Turkey purchases oil from ISIS occupied territory. Not to mention they bomb Kurds that are fighting ISIS.

Vizier 24 Nov 2015 16:56

Perhaps Russia would like to provide air cover to the Kurds who are under murderous assault by Turkey in their own country. Carving about 20% off Turkey would be a good start.

Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 16:55

Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned.

NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 16:55

By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria.

This is the problem, Turkey is in a struggle with Iran and the Kurds. Assad is seen as the enemy because he is closer to Iran.

It should be remembered that the Turks see the Kurds as biggest the threat and ISIS as an ally and that the U.S. not Russia has been arming the Kurds. It looks as if the Turks also want to send a message to the US and Europe, a message via air to air missile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/10/world/europe/despite-crackdown-path-to-join-isis-often-winds-through-porous-turkish-border.html?_r=0

The issue has highlighted the widening gulf between Turkey and its Western allies, who have frequently questioned why Turkey, a NATO member with a large military and well-regarded intelligence service, is not doing more to address the jihadist threat.
In recent testimony in Washington before Congress, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, was asked if he was optimistic that Turkey would do more in the fight against the Islamic State.

"No, I'm not," Mr. Clapper said in an unusually blunt public criticism. "I think Turkey has other priorities and other interests."

Georwell -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:54

nop, just an pair of fighters patrolling the zone 24/7 , since the radars told them the russians daily pattern on bombing the terrorists, AND an green-card to kill a russian plane on first occasion, even if that mind to (again) enter on syrian air space, for the matter. Fact is, the russian pilots do not believe the turks will really open fire - now they know - in the hard way; Was that an planed ambush ? I bet was.

Was a war crime to execute on mid-air the pilots descending on parachute ? Yes it was. Was a war crime to assault the body of the dead pilot ? (are several pictures on the net showing the pilot body stripped and pieces of flesh missing) - yes, was another war crime. All on the line of liver-eaters and "moderate" terrorists.

Maybe when those animals will target another EU capital the peoples will realize who its the true enemy here. For (to many..) bigots here the tragedy on Paris was not enough to bring them the the real picture.

Aneel Amdani -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:50

Russia did coordinate with other coalition members of US so I suppose Turkey should have been aware of this. F-16 should have bene in air and giving 10 warnings is utter nonsense. Russia has said no warning was given and their plane was in Syria territory. Turkey has a rule of engagement that their territory and threat are well in 5 km of Syria itself. So they take it as a threat. Turkey has gone nuts. they have first increased terrorism and now officially become the Air Force of SIIS. or more, they should have shown a response to Russians for busting more than 1000 oil tnakers that supply cheap oil to Turkey.

rumelian -> jonsid 24 Nov 2015 16:49

Surely, Russia will respond to that incident. I supposed it was not at all expected by Russians, and they will figure out a strategy on what kind of response it will be. I think too, that consequences for Turkey could be serious . But maybe it is a destiny for a country where almost half of the population votes for the corrupt, backward islamists, and their megalomaniac leader.

copyniated 24 Nov 2015 16:48

Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land.
One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing?

HuggieBear -> Mindmodic 24 Nov 2015 16:47

"I get the impression that a greater proportion of people in the US are blinded by patriotism" - patriotism would actually require disengaging with the mediaeval oil monarchies of the Middle East and butting out of the world's hot spots. Something Pat Buchanan has advocated for aged.

Aneel Amdani 24 Nov 2015 16:44

the residents of France and Belgium should ask their governments why did they let it to happen in the first place. ISIS was created by West and funded extensively by the Saudis, Turley and Qatar. US is not a kid that after spending more than a 100 billion on intelligence and CIA networks globally, never knew ISIS was getting rich. And now so when everyone knows Turkey buys cheap Oil from ISIS, why aren't they being sectioned or why individuals donating funds to these terrorists being sanctioned.

US is very prompt in going and sanctioning nations that are not with them, but they never sanction dictators like the kings and presidents that support terrorism. the blood of those who died in Paris and those all along since the war in Iraq are all to be blamed on these war hawks in west. If even now Paris cannot ask questions on their governments involvement in destabilizing Libya now, then I guess they will again see Paris happen again. West should be stopped from using the name of terrorism and a Muslim Jihad for their own strategic gains.

jmNZ -> earthboy 24 Nov 2015 16:38

That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations.


fantas1sta Roger -> Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:36

Turkey has spent a lot of time and money to cultivate an image of itself as a modern, secular, democratic state - it is none of those. It's an ally of the US like Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, it's a marriage of convenience, nothing else. The US knows that both countries fund terrorists, but they need some kind of presence in that region. The Turks and Saudis need a customer for their oil and someone to run to when they need their autocratic regimes propped up.

Roger Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:29

Turkey buys ISIL oil.
Turkey helps foreign terrorists to get to ISIL.
Turkey attacks Kurds fighting ISIL.
Turkey facilitates the route of people including terrorists into Europe.
Turkey is run by a megalomaniac.
Turkey got into NATO as a US/CIA anti -Russian (USSR) puppet.
What the sort of corrupt people like Hammond think of their people, fools. Of course Turkey is on the 'wrong side'.

fantas1sta -> MaryMagdalane 24 Nov 2015 16:29

There's no reason for the US to directly antagonize one of the few countries in the world that has a military strong enough to enact its policy goals without the backing of another power - see Crimea. Why would Obama order a Russian plane to be shot down and then call for de-escalation?


jonsid Budovski -> Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:28

They do have history;-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/high-level-leaks-rattle-turkey-officials.html?_r=0


altergeist Pupkin 24 Nov 2015 16:23


Erm on balance, yes. Empirically, provably more repugnant. Russia hasn't killed well over a million civilians since 2001, nor laid waste to an entire region, causing untold misery and suffering, screwing allies and enemies alike and helping (both by accident and design) the rise of ISIS. I'm no fan of Putin, and let's be honest, there's no nice people at that level in politics, but the US is far and away ahead of Russia on the dick-ometer these last 20-30 years.


Budovski Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:23

Yes, of course he's right. What's wrong is that its taken journalists this long to even dare to look at the relationship between Turkey and Islamic State. Or specifically, Erdogan and Islamic State.

Turkey has been directly dealing with various terrorist groups in Syria, supplying weapons, fighters, intelligence and arms as well as buying massive amounts of oil from ISIS refineries (which Russia just pulverized).

They have left their borders open, allowing terrorists to go in and out of Syria as they please.

Their claims to be fighting ISIS are a joke. In their first week of 'fighting ISIS' they did 350 strikes on the Kurds and literally 1 on ISIS.

The terrorist attack by ISIS, aimed at Erdogans opponents, was timed so perfectly to help Sultan Erdogan get elected that I'd go as far as suspect direct Turkish intelligence involvement.

Bonnemort 24 Nov 2015 16:21

Turkey are complicit in terrorism, but then so are the Gulf States/Saudis/US and UK. They're just a bit closer and their hands a bit bloodier. Putin is correct,

Just think, only two years ago Cameron wanted us to join the Syrian civil war on ISIS' side.

And also think - Cameron and Boris Johnson want Turkey to be a full EU member as soon as possible.

Roger Hudson -> Samir Rai 24 Nov 2015 16:21

Turkey was let (pulled) into NATO during the cold war just so US missiles and spy bases could get up on the USSR border. Turkey was run by a military junta at that time.
Same old CIA/US nonsense.

Turkey should be kicked out of NATO and never be allowed near the EU.

photosymbiosis -> kahaal 24 Nov 2015 16:04

Ah, the oil smuggling route to Turkey runs right through a zone controlled by these 'moderates' - perhaps middlemen is a better word? - and so you can't really cut off the flow of oil out of ISIS areas without bombing those convoys even if they are under the temporary protection of "moderates" - so it looks like Turkish oil smugglers and their customers (Bilal Erdogan's shipping company? commodities brokers? other countries in the region?) are working hand in hand with ISIS and the moderates to deliver some $10 million a week to ISIS - and that's how terrorists in Brussels can establish safe houses, purchase weapons and explosives on the black market, and stage attacks - isn't it?

Alexander Hagen 24 Nov 2015 16:02

That is interesting that Erdogan and Assad were on good terms previously. That is hard to fathom. I cannot imagine two people with more differing world views. I did not meet a single Turk while travelling through Turkey that had a kind word about Erdogan, so elevating him to a higher level (mentor) might require some qualification. Though it is true the Turkish economy grew enormously under Erdogan, "The lights of free expression are going out one by one" - paraphrasing Churchill.

cop1nghagen 24 Nov 2015 16:01

"Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client."

Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers...

photosymbiosis 24 Nov 2015 16:01

Would anyone be surprised to find that the accomplices of ISIS in Turkey - i.e. the oil smugglers who operate with the full knowledge of the Turkish government - are also transferring cash on behalf of ISIS to their 'recruiters and activists' (aka: 'terrorists') in places like London, Paris, Brussels, etc.?

The lure of oil profits make relationships with terrorists very attractive, it seems - kind of like how Royal Dutch Shell and Standard Oil kept selling oil to the Nazi U-boat fleet right up to 1942, when the US Congress finally passed the Trading With The Enemy Act.

[Nov 25, 2015] Russian jet incident planned, Turkish opposition member says

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

The Nov. 24 downing of a Russian fighter jet that violated Turkey's border with Syria by the Turkish military was planned, according to a senior figure from the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP).

"It is seen that the downing of the Russian jet was decided and planned earlier, and it was just implemented yesterday," said İdris Baluken, the opposition party's deputy chair, on Nov. 25.

"What we saw yesterday is a scene from a planned policy," he said.

The AKP [Justice and Development Party] has shown in its insistent practices that it is a part of the war in Syria," he said.

"The real matter about the downing of the jet is that the AKP feels the need to intervene in operations against some gangs such as Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra" he said, claiming that the AKP was not actually concerned about Syria's Turkmens.

The government and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have said recent Russian operations in Syria were not targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) but Turkmens in the north of the country.

"The AKP did not raise its voice when Turkmens were being killed in Mosul and Telafar in 2014," Baluken said, referring to 2014 ISIL attacks targeting Iraq's heavily-populated Turkmen areas.

Baluken was speaking at a press conference in parliament before the announcing of the new government program and said the Turkish people had already seen the content of the program in the government's recent moves.

Baluken also stated eight civilians were killed in the town of Nusaybin, which entered its 13th day under curfew. The town is located in the southeastern province of Mardin

[Nov 25, 2015] Poking the 'Russian Bear' comes at a cost

Notable quotes:
"... The fate of the Russian pilots in the downed jet will also play a key role here. If it is true that one of the pilots was killed while parachuting down by Turkmen fighters, as Moscow claims, there will be a clamoring for merciless revenge by the Russian public against this group. ..."
"... we had reports of members of Turkey's secret service, the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), scurrying to the region desperately trying to find the pilots after the SU-24 was downed. It is questionable, therefore, whether this move by Turkey, legal as it may be, will have bolstered the position of the Turkmens. The immediate impression one gets is that it will make it worse. ..."
"... It is not clear whether Moscow will use the economic card against Turkey, which has a great dependence on Russian natural gas, and the Russian market, not to mention the millions of Russian tourists that stream into Turkey every year. ..."
"... The economic card cuts both ways of course. Russia needs to sell its gas to earn money. But Russian preparedness to sacrifice, once nationalist sentiments are aroused in that country, is a historic fact. ..."
"... it is clear why President Recep Tayyip Erdo an is saying that Turkey has no interests in escalating the crisis with Russia. He has undoubtedly been made aware that poking the "Russian Bear" comes at a cost. ..."
www.hurriyetdailynews.com

There is no doubt that the happiest person because of this unprecedented crisis between Turkey and Russia is Syria's Bashar al-Assad. He must have been delighted at the extremely angry remarks by President Putin aimed at Turkey, and his dire warning that the downing of their jet will have serious consequences for Turkish-Russian ties.

It is also clear that Russia will not be deterred by this affair in either its support for Assad or its operations north of Latakia where it is hitting groups supported by Turkey, including Turkmens. Russia will also take added precautions to bolster its air defense systems in the region, and will back its operations there with support from its military assets in the eastern Mediterranean.

As long as it does not violate Turkish airspace again, there is little, if anything, Turkey can do to ensure that Russia does not bomb the Turkmens with added intensity and ferocity. Turkey can send surface air missiles to the Turkmens, of course, but it is doubtful its NATO allies will allow this, given the risk of these weapons falling into the wrong hands.

The simple fact is that no one in the West is clear about whom these Turkmens really are, and whether they are radical Sunni jihadists or "moderate Islamists." Turkey has to help clarify this point if it wants sympathy in the West for the Turkmens.

The fate of the Russian pilots in the downed jet will also play a key role here. If it is true that one of the pilots was killed while parachuting down by Turkmen fighters, as Moscow claims, there will be a clamoring for merciless revenge by the Russian public against this group.

It was not for nothing that we had reports of members of Turkey's secret service, the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), scurrying to the region desperately trying to find the pilots after the SU-24 was downed. It is questionable, therefore, whether this move by Turkey, legal as it may be, will have bolstered the position of the Turkmens. The immediate impression one gets is that it will make it worse.

Then there is the economic dimension, which is being widely covered by the media and need not be repeated here. It is not clear whether Moscow will use the economic card against Turkey, which has a great dependence on Russian natural gas, and the Russian market, not to mention the millions of Russian tourists that stream into Turkey every year.

The economic card cuts both ways of course. Russia needs to sell its gas to earn money. But Russian preparedness to sacrifice, once nationalist sentiments are aroused in that country, is a historic fact.

Looking at all of this, it is clear why President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is saying that Turkey has no interests in escalating the crisis with Russia. He has undoubtedly been made aware that poking the "Russian Bear" comes at a cost.

[Nov 25, 2015] Airplane crisis raising questions about future of close economic, trade ties between Russia and Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... Russia may consider cancelling some important joint projects with Turkey after the downing of the Russian jet by Turkish F-16s near the Syrian border on Nov. 24, raising questions about the future of the countries' intimate economic and trade relations. ..."
"... Turkish companies could lose Russian market share due to the jet fighter incident, Medvedev said in a statement published on the government website. He suggested it may lead to the barring of Turkish companies from the Russian market. ..."
www.hurriyetdailynews.com

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said Nov. 25 that Russia may consider cancelling some important joint projects with Turkey after the downing of the Russian jet by Turkish F-16s near the Syrian border on Nov. 24, raising questions about the future of the countries' intimate economic and trade relations.

Turkish companies could lose Russian market share due to the jet fighter incident, Medvedev said in a statement published on the government website. He suggested it may lead to the barring of Turkish companies from the Russian market.

"The direct consequences are likely to be the renunciation of a number of important joint projects and Turkish companies losing their position on the Russian market," Medvedev said.

The joint projects that immediately come to mind are a number of existing and planned energy projects between Russia and Turkey.

Turkey commissioned Russia's state-owned Rosatom in 2013 to build four 1,200-megawatt reactors in a project worth $20 billion.

Russia and Turkey are also working on the Turkish Stream pipeline project, an alternative to Russia's South Stream pipeline, which was to transport gas to Europe without crossing Ukraine. The South Stream plan was dropped last year due to objections from the European Commission.

The talks over the pipeline have been postponed due to Turkey's election agenda and disagreements over a gas price discount, as officials from the both countries had earlier mentioned.

"It is quite difficult to start the talks again. If a reconciliatory step is not taken, Russia will most likely not continue this project. Even Russia could even scrap this project and start an alternative project, like, for example, a Nord Stream 2 Gas Pipeline project," said a sector representative, anonymously quoted by daily Hürriyet on Nov. 25.

... ... ...

Turkish-Russian economic and trade ties in figures

  • ENERGY: Turkey meets around 55 percent of its gas demand from Russia. Turkey is the second biggest consumer of Russian gas after Germany
  • CONSTRUCTION: Turkish companies undertook a total of 47 projects worth around $4 billion in Russia in 2014
  • RETAIL: Turkish retailers have over 700 stores in Russia
  • HOUSING: Russian citizens are the third largest foreign buyers of property in Turkey, with 1,750 units over this year
  • TOURISM: Russia is the second largest tourism provider for Turkey, with around 3.3 million Russian tourists visiting the country over this year
  • TRADE: Turkey's exports to Russia in 2014: $5.9 billion, with around 20 percent of Turkey's food exports and 15 percent of its textile exports going to Russia

Russia's exports to Turkey in 2014: $25 billion

[Nov 25, 2015] Russian nationalists attack Turkish Embassy in Moscow

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

An ultra-nationalist group of protestors targeted the Turkish Embassy in Moscow on Nov. 25 following demonstrations at Turkey's Nov. 24 downing of a Russian fighter jet near the Syrian border.

Around 500 protestors of the Russian political party LDPR carrying Russian, Syrian and party flags first shouted slogans against Turkey in front of the Turkish embassy in the afternoon before pelting the building with stones.

Windows on the first two floors of the four-story building were completely broken, according to diplomats at the embassy.

Diplomats said no one was injured in the attack, adding that the Russian police failed to stop the attack.

Protesters also pelted the embassy's external wall with tomatoes and eggs.

The ultra-nationalist protestors also chanted "We will come again tomorrow" after the attack.

[Nov 25, 2015] Russia and Turkey refuse to back down News , Middle East

Notable quotes:
"... President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made no apology, saying his nation had simply been defending its own security and the "rights of our brothers in Syria." He made clear Turkish policy would not change. ..."
"... Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described it as a planned act and said it would affect efforts towards a political solution in Syria. Moscow would "seriously reconsider" its relations with Ankara, he said. ..."
"... But the Russian response was carefully calibrated, indicating Moscow did not want to jeopardize its main objective in the region: to rally international support for its view on how the conflict in Syria should be resolved. ..."
"... "We have no intention of fighting a war with Turkey," Lavrov said. ..."
THE DAILY STAR
Russia sent an advanced missile system to Syria Wednesday to protect its jets operating there and pledged its air force would keep flying missions near Turkish airspace, sounding a defiant note after Turkey shot down a Russian fighter jet.

Underscoring the message, Russian forces launched a heavy bombardment against insurgent-held areas in Latakia Wednesday, near where the jet was downed, rebels and a monitoring group said.

The United States and Europe both urged calm and continued dialogue in telephone conversations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, a sign of international concern at the prospect of any escalation between the former Cold War enemies.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan made no apology, saying his nation had simply been defending its own security and the "rights of our brothers in Syria." He made clear Turkish policy would not change.

Russian officials expressed fury over Turkey's action and spoke of retaliatory measures that were likely to include curbing travel by Russian tourists to Turkish resorts and some restrictions on trade.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described it as a planned act and said it would affect efforts towards a political solution in Syria. Moscow would "seriously reconsider" its relations with Ankara, he said.

Jets believed to be Russian also hit a depot for trucks waiting to go through a major rebel-controlled border crossing with Turkey, Bab al-Salam, the head of the crossing said.

Syrian jets have struck the area before, but if confirmed to have been carried out by Russia, it would be one of Moscow's closest airstrikes to Turkish soil, targeting a humanitarian corridor into rebel-held Syria and a lifeline for ordinary Syrians crossing to Turkey.

But the Russian response was carefully calibrated, indicating Moscow did not want to jeopardize its main objective in the region: to rally international support for its view on how the conflict in Syria should be resolved.

"We have no intention of fighting a war with Turkey," Lavrov said.

Erdogan also said that Ankara had no intention of escalating tensions with Russia.

In Paris, President Francois Hollande expressed concern over the war of words raging between Ankara and Moscow.

"We must all work to make sure that the situation [between Russia and Turkey] de-escalates," Hollande told a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Merkel said in response she would act "swiftly" to see how Germany could take up "additional responsibilities" to assist in the fight against terror.

[Nov 25, 2015] Downing of Russian plane reveals potential for more conflict

Notable quotes:
"... Russia will choose from a menu of asymmetric responses in retaliation against Turkey, including informal economic sanctions and providing military aid to Turkey's enemies, including the Kurds. ..."
Nov 25, 2015 | The Washington Post

In Moscow at least, the event is being seen as something larger than an attack on an errant jet.

... ... ...

The Russian Defense Ministry announced in a statement Wednesday that Russian fighter jets will now escort the bombers, and Moscow will move into Syria powerful new ground-to-air missiles that can reach across the country and far into Turkey from the Russian air base in the province of Latakia on Syria's Mediterranean coast.

Additionally, analysts say, Russia will choose from a menu of asymmetric responses in retaliation against Turkey, including informal economic sanctions and providing military aid to Turkey's enemies, including the Kurds.

... ... ...

Russian attitudes toward Turkey, which were reasonably friendly a year ago, have turned cold with alarming speed. Most Russian tour operators stopped selling travel packages to Turkey on Wednesday. Protesters in Moscow pelted the Turkish Embassy with eggs and rocks, shattering windows. Russian lawmakers introduced a bill that would criminalize denying that the mass killings of Armenians in 1915 by the Ottoman Empire was a "genocide." The issue remains highly sensitive: Turkey acknowledges that atrocities occurred but has long denied that what took place constituted a genocide.

... ... ...

Russia will seek retribution against Turkey but wants to avoid antagonizing the West, Baunov said. "If this becomes a fight between Russia and the West, then that goes against the goals of the intervention in the first place: to escape international isolation connected to sanctions," he said.

[Nov 25, 2015] The motive How Russias enemies benefit from the downing of Su-24

Notable quotes:
"... The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly. ..."
"... In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia, as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member. ..."
"... So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must lay siege to Russia. ..."
"... So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. ..."
"... If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus. In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing. ..."
"... And without the support of Washington Turkeys capabilities will shrink to the scale of the state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player, but against the game technicians. ..."
Fort Russ

...Historically, Turkey owns "the keys of our house," as the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles were called in the XIX century by the first Russian geopoliticians. Only with great difficulty in the XVII-XIX centuries Russia has managed to squeeze Turkey from Northern Black Sea coast, Novorossia and Crimea.

By an amazing coincidence the provocation occurred on the birthday of Alexander Suvorov. However, all attempts of the Russian Empire to gain control over the straits and over the ancient Byzantine capital Constantinople met with united resistance of the European powers led by Britain, supporting Turkey. The latest attempt to control the straits by Russia was carried out by Stalin, a response to which was the withdrawal of Turkey under the NATO umbrella.

By controlling the straits Turkey controls most of the supply of our military group in Syria. Montreux Convention makes the peacetime regime of the straits free for all the Black Sea countries, but in time of war Turkey gets the legal right to block the straits to the enemies and open them to the allies.

Turkey allies are NATO countries, and the enemy, judging by the downed aircraft, may be Russia. That is, a provocation with the Su-24 puts supply of our troops in Syria under jeopardy. The only other routs left - much more uncomfortable through Iran and potentially problematic through Iraq, where the United States have a big influence.

... Neo-islamist and neo-ottoman Erdogan carries out a very aggressive policy, not appealing to either Washington or Berlin or Brussels, in fact, seeking to restore the Ottoman Empire.

... Erdogan was the most fanatical enemy of Assad, as he hoped that Islamized Sunni Syria would become a vassal of Turkey, and perhaps even return inside its borders. Turkey was one of the midwives at the birth of ISIS - it is extremely interested in the local oil, and in the ISIS fight with the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds.

The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly.

Russian operation in Syria mixed all the cards for Erdogan.

  • First, it ensures the political future of Assad, or at least a successor agreed with Assad. Restored Syria will become Alawite-Christian-Shia-Sunni and certainly anti-Turkish. Oil extraction has been pulled out from under his nose, and Erdogan began resembling a furious Sherkhan ...
  • Secondly, Russia, and now France, made it their ultimate goal the complete eradication of ISIS, which automatically means strengthening the Kurds and the reduction of the Turkish influence in the region.
  • Moreover, Russia is doing this in tandem with Iran, which is de facto a key ally of Russia in the Middle East, an alliance of the type, where both sides are mutually reinforcing, both working for the common cause, and both sides benefit from the union.
  • And Iran is Turkey's main rival in the struggle for regional dominance. And it also developed historically. Byzantium (the place of which is geographically occupied by Turkey) against the Iranian Sassanids, then Ottomans against Safavids and Qajar, and today Sunni Erdogan against the Shiite ayatollahs. That is, the strengthening of Iran by Russia would be tantamount to the collapse of the entire imperial policy of Turkey.

Naturally, the Turkish government is furious and wants to somehow kick Russia out of Syria. Turkey has repeatedly made threatening statements and gestures regarding alleged violations of Turkish borders by our aviation operating against Syrian terrorists.

No other country, including even the United States, made so many attacks against Russian foreign policy. Some experts do not rule out even the involvement of Turkish and Qatari security services in the tragedy with the Russian airplane in Sinai, though officially this hypothesis has never been voiced.

... ... ...

And here comes the next move - the downing of the Russian plane targeting the terrorists, under the pretext of its entry into the Turkish airspace. According to the Turkish version, the Russian Su-24 was shot down after warnings by the Turkish F-16s. According to our Ministry of Defense, the plane never left Syrian airspace.

There is no reason to believe that the Russian side is just being defensive and the Turkish is speaking the truth. The tactical goal of the Turks is with this plane crash to indicate an actual "no-fly zone" in northern Syria, which would save the militants from ultimate annihilation, which in Latakia, (where our plane was shot down) was quite close.

This idea of a no-fly zone was supported by the US hawks, who consider Russia an enemy number one. The last straw, apparently, was the demonstrative destruction by our air-space forces of oil convoys coming from ISIS territory to Turkey.

Most of all the incident with the plane crash is reminiscent of a classic provocation. The Turkish side showed a diagram in which the Russian bomber is flying over microscopic wedge of the Turkish territory deep into Syria. Turkish geographic wedge into Syria - is the so-called area of ​​Alexandretta, which Turkey annexed from France, which controlled Syria after World War I.

In 1938, parliament of this region declared the area an independent republic of Hatay - it was the last foreign policy operation of Kemal Ataturk before his death. In 1939, Turkey annexed Hatay.

This is how the Turkish wedge into the Syrian territory was formed, covered with a multitude of small protrusions. That a Russian plane could fly over one of them is, in principle, not impossible, as the border is very complex and elusive. But it only means that this time it was expected to be knocked down.

The triumphant demonstration of the body of our pilot on Turkish TV and generally surprisingly high preparedness by Turkish media to broadcast the incident in real time, speaks for it being a direct provocation against Russia.

... ... ...

Escalation of the conflict could also be in Turkey's interest, as this will allow it to cut the sea communications of our group in Syria, and perhaps even try to block it with ground forces, which Turkey has much more of in the region (although I would not overestimate the fighting capacity of the Turkish army) .

Turkey can carry out the aggressive actions under the NATO umbrella, because the alliance will likely have to intervene if the Turks employ article 5 of the "North Atlantic Treaty". The Western countries are seriously annoyed by Erdogan, but it is hardly enough to refuse to perform the obligations of the NATO treaty.

Russia's military options to influence Turkey are limited by the weakness of our Black Sea fleet, and most importantly - by the threat of escalating to a global conflict, and, moreover, by extremely disadvantageous configuration of the possible theater of the conflict, as our air-space forces are operating in the Turkish rear and their land communications and air bridge options depend on the politically unstable Iraq, just recently occupied by the US.

That is, before our forces in Syria looms the very threat of severing communications, which was seen from the outset as serious, in contrast to the mythical "militant attacks."

In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia, as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member.

So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must "lay siege" to Russia. This role for Turkey is historically organic. Here we can recall the war of 1787-1891, which was directly provoked by the Western powers in response to the strengthening of Russia and its occupation of Crimea.

No sooner had Mother Catherine rode to Crimea with foreign delegations, and Potemkin showed his villages, as Turkey declared war on Russia, which made Suvorov and Ushakov famous. Moreover, for Russia it was a war on two fronts - simultaneously Sweden declared war on Russia, and its attack was repelled by the Baltic fleet with almost no involvement of ground forces.

So Russia finally managed, and with the Treaty of Jassy Turkey recognized Crimea Russian, and the Russian border has been pushed beyond the Dniester. But do not forget that Russia was then supported by Austria, but today there are not many of those who wish to go against Turkey in the European Union.

So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. If Russia flushes the incident, it would mean a public apology from our side, then all the Western media publications have already prepared the headlines that the cocky Russia has been put in its place by Turkey, reminding who is who.

If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus. In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing.

The most promising, in my opinion, would be to treat the situation as a systemic problem. That is, Turkish issue should be solved not in Syria but in Ukraine and Novorossia, because Turkey is just a piece of the puzzle in a global confrontation and its aggression will immediately lose its meaning for Washington, if we win at the front nearest to us.

And without the support of Washington Turkey's capabilities will shrink to the scale of the state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player, but against the game technicians.

[Nov 25, 2015] Sultan Erdogans War on Russia

sputniknews.com

Let's cut to the chase. The notion that Turkey's downing of a Russian Su-24 by a made in USA F-16 was carried out without either a green light or at least pre-arranged "support" from Washington invites suspension of disbelief.

Turkey is a mere vassal state, the eastern arm of NATO, which is the European arm of the Pentagon. The Pentagon already issued a denial - which, considering their spectacular record of strategic failures cannot be taken at face value. Plausibly, this might have been a power play by the neocon generals who run the Pentagon, allied with the neocon-infested Obama administration.

The privileged scenario though is of a vassal Turkey led by Sultan Erdogan risking a suicide mission out of its own, current, desperation.

Here's Erdogan's warped reasoning in a nutshell. The Paris tragedy was a huge setback. France started discussing close military collaboration not within NATO, but with Russia. Washington's unstated aim was always to get NATO inside Syria. By having Turkey/NATO - clumsily, inside Syrian territory - attacking Russia, and provoking a harsh Russian response, Erdogan thought he could seduce NATO into Syria, under the pretext (Article 5) of defending Turkey.

As Bay-of-Pigs dangerous as this may be, it has nothing to do with WWIII - as apocalyptic purveyors are braying. It revolves around whether a state which supports/finances/weaponizes the Salafi-jihadi nebulae is allowed to destroy the Russian jets that are turning its profitable assets into ashes.

President Putin nailed it; it was "a shot in the back". Because all evidence is pointing towards an ambush: the F-16s might have been actually waiting for the Su-24s. With Turkish TV cameras available for maximum global impact.

[Nov 25, 2015] Russia accuses Turkey of hypocrisy after Erdogan admits airspace violation does not justify attack

independent.co.uk

Turkey has been accused of hypocrisy over the downing of a Russian warplane on the Syrian border, after it emerged that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself said "a short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack".

The Russian jet which came down on Tuesday morning entered a small sliver of Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, according to the Turkish military's own data, while the Russian defence ministry says the Su-24 bomber was in Syria at all times.

The incident has echoes of a reverse situation in 2012, when the Syrian regime shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom which, it said, entered its airspace off the country's north-east coast.

Then, Turkey spoke of its "rage" at the decision to shoot down the jet, which was on a training flight testing its own country's radar systems.

"A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack", Mr Erdogan said at the time, threatening in response that "every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border… will be assessed as a military threat and treated as a military target".

[Nov 25, 2015] Washington using Turkey as a tool to destabilize Russia

Notable quotes:
"... "I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest the Turkish military would have acted alone," ..."
"... "So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," ..."
"... "Until 2011, Turkey had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly policy," ..."
"... "In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power." ..."
"... "... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region. So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an attempt to raise the tension with Russia," ..."
"... "Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press," ..."
"... "This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable", ..."
"... "advances US interests in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity and in that direction." ..."
"... "extending and perpetuating the crisis." ..."
"... "The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that it considers friendly," ..."
"... "It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles in this particular context." ..."
"... "Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke Article 5 under the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," ..."
"... "But again cooler heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke Article 4 which was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," ..."
"... "What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey, and that is why they probably took action," ..."
"... "It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," ..."
"... "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground." ..."
"... "Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade," ..."
"... "It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," ..."
RT Op-Edge
NATO member state Turkey seems strangely committed to keeping Islamic State going strong in Syria, thus willing to take dangerous risks in confronting Russia in the region. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, a group of experts told RT.

"I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest the Turkish military would have acted alone,"O'Colmain told RT.

"So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," he added.

The political analyst argues we need to look at the region in general. "Until 2011, Turkey had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly policy," said O'Colmain.

The expert suggested that the long-term strategy of the US is to use Turkey as a tool to destabilize Russia, and that was confirmed recently by the head of Stratfor, George Friedman, who said: "In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power."

"... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region. So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an attempt to raise the tension with Russia," O'Colmain told RT.

"Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press," analyst added.

Turkey-Russia proxy war in Syria

We effectively have a proxy war, says Nader Hashemi, Assistant Professor of Middle East Politics at the University of Denver.

"This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable", he told RT.

Nader Hashemi thinks US-made TOW missiles are being used in a way that "advances US interests in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity and in that direction."

Meanwhile, the US holds the opinion that Bashar al-Assad is the primary source of the problem in Syria and Russia's policy in supporting Bashar al-Assad is "extending and perpetuating the crisis."

"The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that it considers friendly," Hashemi continued.

"It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles in this particular context."

Turkey committed 'foolish and rash decision' in attacking Russian jet

Turkey feels a political need to show its strength inside the country as well as in the Middle East region, Senior Policy Consultant from British American Security Information Council Ted Seay told RT.

"In fact in early October there were supposedly a couple of incursions by Russian military aircraft into Turkish airspace – they were chased away," said Seay.

"What has happened now, I believe, is that Turkey is feeling some kind of political need, whether it is domestically or for its regional sort of audience, to show its strength in these things, and it has made a very foolish and rash decision in firing missiles at a Russian aircraft just to do this," he added.

He argues that "Turkey is in the unfortunate position of being a frontline state with the Syrian civil war, on the one hand, and a NATO ally, on the other."

"It looks to me, as someone who has worked in NATO for several years – that there was ineffective coordination beforehand with NATO authorities and with the allies about how Turkey ought to be ready to respond if, for example, future incidents along the lines of early October again with, again, these alleged airspace incursions happened again," Seay told RT.

He said that there should have been a rehearsal for what is and isn't acceptable under these circumstances. "Quite frankly, apart from self-defense, firing of air-to-air missiles is not acceptable," the expert added.

Acting against Russia not in Erdogan's interest

Ankara took action against a Russian fighter jet because the plane got too close to some serious interests of Turkey, former senior security policy analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.

It is not in Erdogan's interest to escalate conflict with Russia any further, former senior security policy analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.

"Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke Article 5 under the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," Maloof told RT.

He said they tried that a few years ago when they shot down a Syrian jet. "But again cooler heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke Article 4 which was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," he added.

"What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey, and that is why they probably took action," Maloof said.

"It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," he told RT.

Maloof suspects the Russian jet was getting too close "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground."

Expert believes that it is really not in Erdogan's interest to escalate this thing any further. "Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade," he said.

"It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," Maloof added.

READ MORE: Downing of Russian Su-24 looks like a planned provocation - Lavrov


[Nov 25, 2015] Turkish jets gave us no warning before shooting

The sole survivor of the downed Russian warplane, its navigator no less, categorically denies that his aircraft crossed into Turkish airspace. He also says no visual or radio warning was given before his aircraft was fired at.
www.rt.com

The navigator of the Russian Su-24 shot down by a Turkish fighter jet on Tuesday insists that his plane did not cross into Turkey's airspace, and says he was given no visual or radio warning before being fired at.

"It's impossible that we violated their airspace even for a second," Konstantin Murakhtin told RT and other Russian media. "We were flying at an altitude of 6,000 meters in completely clear weather, and I had total control of our flight path throughout."

As well as denying Ankara's assertions that the plane was in Turkey's airspace, Murakhtin, who says he knows the mission area "like the back of my hand," also refuted Turkish officials' claims that the pilots were warned repeatedly.

"In actual fact, there were no warnings at all. Neither through the radio, nor visually, so we did not at any point adjust our course. You need to understand the difference in speed between a tactical bomber like a Su-24, and that of the F16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have sat on our wing," said Murakhtin, who is currently recuperating at Russia's airbase in Latakia, northern Syria.

"As it was, the missile hit the back of our plane out of nowhere. We didn't even have time to make an evasive maneuver."

READ MORE: Leaked Ankara UN letter claims Su-24's 'air space violation' lasted 17 seconds

As the plane was hit and went down in Syria, the two pilots ejected. Captain Sergey Rumyantsev was killed, with a rebel Turkmen brigade claiming they shot him to death while he was still parachuting.

Murakhtin was extracted in a 12-hour joint operation by Russian and Syrian special forces, in which a Russian marine died.

[Nov 25, 2015] NATO Is Harboring ISIS, And Heres The Evidence

Notable quotes:
"... Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship. ..."
"... Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000 fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish passports in Thailand and Malaysia." ..."
"... direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.' ..."
"... The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official. "There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both." ..."
"... The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way." ..."
"... In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria. ..."
"... According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as early as 2011. ..."
"... Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons shipments to ISIS through Turkey. ..."
"... A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least $1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments. ..."
"... Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country. ..."
"... Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago. ..."
"... Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion. ..."
"... "Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably, the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to do this?" ..."
"... The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. ..."
"... ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition. ..."
"... Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to roll back Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the zio box. ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Zero Hedge

For the better part of a year, Turkey remained on the sidelines in the "fight" against ISIS.

Then, on July 20, a powerful explosion ripped through the town of Suruc. 33 people were killed including a number of Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP) and Socialist Youth Associations Federation (SGDF) members who planned to assist in the rebuilding of Kobani.

The attack was promptly attributed to Islamic State who took "credit" for the tragedy the next day.

To be sure, the attack came at a rather convenient time for President Tayyip Erdogan. A little over a month earlier, the ruling AKP party lost its absolute parliamentary majority in part due to a strong showing at the ballot box for the pro-Kurdish (and PKK-aligned) HDP. What happened in the wake of the Suruc bombing was nothing short of a largely successful attempt on Erdogan's part to use fear and violence to scare the electorate into restoring AKP's dominance in snap elections that took place earlier this month.

In short, Erdogan used Suruc as an excuse to begin a "war on terror." Part and parcel of the new campaign was an invite from Ankara for Washington to use Turkey's Incirlik air base. Subsequently, Erdogan reminded the world that the PKK is also considered a terrorist organization and as such, the anti-ISIS campaign would also include a crackdown on Kurdish militants operating in Turkey. Erdogan proceeded to focus squarely on the PKK, all but ignoring ISIS while simultaneously undercutting the coalition building process on the way to calling for new elections. Unsurprisingly, AKP put on a much better showing in the electoral redo, and with that, Erdogan had succeeded in using ISIS as a smokescreen to start a civil war with the PKK, in the process frightening voters into restoring his party's grip on power.

Through it all, the PKK has suggested that Ankara is and always has been in bed with Islamic State. That contention will come as no surprise to those who frequent these pages. It's common knowledge that Turkey backs the FSA and participates in the US/Saudi-led effort to supply Syrian rebels with weapons, money, and training. Indeed, those weapons were on full display Tuesday when the FSA's 1st Coastal Brigade used a US-made TOW to destroy a Russian search and rescue helicopter. That came just hours after the Turkmen FSA-allied Alwiya al-Ashar militia posted a video of its fighters celebrating over the body of an ejected Russian pilot.

In short, Turkey has made a habit out of supporting anyone and everyone who opposes Assad in Syria and that includes ISIS. In fact, if one were to rank the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar in order of who is suspected of providing the most assistance to Islamic State, Turkey would likely top the list. Here's what Vladimir Putin had to say earlier today after Turkey downed the Russian Su-24:

  • PUTIN: OIL FROM ISLAMIC STATE IS BEING SHIPPED TO TURKEY
  • PUTIN SAYS ISLAMIC STATE GETS CASH BY SELLING OIL TO TURKEY
  • PUTIN: ISLAMIC STATE GETS MILITARY SUPPORT FROM MANY STATES

It's with all of this in mind that we bring you excerpts from a new piece by Nafeez Ahmed who, you're reminded, penned a lengthy expose earlier this year explaining how the US views ISIS as a "strategic asset." In his latest, Ahmed takes a close look at the relationship between Ankara and Islamic State. The evidence is truly damning.

* * *

From "NATO is harbouring the Islamic State: Why France's brave new war on ISIS is a sick joke, and an insult to the victims of the Paris attacks," by Nafeez Ahmed, originally published in Medium

"We stand alongside Turkey in its efforts in protecting its national security and fighting against terrorism. France and Turkey are on the same side within the framework of the international coalition against the terrorist group ISIS." --Statement by French Foreign Ministry, July 2015

The 13th November Paris massacre will be remembered, like 9/11, as a defining moment in world history.

The murder of 129 people, the injury of 352 more, by 'Islamic State' (ISIS) acolytes striking multiple targets simultaneously in the heart of Europe, mark a major sea-change in the terror threat.

For the first time, a Mumbai-style attack has occurred on Western soil?-?the worst attack on Europe in decades. As such, it has triggered a seemingly commensurate response from France: the declaration of a nationwide state of emergency, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1961 Algerian war.

ISIS has followed up with threats to attack Washington and New York City.

Meanwhile, President Hollande wants European Union leaders to suspend the Schengen Agreement on open borders to allow dramatic restrictions on freedom of movement across Europe. He also demands the EU-wide adoption of the Passenger Name Records (PNR) system allowing intelligence services to meticulously track the travel patterns of Europeans, along with an extension of the state of emergency to at least three months.

Under the extension, French police can now block any website, put people under house arrest without trial, search homes without a warrant, and prevent suspects from meeting others deemed a threat.

"We know that more attacks are being prepared, not just against France but also against other European countries," said the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. "We are going to live with this terrorist threat for a long time."

Hollande plans to strengthen the powers of police and security services under new anti-terror legislation, and to pursue amendments to the constitution that would permanently enshrine the state of emergency into French politics. "We need an appropriate tool we can use without having to resort to the state of emergency," he explained.

Parallel with martial law at home, Hollande was quick to accelerate military action abroad, launching 30 airstrikes on over a dozen Islamic State targets in its de facto capital, Raqqa.

[...]

Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship.

Syrian passports discovered near the bodies of two of the suspected Paris attackers, according to police sources, were fake, and likely forged in Turkey.

Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000 fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish passports in Thailand and Malaysia."

[...]

A senior Western official familiar with a large cache of intelligence obtained this summer from a major raid on an ISIS safehouse told the Guardian that "direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.'"

The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official. "There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both."

In a rare insight into this brazen state-sponsorship of ISIS, a year ago Newsweek reported the testimony of a former ISIS communications technician, who had travelled to Syria to fight the regime of Bashir al-Assad.

The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way."

The former ISIS communication technician also admitted that he would routinely "connect ISIS field captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions," adding that "the people they talked to were Turkish officials… ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because there was full cooperation with the Turks."

In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria.

According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as early as 2011.

The allegations have been corroborated by a prosecutor and court testimony of Turkish military police officers, who confirmed that Turkish intelligence was delivering arms to Syrian jihadists from 2013 to 2014.

Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons shipments to ISIS through Turkey. A clandestine plane from Germany delivered arms in the Etimesgut airport in Turkey and split into three containers, two of which were dispatched to ISIS.

A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least $1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments.

Information of that nature emerged separately. Just two months ago, Turkish police raided a news outlet that published revelations on how the local customs director had approved weapons shipments from Turkey to ISIS.

Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country.

Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago.

By now, this implies that Turkey has facilitated over $1 billion worth of black market ISIS oil sales to date.

[...]

The liberal Turkish daily Taraf quoted an AKP founder, Dengir Mir Mehmet F?rat, admitting: "In order to weaken the developments in Rojova [Kurdish province in Syria] the government gave concessions and arms to extreme religious groups…the government was helping the wounded. The Minister of Health said something such as, it's a human obligation to care for the ISIS wounded."

The paper also reported that ISIS militants routinely receive medical treatment in hospitals in southeast Turkey-?including al-Baghdadi's right-hand man.

[...]

Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion.

[...]

As Professor David Graeber of London School of Economics pointed out:

"Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably, the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to do this?"

[...]

In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2014, General Martin Dempsey, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Senator Lindsay Graham whether he knew of "any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL"?

General Dempsey replied:

"I know major Arab allies who fund them."

In other words, the most senior US military official at the time had confirmed that ISIS was being funded by the very same "major Arab allies" that had just joined the US-led anti-ISIS coalition.

These allies include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait in particular.

[...]

Porous links between some Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, Islamist militant groups like al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, have enabled prolific weapons transfers from 'moderate' to Islamist militants.

The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.

[...]

ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition.

Which then begs the question as to why Hollande and other Western leaders expressing their determination to "destroy" ISIS using all means necessary, would prefer to avoid the most significant factor of all: the material infrastructure of ISIS' emergence in the context of ongoing Gulf and Turkish state support for Islamist militancy in the region.

WTFRLY

Every alternative theory about Syria and ISIS, Serena Shim proved, on video. They killed her the same day as those airdrops to the Kurds where one was confirmed to fall into ISIS hands...

White House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015

Hugh G Rection

Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to "roll back" Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the zio box.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1438.htm

earleflorida

"Azerbaijan?' and Oil-- smack in the middle of the 'Silk Highway'...

http://us.wow.com/wiki/Israel-Azerbaijan_relations

http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-and-azerbaijan-geopolitical-reasons-for-stronger-ties-2/

this should give some color on a creepy`Mossad' Bibi

(does *cuibono want a 'bibi?) southpark

earleflorida

"Paris: Made in Libya, not Syria?" by Peter Lee

http://atimes.com/2015/11/paris-made-in-libya-not-syria/

[Nov 25, 2015] Turkeys Shootdown of Russian Jet What You Need to Know

Notable quotes:
"... Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. ..."
"... Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone. ..."
"... Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity. ..."
"... The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them. ..."
"... Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington. He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan. ..."
"... What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind. ..."
"... As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters over Syria. ..."
"... The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk. ..."
"... Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some land in Europe. ..."
"... The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and Russia's counter intervention into Syria. ..."
"... Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response. The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't exactly end well. ..."
"... He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey. Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right there. ..."
"... I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy, Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back to the lab for another 20 years). ..."
"... The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point. ..."
"... The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes. ..."
"... 'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.' ..."
"... Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation. ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West. ..."
"... McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never have done anything like this. ..."
"... If one believes Sibel Edmonds analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on NATO and the CIAs fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending so far as to breaking Interpols most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkeys role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. ..."
"... The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC. ..."
"... Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board by ISIS - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme and so serendipitously for the provocateurs. ..."
naked capitalism
Krell,

Does Turkey think that Russia will just shut up and accept their dead? Seriously? Some of the articles in our Western media have been truly bad on this development and have been mocking both Putin and the Russians. The whole thing absolutely reeks of a set-up, including the destruction of that rescue helicopter. Whatever the Russians decide to do it will not end well for Turkey.

Putin might just decide to establish a protective umbrella over the Syrian Kurds and stop the Turks from bombing them. Will the Turks then complain to the UN or NATO when some of their aircraft are taken out whilst illegally flying uninvited over a foreign country (Syria) and bombing its citizens (Syrian Kurds)?

As for the Turkmen in Syria, I would not want to be them after murdering those pilots. Especially when they could have traded them to Russia for only 'light' treatment by the Russian military. Turkey apparently, has been wanting to take this part of Syria and fold it into Turkey. Not gunna happen now but I am guessing that the Islamist militants will be marked for special targeting now.

OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 12:28 am

Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. There will be a huge pressure from on Putin to send a few turks to meet their allah but such didn't work in Ukraine and won't work now.

Rather, the huge Russian tourist stream to Turkey will disappear, Turkish exports to Russia will be banned, gas supplies will be disrupted due to 'technical reasons' and 'pipeline maintenance', and various financial and government institutions will find themselves under a sustained electronic attacks.

In private Europe is horrified, regardless of what poodle Stoltenberg might say, and most blame Sultan Erdogan for the migrant crisis and for the subsequent blackmail of Europe by the neo-ottoman idiocracy in Ankara. This went too far, and came too soon after Paris, for even the lemmings not to notice whose side Turkey is really on. I am next door right now, and let's just say that the 'man on the street' opinion is harshly and violently anti-turk. Europe will soon be making a choice either way, and 0bama is not helping the US much with his peevish belligerence.

Bill Smith, November 25, 2015 at 7:00 am

Might be tricky doing that as other countries aircraft are staging out of Turkey to bomb targets in Syria.

OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 7:17 am

If Russia and Syria declare that any aircraft entering Syrian airspace from Turkey will be considered hostile and is therefore subject to being shot down, US and French aircraft will bug out and use the Med corridor, pending Russian and Syrian approval. Either way, it will be open season on Turkish jets in Syrian airspace. And rightly so, all Turkey does is enable ISIS by bombing the PKK and arming/oil trading with IS. Putin did not just state that Russia was stabbed in the back by terrorist enablers for nothing.

Roland, November 25, 2015 at 1:10 am

Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone.

Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity.

The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them.

My prediction is that Russia will fight much harder in Syria than would seem "rational." For Russia the question is whether or not they can sustain an alliance. For Russia the Syrian War is not just about Syria, it is about Belarus and other former Soviet republics.

I will be surprised if the Russians back off here. I wonder what the Turks will do when a future batch of Russian air strikes near the Turkish border all have proper fighter escort? Would the Turks engage in a full-fledged air superiority battle at the Syrian frontier?

Would the Russians risk exposing valuable electronic countermeasures assets to enemy observation and assessment, in anything less than a major war?

At any rate, ISIS leaders are chortling. These stupid big lugs are about to lurch into one another and send themselves brawling and sprawling. And all they had to do was shoot some concertgoers!

William C, November 25, 2015 at 8:50 am

The FT is reporting that Turkey has imposed an exclusion zone over Syrian airspace that runs fifteen miles into Syria.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy?

Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:47 am

Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down.
judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone.

Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington. He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan.

Fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 2:22 am

Europe has been at war with Turkey – on and off – for about 1300 years.

It is pretty unlikely (and certain political suicide) that any European country will enter a war *for* Turkey, regardless of any NATO onligations. It's just not done!
The joker is of course the new NATO members (and Sweden) they are always gagging to have go at Russia – if they could just get the US to do all the work for them. Unfortunately, The US have enough bellicose crazies to like this idea.

vlade, November 25, 2015 at 4:16 am

The general feeling in what you call the "new NATO" countries (i.e. ex Soviet block) is that Turkey massively overstepped. They have deep seated (and historically very much justified) suspicion of Russia and its actions, but they like islamists even less, and Turkey's shift from secularism went much less unnoticed than in the rest of Europe/US. After all, Russia isn't the only one who invaded/occupied most of them during the last few hundreds of years..

What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind.

As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters over Syria.

OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 5:36 am

Exactly. I imagine you are Serbian, I am from Bulgaria by birth and currently there on a short vacation. The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk. Accordingly even the government figureheads are unusually subdued and cautious in what they say in reaction to the downing of the Russian jet. To put not too fine a point on it, people are scared of a nuclear conflagration and the situation is explosive.

fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:18 am

Sorry my mistake for generalizing.

I was thinking about Georgia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – which only last week (according to Danish media) were eager for "steps to be taken against Russia". Sweden would be totally eager to prove to the world (which actually don't care about Sweden) that they are *so totally not racists* that they (well, "they" being the official Sweden) will readily step up and defend any belief system, the more alien, obnoxious and perverse the better, for "proof of non-racistness". It's really, really weird and strange.

Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some land in Europe.

VietnamVet, November 25, 2015 at 3:57 am

The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and Russia's counter intervention into Syria. There are five nuclear countries flying sorties over Syria; Russia, USA, Israel, France and the United Kingdom. World War III is underway but it is unacknowledged. If the rulers headquartered in London, Frankfurt, New York and Washington DC don't fear extinction from the ignition of hydrogen bombs overhead, then that is exactly what will happen. The War will inevitably escalate with no one trying to damp it down.

One alternative to destroying the Northern Hemisphere is to forget regime change and join in an alliance with Russia and the rest of the world to eliminate the Islamic State and quarantine radical Islam.

Plutoniumkun, November 25, 2015 at 5:32 am

Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response. The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't exactly end well.

I think the key danger here is Russia. Putin knows full well that Germany and France will not respond to a request for help from Turkey, no matter what NATO's agreements state. He may see it as an ideal opportunity to rip NATO apart. He may gamble that a strike against Turkey strong enough to humiliate it, but calculated enough to ensure that the the Germans/French won't join in (the UK will do whatever Obama tells them) would make the NATO agreement a dead letter. He may well succeed. The problem comes if he miscalculates.

drexciya, November 25, 2015 at 5:48 am

Turkey needs to be taken down a bit, so I wouldn't mind Putin learning Erdogan a lesson. But I think Putin is more subtle. He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey. Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right there.

vlade, November 25, 2015 at 5:59 am

strike directly against Turkey? that would escalate massively, and could backfire like Polish invasion in WW2, where Hitler thought allies would just roll over as ever before. Except they didn't. Rest assured that this similarity would be drawn out very quickly.

On the other hand, shooting down a Turkish jet or three over Syria, especially if the jets were bombing Kurds, now that would make a different story. Mind you, even that would be a large esaclation but unlikely to draw in NATO...

fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:40 am

NATO should have croaked along with the USSR. I'm quite fine with NATO splitting at the seams – because – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify their continued existence, any fight, in fact, NATO today is pretty much a mercenary force for the USA. No way nearly enough equipped for taking on any serious opponent, but good enough for bombing the shit out of places with poor air defense and weak friends. Of course 50% of the population feels the exact opposite way.

I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy, Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back to the lab for another 20 years).

Maybe the Greek's will see an opportunity to pop one off at one of the many, many Turkish violations of Greek airspace?

OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 6:54 am

The turks violate Greek airspace several thousand times a year. It's the turkish version of American exceptionalism.

Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:24 am

'NATO – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify their continued existence, any fight.'

Amen, bro. WW I demonstrated how strategic alliances with mutual defense guarantees could escalate disastrously.

NATO lost its reason for existence when the USSR collapsed. Then it began violating its own treaty with "out of area" aggression (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan).

Clearly, NATO has degenerated into a rogue organization, serving as a fig leaf for US military occupation of Europe 70 years after the war ended. Will Europe ever develop enough backbone to expel its American occupiers?

russell1200, November 25, 2015 at 8:40 am

The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point.

It is the obvious response to a too forceful response, and obviously escalates in an extreme way.

OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 8:54 am

The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes. Erdogan is nuts but I don't think he is that stupid. In any case, as a native Bulgarian I view a non-Kemalist, islamist, sultan erdogan-led turkey as a danger for regional and global peace and in such case I won't mind one bit the return of Constantinople to Greece and to Orthodox christendom.

nothing but the truth, November 25, 2015 at 7:12 am

you will definitely see SAM missiles being launched against Turkish aircraft from Syrian border areas.

The way NATO is set up it will inevitably lead to a member country pulling everyone into a world war.

The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.

NATO members will push Russia till it retaliates, then all NATO says "game on" and WWW3 is in full mode.

Turkey wouldnt dare do this unless it was part of NATO. So NATO basically has increased member bellicosity and misadventurism.

Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:31 am

'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.'

Our brave stenographers on the front lines of the media battle already are producing telling strikes, such as this morning's NYT article asserting Turkey's 'nuanced reasons' for attacking Russia's aircraft.

Huddled in our bomb shelters, we can draw comfort from the majestic chords of the media's Mighty Wurlitzer.

ex-PFC Chuck, November 25, 2015 at 7:29 am

The Russian responses under Putin will be subtle, strategic surprises, and most likely effective just as they have been in the Ukraine situation. But they will be short of anything that gives cause to the Erdogan regime to formally declare war. Otherwise Turkey will be legally entitled to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles to Russian shipping, which would greatly complicate their conduct of operations in Syria. As has been said many times in the past two years, he is playing chess while his opponents are at best capable of something between tic tac toe and checkers.

hemeantwell, November 25, 2015 at 8:35 am

Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them. Erdogan was able - accusations of vote rigging aside - to boost AKP support through crisis escalation. The shoot down is in a strong sense more of the same. But now Putin can work to isolate Turkey from the rest of NATO, undercut Turkey's already struggling economy, justify aid to the Kurds. I wonder what Erdogan's domestic opposition will do with this. Does anyone know what Gulen and his supporters think?

Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:59 am

Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them.

The problem is public opinion in Russia. They will expect a response and Putin must respond in such a manner that he doesn't get assassinated or couped out of a job because he did not respond forcefully. Putin is a competent or better leader but not invulnerable.

ltr, November 25, 2015 at 7:40 am

An absolute disgrace. Turkey has been encouraging and supporting the destruction of the Syrian government for years and is supporting the destructive insurgents in Syria. Turkey has betrayed the rest of NATO and betrayed Russia.

Dino Reno, November 25, 2015 at 8:43 am

Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation. ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West.

Cabreado

"Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion."

The most important dynamic in play...

And the most important response is to (re)arrange your thinking to vigorously protect the Principles, because this next war is also set to rip this place apart from within.

Demdere

Pretty clear case of Treason, I believe.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A3Sec3.html

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder ofTreason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

------

The problem will be sorting out who to charge. If the CIA has cooperated with ISIS, and is therefore, as an agency, guilty of Treason, are all of the other people in government who gave any in the CIA aid and comfort also guilty?

I think we should err on the side of justice here, and charge them all.

https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/ghandis-terrorists/

Just to remind everyone that this is a psyops game, and that anyone can play. As a systems guy and player of games, I assure you that our distributed side of a periphery-vs-cental side of an evolutionary arms race is a guaranteed win. It is our ingenuity against theirs, them mostly bureaucracies.

But we will become very poor.

https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/patriot-games/

news printer
McInerney: Turkey Shooting Down Russian Plane Was a 'Very Bad Mistake'

McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never have done anything like this.

"This airplane was not making any maneuvers to attack the territory," McInerney said. "It was probably pressing the limits, that's fair. But you don't shoot 'em down just because of that."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/11/24/lt-gen-mcinerney-turkey-shooting-down-russian-plane-was-very-bad-mistake

YHC-FTSE

If one believes Sibel Edmond's analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on NATO and the CIA's fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending so far as to breaking Interpol's most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkey's role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. It compliments the efforts of the war hawks in Washington who benefit from conflict: The neocon zionazis, the MIC and others (Israel foremost, but Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey who use the fear of terrorism as a pretext to keep them in power and excuse their military expansion)

The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC.

Whoever it may be, a pattern of behaviour is emerging to start a major world war by poking at Russia to the extreme point of no return. Consider Ukraine and its PM: Yatsenyuk (Supported by US State Dept Victoria Nuland and NATO as the face of the Kiev coup) announcing on national tv that he would burn all Russian speakers alive. Then this actually taking place all over Ukraine, most famously at Odessa perpetrated by another Zionazi and Israeli dual national Igor Kolomoisky. Even the current president Poroshenko now admits that the 2014 euromaidan "revolution" was a coup d'etat. As if this wasn't incitement enough, we've had almost a continuous diet of MSM demonization of Putin with several hundred fake "Russian invasion" reports and the downing of MH17. At the same time, NATO mechanized troops have been gathering (In the case of Baltic States) a mere few hundred feet from the Russian border.

Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board by "ISIS" - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme and so serendipitously for the provocateurs.

My two cents: There is a pattern to provoke a direct major war with Russia by Victoria Nuland/Kagan and her ilk. It's insane and it's happening. This latest incident is a lure to force Russia into rash action that will be used as the "proof" that has been so lacking to date to demonize Putin in the msm worldwide to hearten the public to taste the blood of war. Sadly, it is delusional to think anyone will survive the full scale nuclear exchange this war may initiate. The tiny portion of humanity left will most likely be rendered sterile by the radiation from thousands of broken and unattended nuclear power stations around the globe. It's game over if this is allowed to continue. But maybe sanity will prevail and it will be a footnote in the annals of close calls.

HowdyDoody

Turkey was also up to its neck in supporting Chechen jihadists used against Russia. They were both a transit route and a location for training camps.

Anunnaki

http://atimes.com/2015/11/turkey-gets-toehold-on-syrian-territory-finally/

It's worse than we think. Obama has given Erdogan the go ahead to seize Syrian Turkmen villages at the G20 gathering

Shooting the plane down in Syrian territory is ipso facto a Turkish No Fly Zone

That is why it has happened now. Expect Turkish vs Russian air battles as Turkey defends its ill gotten gains.

Dr. Bonzo

Very credible mainstream-available evidence links the 9/11 attacks to the CIA, Mossad, Pakistani intelligence and Saudi Arabia. Why should we be surprised? The PNAC policy paper stated plain as day for all to read regime change in Syria, Iraq and Iran. A casual look back at the mideast wars of the last 14 years suggest this very dynamic was at play and remains at play. That the mideast becomes even more destabilized isn't considered an issue of consequence. This is the chief miscalculation by the Masters of the Universe. Israel is territorially not large enough to survive a serious nuclear attack, and the increased nuclear proliferation and enmity engendered by this fucktarded regime change obsession all but guarantees this outcome. It's not an issue of if, but when.

Phillyguy

The goal of US/NATO (including France)/GCC is regime change in Syria. This goal has not changed, Paris attacks notwithstanding. Turkey functions as a US/NATO vassal state, doing the west's bidding. Sultan Erdogan's dreams of a neo-Ottoman empire may well end up turning Turkey in a smoldering mass of rubble.

dogismycopilot

ISIS is setting up a Consulate in Istabul: http://awdnews.com/top-news/islamic-state-isis-to-open-its-first-consula...

grunk

It's time for the media to rehabilitate the ISIS image from fanatical extremists into fierce fighters for liberty.

JohnFrodo

The takeover of Rushbaldi revealed the facts above long ago.

Mike Masr
What is ISIS? A U.S. smokescreen for regime change and war ops

http://novorossia.today/what-is-isis-a-u-s-smokescreen-for-regime-change...

[Nov 25, 2015] Russian foreign minster calls plane downing 'planned provocation'

www.washingtonpost.com

Lavrov's comments offered the clearest signals that Moscow views the downing as more than an accidental mishap while Russia steps up its airstrikes in Syria to support the embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Turkey and its Western allies have backed rebel groups seeking to topple Assad in Syria's nearly five-year civil war. Pentagon officials, meanwhile, have raised worries about possible mishaps between Russia's air campaign and a U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State.

... ... ...

"We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned provocation," Lavrov said after discussions with Turkey's foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu. Lavrov did not elaborate on Moscow's claims.

... ... ...

Moscow further alleged at Turkey was sheltering the Islamic State from Russian attacks. "A stab in the back from the accomplices of terrorism," said Putin on Tuesday.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday warned that the "damage will be hard to repair." Russian officials have raised possible responses such as a ban on Turkish airlines or canceling a proposed gas pipeline between the two countries.

So far, however, Russia has not taken any steps other than to recommend Russian tourists not visit Turkey. Russian tour operators have cancelled most of their packages to Turkish resorts, the Interfax news service reported. More than 3 million tourists visited the popular vacation destination from Russia last year.

[Nov 25, 2015] An Invisible US Hand Leading to War Turkey's Downing of a Russian Jet was an Act of Madness

www.counterpunch.org

Russia - knowing that this is really not about Turkey, but about push-back by the US against growing Russian power and influence, both globally and in the Middle East region - could also choose to respond in a venue where it has more of an advantage, for example in Ukraine, where it could amp up its support for the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, perhaps by downing a Ukrainian military plane, or more broadly, providing air cover to protect those regions. Russia could also, less directly, provide aid to Kurdish rebels in both Syria and in Turkey itself who are fighting against Turkish forces.

I'm sure there are plenty of other options available to Russia also to turn the screws against both Turkey and NATO, without openly pushing buttons that could lead to a direct confrontation with the US and its NATO fiction. Working in Russia's favor is that the US aside, the European nations of NATO have no desire to be at war with Russia. There are clearly hotheads in the US Congress, the Pentagon, and perhaps even within the neo-con-infested Obama administration, who are pushing for just such a mad showdown. But in Europe, where the actual fighting would mostly occur, and where memories are still strong of the destructive power of war, there is no taste for such insanity. It could, in fact, have been a big error in the long run for the US to push Turkey into such a deadly provocation, if it leads to more anti-American sentiment among the citizens of such key NATO countries as France, Germany, Italy and Britain.

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Nov 25, 2015] 17 Seconds That Changed The World - Leaked Letter Exposes Turkeys Hair-Trigger Reality

Notable quotes:
"... Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. ..."
"... All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing assholes. ..."
"... Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the hot spot. Look for action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming. ..."
"... Stop all the chatter and simply as, Cui Bono? The answer... as always in deceptive operations like this - is the same. ..."
"... Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions. Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace. -Barack Obama ..."
"... [stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS - admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner] ..."
"... Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them. Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete loss of control, i.e., what he fears most. ..."
"... For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from doing this. ..."
"... That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. ..."
"... You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All on their own? ..."
"... Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of ISIS tankers. ..."
"... Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the Russians waiting to mistakenly shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots. ..."
"... One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the strategic benefit of Ankara. ..."
"... The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent and baloney about Turkey defending its air space is retard-spew. ..."
"... The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor. ..."
"... They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5. ..."
"... Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's rage at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22 June and described Syria as a clear and present threat . A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack, he said. ..."
Zero Hedge
The highlighted passage reads: "Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000 feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time."

So, as RT notes, even if we buy Turkey's story (i.e. if we accept that Russia actually did violate Turkish airspace), then it would appear that Ankara has something of an itchy trigger finger. That is, Turkey was apparently willing to risk sparking a wider conflict between NATO and Russia over a 17 second incursion.

But something doesn't sound right.

In other words, as Sputnik put it earlier this evening, "according to those numbers, the Su-24 would have had to be flying at stall speed."

The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.

So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5 seconds? Or perhaps even less?

It's important not to forget the context here. Ankara is fiercly anti-Assad and in addition to being generally displeased with Russia's efforts to support the regime, just four days ago, Turkey summoned Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov over the alleged bombing of Turkish villages near the border. "Turkey has asked Russia to 'immediately end its operation,'" AFP reported, adding that "Ankara warned bombing villages populated by the Turkmen minority in Syria could lead to 'serious consequences.'"

Of course Russia wasn't just bombing Turkish civilians for the sheer hell of it. It's likely Moscow was targeting the very same FSA-affiliated Alwiya al-Ashar militiamen who shot and killed the parachuting Russian pilot earlier today.

In short, it looks like Ankara saw an opportunity to shoot down a Russian jet in retaliation for strikes on Turkish rebel fighters who are operating alongside anti-Assad forces. Erdogan is essentially gambling that Russia will not retailiate militarily against Turkey because doing so would open the door for a direct confrontation with NATO.

Time will tell whether that gamble pays off or whether Moscow decides that the next time a Turkish F-16 gets "lost" over Latakia, a little payback is in order.

Femme Fatale

You got it all wrong. That's not what happened at all. Erdogan told Putin: "the Israelis wagged the Americans who wagged me, so what's a poor Turk to do?" >> https://goo.gl/qazI3V

-.-'s picture

Physics are a bitch Erdogan.

TahoeBilly2012

That's some cheeze whiz shit right there, Turkey supports ISIS, so does France....bastards, you kill your own people in cafes!!

Chuckster

Exactly...if you watch the Russians they are always slow to release information. It's like they enjoy letting the rest of the world make asses out of themselves then they come forth with powerful evidence. They have satellites so I expect to see some evidence of what they are saying in the future. In the meantime paybacks are a bitch.

highandwired

Russian defense ministry has already released the satellite info:

https://youtu.be/KGlJFoIBKQw?t=1m16s

CrazyCooter

In war, people die. Equipment is lost. It is fscking reality people. Maybe the pilot fscked up. Maybe they crossed the border and thought it wouldn't matter. Maybe they didn't and just got ambushed.

Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. Or, to quote Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic." Y'all won't be pity partying for the next 1,000 dead Russian pilots.

All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing assholes.

Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the "hot" spot. Look for action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming.

Good thing Turkey doesn't need Russia for goods, services, parts, energy, food, and shit like that.

Regards,

Cooter

J S Bach

Stop all the chatter and simply as, "Cui Bono?" The answer... as always in deceptive operations like this - is the same.

Supernova Born

They'll be some chagrin in Western capitals the day China starts quoting all this right of self-defense and defense of territory stuff when the next military ship intentionally cruises right past a Chinese base on the Senkakus or Spratleys.

"You are within Chinese territorial waters. You have 17 seconds to depart."

Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions. "Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace." -Barack Obama

[stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS - admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner]

giovanni_f

No (I am unsure how such a US-centric crap even deserves the label "assessment"). Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them. Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete loss of control, i.e., what he fears most.

For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from doing this.

The answer to "cui bono" is Russia but as in chess it was the enemy to make the gift.

Hope that helps for you amateur geopoliticians.

Wile-E-Coyote

That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. Now I expect Russia to hit anything with a pulse in that area, your move Turkey, but be careful Xmas is coming you could get a right stuffing.

an_indian

You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All on their own?

Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of ISIS tankers.

Look for more such Turkish villages to be bombed in future and some of those bombs/missiles losing their way (like the cruise missile that supposedly landed in Iran) and landing on Turkish soil.

Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the Russians waiting to "mistakenly" shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots.

This is going to get really complicated real fast.

Urban Redneck

Perhaps nominally, but I think Turkey had the most, relatively, to lose. Petroleum is somewhat fungible, and the current glut notwithstanding, a buyer generally be can found near the current market price. The Turks, however, are traders and if a pipeline doesn't flow through Turkey, their cut is eliminated. One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the strategic benefit of Ankara.

Max Steel

Here is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccENeRldkW4

The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent and baloney about "Turkey defending its air space" is retard-spew.

Most importantly they are not at war with each other so Turkish plane could have escorted them out but NOPE.

Turkey's airspace was violated 114 times in one year by Greek, Israeli, and Italian aircraft They somehow avoided shooting any down. "Air space violations are incidents that happen almost every day, and are resolved in a matter of minutes within international law," the Turkish General Staff said in a statement. Six airplanes violated Turkish airspace last week alone, the General Staff said, of which none were shot down and left Turkey's airspace after they were warned by Turkish personnel.

A violation of one to two kilometers is accepted as "natural" given the speed of aircraft, the statement said. This year's violations of Turkish airspace lasted between 20 seconds and nine minutes, which showed "airspace violations can be resolved by warning and interceptions," the statement said."

cheech_wizard

On a bright note:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/11/25/russia-halts-gas...

Last line in the article is priceless.

Temperatures in Ukraine where most homes rely on piped gas for central heating were below freezing Wednesday morning.

SmittyinLA

Russia won't retaliate against Turkey, they'll target Erdogan and his donors-personally like Israelis, behind the jihad are businessmen with assets and interests-that they're gonna lose shortly.

Financial punishment is coming for "friends of Erdogon"

Putin will make it personal, Russia doesn't do "calm", they do "stoic".

css1971

Sampling period. The turkish account of 17 seconds could be related to the sampling period on their monitoring system, but it looks like a large overestimation.

Now, if you look at the Russian realtime tracking, they clipped the border maybe, but didn't enter Turkish airspace :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cs8jdJKSGo

So it comes down to how accurate are the monitoring systems whether the plane entered Turkish airspace or not. He said, she said.

There's a different question though, even if you take the Turkish explanation. As a NATO member, do you shoot down planes :

1. That has entered your airspace literally for seconds and has clearly exited by the time you shoot it down that part is quite clear.

2. From a country which had an agreement in place ahead of time explicitly to prevent exactly this situation.

No, you don't. Unless you are explicitly and deliberately and cynically attempting to escalate the situation.

lakecity55

The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor.

At the least, it would have taken more time for the Turks to set up the shot than any time the bomber may have been in their airspace. A needless provocation on Turkey's part. The math is very telling; at the claimed speed, the bomber would indeed be flying too slow. You can look the bomber's specs up on the intertubes.

They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5.

jughead

Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's "rage" at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22 June and described Syria as a "clear and present threat". "A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack," he said.

whoopsie

Noplebian

The Road to WW3......
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

Last of the Middle Class

Definitely a speed trap waiting, got perfect video footage of the event too. hmmmmm. Turkey was protecting their RADICAL muslim brothers they do NOT want bombed. That is what happened and now the want NATO to intervene on their behalf. Fuck them to hell and back let Putin bomb their radical muslim asses too.

[Nov 25, 2015] Russia to deploy S-400 air defense system in Hmeimim airbase

sana.sy
Russian President Vladimir Putin approved deploying S-400 air defense system at the Russian airbase in Hmeimim in Lattakia, the Kremlin announced on Wednesday.

Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the President approved the Russian Defense Ministry's proposal to deploy the S-400 system, Russia's most advanced anti-aircraft defense system.

Earlier, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said at a Defense Ministry meeting that S-400 will be deployed in Hmeimim airbase after a Russian Su-24 aircraft was downed yesterday by an air-to-air missile launched from a Turkish F-16 fighter jet when it was returning from an anti-terrorist mission in the northern countryside of Lattakia.

The S-400 is employed to ensure air defense using long- and medium-range missiles that can hit aerial targets at ranges up to 400 kilometers. The S-400 is capable of hitting tactical and strategic aircraft as well as ballistic and cruise missiles. The system includes a set of radars, missile launchers and command posts, and is operated solely by the Russian military.

[Nov 25, 2015] Alarm bells toll for Turkish tourism sector over Russia crisis

www.hurriyetdailynews.com

Turkish tourism representatives have voiced concern after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov advised Russians on Nov. 24 not to visit Turkey, after Turkey downed of a Russian plane on the Syrian frontier.

Lavrov also said the threat of terrorism in Turkey was no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.

Russia's tourism agency then recommended the suspension of package holiday sales to Turkey.

"This is no good. We cannot lose the Russian market, which is the second largest source of Turkey's tourism sector. We have already lost over 800,000 Russian tourists over this year due to economic woes in [Russia], and had to make significant cuts in hotel prices to overcome our losses in addition to other concessions. Despite this, we still cannot close the gap," said the head of the Turkish Hoteliers Federation (TUROFED), Osman Ayık.

... ... ...

While 3.3 million Russian tourists visited Turkey in 2014, Turkey saw a decrease of approximately 25 percent in the number of tourists from Russia and its neighbors over this year. However, Turkey did become more attractive for Russian tourists after Moscow suspended flights to Egypt.

Turkey's tourism revenues declined 4.4 percent, reaching only $12.29 billion in the third quarter, the Turkish Statistics Institute (TÜİK) said on Oct. 30, amid security concerns and a decrease in the number of Russian tourists visiting the country.

[Nov 25, 2015] Why it was done? The simple answer is to put pressure on Russia to force it to withdraw from Syria

www.kp.ru
That Turkish F16 fighter pilot alone could not take a decision about the attack. Especially in the border area. Usually every opportunity is used to resolve the situation peacefully. The pilot of a Turkish fighter definitely got the order to land from very high command. But it is unlikely Turkey independently decided about the attack on Russian military aircraft. Most likely, the approval of this provocation was given on the Potomac river. Question: for what?

The simple answer is to put pressure on Russia to force it to withdraw from Syria. But the authors of this provocation here clearly miscalculated. First, in the near future we should expect increase of air strikes on sites under the control of the ISIS.

Secondly, bombers in Syria will no longer fly without cover of fighters, and every attempt of attack on our aircraft will get an adequate response. And finally, third, because Russia is the only invited to the military presence and aid the country's only legitimate government of Syria, now our air defenses and will be hard to clap each attempt any incursion into Syrian airspace by forces that we ourselves define as hostile.

[Nov 25, 2015] Turkey's Stab in the Back

Nov 25, 2015 Antiwar.com

This incident has revealed what the real sides are in the Syrian civil war: who is fighting whom, and for what. The Russian plane crashed into Syrian territory and one of the pilots was shot from the skies as he parachuted: this barbaric act was captured on video by the rebels, who are being reported as affiliated with the Turkmen "10th Brigade." This is just for public consumption, however: in reality, the area is controlled by an alliance of rebel forces dominated by the al-Nusra Front, which is the official Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda. The jihadists took control of the area in March of this year, and it has been the focal point of recent fighting between al-Qaeda and Syrian government forces backed by the Russian air offensive.

... ... ...

Putin's accusation that this is "a stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" is absolutely correct – but he isn't just talking about Turkey, whose Islamist regime has been canoodling with the terrorists since the start of the Syria civil war. Washington and its allies, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar – who have been directly aiding ISIS as well as the "moderate" head-choppers – is indirectly responsible for the downing the Russian plane – including a barbaric attack on the rescue helicopter, which was downed by a US-provided TOW missile launcher.

... ... ...

it's the Americans who want a repeat of the Cuban missile crisis, not Putin....

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here

[Nov 25, 2015] Why Did Turkey Attack a Russian Plane

Notable quotes:
"... Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic. ..."
"... Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? ..."
"... if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that the risk was worth the potential gain. ..."
The American Conservative

Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic.

Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? Only he knows for sure, but if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that the risk was worth the potential gain.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

[Nov 24, 2015] Nato meets as Russia confirms one of two pilots dead after jet shot down - live updates

Notable quotes:
"... Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast. ..."
"... The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers. ..."
"... Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month. ..."
"... One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism. ..."
www.theguardian.com

Martin Chulov

When Putin labeled Turkey "accomplices of terrorists," he was hinting at complex relationship which includes links between senior Isis figures and Turkish officials, explains the Guardian's Martin Chulov in this analysis.
Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast.

The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers.

From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of the journey to the border. At Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging points – and in the border villages.

Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.

Lavrov cancels planned visit to Turkey
No great surprise this, but Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has cancelled a planned visit to Turkey.

Lavrov was due to visit Ankara on Wednesday for bilateral talks. Turkish officials had insited it would go ahead as planned.

Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.

One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism.

(That's it from me. I'm handling the live blog over to Mark Tran).

Shaun Walker

...Writing on Twitter Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's international relations committee, said: "Ankara clearly did not weigh the consequences of its hostile acts for Turkey's interests and economy. The consequences will be very serious."

Here's video of Putin's response to the downing of the Russia jet:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/nov/24/vladimir-putin-turkey-russian-jet-video

Here are the key quotes from Putin's statement:

  • "The loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can't describe it in any other way."
  • "Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian territory 4km from Turkey."
  • "Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey."
  • "Today's tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations ... Instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
  • "Do they want to make Nato serve ISIS? ... We hope that the international community will find the strength to come together and fight against the common evil."

Summary

... ... ...

Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned Turkey of 'serious consequences' after a Russia fighter jet was shot down close to Turkey's border with Syria. Putin described the incident as a "stab in the back" and accused Turkey of siding with Islamic State militants in Syria.

... ... ...

[Nov 24, 2015] Russo-Syrian Forces Close to Cutting Off ISILs Supply Routes From Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... "The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes. ..."
"... "As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes. ..."
sputniknews.com

Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci draws attention to the fact that over the recent weeks Russian and Syrian forces have been steadily gaining ground in Syria, retaking territory from ISIL and al-Qaeda.

"The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS [ISIL] from its supply lines leading out of Turkish territory," Cartalucci narrates in his latest article for New Eastern Outlook.

He explains that from there, Syrian troops with Russian air support would move north, into the very "safe zone" which Washington and Ankara have planned to carve out of Syria. Cartalucci points out that the "safe zone" includes a northern Syria area stretching from Jarabulus to Afrin and Al-Dana.

If Syrian troops establish their control over this zone, the Western plan of taking and holding the territory (with the prospect of further Balkanization of the region) would fall apart at the seams. In light of this, the regime change project, harbored by the West since the very beginning of the Syrian unrest, would be "indefinitely suspended," Cartalucci underscores.

"The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes.

"As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes.

According to the geopolitical analyst, Russia's best choice now is to continue winning this war, eventually taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor. By fortifying this area Russian and Syrian forces would prevent NATO from invading Syria, at the same time cutting off the ISIL and al-Nusra Front supply route from Turkey.

Russo-Syrian victory would have far-reaching consequences for the region as a whole. "With Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes' efforts in Yemen, and in a wider sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region," Cartalucci underscores.

[Nov 24, 2015] Putin condemns Turkey after Russian warplane downed near Syria border

Notable quotes:
"... "We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours." ..."
www.theguardian.com

A government official said: "In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15km or less away from the border. The aircraft didn't heed the warnings and proceeded to fly over Turkey. The Turkish air forces responded by downing the aircraft.

More on this topic: Turkey caught between aiding Turkmen and economic dependence on Russia

"This isn't an action against any specific country: our F-16s took necessary steps to defend Turkey's sovereign territory."

The Turkish UN ambassador, Halit Cevik, told the UN Security Council in a letter that two planes had flow a mile into Turkey for 17 seconds. "Following the violation, plane 1 left Turkish national airspace. Plane 2 was fired at while in Turkish national airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air combat patrolling in the area," he wrote.

... ... ...

Putin said there would be "serious consequences" for Russia-Turkish relations.

"We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."

[Nov 24, 2015] The Russians had it coming to them

Schadenfreude ecstasies of UK conservatives. They are glad that Turkey shot down Russian bomber. Not very surprising as Cameron wanted to ally with ISIS against President Asad forces just two years ago. Comments were not allowed for this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Turks would certainly resist any attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was later denied by Turkish officials. ..."
"... Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. ..."
"... Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict. ..."
Nov 24, 2015 | Telegraph

The challenge now, for Nato as well as for Russia, is to prevent tensions between Moscow and Ankara from spiralling out of control. Turkey's relations with Russia are already strained following Moscow's Syrian intervention, with the Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan warning that Turkey could cut its lucrative energy ties with Russia. The Turks would certainly resist any attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was later denied by Turkish officials.

Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. It is unlikely the Turks would tolerate Russian attacks on their ethnic allies, which could easily lead to direct military confrontation between Russia and Turkey, with all the implications that would have for the Nato alliance, which would then be obliged to defend Turkey's borders.

Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict. He has also made life more difficult for David Cameron, who will tomorrow tell the Commons about his own plans for Britain to participate in the air war against Isil. Like Mr Putin, Mr Cameron says he wants to launch air strikes against Isil in Syria. But, after yesterday, Mr Cameron can be in no doubt that, however he views Mr Putin's role in the conflict, it will most certainly not be that of an ally.

[Nov 24, 2015] Sultan Erdogan has been served notice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7343nXyGS0s
Notable quotes:
"... However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian crisis… ..."
"... …Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective. ..."
"... The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'… ..."
"... Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations. ..."
"... Such a provocation is exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything to the Russian people. ..."
"... Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all. ..."
"... Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream leader if you are a defense contractor. ..."
"... At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer… ..."
"... But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra…. ..."
"... The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation… ..."
"... War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little. But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. ..."
"... This hysterical gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah) ..."
"... I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS. ..."
"... In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret. ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al, November 24, 2015 at 5:30 am
A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.

Sultan Erdogan has been served notice. I hope he's bricking it. Let him stew.

It makes sense that Putin should treat differentiate Turkey from western states. It also help him to present NATO with a stark choice and not much chance to try and claim the middle ground. Either way, unless Turkey gets categorical support from the NATO meeting and not the usual meaningless waffle, he's lost support from both NATO & Russia. Not a good place to be in.

et Al, November 24, 2015 at 12:55 pm

via a comment by GoraDiva on the Moon of Alabama post above:

Asia Times: Turkey gets toehold on Syrian territory, finally
http://atimes.com/2015/11/turkey-gets-toehold-on-syrian-territory-finally/

he cloud of uncertainty is lifting about any new directions of Turkish policies on Syria following the parliamentary elections three weeks ago, which led to a great political consolidation by President Recep Erdogan. The policies will run in the old directions – regime change in Syria – as per Erdogan's compass, which was set four years ago, but they will be vastly more visible in the 'kinetics'…

…An easy explanation is possible that Turkey decided to set the agenda for Lavrov's talks on coming Wednesday that would devolve upon the parameters of the Russian operations in northern Syria that will not cross Turkey's 'red lines'. The exceptionally strong words used by Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu regarding the "bloody and barbarian" Syrian regime leaves very little to the imagination as to how Erdogan views the prospect of Assad's future role. The last known Turkish stance is that Erdogan can tolerate Assad for a maximum period of six months during the transition.

However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian crisis…

…Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective.

The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'…
####

A good piece by M.K. Bhadrakumar but I wouldn't call it anything like a toe hold yet. While the Americans haven't expressed open support for Turkey, they haven't either condemned Turkey., so I will modify my earlier and a bit rash opinion that the US has hung Turkey out to dry. On reflection, it seems far more reasonable that as usual, if it works out, the US will try to claim some sort of credit, but if it all goes Pete Tong, Turkey is all on its lonesome. NATO is being kept out of this one because the US certainly wouldn't get the unanimity need from all NATO members for such a plan, though I'm sure the Brits and others were informed unofficially.

et Al, November 24, 2015 at 1:03 pm

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/11/the-two-versions-of-the-latakia-plane-incident.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb0894fb5d970d

If Russia doesn't respond severely, the attacks on Russian and Syrian assets in Syria will escalate.

I think Tony Cartalucci gets it right: http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/24/russian-warplane-down-natos-act-of-war/

Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations.

My "Russian intuition" tells me that this is what Russia will do. Such a provocation is exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything to the Russian people.

Cortes, November 24, 2015 at 1:58 pm

The Twisted Genius, a regular poster on the "Turcopolier " blog Sic Semper Tyrannis of Col. Pat Lang,

After the NATO meeting, Jens Stoltenberg stated, "we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support its territorial integrity." After this and the statements of supplication out of Washington this morning, Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all.

Northern Star, November 24, 2015 at 3:00 pm

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/11/24/belgium-counterterrorism

Here's a little insight into Belgium…that may surprise you….
This is the fourth day that the country has been under a virtual martial law lockdown…

Brussels is in Belgium……NATO can't even secure-cover- its home base ass!!!!!!!

marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm

Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream leader if you are a defense contractor.

Northern Star, November 24, 2015 at 2:50 pm

At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer…

It should have been on this grim occasion "Mr. President"..Not "Francois….Then he continues to flippantly refer to The Russian leader as "Putin"…not President Putin…..How fucking smart (wise) is it to antagonize PRESIDENT Putin…in ANY way….especially when on a global forum addressing billions at a time of imminent potential crisis…AKA WW3.

But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra….

marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:12 pm

The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation….

likbez, November 24, 2015 at 6:10 pm

Hotheads want immediate Russian reaction now. But it will be better if Russians behaved like in well known Russian proverb " mount the horse very slowly and then ride really fast, "

It might be prudent to ignore this incident for now. Here is approximate version of opinion of one Russian analyst about the situation
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2YtDQhpkJI )

War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little. But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. Relocation US F15 interceptors in the light of this incident looks now strangely well-timed preemptive move. Let's assume that this was accidental "perfect timing" of "our American partners" like Putin like to say.

In case of open democratic elections Assad will win and that's why the game "Assad must go" is played. Turkey tried to force her own plan of settlement. And this incident might well be a part of political game of the most radically pro-Islamist part of Turkish leadership. This hysterical gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah)

I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS.

In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret. As Wikipedia notes:

The Syrian opposition, represented by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial, logistical, political and in some cases military support from major Sunni states in the Middle East allied with the U.S., most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.

…The Salafist groups are partially supported by Turkey, while the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant received support from several non-state groups and organizations from across the Muslim World.

This incident also changes nothing in this set of facts. So continuing to work against the plan to partition Syria and "Assad must go" gambit which includes the creation of buffer zone on the border with Turkey probably is the best option Russians have right now. Like French used to say "revenge is a dish that best served cold".

Turkey and Erdogan will be on the same place the next year too, And probably two years from now too. When there will be much less, if any, Russian tourists in Turkey. And Kurds will exist in the exact the same number and with exactly the same political goals. Fragmentation and internal squabbles within Turkish leadership also will exist in foreseeable future. So future might presents more options for the meaningful reaction then exist today. Loss of the face in this case (and Turkey itself) are much less important then the winning over ISIS.

[Nov 24, 2015] Russian jet downed over Syria, Putin This is a stab in the back by terrorism backers… Lavrov cancels Turkey visit Syrian Ara

Notable quotes:
"... Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident." ..."
sana.sy
Sochi, SANA – Russian President Vladimir Putin said the downing of the Russian aircraft over Syria is a stab in the back delivered by the forces backing terrorism.

"This incident stands out against the usual fight against terrorism," said Putin during a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in the Russian city of Sochi.

"Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists," he added.

Putin said the plane was hit by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish jet and crashed in the Syrian territory four kilometers from the border with Turkey, stressing that the Russian plane was flying at an altitude of 6000 meters about a kilometer from the Turkish border.

He stressed that the plane and pilots posed no threat to Turkey as they were carrying out a mission against ISIS in mountainous areas targeting terrorists, most of whom came from Russia.

"ISIS has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling oil. In addition they are protected by the military of an entire nation. One can understand why they are acting so boldly and blatantly. Why they kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they commit terrorist acts across the world, including in the heart of Europe," the Russian President said.

The downing of the Russian warplane happened despite Russia signing an agreement with the US to prevent such incidents in Syria, Putin stressed. Turkey claims to be part of the US-led coalition fighting against ISIS in Syria, he added.

The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.

"We have always treated Turkey as not only a close neighbor, but also as a friendly nation," he said. "I don't know who has an interest in what happened today, but we certainly don't."

Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident."

Peskov told reporters in a statement that Russia has confirmed information showing that the aircraft was all the time flying within the borders of Syria, adding that this was registered by electronic monitoring means

Asked about any possible consequences the incident might have on the Russian-Turkish relations, Peskov said it was too early to draw conclusions until the whole situation is clear.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has summoned the Turkish military attaché in Moscow over the incident.

Earlier, the Ministry said a Russian Su-24 fighter jet had been shot down in Lattakia province.

The Ministry confirmed that the plane hadn't violated Turkish airspace and was flying at an altitude of 6,000 meters.

The pilots managed to eject from the downed jet, the ministry said, adding that their fate is still unknown.

Lavrov cancels Turkey visit over downing of Russian military jet

In a relevant context, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov canceled his visit to Turkey, due on Wednesday, after a Russian Su-24 jet was downed within the Syrian airspaces by a Turkish air force.

"It's necessary to emphasize that the terror threats have been aggravated and that's true even if we don't take into account what happened today," Lavrov said, adding "We estimate the threats to be no less than in Egypt.

The minister also pointed out the increasing level of the terror threat in Turkey which is "not lower than in Egypt, recommending Russians to refrain from visiting Turkey.

[Nov 24, 2015] Turkey Shoots Down Russian Warplane Near Syrian Border

Looks like it was Turkish way to enforce no fly zone over border villages... Like was initial US-Turkish plan. But now its a different game...
Notable quotes:
"... And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has presented both possibilities. ..."
"... So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe. ..."
"... Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his aid if Russia retaliates ..."
"... The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand! ..."
"... In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology. ..."
The New York Times

Mr. Putin, clearly angry, responded that the Russian jet had never violated Turkish airspace and was shot down over Syria. Speaking in Sochi, he called the downing of the plane a "stab in the back delivered by the accomplices of terrorists," warning that it would have "serious consequences for Russian-Turkish relations."

Mr. Putin said that instead of "immediately making the necessary contact with us, the Turkish side turned to their partners in NATO for talks on this incident. It's as if we shot down the Turkish plane and not they, ours. Do they want to put NATO at the service of the Islamic State?"

... ... ...

What may make matters worse is that those same tribesmen said they shot both Russian pilots as they floated to earth in their parachutes, having apparently ejected safely after the plane was hit by air-to-air missiles. The Russian minister of defense said that the navigator of the warplane is alive and has been rescued by Syrian and Russian special forces, but that the pilot was killed by ground fire.

... ... ...

Russia's retaliation so far has been largely symbolic. Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov canceled a Wednesday visit to Turkey, and a large Russian tour operator, Natalie Tours, announced it was suspending sales to Turkey. Russians accounted for 12 percent of all tourists to Turkey last year.

The two countries are also significant trade partners. But "Russia-Turkey relations will drop below zero," Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Trends Studies, said on the state-run Rossiya 24 cable news channel.

David, Brisbane, Australia 5 hours ago

Turks are lying. According to the tracks they published the downed plane crossed a sliver of Turkish territory no more than 3 km wide. That should take a slowly flying jet less than 15 seconds, nowhere near 5 min the Turks claim it took them to issue 10 warnings. That was a premeditated provocation by the Turks, they were waiting for that plane. It is hard to believe that they would go for such major escalation without getting a go-ahead from US/NATO first.

Peisinoe, New York 4 hours ago

Excuse me NYT - but Turkey is not 'The West'.

It is a country that aligns itself with Wahabism-oriented nations that support and finance terrorism (ie Saudi Arabia).

Lets keep things clear: We cannot fight ISIS by allying ourselves with countries which support it.

It is about time the US stops selling itself for Saudi money - doesn't matter on which side of the aisle you're from - that is plain and simple corruption - corruption of values, of morality, of money, of power...

Jayne Cullen, Anytown, USA

"Turkish fighter jets on patrol near the Syrian border shot down a Russian warplane on Tuesday after it violated Turkey's airspace..."

And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has presented both possibilities.

Brian, Toronto

So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe.

What is the process for kicking someone out of NATO?

Ajatha Shatru,

Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his aid if Russia retaliates.

If Russia doesn't retaliate, Putin will loose face in Arab world and Erdogan will be crowned the modern age Saladin.

Western Europe knows Erdogan controls the refugee tap and his leverage is that tens of thousands of refugees will flood into Europe if they don't back him up against Russia.

Putin cares about his macho and decisive image and to maintain it there will be Russian war answer to this downing.

America and NATO needs to call Turkey's bluff and let it face Russian music alone or we are heading towards world war III.

Aay, Sydney

The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand!

Dan O'Brien, Massachusetts

In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology.

This is going to end very badly for everyone.

[Nov 24, 2015] We shot the pilots while they were landing with parachutes

This is in incorrect information. One pilot was rescued by Russian and Syrian special forces...
hurriyetdailynews.com

Speaking to the Doğan News Agency, Turkmen Deputy Commander to the 2nd Coast Division Alpaslan Çelik had claimed that both pilots were killed.

"We shot the pilots while they were landing with parachutes. Their bodies are here," Çelik said.

"Our friends are carrying the bodies from the other side of the mountains. Their IDs will probably be found on them," he added.

[Nov 24, 2015] The Two Versions Of The Latakia Plane Incident

Notable quotes:
"... Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy. ..."
"... "There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan, the boroughs of skenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district, the Bay r, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil that constitutes integrity with the motherland…" ..."
"... This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush. ..."
"... Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels. This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting Syria. ..."
"... Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the so-called safe-zone, and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical consequence of a carefully developed choreography. ..."
"... Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know, restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian collaboration, another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's response to be measured. ..."
M of A

Bart | Nov 24, 2015 7:42:49 AM | 11

I really don't think this was a whim of Erdogan - he must have had the go-ahead of Obama or even all of NATO to do this - it is a little test case to see what Russia will do. This kind of 5- or 10-second 'trespassing' must be going on on a daily basis, given the very limited aitrspace in which all htese operations take place...

Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 24, 2015 7:50:59 AM | 12

Russia has plenty of options and there's no rush. Turkey will still be there next week /month /year. I hope Vlad keeps Emperor Erdogan in suspense for a while.
AFTER announcing that the shoot-down won't go un-answered.
Everyone likes a good thriller...
Oui | Nov 24, 2015 8:04:03 AM | 13

Live RT – statement by Putin: "We were stabbed in the back by terrorists' supporters. Serious consequences for tragic events on Syrian border."

Further, quite irritated with Turkey, Putin said they talked to their NATO allies first before contacting Russian foreign diplomats to discuss the event.

NATO holding emergency session after Turkey shoots down Russian warplane

Oui | Nov 24, 2015 8:05:11 AM | 14
Mount Turkmen has not fallen to Assad: Turkmen commander

Omar Abdullah, commander of the Sultan Abdulhamit Han Brigade in Syria, said on Monday that the Turkmen brigades have recaptured a strategic point on Mount Turkmen from Assad forces backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

"Mount Turkmen has not fallen to Assad forces. They only seized a part of Kızıldağı," Abdullah said.
In recent days, Syrian regime forces started a heavy assault on Mount Turkmen in Bayır Bucak, a Turkmen populated area in Latakia province.

Turkmens were under intensified Russian airstrikes while Iranian forces and Hezbollah from Lebanon launched a joint land attack with Assad forces. Russian warships fired missiles as tanks and cannons attacked unarmed civilians in Mount Turkmen area.

never mind | Nov 24, 2015 8:12:18 AM | 17
From RT's live coverage
12:53 GMT
Turkey backstabbed Russia by downing the Russian warplane and acted as accomplices of the terrorists, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

The plane was hit by a Turkish warplane as it was travelling 1 km away from the Turkish border, Putin said. The plane posed no threat to Turkish national security, he stressed.

Putin said the plane was targeting terrorist targets in the Latakia province of Syria, many of whom came from Russia.

Russia noticed of the flow of oil from Syrian territory under the control of terrorists to Turkey, Putin said.

Apparently, IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the protection of a nation's military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world, he added.

The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.

The fact that Turkey did not try to contact Russia in the wake of the incident and rushed to call a NATO meeting instead is worrisome, Putin said. It appears that Turkey want NATO to serve the interests of IS, he added.

Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer.

Putin was speaking at a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in Sochi, who expressed his condolences to the Russian leader over the loss of a Russian pilot in Tuesday's incident, as well as the deaths of Russians in the Islamic State bombing of a passenger plane in Egypt.

The two leaders discussed the anti-terrorist effort in Syria and Iraq and the diplomatic effort to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict.

Strong words. It looks like Putin will hold Turkey to account for the downing of one of their jets (and the death of at least one of their own) regardless. The russian intervention in Syria will no doubt continue unabated, maybe even intensify, near the turkish border.

I wonder what assurances Turkey will get in turn from NATO.

Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:20:52 AM | 20

In all honesty I think that the Russian "intervention" is way exaggerated. When I see the whole picture I believe it is have been designed to save face of the West Death Squad aka regime change policy. The western media offensive, hence the ruling establishment's policy, give us picture of we-have-nothing-to-do-with-mercenaries. We are now to believe so-called IS is organic product of Islam. And refuges are all terrorist or means to inflitrate into Europe, and their "way of life". The West doesn't wont to be remembered by history department that it is them who instigate of what we have today. Lessons from Central America is learned.

Remember, A HREF="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/leni-riefenstahl/">Leni Riefenstahl's words.

...the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above," but on the "submissive void" of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? "Everyone," she said.

Russia and the West has one thing in common, that is hate for Islam. While the West uses Islam as a tool for social engineering and to promote own goals, Russia sees it as existential threat. The West and Russia are alarmed by (unwelcome) refuges in condition of economic malaise.

Downing of Russian jet, if that what's really happened, is new development. As if the crisis actors were unaware of danger which Russian action pose. Do we remember of shooting down mysterious Turkish jet four years ago, of the coast of Latakia and not that far from now downed jet? How come do not see the parachutes, and how come that "independent" channel filmed that as if per order?

Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:33:38 AM | 25

Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy.

harry law | Nov 24, 2015 8:51:55 AM | 30

Putin said "This is a stab in the back and instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from NATO to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours". If the jet was shot down in an action against an enemy at war, it would be acceptable. In these circumstances Turkey's action itself was an act of war, since in no way could that Russian jet be threatening Turkey.

Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:56:47 AM | 32

@ somebody | Nov 24, 2015 8:46:13 AM | 28

nope!

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."

Samuel Huntington, US Gov./CIA brain trust member.

Oui | Nov 24, 2015 8:57:17 AM | 33

Who Are These Turkmen?

The Turkmens of Bayırbucak | Hürriyet Daily News |

The current Turkish-Syrian border was drawn with the Oct. 20, 1921, agreement signed between France, the mandatary of Syria, and the Ankara government; regions such as Hatay as well as Bayır and Bucak were on the Syrian side. This was approved in Lausanne.

Mersin deputy Niyazi (Ramazanoğlu) Bey delivered a very important speech in the parliament on the day of Aug. 21, 1923. He stated that while the 1921 agreement was signed, Ankara was still in a very troubled situation and criticized the acceptance of the border agreed upon in 1921.

In his speech, Niyazi Bey explained the Turks who were left on the Syrian side as such:

    "There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan, the boroughs of İskenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district, the Bayır, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil that constitutes integrity with the motherland…"

They were all on the Syrian side.

Neretva'43 | Nov 24, 2015 8:58:53 AM | 34

Re: guest77 | Nov 24, 2015 8:54:40 AM | 30

Partially true. What is full truth is that Without Iran's Support the Syrian Gov. would fall.

Lone Wolf | Nov 24, 2015 9:28:44 AM | 39

This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush.

Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels. This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting Syria.

Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the so-called "safe-zone," and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical consequence of a carefully developed choreography.

As predicted, we have entered "Deadly Ground" (Sun Tzu).

Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know, restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian "collaboration," another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's response to be measured.

The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the US empire and its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME. It will also test Russia and the 4+1 will to the strategic defense of the ME and by extension, of the Eurasian mass.

alkomv | Nov 24, 2015 9:45:53 AM | 42

@24

The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy

This has been a plan known to Russia for some time, Turkey/US/NATO have actively sought ways to break Montreux and stop the supply of necessary equipment to both Assad and the Russian Federation Forces active in Syria via the "Syria Express".

harry law | Nov 24, 2015 10:02:39 AM | 50

Lone Wolf@38. "The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the US empire and its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME". The US in alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulfies are determined to have hegemony over the middle east. The battle over Syria is crucial in that respect. In my opinion the Syrians with the help of Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah will triumph over the forces of medieval Wahhabism, and its enablers. The US position in the middle east is at stake, so they will go all in. In the case of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah this battle is existential, and so they will fight this battle to the bitter end.

Claud | Nov 24, 2015 10:05:53 AM | 51
Apropos question of degree of US "nudge," I'm basically on the side of those who think no, first, and, anyway, Erdogan (user here as metonymy for Turkish "deep state") doesn't need nudge, and is used to US retroactively agreeing or covering-up whatever he decides to do, so there's no need to think Turkey's acting on behalf of anyone except itself.

HOWEVER, one news bit I've been reading here and there has been roughly to the effect that the CIA/other-three-letter-agencies people tasked with supplying/transporting/training the "moderate rebels" in Turkey have been in a very ugly "Bay of Pigs", Obama-fucked-us mood (a quote a journalist heard was, "Putin just made us his prison bitch"), and I imagine it's with those people that Turkish security types "interface" most from day to day. That might contribute to an odd idea of what DC would "really" want Turks to do.

All this obviously wildly speculative, and in a sense unnecessary in Occan's Razor terms (Erdogan quite capable of thinking this a good idea on his own). However, thought I'd bring up (possibly irrelevant) factor of a good number of pissed-off paramilitaries/contractors with little to do since Russia effectively shut down their "training" boondogle.

Jackrabbit | Nov 24, 2015 10:23:00 AM | 57

You can bet that USA and France were well aware of Turkey's support for ISIS - and well before the Charlie Hebdo attack. Yet it is Russia that: details the funding for ISIS; seriously attacks oil trucks; publicly names Turkey as an ISIS 'accomplice'.

The West should have demanded that Turkey cease their support of ISIS long ago. Instead, we get political/police theatre: troops in the streets, mild airstrikes, aircraft carrier deployments, MSM's amplifying of Islamophobia (ISIS is everywhere!, refugees = ISIS!, oh-hum reporting of attacks on refugees),etc.

Prediction: NATO will support Turkey's defending of its airspace.

Tom Welsh | Nov 24, 2015 10:39:17 AM | 61

@RTE:

"Once you're In - it's hard to get out again".

As the Russians say, "it's a kopeck to get in, but a rouble to get out". Where a rouble may mean a life.

harry law | Nov 24, 2015 11:10:01 AM | 84

RTE @59. "by all International laws and standards they had every right to do what they did". I disagree, Russia is not at war with Turkey, violation of someones airspace, [if it happened] should be dealt with diplomatically. What Turkey did was a act of war, there can be no doubt about that.

Mina | Nov 24, 2015 11:39:32 AM | 92

RTE: could you stop being paranoid and giving people intentions they don't have?

Good article about the Turkmen villages.
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2015/11/24/qui-sont-les-turkmenes_4816573_3218.html
Turkey is trying to provoke a crisis in Hatay because it is afraid of losing this buffer zone it wants to create on a soil which never belonged to it (see the links of OUI above)

somebody | Nov 24, 2015 11:44:31 AM | 95
Re: RTE | Nov 24, 2015 11:29:02 AM | 88 Problem with your reasoning is that the Russian plane seems to have been shot down in Syrian not in Turkish airspace so the violation is Turkish - if there has been a Russian violation before or not. To shoot down an airplane is an act of war. Turkey dares to do it because they are part of NATO. NATO's reaction will tell if they back this provocation of Russia or not.

[Nov 24, 2015] Putin's response

marknesop.wordpress.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7343nXyGS0s

et Al, November 24, 2015 at 5:30 am

A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.

Sultan Erdogan has been served notice. I hope he's bricking it. Let him stew.

It makes sense that Putin should treat differentiate Turkey from western states. It also help him to present NATO with a stark choice and not much chance to try and claim the middle ground. Either way, unless Turkey gets categorical support from the NATO meeting and not the usual meaningless waffle, he's lost support from both NATO & Russia. Not a good place to be in.

et Al, November 24, 2015 at 5:45 am
At about 8:30 he points out that terrorists from Russia are located north of Latakia and could come back to kill Russians.

He mentions stab in the back twice. He's called Turkey as complicit in supporting terrorism in all but direct name and called the shooting down a crime. He's furious.

Still, this is King Abdullah of Jordan, a loyal American ally, coming to Moscow. Crikey.

Moscow Exile, November 24, 2015 at 5:52 am
Abdullah's mother was English, daughter of an officer and gentleman, no less, in the colonial service. That's why old Abdullah is so well house-trained, I guess.
Patient Observer, November 24, 2015 at 6:12 am
Putin's comment characterizing the Turkish action as a "stab in the back" was spot on. As my father used to say in such situations "They just shitted in their mess kit".
Warren, November 24, 2015 at 5:11 am

Moscow Exile, November 24, 2015 at 5:34 am
Good point that he made about the Turks immediately contacting their NATO allies after downing the Russian warplane, which was making no threat against Turkey, and not contacting Russia. "As if we downed a Turkish jet", he says and asks: "Do they want NATO to serve the interests of ISIS?" A stab in the back, he adds, as the Turks are allegedly fighting terrorism in the area together with their NATO partners.
et Al, November 24, 2015 at 7:15 am
BBC's Jonothan Marcus, their chief diplomatic bloke, has just said that the Su-24 may only have crossed Turkish airspace for 15 or 20 seconds so shooting it down looks dodgy and comments that other military analysts point this out and that this is 'browned off' Turkey telling the Russians to keep out. Most normal people would call it an 'ambush', which is exactly what Moon of Alabama called it hours ago.
karl1haushofer , November 24, 2015 at 9:21 am
Russia's "allies" Belarus and Kazakhstans supported the UN resolution recognizing the nuclear facilities in the Crimea as Ukrainian: http://nnr.su/75218#hcq=2cNuCup

They did not even abstain, but instead supported the resolution.

It is scary how alone Russia seems to be in it's western hemisphere. Surrounded by Finland (coldly hostile against Russia), the Baltics (extremely hostile chihuahuas), Ukraine (hostile enough to nuke Russia if it had nukes), Belarus (not really hostile, but not friendly either. Next target for a Western coup attempt), Turkey (hostile enough to shoot down Russia's military jets), Georgia (hostile), Azerbaijan (hostile/neutral), Armenia (friendly, but poor and meaningless).and Kazakhstan (seems to be the best of Russia's neighbors, but refuses to back Russia in international stage).

Further to West there are also hostile Sweden, very hostile Poland and Romania, and hostile Bulgaria. Those European countries with warm relations towards Russia (like Serbia and Montenegro) are small and strategically unimportant for Russia.

How did it ever come to this?

Patient Observer, November 24, 2015 at 11:24 am

Seems like a good response so far per RT:
https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
"Three steps as announced by top brass:
– Each and every strike groups' operation is to be carried out under the guise of fighter jets
– Air defense to be boosted with the deployment of Moskva guided missile cruiser off Latakia coast with an aim to destroy any target that may pose danger
– Military contacts with Turkey to be suspended"

The Russian action of using ship-based anti-aircraft systems suggest that the stories about S-300 or S-400 being deployed in Syria are likely not true (and conforming with what Russia has maintained).

[Nov 24, 2015] PM Turkey has right to take all kinds of measures

www.turkishpress.com

ANKARA - Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said that Turkey has the right to take "all kinds of measures" against border violations.

He was speaking amid reports that Turkish fighter jets downed a Russian military plane violating Turkish airspace earlier on Tuesday.

Speaking during an engagement in Ankara, Davutoglu said:

"We would like the entire world to know that we will take all necessary measures and make any sacrifices when it comes to the lives and dignity of our citizens and for the security of our borders while our country is in a circle of fire."

Davutoglu said Turkey had exercised its "international right and national duty" by downing the plane which the authorities say was flying over the country's southern Hatay province.

The Turkish premier called on the international community to act regarding the ongoing conflict in Syria.

"Let's put out the fire in Syria," Davutoglu said, adding: "Our message is clear for the Syrian regime forces, terrorist organizations or other foreign forces that are involved in pouring fire over Bayirbucak Turkmens, Aleppo Arabs or Azaz Arabs, Kurds or Turkmens, instead of putting out the fire in Syria.

"While carrying out effective counter-terrorism we are aware that the prerequisite for counter-terrorism is the growing up of young generations within peace and their love for each other," he added.

Turkish, UK PMs discuss downing of Russian jet

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a phone conversation with his British counterpart David Cameron on Tuesday after Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian warplane.

"Our prime minister has expressed that UN and NATO countries will be informed in detail about the issue," said the Turkish Prime Ministry's press office in a statement.

"It was told [to Cameron] that the ambassadors of the P5 countries [China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.] were also informed by our Foreign Ministry," the statement added.

"The Prime Minister strongly encouraged Prime Minister Davutoglu to make sure there was direct communication between the Turks and Russians on this, so a clearer understanding could be formed of what had happened and how to avoid this happening in the future and to avoid an escalation," said a Downing Street spokeswoman.

"We respect Turkey's right to protect its airspace. There are procedures in place for flying through a country's airspace - you need to seek permission and have it granted and there should be communication between the authorities on the ground and the pilot. All those steps need to be properly followed," she added.

The two leaders agreed to meet on Sunday at the Turkey-EU summit in Brussels, according to the statement.

A Russian warplane was shot down at the Turkish-Syrian border earlier Tuesday after repeatedly ignoring warnings that it was violating Turkish airspace.

Cameron is expected to address parliament Thursday to extend U.K. strikes against Daesh in Syria. The U.K. targets the organization in Iraq.

Thousands of Turkmens have recently been displaced due to simultaneous air and ground attacks by Syrian government forces and Russian jets. Approximately 2,000 Syrian Turkmens have arrived in southern Turkey in the past several days.

Russian warplanes previously violated Turkish airspace twice in October. The incidents came within a few days of the start of Russia's air campaign in Syria on Sept. 30 and led to international condemnation.

Copyright © 2015 Anadolu Agency

[Nov 23, 2015] The Pentagon expands an inquiry into Central Command over allegations that officials overstated the progress of airstrikes against the Islamic State

Notable quotes:
"... Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e. Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life ..."
www.nytimes.com

anne said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/politics/military-reviews-us-response-to-isis-rise.html

November 21, 2015

Military Reviews U.S. Response to Rise of ISIS
By MATT APUZZO, MARK MAZZETTI, and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

The Pentagon has seized a trove of emails from military servers as it expands an inquiry into Central Command over allegations that officials overstated the progress of airstrikes against the Islamic State.

anne ->anne...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/opinion/the-elusive-truth-about-war-on-isis.html

September 16, 2015

The Elusive Truth About War on ISIS

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American military officials often provided misleadingly upbeat assessments of battlefield efforts and belittled reporting that contradicted their narrative. Their take on the progress of the troops was frequently at odds with the conclusions of civilian intelligence analysts and reporting by journalists in the field. The opposing views were important because they sometimes forced the Pentagon to face unpleasant truths and change course.

The war against the Islamic State terrorist group, which the Obama administration launched more than a year ago, however, has unfolded out of sight by design....

anne ->anne...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/us/politics/analysts-said-to-provide-evidence-of-distorted-reports-on-isis.html

September 15, 2015

Reports on ISIS Were Distorted by Military, Analysts Say
By MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO

The Pentagon's inspector general is examining claims that senior military officers manipulated conclusions about progress against the Islamic State.

anne ->anne...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/world/middleeast/pentagon-investigates-allegations-of-skewed-intelligence-reports-on-isis.html

August 25, 2015

Inquiry Weighs Whether ISIS Analysis Was Distorted
By MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry....

ilsm ->anne...

Everything that is done inside the pentagon-capitol-K St axis is distorted to sell more weaponry and plunder the US.

ilsm ->anne...

The same misinformation campaign brought you: 10 years of misguided war profiteering in Southeast Asia for Saigon thugs' survival, the nuclear TRIAD to assure the US could kill everything on earth in its dying throes, and the past 40 years of expensive imperialism around the world.

im1dc said... November 22, 2015 at 08:45 AM Ohhhh, someone is not happy with CENTCOM's 'manipulation of (ISIL) intelligence'

Heads to Roll, Careers to be Ended, and hopefully some time in the brig for the top brass who ordered the bogus INTEL too

Fight against Islamic State militants - 8h ago

"Obama on manipulation of intelligence about Islamic State: 'I don't know what we'll discover in regards to what happened at CENTCOM'"

im1dc said...

islm, the President thinks your belief of SA ISIL financial support is wrong

Fight against Islamic State militants - 9h ago

"Saudi Arabia is helping to co-ordinate the fight against financing for Islamic State, Obama says"

Fred C. Dobbs ->im1dc...

The Saudi guv'mint may
be cooperating, while
the vast Saudi wealth
may be at cross purposes.

ilsm ->im1dc...

Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e.
Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life


[Nov 23, 2015] Putin's crushing strategy for Syria

Notable quotes:
"... The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest. ..."
"... For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. ..."
"... The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai, Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent Russia ..."
bostonglobe.com

LATAKIA, Syria - When Russian jets started bombing Syrian insurgents, it was no surprise that fans of President Bashar Assad felt buoyed. What was surprising was the outsized, even over-the-top expectations placed on Russian help.

"They're not like the Americans," explained a Syrian government official responsible for escorting journalists around the coastal city of Latakia. "When they get involved, they do it all the way."

Naturally, tired supporters of the Assad regime are susceptible to any optimistic thread they can cling to after five years of a war that the government was decisively losing when the Russians unveiled a major military intervention in October. Russian fever isn't entirely driven by hope and ignorance. Many of the Syrians cheering the Russian intervention know Moscow well.

A fluent Russian speaker, the bureaucrat in Latakia had spent nearly a decade in Moscow studying and working. Much of Syria's military and Ba'ath Party elite trained in Moscow, steeped in Soviet-era military and political doctrine, along with an unapologetic culture of tough-talking secular nationalism (there's also a shared affinity for vodka or other spirits).

The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest.

The world reaction to the Russian offensive in Syria has been as much about perception as military reality. Putin, according to Russian analysts who carefully study his policy, wants more than anything else to reassert Russia's role as a high-stakes player in the international system.

Sure, they say, he wants to reduce the heat from his invasion of Ukraine, and he wants to keep a loyal client in place in Syria, but most of all, he wants Russia's Great Power role back.

For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai, Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent Russia and a prickly Iran. Until now, Russia's new role in Syria has stymied the West, impinging on its air campaign against ISIS and all but eliminating the possibility of an anti-Assad no-fly zone. ...

-----

The Syria agreement: Too good to be true
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2015/11/19/the-syria-agreement-too-good-true/0diRPSdAE92OY2uOQnrIaO/story.html?event=event25
via @BostonGlobe - editorial - Nov 19

A day after the horrific attacks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced a silver lining: The world had come together and agreed to end the Syrian civil war. At a press conference in Vienna, they laid out an ambitious time line. A cease-fire would be negotiated in a matter of weeks between the Assad regime and rebel groups, with the exception of "terrorists." Talks between Assad and the opposition would be held by Jan. 1. A "credible, inclusive, nonsectarian" government would be established within six months. A new constitution and free and fair elections would materialize within 18 months.

If their plan - backed by the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates - sounds too good to be true, that's because it probably is.

Much like Kerry's overly optimistic goal of creating a Palestinian state within two years, the Syria plan is based more on the desire for peace than the prospects for it actually happening on the ground. ...

-----

I'm a Muslim - ask me about Islam.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/19/saadia-ahmad-muslim-ask-about-islam/KuZ7PqboSznrQRciyYa1II/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe
Saadia Ahmad - November 19, 2015

... One of the goals of radical Islamic terrorist groups is to divide Muslims and the rest of the world. The disparity in our concern for victims of terrorism, depending on the country attacked and the dominant religion, inadvertently feeds into their narrative. ...

I am as committed to my American identity as I am to my Muslim identity, but I often cannot feel fully at home in either due to misunderstandings and poorly managed conflicts between the two. Muslims like myself seeking to bring reconciliation often encounter backlash and distrust from extremist Muslims and Americans alike.

But my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American born and raised in New Jersey serves as the foundation for my commitment to dialogue facilitation, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding. As an American, I know the sheer terror that 9/11 instilled in our individual and collective psyche. I understand the desire to regain a sense of security and comfort in our everyday lives and to defend against any group or ideology that appears even remotely threatening. As a Muslim, I know the exasperation of having our religion hijacked and used for something that was never its purpose. I understand the outrage of being held responsible for what we did not do – in the form of discrimination, prejudice, and warfare against home countries.

The sources of misunderstanding and pain for Americans and Muslims are actually not so different: They arise out of fear and trauma. So, too, the sources for healing are shared, and can be found in dialogue, compassion, and community. I see my purpose as guiding members of these groups to realizing these commonalities, and from this basis developing relationships that mitigate and prevent violent manifestations of conflict. Through my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American, I strive to provide one of many examples of how it is indeed possible to move past fear of "the other" and toward mutually beneficial relationships.

One of my most treasured verses in the Qur'an - introduced to me by a Catholic - has a universal message: "If God had so willed, He could have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you in what He has given you, so strive as one human race in all virtues according to what He has given you (5:48)." Most especially in the wake of trauma and terror, how we each decide to engage with "the other" is our own individual choice, but the fate is shared by us all. ...

(Saadia Ahmad is a student studying conflict resolution at the McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston.)

Selected Skeptical Comments from Economist's View blog

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs, November 22, 2015 at 06:25 AM

'Putin, according to Russian analysts who carefully study his policy, wants more than anything else to reassert Russia's role as a high-stakes player in the international system.'

It's almost like Putin wants Russia to 'assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature entitle' them. What nerve?

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs, November 22, 2015 at 06:35 AM

US, Russia, and World Powers (but Not Syrians) Agree to Syria Peace Plan
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/11/14/vienna_talks_negotiators_agree_to_syria_peace_road_map_in_the_wake_of_paris.html via @slate
Joshua Keating = November 14

A day after the attacks in Paris underlined the global danger posed by the continuing violence in Syria, Russia, the United States, and governments in Europe and the Middle East agreed at talks in Vienna to a road map for ending the devastating and destabilizing war.

The proposal (*), which appears to draw heavily from a Russian peace plan circulated before the talks, sets Jan. 1 as a deadline for the start of negotiations between Bashar al-Assad's government and opposition groups. Within six months, they would be required to create an "inclusive and non-sectarian" transitional government that would set a schedule for holding new, internationally supervised elections within 18 months. Western diplomats involved in the talks told the Wall Street Journal that the meeting had produced more progress than expected, and the events in Paris may have added new urgency to the proceedings, given the need to build a united front against ISIS, but stumbling blocks remain.

The biggest one is the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose role is side-stepped in the agreement. ...

*- AP: Diplomats set plan for political change in Syria http://apne.ws/1kvMdAi

im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs., November 22, 2015 at 06:50 AM

US, Russia, and World Powers (but Not Syrians) Agree to Syria Peace Plan"

Oh yea which 'Syrians' did they ask, the Assad group, the ISIL group, the Islamist Rebels, the Iran backed Syrians, or the Democracy Rebels?

Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc, November 22, 2015 at 06:58 AM

Not them, but apparently 'the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates' are on board.

Could be the other parties were otherwise engaged.

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...

There is a story going around about Iranian F-14's escorting Russian Bear bombers on their way through to bomb Syrian deserts.

US navy went all out for F-18 and Tom Cruse's F-14 been in the boneyard for years.

Syaloch -> ilsm, November 22, 2015 at 07:23 AM

Do Israel's New Fighter Jets Mean Stealth Is Going Out of Style?

https://news.vice.com/article/do-israels-new-fighter-jets-mean-stealth-is-going-out-of-style

November 6, 2015

Israel just did something a wee bit nutty with their most recent wish list of US war goodies. It's one of those nerdtastically insider geek things that might actually mean some really interesting stuff.

So - drumroll please - reports have just emerged that Israel wants to buy a proposed, but as yet unmade, version of the F-15 fighter jet called the F-15SE Silent Eagle, in addition to several F-35s.

Okay, so it's not that exciting, unless you've been following the Israeli Air Force. But if you have, this purchase tells you something interesting about what advice those guys are getting from their strategic-planning Ouija boards on the topic of stealth...

ilsm -> Syaloch, November 22, 2015 at 10:14 AM

Not so much stealth.

Israel is using US aid money to "buy" F-35's, likely because the "F-35 sale is a string" for support for more aid to the IDF. There are many things the F-35 cannot do, there are many issues that mean sustaining 18 F-35's is less "capability" than 12 F-15 or F-16's.

Stealth is less a game changer than the reality of F-35 expenses and flaws. I am no fan of stealth it adds expense and overhead with unproven theory as to its "use".

A single engine fighter that carries 16000 of jet fuel is troubling. Rumblings USAF wants a buy of F-16s and F-35s for the same reasons.

Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm, November 22, 2015 at 11:02 AM

I recall that terms between US & Israel *require* them to purchase US arms, in huge amounts.

If Iran is still flying F14 Tomcats, what of their cobbled together yet shrinking fleet of F4 Phantoms, the '57 Chevy of US jets?

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs, November 22, 2015 at 01:04 PM

A story on Iran F-14.

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/persian-cats-9242012/?no-ist

Seems the Iran AF used F-4's in a ground attack on ISIS positions in 2014. Last recorded F-4 ejection in 2012. The site stopped updating in 2012.

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Country-By-Country/iranian_f_4_phantom_losses.html

I have a regard for F-4's if nothing else they are only a little less ugly than the A-10, unless they save your bacon in a tight spot on the front line.

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

Related?

Powerful pill is called toxic
fuel for fighters in Syrian war http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/11/21/the-tiny-pill-fueling-syria-war-and-turning-fighters-into-superhuman-soldiers/gLUkphVvyEN8Y5WzzowNhL/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

Peter Holley Washington Post November 21, 2015

The war in Syria has become a tangled web of conflict dominated by competing military factions fueled by an overlapping mixture of ideologies and political agendas.

Just below it, experts suspect, they're powered by something else: Captagon.

The tiny, highly addictive pill is produced in Syria and now widely available across the Middle East. Its illegal sale funnels hundreds of millions of dollars back into the war-torn country's black-market economy each year, likely giving militias access to new arms, fighters, and the ability to keep the conflict boiling, according to the Guardian.

''Syria is a tremendous problem in that it's a collapsed security sector, because of its porous borders, because of the presence of so many criminal elements and organized networks,'' the UN Office on Drugs and Crime regional representative, Masood Karimipour, told Voice of America.

''There's a great deal of trafficking being done of all sorts of illicit goods - guns, drugs, money, people. But what is being manufactured there and who is doing the manufacturing, that's not something we have visibility into from a distance.''

A powerful amphetamine tablet based on the original synthetic drug known as fenethylline, Captagon quickly produces a euphoric intensity in users, allowing Syria's fighters to stay up for days, killing with a numb, reckless abandon.

''You can't sleep or even close your eyes; forget about it,'' said a Lebanese user, one of three who appeared on camera without their names for a BBC Arabic documentary that aired in September. ''And whatever you take to stop it, nothing can stop it.''

''I felt like I own the world high,'' another user said. ''Like I have power nobody has. A really nice feeling.''

''There was no fear anymore after I took Captagon,'' a third man added. ...

... production of Captagon has taken root in Syria, long a heavily trafficked thoroughfare for drugs journeying from Europe to the Gulf States, and it has begun to blossom.

''The breakdown of state infrastructure, weakening of borders and proliferation of armed groups during the nearly three-year battle for control of Syria, has transformed the country from a stopover into a major production site,'' Reuters reported.

''Production in Lebanon's Bekaa valley - a traditional center for the drug - fell 90 percent last year from 2011, with the decline largely attributed to production inside Syria,'' the Guardian noted.

Cheap and easy to produce using legal materials, the drug can be purchased for less than $20 a tablet and is popular among those Syrian fighters who don't follow strict interpretations of Islamic law, according to the Guardian. ...

[Nov 23, 2015] Tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination

Notable quotes:
"... By far the most important thing GOP voters are looking for in a candidate is someone to "bring needed change to Washington." ..."
"... He's very strong in several of the early states right now including NH, NV and SC. And he could do very well on "Super Tuesday" with all those southern states voting. I can't see anyone but Trump or Carson winning in Georgia right now, for example, most likely Trump. ..."
"... And as for the idea of the GOP establishment ganging up on him and/or uniting behind another candidate like Rubio, that's at least as likely to backfire as to work. And even if it works, what's to stop Trump from then running as an independent? ..."
"... Indeed. You have a party whose domestic policy agenda consists of shouting "death panels!", whose foreign policy agenda consists of shouting "Benghazi!", and which now expects its base to realize that Trump isn't serious. Or to put it a bit differently, the definition of a GOP establishment candidate these days is someone who is in on the con, and knows that his colleagues have been talking nonsense. Primary voters are expected to respect that? ..."
"... ... with Trump in the race, all of those states-which are more red than they were in '08-are likely out for Democrats. Swing states like Colorado and Virginia are clear toss-ups. There are few states that Romney or McCain won where Trump, as the Republican nominee, wouldn't be in the running, and an analysis of other key states shows that Trump's in far better position than his detractors would like to admit. If Trump were to win every state that Romney won, Trump would stand today at 206 electoral votes, with 55 electoral votes up for grabs in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Similarly, Trump does not necessarily lose in a single toss-up state versus Hillary Clinton and, in fact, is seemingly competitive in many. ..."
"... Which all means that the election comes down to Florida and Ohio, two states where Trump has significant advantages. In Florida (29 electoral votes), he is a part-time resident and is polling better than the state's former governor and sitting U.S. senator. ... ..."
"... A brokered convention, maybe? Even Romney would have a shot. ..."
"... Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention. ..."
"... There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field, when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs ..."
"... Since the November 13 attacks, every poll-in Florida, two in New Hampshire, and three nationwide-shows Trump maintaining or expanding his lead against his primary opponents. Poor Ben Carson, only recently Trump's chief rival, is losing energy like, well, you know who. In the Fox NH poll, it's Trump at 27, Rubio 13, Cruz 11, and Carson down there at 9 percent alongside Jeb! ..."
"... Play it out: an outsider who's dismissed by his party's elite, comes into the race and overwhelms a large, much more experienced group of candidates in a series of state primaries, both increasing his margins and improving as a candidate as he goes long. All the time riding a crisis that seems made for his candidacy. Does that sound like a sure loser? ... ..."
"... While the investigation into US bombing waste is keyed on who padded the figures rather than the ineptitude of bombing in any use other than taking out property owners to get the greedy to say uncle . The shame of Paris is attributable to the US war machine and every issue requires more money for the pentagon. ..."
"... No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today! Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame. ..."
"... The Devil's Chessboard ..."
Nov 23, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
Fred C. Dobbs said... November 23, 2015 at 06:49 AM
(!Trump watch.)

Thinking About the Trumpthinkable
http://nyti.ms/1jeD39I
NYT - Paul Krugman - Nov 22

Alan Abramowitz reads the latest WaPo poll and emails:

'Read these results (#) and tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination? I've been very skeptical about this all along, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think there's at least a pretty decent chance that Trump will be the nominee.

Here's why I think Trump could very well end up as the nominee:

1. He's way ahead of every other candidate now and has been in the lead or tied for the lead for a long time.

2. The only one even giving him any competition right now is Carson who is even less plausible and whose support is heavily concentrated among one (large) segment of the base-evangelicals.

3. Rubio, the great establishment hope now, is deep in third place, barely in double digits and nowhere close to Trump or Carson.

4. By far the most important thing GOP voters are looking for in a candidate is someone to "bring needed change to Washington."

5. He is favored on almost every major issue by Republican voters including immigration and terrorism by wide margins. The current terrorism scare only helps him with Republicans. They want someone who will "bomb the shit" out of the Muslim terrorists.

6. There is clearly strong support among Republicans for deporting 11 million illegal immigrants. They don't provide party breakdown here, but support for this is at about 40 percent among all voters so it's got to be a lot higher than that, maybe 60 percent, among Republicans.

7. If none of the totally crazy things he's said up until now have hurt him among Republican voters, why would any crazy things he says in the next few months hurt him?

8. He's very strong in several of the early states right now including NH, NV and SC. And he could do very well on "Super Tuesday" with all those southern states voting. I can't see anyone but Trump or Carson winning in Georgia right now, for example, most likely Trump.

9. And as for the idea of the GOP establishment ganging up on him and/or uniting behind another candidate like Rubio, that's at least as likely to backfire as to work. And even if it works, what's to stop Trump from then running as an independent?'

Indeed. You have a party whose domestic policy agenda consists of shouting "death panels!", whose foreign policy agenda consists of shouting "Benghazi!", and which now expects its base to realize that Trump isn't serious. Or to put it a bit differently, the definition of a GOP establishment candidate these days is someone who is in on the con, and knows that his colleagues have been talking nonsense. Primary voters are expected to respect that?

#- Washington Post-ABC News poll, Nov. 16-19, 2015
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-poll-nov-16-19-2015/1880

Dan Kervick -> pgl... November 23, 2015 at 10:42 AM

My guess is that if people dug deeper into the support for Trump, they would find that there is a certain percentage of Republicans who have supported Trump because he was a business man - the only one in the pack - not because they wanted another crazy xenophobic racist wingnut. Now that Trump has gone full wingnut, they are frustrated with the mess they have created for themselves.

Fred C. Dobbs -> Dan Kervick...

Here's Why Donald Trump
Really Could Be Elected President http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/donald-trump-could-be-president via @VanityFair
David Burstein - October 22

... with Trump in the race, all of those states-which are more red than they were in '08-are likely out for Democrats. Swing states like Colorado and Virginia are clear toss-ups. There are few states that Romney or McCain won where Trump, as the Republican nominee, wouldn't be in the running, and an analysis of other key states shows that Trump's in far better position than his detractors would like to admit. If Trump were to win every state that Romney won, Trump would stand today at 206 electoral votes, with 55 electoral votes up for grabs in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Similarly, Trump does not necessarily lose in a single toss-up state versus Hillary Clinton and, in fact, is seemingly competitive in many.

Virginia is trending blue, but could be a toss-up, particularly given the tale of Dave Brat, whose success in 2014 could be read as a harbinger of Trump. Colorado will have high Republican turnout, given that it is home to what's likely to be one of the country's most contested Senate races-which could make it more competitive than it should be, considering Trump's comments about Latinos. Depending on how well Trump shows in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, they too could be in play. In two of the remaining states, Wisconsin and Nevada, any Democratic nominee will have an upper hand-particularly Clinton.

But Trump will be able to effectively contest, particularly in a place like Wisconsin, with working-class white voters who elected Scott Walker three times in four years. Finally, Pennsylvania, which has been leaning ever-more blue and will likely go blue this year, will nonetheless require Clinton to spend some resources and time there-taking away from her efforts in other swing states.

Which all means that the election comes down to Florida and Ohio, two states where Trump has significant advantages. In Florida (29 electoral votes), he is a part-time resident and is polling better than the state's former governor and sitting U.S. senator. ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

Long time, still, from now to the GOP convention. (Curiously, less every week, however.)

Some GOPsters (including Bush, Rubio, various others) know in their hearts that eventually Trump & Carson will fade, or be dumped, and *their* star will ascend. Sure.

A brokered convention, maybe? Even Romney would have a shot.

NH primary poll puts non-candidate Romney first http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/21/gop-voters-would-prefer-romney/WiU9f86jd19UkXYQfb2yxM/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe - Nov 22

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Could the GOP Really See a Brokered Convention
in 2016? http://natl.re/CLXxxf via @NRO
Joel Gehrke - May 14, 2015

Ask around and you'll hear a consistent theme from political strategists in the Republican party: The 2016 primary is wide open. "It is by far the most interesting presidential year since I've been involved [in Republican politics]," says Steve Munisteri, a senior adviser to Senator Rand Paul.

How interesting? Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention.

There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field, when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs. "It's certainly more likely now than it's been in any prior election, going back to 1976," Thor Hearn, the general counsel to George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, tells National Review. "I don't put it as a high likelihood, but it's a much more realistic probability than it's been in any recent experience." ...

Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...

Believe It: Trump Can Defeat Hillary
http://www.thenation.com/article/believe-it-trump-can-defeat-hillary/
The Nation - Leslie Savan - November 20, 2015

The Paris attacks have made the demagogue even stronger.

Tt hurts to put these words in print, but… Ann Coulter may be right. Shortly after the Paris attacks began last Friday, she tweeted, "They can wait if they like until next November for the actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight."

Stephen Colbert agrees. He told us this week to get used to saying "President Trump"-and led his studio audience to repeat the words in unison and then pretend to barf.

Yes, it's hard to stomach. America's most entertaining demagogue winning the GOP primaries and then the general? It can't happen here, can it?

Democrats have been expressing absolute incredulity at the possibility, and quietly chuckling to themselves about the Clinton landslide to come if Donald is his party's nominee. The Huffington Post has banned Trump from its politics section and relegated him to Entertainment, as if there he'd be no more than a joke.

The problem is that our liberal incredulity mirrors that of the Republican establishment, which refuses to believe that their front-runner of five straight months could possibly win their nomination. Now even after the carnage in Paris, Beltway pundits are telling themselves that the base will sober up and turn toward "experienced" pols like Rubio or Bush and away from the newbie nuts. As the always-wrong Bill Kristol said of this latest terrorism crisis, "I think it hurts Trump and Carson, honestly."

But, honestly, it's only strengthened Trump. Since the November 13 attacks, every poll-in Florida, two in New Hampshire, and three nationwide-shows Trump maintaining or expanding his lead against his primary opponents. Poor Ben Carson, only recently Trump's chief rival, is losing energy like, well, you know who. In the Fox NH poll, it's Trump at 27, Rubio 13, Cruz 11, and Carson down there at 9 percent alongside Jeb!

It's easy to laugh at GOPers in denial, but progressives who pooh-pooh Trump's chances of beating Hillary may be whistling past the graveyard of American democracy.

A post-Paris Reuters/Ipsos poll asked 1,106 people which candidate, from the entire 2016 field, could best tackle terrorism, and respondents put Trump and Clinton on equal footing, at 20 percent each.

Not good-when it comes to taking on terrorists, a reality-show "carnival barker" who's never served in the military nor held elected office is tied with a decidedly hawkish former secretary of state?

Play it out: an outsider who's dismissed by his party's elite, comes into the race and overwhelms a large, much more experienced group of candidates in a series of state primaries, both increasing his margins and improving as a candidate as he goes long. All the time riding a crisis that seems made for his candidacy. Does that sound like a sure loser? ...

ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...

Media hype, more Americans died, most did not want to, from gun violence this past weekend......

While the investigation into US bombing waste is keyed on "who padded the figures" rather than the ineptitude of bombing in any use other than taking out property owners to get the greedy to say "uncle". The shame of Paris is attributable to the US war machine and every issue requires more money for the pentagon.

847328_3527
But they're still ... "jealous of our freedom" right?
sgt_doom

"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children indiscriminately," he said.

No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today!

Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame.

Recommended reading (to better understand why the USA is known as the Great Satan):

The Devil's Chessboard, by David Talbot

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=the+devil%27s+chessboard&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=78875381302&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2565125617248777980&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=e&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_34lcz93rcf_e_p4

logicalman
Funny how these fucks can come out and say this kind of shit and get away with it. The fucker's basically pleading guilty to murder, FFS.
Ms No
They didn't kill anybody in South America my ass.... The school of Americas, Operation Condor, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador .... who the hell are they kidding? The CIA has always been covered and nobody ever cared.
Perimetr Perimetr's picture
"If there's blame to be put. . ."

It's on the CIA for running its global terrorist operations, funded by the $1 trillion dollars a year coming from its Afghanistan heroin operation.

Noplebian

US Gives Their Proxy Army ISIS 45 Minute Warning Before Air Strikes......

http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

blindman

sirs and madams,
.
"Christmas celebration this year is going to be a charade because the whole world is at war. We are close to Christmas. There will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even Nativity scenes – all decked out – while the world continues to wage war.

It's all a charade. The world has not understood the way of peace. The whole world is at war. A war can be justified, so to speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is today, at war, piecemeal though that war may be-a little here, a little there-there is no justification.

What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now? What shall remain? Ruins, thousands of children without education, so many innocent victims, and lots of money in the pockets of arms dealers."

Francis I
.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2015/11/here-is-british-banned-...

Dinero D. Profit

Ladies and gentlemen of ZH.

In history, what must be, will be.

The discovery of America by Europe had to happen. The savages had to be eliminated and The Revolutionary War had to happen. Slavery had to begin, and after it, segregation had to begin, but, what must be, will be, slavery and segregation had to end. Old School colonization of poor nations had to happen. The Boer War had to happen. The Spanish American War had to happen. The Main had to be sunk. WWI had to happen. Calvary charges had to end. Totalitarian Communism had to happen. Germany's 20's depression had to happen, reactionary jingoism had to happen, and Kristallnacht and the Reichstag fire had to happen. The Allies had to win WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be publicity stunts, and the Cold War had to begin. JFK had to be wacked, the Vietnam War had to happen, the FED still was happening. Civil Rights laws had to be passed. Recognition of China had to happen, going off the gold standard had to happen, and Nixon had to be kicked out of office. Corporate Globalization had to begin. After Carter an actor had to be President. Unions had to be stifled. Perestroika and glasnost had to happen. The Berlin Wall had to come down. The MIC had to find another enemy, and suddenly 9/11 had to happen. …

Over population has to happen, poisoning the environment has to happen, and the NWO has to happen.

Ladies and gentlemen, the NWO is here, and there is nothing you can do, and nothing you could have done to stop it.

Edit. I see none of our supposed enemies 'truth bombing' 9/11, 7/7, and the 13th Paris attacks. I see no trade embagoes, I see no arguments in the Security Council over the illegality of US/Nato bombing in Syria.

blindman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_79...
Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy
Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT
.
On July 28, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive question were merely an afterthought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:

It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell." ...
.
it is the money "system", man.

blindman

corporations and hoodwink powers ride on the indifference of the damned, the silence of the dead and doomed.

Dinero D. Profit

The Satus Quo can rely upon the loyalty of their employees, Congress, the military, the military industrial contractors, their workers and family members, the crime control establishment, all Uniersity professors and employees, and every employee of all publically traded companies, and every person employed by the MSM.

The dead and doomed are irrelevant. If you have an establishment job, you'll obey and ask no vital questions.

Dick Buttkiss
Sunnis and Shiites hate each other far more than they hate Christians, Jews, or anyone else. If it weren't for oil, the USG wouldn't give a flyiing fuck if they anihilated each other. Instead, it conspires with them in ways far beyond its ability to comprehend, much less navigate. Thus is the US ship of state heading for the shoals of its destruction, the only question being how much of the country and the outside world it takes down with it.
ross81
thats bullshit Western propaganda that Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa. In the same way that the Brits stirred up Protestant hatred of Catholics in Ulster for centuries, the US/Israel/Saudi does the same with Sunnis vs Shiites on a much bigger scale in the Middle East. Divide and Conquer.
geno-econ
This is getting scary in that one or two more attacks will result in travel freezes, flow of Middle East oil and result in huge increase in military as well as Homeland security costs. A depression or economic collapse a real possibility Perhaps time for a Peace Conference of all interested parties. The US started this shit and should be the first to call for a Peace Conference. Macho talk will only make things worse.
moonmac
We can print trillions out of thin air at the drop of a hat but we can't kill a small group of terrorists. Got it!
sgt_doom
Or, we pour billions of dollars every year into the CIA, NSA, and DIA, and only a poor old fart such as myself can figure out that Bilal Erdogan is the ISIS connection to oil trading (Turkish president, Erdogan's son) and Erdogan's daughter is with ISIS?
GRDguy
Ex-CIA boss gets it wrong, again.

"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."

should be:

"When you have a small group of financial sociopaths willing to lie-to, steal-from and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."

and you'll probably be punished, jailed or shot for tryin' to protect yourself and your family.

Ban KKiller
War profiteer. That is it. Along wth James Comey, James Clapper, Jack Welch and the list is almost endless...
BarnacleBill
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."

Simply take out the word "their", and the description perfectly fits the CIA, MI6 and their like. For them, it's all a business deal, nothing more - a massive slum-clearance project. Destroy people's houses, provide accommodation and food, ship them somewhere else; do it again and again until the money-printing machine conks out. It's money for old rope.

http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2015/11/slum-clearance-on-massive-scale.html

And, yes, we're all vulnerable. The man got that right.

Duc888
"You get the politicians you deserve."

CIA types are appointed, not elected.

Duc888
I do not know if there are any Catherine Austin Fitts fans on this web site but this is definitely worth the time. The FEDGOV came after her non stop for 6 years when she worked for HUD under Bush Sr. If nothing else this lady is tenacious. In this presentation she uncorks exactly HOW the deep black budgets are paid for...and it ain't your tax dollars. What she uncovered while at HUD was simply amazing..... and she made an excellent point. At the top... it's NOT "fraud" because that's how it was all deigned right from the get go after wwII. It brings to mind the funny computer saying....."it's a feature, not a bug". She digs right into how the CIA was funded... Truly amazing stuff. ...of course the dick head brigade will come along here and deride her because of the conference she is speaking at.... well, who the fuck cares, her presentation is excellent and filled with facts. Yes it is 1 hour 20 minutes long but imho it is well worth the watch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0mimIp8mr8

Dragon HAwk
After reading all these posts my only question is why does the CIA allow Zero Hedge to Exist ?

except of course to collect names...

[Nov 23, 2015] Imagine a U.S. presidential candidate who met with the Russian government and repeatedly accused them of being too soft on President Obama By Mark Weisbrot

Notable quotes:
"... Imagine a U.S. presidential candidate who met with the Russian government and repeatedly accused them of being too soft on President Obama. A candidate who told Russias foreign minister of the need to set limits on the White Houses misbehavior, and that the Russians silence on the abusive mistreatment [Russia] suffered at the hands of the Obama administration had encouraged more of the same. ..."
"... Mauricio Macri, a right-wing businessman from one of the countrys richest families, is running for president in elections this Sunday. According to leaked documents from the U.S. Embassy, published by WikiLeaks, this is the conversation he had with the U.S. ambassador and the U.S. State Department official in charge of Latin America. He was very concerned that Washington was too soft on Argentina and was encouraging abusive treatment of the U.S. at the hands of the Argentine government. ..."
"... From 2003-2015, according to the IMF, the real (inflation-adjusted) Argentine economy grew by about 78 percent. (There is some dispute over this number, but not enough to change the overall picture.) This is quite a large increase in living standards, one of the biggest in the Americas. Unemployment fell from more than 17.2 percent to 6.9 percent (IMF). The government created the largest conditional cash transfer program in the Americas for the poor. From 2003 to the second half of 2013 (the latest independent statistics available), poverty fell by about 70 percent and extreme poverty by 80 percent. (These numbers are based on independent estimates of inflation.) ..."
"... In the last four years, growth has slowed, inflation has been higher, and a black market has developed for the dollar. Some of this has been due to a number of unfavorable external shocks: the regional economy will have negative growth this year (Argentinas will be slightly positive); ..."
www.cepr.net
http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/warning-signs-on-the-road-to-change-in-argentina

November 20, 2015

Warning Signs on the Road to "Change" in Argentina
By Mark Weisbrot

Imagine a U.S. presidential candidate who met with the Russian government and repeatedly accused them of being "too soft" on President Obama. A candidate who told Russia's foreign minister of the "need to set limits" on the White House's "misbehavior," and that the Russians' "silence" on the "abusive mistreatment [Russia] suffered" at the hands of the Obama administration "had encouraged more of the same."

Would Americans trust such a candidate? OK, that's a rhetorical question. But in Argentina, it's real.

Mauricio Macri, a right-wing businessman from one of the country's richest families, is running for president in elections this Sunday. According to leaked documents from the U.S. Embassy, published by WikiLeaks, this is the conversation he had with the U.S. ambassador and the U.S. State Department official in charge of Latin America. He was very concerned that Washington was "too soft" on Argentina and was encouraging "abusive treatment" of the U.S. at the hands of the Argentine government.

The analogy is not perfect, since the current Russian government has never played a major role -- or any role, for that matter -- in wrecking the U.S. economy and creating a Great Depression here. But the U.S. Treasury Department, which was the International Monetary Fund's decider during Argentina's severe depression of 1998-2002, did indeed exert an enormous influence on the policies that prolonged and deepened that depression. Argentines are not holding a grudge, but neither would they want the U.S. to again play a major role in their politics or economic policy.

But there are other reasons to worry about Macri's intentions that hit closer to home. In his conversations with U.S. officials, in 2009, he referred to the economic policies of the Kirchners -- Néstor Kirchner, who was president from 2003-2007, and his wife Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was elected in 2007 -- as "a failed economic model." He has made similar statements during the campaign, and although he has often been vague, he has indicated that he wants something very different, and considerably to the right of current economic policy.

It is worth looking at this much-maligned record of the Kirchners, especially since Daniel Scioli, who is the candidate of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and her "Front for Victory" alliance, represents some continuity with "Kirchnerismo." Macri's coalition is called "Cambiemos," or "Let's Change."

From 2003-2015, according to the IMF, the real (inflation-adjusted) Argentine economy grew by about 78 percent. (There is some dispute over this number, but not enough to change the overall picture.) This is quite a large increase in living standards, one of the biggest in the Americas. Unemployment fell from more than 17.2 percent to 6.9 percent (IMF). The government created the largest conditional cash transfer program in the Americas for the poor. From 2003 to the second half of 2013 (the latest independent statistics available), poverty fell by about 70 percent and extreme poverty by 80 percent. (These numbers are based on independent estimates of inflation.)

But these numbers do not describe the full magnitude of the achievement. As I describe in my book, "Failed: What the 'Experts' Got Wrong About the Global Economy" (Oxford University Press, 2015), Néstor Kirchner took office as the economy was beginning to recover from a serious depression, and it took great courage and tenacity to stand up to the IMF and its allies, negotiate a sustainable level of foreign debt (which involved sticking to a large default), and implement a set of macroeconomic policies that would allow for this remarkable recovery. It was analogous to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's leadership during the U.S. Great Depression, and like Roosevelt, Kirchner had the majority of the economics profession against him -- as well as the media. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner also had to fight a number of battles to continue Argentina's economic progress.

In the last four years, growth has slowed, inflation has been higher, and a black market has developed for the dollar. Some of this has been due to a number of unfavorable external shocks: the regional economy will have negative growth this year (Argentina's will be slightly positive); Argentina's biggest trading partner, Brazil, is in recession and has seen its currency plummet; and in 2014 a New York judge of questionable competence made a political decision to block Argentina from making debt payments to most of its creditors. So, despite the overall track record of 12 years of Kirchnerismo delivering a large increase in living standards and employment, and successful poverty reduction, there are significant problems that need to be fixed.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran for president of the United States in the midst of a recession and inflation passing 13 percent. He, too, promised change and he delivered it -- and ushered in an era of sharply increased inequality and other social, political, and economic maladies from which America is still suffering. Just look at his proud progeny in the Republican presidential debates.

Macri probably does not have Reagan's talent as an actor and communicator to radically transform Argentina and reverse most of the gains of the last 13 years. But it seems likely from the interests that he represents, and his political orientation, that Argentina's poor and working people will bear the brunt of any economic adjustment. And there is a serious risk that by following right-wing "fixes" for the economy, he could launch a cycle of self-defeating austerity and recession of the kind that we have seen in Greece and the eurozone.

The Kirchners also reversed the impunity of military officers responsible for mass murder and torture during the dictatorship, and hundreds have been tried and convicted for their crimes. Macri has dismissed these unprecedented human rights achievements as mere political showmanship. His party also voted against marriage equality, which was passed anyway, making Argentina the first country in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage.

"Let's Change" is an appealing slogan, but the question is "change to what?"

[Nov 23, 2015] The Crisis of World Order

It's the same PNAC propaganda all over again.
Notable quotes:
"... From the man who brought you the Iraq war and the rise of ISIS--how to solve the ISIS crisis. ..."
"... Youd think ppl who brought the Iraq war, the best recruiters of ISIS, would be nowhere to be seen; but no, are telling how to deal w/ISIS. ..."
"... Narrative is the foundation of their skewed analysis. Their object is to sell perpetual war using super high tech, exquisitely expensive, contractor maintained versions of WW II formations to expired resources eternally for the profits they deliver. They starve the safety net to pay for their income security. ..."
"... ... In July of last year, the New York Times ran two pieces tying Clinton to the neoconservative movement. In "The Next Act of the Neocons," (*) Jacob Heilbrunn argued that neocons like historian Robert Kagan are putting their lot in with Clinton in an effort to stay relevant while the GOP shies away from its past interventionism and embraces politicians like Senator Rand Paul: ..."
"... And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy. ..."
"... It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board ..."
"... Kagan served on Clinton's bipartisan foreign policy advisory board when she was Secretary of State, has deep neocon roots. ..."
"... A month before the Heilbrunn piece, the Times profiled Kagan ( ..."
"... ), who was critical of Obama's foreign policy, but supported Clinton. "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Kagan told the Times. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue … it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that." ... ..."
"... Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? http://nyti.ms/1qJ4eLN ..."
"... Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy http://nyti.ms/UEuqtB ..."
"... doublethink has become synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the contradiction between two world views – or even of deliberately seeking to relieve cognitive dissonance. (Wikipedia) ..."
Nov. 20, 2015 | WSJ

...Europe was not in great shape before the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks. The prolonged Eurozone crisis eroded the legitimacy of European political institutions and the centrist parties that run them, while weakening the economies of key European powers. The old troika-Britain, France and Germany-that used to provide leadership on the continent and with whom the U.S. worked most closely to set the global agenda is no more. Britain is a pale shadow of its former self. Once the indispensable partner for the U.S., influential in both Washington and Brussels, the mediator between America and Europe, Britain is now unmoored, drifting away from both. The Labor Party, once led by Tony Blair, is now headed by an anti-American pacifist, while the ruling Conservative government boasts of its "very special relationship" with China.

... ... ...

There is a Russian angle, too. Many of these parties, and even some mainstream political movements across the continent, are funded by Russia and make little secret of their affinity for Moscow. Thus Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has praised "illiberalism" and made common ideological cause with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In Germany, a whole class of businesspeople, politicians, and current and former government officials, led by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, presses constantly for normalized relations with Moscow. It sometimes seems, in Germany and perhaps in all of Europe, as if the only person standing in the way of full alliance with Russia is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Now the Syrian crisis has further bolstered Russia's position. Although Europeans generally share Washington's discomfort with Moscow's support for Mr. Assad and Russia's bombing of moderate Syrian rebels, in the wake of the Paris attacks, any plausible partner in the fight against Islamic State seems worth enlisting. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy has long been an advocate for Russia, but now his calls for partnership with Moscow are echoed by President François Hollande, who seeks a "grand coalition" with Russia to fight Islamic State.

Where does the U.S. fit into all this? The Europeans no longer know, any more than American allies in the Middle East do. Most Europeans still like Mr. Obama. After President George W. Bush and the Iraq war, Europeans have gotten the kind of American president they wanted. But in the current crisis, this new, more restrained and intensely cautious post-Iraq America has less to offer than the old superpower, with all its arrogance and belligerence.

The flip side of European pleasure at America's newfound Venusian outlook is the perception, widely shared around the world, that the U.S. is a declining superpower, and that even if it is not objectively weaker than it once was, its leaders' willingness to deploy power on behalf of its interests, and on behalf of the West, has greatly diminished. As former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer recently put it, the U.S. "quite obviously, is no longer willing-or able-to play its old role."

Mr. Fischer was referring specifically to America's role as the dominant power in the Middle East, but since the refugee crisis and the attacks in Paris, America's unwillingness to play that role has reverberations and implications well beyond the Middle East. What the U.S. now does or doesn't do in Syria will affect the future stability of Europe, the strength of trans-Atlantic relations and therefore the well-being of the liberal world order.

This is no doubt the last thing that Mr. Obama wants to hear, and possibly to believe. Certainly he would not deny that the stakes have gone up since the refugee crisis and especially since Paris. At the very least, Islamic State has proven both its desire and its ability to carry out massive, coordinated attacks in a major European city. It is not unthinkable that it could carry out a similar attack in an American city. This is new.

... ... ...

In 2002, a British statesman-scholar issued a quiet warning. "The challenge to the postmodern world," the diplomat Robert Cooper argued, was that while Europeans might operate within their borders as if power no longer mattered, in the world outside Europe, they needed to be prepared to use force just as in earlier eras. "Among ourselves, we keep the law, but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle," he wrote. Europeans didn't heed this warning, or at least didn't heed it sufficiently. They failed to arm themselves for the jungle, materially and spiritually, and now that the jungle has entered the European garden, they are at a loss.

With the exercise of power barely an option, despite what Mr. Hollande promises, Europeans are likely to feel their only choice is to build fences, both within Europe and along its periphery-even if in the process they destroy the very essence of the European project. It is this sentiment that has the Le Pens of Europe soaring in the polls.

What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria, providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return. To establish such a zone, American military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely American.

In addition, a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to uproot Islamic State from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq. Many of those troops could then be replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by Islamic State rule.

At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power, the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted. Throughout the transition period, and probably beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force-made up of French, Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops-would have to remain in Syria until a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved.

Is such a plan so unthinkable? In recent years, the mere mention of U.S. ground troops has been enough to stop any conversation. Americans, or at least the intelligentsia and political class, remain traumatized by Iraq, and all calculations about what to do in Syria have been driven by that trauma. Mr. Obama's advisers have been reluctant to present him with options that include even smaller numbers of ground forces, assuming that he would reject them. And Mr. Obama has, in turn, rejected his advisers' less ambitious proposals on the reasonable grounds that they would probably be insufficient.

This dynamic has kept the president sneering at those who have wanted to do more but have been reluctant to be honest about how much more. But it has also allowed him to be comfortable settling for minimal, pressure-relieving approaches that he must know cannot succeed but which at least have the virtue of avoiding the much larger commitment that he has so far refused to make.

The president has also been inclined to reject options that don't promise to "solve" the problems of Syria, Iraq and the Middle East. He doesn't want to send troops only to put "a lid on things."

In this respect, he is entranced, like most Americans, by the image of the decisive engagement followed by the victorious return home. But that happy picture is a myth. Even after the iconic American victory in World War II, the U.S. didn't come home. Keeping a lid on things is exactly what the U.S. has done these past 70 years. That is how the U.S. created this liberal world order.

In Asia, American forces have kept a lid on what had been, and would likely be again, a dangerous multisided conflict involving China, Japan, Korea, India and who knows who else. In Europe, American forces put a lid on what had been a chronic state of insecurity and war, making it possible to lay the foundations of the European Union. In the Balkans, the presence of U.S. and European troops has kept a lid on what had been an escalating cycle of ethnic conflict. In Libya, a similar international force, with even a small American contingent, could have kept the lid on that country's boiling caldron, perhaps long enough to give a new, more inclusive government a chance.

Preserving a liberal world order and international security is all about placing lids on regions of turmoil. In any case, as my Brookings Institution colleague Thomas Wright observes, whether or not you want to keep a lid on something really ought to depend on what's under the lid.

At practically any other time in the last 70 years, the idea of dispatching even 50,000 troops to fight an organization of Islamic State's description would not have seemed too risky or too costly to most Americans. In 1990-91, President George H.W. Bush, now revered as a judicious and prudent leader, sent half a million troops across the globe to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, a country that not one American in a million could find on a map and which the U.S. had no obligation to defend. In 1989, he sent 30,000 troops to invade Panama to topple an illegitimate, drug-peddling dictator. During the Cold War, when presidents sent more than 300,000 troops to Korea and more than 500,000 troops to Vietnam, the idea of sending 50,000 troops to fight a large and virulently anti-American terrorist organization that had seized territory in the Middle East, and from that territory had already launched a murderous attack on a major Western city, would have seemed barely worth an argument.

Not today. Americans remain paralyzed by Iraq, Republicans almost as much as Democrats, and Mr. Obama is both the political beneficiary and the living symbol of this paralysis. Whether he has the desire or capacity to adjust to changing circumstances is an open question. Other presidents have-from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton-each of whom was forced to recalibrate what the loss or fracturing of Europe would mean to American interests. In Mr. Obama's case, however, such a late-in-the-game recalculation seems less likely. He may be the first president since the end of World War II who simply doesn't care what happens to Europe.

If so, it is, again, a great irony for Europe, and perhaps a tragic one. Having excoriated the U.S. for invading Iraq, Europeans played no small part in bringing on the crisis of confidence and conscience that today prevents Americans from doing what may be necessary to meet the Middle Eastern crisis that has Europe reeling. Perhaps there are Europeans today wishing that the U.S. will not compound its error of commission in Iraq by making an equally unfortunate error of omission in Syria. They can certainly hope.

Mr. Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order" and, most recently, "The World America Made."

Selected Skeptical Comments
anne said... , November 22, 2015 at 05:50 AM
https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan

Branko Milanovic ‏@BrankoMilan

From the man who brought you the Iraq war and the rise of ISIS--how to solve the ISIS crisis.

Strobe Talbott @strobetalbott

A clarion call by @BrookingsFP's Bob Kagan. Hope (& bet) POTUS has read it. Would-be successors should as well. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-crisis-of-world-order-1448052095

9:03 AM - 21 Nov 2015

anne said in reply to anne... , November 22, 2015 at 05:50 AM

https://twitter.com/BrankoMilan/status/668114578866221056

Branko Milanovic‏ @BrankoMilan

You'd think ppl who brought the Iraq war, the best recruiters of ISIS, would be nowhere to be seen; but no, are telling how to deal w/ISIS.

ilsm said in reply to anne...

Narrative is the foundation of their skewed analysis. Their object is to sell perpetual war using super high tech, exquisitely expensive, contractor maintained versions of WW II formations to expired resources eternally for the profits they deliver. They starve the safety net to pay for their income security.


Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to anne...

Neoconservativism Is Down But Not Out of the 2016 Race

http://bloom.bg/1EpwSou
via @Bloomberg - February 18, 2015

... In July of last year, the New York Times ran two pieces tying Clinton to the neoconservative movement. In "The Next Act of the Neocons," (*) Jacob Heilbrunn argued that neocons like historian Robert Kagan are putting their lot in with Clinton in an effort to stay relevant while the GOP shies away from its past interventionism and embraces politicians like Senator Rand Paul:

'Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in the New Republic this year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."

And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.

It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.'

(The story also notes, prematurely, that the careers of older neocons like Wolfowitz are "permanently buried in the sands of Iraq.")

Kagan served on Clinton's bipartisan foreign policy advisory board when she was Secretary of State, has deep neocon roots. He was part of the Project for a New American Century, a now-defunct think tank that spanned much of the second Bush presidency and supported a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity." PNAC counted Kagan, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol, and Jeb Bush among its members. In 1998, some of its members-including Wolfowitz, Kagan, and Rumsfeld-signed an open letter to President Bill Clinton asking him to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

A month before the Heilbrunn piece, the Times profiled Kagan (#), who was critical of Obama's foreign policy, but supported Clinton. "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Kagan told the Times. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue … it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that." ...

*- Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? http://nyti.ms/1qJ4eLN

#- Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy http://nyti.ms/UEuqtB

Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

(I may be a HRC supporter but Neocons still make me anxious.)

'doublethink has become synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the contradiction between two world views – or even of deliberately seeking to relieve cognitive dissonance.' (Wikipedia)


[Nov 21, 2015] US Congresswoman Introduces Bill To Stop Illegal War On Assad; Says CIA Ops Must Stop

"Any candidate who supports a safe no-fly zone in Syria, must admit that US/Coalition ground/air troops are need to enforce [it]
Nov 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Last month, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went on CNN and laid bare Washington's Syria strategy.

In a remarkably candid interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard calls Washington's effort to oust Assad "counterproductive" and "illegal" before taking it a step further and accusing the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "sworn enemies."

In short, Gabbard all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."

For those who missed it, here's the clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHkher6ceaA

[Nov 20, 2015] Hillarys Heavy Obligations to Wall Street Money and The Banks Favorite Candidates

jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them.

Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

Tacitus, Agricola

People are discouraged and disillusioned after almost thirty years of distorted governance, specially in the aftermath of the 'Hope and Change' which quickly became 'Vain Hope for Change.' Most cannot admit that their guys were in the pockets of Big Defense, Big Pharma, Big Energy, and Wall Street.

The real question about Hillary comes down to this. Can you trust her to do what she says she will do, the right things for her putative constituents and not her big money donors and paymasters, once she takes office?

Or will that poor family who left the White House 'broke' and then mysteriously obtained a fortune of over $100 million in the following years, thanks to enormous payments for 'speeches' from large financial firms and huge donations to their Trust once again take care of the hand that pays them the most?

This is not to say that there is a better alternative amongst the leading Republican candidates, who have been and are still under the same types of payment arrangements, only with different people signing the checks.

Or we could skip the middlemen entirely and just directly elect one of New York's most prominent of their narcissist class directly, instead of another witless stooge of big money, and hope for something different? And how will that likely work out for us?

It is an exceptionally hard time to be a human being in this great nation of ours.

And so what ought we to do? Wallow in cynicism and the sweet sickness of misanthropy and despair? Vote strictly on the hope of our own narrow self-interest no matter the broader and longer term consequences, and then face the inevitable blowback from injustice and repression?

Give up on our grandchildren and children because we are too tired and interested in our own short term comfort? Too filled with selfishness, anger and hate to see straight, and do anything but turn ourselves into mindless animals to escape the pain of being truly human? Do no thinking, and just follow orders? This latter impulse has taken whole nations of desperate people into the abyss.

Or do we stop wallowing in our specialness and self-pity, and 'stand on the shoulders of giants' and confront what virtually every generation and every individual has had to wrestle with since the beginning of recorded time?

Do we fall, finally stricken with grief in our blindness, on the road to Damascus and say at long last, 'Lord, what then wilt thou have me to do?'

This is the question that circumstance is posing to us. And hopefully we will we heed the answer that has been already given, to be 'steadfast, unshaken, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in Him our labor is not in vain.'

And the touchstone of the alloy of our actions is love.

And so we have before us what Franklin Roosevelt so aptly characterized as our own 'rendezvous with destiny.'


Related:
Wall Street Is Running the World's Central Banks
Wall Street's Favorite Presidential Candidates

[Nov 16, 2015] Bankrupt British Empire Keeps Pushing To Overthrow Putin

Notable quotes:
"... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down. ..."
"... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putins bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
"... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as authoritarian, dictators, and so forth. She said, The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state. She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: [T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule. ..."
"... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread Cold War venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
"... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. ..."
"... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
January 1, 2012 | http://schillerinstitute.org/russia/2012/0122_overthrow_putin.html
This article appears in the January 20, 2012 issue of Executive Intelligence Review and is reprinted with permission.

[PDF version of this article]

January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in which ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political turmoil.

Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.

Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud, shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus inside the United States, exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1] have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.

Project Democracy

Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), before the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy; it functions, inclusively, through the International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).

Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at Oxford University, before coming to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author, Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2] for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.

EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil.

In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule."

Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could be replicated in Russia, claiming that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed were the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always the most creative innovators in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."

Holos Ameryky

The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.

While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress to "look to [Eastern Europe] as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but also how the forces for freedom and democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."

In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center Russian polling organization, who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election. Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, who predicted in the nastiest tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September period, Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin's dominance.

The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups in Russia. Golos, the supposedly independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED money through the NDI since 2000. Golos had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting irregularity. NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations-since 2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating project called "DA!" (meaning "Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also received NED grants to his World Movement for Democracy.

Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest source of funds for this meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually, of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information" programs, and only a small fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon announced that the Obama Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative to create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more pluralistic and open society."

Awaiting McFaul

White House/Pete Souza

The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office), as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts to destabilize the country.

People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security Council official for Russia, has been working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of the Soviet period, and headed its office there.

As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover Institution, as well as the Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks, McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda. Financing for his research has come from the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier interests within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.

In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3] McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated from abroad-as a triumph of "people's political power from below to resist and eventually overturn a fraudulent election."

Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran Democracy Project. He has also been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.

The Internet Dimension

The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred on Dec. 5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000 to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect Dec. 24.

Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five years has opened up a new dimension of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current attempts to destabilize Russia and, in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada, but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis and related ventures of the Cambridge Apostles.[4]

The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's interaction with Russian anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December protest rallies.

While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union starting two decades ago, as recently as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia. Oxford University's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that Failed: How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia." The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in Russian Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and the Resource Security Institute, on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society" to mobilize "liberal opposition groups and nationalists."

Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet access had led to Russia's having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru (like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had 7.8 million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5] with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.

The Cambridge Security Programme

Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08.

Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status in their essay "Control and Subversion in Russian Cyberspace."[6] At the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International Network of Social Network Analysis (INSNA).[7] Rohozinski is a cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), including Rohozinski's SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.

The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by governments, is a joint project of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and the University of Toronto.

Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively, the ONI authors welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics." On the political side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree of free speech and opportunity to mobilize that it provides."

This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society is now being hyped by those who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population "the creative class," or "the active creative minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue of Vedomosti, a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist Natalya Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department veteran who has concentrated for decades on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other lines.

Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities, of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial transformation," constitute a special, influential class, as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial cities with an uncertain future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the 35 million domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."

The Case of Alexei Navalny

In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander Verkhovsky delved into the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to "orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"? They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential for "mobilization": "Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to meet people on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The potential is there, but more often than not it is not used."


Creative Commons
Creative Commons/Bogomolov.PL

NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow.

It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing niche. This would not be the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In 1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities for reform in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that time: the wealthy businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure, arising from historical non-existence: the figure of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and willingness to support innovation."[8]

This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in Russia, becoming known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?

Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35 years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006, he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through doing online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired enough money to be able to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian companies with a high percentage of state ownership. This gave him minority-shareholder status, as a platform for his anti-corruption probes.

It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows through payoffs, string-pulling, and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks in the 1980s. It then experienced a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the Great Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order, which itself relies on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf, the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian economy has only increased.

Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism, which LaRouche has identified as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic City of London-Eurozone-Wall Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!

Yale Fellows

In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved candidates out of over a thousand applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's Open Society Foundations.[9] What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman and CEO of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg and his C.V. Starr company have a long record of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and he enjoyed recommendations from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from New Haven that Navalny launched his anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just finished the first year of operation of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.

Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the full legal documentation of his corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do you think I'm an American project, or a Kremlin one?"

During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized dialogue in Live Journal with Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story author and liberal activist who was another leader of the December demonstrations, about whether Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who is unfit to lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian columnist Maxim Sokolov, writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.

Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear that he is working from the playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004.[10] Sharp, a veteran of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Power and Struggle, which advises the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.

While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the U.K. The study produced a profile titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal, nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.

Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.


  • [1] "Project Democracy: The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington, D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report explored the connection between the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver North, et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra" scandal. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's "Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization of U.S. intelligence under President Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The process of replacing traditional intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy'' worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often measured by such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations that are supposedly being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself was founded in 1983.
  • [2] "Profile: 'Get LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat," EIR, Sept. 29, 2006, reviews the Truman-era roots of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of whom were later active against LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological warfare." The closely related Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet Union did, have sat on its board.
  • [3] Stephen K. Wegren, Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, p. 118.
  • [4] Craig Isherwood, "Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November 2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf). Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and advisor to the British East India Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic intelligence posts for the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire and anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the elite university in Britain, Trinity College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other doctrines, the Apostles founded: Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern psychoanalysis; all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics'; modern digital computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles, ... traced the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton back to the ancient priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but also the involvement of several members of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper of the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
  • [5] Billionaire Milner is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune as one of Russia's newly minted "oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group, among other projects.
  • [6] In Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
  • [7] David Christie, "INSNA: 'Handmaidens of British Colonialism'," in The Noösphere vs. the Blogosphere: Is the Devil in Your Laptop?, LaRouchePAC, 2007, page 20.
  • [8] Anatoliy Chubais and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg, Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur comes straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist, or "entrepreneur-spirit," to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
  • Lord Malloch-Brown: Soros Man Is British Conduit to Obama," EIR, Aug. 22, 2008 reports the earlier collaboration of these two in support of the Rose Revolution in Georgia, in 2003.
  • Ukraine: A Post-modernist Revolution," EIR, Feb. 11, 2005. Sharp's Albert Einstein Institution received grants from the NED and the IRI.
Related pages:

[email protected]

The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244
703-771-8390

[Nov 15, 2015] State Dept. not saying if Hillary Clinton signed separation agreement

From comments: "If in fact she did sign it, then why doesn't she just say YES? And if she didn't, then why doesn't she just say NO? Because, either way she broke the law. She's guilty if she did, and she's guilty if she didn't. When are the Billary fans going to realize, that she's the mistake by the lake. This is a Conniving, Scheming, Narcissistic, non Feeling or Caring poor excuse of a humanbeing. This is one nasty women, and I'm amazed that so many people don't see it. Don't let Oh-Bummer happen to us 3 times. "
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, did all of Hillarys staff sign this document? ..."
"... According to other stories on Yahoo today, the State Dept said she did not sign the form. ..."
finance.yahoo.com
David
They say they are for transparency. In 2013, President Obama boasted, "This is the most transparent administration in history." But watch what his administration does.

Today, it will issue new rules exempting a key administrative office that handles issues such as request for access to government email records from the Freedom of Information Act. That law is specifically designed to allow private parties to look at government documents that aren't privileged or involve national security.

Hillary and Obama are the most deceitful and dishonest people in America and neither of them should be in an office representing the United States of America.

cafe
My question is whether Huma Abedin had to sign the exit document specifying that she would ensure that all of her electronic documents were given to the State Department when she left her position at the same time that Hillary Clinton did.

In fact, did all of Hillary's staff sign this document? It has been shown that Huma and other staff members have email addresses on the Clinton email server which validates the measures to have that server turned into the government!!!!

All of them need to be served subpoenas and this server need turned in!

Bob from Cape Cod
According to other stories on Yahoo today, the State Dept said she did not sign the form. This speaks to the ineptness of this Administration.

What I'm thinking is: She did, but told Obama if it were released that she did sign it, she would spill the beans on all the inside B$ that would hurt Obama.

This way she gets to escape perjury charges and still keep the private server and keep deciding by herself what she will release and what she will not.

And her KoolAid drinking minions will accept everything she says.

Mister Karma
Hillary...In the news- Factual History

As a 27-year-old staffer, she was fired from the Watergate committee for fraud and unethical behavior. Her former boss, Jerry Zeifman, finally spoke out in 2008:
"Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.".....

From a June 2000 article in the Los Angeles Times:

There is "substantial evidence" that First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton lied under oath in denying that she played a role in the 1993 White House travel office firings, independent counsel Robert W. Ray reported Thursday....

On Sept. 11, 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens and 3 other Americans were murdered by Islamic militants in Benghazi, Libya. Originally the attack was blamed on outrage due to an anti-Muslim You Tube video, and then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds to all the Sunday shows to denounce the hate speech. For weeks, Hillary adamantly supported the ridiculous notion that these were "spontaneous demonstrations," despite overwhelming evidence that she knew from the beginning that this was simply false...
....... The truth is that Hillary has a long, checkered career, full of scandals and lies.

Terry
If in fact she did sign it, then why doesn't she just say YES? And if she didn't, then why doesn't she just say NO? Because, either way she broke the law. She's guilty if she did, and she's guilty if she didn't. When are the Billary fans going to realize, that she's the mistake by the lake. This is a Conniving, Scheming, Narcissistic, non Feeling or Caring poor excuse of a humanbeing. This is one nasty women, and I'm amazed that so many people don't see it. Don't let Oh-Bummer happen to us 3 times.
Justa Nobody
I'm so disappointed with our government. Isn't it time for voters from all parties to send a message that We The People want and expect open and transparent government.

[Nov 14, 2015] Is a 'black box' agency hindering the outlook on US crude, condensate exports

Notable quotes:
"... infrastructure constraints, tight spreads and even contractual obligations from producers may have slowed the growth of the US processed condensate market, which may have peaked at an estimated 160,000 b/d in June and fell to as low as 30,000 b/d in September. ..."
"... decline has been fueled by low crude oil prices, which have pushed Eagle Ford condensate production down by about 200,000 b/d, and a tightening of the WTI-Brent and LLS-Brent spread to about $3/b. At the same time, the construction of three new Gulf Coast splitters has boosted domestic demand for condensate, Nance said. ..."
Nov 14, 2015 | The Barrel Blog

When the Obama administration gave legal backing to exports of processed condensate exports last year, it fueled speculation that a more significant shift in US crude export policy was looming and that US producers may have found a new global export market to conquer.

Much of that speculation has, thus far, fallen flat.

The administration has signaled that it will not move to liberalize long-standing restrictions on crude exports nor will it back efforts by Congress to repeal these roughly 40-year-old limits, despite a fierce lobbying push to do so.

At the same time, infrastructure constraints, tight spreads and even contractual obligations from producers may have slowed the growth of the US processed condensate market, which may have peaked at an estimated 160,000 b/d in June and fell to as low as 30,000 b/d in September.

According to Stuart Nance, a vice president of marketing with Reliance, a Houston-based E&P company, that decline has been fueled by low crude oil prices, which have pushed Eagle Ford condensate production down by about 200,000 b/d, and a tightening of the WTI-Brent and LLS-Brent spread to about $3/b. At the same time, the construction of three new Gulf Coast splitters has boosted domestic demand for condensate, Nance said.

In short, the relatively underwhelming launch of the US processed condensate export market has not matched the initial hype.

[Nov 14, 2015] Bakken Big Decline in September

Notable quotes:
"... I believe from previous discussions, the 123 completions for the month was suppose to hold product steady, yet we have a 20,000 bopd decline. ..."
"... Are the oil producers starting to pay for over producing their wells earlier in the year? I will be interested to see how the GORs are getting on. ..."
"... As Burno Verwimp, pointed out, Aug / Sept were suppose to be the growth months. What is going to happen in the colder months? I think we know the direction. We just don't know how much. ..."
"... If nothing else is obvious, it is clear that numbers reported by government agencies are seldom going to be very reliable at the cutting edge. LOL . There are too many different people using slightly to noticeably different data and collection and analysis procedures. ..."
"... For over a year now it's been pretty clear that quite a lot of these numbers from NoDak are wrong. As far back as 2 yrs ago we could not make sense of wells completed vs output. A theory would be crafted and a month would arrive with data that blew it apart. ..."
"... The wagons were circled aggressively about a year or so ago to aggressively deny that NGLs were getting into oil railcars, despite the infrastructure for processing / separation being less common in NoDak vs Texas. But. . . . certainly would variably corrupt numbers and we do have to face the facts that the numbers don't seem solid. ..."
"... I wonder if the increased water is due to more frack stages and proppant being used now compared to 2008. The increased gas may simply be due to less flaring due to changes in regulations, but some of the increased gas might also be due to changes in well design (more frack stages and higher amounts of proppant. ..."
Nov 14, 2015 | Peak Oil BarrelPeak Oil Barrel

Toolpush, 11/14/2015 at 7:13 am

From up top,

"The number of well completions rose slightly from 115(final) in August to 123(preliminary) in September. "

I believe from previous discussions, the 123 completions for the month was suppose to hold product steady, yet we have a 20,000 bopd decline. So,

1/ Were the 123 wells brought online were that much poorer than the last months, 115 wells?
2/The decline rates in older wells has increased?

Are the oil producers starting to pay for over producing their wells earlier in the year? I will be interested to see how the GORs are getting on.

Helms has really lost the plot with his DUCs. As Ron points out, for his numbers to be correct, there had to be 221 wells drilled in Sept, with 68 rigs. Folks that didn't happen. Enno is quoted in the last thread as saying they drilled 97 wells. This is a reasonable number. It also means the DUCs will have dropped 26, but from what number I have no idea.

As Burno Verwimp, pointed out, Aug / Sept were suppose to be the growth months. What is going to happen in the colder months? I think we know the direction. We just don't know how much.

oldfarmermac, 11/14/2015 at 9:22 am

If nothing else is obvious, it is clear that numbers reported by government agencies are seldom going to be very reliable at the cutting edge. LOL . There are too many different people using slightly to noticeably different data and collection and analysis procedures.

I am not a numbers cruncher but occasionally read statistics gathered by agricultural agencies, and no two agencies numbers ever match much better, in terms of the very recent past, than the oil numbers presented here. Like the oil numbers, they tend to come together as the months go by.

Here is a link to somebody familiar to old TOD hands, who is still doing great work on oil.

http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/columns/rsquared/

Watcher, 11/14/2015 at 11:32 am

For over a year now it's been pretty clear that quite a lot of these numbers from NoDak are wrong. As far back as 2 yrs ago we could not make sense of wells completed vs output. A theory would be crafted and a month would arrive with data that blew it apart.

There are huge numbers being quoted for Bakken NGL output. Price seems to be nationally about $22.60 / barrel. At the well head . . . shrug.

The wagons were circled aggressively about a year or so ago to aggressively deny that NGLs were getting into oil railcars, despite the infrastructure for processing / separation being less common in NoDak vs Texas. But. . . . certainly would variably corrupt numbers and we do have to face the facts that the numbers don't seem solid.

This quote is a year old:

"NGLs are routinely stripped from crude in other oil production areas, such as the Eagle Ford in Texas, but in those cases the infrastructure of stabilizers has been in place to do the job where the production sits relatively close to the robust NGL market on the Gulf Coast. North Dakota has no in-state petrochemical market (see Shale Daily, May 27) and is 1,500 miles away from the Gulf."

AlexS , 11/14/2015 at 11:54 am

Watcher,

NDIC at least provides reliable production numbers. I wish we had similar statistics for Texas and other regions in the U.S. and worldwide. They also provide raw data on wells, which smart guys like Enno, Dennis and Bruno are processing and presenting to us in this blog.

We already know that Lynn Helms' interpretation of their own statistics often is wrong, so don't take it too seriously and let's be grateful for what we have from the NDIC

Dennis Coyne, 11/14/2015 at 2:12 pm

Thanks Freddy. I wonder if the increased water is due to more frack stages and proppant being used now compared to 2008. The increased gas may simply be due to less flaring due to changes in regulations, but some of the increased gas might also be due to changes in well design (more frack stages and higher amounts of proppant.

Dennis Coyne, 11/14/2015 at 4:39 pm

Hi Toolpush,

The water cut has been rising from the start of 2008, the recent rise in Gas cut may be due to reduced flaring. I assume flared gas is not measured precisely, and I would think it is not counted as "produced" gas. If I am correct, the new regulations which cuts back on flaring would increase the amount of produced gas. The Gas flaring reductions began in July 2014.

http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/houston/north-dakota-regulators-adopt-tough-gas-flaring-21841899

[Nov 14, 2015] Iraqi warmonger Ahmad Chalabi dies

Notable quotes:
"... Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician accused of providing false information that led to the United States toppling longtime dictator Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion, died on Tuesday of a heart attack, state television and two parliamentarians said. ..."
"... "The neo-cons wanted to make a case for war and he [Chalabi] was somebody who is willing to provide them with information that would help their cause," Ali Khedery, who was the longest continuously-serving American official in Iraq in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, told Al Arabiya News. ..."
Nov 03, 2015 | Al Arabiya News

Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician accused of providing false information that led to the United States toppling longtime dictator Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion, died on Tuesday of a heart attack, state television and two parliamentarians said.

Attendants found the controversial lawmaker, 71, dead in bed in his Baghdad home, according to parliament official Haitham al-Jabouri.

... ... ...

During his heyday, the smooth-talking Chalabi was widely seen as the man who helped push the U.S. and its main ally Britain into invading Iraq in 2003, with information that Saddam's government had weapons of mass destruction, claims that were eventually discredited.

... ... ...

Chalabi had also said Saddam - known for his secularist Baathist ideology - had ties with al-Qaeda.

After Saddam's fall by U.S.-led coalition forces, Chalabi returned from exile in Britain and the United States. Despite having been considered as a potential candidate for the powerful post of prime minister in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's 24-year reign, the politician never managed to rise to the top of Iraq's stormy, sectarian-driven political landscape.

His eventual fallout with his former American allies also hurt his chances of becoming an Iraqi leader.

"The neo-cons wanted to make a case for war and he [Chalabi] was somebody who is willing to provide them with information that would help their cause," Ali Khedery, who was the longest continuously-serving American official in Iraq in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, told Al Arabiya News.

[Nov 14, 2015] Why The Neocons Hate The Donald

Notable quotes:
"... The President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why, paraphrasing Trotsky , you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you. ..."
"... PAUL: … How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if youre going to keep promoting new programs that youre not going to pay for. ..."
"... Here, in one dramatic encounter, were two worldviews colliding: the older conservative vision embodied by Rand Paul, which puts domestic issues like fiscal solvency first, and the internationalist stance taken by what used to be called Rockefeller Republicans , and now goes under the neoconservative rubric, which puts the maintenance and expansion of Americas overseas empire – dubbed world leadership by Rubios doppelganger, Jeb Bush – over and above any concerns over budgetary common sense. ..."
"... Rubios proposed military budget – $696 billion – represents a $35 billion increase over what the Pentagon is requesting ..."
"... Pauls too-clever-by-half legislative maneuvering may have effectively exposed Rubio – and Sen. Tom Cotton, Marcos co-pilot on this flight into fiscal profligacy – as the faux-conservative that he is, but it evaded the broader question attached to the issue of military spending: what are we going to do with all that shiny-new military hardware? Send more weapons to Ukraine? Outfit an expeditionary force to re-invade Iraq and venture into Syria? This brings to mind Madeleine Albrights infamous remark directed at Gen. Colin Powell: Whats the point of having this superb military youre always talking about if we cant use it? ..."
"... Speaking of Trumpian hot air: Paul showed up The Donald for the ignorant blowhard he is by pointing out, after another of Trumps jeremiads aimed at the Yellow Peril, that China is not a party to the trade deal, which is aimed at deflecting Beijing. That was another shining moment for Paul, who successfully juxtaposed his superior knowledge to Trumps babbling. ..."
"... If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, one-hundred percent, and I cant understand how anybody would be against it. ..."
"... Trump, for all his contradictions, gives voice to the isolationist populism that Rubio and his neocon confederates despise, and which is implanted so deeply in the American consciousness. Why us? Why are we paying everybodys bills? Why are we fighting everybody elses wars? Its a bad deal! ..."
"... This is why the neocons hate Trumps guts even more than they hate Paul. The former, after all, is the frontrunner. What the War Party fears is that Trumps contradictory mixture of bluster – bigger, better, stronger! – and complaints that our allies are taking advantage of us means a victory for the dreaded isolationists at the polls. ..."
"... its election season, the one time – short of when were about to invade yet another country – when the American people are engaged with the foreign policy issues of the day. And what we are seeing is a rising tide of disgust with our policy of global intervention – in a confused inchoate sense, in the case of Trump, and in a focused, self-conscious, occasionally eloquent and yet still slightly confused and inconsistent way in the case of Sen. Paul. Either way, the real voice of the American heartland is being heard. ..."
"... Trump has rocked the boat and raised some issues and viewpoints that none of the other bought and paid for candidates would ever have raised. Has he changed the national discussion on these issues? At least he woken some people up. ..."
"... The sentence of We relied on the stupidity of the American voter resonates. ..."
"... What you did, was you fell for the oldest press trick in the book. Its called: out of context . Thats is where they play back only a segment of what someone says, only a part of what they want you to hear, so you will draw the wrong conclusion. What Trump said {had you listened to ALL of what he said} was that he was going to TAKE ISILS OIL. Oil is the largest source of revenue for them {then comes the CIA money}. If you were to remove their oil revenues from them, they would be seriously hurting for cash to fund their machine. I dont have a problem with that. ..."
"... The thing about understanding the attack on The Donald is understanding what he is NOT. Namely he is not CFR connected ..."
"... The attacks on Trump have been relentless yet he is still maintaining his position in the polls. ..."
"... The goal is to have a CFR candidate in both the GOP and Dem fold. Although Hillary is not a CFR member ostensibly Slick Willie has been for more than 20 years and his Administration was rife with them...Hello Rubin and Glass Steagal!!..as is Chelsea... a newly elected member. ..."
"... [American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant. ..."
"... Yes, I have also seen the new golden boy regaled in the media. Lets see where he goes. I wonder if anyone represents the American people any better than the corrupt piece of dried up persimmon that is Hillary? ..."
"... With JEB polling in single digits and hopelessly befuddled, Rubio is the Great Hispanic Hope of the establishment Republocrats. He is being well-pimped, is all. Paul is clearly more intelligent, more articulate, and more well-informed; Trump is more forceful and popular (but independent!). Neither suits an establishment that wants to hold the reins behind the throne. ..."
Nov 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Justin Raimondo via Anti-War.com,

Most Americans don't think much about politics, let alone foreign policy issues, as they go about their daily lives. It's not that they don't care: it's just that the daily grind doesn't permit most people outside of Washington, D.C. the luxury of contemplating the fate of nations with any regularity. There is one exception, however, and that is during election season, and specifically – when it comes to foreign policy – every four years, when the race for the White House begins to heat up. The President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why, paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you.

The most recent episode of the continuing GOP reality show, otherwise known as the presidential debates, certainly gave us a glimpse of what we are in for if the candidates on that stage actually make it into the Oval Office – and, folks, it wasn't pretty, for the most part. But there were plenty of bright spots.

This was supposed to have been a debate about economics, but in the Age of Empire there is no real division between economic and foreign policy issues. That was brought home by the collision between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul about half way through the debate when Rubio touted his child tax credit program as being "pro-family." A newly-aggressive and articulate Rand Paul jumped in with this:

"Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments – a new welfare program that's a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative."

Rubio's blow-dried exterior seemed to fray momentarily, as he gave his "it's for the children" reply:

"But if you invest it in your children, in the future of America and strengthening your family, we're not going to recognize that in our tax code? The family is the most important institution in society. And, yes…

"PAUL: Nevertheless, it's not very conservative, Marco."

Stung to the quick, Rubio played what he thought was his trump card:

"I know that Rand is a committed isolationist. I'm not. I believe the world is a stronger and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world.

"PAUL: Yeah, but, Marco! … How is it conservative … to add a trillion-dollar expenditure for the federal government that you're not paying for?

"RUBIO: Because…

"PAUL: … How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that you're not going to pay for.

(APPLAUSE)"

Here, in one dramatic encounter, were two worldviews colliding: the older conservative vision embodied by Rand Paul, which puts domestic issues like fiscal solvency first, and the "internationalist" stance taken by what used to be called Rockefeller Republicans, and now goes under the neoconservative rubric, which puts the maintenance and expansion of America's overseas empire – dubbed "world leadership" by Rubio's doppelganger, Jeb Bush – over and above any concerns over budgetary common sense.

Rubio then descended into waving the bloody shirt and evoking Trump's favorite bogeyman – the Yellow Peril – to justify his budget-busting:

"We can't even have an economy if we're not safe. There are radical jihadists in the Middle East beheading people and crucifying Christians. A radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, the Chinese taking over the South China Sea…"

If the presence of the Islamic State in the Middle East precludes us from having an economy, then those doing their Christmas shopping early this year don't seem to be aware of it. As for the Iranians and their alleged quest for nuclear weapons, IAEA inspectors are at this very moment verifying the complete absence of such an effort – although Sen. Paul, who stupidly opposed the Iran deal, is in no position to point this out. As for the fate of the South China Sea – if we could take a poll, I wonder how many Americans would rather have their budget out of balance in order to keep the Chinese from constructing artificial islands a few miles off their own coastline. My guess: not many.

Playing the "isolationist" card got Rubio nowhere: I doubt if a third of the television audience even knows what that term is supposed to mean. It may resonate in Washington, but out in the heartland it carries little if any weight with people more concerned about their shrinking bank accounts than the possibility that the South China Sea might fall to … the Chinese.

Ted Cruz underscored his sleaziness (and, incidentally, his entire election strategy) by jumping in and claiming the "middle ground" between Rubio's fulsome internationalism and Paul's call to rein in our extravagant military budget – by siding with Rubio. We can do what Rubio wants to do – radically increase military expenditures – but first, he averred, we have to cut sugar subsidies so we can afford it. This was an attack on Rubio's enthusiasm for sugar subsidies, without which, avers the Senator from the state that produces the most sugar, "we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we're at the mercy of a foreign country for food security." Yes, there's a jihadist-Iranian-Chinese conspiracy to deprive America of its sweet tooth – but not if President Rubio can stop it!

Cruz is a master at prodding the weaknesses of his opponents, but his math is way off: sugar subsidies have cost us some $15 billion since 2008. Rubio's proposed military budget – $696 billion – represents a $35 billion increase over what the Pentagon is requesting. Cutting sugar subsidies – an unlikely prospect, especially given the support of Republicans of Rubio's ilk for the program – won't pay for it.

However, if we want to go deeper into those weeds, Sen. Paul also endorses the $696 billion figure, but touts the fact that his proposal comes with cuts that will supposedly pay for the hike. This is something all those military contractors can live with, and so everybody's happy, at least on the Republican side of the aisle, and yet the likelihood of cutting $21 billion from "international affairs," never mind $20 billion from social services, is unlikely to garner enough support from his own party – let alone the Democrats – to get through Congress. So it's just more of Washington's kabuki theater: all symbolism, no action.

Paul's too-clever-by-half legislative maneuvering may have effectively exposed Rubio – and Sen. Tom Cotton, Marco's co-pilot on this flight into fiscal profligacy – as the faux-conservative that he is, but it evaded the broader question attached to the issue of military spending: what are we going to do with all that shiny-new military hardware? Send more weapons to Ukraine? Outfit an expeditionary force to re-invade Iraq and venture into Syria? This brings to mind Madeleine Albright's infamous remark directed at Gen. Colin Powell: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

In this way, Paul undermines his own case against global intervention – and even his own eloquent argument, advanced in answer to Rubio's contention that increasing the military budget would make us "safer":

"I do not think we are any safer from bankruptcy court. As we go further, and further into debt, we become less, and less safe. This is the most important thing we're going to talk about tonight. Can you be a conservative, and be liberal on military spending? Can you be for unlimited military spending, and say, Oh, I'm going to make the country safe? No, we need a safe country, but, you know, we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined."

I have to say Sen. Paul shone at this debate. His arguments were clear, consistent, and made with calm forcefulness. He distinguished himself from the pack, including Trump, who said "I agree with Marco, I agree with Ted," and went on to mouth his usual "bigger, better, stronger" hyperbole that amounted to so much hot hair air.

Speaking of Trumpian hot air: Paul showed up The Donald for the ignorant blowhard he is by pointing out, after another of Trump's jeremiads aimed at the Yellow Peril, that China is not a party to the trade deal, which is aimed at deflecting Beijing. That was another shining moment for Paul, who successfully juxtaposed his superior knowledge to Trump's babbling.

This obsession with China's allegedly malign influence extended to the next round, when foreign policy was again the focus. In answer to a question about whether he supports President Obama's plan to send Special Operations forces to Syria, Ben Carson said yes, because Russia is going to make it "their base," oh, and by the way: "You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians." Unless he's talking about these guys, Carson intel seems a bit off.

Jeb Bush gave the usual boilerplate, delivered in his preferred monotone, contradicting himself when he endorsed a no-fly zone over Syria and then attacked Hillary Clinton for not offering "leadership" – when she endorsed the idea practically in unison with him. Bush added his usual incoherence to the mix by averring that somehow not intervening more in the region "will have a huge impact on our economy" – but of course the last time we intervened it had a $2 trillion-plus impact in terms of costs, and that's a conservative estimate.

Oddly characterizing Russia's air strikes on the Islamic State as "aggression" – do our air strikes count as aggression? – the clueless Marie Bartiromo asked Trump what he intends to do about it. Trump evaded the question for a few minutes, going on about North Korea, Iran, and of course the Yellow Peril, finally coming out with a great line that not even the newly-noninterventionist Sen. Paul had the gumption to muster:

"If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, one-hundred percent, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it."

Bush butted in with "But they aren't doing that," which is the Obama administration's demonstrably inaccurate line, and Trump made short work of him with the now undeniable fact that the Islamic State blew up a Russian passenger jet with over 200 people on it. "He [Putin] cannot be in love with these people," countered Trump. "He's going in, and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people, and a group of countries, including Germany – tremendous economic behemoth – why are we always doing the work?"

Why indeed.

Trump, for all his contradictions, gives voice to the "isolationist" populism that Rubio and his neocon confederates despise, and which is implanted so deeply in the American consciousness. Why us? Why are we paying everybody's bills? Why are we fighting everybody else's wars? It's a bad deal!

This is why the neocons hate Trump's guts even more than they hate Paul. The former, after all, is the frontrunner. What the War Party fears is that Trump's contradictory mixture of bluster – "bigger, better, stronger!" – and complaints that our allies are taking advantage of us means a victory for the dreaded "isolationists" at the polls.

As for Carly Fiorina and John Kasich: they merely served as a Greek chorus to the exhortations of Rubio and Bush to take on Putin, Assad, Iran, China, and (in Trump's case) North Korea. They left out Venezuela only because they ran out of time, and breath. Fiorina and Kasich were mirror images of each other in their studied belligerence: both are aspiring vice-presidential running mates for whatever Establishment candidate takes the prize.

Yes, it's election season, the one time – short of when we're about to invade yet another country – when the American people are engaged with the foreign policy issues of the day. And what we are seeing is a rising tide of disgust with our policy of global intervention – in a confused inchoate sense, in the case of Trump, and in a focused, self-conscious, occasionally eloquent and yet still slightly confused and inconsistent way in the case of Sen. Paul. Either way, the real voice of the American heartland is being heard.

Bumpo

Im not so sure. If you see it in context with Trump's other message to make Mexico pay for the border fence. If you take the Iraq war on the face of it - that is, we came in to rescue them from Saddam Hussein - then taking their oil in payment is only "fair". It's hard to tell if he is playing a game, or actually believes the US company line, though. I think he isn't letting on. At least I hope so. And that goes double for his "Support" of Israel.

Joe Trader

@greenskeeper we get it, you get butt-hurt extremely easily

The thing about Donald Trump and oil - is that a few years ago, he said all that Saudi Arabia had to do was start pumping oil, and down it would go to $25. Guess what sweet cheeks - His prediction is coming true and the presidency could really use a guy like him who knows what he's doing.

MalteseFalcon

Say what you like about Trump. 'He is a baffoon or a blowhard'. 'He can't be elected president'.

But Trump has rocked the boat and raised some issues and viewpoints that none of the other bought and paid for 'candidates' would ever have raised. Has he changed the national discussion on these issues? At least he woken some people up.

illyia

oh.my.gawd. a rational adult series of comments on zero hedge: There is hopium for the world, after all.

Just must say: Raimondo is an incredibly good writer. Very enjoyable to read. I am sure that's why he's still around. He make a clear, concise argument, presents his case with humor and irony and usually covers every angle.

I wonder about people like him, who think things out so well... versus, say, the bloviator and chief?

P.S. don't blame me, i did not vote for either of them...

Oracle of Kypseli

The sentence of "We relied on the stupidity of the American voter" resonates.

TheObsoleteMan

What you did, was you fell for the oldest press trick in the book. It's called: "out of context". That's is where they play back only a segment of what someone says, only a part of what they want you to hear, so you will draw the wrong conclusion. What Trump said {had you listened to ALL of what he said} was that he was going to TAKE ISIL'S OIL. Oil is the largest source of revenue for them {then comes the CIA money}. If you were to remove their oil revenues from them, they would be seriously hurting for cash to fund their machine. I don't have a problem with that.

palmereldritch

The thing about understanding the attack on The Donald is understanding what he is NOT. Namely he is not CFR connected:
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/08/24/trump-catches-attention-of...

The attacks on Trump have been relentless yet he is still maintaining his position in the polls.

I expected a take out on Ben Carson, his next closest competitor to move up a CFR-aligned Globalist like Shrubio or Cruz given their fall-back JEBPNAC is tanking so bad...but not this early. They must be getting desperate...so desperate they are considering Romney?!

If it becomes 'Reagan/Bush Redux' again with Trump/Cruz, I hope The Donald has enough sense to say NO! or, if elected, be very vigilant knowing you are Reagan and you have the GHW Bush equivalent standing there to replace you...and we know how that unfolded early in Reagan's first term...NOT GOOD

EDIT: The goal is to have a CFR candidate in both the GOP and Dem fold. Although Hillary is not a CFR member ostensibly Slick Willie has been for more than 20 years and his Administration was rife with them...Hello Rubin and Glass Steagal!!..as is Chelsea... a newly elected member.

So that red vote I just got...was that you Hill?

Pure Evil

The point is Justin seems to believe the Iranians have no intention of building a nuclear bomb ever. I've read a lot of this guy's writing ever since he first came out on his own website and when he wrote for AsiaTimesOnline. He's always had the opinion that the Iranians are not building a nuclear bomb and have no intention to do so. He spews the same talking points about how they've never attacked anyone in over two hundred years.

Well that's because previously they were under the control of the Ottoman empire and that didn't break up until after WW1. I think he's got a blind spot in this regard. You can't tell me that even the Japanese aren't secretly building nuclear weapons since China is becoming militarily aggressive. And, stop being a prick. Your micro-aggressing against my safe place LTER and I'm gonna have to report you for "hurtful" speech.

Raymond_K._Hessel

You ignorant slut.

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-...

20 years plus of this accusation. Cia and dia both said no mil program.

If you have evidence summon it. Offering your suspicion as evidence is fucking absurd.

And if the israelis werent hell bent on taking the rest of palestine and brutalizing the natives (which, by and large, they actually are) that would sure wet some of the anti isrsel powder.

But no / they want lebensraum and years of war for expansion and regional total hegemony.

Thrn they can ethnically cleanse the historical inhabitants while everyones busy watching white european christisns kill each other, and muslims, as isis keeps not attacking israel or even isrseli interests.

Youre not dumb, you just reached conclusions that are very weakened of not refuted by evidence you wont even consider.

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-...

Bazza McKenzie

If you examine the policy detail Trump has provided, there is more substance there than any of the others. Add to that he has a long record of successful management, which none of the others have.

You don't manage successfully without self control. The persona he presents in politics at present may give the impression of a lack of self control, yet that persona and the policies which are/were verboten to the political class have quickly taken him to the top of the pack and kept him there.

If you apply to Trump the saying "judge people by what they do, not what they say", his achievements out of politics and now in politics show he is a more capable person than any of the others and that he is successful at what he sets out to do.

As the economy for most Americans continues to worsen, which is baked in the cake, who is going to look to the public a more credible person to turn it around, Clinton? Trump? one of the others? The answer is pretty obvious.

European American

"I cannot take Trump seriously."

It's not about Trump as President, a year from now. Who knows if he'll even be in the picture by then. It's ALL about Trump, RIGHT NOW. He's exposing the underbelly of a vile, hideous Z-creature that we, here at ZH have seen for some time, but the masses, those who haven't connected enought dots, yet, are getting a glimpse of something that has been foreign in politics, up until now. Everytime Trump is interviewed, or tweets or stands at the debates, another round is shot over the bow, or beak, of the monster creature that has been sucking the life out of humanity for decades, centuries, eons. As long as he's standing and he can pull it off, that is what this phenomenon is all about...one day at a time....shedding light where the stench of darkness has been breeding corruption for the last millenium.

MASTER OF UNIVERSE

Neocons hate because their collective ethos is that of a single misanthrope that crafted their existence in the first place. In brief, neocons are fascist narrow minded automatons not really capable of a level of consciousness that would enable them to think critically, and independently, of the clique orthodoxy that guides their myopic thinking, or lack thereof. Neocons have no history aside from Corporatism, and Fascism.

Escrava Isaura

American Decline: Causes and Consequences

Grand Area (after WW-2) to be under US control: Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former British empire - including the crucial Middle East oil reserves - and as much of Eurasia as possible, or at the very least its core industrial regions in Western Europe and the southern European states. The latter were regarded as essential for ensuring control of Middle East energy resources.

It means: Africa resources go to Europe. Asia resources go to Japan. South America resources go to US.

Now (2019) the Conundrum: Where will China get the resources needed for its survival? And Russia is not Africa.

"[American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant." ? Zbigniew Brzezinski

Bazza McKenzie

Through either ignorance or malice the author repeats Rand Paul's statement about Trump's comments re China and the TPP.

Trump explicitly said the TPP provides a back door opportunity for China, thus noting he understands China is not an initial signatory to TPP.

The backdoor opportunity occurs in 2 ways. The ability for TPP to expand its signatory countries without going back to the legislatures of existing signatory countries AND the fact that products claiming to be made in TPP countries and eligible for TPP arrangements don't have to be wholly made in those countries, or perhaps even mainly made in those countries. China will certainly be taking advantage of that.

The fact that Paul does not apparently understand these points, despite being a Senator, displays an unfortunate ignorance unless of course he was just attempting to score a political point despite knowing it to be false.

Paul at least made his comment in the heat of the moment in a debate. Raimondo has had plenty of time to get the facts right but does not. How much of the rest of his screed is garbage?

socalbeach

I got the impression Trump thought China was part of the trade deal from this quote:

"Yes. Well, the currency manipulation they don't discuss in the agreement, which is a disaster. If you look at the way China and India and almost everybody takes advantage of the United States - China in particular, because they're so good. It's the number-one abuser of this country. And if you look at the way they take advantage, it's through currency manipulation. It's not even discussed in the almost 6,000-page agreement. It's not even discussed."

If China isn't part of the agreement, then what difference does it make whether or not currency manipulation is discussed? Your answer is that Trump meant they could be added to the agreement later, as in this previous quote of his:

"The TPP is horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone."

If that's the case, Trump didn't explain himself well in this instance.

Johnny Horscaulk

Johnny Horscaulk's picture

http://www.vdare.com/articles/why-so-much-jewish-fear-and-loathing-of-do...

Neocons should not be used as a synonym for 'militarist.'

That subset was absolutely a Jewish-Zionist movement originating at the U of Chicago whether you know the history or not. Its also obvious just verboden to discuss. Not because its false, but because its true.

Neocons aren't conservative - they are zioglobalists with primary concern for Israel.

There are several groups of militarists in the deep state, but the Israel Firster faction is predominant.

Fucking obviously.

Arthur

Gee I guess we should back Iran and Isis. Must be some great jewish conspiricy that keeps you impovrished, that or maybe you are just a moron.

Johnny Horscaulk

Idiot, the us, and israel ARE backing isis. Go back to watching fox news - this is all way over your willingness to spend time reading about. You clearly have an internet connection - but you utter palpable nonsense.

OldPhart

Arthur

When/where I grew up I'd never met a jew. I think there was one black family in the two hundred fifty square miles of the town, population 2,200 in 1976. I knew jackshit other than they were greased by nazis back in WWII.

Moved out of the desert to Orlando, Flawed?-Duh. Met a lot of regular jews. Good people, best man's dad and mom had tattoo'd numbers on thier arms. To me, their just regular people that have some other sort of religion that christianity is an offshoot from.

What I've learned is that Zionism is lead by a relative few of the jewish faith, many regular jews resent it as an abomination of jewish faith. Zionists are the self-selected political elite and are in no way keepers of the jewish faith. They are the equivalent, in Israel, to the CFR here. Oddly, they also comprise many of the CFR seats HERE.

Zionists do not represent the jews any more than Jamie Diamond, Blythe Masters, Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates represent ordinary Americans. Somehow, over time, Zionists came to wield massive influence within our government and corporate institutions.

Those are the simple facts that I have been able to glean from piles of research that are massively biased in both directions.

It's not a jewish conspiracy that keeps many impoverished, it's the Zionists that keep many impoverished, at war, divided, ignorant, and given bread and circuses. Not jews.

Perhaps you should spend a few years doing a little independent research of your own before belittling something you obviously have no clue about.

Johnny Horscaulk

That rhetorical ballet aside, Israel has far far too much influence on us policy, and that is so because of wildly disproportionate Jewish... As such... Political, financial, media, etc power. And they - AS A GROUP -act in their in-group interests even when resulting policy is not in this country's interest - demanding, with 50 million Scoffield JudeoChristians that Israels interests be of utmost value...

And heres the kicker - as defined by an Israel under likud and shas, parties so odious they make golden dawn look leftist, yet get no msm criticism for being so.

Its never 'all' any group - but Israels influence is excessive and deleterious, and that is due to jewish power and influence, with the xian zios giving the votes. Framed this way, it isnt 'Zionism' - it is simply a powerful minority with deep loyalty to a tiny foreign state warping us policy - and media coverage.

MEFOBILLS

Arthur,

Iran is formerly Persia, and its people are predominantly Shia. Shia's are considered apostates by Sunni's. Isis is Sunni. Sunnis get their funding via the Petrodollar system.

Persians changed their name to Iran to let northern Europeans know they were Aryans. Persians are not Arabs.

Neo-Con's are Jewish and they have fellow travelers who are non jewish. Many of their fellow travelers are Sayanim or Zionist Christians. So, Neo-Con ideology is no longer specifically Jewish, but it certainly has Jewish antecedents.

Your comment is full of illogic, is misinformed, and then you have the laughable temerity to call out someone else as a moron.

I Write Code

The only place "neocons" still exist is at ZH. Whatever Wikipedia says about it, the term had virtually no currency in the US before 2001, and had pretty much ceased to have any influence by about 2005.

Is Rubio sounding like an interventionist? Yes. Does he really know what he's talking about? Unclear. Is Trump sounding like a non-interventionist? Yes. Does he really know what he's talking about? Almost certainly not. Trump is the non-interventionist who wants to bomb the shit out of ISIS.

Rand didn't do anything to embarass himself at the latest debate, but he also didn't stand out enough to make up for many past errors. Give him a few years, maybe he'll grow up or something.

But the harder question is, what *should* the US do about stuff? Should we cowboy on alone, or pull back because none of the other kids want to help us. Can't we make common cause with Russia and France at this point? I mean instead of Iran and Turkey? The biggest problem is of course Obama - whatever various national interests at this point, nobody in the world thinks they can trust Nobel boy as far as they can spit a rat. Would anyone want to trust Rubio or Trump? Would you?

Johnny Horscaulk

Nonsense - read this for background beginning with the philosopher Strauss. It has a fixed meaning that was subjected to semantic drift in the media. It came to be conflated with 'militarist' and the conservative thing was a misnomer they were communists who wanted to use American power for israel.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html

Only on zh is absolutely absurd to claim.

TheObsoleteMan

After listening to the press for the last week, I have come to a conclusion concerning Mr. Bush: The party big wigs have decided he can not win and are distancing their support for him.

Their new golden boy? Marco Rubio. The press in the last week has barely mentioned Bush, but every breath has been about "the young Latino". "He's rising in the polls".

I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that on radio and the TV. They also had him on Meet The Press last Sunday. Just thought I'd mention it. I can't stand Rubio. When he ran for Senate down here a few years ago, he road to Washington on the Tea Party's back. As soon as he got there, he did what all good politicians do: Dumped their platform and forgot all about them. Scumbag.

neilhorn

Yes, I have also seen the new "golden boy" regaled in the media. Let's see where he goes. I wonder if anyone represents the American people any better than the corrupt piece of dried up persimmon that is Hillary?

Raymond_K._Hessel

Trump picks cruz as veep, offends moderate and lefty independents and latinos on the immigration stuff, kisses Likuds ass (2 million right wing batshit jews out of 8 million israeli voters in asia dominate us foreign policy via nutty, aipac, adl, jinsa, conf of pres, etc etc etc)

And he loses to hillary. The gop can not win this election. Sorry - but admit the direness of our situation - shitty candidates all and one of the very worst and most essentially disingenuous- will win because women and minorities and lefties outnumber right leaning white males.

This is super obviously the political situation.

So - how do we 'prepare' for hillary? She is more wars, more printing, more wall st, more israel just like everyone but sanders who is nonetheless a crazy person and arch statist though I respect his at least not being a hyperinterventionist mic cocksucker.

But fucking hillary clinton gets in.

What does it mean apart from the same old thing?

Red team blue team same thing on wars, banks, and bending the knee to batshit psycho bibi.

cherry picker

I don't think Americans are really ready for Bill to be the First Man, do you? I don't think Americans think about that aspect of Hillary becoming Pres.

Personally, I hope she doesn't get in. There are many other women that are capable who could fit the bill, if the US is bound and determined to have a female president.

neilhorn

"indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why, paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you."

The post-constitutional era is the present time. Congress is stifled by politics while the rest of us only desire that the rights of the people are protected. The President has never been granted the right to take our nation to war. Other presidents have usurped that power and taken the power to themseves. Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all taken on the right to kill anyone who defied the right of the presidency. However, when the people ever abrogated their right to wage war it was only in response to a police state being established that threatened those who opposed the power of the established authority. Congress, the representatives of the people, has the right to declare war. Congress is also obligated to represent the people who elected them. When will we find a representative who has the backbone to stop the suicidal tendencies of the structures of power?

Captain Obvious.

Don't set store by any politician. They were all sent as a group to suck Israeli dick. Yes, dear Donald too. They will tell you what they think you want to hear.

Raymond_K._Hessel

Ivanka converted to judaism and all - was that for the grooms parents or genuine? Or a dynastic thing?

Wahooo

Another hit piece today in Barrons:

"Donald Trump is trying hard to look presidential these days. Too bad he's using Herbert Hoover as a role model. Hoover, of course, is best remembered as having been president during the stock market crash of 1929 that presaged the Great Depression. What helped turn a normal recession into a global economic disaster was the spread of protectionism, starting with the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which resulted in retaliation even before Hoover signed the bill in 1930."

If I recall my history, in 1927 amidst what everyone knew was already bubble stock market, the Fed dropped rates substantially. This was done against the protests of President Coolidge, his secretary of treasury, and many other politicians and business tycoons at the time. It ushered in a stock market bubble of massive proportions and the coming bust. Protectionism had little to do with it.

Faeriedust

Right. The "protectionism" meme is a piece of corporate persiflage that's been duly trotted out every time someone suggests even SLIGHTLY protecting our decimated economy. According to Wiki: "the general view is that while it had negative results, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was not one of the main causes of the Great Depression because foreign trade was only a small sector of the U.S. economy."

Faeriedust

Well, what REALLY caused the Depression were the bills from WWI. Every nation in Europe had spent years of GNP on the War through debt, all the debts were due, and nobody could afford to pay them. So they loaded the whole pile on Germany, and then screamed when Germany literally could NOT make its payments, and then played extend-and-pretend for a decade. Which eventually caused the Credit-Anstallt collapse, and then everything finally fell like a house of cards.

Very like today, but the current run of bills were run up by pure financial frivolity and corruption. Although one could say that fighting a war that killed 1/4 of all European males of fighting age was an exercise in frivolity and corruption on the part of Europe's senile ruling elites. Nobody was willing to divide a shrinking pie equitably; they all thought it would be better to try grabbing The Whole Thing. Rather like world powers today, again.

CAPT DRAKE

educated, responsible position in a fortune 200company, and yes, will be voting for trump. why? sick to death of the existing elites, and the way they run things. a trump vote is a protest vote. a protest against the neocons and all their types that have caused so much misery around the world.

NoWayJose

If Trump is the Republucan nominee, you can bet that he will point out a lot of things Hillary has done. You know several others in the field will say nothing bad about Hillary. (A la Romney).

Not sure why Rubio still has support - Rand clobbered him on spending, including his new entitlement, and add Rubio's position on amnesty.

Faeriedust

With JEB polling in single digits and hopelessly befuddled, Rubio is the Great Hispanic Hope of the establishment Republocrats. He is being well-pimped, is all. Paul is clearly more intelligent, more articulate, and more well-informed; Trump is more forceful and popular (but independent!). Neither suits an establishment that wants to hold the reins behind the throne.

thesoothsayer

The Military Industrial Complex became entrenched after Eisenhower left office and they murdered Kennedy. Since then, they have taken over. We cover the world to spread our seeds and enrich our corporations. Our government does not protect the people, it protects the corporations, wall street. That is the reality.

dizzyfingers

https://theintercept.com/2015/11/11/trump-was-right-about-tpp-benefitting-china

Trump Was Right About TPP Benefiting China

[Nov 14, 2015] Record oil glut stands at 3bn barrels

Notable quotes:
"... A record glut of oil is set to continue into next year and maintain pressure on prices, the International Energy Agency said on Friday. Stockpiles stand at a record three billion, the IEA said in its monthly report. ..."
"... Although lower oil prices will lead to a decline in US production next year, the IEA said it would take months to clear the glut. ..."
"... Demand growth has risen to a five-year high of nearly two million barrels per day, ..."
"... Gains in demand have been outpaced by vigorous production from OPEC and resilient non-OPEC supply. ..."
Nov 14, 2015 | BBC News

A record glut of oil is set to continue into next year and maintain pressure on prices, the International Energy Agency said on Friday. Stockpiles stand at a record three billion, the IEA said in its monthly report.

... ... ...

Oil prices have more than halved in the past 18 months as US shale oil output and a refusal by nations in the OPEC cartel to cut production added to oversupply.

On Friday, Brent crude was down 36 cents, or nearly 1%, at $43.68 a barrel, and US crude was down $1.20, or 2.8%, at $40.55.

Although lower oil prices will lead to a decline in US production next year, the IEA said it would take months to clear the glut.

"This massive cushion has inflated even as the global oil market adjusts to $50 per barrel. Demand growth has risen to a five-year high of nearly two million barrels per day," the agency said. "Gains in demand have been outpaced by vigorous production from OPEC and resilient non-OPEC supply."

Growth in global demand for oil is expected to fall in 2016 as the allure of lower prices fades, the IEA added.

[Nov 13, 2015] Goldman Decline in Oil Prices boosted GDP by 0.2% in 2015

Notable quotes:
"... cheaper oil has boosted GDP growth in 2015 by 0.2 pp. Looking ahead, we think that about 0.1 pp of oil growth stimulus is left in the tank, which should lift growth over the next 18 months. ..."
"... Judging by the recent earnings reports from retailers, one has to question the Oil Stimulus theory. ..."
"... Can't wait until Goldman tells us that higher oil prices lead to higher GDP. ..."
"... Total real personal income expenditure is at the pre-97 trend. Markets keep on wanting 97-06 consumption levels. They simply don't get it. ..."
"... This is not worthy of a post. It is just sucking up to Goldman, of all disreputable firms to quote. Ridonculous. Really. ..."
"... Credo: Economic Beliefs in a World in Crisis ..."
Calculated Risk

A few excerpts from a Goldman Sachs research piece by economist Daan Struyven: Shale, States and the Shrinking Oil Stimulus

... ... ...

Our state-level analysis suggests that a 50% decline in oil prices is associated with an eventual rise in aggregate output of 0.4% and 400,000 to 500,000 extra jobs. These estimates are broadly consistent with our most recent research, but below the impact implied by many earlier studies. Taking together our new state-level estimates as well as our earlier work and a few back-of-the-envelope calculations, our best estimate would be that cheaper oil has boosted GDP growth in 2015 by 0.2 pp. Looking ahead, we think that about 0.1 pp of oil growth stimulus is left in the tank, which should lift growth over the next 18 months.

sm_landlord

Judging by the recent earnings reports from retailers, one has to question the Oil Stimulus theory.
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/retail-rout-take-two-heck-going-742471

Sporkfed

Can't wait until Goldman tells us that higher oil prices lead to higher GDP.

JackSnap

Total real personal income expenditure is at the pre-97 trend. Markets keep on wanting 97-06 consumption levels. They simply don't get it.

gdd9000

This is not worthy of a post. It is just sucking up to Goldman, of all disreputable firms to quote. Ridonculous. Really.

The book: 'Credo: Economic Beliefs in a World in Crisis' is written by Brian Davey and published by Feasta, 2015. ISBN 9780-9540-5103-7. £20.

[Nov 12, 2015] Oil price collapsing, could set new low

www.cnbc.com

West Texas Intermediate crude futures was down 2.75 percent at $41.75 per barrel. WTI set an intraday low of $37.75 on Aug. 24. Brent crude was down nearly 3 percent Thursday at $45.23 per barrel.

[Nov 12, 2015] MEXICO'S CANTARELL OIL FIELD POSTS RECORD LOW OIL PRODUCTION

Notable quotes:
"... "The Cantarell oil field - an aging supergiant oil field in Mexico - saw its lowest production in over 30 years with an output of 206,000 barrels per day in October, said PEMEX Exploration and Production (PEP) on Thursday. In its latest weekly report, Pemex said that Cantarell was producing 256,000 bpd at the beginning of 2015, its lowest level since 2004, sparking fears that Mexico's most productive field was running out of oil." ..."
"... Wow, thats an average decline rate of about 18% per year (since 2003). ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Doug Leighton 11/08/2015 at 10:27 am

MEXICO'S CANTARELL OIL FIELD POSTS RECORD LOW OIL PRODUCTION

"The Cantarell oil field - an aging supergiant oil field in Mexico - saw its lowest production in over 30 years with an output of 206,000 barrels per day in October, said PEMEX Exploration and Production (PEP) on Thursday. In its latest weekly report, Pemex said that Cantarell was producing 256,000 bpd at the beginning of 2015, its lowest level since 2004, sparking fears that Mexico's most productive field was running out of oil."

Meanwhile Ku-Maloob-Zaap remains on a production plateau of about 850,000 bpd which is expected to continue until 2017.

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=308285

FreddyW, 11/08/2015 at 11:45 am
Wow, thats an average decline rate of about 18% per year (since 2003).
Doug Leighton, 11/08/2015 at 12:01 pm
Yeh, so much for the long fat tail theory. Mind you, there are extenuating circumstances (Aren't there always?). I.E., PEMEX started shifting resources away from Cantarell a year or so back.

[Nov 12, 2015] OPEC countries, Russia and International Oil Companies are all losing billions

Notable quotes:
"... It's perhaps more so high yield paper issuance ..."
"... We imagined that a mini Apocalypse loomed, derived from shutting down oil production via loan shutoff simply because it was not profitable. How absurd, in retrospect. Profitable. Profitable was a lot more powerful a requirement pre 2009 than post 2009. Now, it's almost laughable. No one is going to allow horrible outcomes just because numbers on a screen are red. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Euan Mearns, 11/08/2015 at 10:32 am

Oil Production Vital Statistics October 2015

The "big news" this month is that the banks granted over leveraged, loss making shale oil drillers a stay of execution by continuing to provide credit lines. Consequently, there was no major move in US oil drilling or production though both are trending down. Elsewhere, the story is one of production plateaus and stabilisation of rig counts. The modest production rises and falls detailed below are simply noise on these production baselines.

Against this backdrop of no news, the oil price traded sideways in October. OPEC countries, Russia and International Oil Companies are all losing billions and look set to continue doing so throughout 2016 as over-supply now looks set to continue until early 2017. The situation is one of stalemate as opposed to checkmate.

Watcher, 11/08/2015 at 12:28 pm

I think I would modify this a bit.

"Banks". It's perhaps more so high yield paper issuance, and we have seen at least one story indicating a bank (JP Morgan) orchestrated placement of the issuance in order to service debt JPM had actually loaned. So this would mean banks are selling debt to the public (with their powerful sales force), and doing so to protect their own loan portfolios. One might also wonder about their managed accounts (client money entrusted to in-house advisors) and if those accounts were put into this HY paper.

There was that JPM quote in response to a question about the risks to their loan portfolio. "We have offloaded that risk to investors."

To a certain extent it all says that I forgot my own mantra: Nothing relevant to money is going to be allowed to destroy civilization, because it can be created from nothingness.

We imagined that a mini Apocalypse loomed, derived from shutting down oil production via loan shutoff simply because it was not profitable. How absurd, in retrospect. Profitable. Profitable was a lot more powerful a requirement pre 2009 than post 2009. Now, it's almost laughable. No one is going to allow horrible outcomes just because numbers on a screen are red.

[Nov 12, 2015] Excerpts from several articles in Bloomberg and Reuters

Notable quotes:
"... Oil demand is expected to be 94 million barrels a day this year, rising 1.5 percent from last year, with about 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity, mainly held in Saudi Arabia, the prince said. Growth in Asia's demand may slow "by efforts to efficiency enhancement and oil substitution," he said. ..."
"... "But the petroleum industry should not lose sight of the fact that scale matters," with billions of people moving up into the middle class, the prince said. The size of the world's middle class will expand from 1.8 billion to 3.2 billion in 2020, and to 4.9 billion in 2030, with the bulk of this expansion occurring in Asia, he said. ..."
"... The oil market will rebalance in 2016 or 2017, as demand grows between 1.2 million barrels per day and 1.5 million barrel per days through 2020, Yergin, vice chairman of consultants IHS, said in a speech in Abu Dhabi. Demand will rise by about 17 million barrels a day to almost 110 million barrels a day by 2040, with 70 percent of the growth to come from Asia, the head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said at an event in Doha. ..."
"... "The next few quarters are going to continue to be tough as Iranian oil comes back into the market," Yergin said Monday. "We really see 2016 as the year of transition." ..."
"... "We have a vested interest to keep prices as stable as possible, but we cannot do that by reducing production," Mazrouei said. "We expect the market will recover by itself because high-cost production will continue to decline." ..."
"... "We're near the bottom at $40, and there's a potential upside that's much higher." ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 10:48 am

Excerpts from several articles in Bloomberg and Reuters:

Saudi Vice Oil Minister Sees Price Surge After Cutbacks

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/oil-investment-cuts-at-200-billion-as-saudi-prince-sees-rally

The scale of the global oil and gas industry's spending cuts are making another surge in energy prices possible by diminishing future supply, Saudi Vice Minister of Petroleum & Mineral Resources Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said.

Investments have been cut by $200 billion this year and will drop another 3 percent to 8 percent next year, marking the first time since the mid 1980s that industry cut the spending for two consecutive years, Prince Abdulaziz said in a copy of his speech for delivery to energy ministers in Doha Monday. Nearly 5 million barrels a day of projects have been deferred or canceled, he said in the remarks.

Just like high oil prices can't last, a prolonged period of low prices is "also unsustainable, as it will induce large investment cuts and reduce the resilience of the oil industry, undermining the future security of supply and setting the scene for another sharp price rise," the prince said in the remarks. "As a responsible and reliable producer with long-term horizon, the kingdom is committed to continue to invest in its oil and gas sector, despite the drop in the oil price."

Oil demand is expected to be 94 million barrels a day this year, rising 1.5 percent from last year, with about 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity, mainly held in Saudi Arabia, the prince said. Growth in Asia's demand may slow "by efforts to efficiency enhancement and oil substitution," he said.

"But the petroleum industry should not lose sight of the fact that scale matters," with billions of people moving up into the middle class, the prince said. The size of the world's middle class will expand from 1.8 billion to 3.2 billion in 2020, and to 4.9 billion in 2030, with the bulk of this expansion occurring in Asia, he said.

"Rather than being a commodity in decline, as some would like to portray, supply and demand patterns indicate that the long-term fundamentals of the oil complex remain robust."

-------------------------

OPEC's Badri says oil market to be more balanced in 2016

Nov 9, 2015
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/us-asia-energy-opec-idUSKCN0SY0TN20151109

The oil market is expected to become more balanced in 2016 as demand continues to grow, OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri said on Monday ahead of the producer group's policy meeting next month.

"The expectation is that the market will return to more balance in 2016," he said in a speech at an Asian ministerial energy roundtable in the Qatari capital Doha.

"We see global oil demand maintaining its recent healthy growth. We see less non-OPEC supply. And we see an increase in the demand for OPEC crude," Badri said, according to the text of the speech published on the OPEC website.

Most of the oil supply increases in recent years have come from high-cost production, Badri said, in a clear reference to supply sources such as U.S. shale oil.

"The market is now taking on board this new reality and gradually resetting itself, as we can see with falling non-OPEC supply growth and stronger demand," he said.

----------------------------
Yergin Joins OPEC in Seeing Market Balanced as Soon as 2016

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/yergin-joins-opec-in-seeing-oil-market-balanced-as-soon-as-2016

Global demand for crude will bring more balance to the oil market as soon as next year, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning author and energy consultant Daniel Yergin and OPEC Secretary General Abdalla El-Badri.

The oil market will rebalance in 2016 or 2017, as demand grows between 1.2 million barrels per day and 1.5 million barrel per days through 2020, Yergin, vice chairman of consultants IHS, said in a speech in Abu Dhabi. Demand will rise by about 17 million barrels a day to almost 110 million barrels a day by 2040, with 70 percent of the growth to come from Asia, the head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said at an event in Doha.

"The next few quarters are going to continue to be tough as Iranian oil comes back into the market," Yergin said Monday. "We really see 2016 as the year of transition."

Current market volatility was caused by oversupply, mostly from high-cost producers, and oil stocks are above the five-year average, El-Badri said. Energy industry investment in exploration and production fell 20 percent, or by about $130 billion from 2014 to 2015, he said.

"The expectation is that the market will return to more balance in 2016," El-Badri said Monday. "We see global oil demand maintaining its recent healthy growth. We see less non-OPEC supply. And we see an increase in the demand for OPEC crude."

Oil prices are unsustainable at current levels and will rise gradually as international companies defer projects and production plans, United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei told reporters .

"We have a vested interest to keep prices as stable as possible, but we cannot do that by reducing production," Mazrouei said. "We expect the market will recover by itself because high-cost production will continue to decline."

The U.S. is now the new swing producer of oil, with much room for efficiency gains, Yergin said. If U.S. law would allow it, the nation could be a major oil exporter by the end of decade, he said. Canada's oil sands production will add more than 800,000 barrels a day by the decade's end, and Iran will add 400,000 to 600,000 barrels a day to world markets within a few months of sanctions ending.

"The market will have to deal with a very significant overhang of inventories," Yergin said. "There's more volatility in this process."
--------------------–
Speculators Share Andy Hall's Optimism That Oil Prices at Bottom

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/speculators-share-andy-hall-s-optimism-that-oil-prices-at-bottom

Andy Hall and Daniel Yergin think oil prices are bottoming out. Hedge funds agree.
Money managers' net-long position in West Texas Intermediate crude rose 20 percent in the week ended Nov. 3, the most in seven months, according to data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Bets on rising prices increased to the highest level since June.
U.S. onshore oil production fell for the fifth month in a row in August and supplies grew at the slowest pace since September in the week ended Oct. 30. Inventory data don't indicate a surplus in the crude market and prices are set to rise, said Hall, one of the world's best-known oil traders. Global supply and demand will begin to move into balance by late 2016 or 2017, according to Yergin.

"The fundamentals are starting to play out," said David Pursell, a managing director at investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston. "You've got greater recognition that U.S. supply is falling and maybe falling faster. Inventories are building, but the pace of that build is more manageable."

Onshore production excluding Alaska fell to 7.25 million barrels a day in August, down 334,000 barrels a day from March, according to Energy Information Administration data. U.S. oil inventories grew by 2.8 million barrels a day the week ended Oct. 30, the smallest gain since Sept. 18.

U.S. output will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12 months ending April, according to Yergin, vice chairman at IHS Inc.." Prices may rise to $70 to $80 a barrel by the end of the decade, he said in an interview.

Hall, the crude trader, said Saudi Arabia is producing close to capacity while Iraq is struggling to maintain output, while U.S. rig counts will continue to decline.

"We think the degree of negativity is unwarranted," Hall, who runs $2.6 billion hedge fund Astenbeck Capital Management, said Nov. 4.

"The economy is on the rebound, China is coming out of a bear market, people are saying let's get long oil," said Carl Larry, head of oil and gas for Frost & Sullivan LP.

"We're near the bottom at $40, and there's a potential upside that's much higher."

[Nov 12, 2015] At the current price level some shale companies may stop completing wells and may stop drilling

Notable quotes:
"... I focus on the oil price necessary to be cash flow neutral and maintain production. That price is different for every company and constantly changes, but overall it remains much higher than current oil and natural gas prices. Shale companies have been hiding behind this for quite awhile, but recently management is beginning to talk about maintaining production and cash flow neutrality. Apparently some one important has signaled to them that the cash burn has to stop. I do not think $55 WTI or even $65 WTI will result in a return to 2011-2014 like drilling, which is what will be needed to cause US oil production to reverse its decline. The shale companies cannot return rigs at these price levels without burning more cash, on the whole. ..."
"... At the current price level some companies may stop completing wells and may stop drilling. There are a fair number of drilled uncompleted wells in the Bakken (Enno has two estimates 450 and 900, I am not sure which he favors, let's call it 675). These wells are a sunk cost and are likely to be completed to keep up cash flow levels. Even if all drilling stops (which is unlikely) if 75 wells are completed from the frack log each month, there are 9 months supply of DUCs, if 40 wells per month are drilled the supply would be enough for 19 months of completions at 75 wells completed each month. My scenario assumes well productivity (the estimated ultimate recovery over the first 60 months) of new wells remains at 2013 to 2014 levels. So far the actual data shows no change in new well EUR (it actually increased slightly in 2013 and 2014 from earlier levels and has remained steady in 2015). Perhaps Enno or Freddy W have a 3 month or 6 month cumulative chart for the Bakken Three Forks. I have an old chart but they may have something more recent. Chart below is from data in April or May 2015. ..."
"... I just want to add that yes production has stayed relatively flat over the years. But water content has increased significantly. Fracking has become more costly also with more fracking fluids and so on. They have on the other hand become more efficient in what they are doing, but I think overall that costs have gone up. ..."
"... "The short investment cycle of US tight oil and its ability to respond quickly to price signals are changing the way that the oil market operates. The plunge in prices means US tight oil production is now stumbling: if prices out to 2020 remain under $60/bbl, without a rapid evolution in drilling efficiency and technology learning, tight oil production in the United States will likely see a substantial decline in output. However, with tighter markets leading to higher mid-term prices in the New Policies Scenario ($80/bbl in 2020) US tight oil ultimately resumes its upward march, growing by 1.5 mb/d by 2020 to over 5 mb/d." ..."
"... Plunging oil prices may suggest that the world is awash with cheap oil but, in reality, what the world is really awash with is lots of expensive oil, much of it being produced at a loss. ..."
"... In any event, I bet the extra 1/2 to 1 million barrels (if truly produced) are the most expensive barrels they have. So one wonders how much more income is really earned by the extra barrels. ..."
"... Oil and gas debt held by US banks is over $270 billion, but that would include conventional production. ..."
"... Looking at Iraq and Iran more closely. I think those two are greater threats to KSA market share than US shale at this point in time. As US shale continues to drop, looks like Iran and Iraq are set to grow, with total costs likely lower than even KSA. ..."
"... Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump. Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, (2015) about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years. ..."
"... A lot of money borrowed by US upstream, and they are in tremendous trouble if prices stay below $60 WTI though 2016, and do not substantially recover in 2017 ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand, 11/11/2015 at 9:52 am
Heinrich. Your point about CAPEX v operating expense is on the money.

I focus on the oil price necessary to be cash flow neutral and maintain production. That price is different for every company and constantly changes, but overall it remains much higher than current oil and natural gas prices. Shale companies have been hiding behind this for quite awhile, but recently management is beginning to talk about maintaining production and cash flow neutrality. Apparently some one important has signaled to them that the cash burn has to stop. I do not think $55 WTI or even $65 WTI will result in a return to 2011-2014 like drilling, which is what will be needed to cause US oil production to reverse its decline. The shale companies cannot return rigs at these price levels without burning more cash, on the whole.

Heinrich Leopold, 11/11/2015 at 4:49 pm
shallow sand,

Thank you for your reply. My point is also that many shale companies have published low operating expenses over years by moving most of their expenses into the category 'capex'. By the recent impairments they have moved a big chunk of their capex into the category expenses. So, basically they are saying to investors: sorry folks you have invested your money, but actually it is not invested anymore we have spent the money already on producing gas and oil and you will see a big part of your money never again. This is in my view a very unfair way to pretend to have low operating costs.

Dennis Coyne, 11/11/2015 at 12:34 pm
Hi Heinrich,

Enno Peters posts charts each month showing the well productivity. It has not decreased.

At the current price level some companies may stop completing wells and may stop drilling. There are a fair number of drilled uncompleted wells in the Bakken (Enno has two estimates 450 and 900, I am not sure which he favors, let's call it 675). These wells are a sunk cost and are likely to be completed to keep up cash flow levels. Even if all drilling stops (which is unlikely) if 75 wells are completed from the frack log each month, there are 9 months supply of DUCs, if 40 wells per month are drilled the supply would be enough for 19 months of completions at 75 wells completed each month. My scenario assumes well productivity (the estimated ultimate recovery over the first 60 months) of new wells remains at 2013 to 2014 levels. So far the actual data shows no change in new well EUR (it actually increased slightly in 2013 and 2014 from earlier levels and has remained steady in 2015). Perhaps Enno or Freddy W have a 3 month or 6 month cumulative chart for the Bakken Three Forks. I have an old chart but they may have something more recent. Chart below is from data in April or May 2015.

FreddyW, 11/11/2015 at 4:36 pm
Hi,

I just want to add that yes production has stayed relatively flat over the years. But water content has increased significantly. Fracking has become more costly also with more fracking fluids and so on. They have on the other hand become more efficient in what they are doing, but I think overall that costs have gone up.

Newer wells produce more in the beginning, but has higher decline rates for at least the first year. My guess is that the earlier wells will eventually have recovered more oil than the later ones.

New data will probably come out on Friday. Maybe I have something to show after that.

AlexS says:
11/10/2015 at 2:24 pm

IEA World Energy Outlook 2015 on U.S. tight oil:

"The short investment cycle of US tight oil and its ability to respond quickly to price signals are changing the way that the oil market operates. The plunge in prices means US tight oil production is now stumbling: if prices out to 2020 remain under $60/bbl, without a rapid evolution in drilling efficiency and technology learning, tight oil production in the United States will likely see a substantial decline in output. However, with tighter markets leading to higher mid-term prices in the New Policies Scenario ($80/bbl in 2020) US tight oil ultimately resumes its upward march, growing by 1.5 mb/d by 2020 to over 5 mb/d."

"The short investment cycle of tight oil and its ability to respond quickly to price signals is changing the way that the oil market operates, but the intensity with which the tight oil resource is developed in the United States eventually pushes up costs. US tight oil production stumbles in the short term but resumes its upward march as prices recover, helped by continued improvements in technology and efficiency improvements. But tight oil's rise is ultimately constrained by the rising costs of production, as operators deplete the "sweet spots" and move to less productive acreage. US tight oil output reaches a plateau in the early-2020s, just above 5 mb/d, before starting a gradual decline."

Change in production (2015-2020) of US tight oil for a range of 2020 oil prices
mb/d

shallow sand says:
11/10/2015 at 5:57 pm

Anecdotal re US conventional.

Company near us, 2012-14 drilled and completed many conventional wells. 2015 drilled no wells and completed the few remaining ones in first quarter.

Decline from Q3 2014 to Q3 2015 14.5%. Had grown production annually 2012-14.

Wonder how many conventional oil wells were completed 2011-14? New conventional wells may have a high decline too.

I know dwarfed by shale, but it all adds up.

AlexS says:
11/11/2015 at 8:13 am

In its short term energy outlook, the EIA sharply revised its U.S. C+C production estimates for 2H15 and forecast for 2016.

Estimate for this year's growth was increased to 580 kb/d from a 540 kb/d in previous month STEO, due to stronger than expected performance in onshore production. The biggest upwards revisions were made for August 2015: +187 kb/d, September: +160 kb/d and October: + 108 kb/d. The new production forecast for 2015 is 9.29 mb/d vs. 9.25 mb/d in October STEO.

Despite these revisions, the EIA still notes that "monthly crude oil production started to decrease in the second quarter of 2015, led by Lower 48 onshore production. From March 2015 through October 2015, Lower 48 onshore output has fallen from more than 7.6 million b/d to about 7.1 million b/d. EIA estimates total crude oil production has declined almost 0.5 million b/d since April, averaging 9.1 million b/d in October", down 43 kb/d from September.

The EIA expects declines to continue through September 2016, when total production is forecast to average 8.54 mb/d. This level of production would be almost 1.1 mb/d less than the 2015 peak reached in April.

Doug Leighton says:
11/11/2015 at 9:35 am

WHY THE OIL SANDS NO LONGER MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE

"Plunging oil prices may suggest that the world is awash with cheap oil but, in reality, what the world is really awash with is lots of expensive oil, much of it being produced at a loss. OPEC, home to the world's lowest-cost oil, is pretty much producing what it always has. The market glut is from increased output from high-cost producers like the oil sands. Their existential dilemma in today's market is that it is they, not OPEC, who must cut production to clear the glut.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/oil-sands-no-longer-make-economic-sense/article27170104/

shallow sand says:
11/11/2015 at 10:08 am

I wish I knew more about production costs for the four Gulf OPEC members plus Iran and Iraq.

I also wish I knew how much of KSA's increase in oil production, for example, which began in March, 2015, was oil from storage as opposed to produced.

In any event, I bet the extra 1/2 to 1 million barrels (if truly produced) are the most expensive barrels they have. So one wonders how much more income is really earned by the extra barrels.

AlexS says:
11/11/2015 at 12:58 pm

shallow sand,

KSA's production was increasing from March and peaked in June. Since then, it has slightly declined.
I don't think they will (and can, and intend to) increase it further.

Saudi Arabia's oil production
Source: JODI, OPEC (direct communications)

shallow sand says:
11/11/2015 at 1:48 pm

AlexS. Thanks. Surprisingly, KSA has really not increased oil production that much, especially in relation to the United States.

Euan's post above indicates there is negligible spare capacity and it is almost all heavy oil with no refining capacity available for it. Given KSA interest in shale tech, would appear 10.6 may be their conventional peak.

Russia has been able to continue to slowly increase production. Do you think Russia is nearing conventional peak? Any recent news on Russian LTO efforts?

Will interesting to see how this plays out.

AlexS says:
11/11/2015 at 2:06 pm

shallow sand,

The IEA estimates Saudi capacity at 12.26 mb/d and sustainable spare capacity at 2.06 mb/d (in September). However these numbers can be overstated and actual capacity may not exceed 11-11.5 mb/d.

Euan is right that most spare capacity consists of heavy oil with high sulphur content.

3 other Gulf states have very small spare capacity of around 100 kb/d.

Hence production increases in 2016 can be expected only from Iran and Iraq. Libya is a big unknown, which potentially can add up to 1 mb/d

I think Russia could further increase production in the near term, but not by much. In the medium to long term it will try to maintain production at current levels, so it's probably not a peak, but a plateau.

Russian LTO is a long-term story, similarly to the Arctic projects. No significant additions are expected until next decade.

Among other non-OPEC, non-US sources, some growth may be expected from Canada and Brazil, but in both cases it will be slower than previously expected due to lower oil prices.

With the declining US output and continued (albeit slower) growth in demand, the market will begin rebalancing next year.

In 1H15, that will mean lower excess supply vs demand, and from 2H15 demand will likely exceed supply.
This scenario implies that additional supplies from Iran do not exceed 500-700 kb/d, Libya remains in doldrums, and there is no dramatic slowdown in global economic growth.

shallow sand says:
11/11/2015 at 5:50 pm

AlexS. Thanks for the post. I agree with you that Iran and Iraq appear to be able to add much more production than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar combined.

Iraq in particular has many areas to be developed, subject primarily to political instability.

For example, Rumalia oil field production has ramped up significantly and it appears there is much room to run at a very low price.

dmg555 says:
11/11/2015 at 10:10 am

Does anyone here have a source for how much money was loaned to the tight oil fracking industry?

Watcher says:
11/11/2015 at 12:19 pm

You will find this number is fuzzy, as is true for all long term debt everywhere, because issuance rolls over on maturity and that may not be tracked.

shallow sand says:
11/11/2015 at 1:45 pm

Oil and gas debt held by US banks is over $270 billion, but that would include conventional production.

I have read in excess of $1/2 trillion, a number off the top of my head.

John S says:
11/11/2015 at 3:22 pm

Shallow: I think you will find the press release at the link below from FDIC interesting:

https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2015/pr15089.html

Here is an excerpt:

"Oil and gas commitments to the exploration and production sector and the services sector totaled $276.5 billion, or 7.1 percent, of the SNC portfolio. Classified commitments-a credit rated as substandard, doubtful, or loss-among oil and gas borrowers totaled $34.2 billion, or 15.0 percent, of total classified commitments, compared with $6.9 billion, or 3.6 percent, in 2014."

I went looking for this because a local bank is seeking to increase is liquidity via a preferred stock offering. It is trying to raise a multi-million $ amount. The offered terms are a 5% dividend, 5 year term, and share repurchase at redemption date. The bank is 30 + years old.

I am told another local bank is doing a similar offering.

Hmmm…..liquidity issues and off balance sheet financing. Where has that been tried before in the oil patch?

Watcher says:
11/11/2015 at 4:23 pm

Banks do preferred offerings all the time.

Quick example, go to finance.google.com and enter stock symbol bac. and that's a period after the c and look at all the preferred offerings/issues.

Quick lesson for the partially washed. Preferred stock is equity that usually has no voting rights for corporate governance determination. Speaking practically it's usually priced about $25/share and pays a higher yield than any common dividend. Preferreds get their dividend first. If there isn't enough profit to pay preferred divvies and common, common has to get zero.

There are cumulative preferreds and convertible preferreds. Cumulative means if a quarter's dividend is missed, ya gotta make up that quarter's missed payout before you can pay to common shares. Convertible means can convert to XXX shares of common. blahblah

Anyway, a bank issuing preferred stock is not eyebrow raising in any environment. That is, excluding issuance bought by Buffet in 2009. Anything at all done that year was eyebrow raising.

shallow sand says:
11/11/2015 at 5:55 pm

John S. Thanks for the link! That is the release I was referring to earlier.

WTI below $43. Wow. Have to think the substandard or worse oil and gas backed loans are only going to grow.

Looking at Iraq and Iran more closely. I think those two are greater threats to KSA market share than US shale at this point in time. As US shale continues to drop, looks like Iran and Iraq are set to grow, with total costs likely lower than even KSA.

Watcher says:
11/11/2015 at 6:46 pm

KSA has said repeatedly shale is no threat to them and they are no threat to shale. Shale oil can't export. It CAN'T compete. And almost all US imports are coming from Canada and Mexico and Ven and Nigeria. Only about 1 mbpd from KSA.

They're right - besides which shale oil isn't the medium / heavy oil out of KSA. It's not even the same product to envision as competing.

oldfarmermac says:
11/11/2015 at 8:34 pm

Watcher, you occasionally make some sense, sorta kinda.

But you know better, or at least you ought to know better, than to say shale oil doesn't matter because it cannot be exported.

Oil is a fungible commodity traded in a brutally competitive world market.

A million barrels a day of domestic yankee production above and beyond "the usual" is a million barrels somebody formerly exported to us Yankees looking for a new home in some other importing country.

Taking a million barrels a day off our Yankee production would have approximately the same effect on the world market as if Saudi Arabia were to cut back by a million barrels a day.

But your remarks about oil supposedly going into storage recently seem to be very reasonable.

SURELY TO SKY DADDY the tank farms of the world must be getting pretty damned close to overflowing by now, and every rusty old tanker that will hold a few thousand barrels is probably full as well, sitting anchored someplace.

Doug Leighton says:
11/11/2015 at 1:49 pm

OIL GLUT DEEPENS WITH 100M BARRELS AT SEA

"Patrick Rodgers, the chief executive of Euronav, one of the world's biggest listed tanker companies, said oil glut was so severe traders were asking ships to go slow to help them manage storage levels."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f763a6da-8859-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c.html#axzz3rD5Ye7ss

ezrydermike says:
11/11/2015 at 2:25 pm

wti futures 11-11-2015

Watcher says:
11/11/2015 at 6:50 pm

And btw all you supply and demand worshippers . . . just who is buying oil to store, when storage has throughput? You aren't buying to store it for future higher price. You buy it to store it to flow it outward incrementally to consumption, with new oil coming in to refill the tanks. FIFO. That's how Cushing works. If price rose, the oil getting sold from storage just went in there last week or 2 weeks ago. It didn't get there in January. There's no big profit.

dmg555 says:
11/11/2015 at 3:13 pm

From the Financial Times on Energy Debt

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-11/opec-challenges-shale-afresh-as-iraq-crude-floods-gulf-of-mexico

Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump. Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, (2015) about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years.

Watcher and Shallow: Your numbers on total debt look a bit low, but I'm only siting the Financial Times.

shallow sand says:
11/11/2015 at 6:01 pm

dmg555. I was just throwing out things off the top of my head, which is probably not the best thing to do.

A lot of money borrowed by US upstream, and they are in tremendous trouble if prices stay below $60 WTI though 2016, and do not substantially recover in 2017.

[Nov 12, 2015] Monthly legacy shale production declines accelerates

Notable quotes:
"... Much steeper oil production declines in the Eagle Ford and Niobrara are apparently due to much higher and accelerating decline rates of the existing wells compared to the Bakken and Permian basin. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 7:02 pm
Combined oil production from 7 shale plays is expected to decline by 558 kb/d, from 5507 kb/d in April to 4949 (these numbers include ~800-900 kb/d of conventional production, mainly from the Permian basin).

New combined estimates for 7 plays were revised down by about 25-35 kb/d from March to May, and by 40-50 kb/d from June to December.

AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 9:05 pm
Much steeper oil production declines in the Eagle Ford and Niobrara are apparently due to much higher and accelerating decline rates of the existing wells compared to the Bakken and Permian basin.

Monthly legacy production declines as % of total production by 4 key LTO plays
Source: EIA DPR

[Nov 12, 2015] Oil Majors Don't Share OPEC's Optimism On Oil Prices In 2016

Notable quotes:
"... Saudi was selling 9 m/bbl/day when oil was at $100+, now they are selling 10.5 mbbl/day at $43. The math on that is staggering. ..."
"... So why are they overproducing, selling more of their finite resource at a low price instead of over the longer term at more than double its current price. ..."
"... If the real reason of this stunt is to cause severe pain for Russia, Iran, Venezuala and others, well the oil doesn't go away. Someone will still own it and someone will still drill and pump when prices are more favorable. ..."
Zero Hedge

OPEC's meeting in Vienna is less than a month away, and oil producers – countries and companies alike – have been raising their concerns at an energy conference in the United Arab Emirates over the cartel's strategy to keep prices low.

The issue arose on Monday when Mohammed bin Hamad al-Rumhy, the oil minister of Oman – not a member of OPEC – told the annual Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference that oil production is at "irresponsible" levels, leaving little latitude for variations in production.

"This is [a] man-made crisis in our industry we have created," al-Rhumy said. "And I think all we're doing is irresponsible."

Al-Rhumy added, "This is a commodity that if you have 1 million barrels a day extra in the market, you just destroy the market. We are hurting, we are feeling the pain, and we're taking it like a God-driven crisis. Sorry, I don't buy this, I think we've created it ourselves."

The next day, al-Rhumy's concerns, if not his criticism, were shared by executives of leading international oil companies: ExxonMobil of the United States, BP of Britain and Total of France. All said they expect the current glut of oil, and the resultant depression in oil prices, to last longer than anyone expected – months longer, if not years longer.

"I'm not sure we will exit from low prices before many months," Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne said.

Lamar McKay, the director of exploration and production for BP, said he expects oil prices will stay low for some time, and Michael Townshend, the company's director for Middle East operations, said he expects the price of a barrel of oil will rise no higher than about $60 for three more years.

These gloomy forecasts contrasted with the OPEC view. The group's secretary general, Abdullah al-Badri, told the conference on Tuesday that 2016 is likely to be a year for positive momentum in oil markets. And on Monday, UAE Oil Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei, said a decision by OPEC to cut production to shore up oil prices would only play into the hands of its competitors.

As a result, al-Mazrouei said, he doesn't expect OPEC to change its strategy when it meets Dec. 4. "When you are the least expensive oil, you should be the base producer," he said.

At its meeting in November 2014, OPEC adopted Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi's strategy of keeping production at 30 million barrels a day, despite the fall in oil prices caused by a rapid increase in production by non-members, especially the United States, which had ramped up production of shale oil.

The goal was to wage a price war that would keep oil prices so low that such producers, who rely on relatively expensive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can't afford to drill for oil. The break-even point for fracking is around $60 per barrel, and oil now averages about $50 per barrel, leading to a noticeable drop in U.S. drilling.

In the meantime, OPEC nations are exceeding their production limit of 30 million barrels per day by more than 1.5 million barrels, so it's no wonder oil prices are so low.

Concerns about low oil prices were raised before last year's OPEC meeting, particularly by Venezuela.

Saudi Arabia had already said it opposed production cuts. Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro, said he was hoping to work out ways to bolster oil prices in meeting both with members of OPEC and producers who weren't part of the 12-member cartel.

That came to naught, however, and the Saudi plan became OPEC policy. Despite current dissatisfaction from some oil producers, there's no reason to expect the cartel to change course if it believes its strategy is working.

Selected Skeptical Comments

Hard Assets

I have posted this comment on 7 million forums and discussion boards and I have yet to get a reasonable answer.

If an oil producer, big or small, has X barrels of oil in the ground, a finite number, why would they (especially OPEC countries who can 'control' the price) overproduce to sell today at $43 instead of $110+ ??

How does driving down the price get one more 'market share' ? When oil was $100/bbl, all things being equal, it was $100 across the globe. At $43, its $43 across the globe. Again, all things being equal, how does that impact market share ?

Sure, at a point in the future, when competitors fold you gain market share. Does this fall into the "market can stay illogical longer than one can remain solvent" category ?

Completely short sighted vision in my book. WTF was the intention of OPEC in the first place?

Saudi was selling 9 m/bbl/day when oil was at $100+, now they are selling 10.5 mbbl/day at $43. The math on that is staggering.

Back to the finite X reserves. No doubt Saudi and every oil producer will pump and drill and do everything they can to get down to the last drop. Then it's over, literally pack up your tent and call it a day.

So why are they overproducing, selling more of their finite resource at a low price instead of over the longer term at more than double its current price.

If the real reason of this stunt is to cause severe pain for Russia, Iran, Venezuala and others, well the oil doesn't go away. Someone will still own it and someone will still drill and pump when prices are more favorable.

So WTF is really going on here ?

Benjamin123

I sort of answered below.

They dont care. Those countries do not feel any pain. Countries are not even real, only people or animals feel pain and those oil ministers are rich either way.

Gregor Samsa

Easy answer: cashflow. These companies / countries need any revenue they can get. Turning off the lights and going home is simply not an answer.

A secondary answer is that many oil plays, such as tarsands and fracking literally cannot be shut down once started (at least not without incurring extra costs in the millions).

erk

US oil production is still up around 9 mill barrels according to EIA. Once their unsustainable shale oil output drops a million BBL or two, then OPEC are back to business as usual.

Youri Carma

It's not about OPEC anymore.

[Nov 11, 2015] 2 simple charts illustrate why low oil prices are so depressing

Nov 9, 2015 | Business Insider
The energy sector's capital expenditure, or capex, on spending for fixed infrastructure that secures future business activity, has slumped 8% this year according to Goldman Sachs.

Energy capex growth is set to fall another 20% next year, wrote the firm's strategists led by David Kostin to clients on Friday.

There's usually a lag between energy-sector capital spending and oil prices, with prices leading. That means even if oil prices defy most forecasts and rise sharply from current levels, capex will likely still fall.

[Nov 11, 2015] IEA World Energy Outlook New Hope For Civilization

Notable quotes:
"... In The Economic Growth Engine Warr and Ayres have some interesting historical data on how most improvements in, say, fuel efficiency come not from actual technological innovation but a straightforward process of making vehicles lighter, suggesting that there's a hard cap on how far such work can go. ..."
"... The report states, "The plunge in oil prices has set in motion the forces that will lead the market to rebalance, via higher demand and lower growth in supply. This may take some time, as oil consumers are not reacting as quickly to changes in price as they have in the past." Here we see the inability to perceive the unfolding consequences of peak oil playing out in a neoliberal world run for the benefit of the 1%. It's as if "The market" will "rebalance" because it is eternal and, well, since it's eternal it just has to rebalance. ..."
"... A few generations from now our descendants will wonder, "What took them so long to figure out that we'd reached the limits to growth?" The answer, of course, is that growth is the core of the myth holding the American psyche together. If it's false, what's the meaning of "life, the universe, everything?" ..."
Nov 11, 2015 | naked capitalism

Sandwichman, November 11, 2015 at 2:39 am

Green smoke. "These projected figures are a figment of our imagination. We hope you like them." (New Yorker cartoon from the 1980s

vteodorescu, November 11, 2015 at 5:31 am

The path to low carbon is nuclear. Anything else is a palliative. Technical fact: wind and solar have to be backed up with equal capacity of baseload generation, usually gas, to keep the grid balanced, to compensate the highly variable supply wind and solar produce. They are largely politically driven and a sop to the misinformed intelligentsia.

Energy scarcity is another tool to keep the huddled masses huddled.

Disclaimer: I am an organic farmer in the northeast of Brazil. I do not work for or have any financial interest in the nuclear industry.

TheCatSaid, November 11, 2015 at 6:54 am

These crystal-ball gazing exercises leave out the high likelihood like pandemics. Losing a significant % of population will impact demand but also supply (just imagine what losing key engineers and scientists could impact on development of better technologies, or on production facilities).

likbez -> TheCatSaid, November 11, 2015 at 9:34 pm

If I remember correctly in 1956 Hubbert correctly predicted the peak of the USA production in 1970. From Wikipedia
==== quote ===
Hubbert, in his 1956 paper,[3] presented two scenarios for US crude oil production:
most likely estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6%, an ultimate resource equal to 150 Giga-barrels (Gb) and a peak in 1965. The size of the ultimate resource was taken from a synthesis of estimates by well-known oil geologists and the US Geological Survey, which Hubbert judged to be the most likely case.

upper-bound estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6% and ultimate resource equal to 200 Giga-barrels and a peak in 1970.

Hubbert's upper-bound estimate, which he regarded as optimistic, accurately predicted that US oil production would peak in 1970, although the actual peak was 17% higher than Hubbert's curve.

Production declined, as Hubbert had predicted, and stayed within 10 percent of Hubbert's predicted value from 1974 through 1994; since then, actual production has been significantly greater than the Hubbert curve.

Nicholas Cole, November 11, 2015 at 8:51 am

Is the title of this article supposed to be funny?

To echo Paper Mac, I'd like to know more about their assumptions re: energy efficiency investments and improvements.

In The Economic Growth Engine Warr and Ayres have some interesting historical data on how most improvements in, say, fuel efficiency come not from actual technological innovation but a straightforward process of making vehicles lighter, suggesting that there's a hard cap on how far such work can go.

DanB, November 11, 2015 at 9:35 am

The report states, "The plunge in oil prices has set in motion the forces that will lead the market to rebalance, via higher demand and lower growth in supply. This may take some time, as oil consumers are not reacting as quickly to changes in price as they have in the past." Here we see the inability to perceive the unfolding consequences of peak oil playing out in a neoliberal world run for the benefit of the 1%. It's as if "The market" will "rebalance" because it is eternal and, well, since it's eternal it just has to rebalance.

The counter explanation that the price of oil fell because people are going broke while the cost of extracting oil is climbing cannot be conceived, let alone entertained.

And the peak oil scenario is actually hidden in plain sight in classical economics: if a resource becomes scarce what happens? Price increases and then encourages more exploration and recovery of the resource. If that does not work then price incentivizes the introduction of substitutes. And if that doe not work you get demand destruction, because the market always clears -- even if people go hungry the market clears.

A few generations from now our descendants will wonder, "What took them so long to figure out that we'd reached the limits to growth?" The answer, of course, is that growth is the core of the myth holding the American psyche together. If it's false, what's the meaning of "life, the universe, everything?"

IDG, November 11, 2015 at 9:50 am

Humans are awfully bad at predicting things, specially under radical uncertainty conditions (so basically this situation); yet we see this sort of rubbish published on daily basis. Call me back when we can predict what will happen in a year reliably, until then… 20y-30y projections are a joke, for all I know humanity could have self-exterminated itself in a nuclear war by then (one century with nuclear weapons around and no nuclear-conflict having happened yet looks like defying probability to me!).

But I guess economists need employment too after all, how would such useless profession be justified if wouldn't swallow rubbish like this.


[Nov 09, 2015] Peak Oil Open Thread

Notable quotes:
"... Yergin predicts a 10 percent drop in US oil production, April 2015 to April 2016. That's a 960,000 bpd drop and will take us to 8,638,000 bpd in April 2016 if he is correct. ..."
"... U.S. crude output, which surged to the most in more than three decades this year and triggered a price collapse, will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12-months ending April, according to Yergin, vice chairman at IHS Inc. ..."
"... How big a drop do you expect? I think Yergin may be right in this case. The drop in output in the US, along with increased demand at low oil prices will eventually balance the oil market, prices will rise and output will level off and may increase slightly if oil prices get above $75/by the end of 2016. ..."
"... I have no idea when oil prices will get to $75/b, but my WAG is mid 2017 at the latest when World output will be struggling to increase. ..."
Peak Oil Barrel

Yergin predicts a 10 percent drop in US oil production, April 2015 to April 2016. That's a 960,000 bpd drop and will take us to 8,638,000 bpd in April 2016 if he is correct.

Yergin Sees Oil Price Near Bottom as U.S. Output Set to Fall

U.S. crude output, which surged to the most in more than three decades this year and triggered a price collapse, will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12-months ending April, according to Yergin, vice chairman at IHS Inc.


Guy Minton, 11/04/2015 at 8:59 pm

Actually, Yergin's estimate drop to 8,600,000 is in line with EIA's projection. Both are too conservative, my guess the drop will eventually surprise most.

Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 8:30 am

Hi Guy,

How about some numbers?

How big a drop do you expect? I think Yergin may be right in this case. The drop in output in the US, along with increased demand at low oil prices will eventually balance the oil market, prices will rise and output will level off and may increase slightly if oil prices get above $75/by the end of 2016.

I have no idea when oil prices will get to $75/b, but my WAG is mid 2017 at the latest when World output will be struggling to increase. That assumes no major World recessions (like 2008/9) between now and 2017, if the pessimists' forecast of an impending crash due to a stock market and debt bubble are correct, then output could fall much more than forecast by Yergin due to sustained low oil prices due to lack of demand for oil due to low income growth (or negative income growth).

[Nov 08, 2015] Legendary US Army Commander Says Russia Would Annihilate US In Head-To-Head Battle

Notable quotes:
"... And why is the US seeking a battle with Russia anyway? This is completely absurd....are the neo-cons/neo-libs this fucked up? ..."
"... Having said the above, the prevailing view on the ground in Moscow is that it will be NATO that pre-emptively attacks Russia, hence the refurbishing and re-provisioning of their network of Civil Defence shelters, info via Brother in Law (BNP Paribas Moscow). ..."
"... US/EU GDP approaches 40 trillion dollars. Russia has fallen down below 2 trillion due to the drop in oil prices. 25 to 1 disparity. ..."
"... US population 330 million. EU population 504 million. Russian population 142 million. 6-1 disparity. ..."
"... Carter says Russia, China potentially threaten global order. WTF! These idiots really believe America rules the world! Every country should fear us and do as we say. No other country should EVER dare to challenge our oligarchy. Good for Russia and China for finally saying enough. We patrol the South China Sea like it's our own f***ing bathtub. If China did that to us in the Gulf of Mexico we would already be at war. The GLOBAL F***ING ORDER? Who made us kings of the world? ..."
"... If the neocons think they can bring war to soil mere miles away from Russia and not get a nuclear response if they start losing or we breach a russian boder, theyre insane. Unfortunately one look at current policy confirms that yes, indeed, theyre insane. ..."
"... Any negative assessment of US military capability originating from within the military-industrial complex, must necessarily be considered suspect. First, that assessment would be considered highly classified, unless it was pre-approved and deliberately released to scare more money out of already fleeced taxpayers. Second, .Gov used the same propaganda in our decades-long cold war with the USSR to justify massive spending and involvement in global conflicts. Profligate spending and profligate lies leave them with no credibility. ..."
Zero Hedge
Cochore

The Saker wrote a very insightful post on this matter a while back

US political culture and propaganda has deeply ingrained in the minds of those exposed to the corporate media the notion that weapons or technologies win wars. This is not so. Or, not really so.

Yes, when the difference in technologies is very big AND very wide, meaning a full generational change across most key weapon systems, this can help. But not one weapon system alone, and not when the difference in quality is marginal.

Furthermore, a simpler, more "primitive" weapon which totally outclassed on the testing range can suddenly become much better suited to real combat then some techno-marvel. This is, by the way, one of the biggest problems with US weapons. Here is how they are designed:

You take all the latest and most advanced technologies, put them together, then create a new "superior" design, then design a new mission profile to fit that design, then sell (figuratively and literally) the new concept to Congress, especially to those Congressmen who come from the districts where production is planned - and, voilà, you have your brand new top of the line US weapon. And the costs? Who cares?! Just print some more money, and that's it.

Russian weapons are designed in a totally different way:

Take a mission profile, determine a need, then take all the cheapest, simplest and most reliable technologies available and combine them into your weapon system, then have that prototype tested in military units, then modify the weapons system according to the military's reaction and then produce it.

In other words, US weapons are designed my engineers and produced by businessmen and politicians, they are not really designed for war at all. Russian weapons, in contrast, are ordered by the military and created by design bureaus and they have only one objective: real, dirty and ugly warfare.

This is why the good old MiG-29 could fly better with its old fashioned hydraulics then the F-18s with fly-by-wire. It was never that the Russians could not built fly-by-wire aircraft (the SU-27 already had it), but that for the MiG-29 design goals, it was not needed.

What I am getting at here is two things: a) US weapons are not nearly as good as their marketing and b) "older" Russian weapons are often much better for actual warfighting.

Let's say the US delivers large quantities of Javelin's to the junta. So what? All that Russia will have to do in reaction is deliver 9M133 Kornets to the Novorussians. Can you guess which system is both cheaper and better?

When the US gave the junta counter-battery radars what did Russia do? The same thing. Now both sides have them.

Now here comes the key question: which of the two sides relies more on armor and artillery? Exactly - the junta.

When confronted with a problems, Americans love to do to things: throw money at it and throw technological "solutions" at it. This never works, but that is what they are good at.

The fact is that even in the 21st century what wins wars is not money or fancy gear, but courage, determination, moral strength, willpower and the rage which seizes you when faced with brute, ugly evil.

LINK to full article

Occident Mortal

Russia does have some technological advantages over the U.S. though.

Russian missile technology is superior.

The S-400 surface to air defence system is two generations better than anything else in the world.

Russian missiles are superior too. Their ICMB's fly random path trajectories. They are the masters of multiple engine rockets.

Only the Russians have the ability to put a man in space.

America is a little self deluded and they too often extrapolate their warplane technology advantage into a blanket technology advantage. That's just not the case.

Perimetr

"Well now, it seems entirely possible that the US may have to fight a conventional war against the Russians . . ."

Sorry, exactly how long do you think a war with Russia would remain CONVENTIONAL?

As soon a one side or the other started to lose, what do you think would happen? They will surrender?

Demdere

Guys, do not believe anyone who says that any part of any system is managable. Saying "I can win a war" is the same as saying "I can see the future and inside other men's minds". No you an't. You are throwing dice every time, and war is a very negative-sum game, most players don't even break even. Both can easily lose very badly, far more han they ever could have conceviablely won. I believe all modern wars have been of thar variety.

The cost of bad government keeps increasing. The cost of sufficient firepower to cause a 1% loss of GDP is within the budget of a religious cult with intelligence service ties. We spend more than 25$ of our GDP on policing, monitoring, checking, verifying. The overhead of our military is at least 10% of GDP, our industry would kill for that kind of cost advantage. The costs of dishonest are so huge.

runswithscissors

And why is the US seeking a "battle" with Russia anyway? This is completely absurd....are the neo-cons/neo-libs this fucked up?


V for ...

Yep. The new Bolsheviks are criminally insane.

1033eruth

The US? No, Uncle Fraud is trying to get Americans to condone and approve another war through constant media manipulation.

Every major war needs public approval. It doesn't happen until the media maneuvers American zombies into acceptance.

Kent State was the beginning of the end of the Vietnam war. The losses we were incurring were too great for the public to accept. Which also helps to explain why we have switched over to remote control and drone warfare. We can still spend ocean carriers of money which the American public overlooks as a cost for "safety" and the loss of life is minimized therefore less backlash.

Tell me why this hasn't occurred to you?

booboo

More scarey bullshit to whip up more support for spending trillions on another armored up coffin, flying battleship or space shotgun, not that I am under any illusion that the U.S. would win but God Damn, if you don't start a fucking war then you won't have to fight a war.

Blankone

Yes, this. And it works well because all sides lap it up. The MIC has the politicians push the agenda and fear. TPTB have the MSM push it and the sheep eat it up like always. The Putin fan club jumps on the band wagon because its the fantasy they wish was true.

JustObserving
Russia Would "Annihilate" US In Head-To-Head Battle

No wonder the Nobel Prize Winner is pushing Putin into a new world war. CIA created ISIS blows up Russian passenger jet. F-15s sent to Turkey to attack Russian jets. Obama continues to attack oil to bankrupt Russia.

US deploys F-15s to Syria, targeting Russian jets

By Thomas Gaist, 7 November 2015

The US will send a squadron of F-15C fighter jets to Turkey's Incirlik air base, the US Defense Department (DOD) announced on Friday. The nature of the US war planes, which are specifically designed for dogfighting with other highly advanced fighter jets, indicates that the deployment carries a significance far beyond what its small scale would suggest.

The F-15 line of combat jets was developed in response to the unveiling in 1967 of the Soviet Union's MiG-25 "Foxbat" interceptor.

Because they are designed for air-to-air combat against other major powers, the US has, until now, seen no need to deploy the F-15C model to its Middle Eastern and Central Asian war theaters, where the opposing forces have no warplanes.

The sudden deployment, coming less than two months after Russia began sending its own SU-30 fighters to its new airbase at Latakia, makes clear that the jets have been deployed in response to Moscow's air campaign.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/11/07/syri-n07.html

Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/09/us-iran-r...

Dark Daze

I dispute that the F-15 was ever intended as a dogfighter. It is fast, much faster than the SU-30 and it can carry an impressive bomb load, but I believe the original design was rapid penetration of enemy defenses and air to ground, not air superiority. All that of course comes only when the F-15 is loaded down with not only fuselage conformant fuel tanks but drop tanks as well, reducing it's effectiveness. When you compare thrust, aerodynamics, stand off weapons and sheer manoevering capability the SU-30 wins hands down. The only air-to-air weapon the F-15's have been retrofitted with that even comes close to the air-to-air that the Russians have is the British Meteor, but that has never been tested. It is a Mach 4 weapon so the SU-30 couldn't outrun it or out climb it, but I remain to be convinced about it's capabilities.

The larger problem for the Americans is that they are stationing their F-15's at Incirlik, which is only 15 minutes from Latakia. Incirlikk was a poor choice for them to be stationing those units when the stated intention was to fly missions against ISIS. If the Syrians/Russians detect the F-15's coming south instead of going east they will have only a few moments to decide on whether to launch S-400's against them, and in an environment that might have a heigntened level of intensity that is a danger. Needless to say, an S-400 launced against an F-15 will take the later out in seconds and no amount of chaffe of manoevering with change that scenario. Check mate.

Blankone

Check mate? They are moving that close to the Russian bases to squeeze Russia and occupy the area. It is a sign they have no fear of Russia being willng to confront.

Dark Daze

Either that or a sign of sheer stupidity and a willingness to sacrifice men and material.

Talleyrand

Russia is not going to attack the Baltic states. Russia is not going to invade Poland. Russia is not going to attack the anachronism that is NATO.

On the other hand, invading Russia has, historically, proven to be a bad idea.

cowdiddly

Just more of this Russophobia boogeyman bullshit to get more funds appropriated for their sick toys and paychecks so they can continue getting their butt kicked all over the globe by anyone more powerful than Somalia.

Parrotile

Jack, Russia has no reason to "invade Europe" since Europe has nothing of immediate benefit to Russia. Having said that Russia will certainly not "telegraph" their intentions by troop movements, and will certainly use their rather capable missile tech to "soften up" EU defences should the opportunity arise. Air defence needs runways, and armies need reliable bulk transport (motorways / rail), the key locations of which (marshalling yards / major intersections) are well known to Russia.

They will not just "roll over the border" and say "come and get us" to the West.

Having said the above, the prevailing view "on the ground" in Moscow is that it will be NATO that pre-emptively attacks Russia, hence the refurbishing and re-provisioning of their network of Civil Defence shelters, info via Brother in Law (BNP Paribas Moscow).

tarabel

Let's review here...

NATO is larger than it ever was before, and Russia is much smaller and weaker than the USSR/Warsaw Pact.

Soviet armor is not parked in central Germany any more.

Vladimir Putin complains endlessly about NATO forces being forward deployed to his border regions.

Virtually every single member of the US military and many cadres from other NATO nations have years of real world battlefield experience, while only a small number of Russians have been shot at.

US/EU GDP approaches 40 trillion dollars. Russia has fallen down below 2 trillion due to the drop in oil prices. 25 to 1 disparity.

US population 330 million. EU population 504 million. Russian population 142 million. 6-1 disparity.

Russian "breakout" from nuclear treaties that limited weapons to an approximate 1-1 parity means that they are stronger in nuclear weapons than the United States, but the nuclear forces of the UK and France mean that the West still possesses a slight but shrinking superiority here

And now you understand why Russia has officially and unilaterally renounced the solemn old Soviet declaration of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Any conventional war between the West and Russia will end in ruin for Russia even if they can make some hay early on. The economic and population disparities are far too wide for Putin to prevail or even defend his country-- unless he goes nuclear. It is the only type of warfighting in which the sides are remotely equal.

The West has no need or interest in going nuclear on Russia in the event of hostilities. No matter what sort of initial success Russian armies may achieve in the early stages of a war that starts next door to their depots, the economic power of the West is far too much for him to overcome with conventional means.

Draw your own conclusions as to who needs to light the first Roman Candle.

rejected

"Virtually every single member of the US military and many cadres from other NATO nations have years of real world battlefield experience, while only a small number of Russians have been shot at."

Yes,,, but fighting who? Vietnam, a real war, was too long ago. The veterans are old so their experience will be of no use.

The Iraqi's were surrendering so fast it was slowing down the advance on Baghdad.

Libya,,, bombed into a failed state,,, other than the Marines having to defend the gun running US Ambassador there was no fighting.

In Syria our Ally "moderate terrorists" are / was doing the grunt work against Assad.

And we're still fighting (losing) the cave dwellers of Afghanistan 15 years later. In fact they are now advancing against the puppet US government.

Russia will never attack the West but the West will attack Russia because the West is broke. That GDP your referring to was purchased by central bank printing.

The Russian Army will be defending their nation, Nato/US Armies will be trying to establish an empire.

Who do you think will have the most incentive.

HyeM

This is all propaganda.... they're using words like "Annihilate" to terrify the public and get an even larger budget for the military-industrial complex to benefit them and their friends in the defense industry. For the last 80 years we were going to be "Annihilated", first by the Soviet Army, and now this crap.

rbg81

I remember freshman ROTC lectures back in 1979. The USSR was poised to invade West Germany via the Fulda Gap--they could come over at any minute. Ivan was ten feet tall. Blah, blah, blah. Then, after the Berlin Wall fell, two generations of scary propaganda looked like a big joke. Nothing ever changes.

I Write Code

Anybody interested, please click on the link and read the Politico article yourself.

This ZH posting completely misrepresents what the article says.

The article is really about McMaster and the good news that he's still in the game at the Pentagon.

And in two out of three scenarios the US beats Russia, apparently even in this expeditionary scenario.

Now, the whole thing is absurd. The idea that the US and Russia would end up firing major weapons at each other is a mutual nightmare. And the idea that the US would pit a small force against Russia, right against Russian territory, and expect to win, is doubly absurd.

But the Politico article is actually worth reading anyway, and for that, thank you ZH.

rejected

Great!!! Our team wins!

Could have went any way....

V for ...

Fairness, justice, freedom. These are more than words. They are deeds. That was the pledge of the U.S. Military code before it was overtaken by dual citizens like the Wolfowitz Doctrine, Project for a New American Century; those who declare to be the 'chosen ones', and use my country, my people's blood and treasure.

Get off your knees, US Military Code. I have no interest in the failures of dual citizens, and nor should you. My country, tis of thee. Foreigners should fund their own fight.

This:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

Then this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKvvOFIHs4k

Temerity Trader

"Carter says Russia, China potentially threaten global order." WTF! These idiots really believe America rules the world! Every country should fear us and do as we say. No other country should EVER dare to challenge our oligarchy. Good for Russia and China for finally saying enough. We patrol the South China Sea like it's our own f***ing bathtub. If China did that to us in the Gulf of Mexico we would already be at war. The GLOBAL F***ING ORDER? Who made us kings of the world?

These guys are sick. We need to pull our fleets and troops out and go home and stay there. Let China and Russia deal with Japan, Taiwan and Syria. Guaranteed these guys will get us into a major war soon. Obama is too weak to fight the MIC. They fill his head with crap about how no country should dare to challenge us.

Americans cannot tolerate large losses. They expect to always kick ass and suffer few losses. The new missile technology has changed all that. Watch the reaction when one of our aircraft carriers goes to the bottom from a dozen simultaneous missile strikes. The oligarchs know they can count on Joe Sixpack believing all their propaganda spewing forth and set his 300lb ass in his living room chair saying, "Let's go kick China and Russia's asses."

seek

If the neocons think they can bring war to soil mere miles away from Russia and not get a nuclear response if they start losing or we breach a russian boder, they're insane. Unfortunately one look at current policy confirms that yes, indeed, they're insane. Just pray they only target political and financial centers when the missiles fly. Might leave us in a better place.

lasvegaspersona

Eisenhower said war is man's greatest folly and those who pursue it or fail to prevent it are a black mark on all of humanity

...wonder if these military geniuses have read THAT military history...

V for ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Eisenhower warned about a new thing in his time, something called a military industrial complex.

The modern Zionist talks about the MIC being a conspiracy theory, but Eisenhower said it would have 'grave implications', and we 'must guard against ...the military industrial complex...never let it endanger our liberties...'.

Charles Offdensen

What a bullshit article. If the US were to truly go all out war and not give a damn about public opinion, which is media driven for the purpose of tying our hands visa vie Amercan public feeling and emotions, we would by any stretch of the means and definition wipe the floor with any country any where.

The problem is that most people don't realize or care to understand what it takes to win a war. Since when did the enemy give a rats ass about how they killed us. They don't, so why should we care about them or the civilians who have been so brutalized to the point of pure survival who only want the pain to stop no matter who delivers it. And that includes their slave masters which has been discussed ad nausium her at ZH.

Ask yourself. Do you really think people who have been raped and brutalized are going to be better off if we play nice or are they going to do whatever it takes to survive and that means not giving a shit about anyone else but you.

War is hell. There are no two ways about it. But do you sacrifice your objective just to win the hearts and minds of those that would probably shoot you because they can't tell which way is up or down? Especially those from a distinction all third world and seventh century mentality.

To win you have to do what is necessary regardless of judgment because judgment is what defeats us in battle.

The horror!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o6tV1yfEPTk

For the record I tried!!!

V for ...

Blood is thicker than water. The dual citizens think they have captured the USA. I know they have a tiger by the tail.

'they' serve money first by their hideous Talmud, and 'they' are going to die by it.

'they' enjoyed the protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet strive to destroy those American ways.

F'ck 'em. Don't worry about them.. Let them die in their desert sandpit.

Dark Daze

There was a time, not so long ago, when the US at least tried to maintain the illusion that they were the 'good guys'. Of course history paints an entirely different picture. As I have written many times, from Latin America, South America, China, South East Asia, Africa and now the middle east, the US has overthrown, bombed, murdered, screwed over, enslaved and otherwise brutalised most of the worlds population. Let's not forget that it was less than 40 years from the American Revolution when the US started it's wars of conquest by trying to invade Canada while Britain was tied up with Napoleon.

Glad to see that there is at leasrt one American who makes no bones about his/her true intentions, which is total world domination. Unfortunately for you, you're economy is wrecked, your banks and government are bankrupt, you have no gold left, your population is seething in it's anger and you're vaunted war machine is phoney. So go ahead, try the Chinese or the Russians on for size and see what happens.

docinthehouse

If Russia and China were smart, they would improve theirr own country's infrastructure and let the West continue to rot of its own accord. You get what you accept Ameirca and the west have becomes slaves to debt and a tolerance of freeloading. You get what you accept.

Setarcos

Er! Russia and China ARE improving their infrastructures, Russia especially since sanctions gave a strong impetus.

Have you seen the new bridge being built to Crimea and what a about Sochi, the new technology centre near Moscow, revitalized Vladivostok and the new Cosmodrom, for instance.

Agricultural production is way up and manufacturing is being ramped up.

marcusfenix

as an aside to this piece there was another interesting disclosure regarding the growing gaps in capabilities the US would have to overcome if Washington ever engaged Russia in a conventional war.

namely the cruise missile strikes from the Caspian flotilla, while they did not make a difference in the course of the battle in Syria they did show that Russia has a capability that the US Navy does not and could put them at a serious disadvantage in any engagement. it wasn't the missiles themselves though they did show a vast improvement in Russian long range guided missile capabilities but how they were delivered that is cause for concern in DC.

unlike the US navy which relies exclusively on larger blue water destroyers for it's long range cruise missile delivery, the missiles fired from the Caspian sea were launched from much smaller, faster and more agile corvettes. long range strike capability from a package that is much harder to find, track, target and hit than the US navy's guided missile and aegis destroyers.

this capability has countless advantages but Washington never pursued it's development and apparently did not expect Moscow to either. but now not only did Moscow do just that they proved to the world that they can use it in combat in essence rendering the entire US navy's carrier fleet obsolete. consider this small of a ship, under 90 tons, can position itself anywhere up to 900 miles away and fire up to 12 LRAS missiles from areas where larger ships and even subs simply can not operate. all while still retaining blue water mission capabilities.

it is simply smaller, faster, more flexible, more cost effective and smarter than anything the US navy has to offer. these corvettes are relatively easy to produce and maintain and can be built in large numbers on short notice, they are hard to hunt and hard to kill and can sink carriers from hundreds of miles away.

instead of investing in practical, usable tech like this DC sinks one trillion dollars in the F-35 which still isn't near production and is already obsolete. as one US air force general testified before congress the Russians have had the ability to overcome the Lightnings stealth capabilities for at least 15 years now and in a dog fight it would get shredded by even a 1960's Mig 21 because it is to under powered to generate attack angels and "turns like a garbage truck".

now I wonder how many guided missile corvettes could one trillion dollars buy?

Flankspeed60

Any negative assessment of US military capability originating from within the military-industrial complex, must necessarily be considered suspect. First, that assessment would be considered highly classified, unless it was pre-approved and deliberately released to scare more money out of already fleeced taxpayers. Second, .Gov used the same propaganda in our decades-long cold war with the USSR to justify massive spending and involvement in global conflicts. Profligate spending and profligate lies leave them with no credibility.

tool

Exactly talking their own book fear mongering to increase their allocated budget and by god they will find away to spend every last cent. Remember the recent Afghan compressed natural gas outlet should have cost 500k actually cost billions!

V for ...

Why? November 22 1963. A coup d'etat.

Jack defied the moneychangers, and Israel's want of nuclear weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

[Nov 07, 2015] Russia and China Victory-by-default

Notable quotes:
"... Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying because of the impetus provided by sanctions. ..."
"... Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued, the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing, etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more. ..."
"... The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation. ..."
"... Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government, managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See- Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir ..."
Nov 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Written by Jeff Nielson (CLICK FOR ORIGNAL)

... ... ...

While the American Empire still exists and has extended its imperialistic reach, it is a very different empire from the days of the Reaganites. Most obviously, the Rule of Law is dead. Saturation corruption permeates this now rancid empire.

Financial criminals (primarily based in the U.S.) commit crimes literally a thousand times larger than anything previously seen in our history, and then repeat these crimes again and again. The U.S. 'Justice' Department spends its time not in prosecuting and incarcerating these criminals (and criminalized "banks"). Rather, it expends its energies explaining why it refuses to prosecute these criminals.

The primary "prey" of this banking crime syndicate is now the American people and the U.S. economy , itself. The United States has not merely become insolvent, it is obviously bankrupt. The Oligarchs who control its puppet government literally shipped the U.S. manufacturing base to the low-wage regimes of Asia, which ironically included China. As a result, the once-envied U.S. Middle Class has been transformed into the Working Poor .

In most respects (outside of economic parameters), the American Empire would be judged to be "stronger than ever". Clearly this is true militarily. Despite having no real "enemies" since the defeat-by-default of the Soviet Union, U.S. Neo-Cons have been busy as beavers inventing Boogeymen (and then destroying them) in order to justify the continued, relentless expansion of its war machine.

Politically, successively more-fascist regimes have rendered the U.S. Constitution essentially obsolete. Legally illegitimate (i.e. null-and-void), fascist laws have been wallpapered over the Constitution, stripping the American people of their rights and liberties.

In legitimate democracies, Constitutions are the ultimate Law of the Land, which serve primarily to protect the People from the State. In fascist regimes, invariably illegitimate governments create endless laws designed to protect the State from the People. The American Empire used to represent the former paradigm. Now it epitomizes the latter .

At one time, the closer that one moved toward the "heart" of the American Empire, the more strict was adherence to the Rule of Law. Today, the closer one approaches to the political cesspool known as "Washington, D.C.", or the financial cesspool known as "Wall Street", the more-overpowering becomes the stench of corruption – and lawlessness.

In a perverse twist of fate, the American Empire now mirrors the Soviet Union, in almost every respect. In the Soviet Union, voters were given the choice of two candidates, in what it called "elections". However both of those candidates represented the Communist Party.

In the American Empire, voters are also given the choice of two candidates, they simply pretend to represent two, different parties. Incredibly, this political charade has managed to persist for at least a century.

"There is no material difference now in the old political parties, except which shall control the patronage."

- (former Congressman/prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr., The Economic Pinch (p.61), 1923

Perhaps more significantly, the American Empire now bears considerable resemblance to the Roman Empire, as well. Historians are in agreement that at the time the Roman Empire was at the absolute peak of its military might that "the decline of the Roman Empire" had already been underway for centuries.

Where the ancient Roman Empire differs from the modern American Empire is that in the 21 st century, events – including the rise-and-fall of empires – progress much, much more rapidly. Roughly speaking, what used to stretch over centuries now takes place in decades. Instant communication, rapid global transportation, computerization, and numerous, other technological advances are responsible for this accelerated pace of political/economic/social evolution.

Morally and economically bankrupt, the American Empire now relies more and more heavily on its Big Stick, which it wields with ever more impunity and recklessness. Statesmen such as Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts have regularly warned that the current generation of Neo-Cons (who wield all, real power in the U.S. government) are marching relentlessly toward World War III.

However, while we see Psychopaths on the left/West, we see an entirely opposite political dynamic in the East. The strengthening alliance between China and Russia, represents two, large, global powers which (at least at this point in time) demonstrate no imperial aspirations. But this is only one significant way in which the East differs from the West.

In an essay titled Grandmaster Putin's Trap , Russian writer Dmitry Kalinichenko provides us with aninsightful allegory . Cold War II is not a militarily-oriented confrontation, rather it is a geopolitical chess match. The important point here is that only one "side" understands how to play (and win) a chess match.

How does a skilled chess-player achieve victory? Positioning, positioning, and more positioning. It is only once one's opponent has been completely out-positioned that any thought is given to overt attack. Chess is a game of patience, and (often) a game of simply waiting for one's opponent to self-destruct, via strategic error, or mere impatience.

This brings us back to the current geopolitical stage. In the East, we see Russia and China constantly engaged in improving their position. Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – notcannibalizing them. They are relentlessly adding to their gold reserves ("He who has the gold makes the rules" – The Golden Rule), while the American Empire has squandered most of its own reserves .

While the U.S., and the West, in general, unremittingly alienates the Rest of the World, Russia and China have been rapidly improving their political and economic cooperation with other nations. While the political/economic institutions created or sponsored by the American Empire lose their legitimacy due to corruption, Russia and China are creating parallel, corruption-free institutions – to replace them.

If this was a real chess match, the player on the left would have already 'pushed over his King' (i.e. capitulated). The player on the right now has such superior position that the outcome of the game is no longer in doubt. However, this is not a game, but rather real life – where one side has utterly no respect for anything resembling "rules".

Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II. The psychopaths of the American Empire have demonstrated that they are ready-and-willing to do literally anything to prevent this seemingly inevitable outcome. For this reason, the warnings of people such as Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts should be given our most serious consideration.

GreatUncle

Russia & China, you might want to add India too.

It is called mutual support because as each year passes the US becomes more and more aggressive and to be out on your own and a threat to those in power there you will be turned upon to keep you in your place.

If anything I expect this coalition of nations to only get stronger because if any become isolated and seems to be current foreign policy with Russia you are in for a bit of brutality. Then once one side or the other is eliminated and that can be economically too they will turn on the another to keep them in their place.

Top dog is always going to have an inferiority complex against any who may challenge it.

Consequence? In the last decade reckon under its own steam the US has magnificently turned a substantial portion of the global population against it. It might not be in the MSM, it will be undercurrents of all the brutality like killing innocent citizens with drones or a shoot to kill policy by the US military and the if you are not with us you are against us mentality.

laomei

Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II.

Lol, the Russian economy is collapsing, it relies entirely on oil and oil is dirt cheap. Russia gave the EU an out with sanctions to tear up the contracts and will soon be able to turn to alternative sources. That leaves China as their main partner for oil, while Russia buys up cheap Chinese garbage. But, at the same time, China is more or less in the same position as Mexico was, combined with systemic problem that are virtually identical to the Japan bust. It's a ticking time bomb and the government is literally locking up anyone who dares to even suggest that such a thing is even possible now. Purely out of fear that someone might be listening. China is still dealing with record outflows of cash and is rapidly liquidating those vast reserves. Once the economic growth drops (official numbers or not), there will be no choice left but to devale, which is great for exporters, but toxic for all companies that have borrowed USD. It's enough to destroy entirely their advanced sectors, and they do not have the willing labor at competitive rates to rush back to manufacture like they used to.

Setarcos

Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying because of the impetus provided by sanctions.

Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued, the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing, etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more.

bthunder

If corruption is what brings empires down, then considering level of corruption in China and Russia vs in the US of A, Russia and China will collapse long before USA will.

As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills supposedly demonstrated by Russia's "positioning, positioning, and more positioning", during 15 years of his rule Russia's economy has been positioned for oil exports, nat gas exports, and more oil exports. That takes some grndmaster-like skills indeed.

Now that he's involved in 2 conflicts and China is refusing to pay previously negotiated prices for oil and nat gas (china demands discounts to reflect current low prices) it will be interesting to see how he can conduct and pay for 2 wars at the same time.

Crash N. Burn

"As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills..."

Perhaps you should have clicked the link in that paragraph:

"After realizing its failure in Ukraine, the West, led by the US set out to destroy Russian economy by lowering oil prices, and accordingly gas prices as the main budget sources of export revenue in Russia and the main sources of replenishment of Russian gold reserves....

..Putin is selling Russian oil and gas only for physical gold.

Putin is not shouting about it all over the world. And of course, he still accepts US dollars as an intermediate means of payment. But he immediately exchanges all these dollars obtained from the sale of oil and gas for physical gold!..

..in the third quarter the purchases by Russia of physical gold are at all-time high record levels. In the third quarter of this year, Russia had purchased an incredible amount of gold in the amount of 55 tons. It's more than all the central banks of all countries of the world combined"


Grandmaster Putin's Trap

strangewalk

The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation. Now things have reversed, it is Americas turn.

Freddie

The USSR was totally corrupt just like the USA today. The USA has been on a slipperly slope since before the Banksters - Civil War. I pretty much expected when Obola was selected by Soros and other zios that the uSA was headed towards an implosion like the old USSR.

Phillyguy

Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government, managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See- Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir

GC

Now, I'm pretty pro-Russia these days, but..

"Only Mother Russia remained intact."

I suggest checking an atlas, or googlemap. "mother Russia" most certainly included Belarus and, arguably, some if not all of Ukraine. They don't seem to be part of the Russian federation nowadays.

"Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – not cannibalizing them."

That's, unfortunately, very arguable about Russia. Russia lived on the oil price highs of the last 10 years, but its economy is largely unchanged, imports are rampant, agriculture can't keep up with internal demand and infrastructures, in general but in particular in the immense Asian part, has not much changed since the 90s, or maybe even 60s (with the exception of the oil related projects) and corruption is omnipresent.

datura

you don't seem to know much about Russia.

1] Belarus is not technically part of Russia, but in many way it is and still heading for greater integration. Belarus is now part of what is legally called Union State of Russia and Belarus. Interestingly, although economic integration has proved difficult at this point, the two states are integrated militarily. Besides, Belarus is a member of the Eurasian Union, which is a Russian parallel to the European Union. It is perhaps more easy for Russia to have this Union instead of incorporating the former Soviet countries directly into Russia again. Although there are regions, who would very much like to rejoin Russia directly, but cannot do so, because it would provoke fury of the American Empire. So all the integration and rejoining must be done very quietly and under the blanket for now.

2) asian part, has not much changed since the 90s: ummm....this has been true for entire thousands of year long history of Russia. It is incredibly difficult for Russia to develop all its territory, because it is huge. Russia will need help of China and other Asian states to do this. But cities like Vladivostok have changed for better already and are booming. There are plans for greater development of those regions and many projects in place. One of them is the new Russian cosmodrome, which will provide jobs and centre of life for many people, once it is completed. But of course, developing those regions is an enormous effort for generations to come, which Putin can only start and his successors will have to continue.

3) Apart from Far East, Russia is also positioning itself in the Artics, building bases and projects. This is also task for future generations.

4) Russian economy is certainly not unchanged! Russia jumped higher in the ranking of easy to do business chart and the World Bank says that d oing Business in Russia is now easier than in China. Russian debts (both state and external) are still decreasing and gold reserves growing. Agriculture is self-sufficient already (no Russians dying from hunger and import bans still in place). It also has much to improve, but Russians can now feed themselves without the help of the West. For example dairy production has grown 26%. And more than that, for example Russia is now surpassing USA in wheat export. Poorer regions like Africa and Middle-Eastern countries like Egypt and Iran are buying more and more food from Russia, as it is cheaper.

5) Imports rampant? I don't get what rampant means, but imports are much smaller than last year and still dropping. And most imports are now undertandably coming from China. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/imports

6) Corruption is also decreasing and it is nowhere as terrible as in the USA (if only for the simple reason that Russia does not print money and does not increase its debts, so the amount of money to steal from is limited). This should be an example for future Americans. Corruption will always exist, but it will be much less, if you don't print money out of nothing and if you don't increase debts to pass them on to your children.

People tend to forget that Russia, despite being an old civilization, is actually a very young as a state in the current form. Its economy and capitalism have had far less time to develop than USA! The Russian Constitution was created only in 1993, so even its political system is very young. So it is logical that everything is still in its beginnings and evolving. Russia is now where USA was in, say, 1791:-) But that is not necessarily a bad thing, as Russians still have a lot of space for creativity and building of their state - they are in the beginning of a new cycle, while USA is in the end of a cycle.

GC

And you don't seem to understand the arguments made.

1) The writer said that "mother Russi has remained intact". Belarus and Ukraine are part of teh concept of "MOther Russia". ukraine goes without saying, considering that it is where the whole concept of Russia begun (you know, Kievan Rus?). Now, Belarus was part of Kievan Rus and Minsk itself was settled by Russians in the 9th century (the city proper was created in the 11th, still by Russians). yes, it could be argued is that the polonization process that happened once it came under the Polish-Lithuanian union when the Russian state had been conquered by the mongols set belarus culturally and linguistically apart for a few centuries, but ideally, Belarus is undoubtly part of "mother Russia". You seem to know little of the history of the place yourself for accusing othes not to know much of it.

2) yes, indeed... but still, not even you countered my argument that infrastructure is basically what it used to be. of course, not exactly what it used to be.. note that I used "largely the same". there are a few exceptions.

3) true, but artict exploration is like the space age race of the 60s: a show of power and a technological feat, with large upfront costs and with limited impact on the real economy (or rather, a large impact, but on a very long timeframe since the technologies ended up mainstream).

4) saying that doing business in Russia in easier than in China is not saying much, considering how closed to foreigners the Chinese economy is (the fact that it is open to FDI doesn't mean it is an open economy, even if many confuse the two things). Russia can feed itself with grain and potatoes, of course, and it can also export them (as it has done for decades in its history), but it cannot actually produce for a diversified internal demand, forcing people to either pay a large premium for imports (even larger now with sanctions, hence the reduction of imports) or go for second line products via import substitution. the reason why food prices jumped with sanctions is that Russia wasn't able to produce enough to make do for the food it imported and prices raised as goods were to few to meet demand. There's simply no easier evidence than that AND the fact that just last july the ministry of agricolture for Russia promised MASSIVE subsidies to the agricolture sector to stimulate production. So, are we really arguing the insufficiency of Russian agricoltural sector? Which brings as to...

5) ...You confuse the fact that imports are slowing due the economic crisis and ruble depreciation with economic strenght, which is funny. Truth is, if you remove oil from russian exports, the balance of trade of Russia is utterly negative and getting worse. Russia is not Saudi Arabia, of course, where everythign revolves around oil, but most of the economic resurgence of the Putin era is due to oil windfall and not much has been done to improve other sectors of the economy. proof is, there is no major company that is considered a major player which has been born in Russia in the last 20 years. All top russian companies are oil related (Gazprom, Rosnef and Lukoil) or financial (which raised due the financial needs and revenues of oil), while there is a (relative) desert in services and computer technology. Russia has been and largely continue to be, a raw material exporting country with heavy industries tied to raw materials and armaments, not much of an advanced tertiary or high value added items economy. And I add, unfortunately so, as nothing would please me more to see a strong enough Russia to limit the American idiocy around Europe and teh middle East. The world has gone insane since the loss of a counterweight.

6) your understanding of corruption is.. well, not understanding. Corruption isn't tied to money production, it is tied with money transfers within an economy. If you have to pay for a permission or a to move goods around, that is a net loss for the economy. In transpareny international index, Russian CPI was 24 in 2014, ranking it 136 of 175 countries, in 2012 it was 28. It IS improving, but it's still one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

One can be a Russian fan (I am), but denying the limits of the country's economy doesn't help. Putin himself understands the limits and that's the reason why Russian isn't, differently than the US id in Iraq and Afghanistan, going with its army in Ukraine or Syria: they don't have the financial means to sustain a ground war. I wish Russia a bright future, but they have much to improve and their economy has much to diversify to self sustain.

Btw, Russia has another, immense bordering on the catastrophic, problem and that is demography. Between very low natality and, until very recently, a lowering life expectancy (which is still one of the lowest , if not the lowest, of all advanced economies) Russians risk to go extincted to irrilevance by the end of the century (but at least, they are not following the folly of our Europeans to substitute disappearing locals with muslims from the middle east and Africa). I really hope they will manage to reverse the trend.

Lucky Leprachaun

Destruction from within? Undoubtedly. Caused by Americans themselves? More problematical. You see the agents of this destruction - Neocons, banksters, Cultural Marxist degenerates - are largely the 'rootless cosmopolitans' of legend, with at best a transient attachment to the country.

[Nov 06, 2015] US production might be down by something from 1.5 up to 3 mill bbl/d by end of next year

Notable quotes:
"... monthly low is forecast for June 2016 at 8.77 mb/d. ..."
"... It is interesting that the time lag between capex and production response for conventional production stands around 18 months. Therefore production in the Golf of Mexico is still rising (up 200,000 bbl/d in the last two months alone). This mitigates somehow the decline of shale production. This explains e.g. also the resilience of Russian production, which will in my opinion still rise over the next half year. ..."
"... However, if the oil price stays below $50 per barrel, production will keep falling at roughly 1% per month, which is the average decline of the FED oil and gas production index since April 2015. ..."
"... This scenario implies an at least 1.5 mill bbl/d decline until the end of next year – provided the oil price stays at the current level. My personal view is that US production will be down by more than 3 mill bbl/d by end of next year as there are strong signs of depletion of sweet spots, which accelerate the underlying decline. ..."
"... The projected decline in U.S. production comes primarily from shale plays, and to a much less degree from Alaska and other conventional fields, while production in the GoM is expected to increase. ..."
"... If, as you say, U.S. production drops by 3 mb/d by year-end 2016, that would mean a decline in LTO production by almost 2/3. That is impossible even if shale operators completely stop drilling new wells. According to the estimates I've seen, with no new wells, LTO production in the Bakken and the Eagle Ford would decline by between 30 and 40% within a 12-months period. ..."
"... 3mill bbl/d is a lot and it is the top end of my estimate, yet also conventional production will decline by end of next year. It is just my gut feeling and I guess it has to do something with depletion of sweet spots. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

AlexS, 11/05/2015 at 1:13 pm

article in Bloomberg:

Cheap Crude Hasn't Crippled the U.S. Shale Boom, Shale drillers defy OPEC and double down on drilling.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/cheap-crude-hasn-t-crippled-the-u-s-shale-boom

shallow sand, 11/05/2015 at 9:16 pm
AlexS. The title of the article does not exactly match the content. Good, short read.

The article states US will average 9.2 million bopd this year, 8.8 next year. This ignores that US climbed to 9.6 and will end below 12/14. The 2016 number assumes a rebound in the second half of the year. I am not sure about that.

If OPEC can keep a lid on oil prices through the end of 2016, I wonder what US production will average in 2017?

AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 5:54 am
shallow sand,

The EIA estimates annual average U.S. C+C production at 9.25 mb/d this year (+540 kb/d y-o-y) and 8.86 mb/d in 2016 (-390 kb/d y-o-y).
Monthly peak of 9.60 mb/d was in April 2015, monthly low is forecast for June 2016 at 8.77 mb/d.
Thus, projected decline in monthly average between 4/15 and 6/16 is 830 kb/d.

Projected decline for Lower 48 onshore between 3/15 and 6/16 is 910 kb/d.

  • The EIA expects U.S. production to rebound in 2H16, from 8.77mb/d in June to 9.02 mb/d in December.
  • The EIA assumes WTI to average $55.3 in 2H16 vs. $51.7 in 1H16 and $45.9 in 2H15.

So they think that $55 is sufficient to trigger an increase in drilling/completion activity.

Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 3:20 am

AlexS, Shallow Sand,

Again I think there is a time lag of six months between lower capex and and actual production response. As shale companies have kept capex until recently quite high at the price of huge losses (http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/05/giant-sucking-sound-of-capital-destruction-in-us-oil-gas-impairments/), they have finally responded with much lower capex in 3q15. This implies that the production decline will start in earnest during the first quarter 2016.

It is interesting that the time lag between capex and production response for conventional production stands around 18 months. Therefore production in the Golf of Mexico is still rising (up 200,000 bbl/d in the last two months alone). This mitigates somehow the decline of shale production. This explains e.g. also the resilience of Russian production, which will in my opinion still rise over the next half year.

Future production of oil will strongly depend on the oil price. If the oil price rises to over $80 per barrel in December (through a possible OPEC cut), US production will still be down until mid next year and then rise again. This is the scenario the above forecast implies.

However, if the oil price stays below $50 per barrel, production will keep falling at roughly 1% per month, which is the average decline of the FED oil and gas production index since April 2015.

This scenario implies an at least 1.5 mill bbl/d decline until the end of next year – provided the oil price stays at the current level. My personal view is that US production will be down by more than 3 mill bbl/d by end of next year as there are strong signs of depletion of sweet spots, which accelerate the underlying decline.

AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 7:12 am
Heinrich,

According to the EIA, U.S. LTO production at the peak earlier this year was about 4.6 mb/d (it is now 200-300 kb/d lower). The projected decline in U.S. production comes primarily from shale plays, and to a much less degree from Alaska and other conventional fields, while production in the GoM is expected to increase.

If, as you say, U.S. production drops by 3 mb/d by year-end 2016, that would mean a decline in LTO production by almost 2/3. That is impossible even if shale operators completely stop drilling new wells. According to the estimates I've seen, with no new wells, LTO production in the Bakken and the Eagle Ford would decline by between 30 and 40% within a 12-months period.

Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 7:28 am
AlexS,

3mill bbl/d is a lot and it is the top end of my estimate, yet also conventional production will decline by end of next year. It is just my gut feeling and I guess it has to do something with depletion of sweet spots.

[Nov 06, 2015] Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General

Notable quotes:
"... in another recent report , Exxon Mobil essentially ruled out the possibility that governments would adopt climate policies stringent enough to force it to leave its reserves in the ground, saying that rising population and global energy demand would prevent that. "Meeting these needs will require all economic energy sources, especially oil and natural gas," it said. ..."
"... You legally aren't allowed to knowingly and purposely hide or distort data you are aware of which may materially affect your shareholders. ..."
"... The issue is based on oil companies selectively releasing data and research in exclusive support of their conclusions, while suppressing or distorting material that didnt fit the narrative. ..."
"... if I want to know about climate change, I dont seek reliable information from oil and gas companies, supermarket tabloids, or members of Congress. ..."
"... These are the United States of America, where corporations have (and use) the power to lie constantly to their detractors and their customers alike. For me to expect anything else would suggest a lack of basic skepticism on my part where the products and activities of the corporate world are concerned. ..."
www.nytimes.com

The New York Times

The people said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences - and uncertainties - to company executives.

... ... ...

"This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general," said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. "In some ways, the theory is similar - that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don't know yet."

In the 1950s and '60s, tobacco companies financed internal research showing tobacco to be harmful and addictive, but mounted a public campaign that said otherwise and helped fund scientific research later shown to be dubious. In 2006, the companies were found guilty of "a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public."

... ... ...

in another recent report, Exxon Mobil essentially ruled out the possibility that governments would adopt climate policies stringent enough to force it to leave its reserves in the ground, saying that rising population and global energy demand would prevent that. "Meeting these needs will require all economic energy sources, especially oil and natural gas," it said.

Jeff, Atlanta

This sounds like a fishing expedition on reports published 40 years ago that Exxon wasn't even obligated to do. On top of this, the allegations aren't even that Exxon lied or misled in the reports but financial impact of alleged lies (i.e. similar to misstating earnings). Also, aren't scientific climate reports the entire purpose of the IPCC, not private companies like Exxon? Sounds like a grandstanding opportunity for the NY AG.

Michael, is a trusted commenter North Carolina

I would like to think that Schneiderman has undertaken this investigation purely out of concern for our planet, and not primarily as a way to heighten his personal profile, and he may well have. That said, it is unrealistic to think that it will drive Exxon Mobil or any other major energy company out of business. But, given that the political climate in DC is such that there is zero chance for leadership on implementing a tax on carbon, which to me represents the single most powerful way to address climate change, this may be the next best thing. Hefty fines, if large enough, will inevitably find their way to the pump, and to the utility bill, and may finally alter our behavior, our collective behavior. Whether it might come in time to save the planet is the question.


Andy W, Chicago, Il

You legally aren't allowed to knowingly and purposely hide or distort data you are aware of which may materially affect your shareholders. The problem isn't that Exxon executives put forward biased opinions about the existence or extent of environmental impacts. The issue is based on oil companies selectively releasing data and research in exclusive support of their conclusions, while suppressing or distorting material that didn't fit the narrative.

Their legal and ethical obligation was to release all of the data and let the public and regulators judge if their conclusions were correct. In any sworn testimony provided through the years, executives were also obligated not to suppress or distort any requested information in their possession. That is the legal basis for any legal inquiry, your basic tobacco industry style cover-up.

David Nicholas, Centennial, Colorado

I am an Exxon Mobil shareholder. I am also a scientist who holds degrees from reputable universities, and if I want to know about climate change, I don't seek reliable information from oil and gas companies, supermarket tabloids, or members of Congress. These are often sources of misinformation where, as a moderately well educated and pragmatic adult, I expect to be provided with utter nonsense.

These are the United States of America, where corporations have (and use) the power to lie constantly to their detractors and their customers alike. For me to expect anything else would suggest a lack of basic skepticism on my part where the products and activities of the corporate world are concerned.

Companies like Exxon Mobil exist to make money in any way they can, for themselves and for stockholders like me. Do I condemn their unethical practices? Certainly, but I'm not foolish enough to think I can change them. I cash my dividend checks along with all the other stockholders -- and I vote for representation in Washington, D.C. that knows enough about the science of global climate change to do something meaningful about our role in it. So far, most of the elected officials in Washington, D.C. have been a dismal disappointment; they're the best politicians money can buy.

[Nov 06, 2015] Obama Cracked Jokes While the Rest of the World Mourned

The current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners.
Notable quotes:
"... Where Mr. Obama failed, other Western and world leaders expressed their condolences-British Prime-Minister David Cameron, Polish President Andzej Duda, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Xi Jinping among them. ..."
"... The Kremlin isn't worrying why Barack Obama didn't send condolences, reported Interfax. "Probably, this should not be explained by the Kremlin," said Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary to the Russian President, answering why there was no official telegram from Mr. Obama. Mr. Peskov said there were "a lot" of messages from other world leaders. ..."
"... Russia's national news service Information Agency outed Mr. Obama as "the only world leader that did not express his condolences [to Russia] on the air catastrophe A-321." ..."
"... "This is personal," wrote Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, adding "the current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners." ..."
11/05/15 | Observer

On November 2, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in New York, President Barack Obama poked fun of the Republicans, joking that if they cannot handle CNBC moderators how could they possibly handle Russia's Vladimir Putin?

"Every one of these candidates says, 'Obama's weak, Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he's gonna straighten out.' …and then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators!" Mr. Obama said.

"I mean, let me tell you: if you can't handle those guys," he continued, laughing, "I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you."

While Mr. Obama had his fun, he neglected to mention more serious matters-the Russian plane crash over the Sinai peninsula on October 31 that took the lives of all 224 passengers on board.

Where Mr. Obama failed, other Western and world leaders expressed their condolences-British Prime-Minister David Cameron, Polish President Andzej Duda, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Xi Jinping among them.

On his Twitter page, Mr. Cameron wrote: "PM expresses condolences to President Putin over Sinai plane crash. Britain shares Russia's pain and grief."

Mr. Hollande wrote: "[A]fter the occurred tragedy [President] sends his condolences to President Putin and expresses his solidarity with the Russian people.."

Even Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko took to Twitter with the following: "I express my personal condolences to all the families of those perished in the catastrophe of the Russian passenger plane over Egypt."

Not Mr. Obama.

The Kremlin isn't worrying why Barack Obama didn't send condolences, reported Interfax. "Probably, this should not be explained by the Kremlin," said Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary to the Russian President, answering why there was no official telegram from Mr. Obama. Mr. Peskov said there were "a lot" of messages from other world leaders.

Secretary of State John Kerry expressed condolences on behalf of "all American people" to the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov-that was all, said Putin's press secretary.

Russia's national news service Information Agency outed Mr. Obama as "the only world leader that did not express his condolences [to Russia] on the air catastrophe A-321."

"This is personal," wrote Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, adding "the current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners."

[Nov 06, 2015] Egypt's Dismissal of Terrorism in Russian Plane Crash Creates a Rift

Why western MSM push so hard the version about the bomb ? Investigation just started and there are multiple version including now known far there that were war games by NATO the same day in the same area.
Notable quotes:
"... Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- move along now, nothing to see here ..."
"... The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more...... ..."
"... I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side ..."
The New York Times

Tom Mariner, Bayport, New York

Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- "move along now, nothing to see here".

njglea, is a trusted commenter Seattle

Tension in the Middle East is rising and it is very frightening because it's a no-win situation as it stands now. Everybody loses. I am reminded of a song from the 1960s that addresses this situation perfectly and is a message that should go to every world leader and hater. "One Tin Soldier". Please listen and read the lyrics and, if you agree, forward this message to everyone you know. WE can live in a peaceful world if enough of us take small actions to make it so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKx0tdlxMfY

della, cambridge, ma 52 minutes ago

I just flew back from Istanbul -- four layers of security -- superior to US.

Matthew Abbasi, Los Angeles 52 minutes ago

Why would any Westerner in his/her right mind go to Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya for a vacation? These are unstable nations with ongoing civil wars so Western nations really need to ban tourist for a bit for until things calm down. Its not enough to say that these nations need the tourist money. The risk should not be discounted just because of that. The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more......

Abbas -> Matthew Abbasi, San Francisco, CA 43 minutes ago

Egypt does not have a civil war. Statistically, it is far safer to visit than many places in the U.S.

Rohit, New York

Quoting another poster

"I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side"

https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww

And what is fascinating is that every word spoken by Putin could just as easily have been said by Noam Chomsky or even by President Eisenhower.

PS, Vancouver, Canada

I have little faith in airport security checks in the middle east. Was in Morocco this summer - put my bags on the conveyor belt. Fine - but there was nary a soul manning the monitors. Yes, it was screened (given that it passed through an x-ray machine, but there were no human eyes checking it) . . . also, no one bothered to take my water bottle (which I had inadvertently carried with me.

[Nov 06, 2015] If Journalism Were Run Like Science, Would It Be More Believable?

10/21/15 | Observer
A lesson from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific method and the value of news

Science, circa 1955 (Photo: Orlando /Three Lions/Getty Images)

Our biggest challenge in journalism is not ad blockers or declining print circulation or Silicon Valley. It is value. What are we worth to the public we serve? Are we reliable? Trustworthy? Useful? We are not as liked as we would like to believe.

Last week, I had the fun privilege of interviewing Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson-astrophysicist, podcaster, tweeter, TV star, and debunker of stupidity-when he received the Knight Innovation Award at CUNY's Graduate School of Journalism.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SJbhl_OO-nk

As I wrote in these pages recently, we decided to give the award to Mr. Tyson precisely because he is not a journalist, because he brings explanation, fact, and discipline to the process of informing and educating the public. We saw him as an example to journalists as they innovate in their own craft.

... ... ...

That goal-an informed society-does not mesh with our methods, business models, and metrics. So long as we earn our money attracting as many people as possible to our content, then wholesaling their eyeballs by the ton to advertisers, then we are motivated to grab attention with stories and headlines that report just the latest, not necessarily the preponderance, of facts relating to any given question or dispute. We measure our success on the basis of how much audience attention we grabbed, not by measuring how much we informed and educated the public-not in our impact, our utility, our value.

We must shift our business toward value, toward proving our worth in people's lives. We must measure our success on whether the public ends up better informed through our efforts-not whether they merely gave us their attention and certainly not when they only calcify their previously held and uninformed beliefs. We in journalism-like Mr. Tyson-need to act and judge ourselves more as scientists trafficking in evidence and as educators making impact. Or else, why bother?

[Nov 06, 2015] At 45 dollaris a well that produces 300K barrels over lifetime of 20 years will earn 250,000 dollars for the producer each year on a six million dollar investment, or 4.2 percent.

Edited for clarity.
Notable quotes:
"... If an oil company spends six million dollars to complete an oil well that produces 300,000 barrels of oil over a twenty year period and the average price of oil is $45, an income of $13,500,000 is what you will have in twenty years. ..."
"... Net $7.5 million realized in twenty years, $375,000 average annual income for the life of the well. Subtract 18% for royalties, 10% to pay for extraction taxes, costs to operate, hauling it to market. All-in-all 1/3 needs to subtracted on average. In our case this is $125,000 ..."
"... That means a whopping annual profit of $250,000 for the producer each from a six million dollar investment , or a return on the original investment of 4.2%. Not to mention the taxes to be paid at filing time or an accident that can happen during the lifetime of the well. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

R Walter, 11/05/2015 at 6:35 am

When you want to have some gross income from the production and sale of any commodity, it is desirable to earn more then two dollars for every dollar of expense. A general rule of thumb for the life of the well the total costs can't be more then 1/2 of total earnings. Otherwise you are losing money.

If an oil company spends six million dollars to complete an oil well that produces 300,000 barrels of oil over a twenty year period and the average price of oil is $45, an income of $13,500,000 is what you will have in twenty years.

Net $7.5 million realized in twenty years, $375,000 average annual income for the life of the well. Subtract 18% for royalties, 10% to pay for extraction taxes, costs to operate, hauling it to market. All-in-all 1/3 needs to subtracted on average. In our case this is $125,000

That means a whopping annual profit of $250,000 for the producer each from a six million dollar investment, or a return on the original investment of 4.2%. Not to mention the taxes to be paid at filing time or an accident that can happen during the lifetime of the well.

You might as well invest your six million in a CD, and earn 2% return, sit at home to watch TV and drink coffee. The oil in the ground is making money just sitting there like you are. If you are going to be a fool, might as well be one while watching TV, not drilling for oil all day long and be making pennies. You'll be doing the world a favor. You'll be dancing, not drinking booze all day long and crying over all of the losses.

I know the numbers are not in any way near what they really will be, but you have the idea.

... ... ...

[Nov 06, 2015] Its not that humans can't adapt to the changes, its all of the rest of the flora and fauna and biosphere is dying off at exponential rates that will kill us

Jef, 11/05/2015 at 10:24 am

Its not that humans can't adapt to the changes, its all of the rest of the flora and fauna and biosphere in general all of which humans rely 100% on to exist which is dying off at exponential rates that will kill us.
Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 10:37 am
You've got it wrong. We HAVE to kill off flora and fauna to make room for more humans. Getting rid of buffalo was a master stroke but now there's the other stuff to exterminate. Think about how many people we can fit into Africa by getting rid of that useless wildlife. And, all the bio-fuel we can generate with land wasted by jungle in the Amazon. The key is HUMAN CARRYING CAPACITY. That's what really matters guy.
BC, 11/05/2015 at 12:59 pm

Who needs these large animals on our planet anyway? We are the dominant predator species, including prey on one another; these animals simply have failed to evolve and adapt with a neo-cortex, superior technology, will to power, and the imperative to grow numbers and resource consumption per capita perpetually.

Human apes are superior, and the 7 billion of us and counting is unambiguous proof of our superiority.

Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 1:27 pm
Exactly, we're like rats: better at what we do than anyone else. And like rats we deserve to inherit the earth. But I do wonder what happens when all that's left is us and rats? Maybe they eat us.
MarbleZeppelin, 11/05/2015 at 6:48 pm
Or the rats will carry a new plague that eradicates the human population. Problem solved.

MarbleZeppelin, 11/05/2015 at 6:46 pm

Doesn't it seem very odd that we define progress as some new machine and superiority as the ability to kill off everything?

[Nov 06, 2015] Debt and energy

Notable quotes:
"... I've seen my children's generation living a lifestyle kings and queens couldn't have dreamt of (in the not too distant past): their own furnished homes upon marriage, multiple new-ish cars, international travel, etc. This was a blip in history, one that was financed by – debt. ..."
"... The question here is: why would oil patch debt cause a systemic crisis? The 2007 real estate crisis was a crisis because it threatened to bankrupt very, very large banks. The Great Depression was caused by bank failures, and the failure of Lehman Brothers scared everyone with the possibility of a re-run of 1929. So, is there a threat that the oil patch will bring down Chase, or Bank of America?? I don't see any evidence of that – that's what needs to be looked at. ..."
"... I suspect any mainstream economist, including Krugman, would think Gail is crazy to suggest that excess debt is causing the current commodity deflation. The straightforward explanation, AFAIK, is that commodity deflation is a long-term (secular) phenomenon, that was temporarily interrupted by a construction bubble in China. ..."
"... The thing is as the total debt levels grows and it becomes apparent that the debtor is not capable of repaying the debt, trust is lost in the debtor (and its currency) and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced. ..."
"... "Would an economy with 25% unemployment be good for them?" Dennis Coyne ..."
"... "There is nothing crappy or fake about the current economy," ~ ChiefEngineer ..."
"... "1. thrifty management; frugality in the expenditure or consumption of money, materials, etc." ~ dictionary.com ..."
"... "Do you need a job Caelan ?" ~ ChiefEngineer ..."

Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 11:41 am

"This is the same as borrowing even more from the future to maintain today's over consumptive life styles and leaving their children and grand children with the bill." And, that says it all, thanks Rune.
Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 12:14 pm
Hi Doug,

Imagine your children were just graduating from college. Would an economy with 25% unemployment be good for them? That's what we get when we are too concerned over high public debt as the Hoover administration clearly was. You should read Keynes (it is a short book),
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money

Or read Krugman's End This Depression Now, for an alternative view on debt from Gail's.

Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 12:36 pm
I've seen my children's generation living a lifestyle kings and queens couldn't have dreamt of (in the not too distant past): their own furnished homes upon marriage, multiple new-ish cars, international travel, etc. This was a blip in history, one that was financed by – debt.
Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 5:36 pm
Hi Doug,

My daughter just graduated from University. You avoided the question, if your daughter had just graduated do you think a World with a 25% unemployment rate would be better, or one with a 6% unemployment rate?

Low government debt and balanced budgets (Herbert Hoover thinking) gets you low employment. Keynesian policies done properly get you higher employment.

Debt is important, of that there is no doubt.
When the economy is doing poorly it is usually because of too little debt rather than too much debt.

Greece is a notable exception and there are other cases where countries have taken on too much debt, in Greece's case the lack of control over its own monetary policy is a big problem. If they had the ability to increase their money supply to get some moderate inflation (5% or so), they could have eased their debt burden and gradually got there spending and taxation to sustainable levels. The Euro was not a good idea for this reason, that is why the United Kingdom did not join in the monetary union, a smart economic and political move.

Ron Patterson, 11/05/2015 at 1:16 pm

Dennis, there are two types of debt, public and private. If you read Gail's article, you will see that it deals exclusively with private debt and not public debt. Keynes theories deals primarily with public debt, efforts by the government to prime the economy with public money.

I don't think Krugman would disagree that strongly with Gail. I read some of the reviews of his book, End This Depression Now! It appears to me that they are talking about two entirely different subjects.

But back to Keynes, do you really believe that the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, written in 1936 have more than a remote connection to today's financing in the oil patch.

The US government public debt today is totally different from the public debt during the Hoover administration. It is more than just silly to compare the US economy today with that of the Hoover administration. But even doing so would would have only marginal connection to the oil patch.

Nick G, 11/05/2015 at 2:22 pm
Ron,

The question here is: why would oil patch debt cause a systemic crisis? The 2007 real estate crisis was a crisis because it threatened to bankrupt very, very large banks. The Great Depression was caused by bank failures, and the failure of Lehman Brothers scared everyone with the possibility of a re-run of 1929. So, is there a threat that the oil patch will bring down Chase, or Bank of America?? I don't see any evidence of that – that's what needs to be looked at.
-------–

I suspect any mainstream economist, including Krugman, would think Gail is crazy to suggest that excess debt is causing the current commodity deflation. The straightforward explanation, AFAIK, is that commodity deflation is a long-term (secular) phenomenon, that was temporarily interrupted by a construction bubble in China.

Rune Likvern, 11/05/2015 at 3:07 pm

BIS (Bank for International Settlements) apparently gives some attention to the oil and gas sector total debt.

"First, the oil–debt nexus illustrates the evolving risks in the financial system. Rapidly rising leverage creates risk exposures in the non-financial corporate sector that may be transferred across the global financial system. Similarly, rising leverage puts a greater premium on the liquidity of the markets for the assets that back debt. Both developments underscore the need to better understand the functioning, behaviour and interaction of markets and intermediaries.
Second, the build-up of debt in the oil sector provides an example of how high debt levels can induce new linkages between individual markets and the wider economy. Such interaction needs to be taken into account in assessments of the economic implications of falling oil prices."

https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1503f.pdf

Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 5:44 pm

Hi Ron,

Doug was talking about public debt, I used to read Gail's stuff at the Oil Drum, on economics she is not very good in my opinion.

One thing she may be missing is that when oil companies go bankrupt, they may sell off their assets to bigger companies with deeper pockets. When oil prices recover, these financially stronger companies will be able to get financing to drill profitable wells.

I won't comment further, there will be much less of a lag in new drilling once oil prices get above $75/b than Gail believes.

Rune Likvern, 11/05/2015 at 3:32 pm

There is something called a balanced budget (I am aware that there are pockets on this planet that this principles do not apply).

To run a deficit means spending more than what is received as income. This may work temporarily if that puts the economy back on an organic growth trajectory.

According to data (Warning these are predatory data!) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

The US has since 1945 accumulated a total debt of around $12Trillion from (total) fiscal deficits (OMB) and has not run a surplus since 2001 and OMBs estimates now is for deficits through 2020.

So solving the debt problem created by one generation by arguing that youth unemployment needs to be kept in check by adding more debt for them to service later is [insert appropriate description here].

The thing is as the total debt levels grows and it becomes apparent that the debtor is not capable of repaying the debt, trust is lost in the debtor (and its currency) and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced.

"Overall, unemployment in Spain stands at 22.4 percent."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/us-spain-apprentices-idUSKCN0RY09N20151004

Watcher, 11/05/2015 at 4:11 pm

and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced.

Not if you have a central bank that finances the deficit via purchase of gov't securities.

Rather a lot of that going on right now.

Everywhere with a CB.

ChiefEngineer, 11/05/2015 at 5:38 pm

Rune says:

"The thing is as the total debt levels grows and it becomes apparent that the debtor is not capable of repaying the debt, trust is lost in the debtor (and its currency) and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced."

If this is true, why do so many right wing conservatives have their panties in a wad about the United States ? The US is the strongest economy in the world and the dollar is at record strength. Why won't Republicans return to the tax policies of the year 2000 if debt is that important to them? The year of a record surplus.

History shows Conservatives only care about debt when a Progressive is in the White House. I never heard a word about debt from the Republicans during the Bushy and Raygun years. Remember, Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 5:58 pm

Hi Rune,

Yes when unemployment is low, a balanced budget makes perfect sense to me.

I am not in favor of unending deficits (though I probably don't sound like it). It would be better for the government to pay down debt when the economy is doing well (lets say 5.5% unemployment rate or lower).

When the unemployment rate is high (I was talking about unemployment in general rather than youth unemployment rates), government deficits make perfect sense, even if too much private debt initially caused the recession. Sometimes solving a problem caused by too much private debt, requires increasing public debt to get the economy growing. The economic growth should decrease the deficit as increased income will increase tax revenue and reduce government spending on unemployment benefits and government aid to low income citizens.

Caelan MacIntyre: On Dennis' Fake Stuff, 11/05/2015 at 6:25 pm

"Would an economy with 25% unemployment be good for them?" Dennis Coyne

Would it be a real economy or an uneconomy, helped run by an ungovernment?

If the latter, then I would answer, yes, if with 100% unemployment. (Because they would be employed in a real economy with a real government)

…Dennis, why is it that you seem to like crappy stuff like fake governments and fake economies?

ChiefEngineer, 11/05/2015 at 7:01 pm

There is nothing crappy or fake about the current economy, unless your on the outside looking in.

Do you need a job Caelan ?

Caelan MacIntyre, 11/05/2015 at 7:25 pm

"There is nothing crappy or fake about the current economy," ~ ChiefEngineer

The economy is uneconomical, so, yes, it's crappy.
…Well, ok, its much worse than crappy. Happy?

Economy:
"1. thrifty management; frugality in the expenditure or consumption of money, materials, etc." ~ dictionary.com

"Do you need a job Caelan ?" ~ ChiefEngineer

You mean like one that manufactures a need for a relatively useless, overpriced and/or otherwise crappy junk sweatshopped product that breaks more often and sooner than ever before and cannot be fixed or fixed easily or cheaply by the owner?

ChiefEngineer, 11/05/2015 at 8:28 pm

That crappy economy produced that crappy computer which keeps posting your crappy comments. All because of the crappy education you got from the fake school from a crappy fake government.

Caelan, I hope your having a real nice day

Caelan MacIntyre, 11/06/2015 at 7:56 am

Ya all this fake/virtual communication in place of the real, all the while those with an education (in what?) run around and help to perpetuate the above, the aforementioned and this kind of uneconomy that pushes the planet ever closer to the precipice.
Back to the ol' drawing board, ChiefEngineer.

Dennis Coyne, 11/06/2015 at 9:57 am

Hi Caelan,

I deal with what is rather than what might be, as far as governments. Your imaginary utopia is likely to remain just that.

I imagine everyone would vote for optional taxation, what could possibly go wrong? :)

Fred Magyar, 11/05/2015 at 7:28 pm

My daughter just graduated from University.
You avoided the question, if your daughter had just graduated do you think a World with a 25% unemployment rate would be better, or one with a 6% unemployment rate?

I think you are living far far in the past. I have a son who is still at a University, My brother's daughter also just graduated. so I think I can relate to your concerns. However I think what is happening now, is going to change how society views employment at a fundamental level. The idea of a career might not even apply at all anymore for the current crop of graduates.

https://goo.gl/EbR8lY

"We are in the middle of an economic transition, from the old industrial economy to the new collaborative economy" – Peers Inc.

New sharing practices, facilitated by information technology and pervasive networking, are disrupting the status quo in business, education and society. As co-founder of Zipcar, Robin Chase has been a pioneer and leading thinker in this movement since its emergence. Now, with Peers Inc, Robin aims to "combine the best of people power with the best of corporate power" to help realise the wider benefits when decentralisation, localisation and specialisation meet scale and resources.

On top of examples and success stories from this 'new collaborative economy', what could this mean for the economy as a whole? Are we in the midst of a transition from capitalism to something new and different? Are the rules of our current economic model being rewritten? If so, what are the new rules of the game and how do we play by them?

Dennis Coyne, 11/06/2015 at 10:06 am

Hi Fred,

The transition may be good for many, my point is that many University graduates are having a tough time finding work that utilizes what they have learned at University.

This is potentially much more of a problem for young people than excess government debt. In addition, the idle labor and capital is wasteful, there is work to be done to transition away from fossil fuel we should get to it. The ensuing economic growth will reduce government deficits so that the debt incurred to jump start the economy will be reduced if the government surplus that results is not given away in lower tax rates (as Republican presidents since 1980 have tended to do.)

BC, 11/05/2015 at 12:32 pm

Speaking of money velocity, it's acceleration is contracting at the fastest rate since 2008, 2001, and the early 1980s:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2mPb

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2n98

And a bear market for the broad equity market is underway (especially value and small-cap stocks, which typically is followed by the large-cap stocks "catching down" thereafter):

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2n96

So-called "health" care spending has been growing at twice the rate of final sales, which is characteristic of recessionary conditions:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2qs5

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2qrZ

Subprime auto loans are driving (bad pun) auto sales to bubbly heights vs. real wages, but the rate of growth of auto sales is decelerating:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2oZu

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2qsp

Without subprime auto loans, vehicle sales would be 13M vs. 17-18.

Subprime debt and ACA-induced spending (subsidies to insurers) for "health" care is what is preventing the US economy from decelerating from around stall speed to recession since late 2014. But "health" care spending has become a net drag on the rest of the economy.

The recession-like contraction in the acceleration of money velocity to private GDP implies that the market is tightening financial conditions (credit/debt-money acceleration) before the Fed can begin raising rates and tightening reserves.

Therefore, rather than raising rates, the Fed (and ECB, BOJ, BOE, and PBoC) is more likely to resume QEternity to fund increasing deficits/GDP to prevent nominal GDP from contracting from the post-2007 trend rate per capita of below 2% (slowest since the Great Depression, 1890s, and 1830s-40s).

Moreover, don't be surprised if the Fed is compelled to resort to negative interest rate policy (NIRP) because of debt and price deflation hereafter, including for the service sector ("health" care, "education", law, personal services, etc.).

Petro, 11/06/2015 at 12:08 am

Mr. Likvern,

Normally I would think twice before commenting/correcting you, but this time I noticed you used "Credit" and "Debt" as equivalent terms, therefore I will try:
although many economists and finance people erroneously use those terms as equivalent – they are NOT!
Simply/shortly said: credit is a "worthiness" notion -economically not useful in practical terms.
In order for it to be "useful" economically (i.e generate economic activity/GDP), it has to become debt.
Signatory parties with COLLATERAL who are pledging/willing to circulate it (i.e. spend it) are necessary for credit to become debt.
Although this " concept" is altered by Glass_Stegal repeal and interest paying central bank reserves (i.e. FED) which erased the line between commercial and investment banking (today they are one and the same), it still holds generally true throughout economy.
Be well,

Petro

P.S.: an essential mistake most economic/finance luminaries make is: "money is backed by debt".
Today money is debt – debt is money!
If one does not clear that concept up, one is certain to stay in the fog when it comes to money/debt/credit…

[Nov 06, 2015] Iraq needs 1.3 mb/d additional oil exports and $70 oil to balance budget

Notable quotes:
"... Iraq needs 1.3 mb/d additional oil exports and $70 oil to balance budget ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Matt Mushalik, 11/04/2015 at 10:36 pm

After my article on Saudi fiscal breakeven oil prices I did a similar exercise for Iraq:

30/10/2015
Iraq needs 1.3 mb/d additional oil exports and $70 oil to balance budget
http://crudeoilpeak.info/iraq-needs-1-3-mbd-additional-oil-exports-and-us-70-oil-to-balance-budget

[Nov 06, 2015] Total oil and gas industry loss of $25 bn during last quarter indicates deeply uneconomic production

Notable quotes:
"... Chesapeake CHK published its 3q15 results. Loss $5.4 bn on revenue of $880 mill. ..."
"... Total oil and gas industry loss of $25 bn during last quarter indicates deeply uneconomic production. ..."
"... If oil prices do not take off, CLR will have no choice and make the impairment. The longer oil prices stay low, the more dramatic the situation. What strikes me is that OXY left the Bakken at a huge loss. Fidelity Oil Gas closed…. There must be something going on here. There is probably more to asset impairments other than price (depletion of sweet spots, monster decline of monster wells?) I think we will see more when the next Bakken production numbers are out. ..."
"... 63 Billion USD went poof in the Enron Collapse. ..."
"... Impairments are a non-cash item. My preliminary analysis of companies' 3Q results suggests that operating cashflows remained close to 2Q levels, while capex was sharply reduced. As a result, cash burn was also considerably lower than in previous two quarters, and some companies were cash positive. ..."
"... Banks traditionally lend money only on PDP reserves, or if PUD is included, there is a large discount applied, per Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulations. Also, it should be noted SEC reserve valuations and bank reserve valuations are not necessarily the same. SEC uses the average of the price of WTI and Henry Hub on the first day of each month, with no escalation in the event of contango, nor deceleration in the event of futures backwardization. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 3:06 am

Shale Gas Economics,

Chesapeake CHK published its 3q15 results. Loss $5.4 bn on revenue of $880 mill. Total loss for the first nine months $16bn. See also http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/05/giant-sucking-sound-of-capital-destruction-in-us-oil-gas-impairments/.

Total oil and gas industry loss of $25 bn during last quarter indicates deeply uneconomic production. As no economic system could carry on to produce at such losses, companies have already responded. Chesapeake has cut rig count to 18 from 69. Gross wells completed are down to 84 (from 309) and gross wells spud are down to 81 from 296. Activity is reduced threefold!!! As there is a time lag of six to nine months from lower capex to actual production, I expect a significant fall of natgas production for the first quarter 2016. As CHK is one of the leading producers in the US, this will also impact total US production.

MarbleZeppelin, 11/06/2015 at 6:56 am
Reminds me of some old cars I have had, keep pouring money into them and get poor performance all the way to the next time they suck your wallet dry. Answer, dump the old one, get a newer more efficient car.

So if oil is not working out for us, dump it. Get our energy elsewhere. Time to stop throwing money at it, it's in a death spiral.

AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 7:17 am

Heinrich,

Thanks for the link. The article has a link to the original research by Evaluate Energy on U.S. oil & gas companies' 3Q results. Recommended reading
http://blog.evaluateenergy.com/us-oil-gas-company-earnings-take-a-huge-hit-in-q3-2015-impairments

Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 7:37 am
AlexS,
Thank you for the link. As prices – especially natgas – are now even lower than in 3q15, this becomes even bigger this quarter. I get the feeling that this is very big and I am wondering what the consequences will be.
shallow sand, 11/06/2015 at 7:57 am
Wont their be even more impairments in Q4 as companies like CLR, who have held off, will be forced to write down assets?
Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 8:26 am
shallow sand,

If oil prices do not take off, CLR will have no choice and make the impairment. The longer oil prices stay low, the more dramatic the situation. What strikes me is that OXY left the Bakken at a huge loss. Fidelity Oil&Gas closed…. There must be something going on here. There is probably more to asset impairments other than price (depletion of sweet spots, monster decline of monster wells?) I think we will see more when the next Bakken production numbers are out.

Enno Peters, 11/06/2015 at 8:34 am
It doesn't matter if prices will take off now, the impairment still has to be made. Only December may make a very small difference:

"The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) calculates the economics of proved reserves using the unweighted, trailing 12-month average of the closing prices from the first day of each month. Year-end 2014 impairment tests were evaluated using a $94.99/barrel of oil prices and a $4.31 per MCF gas price, with 2014's low year-end prices buoyed by strong prices from the first 10 months of the year."

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/ep-impairments/gloomy-price-outlook-signals-continued-impairments-likely-throughout-20

HR, 11/06/2015 at 10:36 am
I saw wolf richters article this mornings as well. Those are some ugly numbers mainly because of the write downs. I think I already know the answer, but without the write downs are any of these guys even cash neutral much less making money?

Wasn't it Harold Hamm that said by spring production will fall off a cliff?

Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 2:23 pm
HR,

It would be interesting to know if the write downs are just related to price or is there any write down on the quantity of reserves?

AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 11:44 am

Heinrich Leopold said:

"What strikes me is that OXY left the Bakken at a huge loss"

Occidental was planning to sell its Bakken assets long before the drop in oil prices. But the actual price was far from what they were initially expecting. Occidental Reportedly Sells Bakken Assets To Lime Rock

October 15, 2015
http://www.ugcenter.com/occidental-reportedly-sells-bakken-assets-lime-rock-823211

As recently as last fall, Wall Street had expected Oxy's Bakken assets to sell for more than $3 billion. The sharp drop in the deal's value represents the most-significant pullback in valuation yet in the second-largest U.S. oil producing state.
=================================

Occidental Petroleum cuts spending, scales back in the Bakken

By Patrick C. Miller | February 03, 2015
http://www.thebakken.com/articles/1005/occidental-petroleum-cuts-spending-scales-back-in-the-bakken

Occidental Petroleum Corp. will scale back operations in the Williston Basin and is reducing its 2015 capital cost budget by 33 percent in response to low oil prices.
"Our capital program will focus on our core assets in the Permian Basin and parts of the Middle East," said Stephen Chazen, president and CEO. "We have minimized our development activities in the Williston Basin, domestic gas properties, Bahrain, and the Joslyn oil sands project, as these have subpar returns in this current product price environment."
========================================
Oxy Says Permian Operations Still Solidly Profitable

FRI, JAN 30, 2015
http://www.energyintel.com/pages/eig_article.aspx?DocId=875317

… while Hess regards the Bakken as a crown jewel in its portfolio, it is far less important to Oxy, which lacks the core acreage positions and sheer scale that Hess enjoys there.
In fact, Oxy is cutting spending in the Bakken to "virtually nil" this year, matching similar cuts across its gas-weighted Midcontinent holdings, Chazen said.
===========================================
Oxy sale of Bakken assets would make strategic sense -analysts

Reuters, Oct 7, 2014
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/07/occidentalpetroleum-bakken-idUSL2N0S22HI20141007

Any sale of Occidental Petroleum Corp's roughly 330,000 acres in North Dakota's oil-rich Bakken shale formation would make strategic sense for the company, which is likely eager to strike a deal, two analysts said on Tuesday.
Oxy is looking to sell its Bakken holdings, which are largely undeveloped, for as much as $3 billion, according to a report from Bloomberg News.
Even with the recent dip in crude oil prices, the divestment "makes sense to us, strategically," Raymond James analysts Pavel Molchanov and Kevin Smith said in a note to clients on Tuesday.
"This is substantially undeveloped acreage, and Occidental has long cited it as a likely monetization candidate, so it's been puzzling why the company kept it this long," the analysts said.
Oxy is spending about $510 million this year on its North Dakota holdings, and any buyer would have to invest significant capital to boost production. Currently, Oxy is the 18th-largest oil producer in North Dakota with about 17,000 barrels per day as of July, trailing peers of the same size and even much-smaller rivals.
Oxy said last October that it would pursue "strategic alternatives" for some of its North American assets, including those in North Dakota. In a statement to Reuters on Tuesday, the company reiterated that position.
===============================================

Occidental said to seek buyer for $3 billion Bakken oil business

10/07/2014
http://www.worldoil.com/Occidental-said-to-seek-buyer-for-3-billion-bakken-oil-business.html

HOUSTON (Bloomberg) - Occidental Petroleum is seeking to sell oil assets in North Dakota for as much as $3 billion, people with knowledge of the matter said.
Occidental is working with investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. to sell about 335,000 net drilling acres in the Williston Basin, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they were discussing private information. The holdings include a part of North Dakota's Bakken formation, an area that has been less successful for Occidental because of higher costs, though it's one of the fastest-growing oil-producing regions in the U.S.
Melissa Schoeb, an Occidental spokeswoman, said the Houston-based company reported plans last year to "pursue strategic alternatives" for some assets, including in the Williston Basin.
Occidental, CEO, Stephen I. Chazen has embraced a restructuring plan that includes selling part of Occidental's Middle East business and spinning off the company's California operations. Chazen told investors in July that he might accelerate plans to sell assets in what the company calls its "midcontinent" operations in the Piceance and Williston basins.
==============================================

Will Oxy's Divorce Spur The Break Up Of Big Oil?

2/19/2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/02/19/will-oxys-divorce-encourage-the-break-up-of-big-oil/

… Occidental Petroleum has decided to slim down as well.
Oxy's plan, announced last Friday, will be dramatic. Its California assets will be rolled into a separate publicly traded company … . Analyst Tim Rezvan with Sterne Agee expects Oxy to sell down its Middle Eastern and Bakken assets as well as its oil trading division in order to focus on Texas.
=============================================
Occidental Petroleum starts breakup plan in Middle East, North Africa

Bloomberg, 10/18/2013

The company said today it will pursue "strategic alternatives" for Mid-continent assets, including some in the oil-bearing Bakken shale of North Dakota as well as in the Hugoton gas field in Kansas and the Piceance gas fields in the Rocky Mountains.

Longtimber, 11/06/2015 at 11:35 am

OMG – 33 Billion poof ball for Q3, Top 10 From link above. http://blog.evaluateenergy.com/us-oil-gas-company-earnings-take-a-huge-hit-in-q3-2015-impairments
63 Billion USD went poof in the Enron Collapse.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/energy/2002-01-22-enron-numbers.htm..
Sportsfans- this is serious, and the train is still on the tracks.

Ron Patterson, 11/06/2015 at 11:50 am
I think this one was more impressive. These are "energy companies".

Evaluate Energy has analysed the preliminary Q3 earnings statements of 48 U.S. companies and compared it with their earnings in previous periods. The 48 companies had a combined total net loss of US$25.5 billion, which is a staggering 70% and 58% larger than these companies' significant combined net losses of US$14.9 billion and US$16.6 billion in Q1 and Q2 2015 respectively.

 photo Net Income_zpsoxne1mv2.gif

AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 12:23 pm

In fact, the sharp increase in combined net losses was largely due to the increase in asset impairments. "Impairments are clearly the main reason for this continued downward trend".

Impairments are a non-cash item. My preliminary analysis of companies' 3Q results suggests that operating cashflows remained close to 2Q levels, while capex was sharply reduced. As a result, cash burn was also considerably lower than in previous two quarters, and some companies were cash positive.

However lower capex will likely results in lower 1h16 production volumes.

shallow sand, 11/06/2015 at 12:38 pm

AlexS. I agree with you.

Do you have any statistics on gas/ oil ratio trend? Seems to me oil production is declining faster than gas and NGLs production for the oil weighted companies.

I think Enno has posted that associated gas is not falling to the extent oil is, and this masks oil decline in the company headline reports. Have to look at each report/10Q.

An example of this is SD, who saw Mid-Continent BOE production fall 10%, but oil fell 18%.

Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 2:05 pm

AlexS,

Asset impairments relate to revisions of reserves and resources. However, the main question is now did the revisions relate to oil and gas prices only or is there also a revision of the quantity of reserves due to faster than expected decline? Is there any way to find this out?

AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 2:50 pm
Heinrich,

I think impairments mainly reflect the reduction in the value of the reserves (due to lower prices), rather than volumes. There was no mention of faster decline rates

shallow sand, 11/06/2015 at 3:52 pm
I think it should be noted in the SEC reserve reports there are the following categories:

PDP – Proved Developed Producing
PDNP – Proved Developed Non-Producing
PUD- Proved Undeveloped

Although admittedly simplistic, and I stand to be corrected, PDP are active wells, PDNP are inactive wells and PUD are where there are no wells, but the locations have been "proved" by offsetting wells, and there are plans to drill and complete the location within 5 years.

All categories will be hit by WTI and Henry Hub prices being half of 2014, but also there should be a hit due to a number of PUD locations being no longer economically viable.

Banks traditionally lend money only on PDP reserves, or if PUD is included, there is a large discount applied, per Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulations. Also, it should be noted SEC reserve valuations and bank reserve valuations are not necessarily the same. SEC uses the average of the price of WTI and Henry Hub on the first day of each month, with no escalation in the event of contango, nor deceleration in the event of futures backwardization.

Banks, on the other hand, use a price deck, which should closely mirror the WTI and Henry Hub strips, subject to maybe a little of the banks' own forecasts on future prices.

As I have noted many times, total debt levels for all US companies operating in the Bakken, except for XOM, EOG and Abraxas will be greater than 65% of SEC PDP PV10 at 2015 year end, if my calculations are close. Prior to the shale boom, would have meant no further monies advanced using reserves as collateral, assuming bank price decks are close to the current strips.

Yes, this will include, companywide, the likes of COP, MRO, HES, QEP, CLR and WLL.

Another exception would be Statoil (not US), I did not include them, as I could not get a handle on their debt/PDP PV10. I did also not analyze Canadian firms operating in the Bakken. However, most Canadian shale firms have large amounts of long term debt, similar to US shale firms.

Rune Likvern, 11/06/2015 at 6:17 pm

Just dropping by and remembered an article (Linn Energy) from yesterday;

"Non-cash impairment of long-lived assets of approximately $2.3 billion for the third quarter 2015, primarily driven by lower commodity prices and the Company's estimates of proved reserves; and"
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/markets/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201511050650PRIMZONEFULLFEED6022751-1

More later if time allows……….

[Nov 06, 2015] Giant Sucking Sound of Capital Destruction in US Oil Gas

Notable quotes:
"... Of the 48 companies, 38 recognized impairment charges totaling $32.8 billion in Q3 alone, a 79% jump from Q2, when impairments hit $18.4 billion. Since Q4 2014, these 48 companies recognized impairments of $84.6 billion; 39% of that in Q3. ..."
"... In Q4 2014, many investors thought the oil bust was a blip, that this was just a correction of sorts in oil prices and that they'd rebound in early 2015. But in 2015, oil and natural gas both have plunged to new cycle lows. And yet, over and over again, sharp sucker rallies gave rise to hopes that it would all be over pronto, that the price would settle safely above $80 a barrel, or at least above $65 a barrel, where some of the oil companies could survive. ..."
"... he game has boiled down to who can slash operating costs and capital expenditures fast enough without losing too much production, who has enough cash to burn through while this lasts, and who can still get new money at survivable rates. And that game is accompanied, as in Q3, by the giant sucking sound of capital destruction. ..."
"... Banks, when reporting earnings, are saying a few choice things about their oil gas loans ..."
"... Its a legitimate industry with high costs. It came online before its time. Fast forward 10 years and conventional depletion+Chinese/Indian demand will let it flourish again. ..."
"... If it was a scheme, it was a rather elaborate one, involving tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of workers. Also, they maintained the facade for years before winding it down. ..."
"... Dunno, it's certainly a cluster-f*ck, but I think the dumb bastards actually believed the recoverable reserves numbers in the beginning. ..."
"... Thank The Saudis for crashing the price of energy, perhaps with a little assistance on the broader political front to crush Russia? How is that going? ..."
"... You simply cannot build up an industry on leveraged debt when there is no future of sustainable demand. ..."
"... Yep, the Fed created this monster, but the oil patch is the obvious problem. things are just as bad or worse in all the other economic sectors. Of course when all the defaults start, it will be a complete surprise to all the financial Frankensteins who created the monster... ..."
www.zerohedge.com

Wolf Richter www.wolfstreet.com

Chesapeake Energy is a good example. The second largest natural gas producer in the US, after Exxon, reported its debacle yesterday.

Revenues plunged 49% from the quarter a year ago, when the oil bust had already set in. The company has been slashing costs and capital expenditures. In June, it eliminated its dividend. And yesterday, it recognized $5.4 billion in impairment charges, bringing impairments for the nine months to a staggering $15.4 billion.

Impairment charges are a sudden accounting recognition of accumulated capital destruction. These impairments pushed its losses from operations to $5.4 billion in Q3 and to $16 billion for the nine months.

Chesapeake currently gets 72% of its production from natural gas, 17% from oil, and 11% from natural gas liquids. The oil bust has been going on since the summer of 2014. The US natural gas bust has been going on since 2009! Two natural gas producers have already gone bankrupt this year: Quicksilver Resources and Samson Resources.

Its annual free cash flow has been negative since 1994, even during good times, with only two tiny exceptions (Bloomberg chart). After living off borrowed money, it's now trying to hang on by selling assets and lowering its mountain of debt. But it still owes $16 billion, much of which QE-besotted, ZIRP-blinded, yield-hungry investors had handed it over the years, based on hype and false hopes.

Its shares last traded at $7.50, down 75% from peak hype in June 2014. Its 4.875% notes due 2022 and its 5.75% notes due 2023, according to S&P Capital IQ LCD yesterday, traded for 66 cents on the dollar.

In terms of capital destruction, Chesapeake is in good company, and not even the leader. A new report by Evaluate Energy, which covers Oil & Gas companies around the globe, examined the financial statements of the 48 US oil & gas companies that have reported earnings for the third quarter so far. The amounts and the speed of deterioration are just stunning.

Turns out, what started in Q4 last year is getting worse relentlessly. And now it's getting serious: plunging revenues, squeezed operating margins, whopping impairment charges, and horrendous losses are combining into a very toxic mix.

Evaluate Energy determined that net income of those 48 companies was a gigantic loss for the three quarters combined of $57 billion.

On a quarterly basis, the losses in Q3 jumped 58% from Q2 and 70% from Q1 to $25.5 billion. This fiasco, which has been spiraling down at a breath-taking pace, looks like this:

US-oil-gas-earnings-quarterly-2014-Q3-2015

The biggest factor in these losses, as in Chesapeake's case, was the impairments. For this study, Evaluate Energy only counted impairments of property and equipment, not of financial assets such as "goodwill." Including charge-offs of goodwill, it would have been even worse (an example is Whiting Petroleum, which we'll get to in a moment).

Of the 48 companies, 38 recognized impairment charges totaling $32.8 billion in Q3 alone, a 79% jump from Q2, when impairments hit $18.4 billion. Since Q4 2014, these 48 companies recognized impairments of $84.6 billion; 39% of that in Q3.

Devon Energy was king of the hill, with $5.9 billion in impairments in Q3, after having recognized impairments every quarter this year, for a total of about $15.5 billion.

Our natural-gas hero Chesapeake is in second place, if only barely, with $5.4 billion in impairments this quarter, and $15.5 billion for the nine months.

Of note, Occidental Petroleum, with impairments of $3.3 billion in Q3, Murphy Oil, Whiting Petroleum, and Carrizo Oil & Gas all recognized over 90% of their respective impairments this year in this misbegotten third quarter. They were in no hurry to grant their investors a peek at reality.

However, Whiting's impairments of $1.7 billion do not include an additional $870 million in write-offs of goodwill in connection with its once highly ballyhooed acquisition of Kodiak Oil & Gas, which closed in December last year.

In Q4 2014, many investors thought the oil bust was a blip, that this was just a correction of sorts in oil prices and that they'd rebound in early 2015. But in 2015, oil and natural gas both have plunged to new cycle lows. And yet, over and over again, sharp sucker rallies gave rise to hopes that it would all be over pronto, that the price would settle safely above $80 a barrel, or at least above $65 a barrel, where some of the oil companies could survive.

But now that oil in storage is practically coming out of our ears, globally, the meme has become "lower for longer," and the game has boiled down to who can slash operating costs and capital expenditures fast enough without losing too much production, who has enough cash to burn through while this lasts, and who can still get new money at survivable rates. And that game is accompanied, as in Q3, by the giant sucking sound of capital destruction.

Banks, when reporting earnings, are saying a few choice things about their oil & gas loans, which boil down to this: it's bloody out there, but we made our money and rolled off the risks to others in a trade that has become blood-soaked.

Read… Who on Wall Street is Now Eating the Oil & Gas Losses?

NotApplicable

Which plays right into the hands of those manipulating Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard," as energy choke-points grow ever more valuable to those who ultimately control them.

Frumundacheeze

You were a complete inbecile if you ever believed the US fracking industry was anything more than a false pretense for pump and dump schemes. If you did, you didn't do your homework, or you bought into the hype.
Benjamin123

Its a legitimate industry with high costs. It came online before its time. Fast forward 10 years and conventional depletion+Chinese/Indian demand will let it flourish again.

The conventional oil industry was also in trouble in the early 90s when oil slipped under $7. Oh, that was also a pump and dump.

Casey Jones

I was in North Dakota recently and was shocked, appalled and utterly devastated by the environmental damage up there, not to mention all the cheap ass construction of lousy housing and fact food outlets. The place is wrecked. Fracking is a cruel joke.

divingengineer

I guess that makes me a complete imbecile. The industry seems a little complex to reduce to a pump and dump.

If it was a scheme, it was a rather elaborate one, involving tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of workers. Also, they maintained the facade for years before winding it down.

Dunno, it's certainly a cluster-f*ck, but I think the dumb bastards actually believed the recoverable reserves numbers in the beginning.

philipat

Thank The Saudis for crashing the price of energy, perhaps with a little assistance on the broader political front to crush Russia? How is that going?

NotApplicable

I still say that this narrative is more of an after the fact blame-game, as prices would've crashed regardless of what the Saud's are doing. You simply cannot build up an industry on leveraged debt when there is no future of sustainable demand. Mises laid all of this out nearly a century ago.

new game

thank the fed with zirp and qe stimulas. without it and market discipline none of this would be happening. fascism, what is the future now. the fed is the enemy from within that is destroying freedom...

KnuckleDragger-X

Yep, the Fed created this monster, but the oil patch is the obvious problem. things are just as bad or worse in all the other economic sectors. Of course when all the defaults start, it will be a complete surprise to all the financial Frankensteins who created the monster...

[Nov 06, 2015] Who on Wall Street is Now Eating the Oil Gas Losses

Notable quotes:
"... Banks have been sloughing off the risk: They lent money to scrappy junk-rated companies that powered the shale revolution. These loans were backed by oil and gas reserves. ..."
"... fresh money is already lining up again. They're trying to profit from the blood in the street. Blackstone raised almost $5 billion for a new energy fund and is waiting to pounce. Carlyle is trying to raise $2.5 billion for its new energy fund. Someday someone will get the timing right and come out ahead. ..."
"... Next year is going to be brutal, explained the CEO of oil-field services giant Schlumberger. But then, there are dreams of "a potential spike in oil prices." Read… The Dismal Thing Schlumberger Just Said about US Oil ..."
Nov 06, 2015 | Wolf Street

Banks have been sloughing off the risk: They lent money to scrappy junk-rated companies that powered the shale revolution. These loans were backed by oil and gas reserves.

... ... ...

Magnetar Capital, with $14 billion under management, sports an energy fund that is down 12% this year through September on "billions of dollars" it had invested in struggling oil-and-gas companies. But optimism reigns. It recovered a little in October and plans to plow more money into energy.

... ... ...

Brigade Capital Management, which sunk $16 billion into junk-rated energy companies, is "having its worst stretch since 2008." It fell over 7% this summer and is in the hole for the year. But it remained gung-ho about energy investments.

... ... ...

But fresh money is already lining up again. They're trying to profit from the blood in the street. Blackstone raised almost $5 billion for a new energy fund and is waiting to pounce. Carlyle is trying to raise $2.5 billion for its new energy fund. Someday someone will get the timing right and come out ahead.

Next year is going to be brutal, explained the CEO of oil-field services giant Schlumberger. But then, there are dreams of "a potential spike in oil prices." Read… The Dismal Thing Schlumberger Just Said about US Oil

[Nov 06, 2015] Putin Suspends Flights To Egypt As World Blames ISIS For Plane Crash

Is this a replay on MH17? Looks like like was the case on 9/11 and MH17 there were war games the same day in the same air space.
Notable quotes:
"... Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down. ..."
"... I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO. ..."
"... On 23 January 2013 Italys top criminal court ruled that there was abundantly clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile ..."
"... Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand. ..."
"... The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice. ..."
"... Force his hand to do what? I dont exactly understand what youre suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasnt made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore. ..."
"... Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting. ..."
"... I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudis also have some component of the security or operations. ..."
"... Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. ..."
"... I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise Im sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too? ..."
"... Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and Establishment media}. ..."
"... NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine ..."
"... The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians. ..."
"... in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists. ..."
"... Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough . ..."
"... ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog ..."
"... The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide. ..."
"... The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners. ..."
"... If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence. ..."
"... Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero! ..."
"... Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact. ..."
"... Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year. ..."
Nov 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge
detached.amusement

Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down.

Jack Burton

I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO.

Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870

the cause of the crash to a missile fired from a French Navy aircraft, despite contrary evidence presented in Frank Taylor's 1994 report. On 23 January 2013 Italy's top criminal court ruled that there was "abundantly" clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile.[1] To date, this remains the deadliest aviation incident involving a DC-9-10/15 series."

cougar_w

When everything is a false flag operation then nothing is.

ISIS is perfectly capable to pulling this off, and seems to enjoy the infamy, and they couldn't wait to claim credit. Looks good to me, no need to go any further than that.

... ... ...

Winston Churchill

The gambit is pretty obvious.

Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand.

They keep on telling us he's a dictator, so why would that affect him ?

The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.

Glasnost -> Winston Churchill

Force his hand to do what? I don't exactly understand what you're suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasn't made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore.

Winston Churchill -> Glasnost

Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting.

Blankone

I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudi's also have some component of the security or operations.

Maybe they should focus on that as well.

trulz4lulz

Now the sympathisers are trying to "pass the buck!"... an american tradition. much akin to "indian giving" but better.

dear american gubmit: Who created ISIS?

american gubmit: uhhh uhhhh, they did it!!! yeah! it was them all along, ya see?!

Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

France 2 reports that a sound of an explosion was recorded by the blackboxes, according to official who had access to the recordings.

trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill

The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.

Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. The world is an aweful place when there isnt anyone there to tell you how exceptional you are. Murikistanians will NOT look away from the trough. Its just too delicious.


El Vaquero -> trulz4lulz

Having them distracted with bread and circuses is a double edged sword.

Winston Churchill -> El Vaquero

Yep, distraction beats jingo.

It was much easier to whip up a blood frenzy before kim Kardasians ass blocked out the horizon.

trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill

I agree, but it also helps promote patriotism and consumerism, which also is good for the economy because it focuses on the packadged food sector which is where a lot of jobs data comes from. . The model for the distraction workings is fascinating to me.

forputin

So which sources are credible? Only those russian? Yes, I also thought so. Only those sources that are controlled by Putin can be trusted. All other are controled by Anglo Zion Banking NWO Lizzard People Elite. Thank God Putin protects us from that information!

farflungstar -> forputin

Voactiv uses Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, so yeah it's probably bullshit. Reuters @ Buiness Insider too, more bullshit, Hymie.

I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise I'm sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too?

Fuckin dickmouth

Raymond_K._Hessel

the Syrian Observatory is absolutely not credible - its one guy being used as a quote factory.

Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and 'Establishment' media}.

NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukra...

The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians.

So the false equivalency ploy makes sense - until you give it a moment's thought.

Cookie?

Jack Burton

30,000 trained, paid and organized fascists appeared on the Madian in the matter of a couple days, armed and outfitted in body armor. But Euro Maidan is not a Coup according to NYT. Every peaceful protest gets a 30,000 man army arrive to help it along. Also, in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists.

Jack Burton

Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough".

Western Media refuses to expose this guy for what he is. He hides up in his house, claiming people are out to kill him, and puts out posts about war crimes. He hasn't been to Syria for over a decade, and admits No First Hand Knowledge of his Syrian sources, he gets his information second hand from so called friends of friends in Syria. RT caught up to him and made a fool out of him on camera.

Yet he is the West's Top Source on Syrian war crimes.

Johnny Horscaulk

ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog

alphahammer

Here is an excellent source of what happening there -- down to the minute.

BTW. This nugget jumps out.

----

Big impact of Russia's suspension of Egypt flights

Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:

Quote

It's not just the Egyptian economy that will hurt after this. Russia's association of tour agencies says today's decision cuts off their biggest market and sets them on a "direct path to bankruptcy."

"Egypt is the single biggest selling destination on the Russian tourism market, and right now it is peak season. It's the main destination for all the large tour operators," said Irina Tyurina, a spokeswoman for the Russian Union of Tour Operators.

"There's 50,000 Russians there now, and those who have to come home early or have bought tickets but now can't travel, should get their money back from the tour operators. It's a direct path to bankruptcy for many firms."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11978962/Russian...

trulz4lulz

Heavily invested in the tourist industry, are we? America is about to trigger a world warand you people are screeming aout lost vacation revenue? You are either one of the dumbest humans on earth that has learned to word good, or you are just plan software. Im guessing software. Nothiing but a program can be so blatantly stupid.

alphahammer

Dumb?

BBBWWWAAAAHHHAAAA!!!!!

I cut and paste the direct words from Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:

If you had a lick of mental capacity, you would understand the comment is about RUSSIAN investment in tourism because Egypt is Russias #1 spot for vacationing Russians.

ITS THE RUSSIANS SCREAMING ABOUT LOST TOURIST REVENUE EINSTEIN...

Dumb? Yes, look it up in the dictionary and there will be your picture...

swmnguy

Oliphant is doing a good job in his role, helping to bait the hook the Zbigniew Brzezinski acolytes are jiggling out there. Oliphant's editorial comments about the Russian people's unwillingness to take casualties suggests he's gotten his Garanimals mixed up. Russians aren't Americans.

farflungstar

Because ISIS, Manischewitz Land, the US and UK "intelligence" agencies said they did it, does this mean it's true? Who would reasonably believe these serial liars at this point in time? Credibility is shot.

I'd like to hear what the Russians have to say after a thorough investigation.

SSRI Junkie

this works out well for obola. he hates egypt for tossing out his muslim brotherhood lackeys and gets putin to cancel their flights in and out of egypt. his bung brothers in saudi arabia keep pumping oil even if it's unprofitable to stomp out our domestic oil production as well as russia's oil production. obola is a plague of unprecendented proportion even if the cdc doesn't recognize it

cowdiddly

Britain and the Us both are trying to say that this was a bomb planted by ISIS. The Russians are saying they will wait for the data.

The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide.

Somebody is involved here that is going to reveal a nasty truth and I would not want to be them cause right now the bear is just smiling at you and he is all ears.

THE DORK OF CORK

The Tunisia beech job was very effective.

It inflated the Spanish and Italian economies over the summer.

It seems like part of the banks armoury.

The Dogs of Moar

An update of the Tourney between Langley and Moscow this first week of November.

As you know, on Wednesday the Big Big Three, Barack Obama, President of the US, David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK, and Doofus al-Evil, the US appointed Emir of ISIL, tried to co opt the investigation of the crash of the Russian plane in Sinai.


"I don't think we know yet" what caused the crash, Obama said ... But it is certainly possible that there was a bomb on board."

British Prime Minister David Cameron says it's "more likely than not."

ISIS released a message on November 4 with claims that the group was responsible for the Russian plane crash in Sinai, and said its method will be revealed soon.

ISIS first claimed credit for the downing of the Russian passenger jet an hour after the plane went down. Six days later they're telling the world that "their method will be revealed soon."

WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THEIR METHOD WILL BE REVEALED AS SOON AS THE CIA TELLS THEM WHAT METHOD THE CIA USED AND THAT ISIS SHOULD CLAIM THE SAME.

THE CIA'S FEAR IS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WILL UNCOVER A SOPHISTICATED EXPLOSIVE THAT THE RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6.

But Russian and Egyptian authorities pushed back Thursday on suggestions that a bomb brought down Metrojet Flight 9268 over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, saying there's no evidence yet to support that theory.

Today the National Anti-Terrorist Committee said it deems it necessary to stop all Russian flights to Egypt until the causes of the A321 plane crash are established. Russian experts are taking wipe-samples from the plane fragments and passengers' luggage to trace possible explosives.

If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda value.

Atticus Finch

" RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6."...

You forgot Mossad.

trulz4lulz

If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda value.

that sums it up right there. arguing over which aspect of treason to commit and cover up. this is whats wrong. exactly.

swmnguy

The US/UK intelligence guys screwed up the timeline this past week, putting out new rules for their people and announcing they had intel proving IS did it before cluing in the Russians.

It was a surprisingly blatant mistake. Let's see, whom do we know in a position of power in Russia who would be intimately familiar with the way this game is played? Who would know immediately exactly what this timeline error signifies?

The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n' est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners.

Telling.

The Dogs of Moar

On October 27, 1964 -- here's what Ronald Reagan said

"If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars.

Did he realize how prescient he was, in thus describing the United States of America?

Grandad Grumps

If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence.

The video was not clear enough for me to determine if a missile was involved or the altitude a missile might have originated from.

Jack Burton -> Grandad Grumps

That's a valid thought. We should be asking "why the USA and UK are in such a hurry to claim bomb". It was a Russian plane, and the US and UK have no interest in this, unless they do have a hidden interest in this.

Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero!

swmnguy -> Jack Burton

Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact.

farflungstar

The Mockies over at Charlie Hebdo seemed to find it funny that this plane crashed, not so funny when a bunch of their people got killed at work back in January:

http://sputniknews.com/cartoons/20151106/1029698946/JeNeSuisPasCharlie.html

One of the pictures shows a jihadist of the Islamic State (IS) militant group and plane's debris falling around him. The caption says "IS: Russian Aviation intensifies its bombing campaign.

Mocking a plane crash where 224 people were killed, such a rich source of humor hahahaha so fucking hysterical fucking faggot frogs

http://sputniknews.com/world/20151106/1029683872/plane-crash-charlie-heb...

Jack Burton

I saw this yesterday. Honestly, given what we call "Western Values" I fully expected the guardians of culture in France to come up with something like this. When their people die, it's a world wide event. When others die, it is a joke. Let's be clear, this story has made it deep into Russian media. Need I tell you what the mood is now?

The Dogs of Moar

Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year.

... ... ...

KashNCarry

Meanwhile off the coast of Libya:

Gaddafis Ghost Laughs In Your Face - YouTube

[Nov 05, 2015] History That Makes Us Stupid

The American Century's not what most Americans think it is. Historians need to set them straight.
Notable quotes:
"... comforting fantasies go unchallenged and lodge themselves ever more deeply in the public consciousness. So the "Good War" remains ever good, with the "Greatest Generation" ever great. ..."
The Chronicle of Higher Education

Today it's race, class, gender, and sexuality that claim pride of place. The effect, whether intended or not, is that comforting fantasies go unchallenged and lodge themselves ever more deeply in the public consciousness. So the "Good War" remains ever good, with the "Greatest Generation" ever great.

[Nov 04, 2015] Oil Market Needs Another Month to Decide If the Rebound Is for Real

Notable quotes:
"... Production in the U.S. will drop 1 million barrels a day from the peak by early 2016, Vitol SA Chief Executive Officer Ian Taylor said at a conference in London. ..."
"... "Prices have not gone down below $40 a barrel for the last three months so maybe it is at the bottom," Omair said. ..."
finance.yahoo.com

Oil prices will increase if global economic growth improves, and high-cost production is cut, Omair said. "If the situation is as it is then the only parameter will be the withdrawal of the high-cost production." Brent rose 0.4 percent to $50.72 a barrel at 12:31 p.m. on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange.

The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. slumped to a five-year low last week as producers curbed investment because of low prices. Brent has slumped 38 percent in the past year, falling to as low as $42.23 a barrel in August.

More from Bloomberg.com: That Time I Tried to Buy an Actual Barrel of Crude Oil

U.S. crude output will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12 months ending April, according to Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of IHS Inc. Prices are near a bottom and global supplies look set to close the gap with demand amid declining output, he said in Tokyo on Oct. 30. Production in the U.S. will drop 1 million barrels a day from the peak by early 2016, Vitol SA Chief Executive Officer Ian Taylor said at a conference in London.

Oil failed to sustain a gain above $50 a barrel last month as OPEC pumped above its quota for the past 17 months. "Prices have not gone down below $40 a barrel for the last three months so maybe it is at the bottom," Omair said.

[Nov 02, 2015] Low Oil Prices Could Persist Through 2016

This game became really interesting if prices will remain low for oil all 2016. That's another 200 billion stimulus for the US economy. People are genetically biased against change, because change means potential danger. People are also genetically biased against acknowledging this bias, because they wish to see themselves as being able to cope with both change and danger. Put together, this means that when changes come, people are largely unprepared or underprepared. This little bit of psychology 101 may seem redundant, but it is indispensable if we are talking about the current oil price slump...
Notable quotes:
"... The average estimate from the banks for oil prices is for Brent to average just $58 per barrel in 2016, and WTI to trade for $54 per barrel. But just a few months ago, the same survey showed that the banks expected oil prices to average $70 per barrel in 2016. ..."
"... U.S. oil output is down to around 9.1 million barrels per day from a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day reached in April 2015. ..."
"... ... ... ... ..."
"... However, while the Permian will slow oil market balancing, it won't be able to compensate for the loss of production elsewhere. Overall, U.S. production is in decline. Most of the loss in U.S. output has come from the Eagle Ford in South Texas, which has shed over 227,000 barrels per day in output since April. ..."
Nov 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

A group of investment banks are becoming increasingly gloomy about the direction of oil prices in the near-term. A Wall Street Journal survey of 13 investment banks found a growing degree of pessimism about the oil markets.

The average estimate from the banks for oil prices is for Brent to average just $58 per barrel in 2016, and WTI to trade for $54 per barrel. But just a few months ago, the same survey showed that the banks expected oil prices to average $70 per barrel in 2016.

The growing pessimism is in part due to the potential slowdown in demand, particularly from China. At the same time, Russia and OPEC nations continue to produce at elevated levels. Only U.S. production appears to be declining in any substantial way. U.S. oil output is down to around 9.1 million barrels per day from a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day reached in April 2015.

... ... ...

... producing in places like the Permian Basin is still very much profitable today, even with prices at $50 per barrel or lower. While North Dakota, Louisiana, or Colorado have seen drilling grind to a halt, drilling in the Permian Basin in West Texas is still going strong. In fact, many oil companies are scrapping drilling in other parts of their portfolio and expanding their footprint in the Permian. As a result, production from the Permian is still rising. The Permian stands out because of the abundance of oil and gas in place, making each well more lucrative than a similar well in another basin.

However, while the Permian will slow oil market balancing, it won't be able to compensate for the loss of production elsewhere. Overall, U.S. production is in decline. Most of the loss in U.S. output has come from the Eagle Ford in South Texas, which has shed over 227,000 barrels per day in output since April.

[Nov 02, 2015] It's Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future OIl Prices

Initially Statoil was looking for $60 in 2016, $70 in 2017 and $80 in 2018, for planning purposes.
Notable quotes:
"... Mark Hanson, an analyst for Morningstar in Chicago, said the days of huge price cuts are nearly over."I don't think there is going to be meaningful reduction from here," he said. "To use a baseball analogy, you are probably in the seventh or eighth inning." ..."
"... Given that many US oil companies were cash flow negative prior to the price collapse, do you think that US oil companies will be able to increase production in the future without being cash flow negative? ..."
"... As there is a time lag of six to nine months between initial capex decision and actual production, it is in my view premature to have a final say about current emerging capital efficiency. The production numbers we have now are the harvest of the capex in the last quarter of 2014. ..."
"... Range Resources had for example 400 mill capex in 4q14, which came down to just 188 mill in 3q15, when production went up 20% year over year. This is in my opinion not extremely capital efficient , yet is a harbiger of much lower production in the months ahead. ..."
"... "We think that the price level now is too low," Eirik Waerness, chief economist and vice-president at Statoil ASA, said in an interview in Singapore on Thursday. "Some people will stop exploring for oil. With oil prices around $50, you get a stimulus for demand growth. That will tighten the market." Crude is expected to climb to $80 a barrel in 2018 and increase gradually after that as existing supplies get used up, he said. ..."
"... the way this usually works the government will react and change taxes. As increased taxation takes effect production starts to drop. Evidently the Russian government is reluctant to change the current rates to signal it has a reliable tax system which allows investments to proceed with a very long term outlook. But I expect they'll be putting on the squeeze if they haven't done so. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

R Walter , 11/01/2015 at 8:10 am

Using Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine, I found this quote:

"We will never see eighty five dollar oil again except maybe as the whiplash negative feedback response to a sudden spike as happened the last time prices spiked very high. Think five hundred car pile up on a freeway after that happens with everybody flying and then traffic stopped or almost stopped with nobody buying but a lot of people contracted to take delivery- and the gasoline and diesel piling up at the retail end. Prices may collapse temporarily into the eighties or even lower but only for a few weeks or months." – Old Farmer Mac

http://peakoilbarrel.com/enno-peters-post/

Oil is at 45, so the price can fall and it did. 147 to 135, 125, 115, 105, 95, 85, 75, 65, 55, 45, then as low as 39, back to 45 and holding. Nowhere near 85, let alone 100. 45 dollars is a dead man walking.

Wendell Lawson, the character played by Burt Reynolds in the movie 'The End', was swimming out to sea to make his final exit, deciding he wanted to live, he turned back and began to swim to shore.

"90 percent, Lord, I'll give you 90 percent if you get me out of this." As he swam closer, the pledge began to decrease, it falls to 80 percent, then to 70 percent, by the time he got back to shore, the Lord was not getting much. When Sonny Lawson finally got there, Marlon Borunki, played by Dom Deluise, started to shoot rounds from a pistol at Sonny. He was helping out Wendell to kill himself.

It was funny.

The kind of help the oil industry is getting.

Dennis Coyne , 11/01/2015 at 11:34 am
I thought output would decrease at these prices much faster than they have. Until output drops prices will remain under 85 per barrel. Lots of people are wrong on oil prices. Only very wide guesses will be correct such as 5 to 200 per barrel.
Fernando Leanme , 11/02/2015 at 3:52 am
40 to 150 over the next 30 months.
Dennis Coyne , 11/02/2015 at 8:08 am
Hi Fernando,

That is probably wide enough to get it right. I have seen some really bold price predictions from others such as, the oil price will be a positive number.

I have lost confidence in my ability to predict future oil prices so $15/b to $200/b over the next 60 months(in 2015$) is about the best I could do. There are others who will only go so far as to say that oil prices will be "low" or "high" in the future which means very little with no number attached.

old Farmer Mac , 11/02/2015 at 6:46 pm
I made a fool out of myself that time sure enough by forgetting to add my usual weasel words such as barring miracle breakthroughs, the economy being in assisted living mode etc.

It ( warning attempted humor) is all the fault of them there pinko commie environmental types that hang out in forums such as this one misleading me into believing that oil comes out of holes in the ground and does not grow back, that the population is growing and wanting more oil, etc etc.

Seriously I forgot to consider the possibility that bankers would continue to loan money to tight oil losers at zero percent, that Russia and Saudi Arabia would be at war with the price of oil being the only real weapon the Saudis can bring to bear etc.

The industry moves a lot slower than I thought, no question. It is taking a LOT longer than I would have thought for high cost producers to cut back their money losing production. Everybody with a barrel to sell seems to be really desperate for cash and willing to run in the hole to put their hands on it. Sooner or later enough production is going to be curtailed to put the price back into black ink territory for high cost producers.

MarbleZeppelin , 11/01/2015 at 8:23 am
Referring to Ovi's graph above.
There is a 4.6% drop in production from March to August which gives a monthly loss of 0.92%.
Alternatively from January to March there was a 5,6% gain in production. That gives a gain of 2.8% per month.
Overall the graph shows a 1.4% gain in production or 0.14% gain in production per month.
The graph does indicate the ability to increase production generally faster than it declines.
The range is quite wide and the timescale short so it is not feasible to determine the typical range of variation or extrapolate future production.
The only conclusion that can be made from this graph requires other sources of information, such as the current economic situation in the oil fields. One might conclude that this particular downturn in production is due to economic constraints involving low cash flow and loan contractual terms. The economic constraints lead to the need for a further analysis of situational parameters in the economic environment, such as involvements with other energy sources, demand analysis, efficiency changes as well as psychological changes in the social/political structure.
AlexS , 11/01/2015 at 5:15 pm
Big U.S. shale oil savings fast becoming a thing of the past

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/30/oil-results-costs-idUSL1N12M2KI20151030

Huge cost savings are waning for U.S. shale oil companies, marking an end to the drastic price cuts on equipment and services over the past 16 months that helped them survive the worst industry downturn in six years.

Companies including Anadarko Petroleum Corp, ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum Corp have saved millions on drilling and fracking wells in Texas, Colorado and North Dakota since the oil price slide started by demanding that oilfield service companies slash prices by 20 percent to 30 percent or more.

Those savings, coupled with big gains in rig productivity that allowed more oil to be pumped with less equipment, created a lifeline for companies coping with a more than 50 percent drop in crude prices. But productivity gains have stalled in the last few months and deflation may be slowing as well, just as producers try to withstand a lower-for-longer price outlook.

ConocoPhillips has seen its onshore drilling and completion costs fall. More savings are expected, but not as much.

"If prices stay low and activity levels stay low I think you will see more pressure on deflation, but not another magnitude of the leg down we've seen so far," Jeff Sheets, Conoco's chief financial officer, told Reuters on Thursday.

The U.S. rig count has fallen by more than half from a year ago when nearly 1,600 rigs were working, so companies that lease rigs or do hydraulic fracturing have offered double-digit discounts to get work contracts.

When asked if cost deflation is likely to continue, Darrell Hollek, head of U.S. onshore exploration and production at Anadarko, told analysts on Wednesday the company continues to see decreases in prices, but those declines are not "as significant as what we saw earlier in the year."

In West Texas, Occidental said the cost for a 4,500-foot well has fallen 45 percent from a year earlier to $6.3 million now. The company said on a call with analysts it expects costs to come down more, but did not say by how much.

RigData, which tracks oilfield activity, forecast cost declines for U.S. onshore wells of $1.2 million on average in 2015, a drop that is unlikely to be repeated next year, Trey Cowan, senior industry analyst with RigData, said.

Currently, operators are drilling wells in so-called sweet spots that produce the most oil and gas. After they go through that inventory and move on to less prolific spots, it will cost more to drill, said Cowan.

The chief executive of Baker Hughes, Martin Craighead, on the third-quarter conference call of the oilfield services giant, downplayed more cuts when an analyst asked if his company could offer additional cost reductions of 15 percent to 30 percent.

"You are just not going to get out there and take your hats off to any customer," Craighead said. "They are going to obviously try to get as much as they can and there will be a point where it just doesn't make any sense."

Mark Hanson, an analyst for Morningstar in Chicago, said the days of huge price cuts are nearly over."I don't think there is going to be meaningful reduction from here," he said. "To use a baseball analogy, you are probably in the seventh or eighth inning."

shallow sand , 11/01/2015 at 7:15 pm
AlexS. Thanks for the post!

Given that many US oil companies were cash flow negative prior to the price collapse, do you think that US oil companies will be able to increase production in the future without being cash flow negative?

It seems to me that if oil prices shoot back up at some point, service rates will also.

Our lowest two OPEX years since 2006 will be 2009 and 2015. The highest 2008 and 2013.

I really question whether US oil companies will ever be able to be "growth" companies anytime soon.

Heinrich Leopold , 11/02/2015 at 3:40 am
AlexS,

As there is a time lag of six to nine months between initial capex decision and actual production, it is in my view premature to have a final say about current emerging capital efficiency. The production numbers we have now are the harvest of the capex in the last quarter of 2014.

It will be interesting how the production numbers will develop over the next few months. Range Resources had for example 400 mill capex in 4q14, which came down to just 188 mill in 3q15, when production went up 20% year over year. This is in my opinion not extremely capital efficient , yet is a harbiger of much lower production in the months ahead.

HR , 11/02/2015 at 9:30 am
Heinrich, I am using the same logic as you. I guess the question is how long before reduced capex turns into lower production.
shallow sand , 11/02/2015 at 7:44 am
Statoil sees no oil price recovery till 2018. Any guesses on what that scenario does to US oil production?
Dennis Coyne , 11/02/2015 at 8:19 am
Hi Shallow sand,

What does price recovery mean?

Is that an oil price below $60/b until 2018?

If so, I would expect US C+C output will fall to 6 Mb/d by 2018, possibly more, however, the oil price prediction will likely be incorrect as the fall in oil supply will lead to an earlier price recovery in 2016 or 2017 at the latest. By price recovery I mean an oil price above $75/b in 2015$.

shallow sand , 11/02/2015 at 10:09 am
Dennis. It is difficult to tell from the CNBC article, but looks to me that initially Statoil was looking for $60 in 2016, $70 in 2017 and $80 in 2018, for planning purposes. Now, possibly, they are looking at below $60 to 2018.

I still feel that OPEC will cut at some point, the question is when. Read an analyst who thought they should 12/4, but would not to save face, as US production has not fallen much and Russian production has not fallen at all (see AlexS post herein). So very possible there will not be a production cut until US production falls significantly, maybe not till late 2016

AlexS , 11/02/2015 at 10:55 am
shallow sand,

Statoil expects $80 by 2018. Here is a Bloomberg article:

'Too Low' Crude Prices Seen Rising to $80 in 2018 by Statoil

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-29/-too-low-crude-prices-seen-rising-to-80-in-2018-by-statoil

  • Supply growth seen falling amid industry cost-cutting
  • Current high oil inventories preventing price recovery

Crude prices that have almost halved in the past year are unsustainable at current levels as cuts to investments and postponement of projects will lead to a decline in supply growth, according to Norway's biggest oil company.

"We think that the price level now is too low," Eirik Waerness, chief economist and vice-president at Statoil ASA, said in an interview in Singapore on Thursday. "Some people will stop exploring for oil. With oil prices around $50, you get a stimulus for demand growth. That will tighten the market." Crude is expected to climb to $80 a barrel in 2018 and increase gradually after that as existing supplies get used up, he said.

Oil slumped more than 44 percent in the past year as U.S. stockpiles expanded at a time when OPEC producers bolstered output to retain market share, exacerbating a global supply glut that the International Energy Agency estimates will remain until at least the middle of 2016. Producers hurt by the collapse in prices have had to fire workers, cancel projects and sell oil fields to conserve cash. Statoil on Wednesday announced cuts to planned investments in 2015 by $1 billion to $16.5 billion.
"The question is how much of the current change in the industry will lead to long-term cost reductions," said Waerness. When "demand becomes larger than supply, and we will start drawing down storages. The market will suddenly realize that there's very little spare capacity out there."

"The underlying trend is that it's going to come up, but it's going to take a while," Waerness said, referring to prices. "One of the reasons why it takes a while is because the storage is too high, and therefore the price mechanism doesn't really work."

AlexS , 11/02/2015 at 8:43 am
Russian Crude Output Hits Post-Soviet Record Defying Price Slump

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/russian-crude-output-hits-post-soviet-record-defying-price-slump

  • October output averaged 10.776 million barrels a day
  • Oil exports increased 10% compared with October last year

Russian oil production broke a post-Soviet record in October for the fourth time this year as earlier investments boosted output and producers prove resilient to lower crude prices.

Production of crude and gas condensate, which is similar to a light oil, averaged 10.776 million barrels a day during the month, according to data from the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit. That is an increase of 1.3 percent from a year earlier and up 0.3 percent from the previous month.

"Russian oil production is still reflecting oil prices above $100 a barrel due to long lead times in the investment cycle," Alexander Nazarov, an oil and gas analyst at Gazprombank JSC, said by e-mail from Moscow. "The reason behind growth this year dates back to 2010-2014, when a number of projects were financed."

---------------
My comment:
– Using 7.3 barrels per ton conversion rate, Russian C+C production was 10,731 kb/d.
– The industry only reduced production m-o-m in 2015 in April and July, indicating stable performance.
– The companies' upstream margins are supported by weaker rouble and progressive tax system with a very steep scale.
– There are no signs of reduced investment/drilling activity in the sector in rouble or volume terms.

Russian C+C production (mb/d) (7.3 bbl/ton conversion rate)
Source: Russia's Energy Ministry

Dennis Coyne , 11/02/2015 at 8:55 am
Hi AlexS,

Thanks. Has there been any slow down in new oil field developments in Russia due to the lower oil price environment? I wonder if lower capital investment today may result in a fall in Russian output (or possibly an end to the recent growth in output) a few years down the road. Is your expectation a continued plateau in output between 10.6 and 10.7 Mb/d, even if oil prices remain under $60/b (2015$) until 2018?

Fernando Leanme , 11/02/2015 at 9:42 am
Dennis, the way this usually works the government will react and change taxes. As increased taxation takes effect production starts to drop. Evidently the Russian government is reluctant to change the current rates to signal it has a reliable tax system which allows investments to proceed with a very long term outlook. But I expect they'll be putting on the squeeze if they haven't done so.
AlexS , 11/02/2015 at 3:46 pm
Dennis,

Development capex increased in local currency terms in 2015.

From the IEA OMR: "Record high output follows a boom in development drilling, up 8.9% y-o-y for the first 8 months of 2015 compared with the same period a year earlier, as well as a greater share of horizontal wells and a continued focus on brownfield maintenance."

The IEA now expects Russian oil production to decline by 85 kb/d in 2016. But in July they were expecting a decline of 120 kb/d.

Similarly, the IEA had projected a decline of 140 kb/d for 2015 (January 2015 OMR), and now they forecast an increase of 110 kb/d (October 2015 OMR).

As regards longer-term prospects, new projects, which are expected to come onstream in the next 5 years, are on schedule. Only some Arctic offshore projects were postponed, but they were not expected to start production before 2020-2025.

The Energy Ministry's long term projections anticipate more or less flat production until 2035. I think production can be maintained close to current levels in the next 5-6 years. Longer term prospects depend on the development of the new resource base in the Arctic offshore and unconventional resources, such as tight oil

Green People's Media , 11/02/2015 at 1:50 pm
Ron, have you (or your readers) seen this one yet? As a regular follower of Peak Oil Barrel I have to count myself a "BP Skeptic" with regard t o this headline "BP sees technology nearly doubling world energy resources by 2050."

It's the ancient "technology will save us" mantra re-applied. Wondering if you or any readers have any wisdom or insights on this article. Where is BP getting the claim of a doubling of "global reserves?" (Not daily production in MM Bbl/day, just "reserves," mind you.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-sees-technology-nearly-doubling-world-energy-resources-143523912–finance.html

Doug Leighton , 11/02/2015 at 3:32 pm
Well it was BP who developed (and deployed) wide azimuth towed streamer technology which totally revolutionized marine seismic acquisition and decades before that they invented hydraulic fracturing (in the 1940s, I think) plus they pioneered ways of refining so-called dirty oil so God knows what kind of stuff they've got up their sleeve. Actually, credit where it's due, wasn't it BP who gave birth of the offshore oil/gas industry with exploitation of the North Sea via development of the Forties platform, what, 50 odd years ago.
Fred Magyar , 11/02/2015 at 4:53 pm
Yes, I read that article and almost posted it myself. There is so much contradictory information in that article that I think one would really need to read BP's actual press release. It's quite the mish mosh.

Just this little tid bit should underscore what I mean:

When taking into account all accessible forms of energy including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group Head of Technology said.

"Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Technology Outlook.

Oil and gas companies have invested heavily in squeezing the maximum from existing reservoirs by using chemicals, super computers and robotics. The halving of oil prices since last June has further dampened their appetite to explore for new resources, with more than $200 billion worth of mega projects scrapped in recent months.

By applying these technologies, the global proved fossil fuel resources could increase from 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) to 4.8 trillion boe by 2050, nearly double the projected 2.5 trillion boe required to meet global demand until 2050, BP said.

With new exploration and technology, the resources could leap to a staggering 7.5 trillion boe, Eyton said.

So basically BP is counting on alternative energy sources, electric vehicles, carbon taxes and reduced demand on top of new discoveries for which they no longer have financial incentives, to all come together to increase resources… Yeah, right!

The article stinks!

Watcher , 11/02/2015 at 5:53 pm
If profit is not relevant to the exercise, a great deal more oil can come out of the ground than we have believed.

[Nov 02, 2015] Peak Oil Review - Nov 2

Notable quotes:
"... Goldman Sachs continues to talk about the possibility of a major price drop in the next year as global capacity to store more crude and oil products runs out. There have been a number of analyses concluding that this will never happen, however, as there is still much storage space available. ..."
"... It is generally believed that US shale oil production will drop further in the coming year but that it will be offset by increased production overseas. ..."
"... Tehran will officially notify OPEC next month that it plans to increase production by 500,000 b/d and that it expects other OPEC members to cut production by enough to keep the cartel's production below the agreed-upon 30 million b/d ceiling. OPEC has been producing about 1.7 million b/d above this ceiling lately. ..."
www.resilience.org

originally published by ASPO-USA | TODAY

... ... ...

Goldman Sachs continues to talk about the possibility of a major price drop in the next year as global capacity to store more crude and oil products runs out. There have been a number of analyses concluding that this will never happen, however, as there is still much storage space available. People with greater insight into this issue point out the problem is much too complex to be determined with a simple recitation of EIA tank capacity. Serious storage problems could still arise due to the spare storage capacity being in the wrong place or being of the wrong type for the liquid needing to be stored. The EIA says it really cannot calculate the amount of "swing space" necessary to keep operations flowing smoothly. There have already been reports of shortages of distillate storage in the New York area.

It is generally believed that US shale oil production will drop further in the coming year but that it will be offset by increased production overseas. Iran announced this week that it is preparing to increase its production by 500,000 b/d, which should be enough to offset a large part of the decline in US production we have seen in recent months. This assumes that Tehran can sell its additional barrels which may be difficult without substantial price discounts. The future of the Chinese and US economies remains the major unknown. Chinese crude imports have held up pretty well this year despite its economic slowdown. Much of this is due to low prices which have allowed Beijing to fill its newly built strategic stockpile tanks and to feed new refining capacity. These new refineries are simply dumping more oil products on the world markets rather than increasing domestic oil consumption.

Like the Chinese economy, that of the US seems to be slowing of late. While there has been much publicity about growing gasoline consumption in the US, this is obviously due to low prices which now average about $2.18 a gallon. The weak earnings reports from the oil industry and announcement that GDP growth fell to 1.5 percent in the third quarter from 3.9 percent in the second quarter raises questions about how long US demand for oil products will hold up. There are already tentative indications that the recent growth in gasoline consumption is starting to slip despite the falling prices.
... ... ...

Iran: Tehran will officially notify OPEC next month that it plans to increase production by 500,000 b/d and that it expects other OPEC members to cut production by enough to keep the cartel's production below the agreed-upon 30 million b/d ceiling. OPEC has been producing about 1.7 million b/d above this ceiling lately.

Iran has proposed establishing an oil and gas swap with Russia as it has had in place with Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan for over a decade. Under this arrangement, the Iranians would receive gas and oil along their northern border for domestic consumption and then ship a similar quantity from its Gulf ports to Russia's customers. This presumably would save on transportation costs and difficulties in moving oil and gas produced in Central Asia to world markets.

In the wake of the nuclear agreement Tehran has been feeling its oats by announcing plans to become the largest oil and gas producer. At a conference last week, the Iranians said they will need about $250 billion in new investment in the next ten years. Given the massive cutbacks by nearly all the international oil companies in recent months, the possibility of foreign investment on such a scale is remote.

[Nov 02, 2015] Interesting to see the large publicly traded companies are selling legacy assets

Notable quotes:
"... Edit: I found the answer. Per a 2013 National Geographic article, all Bakken and TFS wells require water flushing such that when the field is fully developed with 40-45K wells, the field will require in excess of 10 billion barrels of fresh water annually. ..."
"... Throw on top that the companies have added to product gathering and salt water disposal costs by selling of this infrastructure to raise cash, I believe long term ND oil production will be among the hugest cost in the lower 48 on strictly an operating basis. ..."
"... shallow sand, For big oil companies, selling and buying assets is a constant process. They are "optimizing asset portfolio" ..."
"... Sunk-cost fallacy occurs when people make decisions about a current situation based on what they have previously invested in the situation. For example, spending $100 on a concert and on the day you find that it's cold and rainy. You feel that if you don't go you would've wasted the money and the time you spent in line to get that ticket and feel obligated to follow through even if you don't want to. It's is cold and rainy in the oil industry right now. ..."
"... Yes, but if the $30,000/acre price Aubrey McClendon paid is typical, it looks like oil gas asset prices in the Permian Basin are hotter than ever. And this despite the drop in oil prices. ..."
"... Just imagine, McClendon paid over $30,000 per net acre for leasehold working interest, with oil at $45. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

shallow sand, 10/31/2015 at 9:56 am

Interesting to see the large publicly traded companies are selling legacy assets.

In particular, Chevron is selling its interest in the Seminole San Andreas Unit in Gaines Co., TX. The unit is generating them over $400K per month. It is a CO2 flood still producing over 20K BOE per day gross, and is operated by Hess.

Shell is selling a large block of lower 48 royalty interests located in 10 states, generating over $250K per month.

Chevron is also selling another legacy block of conventional wells operated by them in the Permian Basin, which currently generates over $300K per month.

What is also interesting is of all is these are all listed for sale on the Internet auction. IMO they are selling these assets at a really poor time. Are even the super majors in need of cash to the extent they would sell premium onshore lower 48 assets at the low end of the market? Maybe they do not see a rebound anytime soon? Yikes. However, the same things happened in 1998 and many buyers hit it big with prices from late 1999-2014.

Also looked at conventional wells for sale in Dunn Co. ND. They are under water with oil at the well around $30. I note that the wells produce super saturated salt water and require fresh water flushes to operate. Watcher has mentioned this before. These wells are in the Duperow formation. Do middle Bakken and TFS require large amounts of fresh water also?

Edit: I found the answer. Per a 2013 National Geographic article, all Bakken and TFS wells require water flushing such that when the field is fully developed with 40-45K wells, the field will require in excess of 10 billion barrels of fresh water annually.

Looking at the production and lease operating statements for the older conventional wells I examined, I estimate 10+ year old middle bakken and TFS wells will need over $50 WTI just to break even on an operating basis, not including any work over expense.

North Dakota wells are at a distinct disadvantage due to the salt issue.

Throw on top that the companies have added to product gathering and salt water disposal costs by selling of this infrastructure to raise cash, I believe long term ND oil production will be among the hugest cost in the lower 48 on strictly an operating basis.

Doug Leighton,10/31/2015 at 10:09 am
Perhaps selling off assets looks better than borrowing money from a bank to pay dividends to your shareholders? Watcher would probably know the answer to this.
AlexS,10/31/2015 at 10:34 am
shallow sand, For big oil companies, selling and buying assets is a constant process. They are "optimizing asset portfolio"
Glenn Stehle,10/31/2015 at 10:46 am
shallow sand said:

IMO they are selling these assets at a really poor time.

It's hard to tell, since everything hinges on what happens in the future. One thing is for sure, and that is that Permian Basin O&G assets are, despite the low oil and gas prices, still selling for several times what they sold for in the pre-shale days.

Take Concho Resources purchase of Marbob in 2010, for instance:

Based on the acquisition price, Concho's purchase is equivalent to $19.84 per BOE of proved reserves and $104,167 per flowing barrel.

http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/NewsPrint.asp?b=1977&ID=40931&m=rl

Concho picked up 150,000 net acres in the deal. That's a little bit north of $8,000 an acre. At the time of the sale, the old timers thought Marbob's founder and president, Johnny Gray, had cut a fat hog. But if you compare $8,000 an acre to the more than $30,000 per acre Aubrey McClendon just paid, it looks like Gray sold too soon. One could find other comps, but I think the price of Permian Basin O&G assets over the past 15 years has been consistently upwards.

Ves, 10/31/2015 at 12:26 pm
Shallow,

Analyzing why the companies are selling legacy properties that make some money at this moment can lead you to the trap called "sunk cost fallacy". "Sunk cost fallacy" is exactly the same for big oil companies as for individuals.

Sunk-cost fallacy occurs when people make decisions about a current situation based on what they have previously invested in the situation. For example, spending $100 on a concert and on the day you find that it's cold and rainy. You feel that if you don't go you would've wasted the money and the time you spent in line to get that ticket and feel obligated to follow through even if you don't want to. It's is cold and rainy in the oil industry right now.

shallow sand, 10/31/2015 at 2:45 pm

Glenn. I got an email from Raymond James which detailed Q3 sales. Permian basin were substantially higher per flowing barrel than the rest of the US lower 48.

AlexS. I do agree companies are always selling assets, but interesting to see larger higher quality assets on the public block. Either no solid offers privately, or maybe companies are finding online sales are the best way to go.

Glenn Stehle, 11/02/2015 at 10:32 am
Yes, but if the $30,000/acre price Aubrey McClendon paid is typical, it looks like oil & gas asset prices in the Permian Basin are hotter than ever. And this despite the drop in oil prices.

Diamondback Energy, for instance, in September 2013 paid $440 million for 12,500 acres of net mineral rights in the shale play in Midland County. That's $35,000/acre, but for mineral interest, and back when oil was selling for well over $100/barrel.

http://ir.diamondbackenergy.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=788419

Just imagine, McClendon paid over $30,000 per net acre for leasehold working interest, with oil at $45.

[Nov 02, 2015] A lessening of interest in cars

Notable quotes:
"... North American car sales appear to be flat and Europe's sales look like they have declined. Only Asia seems to show significant increases. ..."
"... Here in the US there are at least twice as many registered cars as there are licensed drivers. So there is little necessity to buy new. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Glenn Stehle,11/01/2015 at 6:39 am

Fred Magyar said:

"Like we all need a car to be free!"

Well, a lot of young people are no longer buying into that world view.

Well somebody's still "buying into that world view."

http://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/

Boomer II,11/01/2015 at 12:27 pm

North American car sales appear to be flat and Europe's sales look like they have declined. Only Asia seems to show significant increases.

Considering that populations have grown in most places in the world, I would say this chart does indicate a lessening of interest in cars.

MarbleZeppelin,11/02/2015 at 8:30 am

Boomer said "Considering that populations have grown in most places in the world, I would say this chart does indicate a lessening of interest in cars."

Maybe it is not so much interest as need or economics. Much of the new population is in the cities where cars are not generally essential. Also many people are way too poor to afford a car even if they needed one, a bicycle or scooter is about their peak ability to afford.

Here in the US there are at least twice as many registered cars as there are licensed drivers. So there is little necessity to buy new.

[Nov 02, 2015] US Oil Production by State

Oct 30, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

The EIA's Petroleum Supply Monthly is just out with production numbers, through August, for each state and offshore territories. The EIA's Monthly Energy Review is also out. This publication has US production data through September but not for individual states.

US Total C+C

The Petroleum Supply Monthly June 15 production numbers were revised down considerably this month. And you can see they had a drop of 169,000 bpd in September. I think there will likely be an even larger drop in October. At any rate US production is finally starting to drop significantly.

The Gulf of Mexico is the one place that is bucking the trend. The GOM was up 146,000 bpd in July and up another 63,000 bpd in August for a total of 209,000 bpd for the two months.

Texas was down for the fifth straight month. North Dakota has been moving sideways but is now below their September 2014 level. Alaska is slightly above their August 2014 level but their average annual production will drop by between 25 and 50 thousand bpd this year. Oklahoma has dropped 59,000 bpd since March. New Mexico which holds part of the Permian recovered slightly in August. Montana which, holds part of the Bakken, has been in a downward trend since March. Wyoming had been bucking the trend but now looks like it has succumbed to low oil prices also.

Longtimber, 10/30/2015 at 5:03 pm

Cold winter in Alaska? Meanwhile on the other side of the pond, Mr Yergin thinks Frackers may invade the Old World.
"Europe has shale gas potential, but political obstacles prevent its development, he said. IHS research indicates that by the mid- 2030s Germany could be getting 35 of its natural gas from domestic shale gas produced from non-sensitive areas, equivalent to current import levels from Norway or Russia."

YERGIN: ENERGY HAS ENTERED 'NEW ERA OF SHALE' WITH BIG BENEFITS FOR PETROCHEMICALS

http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/yergin-energy-has-entered-new-era-of-shale-with-big-benefits-for-petrochemicals.html


shallow sand, 10/30/2015 at 8:44 pm

Ron. Thanks for the post!

Some interesting things, to me anyway.

After reading several company earnings releases and conference calls, it appears that all want to develop US shale over anything else they own. Unless foreign companies pick up the slack, it appears US majors' lack of foreign investment might result in some steep declines.

Second interesting tidbit. Read a Seeking Alpha article about ConocoPhillips today that indicated they lost $3 for every BOE they produced company wide on a GAAP basis, with the US lower 48 incurring the highest BOE losses at $9. These figures were for the third quarter, 2015.

Finally, read that Whiting is in process of selling its water disposal infrastructure. I touched on this earlier. I was unaware this is a common industry practice. To me, selling these assets at this time is a sign of desperation. IMO this permanently devalues the producing assets with an unnecesaary expense burden. If anyone has some data on how much of this infrastructure has been sold off by the shale companies, let me know. Likewise, as I am not familiar with this practice, and especially if you think I am off base, please chime in. I can't imagine us ever wanting to do such a thing. I note both clueless and John S posted this is quite common.

To me, selling these assets is like selling off the plumbing, wiring, furnace and air conditioner in your house and having to rent them forever.

gwalke, 11/02/2015 at 7:45 am

Beyond the infrastructure sale, Whiting's 3Q2015 results seemed like a real disaster to me, though many analysts thought it was a good quarter.

The three things that stood out to me were:

  • They announced 38% production increase – so they told investors that in response to prices falling 60%, they produced more oil (?!);
  • They announced that they have increased the sand per frack job, and intend to increase it further – telling investors that they are risking the long-term recovery factors of their wells for short-term production rate gains;
  • They announced they will update their EUR curves on the basis of the IP of these new "enhanced completions", and even used 24hr IP to discuss how amazing their 7 million lb of sand fracks are – essentially telling investors that they are juicing their IP in order to hoodwink them about well profitability.
BC, 10/30/2015 at 9:28 pm

TX, ND, WY, and LA are in recession.

CO, OK, AK, and WV might have been/be in recession, or close enough.

VK, 10/31/2015 at 5:47 am
Down the slippery slope of descent and ruin. For 80% of Americans life has been getting harder and harder.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/29/us-on-road-to-third-world-paul-craig-roberts/

The evidence is everywhere. In September the US Bureau of the Census released its report on US household income by quintile. Every quintile, as well as the top 5%, has experienced a decline in real household income since their peaks. The bottom quintile (lower 20 percent) has had a 17.1% decline in real income from the 1999 peak (from $14,092 to $11,676). The 4th quintile has had a 10.8% fall in real income since 2000 (from $34,863 to $31,087). The middle quintile has had a 6.9% decline in real income since 2000 (from $58,058 to $54,041). The 2nd quintile has had a 2.8% fall in real income since 2007 (from $90,331 to $87,834). The top quintile has had a decline in real income since 2006 of 1.7% (from $197,466 to $194,053). The top 5% has experienced a 4.8% reduction in real income since 2006 (from $349,215 to $332,347). Only the top One Percent or less (mainly the 0.1%) has experienced growth in income and wealth.

The Census Bureau uses official measures of inflation to arrive at real income. These measures are understated. If more accurate measures of inflation are used (such as those available from shadowstats.com), the declines in real household income are larger and have been declining for a longer period. Some measures show real median annual household income below levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

[Nov 02, 2015] Engineering of consent

Notable quotes:
"... "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques." ..."
"... So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms." ..."
"... Automobile marketers, for example, do not simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals, self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product…. ..."
"... Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless in all fields other than selection of commodities." ..."
"... The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words it is a dead end with an expiration date. ..."
"... Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be free!" ..."
Oct 30, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

US Oil Production by State

Glenn Stehle,10/31/2015 at 9:15 am

So one is left wondering what is causing the downward mobility of most Americans. Is it caused by increasingly less abundant natural resources, making it more costly to exploit those that remain? Or is it caused by one group of humans which is more aggressively exploiting another group?

Most Americans seem to believe it's the latter. The Economist reports that:

The country faces a crisis of mutual resentment… Sharply-delineated voter blocs are alarmingly willing to believe that rival groups are up to no good or taking more than their fair share.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21591180-americas-political-divisions-have-deeper-social-consequences-why-americans-are-so-angry

So Americans are mad as hell. And as they descend into an orgy of victimization, even rich white straight protestant men can be heard bellowing for victim status.

Where will it all lead, and especially if the politicians are no longer able to bring the bacon home?

I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques."

So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms."

"We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships-by-force," Donald Slesinger noted of the new strategy and tactics, "through the establishment of dictatorship-by-manipulation."

As Simpson goes on to explain, for the scientific engineers of consent

the simple sale of products and services is not enough. Their commercial success in a mass market depends to an important degree on their ability to substitute their values and worldview for those previously held by their audience, typically through seduction and deflection of rival worldviews. Automobile marketers, for example, do not simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals, self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product….

Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless in all fields other than selection of commodities."

So now, after a century of hammering the values and worldview of a mass consumer culture into the peoples' heads, how quickly can the public's worldview be turned around?

And if we remove "economic inducement" and "vocie in the selection of commodities" from the toolbox of the scientific engineers of consent, what's left? Propaganda; coercion (violent or non-violent); diplomatic negotiation; and "other techniques"?

Fred Magyar,10/31/2015 at 11:09 am
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques."

That sounds an awful lot like this crap!

organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."
― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda circa 1928

There is no doubt that this way of thinking is the basis of the so called capitalist infinite growth paradigm. Which only has a chance of working up until the point that physical limits of our finite planet are reached. Then the shit tends to hit the fan for all concerned.

The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words it is a dead end with an expiration date.

The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.

Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be free!"

Well, a lot of young people are no longer buying into that world view. So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social paradigm.

Technology is changing the way we interact and form connections within society.

This video a the end of my post might seem a bit off topic but to me it underscores how different this new world has the potential to be. I especially love the example of an expensive commercial failure of a consumer product that suddenly became cheap enough for use as a musical instrument in a computer orchestra and the fact that a thousand people can suddenly come together in a show of support by singing together… And If I could travel back in time, I'd murder Eduard Bernays.

Ge Wang:
The DIY orchestra of the future

https://www.ted.com/talks/ge_wang_the_diy_orchestra_of_the_future

We need to stop thinking linearly!

Glenn Stehle, 11/01/2015 at 9:12 am

Fred Magyar said:

The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.

Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable….

So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social paradigm.

The idea of cultural transformation has been with us for a long time. It's very much part of the Christian evangelical tradition, and we can see how the idea played out in practice after Spain's and Portugal's conquest of the Americas.

Combining cultural revolution with technological transformation, however, seems to be a purely 20th-century innovation. And the idea has been no less appealing to left Hegelians than it has been to right Hegelians.

On the left, we see the notion of a combined cultural-technological revolution emerge first with the Russian nihilists. "Drawing heavily on the German materialists Jacob Moleschott, Karl Vogt, and Ludwig Buchner," Michael Allen Gillespie explains in Nihilism Before Nietzsche, "the nihilists argued that the natural sciences were preparing the way for the millennium."

"This turn to materialism was also bound up with the growth of atheism," Gillespie adds, which was "given a concrete reality by materialism, especially in combination with the Darwinism that became increasingly popular with the nihilists."

"We are witnesses of the greatest moment of summing-up in history, in the name of a new and unknown culture, which will be created by us, and which will also sweep us away," Sergey Diaghilev gushed in 1905.

This nihilist brand of Futurism, combining cultural revolution with technological revolution, was to prove highly attractive to the later Bolsheviks, even though the Russian avant-garde which occurred under Lennin would be quite different from the Socialist Realism which took place later under Stalin.

Anatoli Lunacharsky, Lennin's Commissar for Education and Enlightenment, wrote in 1917, "If the revolution can give art its soul, then art can endow the revolution with speech."

"There was a need to explain, encourage, teach and enthuse the masses," Victor Awars explains in The Great Russian Utopia. "Agit-Prop was to be the means."

In the catalogue for the Tenth State Exhibition organized by Lunacharsky in 1919, El Lissitzky wrote:

Technology…was diverted by the war from the path of construction and forced on to the paths of death and destruction. Into this chaos came Suprematism… We, on the last stage of the path to Suprematism blasted aside the old work of art… The empty phrase 'art for art's sake' had already been wiped out and in Suprematism we have wiped out the phrase 'painting for painting's sake.'

In May 1924 Vladimir Tatlin in his lecture "Material Culture and Its Role in the Production of Life in the USSR" offered a synoptic statement of what was still the task at hand:

…to shed light on the tasks of production in our country, and also to discover the place of the artist-constructor in production, in relation to improving the quality both of the manufactured product and of the organization of the new way of life in general."

The same sentiment is heard again a year later when Vladimir Maiakovskii declared that: "To build a new culture a clean sweep is needed. The sweep of the October revolution is needed."

What is happening is "the conversion of revolutionary effort into technological effort," is how Asja Lacis summed it up in 1927.

In this poster, one can see how the worker's revolution was melded with the technological revolution, all under the banner of the Russian Revolution.

Nikolai Dolgorukov
Transport Worker! Armed with a Knowledge of Technology.

[Nov 02, 2015] The End of the President Erdogans AKP Era in Turkey – Part I

Notable quotes:
"... By T. Sabri Öncü ( [email protected] ), an economist based in Istanbul, Turkey. ..."
"... Sounds like "Neo-Ottomanism" is of the same genera as "Neo-Liberalism." ..."
November 1, 2015 | naked capitalism
Lambert here: AKP stands for Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi in Turkish, which translates to Justice and Freedom Party. I admit that I don't know much about Turkey's domestic politics - which is why we're very glad to have this very timely post - but Erdogan's newly built palace (images here) seems like a fine operational definition of "wretched excess"; Erdogan's making that Ukrainian dude with the private zoo in his palace, Viktor Yanukovych, look like a mendicant monk.

By T. Sabri Öncü ([email protected]), an economist based in Istanbul, Turkey.

The worst terrorist attack in the history of the Republic of Turkey took place on October 10, 2015 in Ankara. The Ankara massacre. Two suicide bombers killed 102 of the participants in a Peace and Democracy rally and hundreds were wounded.

Why did this happen?

To give some answers, let us go back to 2002.

Turkey's ruling Sunni Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), took power in 2002. From 2002 until 2015, it had won four general elections in a row and secured enough seats in the national assembly to form a single party government in the first three.

Although the AKP won about 50% of the votes in the third of these elections that happened in 2011, it has been in decline since then. And, in the last general election that took place on June 7, 2015, it failed to secure enough seats to form the government on its own. However, the AKP is still the ruling party, at least practically, because it is the only party in the caretaker government until the coming "repeat" election on November 1. The other parties either refused to join the interim government or left it after a while.

A milestone between the 2011 and 2015 general elections was the presidential election of August 10, 2014. Despite the ongoing decline of the AKP, its leader and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan won 51.8% of the vote in the first round to become the first elected Turkish President. Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu, the joint candidate for the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and Nationalist Action Party (MHP) received 38.4% whereas Selahattin Demirtaş, the candidate of the mainly Kurdish nationalist People's Democracy Party (HDP), received 9.8%.

However, this election was of very low turnout by Turkish standards, essentially because İhsanoğlu is a known Islamist also. When a devotedly secularist section of the CHP voters resented İhsanoğlu and boycotted the election, the participation turned out to be a measly 74%. This was the lowest turnout since the coup d'état of 1980; even lower than the 79% turnout of the 2002 election that took place after a major economic collapse in 2001.

But the main event of this presidential election was the 9.8% vote the HDP candidate Demirtaş received. The 10% national threshold imposed by the 1980 military junta has been in place since the 1983 general election and no Kurdish party had ever been able to cross that threshold until June 7, 2015.

Indeed, in the 2002 election, that is, when the AKP took power, only three parties (AKP, CHP and MHP) managed to cross the threshold. With the 2007 election, a fourth party started to appear in the national assembly because the Kurdish parties and their leftist allies managed to bypass the threshold through candidates entering the elections as independents and then reassembling a party in the national assembly. However, despite that they usually secured between 5% and 7%, this trick always led to their underrepresentation in the assembly, because a big chunk of the votes on the independents were wasted.

When Demirtaş received 9.8%, indicating a high probability of crossing the 10% threshold, the HDP entered the 2015 general election as a party rather than as a collection of independent candidates. The significance of this was that had they crossed the threshold, they would have had a much larger representation in the national assembly.

And they crossed the threshold in the June 7 general election, receiving an unexpected 13%. When the HDP got 80 representatives and pushed the AKP below 276 by 18 in a 550 member national assembly, the AKP rule was over, at least legally.

This was a defining moment in the history of the Republic of Turkey.

Coming out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, the Republic of Turkey inherited the Empire's diverse identities and added a new one.

A major identity divide in the Empire had been along the religious lines: Muslim versus non-Muslim. However, there has been a conscious cleansing of the country from non-Muslims since the early 20th century and, as a result, this divide is currently about 99% to 1%, although it was more like 70% to 30% in the beginning.

The new identity the Republic added was that of the secular. So the new and more important religious divide in the country is the pious versus secular divide created by the founders of the Republic (although the origins of this goes way back). Of course, the founders were secularists, and their interest was to engineer a secular, capitalist nation-state along the lines of most advanced capitalist states of the West. Named after their charismatic leader, and the first president of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal, their ideology is called Kemalism.

Interestingly, they defined the nation of this nation-state – that is, the Turkish nation – based on religious identities. Who we call Turkish today – if by that we mean the citizens of the Republic of Turkey – are essentially the grandchildren of the (mostly Sunni) Muslim subjects of the Ottoman Empire, many of whom sought refuge in current-day Turkey from other parts of the Empire to avoid religious persecution. They can be from any of the many ethnicities in the former Empire as long as their grandparents were or became (preferably Sunni) Muslims.

But, the mostly Sunni Kurds (themselves a collection of many ethnicities) have never bought this definition. And, despite that Sunni Islam has been the "unofficial" religion of this "secular" Republic from the beginning, the Alevites – some of whom are Kurdish – remained, although their number decreased some as percentage.

To sum up, the most notable current identity divides include – but are not limited to – Turkish versus Kurdish, Sunni versus Alevite and pious versus secular.

Lastly, there is the military, out of which most founders of the Republic including Mustafa Kemal came. Until recently, the military had been viewed by many as guardian of the secular Republic. It took power three times: in 1960, 1971 and 1980, although there had been a number of other coup attempts also. Seen as an arch-rival, the military had been "attacked" by the AKP government as of 2010 in the courts captured by the Islamists. Many of its high ranking officers got jailed for a variety of (as recently confessed by President Erdogan, mostly made-up) reasons and the institution has been weakened. Despite this, however, whether the military is now fully under the AKP control is debatable for a variety of reasons including that there still are many Kemalists in its ranks.

Although the conflict between Turks and Kurds goes way before the start of the Republic, the most recent armed conflict started in 1984. Since then, the Turkish military and Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) have been fighting on and off (most intensely in the early 1990s) and the total death toll is at the order of tens of thousands. In a nutshell, this is the so-called "Kurdish question" in Turkey

The PKK (founded in 1978) is an armed organization considered by many including the Turkish Government to be a terrorist organization. The HDP (founded in 2013), on the other hand, defines itself as a leftist and anti-nationalist party. Further, there are many non-Kurds in the party. However, many consider the HDP as the political wing of the PKK and whether this perception is reality or not is hotly debated in the country.

Enter President Erdoğan and Prime Minister Davutoğlu.

A darling of the West until about three years ago, Erdoğan and the AKP have evidently been running a programme whose objectives were not so obvious to some. That this had been the case can easily be deduced from the recent confessions of many nationally prominent figures – mostly liberal intellectuals – who had been ardent supporters of Erdoğan and the AKP until recently. Over the last year, it has seemed as though not a single day passed without one such figure coming out and claiming that he or she had been cheated by Erdoğan and/or the AKP.

The existence of the programme became obvious to all shortly after Erdoğan won the presidential election. This was because Erdoğan's handpicked heir – former Foreign and current Prime Minister – Ahmet Davutoğlu publicly named it on August 21, 2014: the "restoration programme." According to Davutoğlu and his aides, the term does not refer to restoring the Ottoman Empire but to repairing the republic, democracy, foreign policy and a model of the economy that had been "injured" for the past 92 years.

But, what did happen 92 years ago?

Well, the Ottoman Empire ended and the Republic of Turkey was founded.

Indeed, in 2001, a year before the AKP took power, the then academic Davutoğlu published a book, "Strategic Depth," that set out the basics of this programme, so why these liberal intellectuals feel cheated is difficult to understand.

According to the Davutoğlu doctrine, Turkey is one of those countries which are "central powers." Because of its Ottoman legacy, Turkey is a Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Balkan, Caucasian, Caspian, Central Asian, Gulf and Black Sea country. It can exercise influence in all these regions and thus become a global strategic player. Or so said Davutoğlu in his "Strategic Depth." And his now badly failed "zero problem policy with neighbours" was about Turkey's capitalising on its soft power potential culminating from its historic and cultural links with all these regions, as well as its "democratic institutions" and "thriving market economy"

Given these and that Davutoğlu appeared to be objecting to the Huntingtonian theory of clash of civilisations, his doctrine had often been labelled as neo-Ottomanism. But this label was incorrect because Ottomanism was a nineteenth-century liberal political movement whose objective was to form a civic Ottoman national identity overarching ethnic, linguistic and religious identities. Any careful reading of Davutoğlu's book could have revealed that his doctrine had nothing to do with any form of Ottomanism. Furthermore, his objection to Huntington's theory was not to that there was a clash of civilisations. He agreed with Huntington there. Where he differed was that Islam was the better civilisation. Put differently, his doctrine was not neo-Ottomanism but pan-Islamism.

It now appears clear even to many of his unquestioning former supporters as well as Western powers such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) that not only Davutoğlu but also Erdoğan agreed with Huntington's clash of civilizations thesis. Except that Erdoğan also believed in superiority of the Islamic civilization. It now appears clear to them also that becoming the leader of the Muslim world and (there are even rumours that) caliph of the Sunni Muslims were two of Erdoğan's three major fantasies.

Of course, these two fantasies have always been beyond Erdoğan's reach, if only for the simple reason that they are based on a third fantasy that Davutoğlu invented: the unifying character of the Ottoman Empire. Ask any Arab or Balkan nation who had lived under the Ottoman rule to see how they feel about the Empire. And there are strong rivals such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran and even ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS), and Syria, Iraq and Libya are in shambles, so forth. No doubt, Davutoğlu's "zero problem policy with neighbours" eventually deformed into his current foreign policy of "honourable loneliness."

Erdoğan's third major fantasy was becoming the sultan of Turkey. This was a potentially realizable fantasy because, after his presidency, all he needed was to get the constitution changed to introduce a presidential system which would decorate him with executive powers. Had this happened, he could have become the effective sultan to continue the restoration process through which Turkey would become some sort of repressive Islamic state (which would be even more repressive than Turkey is currently).

For this, the AKP had to win at least 330 deputies in the national assembly.

And Erdoğan had a fear. Had the AKP failed to form a single party government, several legal cases could have been filed against him at the Supreme Council of Judges for a host of reasons with severe criminal consequences.

To avoid this, the AKP had to win at least 276 deputies in the national assembly.

Now, I can offer some answers to the first question I asked, that is, why the Ankara massacre happened. And I will do that in the next part, after the November 1 election.


JTMcPhee, November 1, 2015 at 7:41 am

Sounds like "Neo-Ottomanism" is of the same genera as "Neo-Liberalism."

And given how individual motivations that, for people who actually have the skills and talents and incentives to be actual Power Players in the world, all resolve to "way more for me, and as near as possible nothing for the rest of you," no surprise that the "neo" kleptocratic agenda is everywhere in the ascendant.

Erdoğan's palace, Obama's Presidential Library and Theme Park, the well documented excesses and thieveries and frauds of the ruling class pretty much everywhere - all of a piece. And where's the organizing principle and flag, for the 99% to form up and organize around? Our Betters are all reading out of the same implacable insatiable playbook– where's the book for people who just seek decency, comity, and a "modest competence" for themselves and their children, who diligently and intelligently in the Hope of Change, minimize their "footprints" (so there's more slack for the Few to consume and use up)?


PlutoniumKun, November 1, 2015 at 12:23 pm

There has been a huge boom in Turkey under Erdogan, although its a moot point as to how much he can take credit for it – certainly Turkey was a major beneficiary of QE, etc. My understanding is that he and his party was a major facilitator for the construction industry, including most notoriously of all, pretty much handing over one of the last public parks in Istanbul to a shopping mall developer.


PlutoniumKun, November 1, 2015 at 1:15 pm

Possibly. But Erdogans political base is rural and small town regular folks – the type of people who keep their cards close to their chests. Its entirely possible that this was a classic case of voters being unwilling to admit to pollsters who they will vote for. And also a case that people may reluctantly feel they should vote for a corrupt strongman over the alternative of possible chaos. Reminds me a bit of the UK election where pollsters and commentators got it very badly wrong.

Its interesting though that nobody seems to be alleging fraud (so far) – seems that Turkey has a pretty robust voting system.


susan the other, November 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm

It is clear that politix in Turkey is chaos. God only knows what the freedom and justice freaks are looking to gain. Erdogan is on the outs with everyone; NATO, Russia, the Saudis, the USA and etc. That can only mean one thing: there is no consensus and therefore there is no government. And Erdogan is just vamping around on the stage until he wears out his fishnets and high heels.

Sabri Oncu -> Synoia, November 2, 2015 at 5:55 am

Turkey and Saudi Arabia are not rivals for the new Caliphate. They are rivals for regional hegemony. So, I was combining two things together. Given that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran are rivals of Turkey, Turkey cannot be the leader of the Muslim world. At least these three will not accept Turkey's leadership. As for the Caliphate ISIL is the competitor. But, more importantly, Arabs will not accept a Turkish as their caliph. That was what I had in mind. But, the article is already quite long even as it is so I was economizing, I guess.

Synoia, November 1, 2015 at 4:23 pm

It is not clear that Erdogan and the Saudi's are rivals for the new Caliphate.

The Saudi's will aim for the religious capital (Mecca) and the Turks the Legislative Capital as under the Ottomans, and the Rules will exchange family member in marriage as is common among royalty.

Ergogan's planace looks like it if fit for a Caliph.

Turkish Observer,

When I read articles online about this recent election people keep referring to Erdogan as having "savvy" or making some sort of "gambit".

Perhaps you could say this, if it was in any way a fair competition. But nothing about this election was fair.

Only days before the election, the government appointed trustees to 22 different companies that were part of a holding company that wasn't so keen on the government. This included two television stations and two newspapers. Immediately after seizing control of them, in clear violation of the constitution of Turkey which prohibits the seizing of media regardless of whether or not it helped enable a crime, they fired all employees who had refused loyalty to the new trustees. The next editions of these newspapers did a 180 coming out in full support of AKP and the ruling party.

The amount of media time spent on covering AKP rallies/political events was far greater in all state media than that given to the other three main parties. I believe in previous elections, and most probably this one as well, the ratio is something like 90% of all campaign airtime was given to their party.

In addition, President Erdogan repeatedly abused his power as president. This position is one that is supposed to be unpartisan and ceremonial, but instead he has turned every public appearance into an occasion to gain support for the AKP.

The ruling government has continued to systematically dismantle bastions of opposition: whether they be found in industrial, financial or media sectors. They have attacked academics, fomented assaults of media channels and stations by armed groups, and refused to provide adequate protection for opposition rallies and events.

They continue to spread lies, disinformation and enflame racial hatred on pro-government media outlets. Several weeks ago, the result of this were three or four nights of militant-nationalist rallies across different areas of Turkey including Istanbul. One of the chilling calls heard by myself and others was "we don't want war, we want genocide" while they occasionally destroyed a kurdish-looking business or stabbed/beat a kurdish-looking person to death. These were government sanctioned outbursts. If the opposition tried to rally for peace, within 30min plain clothes police officers and riot police would stop them. But rallies for genocide? Completely acceptable in Erdogan's Turkey – you could even see some of the security forces smiling.

What comes next will be more of the same, but I can only imagine what will happen when the economy here starts to crumble…

I expect all or some of the following to happen in the next year politically:

  • - further attacks on the HDP, perhaps pushing them below 10% and using this as an opportunity to get to the 330 seat level needed to change the constitution
  • - the withering away of the militant nationalist MHP, as supporters and politicians within this party have fewer differences with the policies and positions of the AKP. Perhaps a split, with half of the members crossing the aisle to the AKP.
  • - attacks on media interests/financial interests of the CHP, so that any presidential system becomes a two party one, where one party always wins (guess which). (you can expect some problems to arise with IS Bank, if they want this outcome)

Financially:

  • - continued fall in visitor/tourist numbers
  • - further contraction of industrial production as the sanctity or property rights a revealed to be a farce
  • - a complete collapse of the construction sector, if and only if the FED starts to hike rates
  • - lira reaching 4 to the dollar by May

Socially:

  • - exodus of anyone who can get out of Turkey, a significant brain drain
  • - greater conservatism within society, the imposition of more moral/social controls
  • - a dramatic increase in the breadth and width of the conflict between the Turkish military and PKK. (if and only if the HDP is dismantled as a political outlet)

[Nov 02, 2015] Turkey election Erdo an's AKP wins outright majority – as it happened Discussion

Yes another case of a global trend of resurgence of nationalism in action... Turkey now pretend for the role of of the leader of Islamic world and that paradoxically it is nationalism that stimulates shift toward more militant Islamism.
Notable quotes:
"... The only ones who had anything to gain from the bombings were AKP. That's undeniable. But, its not proof, sadly. ..."
"... The 'play caliphate jibe' was a reference to his support for ISIS and to the growing importance of religious custom in Turkey and its influence everywhere, including on law. ..."
"... BREAKING NEWS: Tonight scenes of joy in Raqqa, Mosul and Palmira...Daesh men are in a good mood...anyone knows the reason? ..."
"... Superstition prevails in some islamic and Christian states nowadays. ..."
"... That would explain why so many AK trolls have mobilised under the comments section of every major news agency. But doesn't quite explain where the AKP got its extra 1 million votes in Istanbul where the CHP took over 280k of the 268k votes lost by the HDP and MHP. ..."
"... Turkey has strong hand, many, many refugees eager to get to Europe. At the same time, it is a country which is not without its own internal problems, not least the old contradiction between Islam and modernization. One thing remains certain, Turkey is the key state in the Near East and will be courted more than ever by the USA and EU. ..."
"... The problem isn't those celebrating, it's the way the AKP party has sold itself as the party that God wants people to vote for. ..."
"... Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sends Erdogan his congratulations from Raqqa ..."
"... Interesting how a country that couldn't count how many were killed in the Ankara suicide attack for 3 days counted 54million votes in 3 hours. ..."
"... http://www.prisonplanet.com/breaking-germanys-dw-reports-isis-supply-lines-originate-in-natos-turkey.html ..."
"... I live in Turkey and I can tell you that here is a culture of submission and complacency about any kind of real change-they will vote out of fear, vote out of intentional ignorance of the reality of things. At least half the nation are happy to live in a cloud of lies and delusion, sadly ..."
"... However it seems like this taking a lot of money from Saudi and somehow Turkish nationalist does not see it as a problems . ..."
"... This is like when Netanyahu's party won the Israeli election that followed after they incited Rabin's murder. Warmonger violence is rewarded by the voters. Unless Erdogan shows unexpected moderation, this is a grave development. ..."
"... I don't think you understand the point I am making, I never said his goal is peace with the Kurds. His goal was to win back the votes he lost in June and he did that. He got the nationalist vote back by bombing the crap out of the PKK and threatening the PYD in Syria. ..."
"... Where in all this do you get the idea that I am an AKP supporter. I am criticizing the man saying he capitalized on the deaths of soldiers to win back the important nationalist vote. Him winning in this fashion is a terrible thing, he will change the constitution and plant himself on his throne. Erdogan now has more power over Turkey than Ataturk ever did. HE is basically Putin with a moustache. ..."
"... Erdogan sweeps to power on the back of security and safety fears. His claim of intervention against Daesh (a shame) and the PKK (real); coupled with his silencing of the media critics (real); made a tremendous difference. Expect Daesh to have the welcome mat out for the black market deals - trucks and weapons and supplies for oil and concentration on the PKK and YPK. ..."
"... Turkey, whether they know it or not, voted for a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship and ethnic war. The crumbling economic performance and the religious agenda parallel the path of Morsi in Egypt ... but here Erdogan has already neutered any threat from the military with all the treason trials. ..."
"... The war against the PKK was obviously a calculated risk. Voters usually rally behind the status quo in troubled times. The terror attacks reinforced this message. ..."
"... Yes, yet another disaster. The recent farcical goings on in Portugal, the swing to the right in Poland and Denmark and a seemingly ever increasing necessity to deal with despots and dictators. ..."
"... That is cos Erdogan controls the pools in Turkey just as the Tories controlled the polls in Britain. To get the right-wing vote out they have the polls announcing that the election is in doubt. Modern Capitalism doesn't just own the media. It owns the polls too. ..."
"... Because left is so attracted to internationalist and multi cultural garbage that lost its appeal to average people . Left used to stand for workers and better working conditions ,but now stands for pure weirdness! ..."
"... If there has been no ballot rigging, then the Turks are no different from the Americans who voted for Bush the second time or the British who voted Cameron a second time. People will vote for oligarchs and authoritarians when they are fearful or full of hate. ..."
"... I am not so sure about turkey. A country that embrace Kemal attaturk and consider him as national hero but goes against his Reforms. Attaturk changed the Arabic alphabet to Latin and closed many masques to undermine Arabic influence there but turkey now is infested with Isis and Arabic culture. I simply do not get it. ..."
"... This result is a disaster for the EU. Erdogan has Merkel and her acolytes across Europe over a barrel, and will drive a hard bargain for agreeing to help stem the migrant/refugee flood. ..."
"... America has gone along with the strategy of forming ISIS to overthrow Assad, from the very beginning. The goal was to have these mostly criminals do the dying and when they achieve overthrowing Assad, send an army to clean them out and become heroes. But reality has a way of working itself out, then ISIS got out of hand. ..."
"... Indeed. As an ardent, self-enriching neoliberal, Erdogan's hardly a threat to the West. And it probably suits the West's strategic interests better for Turkey to remain a mild Islamist democracy than for it to return to Kemalism. ..."
"... Needless to say the socialist regime of the 50s in Iran taken out by Britain and the US of the time for oil reasons was a much better vehicle for metropolitan aspirations than the shah's conservative and authoritarian regime, because the whole country, including the rural poor outside Tehran had much more of a stake in in it. A tragedy indeed. ..."
"... The west, come on, who are you exactly talking about? The west supports Saudi tyranny and their jihadi underlings, Erdogan is doing the west's bidding in Syria, and played along in Libya. ..."
"... EU supported jihadis to destroy Libya and Syria, I hope you can handle a few chanting God is great. ..."
"... Erdogan: BFF of ISIS, Nemesis of Kurds. Yep, America's ally. Feckin' perfect. Business as usual. ..."
"... Geopolitically, Turkey is an ally and partner in NATO. Turkey is a training ground and safe zone for moderate jihadis. Turkey hates Syria and agrees with Obama that Assad must go . The Guardian agrees with all these positions. Ergo the victory is legitimate . Just ask Portugal ..."
"... There will soon be comments describing AK party supporters as poor, uneducated, religious nutters from enlightened Europeans. With everything going in Turkey, Erdogan is popular because out of all the candidates he is the one the Turks think will offer economic prosperity. I think that is what matters the most to majority of voters I guess. ..."
"... Nationalism is reaction itself. It doesn't need PKK or whatever. Was Lukashenko observing these elections? Balls to them ..."
"... Erdogan was a polarising figure in Turkish politics he won't lose heavily (in fact he actually won more votes through his cynical act of social imperialism) because the political opposition to him is too incompetent and cliquey (ie non are interested in broadening their political support beyond their base, MHP for instance call Alevites heretics and want a death list of all Kurdish activists, CHP are uninterested in courting religious Turks or Kurds, HDP is still a nationalist party despite its liberal pretentions) to beat Erdogan and it seems my predictions have come true. ..."
www.theguardian.com

Candide60 -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 16:29

The institutionalized religion AKP built is a dangerous tool in the hands of those who have absolute power, or any power, and no real pragmatism, nor any desire to govern all citizens fairly and equally. If you research human rights records of Turkey, you will find out how much abuse is perpetrated in the name of religion, in the name of sect, in the name of gender, in the name of party affiliation.

Having superficial knowledge of these matters and claiming to speak for all Turks, what is best for Turks is wrong. Voting for a party formed by thieves, that is perpetrating abuses, corruption, killing its own citizens, and claiming there isn't any alternative is a lame excuse. When there is no alternative, one creates its choices.

Hesham Abdelhafez -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 16:28

Just like that! where are the democracy of the "civilised" west gone? so all these talks about democracy and human rights that the western media gave us headache are all crap!

AdemMeral -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 16:25

Erdogan is not Islamist. Erbakan was. Nobody can touch republic in Turkey. Even a hint of it and Erdogan is history.

In fact Gulen was the most dangerous one and he had good people in the army. But he is history now.

missythecat -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 16:13

I agree with you that the the opposition in Turkey isn't doing a great job. But this doesn't justify why one should vote for erdogan. This is really interesting, I always wanted to understand why people vote for him. Are you really not aware that he and his party members are actually breaking the law and acting against the constitution by spending public funds for their personal or the AKP's gain?

Are you really not aware that while people of Turkey suffer from unemployment, poor education and poverty, he can somehow spend our money on a palace, luxury cars, etc. and his wife can close a luxury boutique in Brussels to shop privately?

Are you really not aware that his relatives somehow always manage to land on the government's juicy construction projects? Are you really not aware that everyone who is against him is silenced by force (e.g. journalists)? Are we really talking about the same country and the same person?

Necati Geniş -> laticsfanfromeurope 1 Nov 2015 16:12

"Reports"..? By whom ? You must have followed the news about the co-operation of US an Turkish Air Forces.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/world/middleeast/isis-is-target-of-turkish-bombing-raids.html?_r=0

JimMcBride 1 Nov 2015 16:10

they learned elections from the U.S.A. and U.K. The winners are decided before the elections. What Turkey did not learn was to have the patience to make the elections to be a product of the will of the people which would then mean there would be less trouble with the electorate and very little need to control them with harsh measures since they would have more confidence that their votes actually counted and they could make a difference at the next election..

when you remove all hope of voting in a change you create more trouble for yourself.

littlewoodenblock -> Necati Geniş 1 Nov 2015 15:45

So prove him wrong, my friend. I would love to see some definitive evidence. But it is not there. What we have everytime is some AKP jerk atanding up and saying its PKK before the police have even opened the case to investigate! Davutoglu even came up with the stupid suggestion that PKK and ISIS were partners in the Ankara bombing!

The only ones who had anything to gain from the bombings were AKP. That's undeniable. But, its not proof, sadly.

littlewoodenblock -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 15:40

The 'play caliphate jibe' was a reference to his support for ISIS and to the growing importance of religious custom in Turkey and its influence everywhere, including on law.

Whether sharia law is where Turkey arrives is unlikely, i agree, but the country will certainly not become more liberal ...

laticsfanfromeurope 1 Nov 2015 15:39

BREAKING NEWS: Tonight scenes of joy in Raqqa, Mosul and Palmira...Daesh men are in a good mood...anyone knows the reason?

RossNewman -> Gazzy312 1 Nov 2015 15:37

Mein Kampf was also quite popular there not so long ago, where it was a best seller.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/29/turkey.books

As result I don't find this news surprising.

Candide60 1 Nov 2015 15:36

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin

Erdogan is a dictator using religion to brainwash masses, a corrupt evil man surrounded by weak, corrupt, ignorant yes men and women.


missythecat -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 15:16

Democracy? Republic? They've already been crushed by Erdogan. He is a lonely lunatic leaving in his something thousand room palace. Please don't troll here. On another note, yes, the only few remaining newspapers which haven't been raided by erdogan yet, do talk about the YSK's dodgy play with the numbers (Cumhuriyet and Sozcu) go and do some reading.

Hesham Abdelhafez 1 Nov 2015 15:10

shut up hypocrite western! you don't open your fucking mouse after what you did to Egypt and supporting a bloody military coup and inviting the criminal in Europe!


andresh -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 15:07

Superstition prevails in some islamic and Christian states nowadays.

Mmmoke 1 Nov 2015 14:58

Taking in more than 4 million refugees and still getting the same party voted in with a majority, is a testament to the greatness of the Turkish people. Bless them. And Europe, USA who caused the crisis, complain about a few thousand refugees. Shame.

Gazzy312 1 Nov 2015 14:39

Really disgusted with some of the Guardians coverage always trying to imply that Erdogan will try to rig. He is popular in Turkey you need to accept that, this is the reason the Millitary which hate him dare not launch a coup against him.

littlewoodenblock -> Ilker Camci 1 Nov 2015 14:39

Interestingly AKP overtook MHP in the fascist-look-a-like competition. So much so that 4% of its vote increase this election came directly from MHP!

Ozgen Killi -> Necati Geniş 1 Nov 2015 14:26

That would explain why so many AK trolls have mobilised under the comments section of every major news agency. But doesn't quite explain where the AKP got its extra 1 million votes in Istanbul where the CHP took over 280k of the 268k votes lost by the HDP and MHP.

BlueJayWay -> Ilker Camci 1 Nov 2015 14:23

Yeah, the reality of keeping that Islamist clown Erdogan and his fascist goons in power. This election reeks of fraud. How can the votes have been counted that quickly?

andresh 1 Nov 2015 14:21

Erdogan has allowed new recruits to reach IS through the "porous border". He sent supplies for IS. He ordered the security forces to look the other way when young Turkish students from Adiyaman organized the terrorists mass murdres in Sucuk, Ankara and Diyarbakir. At the same time he ordered killing the Kurds in Diyarbakir and tried to precent the YPG from liberating the Kurdish Syria from IS. Erdogan is a criminal.

ID9179442 RJSWinchester 1 Nov 2015 14:19

Turkey has strong hand, many, many refugees eager to get to Europe. At the same time, it is a country which is not without its own internal problems, not least the old contradiction between Islam and modernization. One thing remains certain, Turkey is the key state in the Near East and will be courted more than ever by the USA and EU.

littlewoodenblock Peter Conti 1 Nov 2015 14:18

Dont joke, at the beginning of a football match a minutes silence was held for the victims of the ankara bombings and AKP supporters started chanting "Allah Akbar!"
Sick Fucks

SHA2014 -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 14:06

Just two lines of proof:
1. Turkey has renewed the fight against PKK one of the most effective anti-IS firces in Northern Syria.
2. Instead of assisting civilians in Kobani when it was under siege by IS, Turkey closed the borders to any refugees.
3. Where do you think all these foreigners who go to fight for IS from Europe pass through? It is Turkey of course. There is no apparent attempt to stop this traffic.
There is other evidence also.

YouHaveComment -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 14:05

The problem isn't those celebrating, it's the way the AKP party has sold itself as the party that God wants people to vote for.

That's bad news for democracy. It's also bad news for the secular space and religious freedom that allows people of any faith or none to be members of the same community.

GoloManner Trabzonlu 1 Nov 2015 14:04

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sends Erdogan his congratulations from Raqqa

Abu Al-Izz Hanoun -> killerontheroad 1 Nov 2015 13:56

By the way ISIS consider Erdogan and his party Kafirs and vow to fight them. ..just in case you were wondering.

1ClearSense 1 Nov 2015 13:56

Will US now support both Erdoganite Turks and YPG/PKK Kurds while they fight each other?

andresh -> decisivemoment 1 Nov 2015 13:55

Allah Akbar! Stop fascism! It was the turkish security forces that allowed young supporters of IS from adiyaman to stage the murderes if Sucuk, Ankara and Diyarbakir. Erdogan is a cynical murderer, inciting violence to remain i power.

thatshowitgoes -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 13:54

Put it this way. The bank robbers leave from your house, go to rob the bank with guns you have given them, then come back to your house with the loot - you support the bank robbers. Or perhaps you think Turkey has no control of its borders, in which case I invite you to swan in without a visa next time you go on holiday and see how far you get.

Trabzonlu 1 Nov 2015 13:53

As predicted, HDP and PKK have shot themselves in the foot by backing violence instead of peace and their actions have led to this AKP majority, no one should be surprised by the result. As you can see, free and fair elections seem reason enough for violence in the Kurdish areas as per usual, quite how these people dream of governing a Kurdistan is beyond me. Hopefully this government will finally grow some balls and eliminate these PKK terrorists once and for all - the people have voted, time to shut this threat down unilaterally and with determination.

Super Tramp 1 Nov 2015 13:53

The good have lost by the hands of fraud. Foxy smile of the triumph of ignorance, brutality and lies.. Such a dystopia it is; watching my beautiful country helpless while it's evolving to the 3rd world for the last decade. now this is the end of the way of secularism. me and my bereaved youthfulness lets have another bottle of wine isnt it a perfect day for the losers?


RJSWinchester 1 Nov 2015 13:52

"Democracy" wrapped in Erdogan's iron fist.

Ozgen Killi 1 Nov 2015 13:52

Interesting how a country that couldn't count how many were killed in the Ankara suicide attack for 3 days counted 54million votes in 3 hours.

decisivemoment 1 Nov 2015 13:51

It's not necessarily that bad a result. Under the circumstances it's hardly surprising the party promising law and order would gain seats, but they have not gained enough to amend the constitution and the HDP has made it past Turkey's ridiculously high threshold and secured their place in parliament.

Growing pains, certainly, but not primitivism. With this somewhat conditional seal of approval -- authority to govern without having to form a coalition with crazies, but not so much authority as to silence mainstream opposition and use the constitution to promote authoritarianism -- we'll have to see what Erdogan does.

thatshowitgoes -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 13:48

http://www.prisonplanet.com/breaking-germanys-dw-reports-isis-supply-lines-originate-in-natos-turkey.html

istanbul10 -> siff 1 Nov 2015 13:23

I live in Turkey and I can tell you that here is a culture of submission and complacency about any kind of real change-they will vote out of fear, vote out of intentional ignorance of the reality of things. At least half the nation are happy to live in a cloud of lies and delusion, sadly

Afshin Peyman -> SHA2014 1 Nov 2015 13:22

Was it the sultanate was corrupt and backward ?

That is why young Turks and attaturk tried to change the system and replace it with modern and secular government?

However it seems like this taking a lot of money from Saudi and somehow Turkish nationalist does not see it as a problems .

ChristineH 1 Nov 2015 13:21

Does anyone know how such a huge and populous country as Turkey counts its votes so quickly? Only article I could find was about people counting votes by tractor headlights, having voted at the side of the road, which makes the speed even more surprising.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/villagers-vote-on-road-in-turkeys-northwestern-district.aspx?pageID=238&nid=90576&NewsCatID=341

newageblues 1 Nov 2015 13:17

This is like when Netanyahu's party won the Israeli election that followed after they incited Rabin's murder. Warmonger violence is rewarded by the voters. Unless Erdogan shows unexpected moderation, this is a grave development.

Mr_HanMan -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 13:13

I don't think you understand the point I am making, I never said his goal is peace with the Kurds. His goal was to win back the votes he lost in June and he did that. He got the nationalist vote back by bombing the crap out of the PKK and threatening the PYD in Syria. After the Suruc bombing the killing of the two police officers by the PKK wasn't the first time the PKK killed during the supposed ceasefire. They shot and killed soldiers in Diyarbakir last year and the government back then did nothing. The only reason they did something now was to get back the nationalist vote. So it's all one big dirty game and the PKK were in on it, or they are just too stupid to realise this as their actions harmed the HDP.

Where in all this do you get the idea that I am an AKP supporter. I am criticizing the man saying he capitalized on the deaths of soldiers to win back the important nationalist vote. Him winning in this fashion is a terrible thing, he will change the constitution and plant himself on his throne. Erdogan now has more power over Turkey than Ataturk ever did. HE is basically Putin with a moustache.

Edmund Allin -> RayMullan 1 Nov 2015 13:08

186,000 ballot boxes. About 750,000 independent (i.e. opposition) observers. 57m voters, of whom apparently 45mn turned up. 45mn/186,000 = 241 votes per ballot box. Easy enough.

owl905 1 Nov 2015 13:06

Erdogan sweeps to power on the back of security and safety fears. His claim of intervention against Daesh (a shame) and the PKK (real); coupled with his silencing of the media critics (real); made a tremendous difference. Expect Daesh to have the welcome mat out for the black market deals - trucks and weapons and supplies for oil and concentration on the PKK and YPK.

Turkey, whether they know it or not, voted for a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship and ethnic war. The crumbling economic performance and the religious agenda parallel the path of Morsi in Egypt ... but here Erdogan has already neutered any threat from the military with all the treason trials.

Putin and al-Baghdadi are probably thinking the Cheshire Cat got into their mirror this morning.

Stechginster -> Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 13:04

Merkel, the architect of one catastrophe, will shortly usher in another, as she promotes the entry of Turkey into the EU, in return for Erdogan's assistance.

I should turn this into a drinking game… no, she won't. She made some positive noise about supporting Turkey in the accession process, what was actually on the table were visa waivers for Turkish travellers visiting the EU and (likely, although unofficially) delaying the publication of a negative report on Turkish human rights violations.


SHA2014 -> Michael Yeovil 1 Nov 2015 13:02

The war against the PKK was obviously a calculated risk. Voters usually rally behind the status quo in troubled times. The terror attacks reinforced this message.

ErnaMsw 1 Nov 2015 12:57

At least Turkey won't become a presidential republic. With 96.48% of votes now counted, HDP stands at 10.47% and is guaranteed to pass the threshold.

ChemicalArif 1 Nov 2015 12:53

Quite hilarious reading the comments from most BTL posters... Simple fact is, the AKP has been a "popular" government in Turkey for the last decade and even won the majority of votes in the last election. Did urbane elite seriously think that they were going to be ousted from power by a fractured, dysfunctional opposition? Beggars belief.

Of course the urbane city dwelling elite can always take to the streets to protest the result, much like the Egyptians did. Democracy is only palatable when the city dweller's preferred candidate is elected to power...

Tim Gray 1 Nov 2015 12:52

A very disturbing result, it is difficult to believe the vote or that the ruling party hasn't had a hand in the unrest across the country since the voters rejected AKP in the last election. Turkey's government will now use this result as a green light to continue its war against the Kurds, attack trade unions, women and those opposed to this conservative, nationalist government.

Stechginster -> jharz15 1 Nov 2015 12:50

The Turkish people I personally know would share that opinion, but young Turkish expats and the young people in the big cities such as Istanbul and Ankara are far more liberal than the average Turkish voter in the east. I don't think it was necessarily rigged, in uncertain times, many people vote for stability (the devil you know..) over anything else.

irem demir 1 Nov 2015 12:44

Majority of Turks are not secular, modern or democratic. But there are still so many open minded people living in Turkey, unlike in other muslim countries. But sadly this didn't really help the future of the country.

Phil Porter Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 12:42

Yes, yet another disaster. The recent farcical goings on in Portugal, the swing to the right in Poland and Denmark and a seemingly ever increasing necessity to deal with despots and dictators.

TonyBlunt Phoenix9061210 1 Nov 2015 12:41

That is cos Erdogan controls the pools in Turkey just as the Tories controlled the polls in Britain. To get the right-wing vote out they have the polls announcing that the election is in doubt. Modern Capitalism doesn't just own the media. It owns the polls too.

Afshin Peyman gregmitchell87 1 Nov 2015 12:38

Because left is so attracted to internationalist and multi cultural garbage that lost its appeal to average people .
Left used to stand for workers and better working conditions ,but now stands for pure weirdness!

Michael Yeovil 1 Nov 2015 12:35

So six months the AKP Government obtained it's worst ever result to it's best . In that six months, the worst terror attack on the country happened, civil war was resumed with the PKK, inflation rose to it's worse rate since the AKP came to power, unemployment rose, - but then the AKP obtain the best ever result it is obtained !

Make of that what you will !!

GordonBrownStain 1 Nov 2015 12:35

The Poles voted for a shower of ignorant pricks and so did us Brits, that's democracy, the Muslims are no different from us after all

Simon100 1 Nov 2015 12:34

If there has been no ballot rigging, then the Turks are no different from the Americans who voted for Bush the second time or the British who voted Cameron a second time. People will vote for oligarchs and authoritarians when they are fearful or full of hate.

Trancedesk -> studious1 1 Nov 2015 12:34

And to think we were entertaining Turkey joining the EU not that long ago.

Erdogan is now in an even stronger position, and will demand entry in return for helping Merkel deal with the consequences of her idiocy.

Afshin Peyman 1 Nov 2015 12:33

I am not so sure about turkey. A country that embrace Kemal attaturk and consider him as national hero but goes against his Reforms. Attaturk changed the Arabic alphabet to Latin and closed many masques to undermine Arabic influence there but turkey now is infested with Isis and Arabic culture. I simply do not get it.

Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 12:32

This result is a disaster for the EU. Erdogan has Merkel and her acolytes across Europe over a barrel, and will drive a hard bargain for agreeing to help stem the migrant/refugee flood. Merkel, the architect of one catastrophe, will shortly usher in another, as she promotes the entry of Turkey into the EU, in return for Erdogan's assistance. Western Europe, the cradle of Western civilisation, is doomed and we should probably leave.

glad2baway 1 Nov 2015 12:30

Well, if that is democracy then we have to sometimes accept that this is bad news. I am surprised at the result. What does Turkey do now? Have a revolution just because lots of people don't like the result? As the saying goes, people get the governments they deserve. So something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

1ClearSense -> TeeJayzed Addy 1 Nov 2015 12:29

America has gone along with the strategy of forming ISIS to overthrow Assad, from the very beginning. The goal was to have these mostly criminals do the dying and when they achieve overthrowing Assad, send an army to clean them out and become heroes. But reality has a way of working itself out, then ISIS got out of hand.

djhurley -> SUNLITE 1 Nov 2015 12:27

Indeed. As an ardent, self-enriching neoliberal, Erdogan's hardly a threat to the West. And it probably suits the West's strategic interests better for Turkey to remain a mild Islamist democracy than for it to return to Kemalism.

Mr_HanMan -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 12:26

Lets go back, the bombing in Suruc happened, the HDP and PKK blamed the AKP and then went on a killing spree of Turkish police officers and soldiers. Then in cities in the south east HDP members declaring autonomy, trenches being dug in the middle of the streets using machinery owned by the local government authority (HDP).

No matter which way you look at it the PKK is the reason why the HDP lost a lot of votes. To add any operation done against the PYD in Syria is a boost for the AKP when it comes to the nationalist vote.

GreatUncleEuphoria -> GreatUncleEuphoria 1 Nov 2015 12:26

Needless to say the socialist regime of the 50s in Iran taken out by Britain and the US of the time for oil reasons was a much better vehicle for metropolitan aspirations than the shah's conservative and authoritarian regime, because the whole country, including the rural poor outside Tehran had much more of a stake in in it. A tragedy indeed.

1ClearSense -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 12:22

The west, come on, who are you exactly talking about? The west supports Saudi tyranny and their jihadi underlings, Erdogan is doing the west's bidding in Syria, and played along in Libya.

GreatUncleEuphoria -> Paul Easton 1 Nov 2015 12:22

Iran is, broadly. split between a metropolitan urban and ( urbane ) group, and a religious rural, provincial and suburban group, like Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere. The Islamic revolution traded the influence of the former for the latter, like the brief rule in Egypt of the MBrotherhood.

riceuten64 birdcv 1 Nov 2015 12:20

He's a gradualist. He will make it more and more difficult, say, to drink alcohol, as he has already done. He will put pressure on the few remaining independent news outlets. He will further censor the internet. He will change electoral systems to suit the AKP. He has already made his wish for an Executive Presidency clear.

1ClearSense -> LittleMsGggrrrrr 1 Nov 2015 12:19

EU supported jihadis to destroy Libya and Syria, I hope you can handle a few chanting God is great.

TeeJayzed -> Addy 1 Nov 2015 12:18

Erdogan: BFF of ISIS, Nemesis of Kurds. Yep, America's ally. Feckin' perfect. Business as usual.

DiplomaticImmunity 1 Nov 2015 12:17

Geopolitically, Turkey is an "ally and partner" in NATO. Turkey is a training ground and "safe zone" for "moderate" jihadis. Turkey hates Syria and agrees with Obama that "Assad must go". The Guardian agrees with all these positions. Ergo the victory is "legitimate". Just ask Portugal


littlewoodenblock -> atkurebeach 1 Nov 2015 12:12

Rubbish. AKP reignited the war with Kurds to polarise the nation and it is AKP that locked cities down for days on end, who is killing kurds with out any legal process whatsoever, it is allegedly AKP supporters that are threatening on television opposition journalists with violence. Then when that violence occurs im exactly the way threatened the supporter - a ministerial candidate - is not even questioned by police, by he took the stage with Davutoglu just 2 days ago.

AKP is allegedly courting mercenaries and thugs to achieve its aims ...

AKP is attacking kurds in northern syria and iraq because they are too strong and they are closing the gap across the Euphrates and further west - AKP have made it very clear they will not tolerate that. Why, i wonder. ISIS supply lines allegedly.

And you are still taliking about PKK.

Hilarious

littlewoodenblock -> Paul Easton 1 Nov 2015 12:06

Civil war, terrorism, providing water to Cyprus, making the parliamentary election about him, the President, silencing fully opposition media, blaming the wests fear of a strong turkey to explain economic woes ... When you have complete control you can achieve what you want easily.

The Turks are not fools, they are being lied to blatantly and they are scared

Lathan Ismail 1 Nov 2015 12:04

There will soon be comments describing AK party supporters as poor, uneducated, religious nutters from "enlightened" Europeans. With everything going in Turkey, Erdogan is popular because out of all the candidates he is the one the Turks think will offer economic prosperity. I think that is what matters the most to majority of voters I guess.

Down2dirt -> atkurebeach 1 Nov 2015 11:56

Nationalism is reaction itself. It doesn't need PKK or whatever. Was Lukashenko observing these elections? Balls to them

Newcurrency 1 Nov 2015 11:49

There is no ethnic pressure above Kurds for at least 10 years. You are the ones who turned our country into a bloodbath -- Killing innocent teachers, newly graduated doctors, officer's wifes who's only fault is sitting in their house, know your facts before you talk about peace.

Don't expect people to support a man who talks of peace while his brother is in mountains fighting with states army.

Newcurrency 1 Nov 2015 11:42

I cant believe why major media sites like guardian is backing up a separatist like Selahattin Demirtaş. Do you really think a man who threatens people with violent street acts if hdp cant pass the election threshold is a peace talker ? The Tsipras of Turkey ? Don't mock with peoples intellegence...

KK47 1 Nov 2015 11:42

Few days ago I was berated by some posters for pointing out that though Erdogan was a polarising figure in Turkish politics he won't lose heavily (in fact he actually won more votes through his cynical act of social imperialism) because the political opposition to him is too incompetent and cliquey (ie non are interested in broadening their political support beyond their base, MHP for instance call Alevites heretics and want a death list of all Kurdish activists, CHP are uninterested in courting religious Turks or Kurds, HDP is still a nationalist party despite its liberal pretentions) to beat Erdogan and it seems my predictions have come true.

Now here's my next prediction - watch for a more aggressive/militaristic approach towards Syria by the Turkish government.

[Nov 01, 2015] Erdogan's party enjoys decisive election victory in Turkey

Looks like neo-Islamism = neoliberalism and radical Islam is a part of neoliberal fifth column... a definition of neo-Islamism includes these key characteristics: non-traditional religiosity, gradualism, Islam modernization, nationalism and pragmatic relations with the West. They are trying to rally a larger constituency than hard-core devout Muslims, recasting religious norms as more vague conservative values (family, property, work ethic, honesty) adopting a neoliberal approach to the economy, and endorsing a constitution, and parliament and regular elections. (Roy 2011a 31. Roy, O., 2011a. The paradoxes of the re-Islamisation of Muslim societies, 10 years after september 11. Available from: http://essays.ssrc.org/10yearsafter911/the-paradoxes-of-the-re-islamization-of-muslim-societies/ [accessed 14 October 2014]. See also Neo-Islamism in the post-Arab Spring - Contemporary Politics - Volume 20, Issue 4 The Turkish ruling party AKP provided an interesting example of this trend which changed their priorities merging "shariatization" with the nationalism and expansion of nation state (Nationalist Islamism)
Notable quotes:
"... I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving as many of their voters to the AKP. ..."
"... He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections, you can see that it worked brilliantly. ..."
"... The great experiment in westernized Islam is dead. ..."
"... I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I will be standing against here. Very well said. ..."
"... byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive! ..."
"... Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for, supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see. ..."
"... Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this.. ..."
The Washington Post

Josh26

I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving as many of their voters to the AKP.

He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections, you can see that it worked brilliantly.

Thus, Erdogan moved Turkey even further from the Western/democratic world in order to realize his unrelenting ambition for more and more power.
The US needs now to rely much more on the Kurds to defend US interests in the area, but it will be a real surprise if the current WH will do it.

Oscargo, 9:38 PM EST [Edited]

Turkey has chosen a religious Islamist state and an intolerant regime that jails reporters and journalists, even foreign, and does not accept dissent, over the pluralism, inclusiveness and freedom of speech of the European democracies.

Bye Bye EU!

Steve Willer

Who says corruption, murder, nullifying elections that don't come out your way, jailing the media etc doesn't pay? It did for Erdogan. Turkey should be removed from NATO as long as Erdogan is Sultan.

realityboy

The great experiment in "westernized" Islam is dead.

byetki

I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I will be standing against here. Very well said.

ed_bx__

byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive!

MACLANE

Optimist on Democracy. Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for, supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see.

FalseProphet

So Turkey moves closer to being a autocratic theocracy. can't be good

ed_bx__, 4:14 PM EST

Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this..

ed_bx__, 4:06 PM EST

It's not too late to get behind Al Assad. He is a more natural ally to the west than Erdogan.

[Nov 01, 2015] Chevron Takes Drastic Measures, Lays Off Another 7000 Employees

"... And even though Chevron said in July that its cost-cutting initiatives would be "completed by mid-November of 2015" it decided to surprise everyone moments ago when on its earnings call it announced it would not only slash its capex by another 25%, but will shortly distribute another 7,000 pink slips. The reason: another terrible quarter in which the $2 billion in earnings were a 73% plunge from a year earlier. ..."
OilPrice.com

Back in January, in the aftermath of the first plunge in commodity prices, and oil in particular, oil major Chevron had the unsavory distinction of being the first US oil giant to admit cash flow "constraints" when it was forced to scrap its buyback. And since oil's dead cat bounce fizzled just around the summer before resuming is slide, it was inevitable that Chevron would proceed with trimming even more cash outflows.

It did so for the first time in July, when as we reported at the time, Chevron would layoff 1,500 jobs globally, saying that "the cost reductions due to cuts in the corporate center are expected to total $1 billion with additional cost savings expected across the company."

And even though Chevron said in July that its cost-cutting initiatives would be "completed by mid-November of 2015" it decided to surprise everyone moments ago when on its earnings call it announced it would not only slash its capex by another 25%, but will shortly distribute another 7,000 pink slips. The reason: another terrible quarter in which the $2 billion in earnings were a 73% plunge from a year earlier.

[Oct 31, 2015] Another Black Swan? Turkey Holds Snap Elections Amid NATO-Backed Civil War

Notable quotes:
"... Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
zerohedge.com
JustObserving

Supporting the Kurds will lead to more terrorism per Erdogan. But it is fine and dandy to support ISIS terrorists and to be at war with Syria. Turkey will soon be a failed state:

The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:

  • –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
  • –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary."
  • –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.
  • Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here. In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities.
  • –Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.
  • –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue.
  • –Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

more at:

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/25/turkeys-troubling-war-on-syria/

[Oct 31, 2015] Congresswoman Calls US Effort To Oust Assad Illegal, Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists

Neocon Wolf Blitzer against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
Notable quotes:
"... This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol Ive heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress. ..."
"... Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFKs assassination because he was a threat to national security, a new book has claimed. ..."
"... Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well ..."
"... Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5] ..."
"... She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens. ..."
"... fighting against Islamic extremists. ..."
"... What the CIA, et alia, ..."
"... Islamic extremist groups, ..."
"... terrorism, ..."
"... uccessfulness ..."
"... insanities. ..."
"... AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION ..."
"... http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ... ..."
"... "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism. ..."
"... Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal. ..."
"... That seed was already planted ..."
"... not a good interview for zio Wolfe ... ..."
Oct 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag.

That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.

Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative.

Well, it hasn't worked.

With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal." In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."

Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/IHkher6ceaA

For more on how Russia and Iran's efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see "ISIS In 'Retreat' As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As 'Weak With No Strategy'"

aint no fortunate son's

This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.

Paveway IV

"...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."

Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...

Sergeiab

Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago) "Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story". And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.

Is there a closing date for the primaries?

If not, she/he might well be the 45th president.

Sergeiab

Actually she's gonna be 35 in 2016...

And she did it again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSnXtapv9oQ

G.O.O.D

Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists.

She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.

Dick Buttkiss

"Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."

Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?

dot_bust

I agree. Good point.

I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

President Truman only intended the CIA to analyze data from the other U.S. intelligence agencies, not to engage in any field operations. Here's his original op-ed piece about that very subject: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger operations.

SWRichmond

Thanks for the link. Truman says:

I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271482/Did-CIA-Director-Allen-D...

Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat to national security', a new book has claimed.

Bay of Pigs

Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds".

Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYqrPRvhgo

km4

Lookout because Tulsi Gabbard has some impressive credentials

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]

Military service (2004–present)

https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard

In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.

Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence, courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.

Freddie

These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.

She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.

She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.

SWRichmond

Graham is the quintessential chickenhawk.

Radical Marijuana

While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists. The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.

Her basic opinion regarding 9/11 deliberately ignores that 9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters, the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.

What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups," as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions, and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which that was done.

The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the banksters to continue to control.

The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.

Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities. While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political problems only on very superficial levels ...

JLee2027

When a Hindu women who rides a surfboard starts making more sense than the President, and the entire Democratic Party I become speechless.

scrappy

She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?

UNDERDOG Cartoon Intro

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHej4ZqZDwo&html5=1

WTFRLY

White House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015

JustObserving

Heroin production up only 3500% since US invaded:

AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ...

MEFOBILLS

"Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard

To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb"

The beautiful Tulsi Gabbard excerpt from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism as a teenage

At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran. She is also on Senate Arms services committee.

The not so beautiful Wolf Blitzer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer

Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (née Zylberfuden), a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim, Poland, and Holocaust survivors… While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.

Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.

"Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria,….far worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."

Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.

To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians, as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history. Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.

rejected

Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that meme every chance they get.

The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger.

ebear

"....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."

I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.

One dragon at a time.

Omega_Man

not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...

I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.

She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke

[Oct 30, 2015] Russia Takes Over The Mid-East Moscow Gets Green Light For Strikes In Iraq, Sets Up Alliance With Jordan

A lot of wishful thinking. The USA still remain world only superpower and (in somewhat diminished way) as well as a technological leader. And the USA is still the most powerful (neoliberal) empire (that does not contradict dismal state of the USA infrastructure; that's typical for empire on late stage of development). It just overextended itself due to neocon dominance in the US politics.
And remember that Russia is neoliberal state too. And it was Putin who got Russia into WTO. Putin is a unique leader, but his rule is not eternal. An there is nobody after him to continue defiant course. actually Russia will face crisis of leadership after he is gone. So in a way TINA (or PAX Americana) still hold.
Notable quotes:
"... Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didnt get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didnt get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didnt get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didnt get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama wont get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt. ..."
"... think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria. ..."
"... As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our side is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet. ..."
"... This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russias economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars. ..."
"... ---Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate........... ..."
"... ......... ..."
"... For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream medias front pages. ..."
"... youve got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, id be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it. ..."
"... The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians. ..."
"... With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West. ..."
"... I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians). ..."
"... Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. Its astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction. ..."
"... The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said. I dont see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties... ..."
"... Dont forget ISISs tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically. ..."
"... I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed. ..."
"... You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didnt pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do. ..."
"... Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad moderate opposition , ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan cant protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior. ..."
"... I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni ..."
"... Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis. ..."
"... Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadnt been a sectarian civil war anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally) ..."
"... Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home. ..."
"... Thats the best part about solving a problem that youve created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony. ..."
"... I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction youve sewn ..."
"... List of GCC countries, Gulf countries *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the NGOs belonging to the UAE Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel! ..."
"... It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history. ..."
"... And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of hovering ?... ..."
"... Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didnt do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries! ..."
Oct 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didn't get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didn't get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didn't get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didn't get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama won't get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt.

WTF are you gonna do. The United States of Amnesia.

BTW Turkey is the next Syria, you heard it here first.

jeff montanye

Bush was not asleep at the switch on 9-11. he just played one on teevee.

Escrava Isaura

I think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria.

... ... ...

Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived(s).......

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1781680795?refRID=B3QFWNTPC57XETC7CW56&ref_=pd_ybh_a_1

... ... ...

1033eruth

The writer of this comment is really stupid, ignorant and moronic. The middle east isn't ours. Its not our toy. Russia didn't steal our toy. Its not the taxpayers job to fund a global playground for the US military to "exert our will".

Everything in the above article was PURE PROPAGANDA designed to promote some type of kneejerk response to Russia stealing our "toy".

Leave it alone. The middle east is like a big turd pile. We've got to learn to stop playing in it. Apparently readers of ZH think that playing King of the Turd Pile is exactly what taxpayers are supposed to finance.

Pure Evil

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov's saying about selling the capitalists the rope to hang themselves seems almost apropos in this situation.

After 9-11 the Russians allowed the former Soviet Republics to open up forward operating bases for the US to supply its foray into Afghanistan. When we went a bridge to far they then applied the pressure to deny access to these former airfields and our only supply route is now through Pakistan. And, undoubtedly the Pakistanis would more than be willing to sell us out to the Chinese and Russians.

With Iraq they sat back and watched us waste not only men and war fighting material but bleed the US Treasury dry.

They also stood down as we stoked the Arab Spring from Tunisia to Libya to Syria. Now Europe suffers from their own Arab Spring as millions of Sunni with no place to live invade Europe.

We overturn Saddam only to replace him with Shia leaders in control and we can only sit back and wonder why the Iranians control the Iraqi army.

We've spent trillions upon trillions of dollars only to hand over Syria and Iraq on a silver platter to Russia and Iran.

... ... ...

The neocons who consider themselves the best and brightest have totally botched everything and they're about to finish the take down of the US via amnesty, Obamacare, TPP, gun control, more and even higher immigration, and Wall Street corruption.

Can America afford anymore of their hubris?

Albertarocks

I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US admin. just can't comprehend. [And I don't mean 'the American people'. It's the admin. acting as the puppet for the global banking mafia.] Can they accept peace in the Middle East? Hard to say, but when there is peace in the world, the US military industrial complex, the bankers, the fascist corporations, the dark side in general can't rule and make obscene amounts of money robbing the rest of the world.

As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our 'side' is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet.

It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy. And maybe that's the proper and loyal stance to have, but cheering for Putin's success is not cheering for the enemy. The dark side, 'our side', is the world's enemy. Your children's enemy. Your grand children's enemy. The enemy of all of humanity and what is 'right'. Then enemy of this entire once-beautiful planet.

So ya, I want to see Putin be left alone to reassemble the god damned mess the bankers have caused. And then I want to see westerners turn our furious gaze inward... at the real cause of all the world's trouble. Our governments' day of reckoning is what westerners should be focusing on.

Paveway IV

"...It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy..."

Critical thinking ability is also a mortal sin in the West. Which would quickly lead one to surmise that the term 'enemy' is a neurolinguistic trick used by psychopaths to make you do something against your will, morals or better judgement. Replace 'enemy' with a more succinct term: 'evil'. Is Russia evil? No. Would you cheer for evil? Of course not. See how easy it is to untwist the psychopath's perverted logic?

California Nightmares

Some great comments, here. I'm afraid to thunbs up some of these. Microsoft and Google are probably capturing my every mouse click.

I offer only one thought: were the Russians (God bless 'em) to attain control of most of the Middle East's oil, we zeros in the USA would find ourselves living back in 1850.

ThroxxOfVron

"I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US admin. just can't comprehend. "

I don't think that the War Profiteers are going to just shrug, stop taking our money from us, and find useful productive activities with which to earn honest livings so easily...

It's right about next year that South America should start to disintegrate.

Argentina., Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico: are ALL in serious trouble due to excessive/corrosive mismanagement and corruption, narco trade and human trafficing dynamics, commodities cycle collaps/reversions, resource depletions, etc..

Texas will have it's 'Hungarian' border moment soon enough as large populations finally give up any hope for political order and economic stability in their homelands and migrate north to the relative political stability and economic health ( and the generous social/welfare benefits! ) offered by the political ideologues in the US and Canada...

I expect that the usual political/policy factions the US will each welcome a wave of several millions of migrants, and launch military incursions into convulsing failed or failing South American states, albeit for differently stated reasons or ideological affinities...

IF the South American situation is not a large enough crisis to merit interventions and migrations it will be aggravated/enhanced to the point where it is worth of interventions by the Warfare/Welfare State nexus.

trulz4lulz

This is amazing!! Murikistan totally has lost control of their petrodollar superiority in 5 WEEKS! The rest will just be formalities of setting up the re republics of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan for russia and iran to reside over. This is the best cock-up in the history of the modern era!

Masterclass geopolitical strategy, Russia and Iran. Not like it wasn't handed to you on a silver platter or anything by obombya and his nerry band of mentally retarded sycophants, but still. Well played.

P.S. Murikistan doesn't survive this. Im hoping the great lakes region goes to the canadians though.

chunga

I've been thinking for a while that for USSA to maintain the petro-dollar reserve status it needs it's military to have at least an aura of invinciblity. Without that it would be tough to keep doing tricks like QE. And without the QE financial tricks it would be tough to pay for the giant military so catch-22.

Since USSA has fucked with just about everybody over there, their list of allies is pretty bad mainly just cutthroat Saudi Arabia and Israel. With the Russians giving Uncle Scam the finger it might embolden others to do the same. That's why I fear 'Murika might fly off the handle over this and really escalate the shooting because it has no choice. They've burned up all their goodwill internationally so only tool they have is a hammer.

Albertarocks -> chunga

I couldn't possibly agree with you more. You nailed it. Sam is in such a pickle. The bankers have led the US down the garden path, using it as it's 'bully branch', and this is more or less what I meant by our government being held to account. 90% of Congress should be charged with treason, given a fair trial and be made to suffer the consequences. If any one of them are found 'not guilty', then the judge should be charged with treason as well since it is already 100% obvious that when any one of them who signs bills, unread, at midnight, they have just committed an act of treason in that irresponsible act alone. I mean it's just incredible how evil the admin. has become. It's time to shake that house apart and bring 'rule of law' back into the forefront where it belongs. And then the oversight agencies like the SEC and the FDA... it's time to tear those demonic agencies to shreds and deal with their leaders accordingly. Those are the people who should probably pay the ultimate penalty first.

Freddie

the speed - 5 weeks - makes me think this has all been planned out. The installation of See Eye Aye NWO shit like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obola makes me wonder. All four are See Eye Aye Moles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTuuPx0hFYM

All four are related. See video above. The USSA is a joke filled with idiots brainwashed by TV and Zollywood.

Omen IV

So the usa circles Russia and China with most of the 700 bases it operates and Iran in motion with Russia's help to circle Saudi Arabia with its own sphere of operation - pushing ISIS / ISIL / Daesh / Free Syrian Army / Al Nusra et al = Sunni's - to recognize the big prize that SA represents to ALL Sunni

The Princes right now have Mecca ???

laomei

I'm failing to see the downside to any of this. The US gets bitched at no matter what it does now. It's always wrong in some way or another, so fuck it I guess. Russia, which is MUCH CLOSER than the US is to this mess now gets to stick their dick into this bee hive and see what comes of it. This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russia's economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars.

monk27

Russia's economy is much less fucked than America's economy. Printing USD with abandon (with and without issuing corresponding debt), and stuffing them into your own banks, hardly qualifies as "economy". By any measure you choose, US is in worse shape than Russia, corruption included...

At this point, probably the best thing US could hope for would be to clean up it's act internally (filling the jails with financial crooks would help), and do nothing as foreign policy, at least for a while. Detoxification is essential for survival...

Usurious

Tyler Durden----''Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate''...........

can somebody make a youtube video montage of the talking heads, retired generals, republican debate freak show contestants, PNAC ZIO-CONs telling us how evil ISIS is/are ..........because ISIS has disappearded from the MSM headlines as Tyler predicted 2 weeks ago.....

Tyler Durden--''For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream media's front pages.''

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-11/end-isis-iraq-air-force-claims-...

pliny the longer -> laomei

re laomei: allow me to take a stab at 'splaining this: the reason it matters is because you've got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, i'd be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it.

also, for how long does anyone think israel is going to stand by and let this shit show build? they're playing it cool for now. but so did Putin until about 60 days ago . . .

this all of course is just a guess; WTF do i know, i'm just a dumb sum bitch that pays my bills and half of everyone else's;

Niall Of The Nine Hostages

It's not a "foolproof cover story." It's the truth. The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians.

On to Riyadh, Doha and Dubai. After the House of Saud and Thani are driven from power and liquidated, you won't hear another word about the war on terror. With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West.

And there will be peace in Israel for forty years.

grekko -> Niall Of The Nine Hostages

You really have to eliminate Bibi first, and his whole neocon cadre. He incites the other side to be stupid, so he can reap the votes of the stupid. Then there will be peace.

Caleb Abell

I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians).

Jack's Raging Bile Duct

Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. It's astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction.

smacker

[copied over from previous article]

This looks like it's one of the tactics used by US forces in Syria/Iraq to minimise any bombing damage to its ISIS terrorist friends:

from that article at http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-authorises-russia-strike-islamic-...

" "They [the US-led coalition] refuse to strike private cars, mosques, bridges, schools despite the fact Daesh militants are mainly using these places as headquarters," a senior military officer [...] told MEE."

"The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said." I don't see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties...

bid the soldier

Don't forget ISIS's tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically.

smacker

Yep, it'll be good if Putin's bombers locate a few ISIS oil convoys and deal with them. That won't please the Turkish middle-men.

bid the soldier... -> smacker

I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed.

Apparently unnewsworthy until the US bombed the MSF hospital in Afghanistan.

Its hard to say which is more pathetic: the US military or US propaganda.

Lea

"Iraq allows Russia to strike ISIL" is nowhere but on this Turkish site. I call BS. The whole of the Russian media would make this headlines. There is zilch, nada on Sputnik, RT or TASS.

grekko

You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didn't pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do.

dustyfin

There's a time for everything.

A year ago Russia had other concerns, its military was a year less well prepared and a year ago, I think that Putin and his government still thought that some form of rapprochement could be made with The West.

Also, to get this far has required a whole heap of planning, negotiating, horse trading and arm twisting. Think of this as being the 'overnight success' that took a decade to achieve!

sudzee

Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad "moderate opposition", ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan can't protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior.

Saudi Arabia will have no choice soon but to join the coalition as well.

Get ready to price oil in Rubles or gold as the US is completely forced out of the entire middle east.

PrimalScream

I will differ with you on that one. The Saudis will never join Russia and Iran - that would be a union between Sunnis and Shiites. It is not going to happen. This new power struggle pits Sunni nations directly against the Shiites. It will be big and it will be bloody.

Rhett72

I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni, and the Jordanian Hashemites are traditional Sunnis descended from Prophet Muhammad who were expelled from Mecca by the Saudis. Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis.

Zadig

Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadn't been a 'sectarian civil war' anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally), but the pro-occupation Kurds didn't should have made things obvious to everyone.

Jack Burton

Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home.

Wanna see what Russia at war looks like? Want to see how they answer ISIL chopping heads off, eating organs etc. Watch the FULL video below of the Syrian Arab Army employ their new Russian supplied TOS-1 thermobaric weapon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SrKZd5tpNo

Zadig

That's the best part about solving a problem that you've created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony.

Russia jumping in at Step #2 to reap the plaudits (and weapon sales!), is probably what Mordor hates the most about all this.

taopraxis

People who think Russia and China and the USA are enemies probably think Republicans and Democrats are enemies. Step back and it seems fairly obvious that someone behind the scene is moving these pieces around on the global chess board and the political puppets are merely implementing the new policies.

Obama looks like a Marketing Prez. Putin acts more like a COO. Abe is CFO, apparently, a frightening thought. Not sure what the Chinese and Saudi top dogs are all about...real players, maybe. All just conjecture, but the way the USA pulled out and the Russians moved in looked too well coordinated to be anything other than that...coordinated.

rejected

Hopefully President Putin doesn't put too much on his plate. The ussa is setting up fresh arms deliveries to the terrorists as we ponder.

It's going to be tough going for the Russian Federation to clean up the mess the ussa has made of the ME over the last 25 years. The whole damn place is a complete disaster with Arabs killing each other and Israel killing as many Palestinians as they can.

It's astonishing the Arabs, like the Ukrainians, can't seem to understand the ussa modus operandi that is,,, start a bunch of crap then back off and watch the fun. Sort of like the bar fight scenes in movies where the perp that starts the brawl exits once everyone is fighting.

Berspankme

I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction you've sewn

earleflorida

Why waste valuable resources dividing and conquering in a medieval world, when religion can do the trick without unsheathing a sword? All but[t] for,... only the might being in the hands of the dual-mine'd pen'heads[?], is all one needs as a metaphoric representation of a classical 'Damocles Dilemma' victory? Why tell your right hand what your doing when the left will do it for you in a asymmetric 'syncreticism'!

"Sunni - Shia Split the Mideast new great divide" http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/06/sunnishia_split_the_mideasts_new_great_divide.html

"List of GCC countries, Gulf countries' *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the 'NGOs' belonging to the UAE & Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R&R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel!

http://www.dubaifaqs.com/list-of-gcc-countries.php

"Sunnis and Shia in the Middle`East" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25434060

Lastly, a read-between-the-lines of myopic misinformation atavistic Machiavellian protean...[?] "Obams Regime's Support of Al Qaeda and ISIS" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39005.htm

Sandmann

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/21/breaking-story-israeli-general-c...

"There is a strong cooperation between MOSSAD and ISIS top military commanders...Israeli advisors helping the Organization on laying out strategic and military plans, and guiding them in the battlefield"

The terrorist organization also has military consultants from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Saudi Arabia has so far provided ISIS with 30,000 vehicles, while Jordan rendered 4500 vehicles. Qatar and United Arab Emirates delivered funds for covering ISIS overall expenditure.

The planes belonging to the aforesaid countries are still landing in the Mosel airport, carrying military aid and fighters, especially via the Jordanian borders.

Phillyguy

Key events in US Iraq campaign

  1. Judy Miller and Michael Gordon publish their piece in the paper of record (NYT) about Sadam Hussein's attempts to obtain parts for nuclear weapons in 2002 (later shown to be nonsense).
  2. Colin Powell uses above "intelligence" in his UN speech, effectively creating a casus belli for Bush II invasion/occupation of Iraq.
  3. Don Rumsfeld claims the Iraq war will cost circa $ 70 billion, paid for with Iraqi oil revenue. Reality check- the Iraq campaign will end up costing US taxpayers $4-6 trillion.
  4. Immediately following the US invasion, US military disbands the Iraqi armed forces, many of whom later join ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

The arrogance, dishonesty and outright incompetence of this campaign is breathtaking. Despite spending significant lives and treasure, the US failed to obtain any imperial rent (oil concessions, etc) from this war.

It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history.

Son of Captain Nemo

Regardless of your stance on whether the EU should be receptive to the millions of asylum seekers fleeing the war-torn Mid-East, the simple fact is that if you remain in Syria, you are risking your life on a daily basis, caught in the crossfire between a bewildering array of state actors, rebel groups, and proxy armies, all with competing agendas.

And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of "hovering"?...

Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didn't do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries!

P.S.

If PIGIDA were ever to wage that kind of a campaign and align themselves with the "left" that is already anti-American the U.S. will be finished!

[Oct 30, 2015] The Deciders by John Hay

Notable quotes:
"... The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq. ..."
"... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty." ..."
"... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. ..."
"... What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. ..."
"... Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
October 27, 2015 | The American Conservative

In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.

The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have been even more disastrous.

The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.

On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.

The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington Post, for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported in 2007:

The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.

This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs." Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points, George W. Bush acknowledges the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."

... ... ...

In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling his wife that:

I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. … I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.

Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."

Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,

The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the Pentagon.

In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."

The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the people we're bringing on."

Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III-was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."

What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe. He writes in his memoir:

To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues.

In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:

The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'

Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:

Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.

Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going, they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview, "We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. … What we did do was to formally dissolve all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."

Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City, when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.

♦♦♦

Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably, Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."

Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post, "I've grown weary of being a punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."

Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's "Frontline,"

What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this, do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.

It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences, he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.

This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review."

... ... ...

John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.

[Oct 29, 2015] President Carter Rips Cheney Over Iraq: 'His Batting Average Is Abysmally Low'

Notable quotes:
"... If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't been right on hardly anything and his prediction of what is going to happen, reasons for going over there and obviously this is not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence and destruction over there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq. ..."
"... One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. ..."
"... One of the cell's members, Younis Elian Abu Jarir, a taxi driver whose job was to ferry the group around, stated in a confession offered as evidence in court that they convinced me of the need for holy war against the Jews, Americans, Italians, and other nationalities that participated in the occupation of Iraq. ..."
forums.allaboutjazz.com
Saundra Hummer

February 26th, 2007, 05:07 PM

.

^^^^^^^

President Carter Rips Cheney Over Iraq: 'His Batting Average Is Abysmally Low'

Last week, Vice President Cheney attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for supporting Iraq redeployment. He charged that their plan would "validate the al Qaeda strategy."

Today, former President Jimmy Carter rejected Cheney's charges, stating that calls for a change of policy in Iraq are "not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence and destruction over there." He added, "If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't been right on hardly anything."

Click on the following URL to view.

Watch it:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/25/carter-cheney/

Digg It!

Transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Vice President Cheney this week has been very harsh on those kinds of measures in the Congress.

[CHENEY CLIP]: If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people.

CARTER: If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't been right on hardly anything and his prediction of what is going to happen, reasons for going over there and obviously this is not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence and destruction over there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq.

^^^^^
.


Saundra Hummer

February 26th, 2007, 05:34 PM

.

.........

Iraq 101:
The Iraq Effect
The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism - Pg. 1

All right, no more excuses, people. After four years in Iraq, it's time to get serious. We've spent too long goofing off, waiting to be saved by the bell, praying that we won't get asked a stumper like, "What's the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?" Okay, even the head of the House intelligence committee doesn't know that one. All the more reason to start boning up on what we-and our leaders-should have learned back before they signed us up for this crash course in Middle Eastern geopolitics. And while we're at it, let's do the math on what the war really costs in blood and dollars. It's time for our own Iraq study group. Yes, there will be a test, and we can't afford to fail.

March 01 , 2007

By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank
Research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Bergen is also a senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C.

"If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people." So said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to "bring them on." Jihadist terrorists, the administration's argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.

The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.

The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists...and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

Yet administration officials have continued to suggest that there is no evidence any greater jihadist threat exists as a result of the Iraq War. "Are more terrorists being created in the world?" then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rhetorically asked during a press conference in September. "We don't know. The world doesn't know. There are not good metrics to determine how many people are being trained in a radical madrasa school in some country." In January 2007 Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte in congressional testimony stated that he was "not certain" that the Iraq War had been a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and played down the likely impact of the war on jihadists worldwide: "I wouldn't say there has been a widespread growth in Islamic extremism beyond Iraq. I really wouldn't."

Indeed, though what we will call "The Iraq Effect" is a crucial matter for U.S. national security, we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain. In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the first such study, using information from the world's premier database on global terrorism. The results are being published for the first time by Mother Jones, the news and investigative magazine, as part of a broader "Iraq 101" package in the magazine's March/April 2007 issue.

<< Breaking The Army << >> The Iraq Effect Pg. 2 >> Iraq Effect (continued)
Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.

We are not making the argument that without the Iraq War, jihadist terrorism would not exist, but our study shows that the Iraq conflict has greatly increased the spread of the Al Qaeda ideological virus, as shown by a rising number of terrorist attacks in the past three years from London to Kabul, and from Madrid to the Red Sea.

In our study we focused on the following questions:

Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?
What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the "war on terrorism") are excluded?
Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?
In order to zero in on The Iraq Effect, we focused on the rate of terrorist attacks in two time periods: September 12, 2001, to March 20, 2003 (the day of the Iraq invasion), and March 21, 2003, to September 30, 2006. Extending the data set before 9/11 would risk distorting the results, because the rate of attacks by jihadist groups jumped considerably after 9/11 as jihadist terrorists took inspiration from the events of that terrible day.

We first determined which terrorist organizations should be classified as jihadist. We included in this group Sunni extremist groups affiliated with or sympathetic to the ideology of Al Qaeda. We decided to exclude terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups, as they depend largely on factors particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Our study draws its data from the MIPT-RAND Terrorism database (available at terrorismknowledgebase.org), which is widely considered to be the best publicly available database on terrorism incidents. RAND defines a terrorist attack as an attack on a civilian entity designed to promote fear or alarm and further a particular political agenda. In our study we only included attacks that caused at least one fatality and were attributed by RAND to a known jihadist group. In some terrorist attacks, and this is especially the case in Iraq, RAND has not been able to attribute a particular attack to a known jihadist group. Therefore our study likely understates the extent of jihadist terrorism in Iraq and around the world.

Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq. Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689 deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq, the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.

And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for 80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12 percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.

Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq, it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change. For example, a rise in attacks in the Kashmir conflict and the Chechen separatist war against Russian forces may have nothing to do with the war in Iraq. But the most direct test of The Iraq Effect--whether the United States and its allies have suffered more jihadist terrorism after the invasion than before--shows that the rate of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.

One of the few positive findings of our study is that only 18 American civilians (not counting civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan) have been killed by jihadist groups since the war in Iraq began. But that number is still significantly higher than the four American civilians who were killed in attacks attributed to jihadist groups in the period between 9/11 and the Iraq War. It was the capture and killing of much of Al Qaeda's leadership after 9/11 and the breakup of its training camp facilities in Afghanistan--not the war in Iraq--that prevented Al Qaeda from successfully launching attacks on American targets on the scale it did in the years before 9/11.

Also undermining the argument that Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are being distracted from plotting against Western targets are the dangerous, anti-American plots that have arisen since the start of the Iraq War. Jihadist terrorists have attacked key American allies since the Iraq conflict began, mounting multiple bombings in London that killed 52 in July 2005, and attacks in Madrid in 2004 that killed 191. Shehzad Tanweer, one of the London bombers, stated in his videotaped suicide "will," "What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq." There have been six jihadist attacks on the home soil of the United States' NATO allies (including Turkey) in the period after the invasion of Iraq, whereas there were none in the 18 months following 9/11; and, of course, the plan uncovered in London in August 2006 to smuggle liquid explosives onto U.S. airliners, had it succeeded, would have killed thousands.

Al Qaeda has not let the Iraq War distract it from targeting the United States and her allies. In a January 19, 2006 audiotape, Osama bin Laden himself refuted President Bush's argument that Iraq had distracted and diverted Al Qaeda: "The reality shows that that the war against America and its allies has not remained limited to Iraq, as he claims, but rather, that Iraq has become a source and attraction and recruitment of qualified people.... As for the delay in similar [terrorist] operations in America, [the] operations are being prepared, and you will witness them, in your own land, as soon as preparations are complete."

Ayman al Zawahiri echoed bin Laden's words in a March 4, 2006, videotape broadcast by Al Jazeera calling for jihadists to launch attacks on the home soil of Western countries: "[Muslims have to] inflict losses on the crusader West, especially to its economic infrastructure with strikes that would make it bleed for years. The strikes on New York, Washington, Madrid, and London are the best examples.

One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. Disliking the United States does not make you a terrorist, but clearly the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began. The United States' plummeting popularity does not suggest active popular support for jihadist terrorists but it does imply some sympathy with their anti-American posture, which means a significant swath of the Muslim population cannot be relied on as an effective party in counter-terrorism/insurgency measures. And so, popular contempt for U.S. policy has become a force multiplier for Islamist militants.

The Iraq War has also encouraged Muslim youth around the world to join jihadist groups, not necessarily directly tied to Al Qaeda but often motivated by a similar ideology. The Iraq War allowed Al Qaeda, which was on the ropes in 2002 after the United States had captured or killed two-thirds of its leadership, to reinvent itself as a broader movement because Al Qaeda's central message--that the United States is at war with Islam--was judged by significant numbers of Muslims to have been corroborated by the war in Iraq. And compounding this, the wide dissemination of the exploits of jihadist groups in Iraq following the invasion energized potential and actual jihadists across the world.

How exactly has The Iraq Effect played out in different parts of the world? The effect has not been uniform. Europe, the Arab world, and Afghanistan all saw major rises in jihadist terrorism in the period after the invasion of Iraq, while Pakistan and India and the Chechnya/Russia front saw only smaller increases in jihadist terrorism. And in Southeast Asia, attacks and killings by jihadist groups fell by over 60 percent in the period after the Iraq War. The strength or weakness of The Iraq Effect on jihadist terrorism in a particular country seems to be influenced by four factors: (1) if the country itself has troops in Iraq; (2) geographical proximity to Iraq; (3) the degree of identification with Iraq's Arabs felt in the country; and (4) the level of exchanges of ideas or personnel with Iraqi jihadist groups. This may explain why jihadist groups in Europe, Arab countries, and Afghanistan were more affected by the Iraq War than groups in other regions. Europe, unlike Kashmir, Chechnya, and Southeast Asia for example, contains several countries that are part of the coalition in Iraq. It is relatively geographically close to the Arab world and has a large Arab-Muslim diaspora from which jihadists have recruited.

European intelligence services are deeply concerned about the effect of the Iraq War. For example, Dame Eliza Mannigham-Buller, the head of Britain's MI5, stated on November 10, 2006, "In Iraq, attacks are regularly videoed and the footage is downloaded onto the Internet [and] chillingly we see the results here. Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers. We are aware of numerous plots to kill people and damage our economy...30 that we know of. [The] threat is serious, is growing, and, I believe, will be with us for a generation." Startlingly, a recent poll found that a quarter of British Muslims believe that the July 7, 2005, London bombings were justifiable because of British foreign policy, bearing out Dame Eliza's concern about a new generation of radicals in the United Kingdom.

While Islamist militants in Europe are mobilized by a series of grievances such as Palestine, Afghanistan, the Kashmir conflict, and Chechnya, no issue has resonated more in radical circles and on Islamist websites than the war in Iraq. This can be seen in the skyrocketing rate of jihadist terrorist attacks around the Arab world outside of Iraq. There have been 37 attacks in Arab countries outside of Iraq since the invasion, while there were only three in the period between 9/11 and March 2003. The rate of attacks in Arab countries jumped by 445 percent since the Iraq invasion, while the rate of killings rose by 783 percent. The November 9, 2005 bombings of three American hotels in Amman, Jordan, that killed 60, an operation directed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq network, was the most direct manifestation of The Iraq Effect in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has seen an upsurge in jihadist terrorism since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There were no jihadist terrorist attacks between 9/11 and the Iraq War but 12 in the period since. The reason for the surge in terrorism was a decision taken by Al Qaeda's Saudi branch in the spring of 2003 to launch a wave of attacks (primarily at Western targets) to undermine the Saudi royal family. These attacks were initiated on May 12, 2003 with the bombing of Western compounds in Riyadh, killing 34, including 10 Americans. While Saudi authorities believe that planning and training for the operation predated the war in Iraq, the timing of the attack, just weeks after the U.S invasion is striking.

The fact that the Iraq War radicalized some young Saudis is underlined by studies showing that more Saudis have conducted suicide operations in Iraq than any other nationality. For instance, Mohammed Hafez, a visiting professor at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, in a study of the 101 identified suicide attackers in Iraq from March 2003 to February 2006, found that more than 40 percent were Saudi. This jihadist energy was not just transferred over the Saudi border into Iraq. It also contributed to attacks in the Kingdom. The group that beheaded the American contractor Paul Johnson in Riyadh in June 2004 called itself the "Al Fallujah brigade of Al Qaeda" and claimed that it had carried out the killing in part to avenge the actions of "disbelievers" in Iraq. In January 2004 Al Qaeda's Saudi affiliate launched Al Battar, an online training magazine specifically directed at young Saudis interested in fighting their regime. The achievements of jihadists in Iraq figured prominently in its pages. Indeed, a contributor to the first issue of Al Battar argued that the Iraq War had made jihad "a commandment" for Saudi Arabians " the Islamic nation is today in acute conflict with the Crusaders."

The Iraq War had a strong impact in other Arab countries too. Daily images aired by Al Jazeera and other channels of suffering Iraqis enraged the Arab street and strengthened the hands of radicals everywhere. In Egypt, the Iraq War has contributed to a recent wave of attacks by small, self-generated groups. A Sinai-based jihadist group carried out coordinated bombing attacks on Red Sea resorts popular with Western tourists at Taba in October 2004, at Sharm el-Sheikh in July 2005, and at Dahab in April 2006, killing a total of more than 120.

One of the cell's members, Younis Elian Abu Jarir, a taxi driver whose job was to ferry the group around, stated in a confession offered as evidence in court that "they convinced me of the need for holy war against the Jews, Americans, Italians, and other nationalities that participated in the occupation of Iraq." Osama Rushdi, a former spokesman of the Egyptian terrorist group Gamma Islamiyya now living in London, told us that while attacks in the Sinai were partly directed at the Egyptian regime, they appeared to be primarily anti-Western in motivation: "The Iraq War contributed to the negative feelings of the Sinai group. Before the Iraq War, most Egyptians did not have a negative feeling towards American policy. Now almost all are opposed to American policy."

Since the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan has suffered 219 jihadist terrorist attacks that can be attributed to a particular group, resulting in the deaths of 802 civilians. The fact that the Taliban only conducted its first terrorist attacks in September 2003, a few months after the invasion of Iraq, is significant. International forces had already been stationed in the country for two years before the Taliban began to specifically target the U.S.-backed Karzai government and civilians sympathetic to it. This points to a link between events in Iraq and the initiation of the Taliban's terrorist campaign in Afghanistan.

True, local dynamics form part of the explanation for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the use of terrorism, particularly suicide attacks, by the Taliban is an innovation drawn from the Iraqi theater. Hekmat Karzai, an Afghan terrorism researcher, points out that suicide bombings were virtually unknown in Afghanistan until 2005. In 2006, Karzai says, there were 118 such attacks, more than there had been in the entire history of the country. Internet sites have helped spread the tactics of Iraqi jihadists. In 2005 the "Media Committee of the Al Qaeda Mujahideen in Afghanistan" launched an online magazine called Vanguards of Kharasan, which includes articles on what Afghan fighters can learn from Coalition and jihadist strategies in Iraq. Abdul Majid Abdul Majed, a contributor to the April 2006 issue of the magazine, argued for an expansion in suicide operations, citing the effectiveness of jihadist operations in Iraq.

Mullah Dadullah, a key Taliban commander, gave an interview to Al Jazeera in 2006 in which he explained how the Iraq War has influenced the Taliban. Dadullah noted that "we have 'give and take' with the mujahideen in Iraq." Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who is writing bin Laden's biography, told us that young men traveled from the Afghan province of Khost to "on-the-job training" in Iraq in 2004. "They came back with lots of CDs which were full of military actions against U.S. troops in the Mosul, Fallujah, and Baghdad areas. I think suicide bombing was introduced in Afghanistan and Pakistan after local boys came back after spending some time in Iraq. I met a Taliban commander, Mullah Mannan, last year in Zabul who told me that he was trained in Iraq by Zarqawi along with many Pakistani tribals."

Propaganda circulating in Afghanistan and Pakistan about American "atrocities" and jihadist "heroics" has also energized the Taliban, encouraging a previously somewhat isolated movement to see itself as part of a wider struggle. Our study found a striking correlation in how terrorist campaigns intensified in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rate of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan gathered pace in the summer of 2005, a half year after a similar increase in Iraq, and in 2006 the rate of attacks in both countries rose in tandem to new, unprecedented levels.

While the Iraq War has had a strong effect on the rise in terrorism in Afghanistan, it appears to have played less of a role on jihadists operating in Pakistan and India, though terrorism did rise in those countries following the invasion of Iraq. (Of course, neither Pakistan nor India has foreign troops on its soil, which accounts, in part, for the high terrorism figures in Afghanistan.) The rate of jihadist attacks rose by 21 percent while the fatality rate rose by 19 percent. There were 52 attacks after the Iraq invasion, killing 489 civilians, while there were 19 in the period before, killing 182. The local dynamics of the Kashmir conflict, tensions between India and Pakistan, and the resurfacing of the Taliban in eastern Pakistan likely played a large role here. That said, there is evidence that the Iraq War did energize jihadists in Pakistan. Hamid Mir says, "Iraq not only radicalized the Pakistani tribals [near the Afghan border] but it offered them the opportunity for them to go to Iraq via Iran to get on-the-job training."

There is also evidence that the Iraq War had some impact in other areas of Pakistan. In the summer of 2004, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the head of the Kashmiri militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, told followers in Lahore, "Islam is in grave danger, and the mujahideen are fighting to keep its glory. They are fighting the forces of evil in Iraq in extremely difficult circumstances. We should send mujahideen from Pakistan to help them." And Pakistan, inasmuch as it has become Al Qaeda's new base for training and planning attacks, has become the location where significant numbers of would-be jihadists--including some young British Pakistanis such as the London suicide bombers, radicalized in part by the Iraq War--have traveled to learn bomb-making skills.

In Russia and Chechnya, the Iraq War appears to have had less of an impact than on other jihadist fronts. This is unsurprising given the fact that jihadist groups in the region are preoccupied by a separatist war against the Russian military. Whilst following the invasion of Iraq there was a rise in the number of attacks by Chechen groups that share a similar ideology with Al Qaeda, the total rate of fatalities did not go up. The Iraq War does seem to have diverted some jihadists from the Russian/Chechen front: Arab fighters who might have previously gone to Chechnya now have a cause at their own doorstep, while funds from Arab donors increasingly have gone to the Iraqi jihad.

Southeast Asia has been the one region in the world in which jihadist terrorism has declined significantly in the period since the invasion of Iraq. There was a 67 percent drop in the rate of attacks (from 10.5 to 3.5 attacks per year) in the post-invasion period and a 69 percent drop in the rate of fatalities (from 201 to 62 fatalities per year). And there has been no bombing on the scale of the October 2002 Bali nightclub attack that killed more than 200. However, jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia has declined in spite, not because of, the Iraq War. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was deeply unpopular in the region, as demonstrated by the poll finding that only 15 percent of Indonesians had a favorable view of the United States in 2003. But the negative impact of the Iraq War on public opinion was mitigated by U.S. efforts to aid the region in the wake of the devastating tsunami of December 2004--Pew opinion surveys have shown that the number of those with favorable views towards the United States in Indonesia crept above 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.

However, the main reason for the decline of jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia has been the successful crackdown by local authorities on jihadist groups and their growing unpopularity with the general population. The August 2003 capture of Hambali, Jemaa Islamiya's operational commander, was key to degrading the group's capacity to launch attacks as was the arrest of hundreds of Jemaa Islamiya and Abu Sayyaf operatives in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore in the years after the October 2002 Bali bombings. Those arrested included most of those who planned the Bali attacks, as well as former instructors at Jemaa Islamiya camps and individuals involved in financing attacks. And in November 2005 Indonesian security services killed Jemaa Islamiya master bomber Azhari bin Husin in a shoot-out. The second wave of Bali attacks in 2005 killed mostly Indonesians and created a popular backlash against jihadist groups in Indonesia, degrading their ability to recruit operatives. And Muslim leaders such as Masdar Farid Masudi, the deputy leader of the country's largest Islamic group, condemned the bombings: "If the perpetrators are Muslims, their sentences must be multiplied because they have tarnished the sacredness of their religion and smeared its followers worldwide."

Iraq Effect (continued)
Our survey shows that the Iraq conflict has motivated jihadists around the world to see their particular struggle as part of a wider global jihad fought on behalf of the Islamic ummah, the global community of Muslim believers. The Iraq War had a strong impact in jihadist circles in the Arab world and Europe, but also on the Taliban, which previously had been quite insulated from events elsewhere in the Muslim world. By energizing the jihadist groups, the Iraq conflict acted as a catalyst for the increasing globalization of the jihadist cause, a trend that should be deeply troubling for American policymakers. In the late 1990s, bin Laden pushed a message of a global jihad and attracted recruits from around the Muslim world to train and fight in Afghanistan. The Iraq War has made bin Laden's message of global struggle even more persuasive to militants. Over the past three years, Iraq has attracted thousands of foreign fighters who have been responsible for the majority of suicide attacks in the country. Those attacks have had an enormous strategic impact; for instance, getting the United Nations to pull out of Iraq and sparking the Iraqi civil war.

Emblematic of the problem is Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman who on November 9, 2005, near the town of Baquba in central Iraq, detonated a bomb as she drove past an American patrol. In the bomb crater, investigators found travel documents that showed that she had arrived in Iraq from Belgium just a few weeks earlier with her Moroccan-Belgian husband Hissam Goris. The couple had been recruited by "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Goris would die the following day, shot by American forces as he prepared to launch a suicide attack near Fallujah.

The story of Muriel Degauque and her husband is part of a trend that Harvard terrorism researcher Assaf Moghadam terms the "globalization of martyrdom." The London suicide bombings in July 2005 revealed the surprising willingness of four British citizens to die to protest the United Kingdom's role in the Coalition in Iraq; Muriel Degauque, for her part, was willing to die for the jihadist cause in a country in which she was a stranger.

This challenges some existing conceptions of the motivations behind suicide attacks. In 2005 University of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape published a much-commented-upon study of suicide bombing, "Dying to Win," in which he used a mass of data about previous suicide bombing campaigns to argue that they principally occurred "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland." (Of course, terrorism directed against totalitarian regimes rarely occurs because such regimes are police states and are unresponsive to public opinion.) Pape also argued that while religion might aggravate campaigns of suicide terrorism, such campaigns had also been undertaken by secular groups, most notably the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, whose most spectacular success was the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a female suicide attacker in 1991.

Pape's findings may explain the actions and motivations of terrorist groups in countries such as Sri Lanka, but his principal claim that campaigns of suicide terrorism are generally nationalist struggles to liberate occupied lands that have little to do with religious belief does not survive contact with the reality of what is going on today in Iraq. The most extensive suicide campaign in history is being conducted in Iraq largely by foreigners animated by the deeply-held religious belief that they must liberate a Muslim land from the "infidel" occupiers.

While Iraqis make up the great bulk of the insurgents, several studies have shown that the suicide attackers in Iraq are generally foreigners, while only a small proportion are Iraqi. (Indeed, the most feared terrorist leader in Iraq until his death earlier this year, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was a Jordanian.) The Israeli researcher Reuven Paz, using information posted on Al Qaeda-linked websites between October 2004 and March 2005, found that of the 33 suicide attacks listed, 23 were conducted by Saudis, and only 1 by an Iraqi. Similarly, in June 2005 the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute of Washington, D.C. found by tracking both jihadist websites and media reports that of the 199 Sunni extremists who had died in Iraq either in suicide attacks or in action against Coalition or Iraqi forces, 104 were from Saudi Arabia and only 21 from Iraq. The rest were predominantly from countries around the Middle East. And Mohammed Hafez in his previously cited study of the 101 "known" suicide bombers in Iraq found that while 44 were Saudi and 8 were from Italy (!), only 7 were from Iraq.

In congressional testimony this past November, CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that "an overwhelming percentage of the suicide bombers are foreign." A senior U.S. military intelligence official told us that a worrisome recent trend is the rising number of North Africans who have joined the ranks of foreign fighters in Iraq, whose number General Hayden pegged at 1,300 during his November congressional testimony. A Saudi official also confirmed to us the rising number of North Africans who are being drawn into the Iraq War.

The globalization of jihad and martyrdom, accelerated to a significant degree by the Iraq War, has some disquieting implications for American security in the future. First, it has energized jihadist groups generally; second, not all foreign fighters attracted to Iraq will die there. In fact there is evidence that some jihadists are already leaving Iraq to operate elsewhere. Saudi Arabia has made a number of arrests of fighters coming back from Iraq, and Jordanian intelligence sources say that 300 fighters have returned to Jordan from Iraq. As far away as Belgium, authorities have indicated that Younis Lekili, an alleged member of the cell that recruited Muriel Degauque, had previously traveled to fight in Iraq, where he lost his leg. (Lekili is awaiting trial in Belgium.)

German, French, and Dutch intelligence officials have estimated that there are dozens of their citizens returning from the Iraq theater, and some appear to have been determined to carry out attacks on their return to Europe. For example, French police arrested Hamid Bach, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, in June 2005 in Montpellier, several months after he returned from a staging camp for Iraq War recruits in Syria. According to French authorities, Bach's handlers there instructed him to assist with plotting terrorist attacks in Italy. Back in France, Bach is alleged to have bought significant quantities of hydrogen peroxide and to have looked up details on explosives and detonators online. (Bach is awaiting trial in France.)

This "blowback" trend will greatly increase when the war eventually winds down in Iraq. In the short term the countries most at risk are those whose citizens have traveled to fight in Iraq, in particular Arab countries bordering Iraq. Jamal Khashoggi, a leading Saudi expert on jihadist groups, told us that "while Iraq brought new blood into the Al Qaeda organization in Saudi Arabia, this was at a time when the network was being dismantled. Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia could not accommodate these recruits so they sent them to Iraq to train them, motivate them, and prepare them for a future wave of attacks in the Kingdom. It is a deep worry to Saudi authorities that Saudis who have gone to Iraq will come back." That's a scenario for which Khashoggi says Saudi security forces are painstakingly preparing.

Several U.S. citizens have tried to involve themselves in the Iraq jihad. In December an American was arrested in Cairo, Egypt, accused of being part of a cell plotting terrorist attacks in Iraq. And in February 2006 three Americans from Toledo, Ohio, were arrested for allegedly plotting to kill U.S. military personnel in Iraq. According to the FBI, one of these individuals, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, was in contact with an Arab jihadist group sending fighters to Iraq and tried unsuccessfully to cross the border into Iraq. However, to date there is no evidence of Americans actually fighting in Iraq so the number of returnees to the United States is likely to be small. The larger risk is that jihadists will migrate from Iraq to Western countries, a trend that will be accelerated if, as happened following the Afghan jihad against the Soviets, those fighters are not allowed to return to their home countries.

Already terrorist groups in Iraq may be in a position to start sending funds to other jihadist fronts. According to a U.S. government report leaked to the New York Times in November 2006, the fact that insurgent and terrorist groups are raising up to $200 million a year from various illegal activities such as kidnapping and oil theft in Iraq means that they "may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside Iraq." Indeed, a letter from Al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al Zawahiri, to Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi in July 2005 contained this revealing request: "Many of the [funding] lines have been cut off. Because of this we need a payment while new lines are being opened. So if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately one hundred thousand we'll be very grateful to you."

The "globalization of martyrdom" prompted by the Iraq War has not only attracted foreign fighters to die in Iraq (we record 148 suicide-terrorist attacks in Iraq credited to an identified jihadist group) but has also encouraged jihadists to conduct many more suicide operations elsewhere. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there has been a 246 percent rise in the rate of suicide attacks (6 before and 47 after) by jihadist groups outside of Iraq and a 24 percent increase in the corresponding fatality rate. Even excluding Afghanistan, there has been a 150 percent rise in the rate of suicide attacks and a 14 percent increase in the rate of fatalities attributable to jihadists worldwide. The reasons for the spread of suicide bombing attacks in other jihadist theaters are complex but the success of these tactics in Iraq, the lionization that Iraqi martyrs receive on jihadist websites, and the increase in feelings of anger and frustration caused by images of the Iraq War have all likely contributed significantly. The spread of suicide bombings should be of great concern to the United States in defending its interests and citizens around the world, because they are virtually impossible to defend against.

The Iraq War has also encouraged the spread of more hardline forms of jihad (the corollary to an increase in suicide bombing). Anger and frustration over Iraq has increased the popularity, especially among young militants, of a hardcore takfiri ideology that is deeply intolerant of divergent interpretations of Islam and highly tolerant of extreme forms of violence. The visceral anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Shiism widely circulated among the Internet circles around ideologues such as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatada (both Jordanian-Palestinian mentors to Abu Musab al Zarqawi) and Al Qaeda's Syrian hawk, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, are even more extreme, unlikely as it may sound, than the statements of bin Laden himself.

Our study shows just how counterproductive the Iraq War has been to the war on terrorism. The most recent State Department report on global terrorism states that the goal of the United States is to identify, target, and prevent the spread of "jihadist groups focused on attacking the United States or its allies [and those groups that] view governments and leaders in the Muslim world as their primary targets." Yet, since the invasion of Iraq, attacks by such groups have risen more than sevenfold around the world. And though few Americans have been killed by jihadist terrorists in the past three years it is wishful thinking to believe that this will continue to be the case, given the continued determination of militant jihadists to target the country they see as their main enemy. We will be living with the consequences of the Iraq debacle for more than a decade.

Special thanks to Mike Torres and Zach Stern at NYU and Kim Cragin and Drew Curiel at RAND.

<< The Iraq Effect Pg.5 << >> The Data: The Iraq War and Jihadist Terrorism >>
Go on-site for sources, charts, etc. Just click on the following URLs:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_101.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_effect_1.html [B]

[Oct 28, 2015] US Ground Troops In Syria Is Illegal, Big Mistake, Russia Warns Obama Of Unpredictable Consequences

Zero Hedge

Newbie lurker

"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

Manthong

..this should be Lit 101

TheReplacement

More like Modern American History 101.

Escrava Isaura

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

2015 - IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

http://thebulletin.org/clock/2015

Reg Morrison: "The human brain remains a piece of stone-age machinery, however you look at it, and no amount of culture can make it otherwise. Genetically speaking we are a finished product, not a prototype. What you see is what you get-there will be no bright utopian future."- The Spirit in the Gene, page 247.

Haus-Targaryen

So we have Russian soldiers on the ground fighting ISIS & the "moderate" rebels alongside Iran & Syria -- while Russia blows said head choppers to smithereens. While the US will have soldiers on the ground fighting Assad & Hezbollah blowing them up from the air.

What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah. What happens then? (Then they call air strikes on one another and everyone figures out shit just went real wrong really quickly).

HowdyDoody

"What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah" That's a feature, not a bug. And that is why the Russians are calling out on it beforehand.

ZippyDooDah

Russia is providing air cover to Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, so that the USAF can't bomb the Shiite ground troops. America is providing ground troops in Syria to embed with "rebels," so that Russia can't bomb the Sunni ground troops. Proxy war at its most insane, cause it just went beyond proxies.

The Sunni-Shiite divide is centuries old, and not a fight we should ever have gotten involved with. Dumbassery at its most insane.

You might think the U.S. military might someday rebel against this kind of wanton waste of its resources. But no, I guess we are just going to grind ourselves away to nothing in the Middle East meat chopper.

TheReplacement

Wikileaks Ukraine has leaked a conversation regarding planning false flag shoot downs that involved a certain sitting US Senator who happens to have met with the Nazis in Ukraine and the terrorists in Syria. I believe the plan is to shoot down a US/NATO jet and then a Russian.

lakecity55

Russia needs to state the legal case before the UN Security Council and force the USG to veto the Resolution, thus making Vichy DC even more in the wrong internationally!

Paveway IV

Russia was already holding the UN's feet to the fire. Things just got a whole lot worse in the last two days.

The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the UN - ever since 1949. They recognize Israel is occupying it, but under international law (such as it were) the Golan Heights are still Syrian soverign territory. Technically, Syria and Israel are still at war. They are only maintaining a cease-fire/truce along a UNDOF neutral zone (= safe zone = no-fly zone) established in 1974. The 1974 truce didnt' 'give' Israel the Golan land. It was simply an agreement that Israel and Syria would stop attacking eachother and stay out of a neutral zone between each country's armies.

Herein lies the problem: Israel has been directly supporting al Nusra and ISIS forces hiding inside that neutral zone. The place is so over-run with head-choppers that the 1300 UN observers LEFT their own camps in that zone and have relocated to the Israeli side of the cease-fire line. They openly acknowledge that they can't do anything about defending the zone because Nusra/ISIS are not parties to the ceasefire, and Israel is covertly supplying them so there's no proof that they are violating the cease-fire.

Israel has repeatedly bombed SAA troops chasing al Nusra/ISIS into the neutral zone. This is a direct violation of the 1974 truce. Russia has always been pissed about that, but on Monday they bitch-slapped Israel without anything but a ridiculous cover story spewed by the MSM (the paraglider thing). Nobody seems to understand the profound implications of RUSSIA flying combat missions IN THE UNDOF ZONE to bomb Israeli's little al Nusra buddies. They just did this in al Qunaitra, which juts out into the occupied Golan Heights in such a way that it would be difficult to bomb anything there without overflying the neurtral zone into the Israeli side. Israel loves to use the word 'border' to suggest some kind of international recognition, but there is none. There is (was) only a UNDOF-maintained cease-fire zone arranged well into Syrian territory in 1974. Israel never left Syrian land and simply claim it as theirs.

Russia keeps reiterating how it is adhering to international law. Something tells me that this is in preparation for chasing any al Nusra/ISIS head-choppers into the Golan Heights as far as they need to. They are not 'violating' Israeli airspace or soverign lands because it is - by international recognition - still Syrian territory.

Everyone is waiting for a false flag, and it's been brewing right under our noses. Al Nusra and ISIS will retreat into the Golan Heights because they think it will offer them immunity from Russian air attacks. Russia recognizes (as does the world) that Syria STILL LEGALLY extends to the Jordan river - the Golan Heights IS SYRIAN SOVERIGN TERRITORY. Russia is not 'provoking' Israel - Israel shouldn't be there according to international law and UN recognition.

I think Russia is going to drive al Nusra and ISIS INTO the Golan Heights to force this issue - an issue that Israel has already LOST in the eyes of the international community. Would the U.S. go nuclear to 'defend' Israel's land-theft? Answer: Who cares. Dick Cheney's oil company just found a huge deposit there - of course the U.S. would go nuclear to protect his money. That's what the U.S. does.

cowdiddly

What's even funnier is Iraq has already said "NO THANKS" to ground troops in Iraq. They have seen enough of your so called help.

Also the little hero raid the other day was a complete farce. The Pershmerga was supposed to lead the raid and do all the dirty work while US troops come in behind. Of the casualties, The one US soldier that got wacked got a little to rambunctious and got out in front.

Yea hero, lead from behind and you Kurds charge the hill and we look like we did the raid and take the credit. WHATEVER.

The US is trying real hard to look relevent here. Just like the single ship to China crap. OOOOHHHHHH SCARY, No one is Intimidated, it makes you look weak ,and they just think your insane.

GO big or GO HOME. But mostly GO HOME WITH SOME DIGNITY LEFT. You can't afford to Play and you look sad and no one wants your help.

palmereldritch

http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151028/1029209074/golan-heights-oil-...

We've found an oil stratum 350 meters thick in the southern Golan Heights. On average worldwide, strata are 20 to 30 meters thick, and this is 10 times as large as that, so we are talking about significant quantities," Afek Oil & Gas chief geologist Yuval Bartov claimed in an interview to a local broadcaster as quoted by Engdahl.

"The Netanyahu government [is now] more determined than ever to sow chaos and disorder in Damascus and use that to de facto create an Israeli irreversible occupation of Golan and its oil," the expert stressed.

"Now an apparent discovery of huge volumes of oil by a New Jersey oil company whose board includes Iraq war architect, Dick Cheney, neo-con ex-CIA head James Woolsey, and Jacob Lord Rothschild… brings the stakes of the Russian intervention on behalf of Syria's Assad against ISIS [ISIL], al-Qaeda and other CIA-backed 'moderate terrorists' to a new geopolitical dimension," Engdahl underscored.

Raymond_K._Hessel

Do the Iraqis have a say in this matter?

NOTE: Alphahammer and Yomatti wants everyone to spend a half hour doing some research into the origins of ISIS: http://bfy.tw/2VnO

Raymond_K._Hessel

Iraq to Washington: We Don't Want Your Troops

What a difference a day makes. Just 24 hours ago US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was telling the Senate Armed Services Committee all about the Obama Administration's new military strategy for the Middle East. The headline grabber from his testimony was the revelation that the US military would begin "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.

"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL (ISIS)," he told the Committee. The new strategy would consist of "three R's," he said: more US action, including on the ground, with Syrian opposition partners to take the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria; more intense cooperation with the Iraqi army including with US-embedded soldiers to retake Ramadi from ISIS in Iraq; and the beginning of US military raids, "whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."

That was news to the Iraqis, it turns out. And it wasn't very good news at that. Today Sa'ad al-Hadithi, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, said "thanks but no thanks" to a third US invasion of his country. "We have enough soldiers on the ground," he said.

This raises the question of whether the US administration intends to insert US soldiers into Iraq against the wishes of its elected government, as it has done and promises to continue to do in Syria. In that case, the US would be shooting at ISIS and the Iraqi government, as well as the Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who are coming to increasingly control large parts of the Iraqi military. Presumably all these forces would be shooting back at US troops on the ground as well. The US would likely be partnering in this task with the anti-ISIS Sunni fighters highlighted in Defense Secretary Carter's testimony yesterday. In other words, the US would be backing forces closer to those of Saddam Hussein, who they overthrew twelve years ago.

The Iraqi government had requested Russian assistance against ISIS earlier this month, after Russian strikes in Syria appear to have made a significant impact on the battlefield. But Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Iraqis if they accept Russian assistance they can forget about any more US aid.

It appears the US threat was not enough to put the Iraqis off asking for Russian help, as earlier this week the Iraqi parliament approved Russian airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.

So the big roll-out of the new US Middle East military strategy seems to have fizzled, as none of the intended beneficiaries of US assistance seem all that enthused about the partnership. For the moment, the US finds itself backing Iranian militias in Iraq while fighting them next door in Syria, while planning to place US troops in with "moderate" anti-Assad rebels in the path of falling Russian bombs. All the while, of course, the US is aiding the Kurds in Syria and Iraq which are currently being bombed by NATO ally Turkey.

What else could possibly go wrong?

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/octob...

Crocodile

Since ISIS, ISIL, IS or the word of the day is a Pentagon formed, trained & funded operation, then the Pentagon is using the US Military, a Pentagon organization, against another Pentagon organization.

Only proves the insanity of it all and the devaluing of life of the ordinary person.

Then again Satan attacks the ordinances of God given to man for the good of all which is not limited to, marriage, family and the sanctity of life and unfortunately most people agree as shown by their personal behaviors.

[Oct 24, 2015] The best lesson China could teach Europe: how to play the long game

Notable quotes:
"... There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough. ..."
"... It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002. ..."
"... China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. ..."
"... If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy. ..."
"... Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands. ..."
"... They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable. ..."
"... Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting. ..."
"... The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. ..."
"... Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder. ..."
"... I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London. ..."
"... i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights ..."
"... LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about? ..."
"... To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. ..."
"... The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both. ..."
"... You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory). ..."
"... If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so. ..."
"... It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating. ..."
"... We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. ..."
"... Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world. ..."
Oct 23, 2015 | The Guardian

SystemD -> paddyd2009 23 Oct 2015 23:13

The problem is how do you define civilization? The urban centres were in the Middle East, and long pre-date China. 6,000 years ago, the world's largest towns and cities were in the Balkans - the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. Because of the conventions of nomenclature, they don't count as a civilization. This raises the question, when does a culture become a civilization? There are certainly well attested archaeological cultures in China going back a long way, but there are equally ancient cultures in Europe. Should we then say that Europe has 4,000 or 5,000 or more years of civilization?

Good records for Chinese history go back about 3,000 years. Anything before that becomes archaeological rather than historical, based on artifacts rather than records. References to different dynasties don't help - there are no records comparable to Near Eastern king lists, or the Sumerian or Hittite royal archives. China set up the Three Kingdoms Project to try to find the 'missing' 2,000 years of Chinese history - i.e. the history that they claim to have, but have no direct evidence. They didn't find it.

Adetheshades 23 Oct 2015 22:52

There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough.

They obviously know more than the average Guardian reader, and apparently don't feel their cash is safe. This causes problems of its own, when they start splashing this cash in the UK property market, causing further price escalation if any were needed.

There isn't much we can do about the size and wealth of China.

It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002.

At what point will we drop French from the school curriculum in favour of Mandarin is the question.

To say Beijings influence is growing is a lovely little piece of understatement.

Adamnuisance 23 Oct 2015 21:22

China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. Being passive aggressive and claiming to be 'unique' are their real specialties. I have little doubt that China will become even more powerful with time... I just hope their backwards politics improves with their economy.

Thruns 23 Oct 2015 20:44

The first long game was Mao's coup.
The second long game was the great leap forward.
The third long game was the cultural revolution.
The fourth long game was to adopt the west's capitalism and sell the west its own technology.
At last the "communist" Chinese seem to have found a winner.

tufsoft Maharaja -> Brovinda Singh 23 Oct 2015 20:30

If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy.

nothell -> Laurence Johnson 23 Oct 2015 20:16

Your comment about the British Empire must be tongue in cheek.

Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands.

Anything but peaceful and anything but fair. Europe had the past, let Asia have the future.

slightlynumb -> theoldmanfromusa 23 Oct 2015 20:10

They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable.

Rasengruen 23 Oct 2015 20:05

All of this presents well-known dilemmas for Europeans, such as how to balance human rights and economic interests.

Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting.

philby87 23 Oct 2015 18:50

public opinion in France, which had been shocked by an outbreak of violent repression in Tibet

The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. A good example is Japan which is twice larger than France, but never lectures its neighbors about what they should and shouldn't do. Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder.

skepticaleye -> midaregami 23 Oct 2015 18:04

The Yue state was populated mostly by the members of the Yue people who were not Han. The South China wasn't completely sinicized well into the second millennium CE. Yunnan wasn't incorporated into China until the Mongols conquered Dali in the 13th century, and the Ming dynasty eradicated the Mongols' resistance there in the 14th century.

PeterBederell -> Daniel S 23 Oct 2015 17:54

I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London.

Europe often has to agree to these indignities because it needs access to the US market and to keep the US sweet. But with a strong China, it can use the threat of following China in some way the US doesn't like as a bargaining chip, like joining China's Development Bank, which put the US in a huff recently.

Chriswr -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 17:54
What we in the West call human rights are creations of the Enlightenment and only about 300 years old. As a modern Westerner I am, of course, a big supporter of them. But let's not pretend they are part of some age-old tradition.
sor2007 -> impartial12 23 Oct 2015 17:48
i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights
ApfelD 23 Oct 2015 17:42
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe – and it uses that historical depth to indicate it will never take lessons on democracy.
LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about?

HoolyK BabylonianSheDevil03 23 Oct 2015 17:34

To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. When the Chinese see the following:

1. the West preaches democracy and human rights
2. is evangelical about it and spreads it by hook or crook into the Middle East
3. this causes regimes to be changed and instability to spread
4. the chaos causes a massive refugee crisis, washing these poor huddled masses onto the shores of Europe
5. the human rights preached by the West demands that the the refugees receive help
6. the native population is slowly being displaced
7. native population is further screwed, with austerity, financial crisis and now said Syrian refugees
8. Fascist and Nazis parties are elected into office, civil strife ensues

Now, what do you think the Chinese, who ABHOR chaos, think about democracy and human rights ??

PeterBederell 23 Oct 2015 16:47

The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both.

HoolyK -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 16:30

Anatolia is inhabited by Turks from Central Asia who settled in the 11th century, Iraq/Syria was overrun by Muslims in the 7th century. China is still Han Chinese, as it was 5000 years ago.

'human rights' really? then do you support the human rights of tens of thousands of refugees from Syria to settle in Britain and Europe then? I ask this awkward question only because I know the Chinese will ask ....

dev_null 23 Oct 2015 16:23

China deploys a long-term strategy in part because it has a very long memory, and in part because its ruling elite needn't bother too much about electoral constraints.

The two are not mutially exclusive. You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory).

China's longest 'strategy' was to leverage its currency artificially lower than it should be in order to net export so many manufactured goods. Nothing else.

If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so.
Eurozone = Dystopia

China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe

No sorry europe contained many advanced cultures going back just as far. This is incompetent journalism. China was not 'china' it was many kingdoms and cultures 4000 years ago, as was Europe at the time. Fallacy of decomposition.

MeandYou -> weka69 23 Oct 2015 16:11

It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating.

We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. We gave China all in a plate hence the speed neck speed China has risen. The Consumerism society the political class created they were stupid enough to forget people still need money to buy cheap goods. Consumerism does not run on empty purse.

wintpu 23 Oct 2015 15:57

You are preaching a China Containment strategy:
[1] This is racist viciousness, colonial mentality, or white supremacist conspiracy, believing that containment is your moral right. You seem to be wallowing still in the stiff upper lipped notions that you are the betters versus the east. Colonialism is over and still you cling to the notion that the EU should get together and try to destroy China's social system because it is different from yours. Your records on human rights, governance and effectiveness are all droopy examples to be object lessons rather than role models for emulation by developing countries. Your opium war denials [simply by not mentioning it] give you very little high ground to hector China and the Chinese people.

[2] Recent Behavior. Putting aside your opium war robbery, your behavior in the run up to 1997 Hong Kong hand back shows your greedy sneakiness. Chris Patten infamously tried to throw a monkey wrench into an agreed-upon process by trying to steal the Hong Kong treasury, then planting the seeds of British wannabees. You passed a special law to deny the 1.36 million Hong Kong residents who had become British Citizens was one of the most shameful racist acts of your colonial record. Cameron is now bending over backwards post haste in order to side-step the long long memory of the Chinese people.

[3] Crying about getting other EU nations to do aiding and abetting of your vendetta against a rising China? Trying to reduce and contain China does you no good. So it is a simple case of mendacity. But you forget that the Germans have already gone to China honestly and co-operated since the time of Helmut Kohl and the CPC has not forgotten their loyal friends. Today most CPC leaders drive Audis. There is no turning Germany away from their key position in Chinatrade to become enemies of China because of your self-serving wishes. Even now, France has jumped in on the nuclear niche to present you with a package you cannot refuse.

samohio 23 Oct 2015 15:51

Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world.

[Oct 24, 2015] Turkish Parliament Members Turkey Provided Chemical Weapons for Syrian Terrorist Attack

Notable quotes:
"... The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria." ..."
"... Turkish government ..."
"... 'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.' ..."
"... And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins. ..."
"... The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria: ..."
"... –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades. ..."
"... –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary." ..."
"... –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria. ..."
"... – Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
"... – Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria . A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding. ..."
"... –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue. ..."
"... – Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar . ..."
"... "We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," ..."
Oct 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Two members of the Turkish parliament gave a press conference this week saying that they have wiretapped recordings and other evidence showing that Turkey supplied the sarin used in Syria. As reported by Turkey's largest newspapers, Today's Zaman:

CHP deputies Eren Erdem and Ali ?eker held a press conference in Istanbul on Wednesday in which they claimed the investigation into allegations regarding Turkey's involvement in the procurement of sarin gas which was used in the chemical attack on a civil population and delivered to the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to enable the attack was derailed.

Taking the floor first, Erdem stated that the Adana Chief Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation into allegations that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen. An indictment followed regarding the accusations targeting the government.

"The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the file," Erdem said while waving the file.

Erdem also noted that the prosecutor's office conducted detailed technical surveillance and found that an al-Qaeda militant, Hayyam Kasap, acquired sarin, adding: "Wiretapped phone conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However, despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims that it is fighting terrorism," Erdem noted.

Over 1,300 people were killed in the sarin gas attack in Ghouta and several other neighborhoods near the Syrian capital of Damascus, with the West quickly blaming the regime of Bashar al-Assad and Russia claiming it was a "false flag" operation aimed at making US military intervention in Syria possible.

Suburbs near Damascus were struck by rockets containing the toxic sarin gas in August 2013.

The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government.

CHP deputy speaker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria."

He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic.

"The investigation clearly indicates that those people who smuggled the chemicals required to procure sarin faced no difficulties, proving that Turkish intelligence was aware of their activities.

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam – previously reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.

As Hersh noted:

'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'

Indeed, it's long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey. And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a causus belli was leaked … and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic. Turkey is a member of NATO. There are previous instances where Turkish government officials have admitted to carrying out false flag attacks. For example:

  • The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

Turkey has also been busted massively supporting ISIS. And see this.

And other NATO members have also admitted to carrying out false flag terror to stir up war.

Reaper

Cui bono from the sarin attack in Syria? Not Assad. The educational training for American sheeple is to emote first, think way later, maybe.

jeff montanye

once more with feeling:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyQ1RoEotPk

"they don't want a population capable of critical thinking" george carlin

Macon Richardson

And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins.

JustObserving

Turkey has been at war with Syria for years now.

The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:

–Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.

–Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary."

–Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.

Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here. In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities.

Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.

–Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue.

Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

more at:

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/25/turkeys-troubling-war-on-syria/

Parrotile

Rest assured Russia is fully aware of all the clandestine goings-on.

Interesting that Turkey is keen on snuggling up close with those bastions of civil rights - SA and Qatar, just at the same time as they are making very loud noises re the involvement of what is Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict . . . .

Easy to see which side Turkey's desperately backing.

conscious being

Serena Shim, Shim had been reporting that IS militants had crossed the border from Turkey into Syria in trucks apparently affiliated with NGOs, some of which allegedly bore World Food Organization symbols. She claimed that she had received images from Islamic militants crossing the Turkish border and was one of the few reporters focusing on the matter.

"We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," she said.

lakecity55

I also remember the Terrorists taking over a pool supply/industrial supply house of Chlorine gas. They may have manufactured the chlorine at the same facility, so there was no shortage of ways for them to get ahold of poison gas.

The ideation that Assad would gas his own people is absurd. He throws some dissidents inot jail, but so does the USSA.

George Washington

Whistleblower: Powerful Congressman Hastert's Corruption Goes FAR Beyond Sex With a Student

Ms. Edmonds also told me that Hastert and other high-ranking officials helped funnel money for Gladio B false flag operations.

[Oct 23, 2015] US. Shale Drillers Running Out Of Options, Fast

Notable quotes:
"... The collapse of oil prices has forced drillers to become more efficient, adding more wells per well pad, drilling longer laterals, adding more sand per frac job, etc. That allowed companies to continue to post gains in output despite using fewer and fewer rigs. ..."
"... However, the efficiency gains may have been illusory, or at best, incremental progress instead of revolutionary change. Rather than huge innovations in drilling performance, companies were likely just trimming down on staff, squeezing suppliers, and drilling in the best spots – perhaps all sensible stuff for companies dealing with shrinking revenues, but nothing to suggest that drilling has leaped to a new level of efficiency. Reuters outlined this phenomenon in detail in a great October 21 article. ..."
"... Production gains from new rigs – which have increased steadily over the past three years – have run into a wall in the major U.S. shale basins. Drillers are starting to run out of ways to squeeze more oil out of wells from their rigs. Take a look at the below charts, which show drilling productivity flat lining in the Bakken, the Eagle Ford, and the Permian. ..."
oilprice.com

Much has been made about the impressive gains in efficiency and productivity in the shale patch, as new drilling techniques squeeze ever more oil and gas out of new wells. But the limits to such an approach are becoming increasingly visible. The U.S. shale revolution is running out of steam.

The collapse of oil prices has forced drillers to become more efficient, adding more wells per well pad, drilling longer laterals, adding more sand per frac job, etc. That allowed companies to continue to post gains in output despite using fewer and fewer rigs.

However, the efficiency gains may have been illusory, or at best, incremental progress instead of revolutionary change. Rather than huge innovations in drilling performance, companies were likely just trimming down on staff, squeezing suppliers, and drilling in the best spots – perhaps all sensible stuff for companies dealing with shrinking revenues, but nothing to suggest that drilling has leaped to a new level of efficiency. Reuters outlined this phenomenon in detail in a great October 21 article.

For evidence that the productivity gains have run their course, take a look at the latest Drilling Productivity Report from the EIA. Production gains from new rigs – which have increased steadily over the past three years – have run into a wall in the major U.S. shale basins. Drillers are starting to run out of ways to squeeze more oil out of wells from their rigs. Take a look at the below charts, which show drilling productivity flat lining in the Bakken, the Eagle Ford, and the Permian.

[Oct 23, 2015] Saudi Arabia Russia, Iran Forge Energy Partnerships

Oct 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge

No, the "atmosphere is not well," because again, the Saudis are out to achieve "ancillary diplomatic benefits" (i.e. geopolitical advantages) by keeping crude prices low, and those benefits include squeezing the Russians and perhaps limiting the revenue Tehran can bring in when Iran returns to the market.

As you can see, all of this is inextricably linked and it looks as though Russia and Iran may be on the verge of attempting to challenge the Saudis for domination of the oil market (don't forget Moscow surpassed Riyadh as the number one supplier to China for the second time this year in September).

Is a "new oil order" in the works? We shall see.

pot_and_kettle

Can someone point out when Syria didn't sign off on the Qatar - Turkey pipeline and when the pipeline was first proposed? This is news to me and seems like the watershed event for what the zio-US fomented in that part of the world.

Sergeiab

http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

4shzl

Next step: open that eastern front on the Arabian Peninsula.

Freddie

Persia has been around thousands of years.

A person may not like the Russians or Iranaians but they "ain't" going anywhere. They are also pretty tough on the battlefield (see Hezbollah). They also stood up for Syrian and the Syrian people including Syrian Christians.

Persians are a lot smarter than Saudis too.

alphahammer

Yea lets take a look. Good of you to point that out.

---

China Not So In Love With Russia After All

JUN 17, 2015

Shunned by the West, Russia may want to promote its new Chinese love affair to the world these days, but Czar Romeo shouldn't get his hopes up.

Russia's second biggest lender, VTB Bank, said that most Chinese banks have foregone doing business with them. The reason? Western sanctions against VTB. China lenders don't want to get caught up in the drama and - having more business with the U.S. and Europe than with Russia - have opted to play it safe.

"China's ambiguous position regarding Russian banks in the wake of US and EU sanctions is a key issue holding back progress toward greater bilateral cooperation," VTB Bank First Deputy Chairman Yuri Soloviev write in an op-ed published by the FinanceAsia news agency on Tuesday.

Freddie

Anything that smacks the shit out of the Saudis or Qatar makes me happy. What they did to Syria with the help of the USA, Turkey, UK, Israel and others is sickening.

[Oct 23, 2015] Is Russia The King Of Arctic Oil By Default

This is a very expensive oil that Russians now selling at loss. Financial capitalism in action.
Notable quotes:
"... Gazprom Neft began production at the Prirazlomnoye field in 2013 and reached commercial figures last year, with a total output of roughly 5,000 barrels per day (bpd). ..."
"... No more than 10 percent of the equipment applied at the Prirazlomnaya installation is believed to be Russian-made, and this level of disparity is commonplace at both Russia's onshore and offshore fields. ..."
Oct 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge
... ... ...

A cursory search of 'Arctic' and 'oil' elicits little in the way of positivity. Certainly, Shell's failure in the Chukchi Sea is notable. Combined with the Obama administration's waffling distaste for future offshore Arctic development, it marks what should be a period of relative dormancy in U.S. waters. Still, it's not indicative of the sector globally, which is seeing progress, albeit at a glacial pace.

The shining example of such development to date is Gazprom Neft's Prirazlomnaya platform. Located nearly 40 miles offshore in the Pechora Sea, the rig is the world's first Arctic oil project involving a stationary platform – though the general concept itself has been employed before (see: BP's Northstar Island).

Gazprom Neft began production at the Prirazlomnoye field in 2013 and reached commercial figures last year, with a total output of roughly 5,000 barrels per day (bpd). With production well number two (of 19) now online, output should reach somewhere between 10,000-15,000 bpd by year's end.

To be fair, several important tests lie ahead for Prirazlomnaya and Russia's Arctic shelf development in general. Chief among them is rapidly addressing its import dependence – one of the primary targets of U.S. and EU sanctions. No more than 10 percent of the equipment applied at the Prirazlomnaya installation is believed to be Russian-made, and this level of disparity is commonplace at both Russia's onshore and offshore fields.

Attention, domestic and international, has been given to the courting of China, India, and other backers – both financial and technological – but all eyes should be on the Russian solution, which will seek to demonstrate its efficacy by 2020.

At the Prirazlomnoye field, the Russian institute Omskneftekhimproekt has begun work on the modernization of the rig's drilling installations, technological equipment, and safety and telecommunications systems. The primary objectives are to boost production capacity (to ~120,000 bpd) toward 2020 and lay the building blocks for the future development of Russian-sourced platforms.

The work by Omskneftekhimproekt mirrors that of several institutes, companies, and universities across the country, rallying around the call for import substitution. However, just how much can actually be accomplished is the billion dollar question.

[Oct 23, 2015] Economic effects of shocks to oil supply and demand

Notable quotes:
"... Monthly EIA US Crude + Condensate (C+C) data (the short term energy report) show a decline in US production from 9.6 million bpd in May to 9.0 million bpd in September. The annualized exponential rate of decline, based on May to September data, would be about 20%/year. If this (net) rate of decline were to continue for another year, US C+C production would be down to about 7.4 million bpd in September, 2016. ..."
"... Regarding one of life's little ironies, we keep hearing that oil exports from a net oil importer, the US (with recent four week running average net crude oil imports of 6.8 million bpd), will have a meaningful impact on global oil markets, just as the US is currently showing a 20%/year annualized rate of decline in C+C production, implying that US net oil imports will be increasing in the months ahead, if the production decline continues. ..."
"... If it took trillions of dollars in global upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau," in actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude, i.e., the quantity of the stuff corresponding to WTI Brent oil prices), what happens to global crude oil production going forward given the ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex? ..."
"... Haynesville didn't drop because "they ran out of sweet spot" but because the price dropped. There is actually more resource available, now, if we go back to previous prices…because of improvements in drilling and completion efficacy. ..."
"... But for what it's worth (perhaps not much), I think that this is a tremendous buying opportunity, in regard to oil and gas investments. I don't have any idea what Warren Buffet is doing right now, but I would not be surprised to learn that he is aggressively investing in oil and gas. ..."
"... In other words, the available data seem quite supportive of my premise that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase. ..."
Oct 17, 2015 | Econbrowser
Jeffrey J. Brown October 17, 2015 at 5:15 am

Monthly EIA US Crude + Condensate (C+C) data (the short term energy report) show a decline in US production from 9.6 million bpd in May to 9.0 million bpd in September. The annualized exponential rate of decline, based on May to September data, would be about 20%/year. If this (net) rate of decline were to continue for another year, US C+C production would be down to about 7.4 million bpd in September, 2016.

Louisiana is an interesting case history. As drilling activity declined in the Hayneville Shale Gas Play, gas production from the play production initially continued to increase (as operators worked through the backlog of drilling but uncompleted wells), but production from the play ultimately showed a sharp decline, with annual marketed natural gas production falling at a rate of 20%/year from 2012 to 2014. Measured from the monthly peak in December, 2011, it took about two and a half years for the exponential rate of decline in Louisiana's monthly marketed gas production (from both shale gas + conventional production) to fall below 20%/year. The three year 12/11 to 12/14 rate of decline was 18.5%/year.

Regarding one of life's little ironies, we keep hearing that oil exports from a net oil importer, the US (with recent four week running average net crude oil imports of 6.8 million bpd), will have a meaningful impact on global oil markets, just as the US is currently showing a 20%/year annualized rate of decline in C+C production, implying that US net oil imports will be increasing in the months ahead, if the production decline continues.

And the question that I have periodically posed, to-wit:

If it took trillions of dollars in global upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau," in actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude, i.e., the quantity of the stuff corresponding to WTI & Brent oil prices), what happens to global crude oil production going forward given the ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex?

Jeffrey J. Brown October 17, 2015 at 8:37 am

Re: US Crude and/or Condensate Exports

As noted above, it's more than a little ironic that there are so many claims that oil exports from a net oil importer, the US, will have a material impact on global oil markets, even as US Crude + Condensate (C+C) production is declining.

In any case, I just noticed something very interesting in the EIA Annual Energy Review data tables, which provide monthly and/or annual data back to 1950:

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf

Note that US total liquids net imports were up year over year, from 4.9 million bpd in August, 2014 (2014 annual average of 5.1) to 5.6 million bpd in August, 2015, a 14% year over year increase in net total liquids imports.

Anonymous October 17, 2015 at 12:12 pm

Saw some analyst meeting (Genscape maybe) where the person projected rigs continuing to drop through 1Q16, ending up 200 more down (or about 400 remaining). This was based on prices staying in this ~$47-50 band, with commensurate strip. [A drop down to ~$40, with commensurate strip would lead to an additional 200 rigs going away.]

I think the Haynesville is a nice example to show the "lag" effect when rigs drop. And really, we can already use the US oil production as an example of this already. Another easy example is 2009 in the Bakken.

I would be leery of thinking too much that the Haynesville is some sort of example of Hubbert peak because a lot of the drop is price caused, not exhaustion. [In a classic Hubbert peak case for global oil or national gas, you would have the normal curve AND would have Hotelling price increase. In this case, it's not even constant price…it's reaction to a price crash.] Haynesville didn't drop because "they ran out of sweet spot" but because the price dropped. There is actually more resource available, now, if we go back to previous prices…because of improvements in drilling and completion efficacy. [This is Adelman's point of how you don't just eat away at lower cost oil and move to higher…yes, you may be doing that. But in addition, knowledge can grow the pool of available low cost oil or reduce the price of getting out what you already know about. Both effects can occur and they fight each other and you have to get into the specifics to see which is winning.]

In addition, concentrating on the Haynesville, when the Marcellus and Utica have occurred is missing the main story from an economic impact perspective. After all, volume is up and price is down for natural gas. So for all the H or the B dropped, the M and U more than made up for it. "The App" is the key place to look at in US natural gas.

In addition, FWIW, H did drop very beautifully in a Hubbert-like manner from the peak of 7, BUT for the last 18 months has been near flat at 4 BCF/day. Download the excel data (last figure at bottom of page) and graph it and you will see that. Peak oilers discussing the Haynesville as some sort of organic product life cycle analogy (born, grow, mature, die), never mention this key insight (how it has flattened out dramatically now). But it's in the data. Just graph to see it.

http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/ (note this shows the shale only, not the conventional production. EIA DPR as a data source makes the fat tail look even more prominent, but includes conventional in the region.)

Jeffrey J. Brown October 18, 2015 at 12:01 pm

So, given the right price incentives, the sum of the output of discrete sources of oil & gas–that individually peak and decline–will never peak and decline?

In any case, in regard to price versus production, we have an interesting case history when it comes to actual crude oil production (generally defined as 45 API and lower crude oil). Following is an essay, which I sent to some industry acquaintances a few weeks ago:

Regarding oil prices, I may be one of the worst prognosticators around, especially when it comes to demand side analysis. My primary contribution has been as an amateur supply side analyst, especially in regard to net exports.

In any case, earlier this year I thought that we had hit the monthly low in Brent prices for the current oil price decline ($48 monthly average in January, 2015), and I thought we were more or less following an upward price trajectory, from the 1/15 low, similar to the price recovery following the 12/08 monthly oil price low ($40 for Brent).

However, a key difference between the 2008/2009 price decline and subsequent recovery and the 2014/2015 decline is that Saudi Arabia cut production from 2008 to 2009 while they increased production from 2014 to 2015.

But for what it's worth (perhaps not much), I think that this is a tremendous buying opportunity, in regard to oil and gas investments. I don't have any idea what Warren Buffet is doing right now, but I would not be surprised to learn that he is aggressively investing in oil and gas.

The bottom line for me is that depletion marches on.

A few years ago, ExxonMobil put the decline from existing oil wells at about 4% to 6% per year. A recent WSJ article noted that analysts are currently putting the decline from existing oil wells at 5% to 8% per year (in my opinion, the 8% number is more realistic). At 8%/year, globally we need about 6.5 MMBPD of new Crude + Condensate (C+C) production every single year, just to offset declines from existing wells, or we need about 65 MMBPD of new C+C production over the next 10 years, just to offset declines from existing wells. This is equivalent to putting on line the productive equivalent of the peak production rate of about thirty-three (33) North Slopes of Alaska over the next 10 years.

It appears quite likely that global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) has been more or less flat to down since 2005, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $55 in 2005 to $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at $99 in 2014)–while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

Following are links to charts showing normalized production values for OPEC 12 countries and global data. The gas, natural gas liquids (NGL) and crude + condensate (C+C) values are for 2002 to 2014 (except for gas, which is through 2013, EIA data in all cases). Both data charts show similar increases for gas, NGL and C+C from 2002 to 2005, with inflection points in both cases for C+C in 2005. My premise is that condensate production, in both cases, accounts for virtually all of the post-2005 increase in C+C production.

Global Gas, NGL and C+C:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Global%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpskb5bxu6d.jpg

OPEC 12 Gas, NGL and C+C:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpsox3lqdkj.jpg

Currently, we only have crude oil only data for the OPEC 12 countries and for Texas (note that what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually C+C).

Also following is a link to OPEC 12 implied condensate (EIA C+C less OPEC crude) and OPEC crude only from 2005 to 2014 (OPEC data prior to 2005 was for a different set of exporters than post-2005). Obviously, data quality is an issue, and the boundary between actual crude and condensate is sometimes fuzzy. In any case, we have to deal with the data that we have.

OPEC 12 Crude and Implied Condensate:
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Crude%20and%20Condensate_zps12rfrqos.jpg

As of 2014, OPEC and the US accounted for 53% of global C+C production (41 MMBPD out of 78 MMBPD). Implied OPEC condensate production increased by 1.2 MMBPD from 2005 to 2014 (1.2 to 2.4). The EIA estimates that US condensate production increased by about 1.0 MMBPD from 2011 to 2014. I'm estimating that US condensate production may have increased by around 1.2 MMBPD or so from 2005 to 2014. Based on the foregoing, increased condensate production by OPEC and the US may have accounted for about 60% (about 2.4 MMBPD) of the 4 MMBPD increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2014.

Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD.

In other words, the available data seem quite supportive of my premise that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

If it took trillions of dollars of upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau" in actual global crude oil production, what happens to crude production given the large and ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex?

And given the huge rate of decline in existing US gas production (probably on the order of about 24%/year from existing wells), it's possible that we might see substantially higher North American gas prices this winter, given the decline in US drilling.

Furthermore, through 2013 we have seen a post-2005 decline in what I define as Global Net Exports of oil (GNE, the combined net exports from the Top 33 net exporters in 2005), which is a pattern that appears to have continued in 2014. GNE fell from 46 MMBPD in 2005 to 43 MMBPD in 2013 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids). The volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013.

Here are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports:

Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

In addition, while we are currently seeing signs of weak demand in China, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

And a massively under-appreciated aspect of what I call "Net Export Math" is that the rate of depletion in the remaining cumulative volume of net oil exports, after a net export peak, tends to be enormous. Saudi Arabia is showing a year over year increase in production and net exports, but based on available annual data through 2014, Saudi Arabia's net exports fell from 9.5 MMBPD in 2005 to 8.4 MMBPD in 2014 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids), and I estimate that Saudi Arabia may have already shipped close to half of their total post-2005 supply of cumulative net exports of oil.

  • "So, given the right price incentives, the sum of the output of discrete sources of oil & gas–that individually peak and decline–will never peak and decline? "

    So again, the argument for imminent decline is some eventual limit to the amount of hydrocarbons on the entire planet? it is not cherrypicking to emphasize the Haynesville and Barnett as gas plays "peaking" when overall gas production in the US has grown 40%, even in the face of a huge price drop????

    "In any case, in regard to price versus production, we have an interesting case history when it comes to actual crude oil production (generally defined as 45 API and lower crude oil)."

    Nope. Lease condensate (~55) is legally considered crude oil. EF 47 is a normal listed form of oil in Platts price lists. Light oil and condensate is used to make gasoline and other products and runs through a refinery. It is easily and routinely blended with heavy oil and is actually needed for that (not just as a diluent for transport but for optimizing the subunits of complex refinery (non complex refineres, e.g. those without cokers or visbreakers or with less cracking actually function better on just light blends to start…the extreme are teakettle refineries).

    Condensate and EF crude is withing a few dollars of WTI and correlates with price moves very closely. EF 47 is actually pricier than heavy sour crudes. Talk to any trader, refinery buyer, or even just a microeconomist familiar with looking at substitutes. It is crazy to say that growth of 45+ oil has not affected overall oil prices. Perhaps some small shrinking of spreads between qualities, but often not even a directionality change. The much larger impact though is on the overall supply demand balance for C&C. Does any economist think the goods are sufficiently different to justify a separate P-Q curve for 45- and 45+ oil? [Oh…and the extra funny thing is the peak oil meme of mid 2000s was that we wouldn't find more light sweet!]

    P.s. If you really think 45+ isn't oil, then why not agree to remove the export restriction on at least them?

    "Following is an essay, which I sent to some industry acquaintances a few weeks ago:"

    Your cut and pasting the things on the net (ELM stuff, net export arguments) is almost spammy. Total conversation killer and often ignored by even your compatriots.

    Erik Poole

    Nony: You make good arguments for lumping crude oil and condensates.

    The problem with a net export perspective is that it ignores the global nature of the market place and at some point, an indifference to whether heavy oil imported into the US refinery complex hails from western Canada, Venezuela, Mexico or Colombia. Or even Iran some day.

    If we could draw and compare distribution curves of oil grades over the last , I suspect we would see the distributions flattening out over time as extreme grades become more prominent. It may even be bi-modal at this point.

    Given the expense of retooling refineries and the robust growth in US condensate production, one can see the interest in securing more pipeline access to Canadian bitumen. And perhaps the interest in hoping/praying for growth in Colombian heavy oil production as Mexican production declines and the populist Neo-Marxist experiment in Venezuela violently implodes stagnating heavy oil production in that country.

    Jeffrey Brown: I don't want to suggest that the net export perspective is not useful. It clearly illustrates symptoms of the Resource Curse and the general difficulty experienced by citizens in weak societies to play and cooperate well together. It does not however say much about the US cheap energy entitlement and how that attitude has hurt US national security and economic performance over time. America's well earned reputation for killing grandchildren and grandparents in part stems from this ill-advized quest for cheap energy security (sic).

    Jeffrey J. Brown

    Erik,

    I'm not arguing the relative merits of crude oil versus condensate, although distillate yield begins to drop off precipitously over an API gravity of about 40 or so.

    I am arguing that the available data strongly suggest that global crude oil production probably peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and natural gas liquids, have (so far) continued to increase.

    In regard to net oil exports, here's the problem: Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in a net oil exporting country, unless they cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, it's a mathematical certainty that the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and that the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    Nony

    I don't think it makes economic sense to put lease condensate with NGLs and away from crude. NGLs are more gas like, so you can put them with gas if you want instead of oil or just make a third grouping. [But don't forget them! If you cut the total liquid products to being C&C, they still belong somewhere…have use!]

    NGLS are mostly (c2-c4) molecularly pure, separated, gaseous products. [minor amount of C5+ liquid ("plant condensate" obtained at the gas refrigeration separation plant].

    Lease condensate is just the associated entrained liquid oil from a primarily gas well. It is obtained at the atmospheric, three phase separator at the wellhead. Similarly, wet gas is separated from predominantly oil streams. Eagle Ford 47 isn't even coming out of "gas wells" (in terms of phase) but single phase liquid oil wells that are very light. Lease condensate and Eagle Ford 47 look like oil, smell like oil, mess up your Nomex coveralls in a similar manner to 30 API oil. They are each that glorious natural product that contains a soup of hundreds of different molecules, of different lengths, aromaticities, branching. Oh and less sulfur (which makes them BETTER oil) but still with some. Lease condensate also tends to be a bit lower API and more variable in composition versus plant condensate (although higher than oil), but still pretty similar.

    There is a reasonable argument to exclude NGLs entirely from crude time series or at least C3 and C2 from being lumped in with crude. Ethane in theory competes with naphtha and is an occasional substitute (and some crackers are convertible), but given the glut, prices have diverged and started to follow C1 a couple years ago. And like C1, it is quite difficult to transport across oceans. C3 is more exportable, but still has a pretty different market (mostly heating) than premium liquid petroleum products (mostly transport fuels: gasoline, diesel, jet). [In a sense, C1 is a substitute for oil, but it's a pretty weak substitute!]

    So yeah, sure, strip out the NGLs. And throw in the C4 and C5+ with being stripped out, since they are minor…even though ARE mostly used for transport. Either direct gasoline mixing for butane or for C5+ mixed into crude (at refineries or upstream at heavy oil sites) or used as naphtha in crackers (thus competing with a refined liquid stream. But fine keep them all apart.

    But keeping condensate (or Eagle Ford 47 oil) apart from other grades of crude makes no sense. That stuff goes through refineries and makes gasoline…a lot of gasoline, which is generally what the refinery is optimized for. (Other products have value and you go for a global optimum, not a local. Like you don't optimize production of RFO and make little gasoline! Diesel and jet have value of course and at times, pricing of diesel can beat out gasoline, but generally gasoline is top in both value. And certainly in volume (typical refinery cracks some product that could have been diesel to make more gasoline). Just look at Platts prices and the correlation of EF47 and DJ condensate versus WTI. It's the same stuff, but slightly different flavors, man. If you look at it on a world basis (where the explosion of light and super light is export-ban trapped on a continent that wants to refine 28 API), the correlations will be even stronger. But I bet even in the US, you find a very consistent correlation: maybe just look at annual average prices for 2008, 2009, 2014 and 2015 YTD. Condensate belongs with crude, from a supply-demand standpoint. Not with NGLs or with NG.

    Nony

    Here's a link showing Saudi 50 API crude selling in the same setting as other grades of crude (i.e. considered a similar good, not considered an NGL). AND at a premium to medium grade Gulf oil. AND even at a greater premium than other light, but less light oils.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-04/saudi-aramco-raises-all-june-crude-price-differentials-to-u-s- [scroll down to the header "Asia"]

    [Oct 23, 2015] Putin Just Warned Global War Is Increasingly More Likely Heres Why

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. Whats the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] its just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with." ..."
    "... hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies. ..."
    "... We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all." ..."
    "... the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of bad guys (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens. ..."
    "... They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this? ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    ... ... ...

    ... Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there's little chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels - the optics around that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare.

    ... ... ...

    Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club's 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from the erroneous labeling of some extremists as "moderates" to the futility of nuclear war.

    "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What's the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it's just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with."

    "I'd like to stress once again that [Russia's operation in Syria] is completely legitimate, and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace," Putin said of Moscow's Mid-East strategy. And while he's probably telling the truth there, it's only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely means the restoration of Assad (it's difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia's interests, The Kremlin is seeking to promote peace - it's more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin's desire for goodwill towards men.

    And then there's Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct: The "hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies."

    Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there's a way to take the "mutually" out of "mutually assured destruction."

    That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it's possible to "win" a nuclear war. Commenting on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:

    "We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all."

    In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of "bad guys" (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens.

    ... ... ...

    ZerOhead

    Putin is really pushing the "nuclear war" angle hard. I guess his good friend Henry Kissinger must have told him that power is the only thing that NeoCon fucknuts like himself understand...

    El Vaquero

    For any who want to read it, here is some detailed information on what the USSR's nuclear strategy was during the Cold War:

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/

    While some things will have changed due to changes in technology, what kinds of targets the Russians would pick is likely much the same as it was when it was part of the USSR. If you live near a target, this might be helpful:

    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    sushi

    The people of the Falklands voted to remain associated with the UK. The citizens of Quebec, Canada nearly voted themselves out of Canada, the citizens of Scotland nearly voted themselves out of the the UK, Self Determination is respected by the UN as being a fundamental right of all peoples, so of course when the the citizens of Crimea undertake exactly the same process and vote to join Russia it is a Russian imperialist land grab.

    Watch more MSM. They will explain it all to you.

    Occident Mortal

    Russian ICBM's can't be shot down with air defense missiles.

    Russian ICBM's constantly recalculate their trajectory following a continually regenerated 'random path' through 3D space all the way to their target. The downside is that the missles need 20% more fuel.

    All air defense systems work by tracking a missle and projecting it's trajectory then triangulating an intercept location and launching an interceptor to that location.

    But by the time the interceptor reaches the intercept location the Russian ICBM will have changed course several times and is likely to be thousands of meters away.

    In order to intercept a Russian ICBM the interceptor needs to travel at over 35,000mph. Good luck with that.

    George Bush decided he wanted a Star Wars missle defense system and after spending a boat load of cash.. the Kremlin called in the US amabasador and told them all Russian missle had just received a software upgrade that would render Star Wars obsolete before it was even built. The Star Wars program was scrapped within a month.

    Anasteus

    A shockingly open Putin's summary of the current situation that every American should hear

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww

    Mr.BlingBling

    They'd be practically useless on this continent because of the decoys accompanying the 'physics packages.' The sine qua non of an effective ABM system is the ability to destroy the missiles during the boost phase. The importance of eastern Ukraine is its proximity to Russian ICBM bases, which is why 'our' government spent $5 billion to foment the coup.

    cowdiddly

    Oh dont worry it is Carl. That little Caspian missile shoot off the shrimp boats has caused these morons to realize there may be a few gaping ass holes in the curtain has them scrambling. I present you their panic contract to "protect the homeland" just issued to..........Yep. Lockheed Martin. purveyors of the fine F35 aircraft.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/lockheed-radar-missile-defense...

    I feel safer already

    Speaking of military contracts, Last year Russia upgraded and refurbished over 5000 underground atomic bomb shelters built in the old Soviet days that are located in every province of Russia for their people. He knows what kind of nimcompoops he is dealing with. They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this?

    Now ask yourself how many underground shelters has your government provided for us, other than the huge complex in Utah for the President and politicians to move safely too? I certainly don't know where one is in my state unless I was to dig it myself. The only thing I know of that they did to prepare for disaster is Fema built millions of plastic coffin like things that are being stored around everywhere.

    They are only worried about protecting themselves and don't give a rats ass about you other than taxes. Their only concern for you is you might lay around to long stinking up the place.


    [Oct 22, 2015] The Vineyard of the Saker Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies. ..."
    "... International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white. ..."
    "... In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case. ..."
    "... The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance. ..."
    "... They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. ..."
    "... As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries. ..."
    "... What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain. ..."
    "... Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower. ..."
    "... Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries. ..."
    "... Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries. ..."
    "... Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system. ..."
    "... Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. ..."
    "... Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify. ..."
    vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

    ... ... ...

    What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

    But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

    The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

    Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

    We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

    In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

    The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.

    We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

    The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

    Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

    Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

    A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

    Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

    They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

    During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

    Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

    As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

    Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

    What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

    We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

    Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

    Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

    Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

    But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

    Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

    Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

    The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

    We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

    Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

    Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

    Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

    Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

    Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

    There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

    At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

    So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

    Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

    Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

    Colleagues, friends,

    I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

    Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

    What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

    The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

    Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

    We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

    Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

    Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

    Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?

    What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

    However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

    Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

    Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

    I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

    I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

    This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

    In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.

    This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

    I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

    Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

    Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.

    I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.

    I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

    And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

    Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

    We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

    The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

    We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

    Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

    [Oct 22, 2015] Russians are concerned with the possibility of organizing Maidan in their country by Western intelligence and internal neoliberal fifth column

    Looks like color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington) protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this Shaun Walker
    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine promoting the right kind of democracy to the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of Fuck the EU Nuland. ..."
    "... As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no? ..."
    "... Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesnt mean they are wrong. ..."
    "... International Observer: The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs ..."
    "... This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distortions of what is happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our free west have set up in the attempt to organize yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...thats too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy. ..."
    "... The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY). ..."
    "... Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. ..."
    "... a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people. ..."
    "... I will generalize here - if by those you mean the West you are mistaken. The vast majority of its populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy, frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous. ..."
    "... If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country ..."
    "... if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesnt work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMDs well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons. ..."
    "... Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and I dont like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. ..."
    "... Also, I doubt youve visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. Its as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually. ..."
    "... Werent the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian. ..."
    "... In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but its hardly democracy. ..."
    "... Also the election of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraines own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable fact which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue. ..."
    "... Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45. ..."
    "... A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev. Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well. Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe. ..."
    "... A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup detat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections. ..."
    "... Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder whats going to happen in the coming weeks. ..."
    "... And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGOs and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine ..."
    "... What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get? ..."
    "... Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? ..."
    "... Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority ..."
    "... "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom." ..."
    "... After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being: am also wary of vISISantism. ..."
    "... As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland:, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasnt peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa. ..."
    "... Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place. ..."
    "... This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir peoples opinion in the former Soviet republics. ..."
    "... There were students from Lviv who were given college credit for being at Maidan. ..."
    "... There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead. ..."
    "... Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on democratization programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent? ..."
    "... All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine. We shouldnt get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU. ..."
    "... Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you ..."
    "... How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kievs government troops and Nazi battalions?? ..."
    "... pro-democracy protesters? like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK? They are right ..."
    January 15, 2015 | The Guardian

    Patriotic group formed to defend Russia against pro-democracy protesters by Shaun Walker

    The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan,: Thursday it would fight any attempts to bring Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych.

    "All street movements and color revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first", Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.

    "It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

    jgbg -> RunLukeRun, 16 Jan 2015 06:36

    BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate slaughter and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job

    I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:

    Nazis on the march in Kiev this month

    Would you like to claim that the Azov and Aidar battalions aren't a bunch of Nazis?

    Here's a Guardian article about Azov.

    The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.

    As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no?

    TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21

    Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself informed.

    jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19

    You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.

    The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e. someone acceptable to the US government at the helm. Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first spend the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.

    jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12

    What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my country.

    I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in turn, funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime minister who was brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).

    The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual accounts.

    Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong.

    Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09

    He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable 20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated. The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found this timely. But we cannot blame on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny himself. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based society.

    They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg to abroad for scripts. The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure he lost any groups with many Russians.

    Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50

    I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full of aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists. There is a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.

    Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41

    This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK was told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator:C is out of their reach. But guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.

    Asimpleguest -> romans

    International Observer: ''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''

    PeraIlic

    "Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," Nkolai Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.

    Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself briefly. An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov:

    Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.

    Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily. If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining NATO?

    That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that America is a friend.

    imperfetto

    This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distortions of what is happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to organize yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.

    The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY).

    The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism, scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the 'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs, allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)

    But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.

    Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:

    a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.

    VladimirM

    "The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia,":e Surgeon, whose real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.

    Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as "beast" but what he:s closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.

    Kondratiev

    There is at least anecdotal evidence that Maiden protestors were paid - see: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-and-eu-are-paying-ukrainian-rioters-and-protesters/5369316 .

    Bosula

    These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer that will get you up to speed....

    The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs

    Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht

    Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his secret police chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic time trying to stir Russophobia.

    seventh

    Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to defend it.

    Robert Sandlin -> seventh

    Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to strike Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in Russia.

    Bulagen

    I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the wording that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans (Russians).

    jezzam -> Bulagen

    All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely because they would threaten his power.

    sashasmirnoff -> jezzam

    The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?

    I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy, frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.

    The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things) the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.

    I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc. All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.

    One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That would totally ruin the World Order.

    Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan

    Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?

    Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin

    Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have the corner on black shirts!

    WardwarkOwner

    Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?

    Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner

    I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran, Norway, Qatar, etc.

    So what exactly is your point?

    Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob

    Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be blind . in Mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .

    PullingTheStrings

    If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country

    if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons.

    Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings

    For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire comment is an act of deflection.

    The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb Moscow apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.

    Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any protests with violent vISISante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.

    Bob Vavich -> Jackblob

    Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India.

    I can also tell you that when I drove through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".

    Jackblob -> Bob Vavich

    I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".

    Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.

    Hamdog

    Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.

    We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.

    In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.

    E1ouise -> Hamdog

    Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliament* after he fled to Russia. Why don't you know this yet?

    secondiceberg -> E1ouise

    Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him out" the next day.

    Bosula -> secondiceberg

    Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the Rada with weapons while the vote taken.

    Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.

    Sourcrowd

    The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.

    Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd

    I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.

    Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45.

    I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking about.

    Bosula -> Sourcrowd

    Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?

    Bosula

    A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.

    Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.

    Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe.

    TuleCarbonari -> Bosula

    A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.

    Flinryan

    Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

    MarcelFromage -> Flinryan

    I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.

    Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the rest of the international community.

    secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage

    And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine. Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.

    Velska

    CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.

    To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.

    Bosula -> Velska

    You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.

    secondiceberg -> Velska

    What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?

    What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim any legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the U.S.

    Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.

    cichonio

    "All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first,"

    That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been seen yet.

    Also,

    "Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"

    I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.

    Bosula -> cichonio

    Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing its own people, but this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type environment.

    Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals. Utterly bizarre.

    secondiceberg -> cichonio

    So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.

    Bob Vavich -> cichonio

    Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely, the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged. What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe. Probably not.

    SHappens

    "Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready,":lia Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.

    This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.

    They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.

    "It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."

    ploughmanlunch

    After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being: am also wary of vISISantism.

    FlangeTube

    "Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.

    Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but I would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a say too.

    As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland:, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa.

    Sergei Konyushenko

    Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?

    FallenKezef

    It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.

    Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened to a pro-Russian government it's ok.

    I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.

    Spaceguy1 One

    The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations. The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.

    Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.

    It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.

    http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2014/05/06/the-crimea-referendum-15-percent-for-myth/

    vr13vr

    This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere. There are obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by street disturbance and stone throwing.

    Beckow

    Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia they will come out and protest in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. Their side also needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.

    That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tattoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western connections. That's the way democracies should work.

    About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an interesting point. There were students from Lviv who were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?

    Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues are involved?

    rezevici

    Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the "patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.

    The ethics of Russians will be on display.

    Anette Mor -> rezevici

    There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform and patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots. Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists or national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not opposition.

    They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very complex process.

    PeraIlic

    by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid, everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle thrown,":blin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no evidence.

    There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.

    Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?

    We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from 2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...

    ...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.

    Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?

    RandolphHearst -> PeraIlic,

    You antipathy against the author speaks volumes about the contents of his article.

    susandbs12 , link

    All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine. We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.

    And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.

    daffyddw

    Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Bless you all, little brothers.

    susandbs12 -> daffyddw

    Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.

    Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.

    Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different views from you, so what?

    LaAsotChayim

    Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid" implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?

    How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!

    Anette Mor -> Strummered

    Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does not bring any good.

    A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net. Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith, nationalities and social groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came from USSR including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per nation, no matter how big or small.

    The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of majority. That is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.

    kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

    US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests

    kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill

    U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.

    http://moscow.usembassy.gov/democracy.html

    and this is only one of them, many more in budget.

    MartinArvay

    pro-democracy protesters? like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK? They are right

    [Oct 22, 2015] Russia ready to use military intervention to defend Iran and Syria from Israeli, US and Nato attacks

    So Russian position was know to US neocons since at least 2012 and still they push forward "regime change" in Syria.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Former Member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on Russia. ..."
    February 23, 2012 | YouTube

    Former Member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on Russia.

    Falamu445 10 months ago

    And what about China? Should China also seek to protect Iran and Syria with military force if they are attacked?

    hudzz

    Pakistan will be with Russia if they go to war with usa or isreal

    Benny Morris 1 year ago

    Good thing that arrogant America is going down. America has spent nearly 70 years being a nuisance to Russians. What a bunch of swine they are when they refuse to admit what the whole world has always known that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 and America only did so in its dreams.

    optionrider12 2 years ago in reply to Brian Hynes

    No, you don't understand and I'm not going to fall for your quasi-Hegelian dialectic. Communism can be categorized as a utopia and you're kindly advised to find the definition of Utopia by yourself. Fair enough?

    Tristan Xavier 1 year ago in reply to Kati Kati

    I understand what you mean but I would never wish the horrors of war on anybody. Peace can be done in different ways. Both Americans and Russians should focus on the corrupted governments that they both possess. The previous generations had their time and they chose either to conform or neglect to the systems. Now we see the results. It's us that needs to stand up and stop this. Why are we going to war for governments that are currently at war with it's own people? N.D.A.A,S.O.P.A and drones etc

    [Oct 22, 2015] The Secret History of U.S.-Iranian Relations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Should we invade Iran for the benefit of our foreign policy, for the benefit of our security interests? ..."
    ftmdaily.com
    Feb 22, 2012 | youtube.com

    FTM (Jerry Robinson): Alright, well, joining me on the program today is Stephen Kinzer. He is an award-winning foreign correspondent who has worked in more than 50 countries. He has been a New York Times Bureau Chief in Istanbul, Berlin, and Nicaragua. He's the author of many books, including the best-selling book All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.

    He's also a professor of international relations at Boston University. My guest today is Stephen Kinzer. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me on Follow the Money Weekly Radio.

    KINZER (Stephen Kinzer): Great to be with you.

    FTM: I am looking at your book right now-at the Preface to the 2008 edition: "The Folly of Attacking Iran." And I would say, Stephen, that many of the people who are listening to the program today are…I don't want to assume that they're not familiar with the 1953 event, but I want to assume that perhaps they don't know as much about it as perhaps maybe they should. And especially now, as we take a look at the news cycle, we see that Iran is all over the news: talk about invasion; talk about stopping the nuclear program (whether it's even occurring or not is a debate). But the issue at hand right now is, "Should we invade Iran for the benefit of our foreign policy, for the benefit of our security interests?" And you have written a book here that really peels back the layers about this entire question. Why don't you begin by sharing with our audience why you wrote this book and why this topic is important to you?

    KINZER: In the first place, you're right that that 2008 edition of the book, which was the new edition, contains this Foreword, "The Folly of Attacking Iran. Now, in the last couple of years, I've been looking at that new edition and thinking, "Boy, that's kind of out of date now." That was at the end of the Bush Administration when we were being really hyped up that Iran was a mortal threat to the rest of the world, but now that introduction is really kind of outdated. Boy, was I wrong! You're absolutely right that Iran has now emerged as the Number One foreign policy issue in this presidential campaign, as candidates flail around for foreign policy issues to beat each other over the head with, Iran really seems to rise to the top of the list. We are in a situation now where we're looking for a demon in the world. I think this is not just an American impulse, but in many countries, it's almost thought that if you don't have an enemy in the world, you should try to find one. It's a way to unite your population and give people a sense of common purpose.

    So, you look around the world and pick some country that you want to turn into your enemy and inflate into a terrible, mortal threat to your own security. Iran seems to be filling that role right now. It's an odd situation, because in a sense, the world looks very different from Iran's point of view than it does from here. Iran has four countries in the immediate neighborhood that are armed with nuclear weapons. That's India, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel. Iran also has two countries on its borders that have been invaded and occupied by the United States: that is, Iraq and Afghanistan. So the idea that Iran might be a little unsure as to its defense and wants to make sure that it can build whatever it needs to protect itself doesn't seem so strange when you're sitting in Iran. But even more interesting than all that, when you're looking at differences between the way the world looks when you see it from the United States and the way it looks when you see it from Iran has to do with history.

    Whenever I travel in the world, particularly when I travel to a country that I'm not familiar with, I like to ask myself one question: and that is, "How did this country get this way? So, why is this country rich and powerful?" Or, "Why is this country poor and miserable?" When I was traveling in Iran and getting to know Iran for the first time, I came to realize that there's a huge gap between what Iran should be based on its culture and history and size and the education of its people, and what it is. This is a country that has thousands of years of history. It was the first empire in history-the Persian Empire. It has produced a huge amount of culture over many centuries. Its people are highly educated. Nonetheless, it's isolated from the world; poor; unhappy. And I've always wondered on my first trips there why this was. What happened? And as I began to read more, and talk to Iranians, people told me, "We used to have a democracy here. But you Americans came over here and destroyed it. And ever since then, we've been spiraling down." So I decided, "I gotta find out what really happened. I need to find a book about what happened to Iranian democracy." And then I looked around and found there was no such book.

    FTM: Wow.

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/pW_Rbka6eZ8?rel=0

    KINZER: I finally decided that if I was going to read that book, I was going to have to write it myself. And that's how All the Shah's Men came about.

    FTM: Well, I would imagine that many in the listening audience would immediately take issue with some of the things that you've stated, and I want to hit those directly head-on. You state in your book some of the reasons why to attack Iran, at least, some of the reasons that are stated.

    Number One: Iran wants to become a nuclear power, and that should not be allowed. Iran poses a threat to Israel. Iran sits at the heart of the emerging Shiite Crescent which threatens to destabilize the Middle East. Iran supports radical groups on nearby countries. Iran helps kill American soldiers in Iraq. Iran has ordered terror attacks in foreign countries. Iran's people are oppressed and need Americans to liberate them.

    So there's a plethora of ideas as to why American invasion, or some other type of invasion into Iran would possibly be beneficial, not only to our security interests, but also to Iran's state of health so to speak, and bringing them liberty. So you made a good case against it. What do you say to those who say, "You're crazy, Stephen. We need to go over there; we cannot allow them to have a nuclear weapon.

    KINZER: In the first place, we don't have any evidence that Iran is building a nuclear weapon; in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency has made clear that it has never seen any such evidence, and those inspectors are all over those plants, the uranium is under seal, the seals are under constant video surveillance. It's not as urgent a problem as we're making it out to be.

    Nonetheless, I would add a kind of larger perspective, and it's this. When you look at a map of the Middle East, one thing jumps right out at you and it is that Iran is the big country right in the middle. It's not possible to imagine a stable Middle East without including Iran. It's a little bit comparable to the situation that we faced after the end of World War II when there was tremendous anger at Germany for very good reasons.

    There was a great move afoot (in fact, we actually followed this policy for a few months) to crush Germany. We were going to slice Germany into pieces, then we were going to forbid it from ever building another factory or industrial plant again. Fortunately, cooler minds prevailed. And we decided to take the opposite tactic. And that was to realize that this country, Germany, had been stirring up trouble in Europe for a hundred years or more, and that the way to prevent that cycle from continuing was not to isolate Germany and kick it and push it into a corner, but to integrate Germany into Europe, and to make it a provider of security rather than a consumer of security. That's what we need to do with Iran. Iran needs to be given a place at the table that's commensurate with its size, and its tradition, and its history, and its regional role.

    Now, the United States doesn't want to do that because when Iran is at that table, it's not going to be saying things that are pro-American. It has an agenda that's different than ours. So we don't want it at the table. We want to crush Iran. It sounds like a tempting option, and in fact, if you could wave a wand and make the regime in Iran go away and make Iran be wonderfully friendly to the United States, I'd be all for that. But bombing Iran is likely to produce the opposite result.

    First of all, one thing that really surprises me when I'm in Iran is how unbelievably pro-American the people of Iran are. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there's no country in the world where the population is so pro-American as in Iran. I have been stopped on the streets by people who are practically shrieking when they find out I'm American and tell me how much they love the United States. You don't even get that in Canada! If we're smart, we're gonna realize that this is the Middle Eastern country with the most pro-American population. And this pro-American sentiment in Iran is a huge strategic asset for us going forward. If we liquidate that asset by bombing Iran, we will be greatly undermining our own strategic power. And this is a pattern we've been following in that part of the world for a long time.

    The war in Iraq greatly eroded American strategic power. It had the opposite effect that we thought it would have. And this is the real object lesson that we need to keep in mind. When we intervene in countries, we have enough power to achieve our short-term goal, but then we go away; our attention goes to other places. And the resentment and the anger festers and burns in the hearts and minds and souls of people in these countries, and ultimately, we wind up with backlash that we never anticipated and we can't control. In this rush now in these last months to demonize Iran and set the groundwork for an attack on Iran, we are doing something that Americans, and maybe all human beings do too often, and that is: we think about the short term; we never think about the long-term effects of our interventions.

    FTM: You open the book with a quote, a quintessential quote, which is kind of common for a book, and it's by President Harry Truman: "There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know." And I would probably say that most of us are obviously familiar with the history of September 11th, 2001, and I would go even further and perhaps say that we are familiar with the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and people may remember those days back in the Carter years. But your book goes back to 1953.

    In the Preface of your book, you state that the 1953 intervention by the United States into Iran may be seen as a decisive turning point in the 20th Century history from our perspective today. Now I don't know how many people in our listening audience know what happened in 1953. What event are you referring to, and why is it important to what's happening today?

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/H8ybj5KULmA?rel=0

    KINZER: For most Americans, the history of U.S.-Iran relations begins and ends with the Hostage Crisis. That's all we know, and we know that everything went bad since then. But Iranians don't think that way. For them, the Hostage Crisis is just one of a number of incidents that have happened over the past 50 years. For them, the key moment in the history of U.S.-Iran relations came in 1953. This is an episode that completely defines Iranian history and the Iran-United States relationship. Yet, many people in the United States are not even aware this happened.

    Very briefly, this is the story (and I tell it in much more detail in my book): In the period after World War II, Iranian democracy, which had come about at the beginning of the 20th Century through a revolution against a corrupt monarchy, really began to take form. It took on a reality. You had elections; competing parties; parliament. This was something that had not been seen in any Muslim country. So, Iran was truly in the vanguard of democracy. But, because Iran was a democracy, it elected a leader who represented the public will-not the will of outside powers. In Iran, there was one obsession. Iran is sitting, as we know, on an ocean of oil. But all through the 1920's and '30's and '40's, that oil was completely controlled by one British company.

    The entire standard of living in Britain all during that period was based on oil from Iran, since Britain has no oil or any colonies that have any oil. Meanwhile, people in Iran were living in some of the most miserable conditions of anyone in the world. Once they had a democracy, they elected a leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who, as prime minister, proceeded to pass a bill in congress in which Iran nationalized its oil industry. This sent the British into a panic. They tried all kinds of things to crush Mosaddegh. Finally, when he closed their embassy and chased out all their diplomats, including all the secret agents who were trying to overthrow him, the British decided, "We're going to ask the Americans to do this for us." So, Churchill asked President Truman to "do this for us. Please go over to Iran and overthrow this guy who took away our oil company. And Truman said, "No." But then, a few years later, when Dwight Eisenhower became president, and John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State, and his brother, Allen Dulles, became Director of the CIA, things changed.

    The United States decided that we would work with the British to overthrow Mosaddegh -mainly because he was challenging the fundamentals of corporate globablism, the principle that international companies should be allowed to function all over the world according to conditions that they considered fair. Mosaddegh was saying, "No, we are going to determine the conditions under which foreign companies can function in our country." As a result, the United States sent a team CIA agents into Iran. They went to work in the basement of the American Embassy. They threw Iran into total chaos, and that chaos finally resulted in the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government. That put the Shah back on his peacock throne; he ruled with increasing oppression for 25 years; his repressive rule produced the explosion of the late 1970's, what we call "The Islamic Revolution"; that brought the power, this clique of fanatically anti-American mullahs who are in power now. So, when you do what they call in the CIA "walking back the cat," when you walk back the cat, that is, to see what happened before, and before, and before, you come to realize that the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953 was not only the defining event in the history of U.S.-Iran relations, but it set Iran in the Middle East into turmoil from which it has never recovered.

    FTM: In 1953, in the book you point out that democracy was beginning to take root there.

    KINZER: It's a remarkable story. This, as I said, is something that had never happened in a Muslim country before. Iran is a remarkable country; very different from the other countries in the Middle East. And I'm not sure that people in the United States realize this. Most of the countries in the Middle East are what you might call "fake countries." They're made-up countries that were invented by some British or French diplomat drawing lines on a map at some men's club after World War I.

    Iran is not a fake country by any means. It has lived for thousands of years within more or less the same boundaries, with more or less the same language, and the same kind of population. It's a country with a deep, rich culture and very strong sense of itself. We are treating Iran as if it's Honduras or Barundi or some little place where we can just go and kick sand in people's face and they'll do whatever we want. Iran is not a country like that. And, given its size, and its location, you see that that region will never be stable as long as Iran is angry and ostracized. The only way to stabilize that part of the world is to build a security architecture in which Iran has a place.

    The world needs a big security concession from Iran. The world also needs big security concessions from Israel. But countries only make security concessions when they feel safe. Therefore, it should be in interest of those who want stability in the Middle East to try to help every country in the region feel safe. But our goal in the Middle East isn't really stability; it's "stability under our rule…under our dominance." And we realize that when Iran emerges as a strong, proud, independent, democratic country, it's not gonna be so friendly to the United States. So I think there is some feeling that "we prefer it this way" being poor and isolated and unhappy.

    FTM: I was looking at a map the other day of the Middle East, just noticing the U.S. military bases in the Middle East, and Iran, if you look at it very objectively, and take a look at the Middle East military base map, you'll discover that Iran is completely surrounded. And as you mentioned, there are four other nations in their general vicinity that have nuclear weapons, and it seems as if pretty much the only way to keep the United States away from your country if you aren't playing by their rules is to have a nuclear weapon. So logically, it does seem to make sense that the Iranians are perhaps seeking a nuclear weapon, but what you point out here again in your book is that the program, to have a nuclear program, was first proposed by the United States to Iran back in the 1970's.

    KINZER: We thought it was a great idea for Iran to have a nuclear program-when it was run by a regime that was responsive to Washington. Now that it's a different kind of regime, we don't like this idea. You're absolutely right about the lessons that Iran has drawn about the value of having a nuclear weapon, or the ability to make a nuclear weapon, based on what's happened in the world. Why did the United States attack Iraq, but not attack North Korea? I think it's quite obvious: if North Korea didn't have a nuclear weapon, we would have crushed them already; and if Sadaam did have a nuclear weapon, we probably never would have invaded that country.

    An even more vivid example is Libya. We managed to persuade Gaddafi to give up his nuclear program; as soon as he did that, we came in and killed him. I think that the Iranians are acutely aware of this. They would like, if I'm gonna guess, to have the ability to put together a nuclear deterrent, a nuclear weapon-something like Japan has. Japan has something that is in the nuclear business called a "screwdriver weapon." They're not allowed to have nuclear weapons, but they have the pieces and the parts around, so that in a matter of weeks, they could probably put one together. Now, we hear a lot about how the Israelis are terrified that as soon as Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it's gonna bomb Israel. But, in fact, as people in the Israeli security establishment have made clear, none of them really believe that. They fear the Iranian nuclear weapon for a couple of other reasons.

    One is, that as Israel well-knows, when you have a nuclear weapon, you don't need to use it. It gives you a certain power; a certain authority. You can intimidate people around you. And second, of course, if there's another nuclear power in that region, it's going to set off perhaps another nuclear race, and other countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Egypt would want to have nuclear weapons, too. But when the Iranians look around, I think the first country they see (and I've heard this from a number of Iranians) is Pakistan. Pakistan is a far more volatile and far more dangerous country than Iran. We have serious Taliban/al-Qaeda types not only running around in Pakistan, but doing so under the egious of the government and they have a prospective to take over that government! This is not going to happen in Iran. Pakistan is far more volatile, yet the United States thought that is was fine that Pakistan should have a nuclear weapon. I'm against all countries having nuclear weapons.

    I'd like to see all countries that have them abandon them, and I don't want any more countries to get them. But that's a dream world. The fact is, the most that we can do by attacking Iran (as our own Defense Secretary has said) is to postpone the day when Iran has a nuclear weapon, and in the process, make them a lot angrier. The way to reduce this danger is to build a security system in the Middle East where people don't feel the need to be threatening each other. But that requires dialogue, and dialogue requires compromise, and the United States is not ready to compromise with Iran.

    FTM: Interesting. And that's where I want to take this in conclusion: What does that look like? Because obviously, the goal of your book here is to see some sort of peace reached. I mean, no one wants to see war. But the Middle East obviously is just an issue that has been debated for a long time. There are all kinds of geopolitical reasons for being involved in the Middle East-namely, oil. But predominantly, as we look at all of this, the question really boils down to this: What are we going to do? If we don't bomb Iran, then how do we prevent them from potentially becoming an explosive nation in that region? You say "security system" over there and also "dialogue." If you were President, what would you do? How do you start that process?

    KINZER: The first place, we have never really tried serious diplomatic overtures to Iran. We've got some of our most senior retired diplomats in the United States now who are chafing at the bit to be sent to Iran. People like Thomas Pickering, who was George Bush's ambassador to the United Nations and ambassador to Moscow, and William Lords, another titan of 20th Century diplomacy. These are people who are itching to go to Iran and see what they can do. We have not even asked Iran the fundamental question, "What would it take from us for you to do what we would like you to do with your nuclear program?"

    Forget about deciding whether we want to do it or not; we don't even know what the quid pro quo would be! So, we need first to get into a mindset where we're willing to have a real dialogue on an equal basis with Iran. We are not at that point. We feel that any dialogue with them is only going to legitimize their position in the Middle East and is going to make them feel that they're a powerful country, because we will be making concessions to them-that's what you do when you have negotiated solutions. But the fact is, Iran already is a powerful country. It doesn't need us to legitimize it. We need to understand that in dealing with Iran, we're not going to get everything we want. And we are going to have to concede Iran a measure of power in that region that's commensurate with its size, and its history, and its location. We're not even at that point yet. I think that's the first step. We have to make a psychological transition to realize that we're not going to be able to dictate to Iran if we want to reach a peaceful settlement. We're going to have to compromise. We're going to have to accept some things that Iran wants in order to get things that we want. Before we even get to the point of figuring out what those would be, we need to get over that psychological, political, diplomatic hurdle. And we haven't done that yet.

    FTM: My guest today has been Stephen Kinzer. He's the author of the book All the Shah's Men. Very enlightening stuff; very illuminating. Stephen, if the folks would like to learn more about you and your work, how can they do so?

    KINZER: I've got a website: stephenkinzer.com. My books are all available on that mass website that I don't want to advertise that it's named after a giant river in South America.

    FTM: (laughter)

    KINZER: But if you want to support your local independent bookstore, I'm sure it would be happy to order All the Shah's Men for you or any of my other books.

    FTM: Very good, Stephen. Thank you so much for coming on our program today, Stephen.

    KINZER: It was a great pleasure. Thank you.

    (Audio Transcript - Saturday, February 11, 2012)

    [Oct 22, 2015] Peak Oil is a Function of Oil Price

    Notable quotes:
    "... The book argued that Saudi Arabia had overstated its oil reserves, that its oil production was on the cusp of terminal decline, and that prices were set to soar. ..."
    "... My view was that peak oil would cause great hardship, but humanity would survive. We would muddle through and find our way. ..."
    "... In hindsight, our view on peak oil was pretty naïve. Global oil production was not about to fall off a cliff. The potential for increased production was hand-waved away. But higher oil prices had a much bigger impact on production than most of us would have projected. ..."
    "... "Peak oil is a moving target. I think peak oil is in a different place if oil is $150 versus oil at $100." Then the notion crystallized. You can't talk about peak oil without talking about oil prices. Why? Because this is what the real world looks like ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    "... we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty "The world has passed peak $20 oil." ..."
    "... That doesn't mean that oil prices will never again fall to $20, as supply/demand imbalances do wildly swing prices at times. It just means that $20 isn't a sustainable price for meeting current global demand. That also means that the average price of oil in the future will be much greater than $20, which is why I downplay those predictions of very low oil prices. ..."
    "... But has the world passed peak $100/bbl oil? The answer to that is clearly no. When oil was at $100/bbl, supplies were still rising. Now that prices are less than half that level, global production looks like it is set to fall. So maybe ..."
    "... When prices are rising, oil producers spend money as fast as they can to build out capacity. New oil plays become economical. Inevitably, supply outpaces demand and the price crashes. Capital spending slows, marginal oil plays are shut in, and demand catches back up to supply, which drives the price back up. ..."
    "... This time oil didn't drop to $10/bbl, but it did spend a lot of time at $100/bbl. That is a sign that we are using up the cheapest oil supplies. ..."
    "... While maximum oil production is indeed a function of the price of oil, the price of oil that people can afford to pay is a function of the EROEI of oil extraction. As the oil extraction industry gets to be a larger and larger part of the overall economy, all the other parts of the economy suffer from the diversion of resources to oil production, limiting the ability of would-be oil purchasers to pay higher prices. ..."
    "... At some point, the price needed to stimulate new production will exceed the price purchasers can afford to pay. That will be when we see the peak of production. $100 oil may very well be incompatible with robust world-wide economic growth. ..."
    "... What really worries me about passing the peak is the economic consequence of having a critical mass of people come to the realization that we are indeed past peak oil. If the substitutes for oil are by then insufficient for economic growth, people will realize that the world economy will henceforth be subject to continuous recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty, with no remedies in sight. ..."
    "... Not entirely. I alluded to this point, but it depends on the cost of the energy input. You wouldnt use 1 BTU of gasoline to produce 1 BTU of gasoline, but you might use 3 BTUs of coal to produce 1 BTU of gasoline. ..."
    "... You are right as far as the EROEI of oil is concerned, but I believe that Joes comment is valid in a broader sense, expanded to the EROEI of the total energy supply. What you seem to argue is that the EROEI of gasoline (or any particular energy carrier) may not have absolute limits. However, the EROEI of the economy on the whole does matter, as the economy needs free energy to operate on. ..."
    "... Robert, the way I understand Peak Oil was that Hubbert was basically correct with his models (genius even) for conventional oil production, but that his models do not include unconventional production and the advance of technology. Most of the worlds historically large oil fields have gone into decline in the 21st century as Hubbert predicted. But new technologies, partly driven by higher prices, have opened up vast new resources such as shale that were not considered producible before. Unconventional resources are quite large and that is why reserves have gone up despite that accuracy of Hubberts models. ..."
    "... One thing I might add to your excellent analysis is the substitution of other hydrocarbon liquids for crude oil, yet calling it and counting it as crude. Global crude oil production has been pretty flat since 2005, while production of natural gas liquids, condensate, etc. has increased. It is interesting that while these do not have the energy content or utility of crude, they are counted as such. ..."
    "... I see this, along with tar sands and light tight oil (LTO, shale) as scraping the bottom of the barrel, with declining energy profits as you appropriately point out. The peak so far has been an undulating plateau for ten years, with the worlds oil industry exploring itself into financial distress during that time trying to find new sources of quality crude, with little to show for it. Instead we have synthetic crude from Canadian tar sands, dumbbell crude from tight rock, Saudi Arabia develops its probably last field of heavy sour crude that no one wanted before, and on and on. Clearly we are chasing the dregs of oil. What else should peak look like? ..."
    "... I just read an article on technology that will boost deep ocean recovery something like 30%. A device that utilizes the oceans depth water pressure to increase pressure differential at oil recovery zone. Also, articles on future robot technology that is proving itself per drilling equipment that makes deep water drilling safer and easier. Technology continues to make drilling, recovery, processing, and oil detection more efficient. ..."
    "... Climbing for decades would not make PO bunk , it would only make Hubbert´s estimate a bit more inaccurate and drag the decline out by a generation. ..."
    "... But even ignoring climate for a second: Humans have not evolved much in the past millennia. The only thing that differentiates our 200-yr-old industrial society from previous agrarian ones is the reliance on abundant and cheap fossil fuels and, for the past century, oil. If you think that depleting oil will not hurt, think again. ..."
    "... Isnt it so that Hubbert was largely correct in predicting what would happen in a world of stability, but he failed to take into account the economic instability caused by oil depletion itself? That would be quite understandable, as he was a geophysicist, not a social scientist. Not as if social scientists could predict what will happen when our oil-based society is deprived of its fuel.... ..."
    "... The global economy can not afford $100/bl oil and producers can not increase production without it. It is debt that has filled the void and that too is peaking. Next will be peak population. ..."
    "... I agree that the issue with Peak Oil isnt that were going to run out of oil. The issue is that we are running out of economic benefit that is achievable given the cost to extract the oil. That is the current drag upon the world economy. And I really think that we will eventually be able to plot that economic benefit / bbl of oil as a function of time, and it will likely be a very familiar curve. That economic drag will increase no matter what new extraction technologies come online. ..."
    "... If peak oil is a function of oil price (a stance which I largely agree with) then the key question becomes, what is the highest oil price that the world can sustain. In the advanced economies around $100 seems sufficient to cause stagnation or decline in demand, but in China or India demand seemed able to grow robustly at these prices. Presumably because filling your only moped with petrol gets you more utility than filling up your second SUV. So perhaps somewhere in the $100-150 range represents a ceiling, for the moment. ..."
    "... And what with the more rapid decline rates of newer wells (deepwater and shale decline more rapidly than onshore conventional) depletion rates will probably accelerate. I think that perhaps the frequency of booms and busts in the oil price is going to accelerate a bit, as cycles of overinvestment lead to more gluts, then the price collapses, then underinvestment leads to shortages which manifest sooner, and so on. Does this sound plausible to you? ..."
    "... I think thats going to be different for different parts of the world. Ironically, $100 oil caused demand to decrease in the U.S., but it kept growing strongly across the developing world. ..."
    "... The reason is: If the retail price of oil is $4/Gal, the daily per capita consumption price in the USA is about $11.00. In India the daily per capita consumption price is about 61 cents. 2.7 Gallons versus 2.5 cups. ..."
    "... what you wrote above hit me: Its such a low per capita consumption in developing countries, and just a little more has a big impact on their lives. So they will drive future consumption. ..."
    "... Peak oil isnt just a factor of supply as Hubbard proposed. Nor is it a function of price as the author proposes. It is a wobbly stool of both these factors couple with the third leg of political stability. ..."
    www.energytrendsinsider.com

    The Origins of Peak Oil Awareness

    The scientific study of peak oil began in the 1950′s, when Shell geophysicist M. King Hubbert reported on the evolution of production rates in oil and gas fields. In a 1956 paper Hubbert suggested that oil production in a particular region would approximate a bell curve, increasing exponentially during the early stages of production before eventually slowing, reaching a peak when approximately half of a field had been extracted, and then going into terminal production decline.

    Hubbert applied his methodology to oil production for the Lower 48 US states and offshore areas. He estimated that the ultimate potential reserve of the Lower 48 US states and offshore areas was 150 billion barrels of oil. Based on that reserve estimate, the 6.6 million barrels per day (bpd) extraction rate in 1955, and the 52.5 billion barrels of oil that had been previously produced in the US, Hubbert's base case estimate was that oil production in the US would reach maximum production in 1965. He also estimated that global oil production would peak around the year 2000 at a maximum production rate of 34 million bpd.

    Hubbert calculated a secondary case that if the US oil reserve increased to 200 billion barrels (about which he expressed doubts), peak production would occur in 1970, a delay of five years from his base case. Oil production in the US did in fact peak in 1970, so Hubbert is widely credited with precisely calling the US peak, but few know that he was actually skeptical that the peak would take place as late as 1970.

    The US has now surpassed Hubbert's most optimistic estimate for US oil production. Through 2014, cumulative US production stands at ~ 215 billion barrels, with a remaining estimated proved reserve of 48.5 billion barrels (but with the caveat this reserves estimate is based on crude prices near $100/bbl).

    The Modern Peak Oil Debate

    In the ensuing decades since Hubbert's original work, discussion of peak oil ebbed and flowed. But the modern peak oil debates really heated up a decade ago. In 2005 the late Matt Simmons, an investment banker to the oil industry, published Twilight in the Desert. The book argued that Saudi Arabia had overstated its oil reserves, that its oil production was on the cusp of terminal decline, and that prices were set to soar.

    ... ... ...

    Peak Oil Camps

    At one extreme of this debate was the camp that believed peak oil was happening at that time (~2005), and that it was going to spell the end of civilization. This camp was often referred to as "doomers", because they believed that humanity was doomed. (And many haven't changed from that position). At the other extreme were those who believed technology could continue to squeeze ever more oil out of the ground. This camp was sometimes referred to as the "technocopians."

    Most of us were somewhere in the middle. In 2005 I felt like we still had a few years to go before we reached peak oil. My general position was that we were 3-5 years away at that time, and I spent a lot of time debating the evidence with the imminent peakers. I wrote a number of articles addressing the topic of peak oil (e.g., Five Misconceptions About Peak Oil). My view was that peak oil would cause great hardship, but humanity would survive. We would muddle through and find our way.

    Overconfidence in these discussions over peak oil (and peak natural gas) was prevalent. For instance, in 2003 Matt Simmons predicted, with "certainty," that by 2005 the US would begin a long-term natural gas crisis for which the only solution was "to pray." This sort of confidence was prominent in the debates. If you had argued at that time that by 2015 US and world oil production would be where they are today, you would have been deemed certifiably insane.

    In hindsight, our view on peak oil was pretty naïve. Global oil production was not about to fall off a cliff. The potential for increased production was hand-waved away. But higher oil prices had a much bigger impact on production than most of us would have projected.

    I had this idea bouncing around my head that higher prices would spur more oil production, but I agreed with those who argued that there were limits to this and we had to take steps to address the risks. The limits wouldn't necessarily be technological, but would rather depend on the amount of energy required to extract and process the oil. At some point it simply becomes too energy-intensive, and even if you are using a cheaper source of energy to do the extraction, there comes a point that the cost of energy inputs exceeds the cost of energy extracted. Since the energy inputs and outputs are related via price, it's a pretty good argument.

    It's Not That Simple

    Jeff Rubin - the former chief economist at CIBC World Markets - eventually crystallized in my mind the relationship between peak oil and oil prices. I saw Rubin give a presentation in 2011, and he said something like "Peak oil is a moving target. I think peak oil is in a different place if oil is $150 versus oil at $100." Then the notion crystallized. You can't talk about peak oil without talking about oil prices. Why? Because this is what the real world looks like

    ... ... ...

    ,,,the bottom line is that there is a lot of oil that will come online at higher oil prices. How much is truly unknown, but it is estimated to be in the 10′s of millions of barrels per day. (For those who believe this is unlikely, think back to 2005 and how much chance you would have given for the current levels of oil production). Similar graphics have been produced for the break-even price in shale oil plays, and the message is similar: Higher oil prices will spur oil production in more marginal areas.

    So we should really talk about peak oil as a function of oil prices. In that case, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty "The world has passed peak $20 oil." If we could magically freeze the price of oil at $20, we would see the sort of peak that the imminent peakers projected. That doesn't mean that oil prices will never again fall to $20, as supply/demand imbalances do wildly swing prices at times. It just means that $20 isn't a sustainable price for meeting current global demand. That also means that the average price of oil in the future will be much greater than $20, which is why I downplay those predictions of very low oil prices.

    But has the world passed peak $100/bbl oil? The answer to that is clearly no. When oil was at $100/bbl, supplies were still rising. Now that prices are less than half that level, global production looks like it is set to fall. So maybe we have past peak $50/bbl oil.

    The peak oil story turned out to be more complex than most of us who were debating it could have imagined back in 2005. What many thought was peak oil at that time was just one more cycle in the gyrations of the oil industry. When prices are rising, oil producers spend money as fast as they can to build out capacity. New oil plays become economical. Inevitably, supply outpaces demand and the price crashes. Capital spending slows, marginal oil plays are shut in, and demand catches back up to supply, which drives the price back up.

    But what we have seen in this most recent cycle is that the trough isn't as deep as it has been in the past. This time oil didn't drop to $10/bbl, but it did spend a lot of time at $100/bbl. That is a sign that we are using up the cheapest oil supplies. The world is highly unlikely to return to an era of $20 oil. The floor has moved higher. Peak oil has moved past the $20 threshold, and most likely the $50 threshold.

    ... ... ...

    Link to Original Article: Peak Oil is a Function of Oil Price

    Joe Clarkson a month ago

    While maximum oil production is indeed a function of the price of oil, the price of oil that people can afford to pay is a function of the EROEI of oil extraction. As the oil extraction industry gets to be a larger and larger part of the overall economy, all the other parts of the economy suffer from the diversion of resources to oil production, limiting the ability of would-be oil purchasers to pay higher prices.

    At some point, the price needed to stimulate new production will exceed the price purchasers can afford to pay. That will be when we see the peak of production. $100 oil may very well be incompatible with robust world-wide economic growth. If so, we will know that we have passed peak oil when oil prices again rise to record highs (over $100/bbl) and production fails to respond and exceed the volumes that were produced the last time oil was $100/bbl.

    What really worries me about passing the peak is the economic consequence of having a critical mass of people come to the realization that we are indeed past peak oil. If the substitutes for oil are by then insufficient for economic growth, people will realize that the world economy will henceforth be subject to continuous recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty, with no remedies in sight. If they haven't happened already for other reasons, debt deflation and financial panic will then exacerbate all our other resource depletion predicaments. It won't be pretty.

    Robert Rapier Mod Joe Clarkson a month ago
    "people can afford to pay is a function of the EROEI of oil extraction."

    Not entirely. I alluded to this point, but it depends on the cost of the energy input. You wouldn't use 1 BTU of gasoline to produce 1 BTU of gasoline, but you might use 3 BTUs of coal to produce 1 BTU of gasoline. So EROEI is something that tells us about the relative efficiency, but it doesn't address the economics. Nor does it include a time factor. I could run a society on a process with an EROEI of 1.1 -- as long as I returned that on a daily basis.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    Robert,

    "You wouldn't use 1 BTU of gasoline to produce 1 BTU of gasoline, but you might use 3 BTUs of coal to produce 1 BTU of gasoline."

    You are right as far as the EROEI of oil is concerned, but I believe that Joe's comment is valid in a broader sense, expanded to the EROEI of the total energy supply. What you seem to argue is that the EROEI of gasoline (or any particular energy carrier) may not have absolute limits. However, the EROEI of the economy on the whole does matter, as the economy needs free energy to operate on. Your example assumes that coal will continue to have a much higher EROEI than (marginal) oil, but to the extent oil needs to be cross-subsidized in energy terms, it ceases to be an energy source to the economy, it just becomes an expensive energy carrier. And the more we subsidize oil with coal (in energy terms), the faster will the EROEI of coal decline and more of society's resources will have to be invested in the energy sector.

    "I could run a society on a process with an EROEI of 1.1 -- as long as I returned that on a daily basis."

    Let's assume you can run your economy on the "right kind of energy" (let's call it gasoline) that has an EROEI of 1.1 I.e., every day you need to invest one unit of this energy to get 0.1 unit available to (and sufficient for) the rest of the economy. But if you need three units of the "wrong kind of energy" (coal) to produce one unit of this gasoline (meaning that gasoline has an EROEI of 1/3, i.e. it is not a net "source" of energy) and the actual process you are running the economy on (coal production) has an EROEI of 1.1, then returning that every day would only give you 1/30 units of gasoline a day, which is only a third of what you need for the rest of the economy. You would therefore have to return the 1.1 coal energy not on a daily basis, but every 8 hours to get your fix of gasoline. That would mean having to triple the throughput of coal, meaning three times more mines, rail transport, power capacity, etc.

    Joe's argument may have been simplistic, but I think it is clear that there are limits that monetary cost cannot represent. Measuring the price of oil in dollars seems to assume that somehow dollars can represent a value independent of the cost of oil, which is questionable. Higher oil price cannot postpone peak oil indefinitely, as it can just crush society's ability to maintain the complexity needed to maintain (let alone increase) oil production from increasingly difficult places.

    davidgmills1 -> Glen McMillian 24 days ago
    I guess its high time on this board that people learn about Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (maybe you do but you don't act like it). This was the nuclear power we should have had and never got because a decision was made by the US government to breed Uranium 238 instead of breeding Thorium 232. We proved at Oak Ridge that breeding 232 was feasible. But Uranium 238 won out because it could be used to make bombs easily while breeding thorium couldn't make bombs easy. Using uranium we got a two-fer. But a number of Uranium 238 breeder reactors were built and no one ever made them work successfully. By then though, the Oak Ridge program had been shut down and all of the developers of the program were either dead or retired.

    People need to know that this form of energy is available to us, and it is capable of powering the world for thousands of years.

    Ten major attributes of thorium:

    http://energyfromthorium.com/2...

    Solar and wind are fine for many applications, but if you want to power ships or go to deep space or even colonize the moon or other places, there are many times they just don't work.

    Russ Finley -> davidgmills1 24 days ago
    We can't hang our hats on unproven technology, but we certainly should be trying much harder to prove it. These reactors are not a done deal:

    http://euanmearns.com/molten-s...

    This is the kind of technology the Google Engineering team was talking about when they concluded that we don't have the weapons to fight climate change.

    http://www.energytrendsinsider...

    davidgmills1 -> Russ Finley 24 days ago
    We ran a reactor for 20,000 hours in the 60's and 70's. It would not take that much to get them going again if we had the will. I would say that 20,000 hours was a pretty good start at proving the technology.

    And I looked at Euan Means' article. It clearly does not address LFTRs. LFTRs run in the thermal spectrum, not the fast spectrum.

    The reason uranium breeders were not successful is that they ran in the fast spectrum, which has a target 1/25 the size of the thermal spectrum's target that a neutron has to hit.

    It is much easier to breed fertile elements when having a neutron hit a target 25 times as big and splitting an atom 2/3 of the time than it is to hit a target 1/25 the size and splitting the atom 90% of the time. That is the difference between breeding in the thermal spectrum and the fast spectrum. The people who wanted to breed uranium believed uranium could be bred in the fast spectrum. It proved to be very difficult.

    Only thorium breeds in the thermal spectrum. Uranium does not. Breeding thorium was much easier and consequently it is not surprising we were able to do it at Oak Ridge for 20,000 hours.

    The only thorium reactor discussed in Means' article runs in the fast spectrum. Euan Means' article proves he does not know what LFTRs are and consequently his article is not a valid analysis of LFTR's capability.

    Rob Andrews a month ago
    Peak Oil is also a function of demand, if alternate energy sources create an energy price that is lower than the $20 peak oil price you may end up with a lot of trapped oil that not extractable. Of course research on both sides seeks innovation to beat the floor price of the competition

    davidgmills1 -> Robert Rapier 24 days ago

    Maybe not today. But China has begun work on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors which we pioneered in the 60's. They hope to have one operational by 2020.

    See my post about 4 comments above and the link I cited.

    If the world starts to make them in the 2020's, by 2035 or 40, the world will drastically change from what it is now. The thorium age will be vastly different from the fossil fuel age.

    Ed Dodge a month ago
    Robert, the way I understand Peak Oil was that Hubbert was basically correct with his models (genius even) for conventional oil production, but that his models do not include unconventional production and the advance of technology. Most of the world's historically large oil fields have gone into decline in the 21st century as Hubbert predicted. But new technologies, partly driven by higher prices, have opened up vast new resources such as shale that were not considered producible before. Unconventional resources are quite large and that is why reserves have gone up despite that accuracy of Hubbert's models.

    There are more unconventional resources to be tapped, so reserves can continue to grow. Tight oil recovery rates are very low with huge margin for improvement. CO2-EOR opens up billions of barrels, methane hydrates are massive and yet to be tapped (gas not oil but the point remains), and synthetic fuels can be produced from coal, biomass and garbage.

    I agree that prices drive development, and obviously environmental concerns are huge, so we must be smart and manage carbon emissions and everything else, but we are certainly not about to run out of hydrocarbons though they would not be as cheap as they once were.

    Robert Rapier Mod Ed Dodge a month ago
    "Robert, the way I understand Peak Oil was that Hubbert was basically correct with his models..."

    He was WAY off on his numbers. He vastly underestimated future production rates. So his peak predictions are based on production rates that were much lower than they actually were. If he had plugged in what the numbers actually ended up being, he would have forecast peak years earlier than he did.

    Cracker -> Robert Rapier 21 days ago
    Robert, I suspect he underestimated reserve growth (increase of proven reserves over time) in US oil over those decades, as well. Variables and unknowns are why long term numbers are seldom correct.

    One thing I might add to your excellent analysis is the substitution of other hydrocarbon liquids for crude oil, yet calling it and counting it as crude. Global crude oil production has been pretty flat since 2005, while production of natural gas liquids, condensate, etc. has increased. It is interesting that while these do not have the energy content or utility of crude, they are counted as such.

    I see this, along with tar sands and light tight oil (LTO, shale) as scraping the bottom of the barrel, with declining energy profits as you appropriately point out. The peak so far has been an undulating plateau for ten years, with the world's oil industry exploring itself into financial distress during that time trying to find new sources of quality crude, with little to show for it. Instead we have synthetic crude from Canadian tar sands, dumbbell crude from tight rock, Saudi Arabia develops its probably last field of heavy sour crude that no one wanted before, and on and on. Clearly we are chasing the dregs of oil. What else should peak look like?

    Forrest 18 days ago
    Would it be more accurate to say oil production is a factor of price? As the market will be energized by future profits that in turn will spur innovation, technology, investment, R&D, tax incentives, etc..

    I just read an article on technology that will boost deep ocean recovery something like 30%. A device that utilizes the ocean's depth water pressure to increase pressure differential at oil recovery zone. Also, articles on future robot technology that is proving itself per drilling equipment that makes deep water drilling safer and easier. Technology continues to make drilling, recovery, processing, and oil detection more efficient.

    I can think of no reason the petrol fossil fuel supply will run out. It will get more expensive, but the earth makes a good storage container as such the supply will quietly and safely sit in place until needed. I remember reading of natural gas reserves of 100 or 200 years out, depending on exports and consumption.

    That's the known (current) recoverable reserves of which should increase. Also, coal was rated the same. Maybe GW concerns will eliminate or limit the fuel source, but the enthusiast of such planet killing phenomenon seem to be fickle bunch that only concern themselves with political leadership and solutions of their choosing. For example they claim corn ethanol is worse than gasoline per CO2. The EPA follows suit with outdated data and unproven penalties and utilize illegal rule governing power to limit the production of the fuel. Contrast this with Energy department's evaluation of ethanol fuel upon GW very positive as compared and gaining strength wile the EPA buries it's head to avoid reality check. Think of the taxpayer cost and politics invested to promote wind and solar energy without accurate analysis and comparison. Think of the same costs and quality of evaluations of BEV. Then compare the taxpayer cost of the ethanol fuel solution and hydro power already in the position of solving problems and reducing cost. What's the holdup if as they say GW will destroy the planet. Shouldn't environmentalist be shouting for joy, for example, that a new auto company utilizing all American built material is about to debut it's 2016 production and drive a spike in auto pollution problems. A simple low cost safe and reliable auto that's rated at 84 mpg. A $6,800 vehicle that needs no taxpayer subsidy and should replace a large segment of the used car market. A market of 90 million clunkers that average less than 20 mpg. I don't hear shouts of joy? Why is that? You could double the GW emission benefit of this vehicle with mid level blend ethanol fuel. An easy move up to E85 fuel engine that would decrease carbon pollution 85% if fueled with cellulosic ethanol. The Energy Department's rating of Miscanthus grass ethanol drives the carbon rating to negative. Meaning you actually improve. Shouts of Joy per not needing horrendous taxpayer investment and no need to lose citizen and private market freedoms per government regulation should soon spout. Don't hold your breath as they will attempt to kill such solutions not aligned with their ideals.

    Optimist 20 days ago
    More to the point, Peak Oil is bunk, thanks to markets.

    When production dips below demand, price increases until either demand drops or supply increases (or both). May take months or years, but that's inevitably how it works. There are many options for adding to liquid fuel supply that have not even been seriously explored and therefore remains available as future options, including gas-to-liquid, coal-to-liquid, biomass-to-liquid, etc.

    The main threat to the system are foolhardy politicians, a species that seem to be out-breeding the other kind at a most disconcerting rate. When, and only when, one of these dimwits attempt to put a ceiling on fuel prices, shortages ensue.

    At least we still have Nixon to kick around, jackass...

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Optimist 18 days ago
    Are you suggesting that the Earth has infinite reserves of oil? If there is no peak oil, then oil production would need to increase monotonously forever. That is only possible if the Earth has infinite amounts of the stuff. The volume of the Earth is finite, and most of it is not oil (consider the core, the mantle, most of the crust, etc.).
    TimC -> Advocatus Diaboli 17 days ago
    "The volume of the Earth is finite, and most of it is not oil..."

    Okay, so how much of it IS oil?

    Modern drilling equipment can reach a depth of about 12 thousand meters beneath the surface of the earth. This makes the volume of the portion of the crust that can be explored by drilling about 6.2x10^18 cubic meters, equal to 3.9x10^19 barrels. The earth's ultimate recoverable reserves (URR) of oil has been estimated at two trillion (2x10^12) barrels. If that URR estimate is true, then the pre-industrial concentration of oil in the earth's crust was about 51 ppbv, or fifty-one parts per billion by volume.

    It isn't possible to quantify any concentration accurately near the detection limit of the quantitative method. No one knows how to analyze the earth's crust to accurately quantify the concentration of recoverable oil remaining. It could be 25, 50, 100, 200, or 400 ppbv. When petroleum engineers or geologists estimate the global oil URR value, they use crude accounting methods that have very poor sensitivity, so the estimate that they produce is at or below the detection limit of any analytical method. Instead of two trillion barrels, there may be four trillion, or eight trillion barrels of recoverable resources yet to be discovered.

    You are certainly correct that the earth's crust can only contain a finite quantity of fossil hydrocarbon resources. But that quantity may be so large that production can continue to climb monotonously for decades, or even centuries.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> TimC 16 days ago
    "But that quantity may be so large that production can continue to climb monotonously for decades, or even centuries."

    Whether decades or centuries; it will peak (=reach an all-time maximum) at some point (if it hasn't done so already).

    Rereading my earlier comment, I have to correct myself: a monotonous increase would not be necessary to disprove PO, as production could fluctuate or stabilise. But it would need to be infinite, which it won´t be.

    Climbing for "decades" would not make PO "bunk", it would only make Hubbert´s estimate "a bit" more inaccurate and drag the decline out by a generation.

    Climbing for "centuries" would probably require our understanding of the climate system to be proven wrong. I´d welcome that, but doubt that we are that lucky. I consider it more likely that we shall give up going after oil way before that, either deliberately (less likely) of for the lack of ability to maintain production.

    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 16 days ago
    Basically, as far as your lifespan is concerned, the supply of oil is infinite. It's just a matter of developing the technology that enables us to tap into those supplies. This is where the markets serve as an active encouragement to research when demand exceeds supply.

    But let's take a step back and look centuries or millennia down the line, to the point where we really have exhausted all the planet's available oil: at this point oil prices increase, until some smart inventor, probably working for Big Oil discovers a process for converting ________* into liquid fuels. Crisis averted yet again. PO believers repeat their claim that PO will destroy civilization in the next 25 years. Some things never change.
    * For _____ insert your choice of coal, natural gas, agricultural waste, solids municipal waste, sewage sludge, the one energy crop that might make sense: algae grown in the open ocean or any combination of the above.

    Claims of Peak Oil, Peak Soil, Peak Water, etc. all rely on two assumptions: (1) we keep our consumption at the same levels as in the past and (2) we aren't able to expand supply beyond what we use today. Both are foolish assumptions. Both ignore the impact of markets on innovation.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Optimist 16 days ago
    You seem to ignore even the possibility that climate change may play an important role in our ability to cope or choice of energy. That alone disqualifies you from a civilized discussion. Not because climate change is a certainty (I think it is as certain as it gets, but it is always legitimate to ask questions), but to ignore a vast body of evidence that has made even stalwart skeptics shut up or even convert is simply not serious or honest (yoir choice).

    But even ignoring climate for a second: Humans have not evolved much in the past millennia. The only thing that differentiates our 200-yr-old industrial society from previous agrarian ones is the reliance on abundant and cheap fossil fuels and, for the past century, oil. If you think that depleting oil will not hurt, think again.

    Everything you eat comes from soil and oceans. Oceans are wrecked, even cornucopians don't predict an increase of food from the oceans. You'd better respect soil. Or suggest you eat your coal.

    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 15 days ago
    Wait, you are going to exclude people from the discussion who don't have the same priorities as you do? I hope you like talking to yourself.

    Nice bait and switch, by the way. We were talking about Peak Oil and suddenly you want to exclude me for not mentioning climate change. The point remains: Peak Oil is bunk.

    Climate change is a different topic. No doubt it needs some attention. We need to find a way to beam more heat into outer space. Where is NASA when you need them? Stop fooling around on Mars, already!

    Food production is yet another matter. Japan better get used to importing rice, because sushi is going off the menu fast, as you point out. It is unfortunate that some cultures are so short-sighted, but what are you going to do? Have the US navy sink fishing boats taking more then their quota? The good news is that nature has a capacity to rebound.

    BTW, who needs soil? Ever heard of hydroponics? There are even plants being developed that can grow using seawater while producing normal food. Hard to keep up with all the science, I know.

    And, you're right future generations may eat coal, though I suspect natural gas would be the first fossil fuel to be converted to food. Basically you'd do a conversion of methane to something more biodegradable like methanol or one of the volatile fatty acids. Grow some fungus on that mix (think of it as related to mushrooms) and viola...

    Science won't limit the future of mankind. If science was the only concern the future would be exceedingly bright.

    Advocatus -> Diaboli Optimist 15 days ago

    Science is just science, a way to understand nature, and perhaps use it better.

    The limitation is not imposed by science, but by the laws of nature, the limitations of our natural endowment and the needs of humans. Science can help us live better within the constraints, but cannot lift the constraints. Science allows us to understand and make use of the laws of thermodynamics, but it will never allow us to change those laws. It is utterly unscientific to expect that it would. Science can tell us about the role of phosphorous, it can help us find deposits of phosphorous, but cannot create those deposits.

    I won't go into detail on your points as I do not have the time and don't see the point. Don't take it personally. I think you are delusional, but I wish you were right.

    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 15 days ago

    That's OK.

    Typical, when a pessimist can't make his point, he just claims the optimist is delusional. End of argument.

    You'll excuse me if I remain unconvinced.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Optimist 15 days ago
    No. All I dared to suggest was that science can tell us about the laws of nature, but cannot change the laws of nature. You and Forrest seem to believe otherwise, as suggested by your last comment (dismissing my argument) and a number of your expectations from science, which are unscientific. Beaming more heat into space without warming the planet? You don't even need NASA for that: Simply reducing GHGs in the atmosphere would do that. Too bad that you want to 'beam' so that you can continue releasing CO2.

    Science tells you to to stop digging, and you propose buying a bigger excavator.

    Forrest -> Advocatus Diaboli 16 days ago
    Diaboli, Optimist is right on this one. Your premise is correct, "the earth is finite", but given the scale, technology, etc. a poor restriction or arbitrary talking point. Just to many unknowns and the power of the market will make the transition automatically and effortlessly. Your 2rd premise of eating coal, totally wrong. We're actually upon a great historical revolution that is yet to be named. Every aspect of societal need is currently being evaluated, improved, reinvented. Think of the current magnitude of change upon us. All of it is very positive, unless one is a suffering pessimist. Farming is just entering the beginning stages of empowering the biological world by design. Agronomics, GMO, global positioning, drone workers, robotic workers, soil engineering, fungi exploitation, and the rest. Their is no limit in sight for improving production per acre, quality of food, and fuel feed stock. Most of it directed to negative carbon rating.

    Metals and metallurgy continues to accelerate progress. Nuclear physics continue to accelerate, engineering skills and tools continue to accelerate improvements. Think of the short time span predicted for autonomous vehicles and resulting light vehicle fleet.

    Miles per energy unit will no doubt be a magnitude improved. Heavy transportation and distribution equally being radically improved. Same for grid and green power. Fuel cell and bio energy chemistry making strides that will gradually offset petrol. Hydroponics, aquaponics, fish farming, and the rest already enable privatization of food production for those so motivated. Even to the extent of power and fuel supplies for those so motivated even upon small suburban house lots. The biggest threat to humanity is radicalism of terrorist that attempt to destroy society or destabilize. This will limit invention and progress and result in suffering. Same with radical ideals of "change" per some perceived danger. Politics can be very destructive if citizens lose historical understanding and clamor for quick solutions that require no work.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Forrest 16 days ago
    I agree on the " privatization of food production". You should have added water. As for the rest, I cannot quite tell whether you are being sarcastic or you really believe all this, but if the latter: dream on.
    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 15 days ago
    Forrest is serious. And right. The main challenge for mankind is the fact that democracy is giving us the leadership we deserve. Worldwide the results are utterly depressing...

    Glen McMillian a month ago

    I think a lot of regular readers would like to see you update some of your older articles now that the costs of renewables have fallen so much in the last few years.
    Advocatus Diaboli a month ago
    Robert,

    I wonder what (if any) assumption Hubbert made on oil prices. I don't know his writings, but I do not suppose that he would discount the possibility that higher efforts could shift his curves. Isn't is so that he assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that prices would remain relatively stable. That would have been reasonable for his analysis of the US production, as he could assume that the (presumably much larger) production of other regions could take over (i.e., reduced supply from the US would not push prices up). In that case the US would essentially be a price taker, and its production would develop along a depletion curve as he predicted (although not necessarily at that level).

    Such an assumption of relative price stability would be more difficult to assume for the global supply (with no alternative sources of oil). However, optimists who believe that other energy sources (renewables or CTL) would fully substitute oil above a certain price level could still assume a relative oil price stability at the global level.

    I believe that the problem comes in when oil is considered critical and not practically substitutable. Then demand becomes inelastic and prices get volatile, represented by boom-and-bust cycles with an increasing overall trend, as you describe. I take this volatility as a sign of instability.

    Isn't it so that Hubbert was largely correct in predicting what would happen in a world of stability, but he failed to take into account the economic instability caused by oil depletion itself? That would be quite understandable, as he was a geophysicist, not a social scientist. Not as if social scientists could predict what will happen when our oil-based society is deprived of its fuel....

    Forrest a month ago

    Some of the commentators, share the idea that the days of no compete high cost of oil products may be numbered. This is juxtaposed with alternative energy decreasing in cost over time. This is new phenomena with no historical path to predict new trends. History is full of examples of supply problems such as war, threat to environment, high cost of capital, etc that impacted price. The economic ramifications always shot oil prices to extreme as traders worked the pricing to new highs. This threw the economies of the world into harsh inflation of energy costs that dampened economic growth.

    Oil was the economic life blood and took much military investment to ensure the supply. Also, because of the crucial need for ample supply, gov't artificially amped up supply per subsidy such as regulated by tax code. So, are entering into a brave new world without this holdup reliance of corp oil supply? Appears so, with a positive trend line of diverse and renewable energy supply. Currently, most consumers do have some choice at the pump.

    Limited, but economic analysis have studied this "competition" and have found a powerful dampening effect of gasoline per the U.S. ability to produce a million barrels of ethanol a day. It's not limited to FFVs either as the driving public have learned to utilize higher blends within entire light vehicle fleet. Also, diesel engine testing with ethanol describe a path way if diesel fuel price zooms up. Adding a alternative E85 fuel system to offset the diesel fuel consumption per intake air injection. Apparently, a quicker lower cost alternative as compared to CNG conversion. Ethanol processing plants have stored feed stock that can come to the rescue for short term increase supply needs. BEV's play into this alternative choice as consumers are increasing expected to have one of these vehicles sitting in garage. Same with small ultra efficient cars sitting next to the SUV that can take over transportation needs upon high price of fuel times.

    Harquebus a month ago

    The global economy can not afford $100/bl oil and producers can not increase production without it. It is debt that has filled the void and
    that too is peaking. Next will be peak population.
    Glen McMillian a month ago
    Robert , what is your personal opinion on the minimum necessary energy return on energy invested as a practical matter given the nature of our present day economy?

    I have seen figures as low as four to one and as high as ten to one or even higher.

    fozzydabear a month ago
    "Oil prices did in fact rise sharply in the 2nd half of 2015" - Don't you mean 2005?
    Robert Rapier Mod fozzydabear a month ago
    It seems that no matter how many times I proofread an article a typo always makes it through. Thanks for that. It's fixed.
    Over the Hill a month ago
    I agree that the issue with "Peak Oil" isn't that we're going to run out of oil. The issue is that we are running out of economic benefit that is achievable given the cost to extract the oil. That is the current drag upon the world economy. And I really think that we will eventually be able to plot that economic benefit / bbl of oil as a function of time, and it will likely be a very familiar curve. That economic drag will increase no matter what new extraction technologies come online.

    It won't be the end of the world. It will be a different world that we will have to make a commitment to adapt to, however.

    Sam Taylor a month ago
    Robert,

    If peak oil is a function of oil price (a stance which I largely agree with) then the key question becomes, what is the highest oil price that the world can sustain. In the advanced economies around $100 seems sufficient to cause stagnation or decline in demand, but in China or India demand seemed able to grow robustly at these prices. Presumably because filling your only moped with petrol gets you more utility than filling up your second SUV. So perhaps somewhere in the $100-150 range represents a ceiling, for the moment.

    Then the question becomes, when do we reach this ceiling? Peak $20 oil was perhaps around the early 2000's, and maybe peak $50 is around now (inflation adjuested). The costs facing the majors appear to be accelerating quite rapidly, and if that breakeven chart is accurate the price curve seems to accelerate quite steeply, so perhaps an optimistic estimate might give us a decade or two.

    And what with the more rapid decline rates of newer wells (deepwater and shale decline more rapidly than onshore conventional) depletion rates will probably accelerate. I think that perhaps the frequency of booms and busts in the oil price is going to accelerate a bit, as cycles of overinvestment lead to more gluts, then the price collapses, then underinvestment leads to shortages which manifest sooner, and so on. Does this sound plausible to you?

    Robert Rapier -> Sam Taylor a month ago
    "what is the highest oil price that the world can sustain."

    I think that's going to be different for different parts of the world. Ironically, $100 oil caused demand to decrease in the U.S., but it kept growing strongly across the developing world.

    Dipchip -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    The reason is: If the retail price of oil is $4/Gal, the daily per capita consumption price in the USA is about $11.00. In India the daily per capita consumption price is about 61 cents. 2.7 Gallons versus 2.5 cups.

    10% increase for one is $1.10 the other is 6 cents per day. A 5% increase in world consumption will bring back $100 oil. Who do you suspect will cause the increased consumption, developed or undeveloped nations?

    Robert Rapier -> Dipchip a month ago
    Of course. I have written lots on this. A decade ago I thought poor countries would be priced out of the market. As prices rose, I saw that it wasn't impacting demand in developing countries. I also went to India in 2008 and saw 7 people on a motorcycle. And what you wrote above hit me: It's such a low per capita consumption in developing countries, and just a little more has a big impact on their lives. So they will drive future consumption.

    It was an example of the data causing a 180 degree shift in my opinion.

    Glen McMillian -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    A gallon of diesel fuel burnt in a tractor or irrigation pump generates hundreds of times more economic return than a gallon burnt fetching beer in an oversized pickup truck.
    Forrest -> Glen McMillian a month ago
    What's the return on Prius owner driving coast to coast to demonstrate against use of oil? Maybe she or he is smoking pot and wrecks an expensive asset that cost the environment dearly. So, the multi use pickup driving to neighborhood grocery not so bad after all. The pickup utilized in providing services and supplemental income. The pickup life cycle extends multiples of the Prius and powered upon environmentally friendly fuel that per gallon provides more jobs and economic stimulus. The fuel supply will never diminish per continued use of processing plant and solar powered feed stock. No need to be on a continuous search and development cycle of diminishing supplies of raw material.
    Dipchip -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    R Squared: The first time I ran across your name was back in 2005. I was having a disagreement with some Minnesota renewable fuel agency folks, when suddenly you came into the conversation. They were trying to say that ethanol was more efficient to produce than Gas; after reading your comment I decided to let you take over, as you seemed to be someone from the tail end of energy production and I was on the front end.

    Been following your opinions ever since. Seems the internet is a good way to keep from becoming obsolete since retiring twenty years ago. Thanks for your years of effort to inform.

    Robert Rapier -> Dipchip a month ago
    I remember that. It was one of those things that inspired me to start writing more. So much misinformation. I actually got the state of Minnesota to change that claim on their website after having several exchanges with them.
    davidgmills1 -> Forrest 24 days ago
    For a different kind of nuclear technology, one which we developed at Oak Ridge in the 60's, see Liquid Fluoride Thorium technology. It's top ten attributes and why it will change the world:

    http://energyfromthorium.com/2...

    LuapLeiht1 a month ago
    I agree that peak oil is a function of price rather than raw supply numbers. However, I think that drawing conclusions from the price is still a bit naive. Prices spiked in the late 70s, early 2000's, and early 2010's. What do those three time periods have in common? The Middle East was on fire in all three periods (Arab oil embargo, Iraq war, and the "Arab Spring").

    Peak oil isn't just a factor of supply as Hubbard proposed. Nor is it a function of price as the author proposes. It is a wobbly stool of both these factors couple with the third leg of political stability.

    Like most things in life, reality is much harder to predict than theory would indicate.

    [Oct 21, 2015] Devastating Shale Oil Losses

    October 19, 2015 | Peak Prosperity

    Sometimes it helps to examine one narrow slice of the pie as a means to understanding the entire pie. In the case of the shale oil Ponzi scheme, we can both wrap our minds around the scale of the predicament and also answer the question of who the losses will be foisted on.

    Once we've done that, you should be able to simply apply the same logic and learning to other sectors of the financial universe. Learn one sub-bubble, learn them all; like a fractal foam of misadventure.

    [Oct 21, 2015] An invitation to Putin regarding Ukraine Do the maths

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted. ..."
    "... Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to add value (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either. ..."
    "... Im still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring. ..."
    "... This loan assumed that there wouldnt be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all... ..."
    Oct 21, 2015 | FT Alphaville

    Martin Wolf was fuming about Russia on Wednesday - incensed specifically about its stance towards Ukraine's attempted debt restructuring. He really doesn't like the fact that Russia's refusal to join August's $18bn deal with private bond holders will block Ukraine's access to IMF money, promising to collapse the country's economy.

    Along the way, Wolf notes that there's a solution on the table here, albeit one that Russia is unlikely to accept. It comes from Adam Lerrick of the American Enterprise Institute - a man with some form in coming up with elegant solutions amid sovereign debt crises. (See Iceland, Greece and also Argentina.)

    Here's Lerrick's detail on Ukraine, along with a table for Putin and pals…

    Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something like the Lerrick compromise is adopted.

    The American academic's approach actually accepts a core Russian claim - that the concessional terms of Russia's original loan put it on a different footing from private creditors in that Ukraine signed up to pay a coupon of 5 per cent, at a time when regular bond market investors would have demanded 12 per cent or more. But Lerrick then suggests that Russia be compensated for this concession (in the form of higher interest rates on newly issued replacement bonds), before then accepting the private creditor restructuring terms.

    You can read the two options in full below. They look fair to all involved, which probably means there's no chance of Russia accepting the idea at all!

    The Dork of Cork.

    Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years ago. It promised to "add value" (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance capitalism are far from pretty either.

    Upaswellasdown

    What exactly will Russia do if it is not repaid? invade?

    Pseudonym

    I'm still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring.

    ukrainewatcher

    Really angers me, as this was political loan to finance last dying days of Yanukovich's regime. Probably used to pay towards the violence of the following months and to the cash that was taken out of the country in trucks. Russia consequently cost Ukraine's economy billions of dollars, through invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine against very explicit guarantees provided by most superpowers (including US, Russia and UK) provided in return for dismantling world's third largest nuclear arsenal. Obligations that are in my books pretty much worthless, yet Ukraine continues to fulfil today (still destroying long term missiles as we speak)

    And Ukraine still needs to deal with them as though they are normal creditors?

    Something very wrong with the world of you ask me.

    violet17

    It was a political loan...correct! And it is a sovereign loan. And that is what the fuss is about!! This loan assumed that there wouldn't be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy. I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is to be for the benefit of all...
    FearTheTree
    @ukrainewatcher Isn't the same true of Argentina. How much of its 80B in contested debt was used to support Menem and his cronies, thinking that the dollar-peso peg would hold indefinitely?

    [Oct 21, 2015] Andrew Bacevich A Decade of War

    May 15, 2012 | YouTube

    Qeis Kamran 1 year ago

    I just love Prof. Bacevic. Nobody has more credit then him on the subject. Not only for his unmatched scholarship and laser sharp words, but moreover for the unimaginable personal loss. He is my hero!!!!

    Boogie Knight 1 year ago

    How many sons did the NeoCon-Gang sacrifice in their instigated Wars in foreign lands....? Not one. Bacevich lost his son who was fighting in Iraq in 2007 - for what?!

    Yet the NeoCon warcriminals Billy Cristol, Wolfowitz and/or Elliott Abrams are all still highly respected people that the US media/political elite loves to consult - in 2014!

    [Oct 21, 2015] The End of American Exceptionalism with Andrew J. Bacevich - November 7, 2013

    An excellent explanation of the key postulates of Neoconservatism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isnt ever going to happen. ..."
    Nov 7, 2003 | YouTube
    Phil Anderson
    Excellent as always. Lecture by Bacevich starts around 13:42.
    Wendell Fitzgerald
    We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isn't ever going to happen.

    [Oct 21, 2015] How Much Longer Can The Oil Age Last

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wish the author had discussed his current estimates of recoverable oil in the $50-70 range rather than just implying it's there for the taking. A lot of countries have had their own individual peaks in production (i.e. Egypt, Syria) and only much higher oil prices may reverse that (like how high prices lead the US to increase energy extraction w/fracking). ..."
    "... One question I'd really love to see tackled: if you could calculate the true, total cost of production and use of a barrel of oil, including all the costs currently externalized (such as the cost of repairing damage from earthquakes from fracking, or full ecosystem restoration and financial restitution to affected people from pipeline breaks, etc) and compare that to the market price, are a greater percentage of costs externalized than in the past? And where does that trend go in the future? ..."
    "... including all the costs currently externalized ..."
    "... With all the mountains of BS on the internetz, this fundamental mat'l you will not find. BTW add the cost of attributable MIC and Failed States to the list. ..."
    "... differently ..."
    "... responsible ..."
    "... responsible ..."
    "... Population will plateau at some point during this century. ..."
    "... The problem is to get smart non-psychopaths in power, that's the #1 problem we have right now. ..."
    "... It flies in the face of capitalist orthodoxy and its requirement of ever-expanding markets ..."
    "... First, a big piece of what's going on stems from happy memories among Western policy makers of how a similar Saudi-initiated oil price war played a big role in breaking the USSR back in the 1980's. It's true that the price cut attends to some necessary cartel-management housekeeping, but this is a side benefit – the motives are mainly geopolitical rather than commercial. War by other means, as somebody said. For Putin, of course, the 1980's memories are not so happy. His objectives include showing that Russian policy can't be jerked around via the oil price, and ideally setting up consequences so painful to the Saudis that they'll never want to try this again. So events won't follow the path you'd expect in a normal OPEC cartel management exercise – either in time or in plot line. ..."
    "... Second, there's a wicked price spike coming. It could be the day after tomorrow, if the Russians and Iranians engineer something kinetic around the export facilities and trade routes on the western shore of the Gulf. Or it could be a year or two from now, as the two sides – exhausted and poorer – settle for some kind of mutually livable compromise. In either case the capex cuts now in train will flip the oil supply from its present "glut" (very small in percentage terms as compared to the 1980's experience) to a shortage at least as severe as the one in the middle years of the last decade.. ..."
    "... Oil price feedback will eventually kick in, though this is far in the future. High oil prices increase the prices of all things dependent on oil for production or transport. Eventually, the high price of oil starts to affect the price of oil itself. Those spikes will be numerous and rapid, for a while. ..."
    "... My take in Oil Dusk was to leave global warming out of the book and focus on the importance of oil to the current infrastructure in the developed world and what a disruptive transition might look like. Also, oil is truly scarce and took many millions of years to produce a quantity that will mostly be gone within the next hundred years. Oil scarcity concerns me a lot more than climate change. ..."
    "... Within the next five years, we will almost certainly see oil prices return to at least $90 a barrel – and perhaps considerably more. ..."
    "... The real alternative right now to oil is natural gas and it's likely that we transition from a oil to a natural gas energy infrastructure before we get to a solar and wind driven world structure. ..."
    "... The Saudis have the largest reserves of high quality cheaply extractable oil. They are the highest rent producer. (There are likely further reserves of such cheap, high quality oil to be found in a couple of places, Libya and Iraq, but you can see the problem there, and after that there's nothing left to be found of conventional reserves). But they must also realize that the age of oil is coming to a close over the next few decades. Hence it is in their interest to make sure that they sell off their reserves to the last drop, before the end, and thus to squeeze out higher cost unconventional producers. In the meantime, they also have an interest in keeping the global economy from recession, since the value of their immense financial reserves depend on the health of the global economy, which can readily be sent into recession by high oil prices. SO likely they will try to keep the oil price from rising above , say, $70 for quite some time. so as to balance out their various objectives. ..."
    "... Conversion to renewables is just happytalk. Conversion to anything is just happytalk. A quick look at physical fundamentals would reveal that there is simply not the means to continue industrial civilization in anything vaguely like its current configuration. ..."
    "... Civilization will be seriously disrupted–more likely, ended. Any technology or process that would mitigate the resulting suffering would need to be robust against disruption. High technologies and complex systems will not be robust, and will be of no use. ..."
    "... Capitalism has been mentioned. The key point is that return on investment (on loans) is in fact usury, and fundamentally criminal on a finite planet. The Industrial West "got away with" usury for five centuries firstly because of imperialism (colonialism–the immiseration of the periphery to prop up the center) and secondly because of cheap fossil fuels. Now that both of those are at an end usury just means destroying the economy that already exists in the name of trying to pay back the unpayable. Usury drove expansion, when expansion was physically possible; now it accelerates decline. If we eliminated return on investment tomorrow, we would open a window for addressing our problems. But usury will not be eliminated, and thus the chance of addressing our problems is nonexistent. Won't happen–end of story. ..."
    "... Meanwhile greenscams are everywhere, and will increase. Greenscams -- proposals for endless energy and stuff (delivered in an environmentally friendly way, of course)–are about to become their own proper industry. As everyone wants the impossible, greenscammers promise just that -– money up front (from you, the sucker) for unicorns delivered in the future. After all, who can prove the unicorns won't appear? This industry will be very profitable until we run out of suckers. I give it a decade. ..."
    Oct 21, 2015 | naked capitalism
    Will

    I wish the author had discussed his current estimates of recoverable oil in the $50-70 range rather than just implying it's there for the taking. A lot of countries have had their own individual peaks in production (i.e. Egypt, Syria) and only much higher oil prices may reverse that (like how high prices lead the US to increase energy extraction w/fracking).

    One question I'd really love to see tackled: if you could calculate the true, total cost of production and use of a barrel of oil, including all the costs currently externalized (such as the cost of repairing damage from earthquakes from fracking, or full ecosystem restoration and financial restitution to affected people from pipeline breaks, etc) and compare that to the market price, are a greater percentage of costs externalized than in the past? And where does that trend go in the future?

    optimader

    including all the costs currently externalized

    With all the mountains of BS on the internetz, this fundamental mat'l you will not find. BTW add the cost of attributable MIC and Failed States to the list.

    jgordon

    Rather than rehash things I've said before many times, I'll just provide a link to this classic post from Nicole Foss at the Automatic Earth website. I think it offers context and interpretation that's quite a contrast from the rosy and perhaps ill informed post above:

    http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2012/10/renewable-energy-the-vision-and-a-dose-of-reality/

    DanB

    I agree with you, but this is a hard sell at this site due to deeply entrenched mythological beliefs about 1. what money is and can do and 2. about infinite growth on a finite planet (collectively, we're at the bargaining stage on this latter one as the signs of the end of growth and ecological overshoot abound but are blocked from recognition by a paradigm that explains them as aberrations or human failures). I'd add to the Nichole Foss post the book "Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism (Our Sustainable Future)," the webiste of Gail Tveberg, Our Finite World," and the site "Economic Undertow".

    jsn

    It's not such a hard sell, I read plenty of comments here that understand what is in your references. The issue is how you get where we need to go from where we are. Calling everyone who disagrees ignorant doesn't help much: we all know what we know and don't know exponentially more. But it is very hard to propose actionable ideas beyond "personal virtues" which on their own have no chance. This is possibly the ultimate coordination problem: agreement on goals is much further along than agreement on means.

    MikeNY

    +1

    very perceptive comment

    DanB

    Please note I use "collectively" to refer to our culture, not to NC readers. Perhaps that was not clear. And i've been reading and commenting here since 2009.

    washunate

    This is a great exchange. Perhaps what I might add is I'm not so sure we do have agreement on goals. I think that does a disservice to those voices that quite passionately advocate moar.

    They genuinely believe that more work, more output, more deficit spending, more higher education, more home equity, more development and infrastructure, more aggregate activity, will improve society. It is a moral calling they see, and it is quite distinct from the perspective that we should live differently. We can't paper over how deep that chasm is between those that want full employment and those that want a world where less is more. One irony of the post-Keynesian (and post-Bretton Woods) MMT world is that Keynes himself thought we'd only need to be working a few hours a week by now. Capital accumulation was the great liberator of our time, to allow us human beings to do more important and exciting (and less polluting) things than go to work. But the secularization of the puritan work ethic – the notion that human life is directionless without an authoritative (and fatherly) figure to give direction – dies hard.

    bdy

    And for whatever reason, the less-is-more crowd isn't so much in the habit of proposing actionable ideas. We might consider that dismissal and scorn are nothing more than rhetorical tools in a conversation about power. (See Ghandi or Nicholas Klein: "first they ignore you…")

    – We can tax excessive consumption at the rate of its externalities, even (and especially) for necessities like food, water and housing
    – We can publicly fund taking people and institutions off of the grid.
    – We can publicly fund light industry and massive agricultural infill in our cities.
    – We can lift property taxes and subsidize rents for anyone who walks or bicycles to work.
    – We can tax energy in direct proportion to the loss rate of whatever grid carries it.
    – We can enable the State to enter the Market wherever a discernible demand is not being met, as consumer or provider (see giving medicine to sick children or eating unadulterated food)
    – We can scrunch city streets to the size of cart paths, confiscate any vehicle that exceeds 25 mph, shade everyone's windows, turn off our a/c, criminalize the use of drinking water for anything but drinking, locally compost all our bio-waste, end the industry of converting sunlight to meat, criminalize bulk possession of any bio-toxin, enforce a 25 hr / 3 day work week with no overtime, revoke the commerce clause (or not), buy back guns at triple the sticker price and melt them into strollers and windmills…

    It's simply a matter of keeping the conversation on point (what works within the limits of our solar income?) and being willing to discuss policies that might or might not reduce our level of comfort and privilege.

    Naomi Klein reads like USA Today, but The Shock Doctrine is right. The inevitability of scarcity means that crises will escalate. And with each escalating crisis, the most unthinkable ideas will become potentially acceptable (including comic-book nastiness like a nuclear first strike; ethnic cleansing in Kansas; a 0% capital gains tax; or declaring global, never-ending war against non-christians terror).

    If enough of us agree that shit is really going South in a bucket, and that the Fiat dollar allows us to spend relatively freely on things like war in Iraq; QE; or mitigating the disruption of mass industrial shrinkage, then we should also agree that the "actionable" in actionable ideas is all encompassing. Because the next time someone flies a false flag or blows up a critical asset class, the table will be in dire need of transformative food for thought.

    washunate

    It's simply a matter of keeping the conversation on point (what works within the limits of our solar income?) and being willing to discuss policies that might or might not reduce our level of comfort and privilege.

    Yep. I think that's one of the characteristics that makes proposals to do less (for example, tax the rich or end the drug war or scale back IP law) the most realistic in a system as corrupt intellectually and financially as ours is today.

    It's the first rule of holes: stop digging. Almost all of the big ideas to do more require an infrastructure of good faith management that simply doesn't exist.

    Brooklin Bridge

    Thanks for the link. That is a very interesting and well written article, worth reading and re-reading since it gives a good perspective on many issues. But you should also take into account that it (and all the links inside it) was written in 2012 and the costs of producing renewable energy are dropping to such an extent (like compound interest) that they are changing the nature of the issue.

    Moreover, the argument the article makes doesn't negate the need to transition to renewables; rather it acknowledges that need but emphasizes the gains of doing so locally in support of (as alleviation to) the current centralized power model rather than immediately replacing it. My argument about corruption below, I think, is one of the reasons that this effort has not gone further. Example, Hawaii, where electric utilities have had considerable success in halting renewables at the local level by individuals due to fear of reduction in profits.

    Brooklin Bridge

    Note, the fear of reduction in profits isn't entirely without merit. But what is without merit is the capitalist system that makes it possible for the utilities to win a battle for profits in a war for existence.

    jgordon

    The article is even more relevant than it was in 2012; the issue is not the cost of a solar panel, which is perhaps the least important cost in the process. Rather, it's the way our infrastructure is set up. The centralized utility/grid model is still just as incompatible with renewable energy today as it was in 2012.

    It's possible that we could all have a solar panel array and a windmill directly adjacent to the demand–but we'll still have to cut our energy consumption by 95%. In that kind of a world, things like personal passenger vehicles and the internet will not exist. I'm looking forward to it.

    hidflect

    The primary issue is one polite society refuses to address: population.

    jsn

    That is the issue that makes it "possibly the ultimate coordination problem". The moral reality of billions of lives lie in the balance of the actions one takes or doesn't take. That weight may be among the biggest barriers to responsible action: those who aspire to be responsibleare the most unnerved by this issue.

    washunate

    I'm much more optimistic on that front. Population is not a large coordination problem because there is no scaling needed to have fewer kids later in life (at least until the authoritarians perfect their Huxley Bokanovsky groups, I guess). Those are individual choices that can be made at the ultimate local level.

    It's already happening all around the globe, and outside of China, it's mostly happening as a genuinely free choice made available by the intersection of reproductive healthcare and a basic standard of living. It's almost like our species subconsciously recognizes the value of reducing the total population. Even against the stern worrying of the Serious People that declining birth rates threaten The Economy(TM).

    Ignacio

    +1, an other perceptive comment.

    Also the 'population problem' is a relative problem to consumption, resources and distribution. Population will plateau at some point during this century.

    There is no such thing as 'population problem' with the appropriate policies if the population does not go beyond 10 bill. (and old people consumes much less, by then humanity will be aging, damn, it already is in developed nations).

    The problem is to get smart non-psychopaths in power, that's the #1 problem we have right now.

    jsn

    Right now the real resources ratchet is producing civil wars and mass migrations, for instance, among other problems that are just beginning to blossom.

    It isn't population per se that is the coordination problem, it is equitable distribution of diminishing real resources in real time to support it without mass die offs that is.

    So far industrial overshoot is playing out with all the harbingers of collapse which will solve the distribution problem by natural selection. The coordination problem is to solve the distribution problem ethically to prevent nature taking its course.

    Nature bats last, so the trick is to keep the inning going.

    MikeNY

    I think this is true, and there are two big reasons for it:

    1. It flies in the face of capitalist orthodoxy and its requirement of ever-expanding markets
    2. If flies in the face of certain religious teachings on sexuality

    Both of these need to be rethought.

    Eric Patton

    The article does not mention the word "capitalism" even once.

    Private enterprise market economies - capitalism - are literally incompatible with reduced emissions. As long as we have a private enterprise economy with market-based allocation, we will simply continue to destroy the planet.

    Private enterprise centrally planned economies, public enterprise centrally planned economies, and public enterprise market economies have all existed in real life: Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, and the former Yugoslavia. None of these are viable alternatives to capitalism, if the goal is reduced carbon emissions.

    People are not yet ready to discuss the alternative though. This is not good.

    JTMcPhee

    …it's not "market based allocation," unless one does a little trick with definitions and categories– I'd call it "corruption based allocation," with a secondary diagnosis of terminal metastatic idiotic greed…

    Pwelder

    This post is OK as far as it goes, but it misses a couple of realities in the current situation that are relevant to finance and politics when viewed – as Yves does – from 50,000 feet.

    First, a big piece of what's going on stems from happy memories among Western policy makers of how a similar Saudi-initiated oil price war played a big role in breaking the USSR back in the 1980's. It's true that the price cut attends to some necessary cartel-management housekeeping, but this is a side benefit – the motives are mainly geopolitical rather than commercial. War by other means, as somebody said. For Putin, of course, the 1980's memories are not so happy. His objectives include showing that Russian policy can't be jerked around via the oil price, and ideally setting up consequences so painful to the Saudis that they'll never want to try this again. So events won't follow the path you'd expect in a normal OPEC cartel management exercise – either in time or in plot line.

    Second, there's a wicked price spike coming. It could be the day after tomorrow, if the Russians and Iranians engineer something kinetic around the export facilities and trade routes on the western shore of the Gulf. Or it could be a year or two from now, as the two sides – exhausted and poorer – settle for some kind of mutually livable compromise. In either case the capex cuts now in train will flip the oil supply from its present "glut" (very small in percentage terms as compared to the 1980's experience) to a shortage at least as severe as the one in the middle years of the last decade..

    Why should progressives care? Many good reasons, but the big one I haven't seen mentioned is this: There's a good chance the spike lands smack in the middle of the 2016 election. That being the case, this is probably not a great time to be parading around bragging about successes in blocking pipelines and keeping the oil on trains.

    MrColdWaterOfRealityMan

    There are a number of issues not mentioned that factor into any prediction:

    1) Oil isn't electricity. It's not used the same way and currently can't be used the same way. There are no electric airplanes, freight trains or cargo ships. Despite innumerate claims to the contrary, no current battery technology is capable of replacing hydrocarbon fuels. The volumetric energy density is not there and won't be for the foreseeable future.

    2) Price is a proxy for energy return. Prior to the current overproduction glut (the equivalent of squeezing a sponge harder for a few seconds), oil became expensive because acquiring it from fracking or drilling in deep water is more expensive, both energetically and economically. Despite the current overproduction blip, the upward pricing trend will inevitably continue.

    3) Production breakdown will be nonlinear. The world's current interdependent, global, just-in-time supply chains depend on *cheap* oil to be economical. When oil prices jump again, as they inevitably will, these will start breaking down in unpredictable ways as production and transportation costs increase. This affects everything, including the price of oil

    4) Oil price feedback will eventually kick in, though this is far in the future. High oil prices increase the prices of all things dependent on oil for production or transport. Eventually, the high price of oil starts to affect the price of oil itself. Those spikes will be numerous and rapid, for a while.

    Oildusk

    I was involved in a book entitled the Carbon Conundrum, by Bob Kelly. Bob has a PDH in economics from Harvard. He mapped out the anticipated volume of fossil fuels remaining and it's impact on the world climate. His take was that we'd run out of oil in the not too distant future and that it would take the world about 500 years to get back to pre-industrial carbon levels.

    My take in Oil Dusk was to leave global warming out of the book and focus on the importance of oil to the current infrastructure in the developed world and what a disruptive transition might look like. Also, oil is truly scarce and took many millions of years to produce a quantity that will mostly be gone within the next hundred years. Oil scarcity concerns me a lot more than climate change.

    While a book about oil scarcity might seem unrealistic at this juncture with world prices hovering in the $45 – $50 range, I remember twelve years ago when I couldn't persuade the bank to provide me with a price deck above $30 a barrel so that I could make some energy investments. Within the next five years, we will almost certainly see oil prices return to at least $90 a barrel – and perhaps considerably more.

    The real alternative right now to oil is natural gas and it's likely that we transition from a oil to a natural gas energy infrastructure before we get to a solar and wind driven world structure.

    Energy transitions are difficult and the actual path will make a huge difference in where we are as a species in the next 100 years.

    Ignacio

    There are different ways of looking at the energy issue depending on where do you live and I appreciate very much the insigths from Mumbay, India. I live is Spain and I have a different view. India is growing briskly while spain is stagnated and will be so for years to come it seems. Instead of growing fossil fuel consumption we have seen a quite noticeably decline, particularly for petrol products. Since the beggining of the crisis, petrol products consumption has declined by 28% (From 75 million tons annually in 2015-2017 to 54 million tons in 2014). Domestic oil production covers less than 1% of total consumption. We depend almost totally on oil imports.

    The observed decline has been caused of course by the financial crisis and high oil prices. Nevertheless, I bet that in Spain we have already seen an all-time peak oil consumption. Of course, lower oil prices are now playing in reverse and 2015 will see a modest rise in petrol products consumption for the first time since 2007. Nevertheless the observed decline shows clearly that an economy can function with much lower oil energy input. And there is still a lot of room to reduce consumption.

    A country like Spain, totally dependent on oil imports and crushed by bad debt is very sensitive to oil price volatility and there are many economic incentives to reduce oil consumption and replacement with renewables. In a depressed economy like ours, every euro/dollar saved on imported petrol products has a multiplier effect on growth. Besides, pressure is mounting from the side of public health (toxic emissions from gasoil, fueloil and kerosene) and climate protection. Spain has not the size nor the population of India and its international impact is small. But it migth become an advanced laboratory trial to test the end of the Oil Age.

    DanB

    You write, "While a book about oil scarcity might seem unrealistic at this juncture with world prices hovering in the $45 – $50 range…" Actually, the reason the price is low is due to the scarcity of cheap light sweet crude oil. We're seeing more and more people unable to afford more and more of life's necessities while simultaneously the cost of extracting oil is increasing (along with bankruptcies and mergers among energy companies to fend off the inevitable consequences of peak oil on debt, finance and the economy.) Low prices do not mean a glut of oil; they signal just the opposite. And then we have a neoliberal political/economy that worsens the matter.

    susan the other

    I agree and I'm convinced that every government on Earth agrees. What I see playing out between the Saudis-Qataris and the Russians is a struggle to control natural gas. The Gulf wants to pipe gas thru Syria and turkey to the EU. Russia wants to pipe gas from the Caspian to southern Europe. France wants to gain a share of the gas fields belonging to Egypt and get in on the action. It looks like Iran intends to supply China with natural gas via a pipeline thru Pakistan. What this looks like is a pact among the producers to leave oil in the ground after a certain window of time needed to switch to natural gas and then the reduction of the use of natural gas as it is replaced by renewables. The Saudis are using their natural advantage to sell as much of their oil as they can before the window closes. Maybe.

    john c. halasz

    The Saudis have the largest reserves of high quality cheaply extractable oil. They are the highest rent producer. (There are likely further reserves of such cheap, high quality oil to be found in a couple of places, Libya and Iraq, but you can see the problem there, and after that there's nothing left to be found of conventional reserves). But they must also realize that the age of oil is coming to a close over the next few decades. Hence it is in their interest to make sure that they sell off their reserves to the last drop, before the end, and thus to squeeze out higher cost unconventional producers. In the meantime, they also have an interest in keeping the global economy from recession, since the value of their immense financial reserves depend on the health of the global economy, which can readily be sent into recession by high oil prices. SO likely they will try to keep the oil price from rising above , say, $70 for quite some time. so as to balance out their various objectives.

    Gaianne

    One hesitates to add to an overly long thread.

    Conversion to renewables is just happytalk. Conversion to anything is just happytalk. A quick look at physical fundamentals would reveal that there is simply not the means to continue industrial civilization in anything vaguely like its current configuration.

    Civilization will be seriously disrupted–more likely, ended. Any technology or process that would mitigate the resulting suffering would need to be robust against disruption. High technologies and complex systems will not be robust, and will be of no use.

    Photovoltaic technology is a mid-term, niche, small-scale amelioration. It cannot power the grid, and it cannot replace the grid. Until panels can be made without rare-earth elements, the supply is seriously constrained by geology. Even if they are freed from rare-earths, the high technology and long suppy chains mean they will not go more than a few decades into the future.

    The grid itself will go down, region by region, never to return.

    Those of us who use photovoltaics know they are wonderful for the small-scale low-power applications to which we put them. And of no use for the high-energy large-scale schemes we keep hearing about.

    Capitalism has been mentioned. The key point is that return on investment (on loans) is in fact usury, and fundamentally criminal on a finite planet. The Industrial West "got away with" usury for five centuries firstly because of imperialism (colonialism–the immiseration of the periphery to prop up the center) and secondly because of cheap fossil fuels. Now that both of those are at an end usury just means destroying the economy that already exists in the name of trying to pay back the unpayable. Usury drove expansion, when expansion was physically possible; now it accelerates decline. If we eliminated return on investment tomorrow, we would open a window for addressing our problems. But usury will not be eliminated, and thus the chance of addressing our problems is nonexistent. Won't happen–end of story.

    There is much to be done nonetheless. Learning to live will less, and on things which can obtained locally, is both possible and necessary. Managing local, available sunlight for heating and cooling was well researched (and ignored) back in the 1970s. Much can be done on a small, local scale.

    Meanwhile greenscams are everywhere, and will increase. Greenscams -- proposals for endless energy and stuff (delivered in an environmentally friendly way, of course)–are about to become their own proper industry. As everyone wants the impossible, greenscammers promise just that -– money up front (from you, the sucker) for unicorns delivered in the future. After all, who can prove the unicorns won't appear? This industry will be very profitable until we run out of suckers. I give it a decade.

    –Gaianne

    Steven

    Just about the best take I've found on this subject – and on money and economics – is Frederick Soddy's "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt" (2nd edition). Here are some samples:

    • …though as yet the applications of the knowledge to the economics of life are not generally realised, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally a struggle for energy,… p. 49
    • As Ruskin said, a logical definition of wealth is absolutely needed for the basis of economics if it is to be a science. p. 102
    • The vast potential productivity of the industrialised world, particularly in the engineering and chemical industries, must find an outlet. If that outlet is by financial folly denied it in the building up and reconstruction of the home-life of nations, it remains as a direct and powerful incentive to the fomenting of war. p. 303

    The first bullet obviously goes far beyond mere oil wars. Ecology 101 says we can't turn the earth into one wriggling mass of humanity, that other forms of life are necessary to sustain our existence. You've heard variations of the second bullet before, e.g. Oscar Wilde describing the Anglo Saxon version of economics: "they know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

    If the third bullet doesn't ring a bell, you have been listening to too much Fox news. The military industrial complex gained its death grip on the American economy in the aftermath of a Great Depression that left America's financial and political leadership with a profound fear of the return of peace. At stake was not just unparalleled political and military hegemony but the power to create money ex nihilo and exchange it for the world's wealth.

    [Oct 21, 2015] US oil output on brink of dramatic decline

    Notable quotes:
    "... world oil prices were now too low to support U.S. shale oil output, the biggest addition to world production over the last decade. ..."
    "... We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth, the former head of oil firm EOG Resources Mark Papa, told the conference. ..."
    "... U.S. oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year. He said the main reason for the decline would be a lack of bank financing for new shale developments ..."
    "... The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell Plc agreed, saying U.S. oil producers would struggle to refinance while prices remained so low, leading to lower output in future. Producers are now looking for new cash to survive and they will probably struggle to get it, Ben van Beurden said. ..."
    "... Longer term, there was a risk that low levels of global production could bring a spike in oil prices, he said. ..."
    "... Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told reporters on the sidelines of the conference the U.S. oil industry had reacted to lower prices by improving its productivity. But this process could not continue forever. ..."
    "... The Secretary-General of OPEC, Abdullah al-Badri, said oil supply growth from non-OPEC producers might be zero or negative in 2016 because of lower upstream investment. ..."
    "... But Papa said if U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd - or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years. I see the United States as a long-term growth producer, he said. If low oil prices prevail - then the correction in oil prices will be much more severe. ..."
    Oct 6, 2015 | af.reuters.com
    • World prices seen too low to support U.S. shale oil output
    • Lack of bank financing seen for new shale developments
    • Risk low production levels may cause price spike
    • U.S. oil sector productivity improvements seen near limit (Recasts; adds U.S. production forecasts)

    Oil executives warned on Tuesday of a "dramatic" decline in U.S. production that could pave the way for a future spike in prices if fuel demand increases.

    Delegates at the Oil and Money conference in London, an annual gathering of senior industry officials, said world oil prices were now too low to support U.S. shale oil output, the biggest addition to world production over the last decade.

    "We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth," the former head of oil firm EOG Resources Mark Papa, told the conference.

    Papa, now a partner at U.S. energy investment firm Riverstone Holdings LLC, said U.S. oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year. He said the main reason for the decline would be a lack of bank financing for new shale developments.

    Official data show that nationwide U.S. output has already begun to decline after reaching a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in April, although production in some big shale patches, including North Dakota, has held steady thus far. The Energy Information Administration forecast on Tuesday that output would reach a low of around 8.6 million bpd next year.

    Until this year, U.S. oil output was growing at the fastest rate on record, adding around 1 million bpd of new supply each year thanks to the introduction of new drilling techniques that have released oil and gas from shale formations. But oil prices have almost halved in the last year on oversupply in a drop that deepened after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in 2014 changed strategy to protect market share against higher-cost producers, rather than cut output to prop up prices as it had done in the past.

    Benchmark Brent crude was up 5 percent, or $2.50 a barrel, at $51.75 on Tuesday as investors digested news from the London conference. It peaked in recent years above $115 a barrel in June 2014.

    SPIKE

    The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell Plc agreed, saying U.S. oil producers would struggle to refinance while prices remained so low, leading to lower output in future. "Producers are now looking for new cash to survive and they will probably struggle to get it," Ben van Beurden said.

    Longer term, there was a risk that low levels of global production could bring a spike in oil prices, he said.

    If prices remained low for a long time and oil production outside OPEC and the United States declined due to capital expenditure cuts, there was not likely to be any significant spare capacity left in the system, he said.

    "This could cause prices to spike upwards, starting a new cycle of strong production growth in U.S. shale oil and subsequent volatility," van Beurden said.

    Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told reporters on the sidelines of the conference the U.S. oil industry had reacted to lower prices by improving its productivity. But this process could not continue forever.

    "Now we are seeing the limits at least in the near term and it is beginning to impact production," Sieminski said. "We see (U.S. oil production declines) continuing into next summer."

    The Secretary-General of OPEC, Abdullah al-Badri, said oil supply growth from non-OPEC producers might be zero or negative in 2016 because of lower upstream investment.

    But Papa said if U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd - or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years. "I see the United States as a long-term growth producer," he said. "If low oil prices prevail - then the correction in oil prices will be much more severe."

    [Oct 21, 2015] Son of two Australian MH17 victims says Ukraine should have closed airspace

    Oct 13, 2015 | The Guardian
    www.theguardian.com

    The report, even in its highly-politized form, gives the families of the victims the right to file lawsuits against Ukraine for its criminal negligence in complying with flight safety rules. These suits can cost Ukraine billions of dollars.


    idance 14 Oct 2015 12:51

    Partly repeating my comment to another article here I must admit this POV agrees with today's (but not yesterday's) US standards.

    The US has just refused to accept the UNSC statement condemning the shelling of the Russian Embassy in Damascus. They said the responsibility for the security of diplomatic missions lies on the receiving party, that is on Damascus.

    Applying this standard it doesn't matter who shot down MH17. The responsibility lies on Ukraine cause it was Ukraine who should have ensured security of the flight.
    Yeah! How do you like it!

    SHappens 14 Oct 2015 03:31

    "Russia's got a role and they haven't been very helpful," he said. "So I blame Russia partially but not completely. There are many other players that are also to blame."

    Some people see through. Rightly, as highlighted by the report, Ukraine failed to its obligations, by not closing its airspace, rerouting a flight which casually got shot. They bear the main responsibility in this disaster.

    DeConstruct -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 23:05

    You are 100% on the money in relation to shorter route length and air navigation fees. The penny should have dropped when it became obvious from the altitudes of previous military shoot downs that medium range (up to 70,000' +) weapons were being employed and not just low altitude MANPADS.

    summaluvva -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 22:35

    Quoting Guardian's article, "Many of the world's best-known airlines – including British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – had been avoiding Ukrainian airspace due to safety fears for months before the downing of flight MH17.".

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/airlines-avoid-ukraine-airspace-mh17

    [Oct 20, 2015] Crude Tumbles As API Reports Another Huge Inventory Build

    Notable quotes:
    "... What this implies is that limitations on future supplies may result from the price of oil being too low. Contrary to the public perception that such limits would be accompanied by high prices, it is precisely high prices that make it possible to exploit the marginal deposits that are unprofitable today. ..."
    "... Writer Gail Tverberg has developed this thesis in detail on her blog Our Finite World, a thesis first advanced by energy analyst and consultant Steven Kopits. ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Escrava Isaura

    This post is by Gail Tverberg. Worth reading:

    I was also mystified by Kurt Cobb's statement,

    What this implies is that limitations on future supplies may result from the price of oil being too low. Contrary to the public perception that such limits would be accompanied by high prices, it is precisely high prices that make it possible to exploit the marginal deposits that are unprofitable today.

    Writer Gail Tverberg has developed this thesis in detail on her blog Our Finite World, a thesis first advanced by energy analyst and consultant Steven Kopits.

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 19, 2015] The Banksters and American Foreign Policy by Justin Raimondo

    Notable quotes:
    "... But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism. ..."
    "... , engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout. ..."
    "... Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs. ..."
    "... Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy ..."
    "... The great turning point of American foreign policy came in the early 1890s, during the second Cleveland Administration. It was then that the U.S. turned sharply and permanently from a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention to an aggressive program of economic and political expansion abroad. At the heart of the new policy were America's leading bankers, eager to use the country's growing economic strength to subsidize and force-feed export markets and investment outlets that they would finance, as well as to guarantee Third World government bonds. The major focus of aggressive expansion in the 1890s was Latin America, and the principal Enemy to be dislodged was Great Britain, which had dominated foreign investments in that vast region. ..."
    "... In a notable series of articles in 1894, ..."
    "... set the agenda for the remainder of the decade. Its conclusion: if 'we could wrest the South American markets from Germany and England and permanently hold them, this would be indeed a conquest worth perhaps a heavy sacrifice.' ..."
    "... Long-time Morgan associate Richard Olney heeded the call, as Secretary of State from 1895 to 1897, setting the U.S. on the road to Empire. After leaving the State Department, he publicly summarized the policy he had pursued. The old isolationism heralded by George Washington's Farewell Address is over, he thundered. The time has now arrived, Olney declared, when 'it behooves us to accept the commanding position… among the Power of the earth.' And, 'the present crying need of our commercial interests,' he added, 'is more markets and larger markets' for American products, especially in Latin America.' ..."
    July 15, 2011 | Antiwar.com

    In a free economy, the banks that invested trillions in risky mortgages and other fool's gold would have taken the hit. Instead, however, what happened is that the American taxpayers took the hit, paid the bill, and cleaned up their mess – and were condemned to suffer record unemployment, massive foreclosures, and the kind of despair that kills the soul.

    How did this happen? There are two versions of this little immorality tale, one coming from the "left" and the other from the "right" (the scare-quotes are there for a reason, which I'll get to in a moment or two).

    The "left" version goes something like this:

    The evil capitalists, in league with their bought-and-paid for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed 911 and the emergency team (otherwise known as the US Congress) came to their rescue, doling out trillions to the looters and leaving the rest of America to pay the bill.

    The "right" version goes something like the following:

    Politically connected Wall Streeters, in league with their bought-and-paid-for cronies in government, destroyed and looted the economy until there was nothing left to steal. Then, when their grasping hands had reached the very bottom of the treasure chest, they dialed BIG-GOV-HELP and the feds showed up with the cash.

    The first thing one notices about these two analyses, taken side by side, is their similarity: yes, the "left" blames the free market, and the "right" blames Big Government, but when you get past the blame game their descriptions of what actually happened look like veritable twins. And as much as I agree with the "right" about their proposed solution – a radical cut in government spending – it is the "left" that has the most accurate analysis of who's to blame.

    It is, of course, the big banks – the recipients of bailout loot, the ones who profited (and continue to profit) from the economic catastrophe that has befallen us.

    During the 1930s, the so-called Red Decade, no leftist agitprop was complete without a cartoon rendering of the top-hatted capitalist with his foot planted firmly on the throat of the proletariat (usually depicted as a muscular-but-passive male in chains). That imagery, while crude, is largely correct – an astonishing statement, I know, coming from an avowed libertarian and "reactionary," no less. Yet my leftist pals, and others with a superficial knowledge of libertarianism, will be even more surprised that the founder of the modern libertarian movement, also an avowed (and proud) "reactionary," agreed with me (or, rather, I with him):

    "Businessmen or manufacturers can either be genuine free enterprisers or statists; they can either make their way on the free market or seek special government favors and privileges. They choose according to their individual preferences and values. But bankers are inherently inclined toward statism.

    "Commercial bankers, engaged as they are in unsound fractional reserve credit, are, in the free market, always teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Hence they are always reaching for government aid and bailout.

    "Investment bankers do much of their business underwriting government bonds, in the United States and abroad. Therefore, they have a vested interest in promoting deficits and in forcing taxpayers to redeem government debt. Both sets of bankers, then, tend to be tied in with government policy, and try to influence and control government actions in domestic and foreign affairs."

    That's Murray N. Rothbard, the great libertarian theorist and economist, in his classic monograph Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy. If you want a lesson in the real motivations behind our foreign policy of global intervention, starting at the very dawn of the American empire, you have only to read this fascinating treatise. The essence of it is this: the very rich have stayed very rich in what would otherwise be a dynamic and ever-changing economic free-for-all by securing government favors, enjoying state-granted monopolies, and using the US military as their private security guards. Conservatives who read Rothbard's short book will never look at the Panama Canal issue in the same light again. Lefties will come away from it marveling at how closely the libertarian Rothbard comes to echoing the old Marxist aphorism that the government is the "executive committee of the capitalist class."

    Rothbard's account of the course of American foreign policy as the history of contention between the Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the various banking "families," who dealt primarily in buying and selling government bonds, is fascinating stuff, and it illuminates a theme common to both left and right commentators: that the elites are manipulating the policy levers to ensure their own economic interests unto eternity.

    In normal times, political movements are centered around elaborate ideologies, complex narratives that purport to explain what is wrong and how to fix it. They have their heroes, and their villains, their creation myths and their dystopian visions of a dark future in store if we don't heed their call to revolution (or restoration, depending on whether they're hailing from the "left" or the "right").

    You may have noticed, however, that these are not normal times: we're in a crisis of epic proportions, not only an economic crisis but also a cultural meltdown in which our social institutions are collapsing, and with them longstanding social norms. In such times, ideological categories tend to break down, and we've seen this especially in the foreign policy realm, where both the "extreme" right and the "extreme" left are calling for what the elites deride as "isolationism." On the domestic front, too, the "right" and "left" views of what's wrong with the country are remarkably alike, as demonstrated above. Conservatives and lefties may have different solutions, but they have, I would argue, a common enemy: the banksters.

    This characterization of the banking industry as the moral equivalent of gangsters has its proponents on both sides of the political spectrum, and today that ideological convergence is all but complete, with only "centrists" and self-described pragmatists dissenting. What rightists and leftists have in common, in short, is a very powerful enemy – and that's all a mass political movement needs to get going.

    In normal times, this wouldn't be enough: but, as I said above, these most assuredly aren't normal times. The crisis lends urgency to a process that has been developing – unfolding, if you will – for quite some time, and that is the evolution of a political movement that openly disdains the "left" and "right" labels, and homes in on the main danger to liberty and peace on earth: the state-privileged banking system that is now foreclosing on America.

    This issue is not an abstraction: we see it being played out on the battlefield of the debt ceiling debate. Because, after all, who will lose and who will win if the debt ceiling isn't raised? The losers will be the bankers who buy and sell government bonds, i.e. those who finance the War Machine that is today devastating much of the world. My leftie friends might protest that these bonds also finance Social Security payments, and I would answer that they need to grow a spine: President Obama's threat that Social Security checks may not go out after the August deadline is, like everything out that comes out of his mouth, a lie. The government has the money to pay on those checks: this is just his way of playing havoc with the lives of American citizens, a less violent but nonetheless just as evil version of the havoc he plays with the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Libyans every day.

    This isn't about Social Security checks: it's about an attempt to reinflate the bubble of American empire, which has been sagging of late, and keep the government printing presses rolling. For the US government, unlike a private entity, can print its way out of debt – or, these days, by simply adding a few zeroes to the figures on a computer screen. A central bank, owned by "private" individuals, controls this process: it is called the Federal Reserve. And the Fed has been the instrument of the banksters from its very inception [.pdf], at the turn of the 19th century – not coincidentally, roughly the time America embarked on its course of overseas empire.

    There is a price to be paid, however, for this orgy of money-printing: the degradation, or cheapening, of the dollar. Most of us suffer on account of this policy: the only beneficiaries are those who receive those dollars first, before it trickles down to the rest of us. The very first to receive them are, of course, the bankers, but there's another class of business types who benefit, and those are the exporters, whose products are suddenly competitive with cheaper foreign goods. This has been a major driving force behind US foreign policy, as Rothbard points out:

    "The great turning point of American foreign policy came in the early 1890s, during the second Cleveland Administration. It was then that the U.S. turned sharply and permanently from a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention to an aggressive program of economic and political expansion abroad. At the heart of the new policy were America's leading bankers, eager to use the country's growing economic strength to subsidize and force-feed export markets and investment outlets that they would finance, as well as to guarantee Third World government bonds. The major focus of aggressive expansion in the 1890s was Latin America, and the principal Enemy to be dislodged was Great Britain, which had dominated foreign investments in that vast region.

    "In a notable series of articles in 1894, Bankers' Magazine set the agenda for the remainder of the decade. Its conclusion: if 'we could wrest the South American markets from Germany and England and permanently hold them, this would be indeed a conquest worth perhaps a heavy sacrifice.'

    "Long-time Morgan associate Richard Olney heeded the call, as Secretary of State from 1895 to 1897, setting the U.S. on the road to Empire. After leaving the State Department, he publicly summarized the policy he had pursued. The old isolationism heralded by George Washington's Farewell Address is over, he thundered. The time has now arrived, Olney declared, when 'it behooves us to accept the commanding position… among the Power of the earth.' And, 'the present crying need of our commercial interests,' he added, 'is more markets and larger markets' for American products, especially in Latin America.'"

    The face of the Enemy has long since changed, and Britain is our partner in a vast mercantilist enterprise, but the mechanics and motivation behind US foreign policy remain very much the same. You'll note that the Libyan "rebels," for example, set up a Central Bank right off the bat, even before ensuring their military victory over Gadhafi – and who do you think is going to be selling (and buying) those Libyan "government" bonds? It sure as heck won't be Joe Sixpack: it's the same Wall Streeters who issued an ultimatum to the Tea Party, via Moody's, that they'll either vote to raise the debt ceiling or face the consequences.

    But what are those consequences – and who will feel their impact the most?

    It's the bankers who will take the biggest hit if US bonds are downgraded: the investment bankers, who invested in such a dodgy enterprise as the US government, whose "full faith and credit" isn't worth the paper it's printed on. In a free market, these losers would pay the full price of their bad business decisions – in our crony-capitalist system, however, they win.

    They win because they have the US government behind them - and because their strategy of degrading the dollar will reap mega-profits from American exporters, whose overseas operations they are funding. The "China market," and the rest of the vast undeveloped stretches of the earth that have yet to develop a taste for iPads and Lady Gaga, all this and more will be open to them as long as the dollar continues to fall.

    That this will cripple the buying power of the average American, and raise the specter of hyper-inflation, matters not one whit of difference to the corporate and political elites that control our destiny: for with the realization of their vision of a World Central Bank, in which a new global currency controlled by them can be printed to suit their needs, they will be set free from all earthly constraints, or so they believe.

    With America as the world policeman and the world banker – in alliance with our European satellites – the Washington elite can extend their rule over the entire earth. It's true we won't have much to show for it, here in America: with the dollar destroyed, we'll lose our economic primacy, and be subsumed into what George Herbert Walker Bush called the "New World Order." Burdened with defending the corporate profits of the big banks and exporters abroad, and also with bailing them out on the home front when their self-created bubbles burst, the American people will see a dramatic drop in their standard of living – our sacrifice to the gods of "internationalism." That's what they mean when they praise the new "globalized" economy.

    Yet the American people don't want to be sacrificed, either to corporate gods or some desiccated idol of internationalism, and they are getting increasingly angry – and increasing savvy when it comes to identifying the source of their troubles.

    This brings us to the prospects for a left-right alliance, both short term and in the long run. In the immediate future, the US budget crisis could be considerably alleviated if we would simply end the wars started by George W. Bush and vigorously pursued by his successor. Aside from that, how many troops do we still have in Europe – more than half a century after World War II? How many in Korea – long after the Korean war? Getting rid of all this would no doubt provide enough savings to ensure that those Social Security checks go out – but that's a bargain Obama will never make.

    All those dollars, shipped overseas, enrich the military-industrial complex and their friends, the exporters – and drain the very life blood out of the rest of us. Opposition to this policy ought to be the basis of a left-right alliance, a movement to bring America home and put America first.

    In the long term, there is the basis for a more comprehensive alliance: the de-privileging of the banking sector, which cemented its rule with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. That, however, is a topic too complex to be adequately covered in a single column, and so I'll just leave open the intriguing possibility.

    "Left" and "right" mean nothing in the current context: the real division is between government-privileged plutocrats and the rest of us. What you have to ask yourself is this: which side are you on?

    [Oct 19, 2015] Halliburton Cuts More Jobs as Fracking Hit Worst in Downturn

    Notable quotes:
    "... The pumping business in North American is clearly the most stressed segment of the market today, but it's also the market we know the best, President Jeff Miller told analysts and investors Monday on a conference call. This is the segment that we expect to rebound the most sharply. ..."
    Bloomberg Business

    Halliburton Co. cut another 2,000 jobs in the past month as the worst oil market slump in decades saps demand for work at the world's largest provider of fracking services.

    The Houston-based company said the first quarter of next year may represent the lowest point for its North American profit margin as customers start fresh with new spending budgets for 2016 and tap Halliburton's pressure-pumping expertise to start new wells. The comments came after the company reported a third-quarter loss of $54 million.

    "The pumping business in North American is clearly the most stressed segment of the market today, but it's also the market we know the best," President Jeff Miller told analysts and investors Monday on a conference call. "This is the segment that we expect to rebound the most sharply."

    Oil has swung between a bear and a bull market in North America this year as the drilling rig count slid. Explorers have cut more than $100 billion from global spending plans for the year after crude prices fell by more than half since June 2014.

    Quarterly Loss

    Halliburton had a loss of 6 cents a share in the third quarter compared with net income of $1.2 billion, or $1.41, a year earlier, according to a statement Monday. Excluding certain items, the per-share result was 4 cents more than the 27-cent average of 34 analysts' estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Sales dropped 36 percent to $5.6 billion.

    The company has now cut its workforce by 18,000, or about 21 percent, since its peak last year, Emily Mir, a spokeswoman, said Monday in an e-mail.

    Prices that service companies charge for hydraulic fracturing, which blasts water, sand and chemicals underground to release trapped hydrocarbons, are projected to fall as much as 37 percent in North America this year, according to IHS Inc. Fracking represents about 70 percent of the cost for an average U.S. well, Chief Executive Officer Dave Lesar said on the call.

    [Oct 19, 2015] An alliance of Russian liberasts Western pundits and putinslivsiks

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before. ..."
    "... They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. ..."
    "... I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that Russia was warned in advance this time, by one of Americas poodles. Remember Gerashchenkos warning, on Mirotvorec ? ..."
    "... On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled Slavs Against the Moscow terror . It will be a live transmission. ..."
    "... – I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. Im interested in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young Russian poets. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 3:23 am
    It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before.

    Indeed it was Nostradamized from the day 1 by the unlikely common opinion alliance of:

    1) Russian liberasts.
    2) Western pundits.
    3) "Russian" patriotic putinslivsiks

    They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. And the fact that terract was prevented is a reason not for concern but for a sense of pride of one's Security Services doing their job. For Russia "not to have any enemies" means to curl up and give up on any foreign policy, allowing "the adults" to run their freak show of "Here comes the Freedom and 'Mocracy. bitches!".

    yalensis, October 12, 2015 at 7:35 am
    I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that Russia was "warned" in advance this time, by one of America's poodles. Remember Gerashchenko's warning, on "Mirotvorec" ?
    Patient Observer, October 12, 2015 at 10:50 am
    Yes, the only difference now is that the masks are slipping revealing the truly hideous face of the Western empire. Other than that, business as usual.
    Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 2:26 am
    Guardian accused of passing off terrorist "hell cannon" as "barrel bombs"

    Please share this as widely as possible and feel free to write your own emails or letters to the Guardian if you feel it is appropriate.

    So iIhave done.

    Warren, October 12, 2015 at 3:50 am

    Published on 10 Oct 2015
    Article here – http://ukrainewarlog.blogspot.com/p/b

    Warren, October 12, 2015 at 3:51 am
    British Citizen Exposed as a Tool of Russia's FSB

    http://ukrainewarlog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/british-citizen-exposed-as-tool-of.html

    Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:05 am
    "Exposed" and then there follows a string of allegations.

    "Russia's FSB and GRU (military intelligence) are mostly likely assigning Phillips 'mini-ops' to attack western organizations, journalists, reporters and researchers who debunk the Kremlin's propaganda narrative."

    Case proven, m'lud?

    marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 7:17 pm
    Sad. So young – I'm assuming – and his mind already gone. Only in such an oxygen-deficient atmosphere could the FSB deliberately recruit somebody because they are "bumbling and incompetent" and speak Russian at the third-grade level or less. Lots of good press for Graham, though.
    Pavlo Svolochenko, October 12, 2015 at 7:53 pm
    It's even funnier because if the Ukrainians weren't the Goddamned barbarians they are, Philips would almost certainly have ended up on their side.
    Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:39 am
    Remember this kreakl?

    Dmitry Bykov.

    Know this bloke?

    He's Andrei Piontkovskiy, former member of that very short-lived Coordinating Council of the Russian Opposition, you know – Navalny's parliament in waiting that met a couple of times in kreakl cafés: even Udaltsov (remember him?) called its members a "committee of wankers".

    Well lookeee here:

    On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission.

    The Tweet is off a certain Sasha Sotnik of Sotnik TV.

    Sotnik TV is not a typical Russian television channel: It is only available on the web, not on television screens. It has no live broadcasts. And it is run primarily by just two people: husband and wife Sasha Sotnik, the reporter, and Mariya Orlovskaya, the camera operator (both pictured above).

    But what's most different about Sotnik TV is its outspoken criticism of Russian President Vladimir Putin, which has led to Sotnik and Orlovskaya being arrested briefly and accused of possessing explosives.

    Strong views

    Sasha Sotnik is a believer in the liberal "European values" that Putin has forcefully rejected in recent months, and does not flinch from expressing strong views in his videos, which are mainly distributed through the couple's YouTube channel.

    Bet they love Sasha at Auntie BBC.

    If he likes liberal "European values" so much, then why doesn't he stay in Banderastan?

    After all, the Ukraine is Europe, is it not?

    Moscow Exile, October 12, 2015 at 4:53 am
    Do you think Sotnik and Piontkovskiy and Bykov will be shot dead in the street when they return to Mordor, thereby becoming yet more tragic statistics attributed to the Dark Lord's reign of terror?

    After all, Lord Putin's ever watchful eye not only knows what everyone is thinking, but also of what they are going to think and plan and usually punishes his enemies before they even think of doing something that he will not like, such is his awesome power and majesty that holds this once mighty nation in sway ….

    These brave opposition souls must live a life of perfectly abject terror and despair.

    I mean, look at Bykov: he looks like a really worried man – doesn't he?

    I believe he's lost pounds since Putin seized control of the state, such has been his worry and concern over what has been going on here since 2000.

    marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 7:26 pm
    Too late, probably. Their personal addresses and the names of family members are probably all over whatyoucallem, that Russian squealer database that encourages people to inform on other people for anti-government views. There was a name for it…separatist! That's it, separatists who harbor anti-government attitudes!! I read all about it a while ago, but I forget the name of it. You could go there and rat out people for their personal views and then some wet-man from Putin's personal kill squad would go round to his house, make some excuse to get him outside and then cap him right there in the street. Poor Sotnik and Bykov and Piontkovskiy: they're as good as done for, like that murdered martyr Yulia Latynina.
    Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 4:56 am
    "On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission."

    During her emigration in Paris, famous pre-Revolutionary satirical writer Nadezhda Teffi (nee Lokhvitskaya, in marriage – Buchinskaya) once became a witness to such a scene:

    "- Сижу я вчера вечером в кафе, против монпарнасского вокзала. Вдруг вижу, из бокового зала выходят много пожилых евреев, говорят по-русски. Я заинтересовалась, остановила одного и спрашиваю, что это было такое… А это, оказывается, было собрание молодых русских поэтов"."

    – I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. I'm interested in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young Russian poets. "

    [Oct 19, 2015] John Helmer US Strategy In The Middle East Is Dying, Along With Its Authors, Carter And Brzezinski; Putin, Al-Assad Get To Dan

    Notable quotes:
    "... This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.) ..."
    "... BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care, where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis, the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn. ..."
    "... But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what am I missing? ..."
    "... Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression. ..."
    "... The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles. ..."
    "... Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not a secret. ..."
    "... Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity. ..."
    "... The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. ..."
    "... Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. ..."
    "... Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take it personally when their plans go awry… ..."
    "... Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped us before… ..."
    "... U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters flying around mountain valleys. ..."
    "... Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R D budget has been wasted on projects like F-35 and contracting fraud. ..."
    "... Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The flight capital out of Russia is relentless. ..."
    "... Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy. ..."
    "... Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation. ..."
    "... The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match the might of the Western Bloc. ..."
    "... I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. ..."
    "... "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in the 21st century." ..."
    "... The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. ..."
    "... No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of. Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK. ..."
    "... It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual. Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources ..."
    "... There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria. ..."
    "... Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Russia has established a no-fly zone on every one of Syria's frontiers, and will make an Alawite fortress along the coastal plain. As for what happens in the northern and western deserts, that's up to the Shiite armies of Iran and Iraq to decide, with or without Russian air cover, but with the assurance of no American, NATO, Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian or Emirati air cover.

    Gennady Nechaev, a military analyst at Vzglyad in Moscow, explains: "There is airspace, but either it is controlled by the US or by our Air Force. But today there is no issue of control of air space. We are talking about control of ground space. There operations can be of two types: direct destruction from the air and from insulation of the area of operations by air in order to avoid movements of the enemy and incoming reserves. In this case, the task is hardly feasible, as there is an open border with Iraq on the side of Turkey. The boundaries are not controlled. The problem could be solved [by Russia] if a blow can be dealt along the entire depth of the space under the control of ISIS. At the moment there is an operation against the infrastructure of ISIS. Infrastructure is a fairly loose concept, because they don't have civilian infrastructure. There are military links and connexions which must [operate] to supply weapons. For these purposes Russia is now applying its strokes."

    ... ... ...

    What if the Saudis shift their forces from bombing southward and eastward in the Yemen towards the west, and they invite US forces to defend their sorties from Saudi airfields or from carriers in the Persian Gulf? An Egyptian military source comments: "The king [Salman] has Alzheimer's, and his son [Mohammad bin Salman], the real ruler of the kingdom, is too young; too insecure in the royal succession; and too vulnerable domestically. If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs. There will be no support for the Saudis against the Russians from their only real Arab guarantor, [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-] Sisi. And long ago, when Obama installed the Moslem Brotherhood in Cairo, [Sisi] realized the American strategy, Obama's promises, are the gravest threat to Egyptian and Arab security there is. That's because he can't control the Washington Amazons who run his warmaking machine, or the jihadists he employs to fight. Without air cover, supply lines, and dollars, they are doomed. The Saudi sheikhs won't risk trying to save them."

    For more on Putin's management of the Saudi relationship, read this.

    London sources familiar with Israeli politics add that Russian strategy has the tacit backing of Israel. "This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan. No threat means no Syrian Army, no jihadists. Russia and Israel will now have what [Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion once explained was Israel's long-term objective – the breakup of the large, potentially powerful secular Arab states into small sectarian territories too weak to do anything but threaten each other."

    blert October 10, 2015 at 5:38 am

    Dr. Zbig. must be totally off his medication.

    There is not the slightest chance that BHO has any interest in squaring off with Putin.

    What the President has been doing is to support al Qaeda fronts - most particularly al Nusrah.

    Both al Nusrah and IS are joined at the hip and do not fight each other - much. Dr. Zawahiri is their mutal mediator, with plenty of correspondence to his credit.

    ISIS // ISIL // IS wouldn't be a serious factor if it was not for the UK, US, and Jordan. These three patron powers trained the core block of al Baghdadi's boys - in the northern Jordanian desert - just a few years back - remember ?

    It was all over the news - particularly in the Arab Middle East.

    They graduated - and promptly went rogue - taking out Mosul - probably by simply phoning ahead. For the US had given them first class communications gear - that they were supposed to be using in Syria. It, however, worked its magic even better - intercepting Iraqi cell phone frequencies - so that al Baghdadi could threaten the generals and their families quite directly.

    In this, they were entirely aping the USAF's gambit in Libya. Remember Commando Solo ? It was exactly such phone calls to Libyan generals that broke up Kaddafy's entire army. We admitted that we'd called just about everyone in the dictator's immediate family, to boot.

    Well, the fanatics in Libya couldn't miss any of that.

    And our Pentagon gave them the same tools// toys that the big boys have.

    Without this communications gear, ISIS would never have been able to roll fast, roll large, and co-ordinate everything - pretty much without a hitch.

    The FSA is a fictive fig leaf dreamed up by the spin smiths at the White House. There never has been a Free Syrian Army. There are NO secular fighters in the field. This is a flat out religious war. One has to be deliberately dense to repress that reality.

    Every single item ever given to the so called FSA has been deeded over to the fanatics - probaly with kisses, too.

    All of the above is idiot obvious. The only place that reality has no traction is in the West.

    When it can't be denied, the public will come to know that BHO has treasonously enabled al Qaeda in war time.

    That both of these fronts have direct AQ connections is out on the open record. Both are still in communication with Dr. Zawahiri. The only split is that al Baghdadi wants to be the caliph and run the ever expanding caliphate… a Napoleon, a Hitler for our time.

    BHO has been vectoring weapons to al Nusrah - by the flimsy pretext that they were intended for moderate rebels. That lie won't hold water.

    The TOW missiles that al Nusrah has received were entirely responsible for the massive reverses that Assad suffered of late. Go to YouTube to see the jihadi footage. It's a pretty good bet that the Russians have targeted the ammo dumps most likely to have these missiles. The Russians have put their hits up on YouTube, too.

    The only player that's going to be backing down: BHO. That's who.

    BTW, at any time Putin can pull the President's card house flat. I suspect Putin is going for maximum embarrassment. His treasonous support of AQ could finally lead to impeachment and conviction… throwing Biden into the Oval Office. Such a travail would be triggered indirectly - so that Putin's fingerprints would not be at all obvious.

    In the meantime, Putin likes the fool right where he sits.

    TedWa, October 10, 2015 at 11:58 am

    I must say, nice lay out of the facts. There's so many things O should be impeached and jailed for and if you think this one has him dead to rights, well…. cumbaya bro

    James Levy, October 10, 2015 at 12:28 pm

    I would bet the farm that the leadership in the House and Senate are, at this moment, unindicted co-conspirators and Obama can prove it. There will be no impeachment over any of this. It would bring down the whole system.

    ohmyheck, October 10, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Not necessarily…

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Putin-s-Endgame-in-Syria-by-Mike-Whitney-Assad_Isis_NATO_Obama-151009-339.html

    "Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire."…

    This is a wake-up call. Moscow is indicating that there's a new sheriff in town and that Turkey had better behave itself or there's going to be trouble. There's not going to be any US-Turkey no-fly zone over North Syria, there's not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of Turkish troops into Syria. The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria and they are determined to defend Syria's sovereign borders. That's the message. Period."

    My guess is the Russian Air Force has a few more "messages" up its sleeve…

    OIFVet, October 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    There are no Russian Mig-29s in Syria.

    blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    The 'mistaken' Russian penetrations into Turkish air space are designed to 'brush back' the Turks. ( Baseball term: a pitch is thrown very close by the batter to get him to inch away from the plate. )

    And it has suceeded. While not given much publicity in the Western press Erdogan has been injecting his air force directly over Syria - about 30 kilometers - give or take.

    He has also deployed SAMs rather foreward, too.

    The net effect has been to drive Assad's air force out of the skies all along the border.

    But, much further south, Syria is a total desert with but one river running through it, the Euphrates.

    So Erdogan's play has been effectively shielding ISIS from Assad's pitiful air force. ( All downed pilots are assassinated via torture by the fanatics.

    Putin is terminating Erdogan's gambit.

    Putin is simultaneously protecting the Kurds - as Erdogan can't beat them up any more with his air force. One can reasonably expect that 'somehow' the Kurds will experience a shift in fortunes - as Putin becomes their devious patron. He'll want to arm them in such a manner that Iran and Iraq don't 'kick.'

    That should now be easy. He can over fly ISIS turf from the Caspian sea - spitting weapons out the back window like Zardoz, when over Kurdish positions. (1974, Sean Connery)

    Jesper, October 10, 2015 at 8:29 am

    The US has stopped doing strategy so while short term victories can be had the long-term is only obtained by chance…. The ones in US with strategies are the ones who are pursuing personal strategies, those strategies sometimes happen to align with US interests.

    & to be seen as a reliable ally (and therefore an ally wished for) then a country needs to back up their allies even(!) when times get tough. Russia is doing that in Syria. France is doing that in Mali:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13881978

    UK & the US has been doing the same numerous times throughout history, Maybe even the backing of the current regimes in Afghanistan & Iraq would fall into the category of backing up an ally, or maybe those are more 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.


    blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Both Obama and Clinton are big into 'triangulation.'

    Meaning that they are too clever by half - and ALWAYS mistake domestic political tactics and tricks for viable gambits in international affairs.

    With Bill Clinton you had a president that spun on a dime, famously flip-flopping four times in a single day on this or that domestic issue.

    With Obama you have a president that just CAN'T accept and adopt - straight out - ANY recommended policy suite proferred by his own professionals. Instead, he runs it by Axelrod and the other spin smiths - gauging it for domestic and media impact.

    He really thinks that he's the smartest man in Washington, and that his 'play' has been brilliant. He is a bit perturbed that the rest of the world is not following his scripts.

    His 'clever' scheme to use the CIA (et. al.) to sustain a proxy anti-Assad army has blown up like a Roadrunner gag.

    The jibes from Putin and others are particularly irritating.

    No-one now is kissing his Islamic ring.

    ( Yes, his marriage ring is ornately inscribed with Islamic iconography. Google around for it. He's worn it since Harvard, long before Michelle.)

    binky Bear, October 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Not only deeply informed but a telepath to boot. How fortunate to be near-omniscient, and to support so deeply such complex arguments with provable facts.

    blert, October 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    Where have you been ?

    Clinton's 'triangulation' was a term of art brought up largely by himself.

    As for the proxy army… Now even the AP is willing to 'fess up.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dfe1547ba36f4f968deee227d467dc08/officials-russian-bombs-cia-rebels-had-syrian-gains

    The big error in the AP article is dating it to 2013. The project was started even earlier.

    Telepath ?

    Reading their local press did the trick. You will find Indian and Pakistani English language publications hitting right on target - realities that 'elude' the NY Times.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 10, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.)

    BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care, where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis, the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn.

    But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what am I missing?

    Unfortunately after the Hilary coronation we'll have another serial "third way" triangulator in charge who never saw a war, arms program, or covert adventure she didn't like. Except when she didn't like it, which was right after she did like it, and right before the previous time she didn't like it.

    Jim McKay October 10, 2015 at 8:53 am

    Good article… gives (from all I've read elsewhere) good, accurate context to what's going on now, and why (IMO) Putin's actions make sense. That is, if "solutions" (eg. ending blood shed, restore sustainable stability) in Syria is the objective.

    I'm also struck by some retrospective considerations, beyond what author (with limited space) hits very generally (eg: Brzezinski/Carter). In particular, all the secret prisons and indiscriminate detentions by BushCo (torture), much of it seemingly continued by BO. And, the "unintended" consequences of that.

    Reading Wikipedia's bio on al-Baghdadi this morning, seems he was a very well educated cleric (doctorate in both Islamic Studies and Education) even well after Bush's Iraq adventure began. He was non-descript, low key… seems little evidence he had violtent inclinations:

    "I was with Baghdadi at the Islamic University. We studied the same course, but he wasn't a friend. He was quiet, and retiring. He spent time alone. Later, when he helped found the Islamic Army, Mr Dabash fought alongside militia leaders who were committing some of the worst excesses in violence and would later form al-Qaeda… [but] Baghdadi was not one of them, I used to know all the leaders (of the insurgency) personally. Zarqawi (the former leader of al-Qaeda) was closer than a brother to me… But I didn't know Baghdadi. He was insignificant. He used to lead prayer in a mosque near my area. No one really noticed him."

    This bio also says this (which I didn't know):

    Bakr al-Baghdadi was arrested by US Forces-Iraq on 2 February 2004 near Fallujah and detained at Camp Bucca detention center under his name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badry[22] as a "civilian internee" until December 2004, when he was recommended for release by a Combined Review and Release Board.[24][29][30] In December 2004, he was released as a "low level prisoner".[22]

    A number of newspapers and cable news channels have instead stated that al-Baghdadi was interned from 2005 to 2009. These reports originate from an interview with the former commander of Camp Bucca, Colonel Kenneth King, and are not substantiated by Department of Defense records.[31][32][33] Al-Baghdadi was imprisoned at Camp Bucca along with other future leaders of ISIL. (emphasis added)

    Would be hugely informative to have a means of cross checking records (if they exist?) of U.S. detainees as "illegal combatants", their violent "proclivities" prior to incarceration, and how many of them became Jihadists after release. The utter injustice of this, in the face of nothing more then an invasion and occupation of Iraq… this cause & affect is ignored and unacknowledged by leadership/policy makers on our shores. And making "exception" for these policies guarantees the continued disastrous results, ad infinitum.

    Global conventions against torture have stood for a long time, with a strong moral grounding… based on understanding, that abrogating them WILL produce the kinds of results we've seen, expanding like dominoes.

    Somehow, someway… if U.S. is ever to get on a course other then collapsing from within, this stuff needs to be examined thoroughly and cut out of public and official "acceptance" like the cancer that it is.

    blert October 10, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    The problem with any bio on al Baghdadi is that the CIA// Pentagon has re-used that name// title over and over. This is topped off by the fact that the Muslims use that nome-de-guerre over and over, too.

    So one is always left puzzling over whether this or that reference is getting crossed over with yet another al Baghdadi. The Pentagon, itself, admits that they have made that exact error many, many, times. They've 'killed' al Baghdadi numerous times - only for another elusive al Baghdadi to pop up.

    Some analysts contend that the name is really more towards a title - just like Caesar. After he died, all of his successors were so labeled. The only folks that seem to have the slightest clue about what's up are the desert Arabs. (Jordan, KSA, Kuwait - and the Awakening Movement in Iraq.)

    Everyone else is 'stupid' - counter-informed - like Dr. Zbig. What a gas bag. Dangerous, too.

    Procopius October 10, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think it's useful to refer to "al Baghdadi" as a "nom de guerre." It's a nickname, "the guy from Baghdad," in a culture where names are rather indeterminate. OK, I'm not an Arabic linguist, but I know that a guy may be known by some of his friends as "Son of X," by others of his friends as "Father of Y," and by others as "Abdu al [insert attribute of Allah]." I think this makes it problematic for many Americans, who are not known for language ability.

    blert October 11, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    Actually, adopting a 'nom de guerre' is extremely popular for the fanatics.

    1) Like all super heros, they don't want blow back upon their non-combatant family members. This is especially evident with their infamous executioners. But the tic is not at all limited.

    2) The fake persona permits the jihadist easy travel when outside the war zone. Many of the fanatics are claiming to flit to and fro - from America to Syria - with grace and ease. This ease of travel was confirmed by an elderly German journalist, (75) who visited ISIS. They scared the Hell out of him. It also terrified him that he could, himself, flit from Germany to Syria, with little to inconvenience him. (!) It was all too easy. Yikes !

    In his opinion, the fanatics are shuttling all over the place. Current border controls are wholly ineffective with these players. If a slow moving retiree can make the transit, that's telling.

    timbers October 10, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression.

    A reborn Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria alliance could check the brutality of the current U.S./Israel/Saudi Arabia/Turkey axis. Have seen articles that Iraq is impressed with Russian effectiveness against U.S. funded ISIS that is creating chaos in Iraq, and they may ask Putin to do the same thing there he is doing in Syria. Wonder if O's ego can handle that?

    Even signs that some in Europe see Russia is helping them by intervening in Syria and connecting the dots, as in "WTF are we doing hurting ourselves pissing off Russia in service of U.S.?"

    With all that going on, I was dumbfounded seeing headlines that the U.S. is preparing a major naval challenge to China's islands, as if we don't have enough conflict on our hands already.

    Steve H. October 10, 2015 at 9:08 am

    "If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs."

    ""This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan."

    Those are a couple of very interesting points that look win-win for Russia. Especially with the Saudi and Turkish regimes having internal problems as well.

    Here's an analysis from the other side of the aisle:

    stratfor.com/analysis/syria-loyalist-offensive-begins

    The bone I'll pick with it is that the 'far' position taken is "negotiated settlement". The U.S. and Saudis appear over-extended and thus under-committed. Russia has advanced a Knight, and S-400's and cruise missiles are discomforting if NATO tries to advance the Queen of overwhelming air power (see the Stratfor map of U.S. vs Russian air strikes). When the BATNA is a win-win, all negotiations are just plays for time.

    blert October 10, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Stratfor totally lost me with their fantasy Free Syrian Army schtick. It does not exist.

    That scribe is pipe dreaming. Absolutely no-one in the field identifies with the FSA. Not. A. One.

    The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles.

    Go to YouTube to see countless jihadi videos uploaded showing how al Nusrah has been driving Assad into retreat.

    The rest of the article is pure jibberish… counter-factual… aka lies.

    ltr October 10, 2015 at 10:19 am

    This is an especially important post, as it is all but impossible to gain a balance in analysis or reporting from the press in the United States on the Russian initiative and engagement in Syria.

    Mel Fish October 10, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Stratfor is great reading…polished and confident, always written with a hint of being' in the know' , and yet is less useful as a forecasting tool than a dart board (without any darts). Also amusing is to wonder about the irony of the president's Nobel peace prize and what effect the fear of the resurfacing of the irony/hypocrisy each time the president engages the country in yet another "conflict". If you imagine the president being issued a certain number of conflict cards at the beginning of terms, well, they must be used judiciously….especially when one has that damned prize to think about. Wonder if that's another reason the Russians got to go Russian in Syria first.

    sd October 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not a secret.

    Lambert Strether October 11, 2015 at 1:12 am

    I don't see how that contradicts Fish's comment. We expect the elites to be polished and confident, do we not?

    blert October 11, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity.

    EoinW October 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Now it's a nice, neat package to assume Russia made Israel an offer it couldn't refuse, however Putin can't make deals with everyone. After all, he's not Donald Trump.

    My guess would be that Hizbollah will be rewarded for their support and be able to keep the arms they get from Russia. Israel will simply have to stay out of southern Lebanon for good. That's going to be a tough one for the Jewish Taliban, with their Greater Israel project, to swallow. Ben-Gurion may have wanted peaceful borders but it is the last thing modern Israel wants. The Assads kept the peace on the Golan border for 40 years – fat lot of good that did them. Peaceful borders means no excuse for Israel to avoid making peace with the Palestinians.

    The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. Hamas is not as extreme as ISIS, however the Palestinian situation becomes more extreme every day. Could ISIS end up working with the Palestinians? Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. Even if ISIS doesn't take up the Palestinian cause, it still has to go somewhere. Seems the chickens will come home to roost.

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Wrong, Bibi visited on September 20th.

    blert October 10, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Bibi and al Sisi romanced Putin once Obama showed his colors. The President intended to take America down a peg… okay… many pegs. Instead, the down-pegging has occurred to himself.

    He's now totally ineffective in foreign affairs. He is scorned and ridiculed… universally.

    TG October 10, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    Interesting. But I wouldn't hand Putin the victory cup just yet.

    Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take it personally when their plans go awry…

    Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped us before…

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    I suspect that the Kurds and Houthis, as well as the Shia in KSA's oil producing regions will suddenly find excellent source of weapons, plunging Turkey, KSA, and the emirates in quite the chaos.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    The issue is moving the weapons. Jordan's border is open desert. Iraq is warming to the Russians with an active war zone along the border. Israel doesn't want weapons running through their territory without control. The water is locked up, and Lebanon is full of Hezbollah.

    After today's events, who knows where Turkey is?

    Where is the money coming from? Americans aren't brining up Syria on the campaign trail except to note they were opposed to intervention. The Saudis are suffering from low oil prices and their own quagmire.

    U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters flying around mountain valleys.

    Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R&D budget has been wasted on projects like F-35 and contracting fraud.

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    It's Time for the United States to Start Worrying About a Saudi Collapse. I thought the plunge in oil prices would bring down the Ruskies?

    Besides the shale operations, the overextended KSA is now in trouble, particularly with rising domestic oil consumption and internal Al-Saud family dissent growing.

    Then there is the appalling poverty that may no longer be alleviated with oil revenue subsidies. In the 1980s the Saudis matched CIA spending for the mujaheddin 1:1, which really made a huge difference. If the US wants to launch a proxy war on Russia in Syria, and wants the Saudis to help pay for it, it may find itself with a disintegrating KSA, one where the oil fields are in predominantly Shia areas. Blowback might be putting it quite mildly.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    There are only 10,000 non-wealthy Saudi men and only half are of fighting age. The House of Saud doesn't have a great faction to stand for the regime if anything were to go to South. I'm sure the Hajj stampede and crane collapse aren't sitting well with the king in the hospital. From the rumors, King Fahd's party are trying get to retake power. Fahd was pals with the old man Assad.

    The Royal Guard is roughly the size of the national army, so there are two separate armies in Saudi Arabia with separate Com and structures which demonstrates the lack of faith in the army. Costs aside, I wonder if the real aim is to keep much of the Saudi military as possible occupied I stead of at home where they can cause trouble. With only 30,000 or so members, the House of Saud can be replaced at any old time.

    Crazy Horse October 10, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition.

    Worked about as well as most US foreign policy "initiatives". Wouldn't it be ironic if the end game was the overthrow of the decadent Saudi ruling family and a post revolutionary Saudi Arabia in the Russian/Chinese axis?

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    It is amusing to contemplate, up to a point. I am not sure that potential Saud family collapse is necessarily good for peace.

    ambrit October 11, 2015 at 8:37 am

    What I fear from all this is a 'Caliphate' extending from Mosul down around Basra (got to give those Sixers credit,) and on into The (Former) Kingdom. Ben-Gurions' Arab 'splintered' states could come back to bite his successors as one big confederation of "The Faithful."

    blert October 11, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    The Saudi royal house is furious with Obama.

    It's the Iran deal. After that, nothing else really matters to the Saudis.

    The low oil price was never co-ordinated with anybody.

    It's targets are - in no particular order:

    Assad
    Iran
    Russia
    American frackers

    The Saudis have been disrupting Iranian oil exports to Asia - by under cutting them on price and quality.

    Until Obama released the Shah's old deposits ( my how they have compounded into real money ) Iran was going insolvent.

    Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The flight capital out of Russia is relentless.

    American frackers represent a dire strategic threat to the Saudi clan. Such methods have every prospect of making Saudi oil an insignificant resource.

    For, on the math, fracking ( like flotation cells a century ago ) figure to increase the resource base – – crude recoveries - by a factor of one-hundred.

    That last figure may astonish, but it's true. All this time drillers have discovered vast oil deposits - that were too thin to work - with vertical bore holes. Some of these thin deposits don't actually need fracking, per se. They just need the super accurate aimable drilling tips America now produces.

    The kicker - on the economics - is that such thin deposits are extensive. So if you punch down - you are sure to hit the strata - to strike oil - about 100% of the time. Your only risk is if this or that effort is not quite what you hoped for.

    Such resource economics are entirely upside down from conventional drilling. They strongly resemble the economics of coal mining. Everybody is uniformly 'lucky.'

    The total amount of 'thin strata' oil in the ground is staggeringly larger than all conventional deposits. The Saudi royals know this. The general public does not.

    It's against the economic interests of any of the players to level with the press or the public. Everybody is lying about everything to everybody else. This behavior is classic - typical of mining everywhere. When was the last time you heard a gold miner telling all where he'd found a massive strike ?

    Heh.

    Medon October 10, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all. We can just buy oil from the lowest cost supplier and have it shipped over. What am I missing here?

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy.

    cwaltz October 10, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/house-votes-to-lift-oil-export-ban/ar-AAfhPdk

    Heck if we wanted to we wouldn't even have to ship it over. What's the fun in that though? Yay, capitalism where no one ever gets to lift the stupid veil!

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation.

    It's not that much different than medieval kings who blamed jews for the ills of society. Oh sure, we have tablets and Facebook, but we are still the same people after all these years.

    cwaltz October 10, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    The currency manipulation thing always makes me laugh. Good Lord, what do they think the Fed does when it lowers and increases interest rates and what QE did to the dollar?

    People WANT a scapegoat though. They want to believe that it's someone else's fault. Our domestic leaders are giving the people what they want, a culpable body, when playing the blame game.

    optimader October 10, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all
    It doesn't
    What am I missing here?
    stock in http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Top-100-Defense-Contractors-2014.html
    ill admit, the relative positions of 11-13 surprised me, but then not.

    Roland October 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match the might of the Western Bloc.

    But the Russian government indicates that they are willing to go to war, even if they know in advance that they will lose that war. Willingness to lose means willingness to fight, and the willingness to fight is a crucial element in deterrence.

    In both Georgia and Ukraine, the Russians have physically demonstrated their willingness to go to war wherever NATO tries to expand into any more of the former Soviet republics. There is no question of Russian credibility as far as NATO expansion into former SR's is concerned. That means war, period.

    Syria's importance to Russia lies in the fact that it's Russia's only ally that is not territorially contiguous to Russia. If Russia is to retain any real sovereign capacity to make or preserve meaningful alliances abroad, then they must support the Syrian government, even if a military deployment there is precarious.

    Russia was very slow to engage in direct intervention in Syria. For years, Russia confined its efforts to political support, technical advice, and resupply of the existing Syrian arsenal. Russia even disarmed Syria of its chemical weapons, in a failed effort to mediate the conflict.

    However, Russia's long reluctance also means that their current action is long-considered. A government that is slow to go to war is usually a government that will fight hard in that war.

    I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. The real God of war is neither Athena nor Mars. It's Tyche.

    Chauncey Gardiner October 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article that was published in Salon on October 6th, I recommend it as worthwhile reading and food for thought. An extract:

    "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in the 21st century."

    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/06/thomas_friedman_read_your_chomsky_the_new_york_times_gets_putinobama_all_wrong_again/

    Hmmm… A multi-polar world?

    blert October 10, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    "The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.

    The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing to promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and on Friday, the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force, instead opting to equip established groups to fight IS."

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dfe1547ba36f4f968deee227d467dc08/officials-russian-bombs-cia-rebels-had-syrian-gains

    Even this AP story is largely inaccurate. The CIA had been active even before 2013. It's original proxy army went rogue and is the cadre for al Baghdadi's ISIS horror show. ONLY NOW is the MSM breaking the story that is idiot obvious across the Middle East. ZeroHedge is comparing this to Bay of Pigs II.

    No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of. Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK.

    Stefan October 10, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    This article's quotes from various foreign quarters are informative, but its characterization of American strategy is a bit "breathless."

    The US maintained a fairly hands off approach to Syria over the past few years on the advice of Israel. In essence, the US didn't have a dog in that fight, and the general intention was to allow the regime and its enemies to weaken each other interminably.

    Obama's empty threats about chemical weapons were a mistake, of course. But the Russians helped him out of that one. And in some way, they are helping him out again. The blitzkrieg success of Sunni/ISIS took observers by surprise, and all those gruesome beheadings seem to call for something. But again where is the real strategic value of Syria? Every sensible Syrian who can is on his way to a new life in Europe.

    While the article's author seems to wish to ridicule him, Brzezinski is right. The US has stupendous firepower, more than the rest of the world combined. But as we have seen, that does not guarantee success in every situation, and is hardly effective if half-hearted.

    By the way, the Israelis could "take out" Assad any time they wish to. They could as well probably cripple the Russian force in Syria in a day, if they chose. But they do not prefer the consequences.

    VietnamVet October 10, 2015 at 9:58 pm

    It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual. Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources at the risk of exterminating Homo sapiens. Russia will do well for a while carving out enclaves for the minority Shiites, Christians and Alawites then they will in a tough slog of fighting Sunni Arabs in a regional Holy War.

    There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria.

    ambrit October 11, 2015 at 8:48 am

    Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia.

    Another possibility is a peaceful change of leadership within Assad's Syrian government. Does anyone know if there is a suitable successor to Assad Jr. in the 'family?' Such an event would remove even the fig leaf presently being waved in front of the West's attempted rape of Syria.

    Russell Scott Day/Transcendia October 11, 2015 at 1:02 am

    So I was hoping that the Russians would go in there and kill ISIS and then they turn around and start killing the rebels trying to kill Assad, who ISIS wouldn't mind killing as well. So much for wishful thinking which last I noted hasn't worked well in war except when called dumb luck, which is fortunate weather events never anticipated by anyone.

    Well it sort of makes sense that if you have an enemy with an army and they threaten you, enough, you kill them. Unfortunately for allies of the US, it doesn't really matter that much for the US long as the Petrodollar, the gift of Nixon and Kissinger is the reserve currency. If all the Syrian draft dodgers go to Germany, well that will serve Volkswagen right, not to mention make Greece and Hungary thinking so while any minute I'll look good telling the Netherlands to go for it with my Insurodollar.

    Well it sure did work out well about that Euro. And things would be great if it was actually oil coming from the 3,900 drill rigs, if it was oil instead of leaky ass methane wrecking the climate even more than oil getting burned things would be better. A 4,000 dollar CNG gas tank that takes up the trunk makes batteries look good.
    But who knows what all since piddling around has halfway or a third worked out, so far.

    It's not how many nukes you have, but who uses them first, if you have them see. They didn't really have them till the end of the second world war, which was a war, still, and why I call what's in store next for us an apocalyptic riot.

    If only capitalism was working and Russia was just offered a land transit corridor for a price to Sevastopol? So what if they get to access more better in the Black Sea, It's Black right?

    Remember the Zaporizia! Remember that Hunter Biden! Remember Antares! Remember Christophe de Margerie and the drunk that got there just in time for a plane that never crashes except for the other one that was shot down! And remember thinking too much, since what you know is lots of lies, and the rest is cowardly, or stupid.

    [Oct 19, 2015] Syrian Gambit: US at Pains to Create 'Another Afghanistan' for Russia

    This is a very dangerous gambit for Russia. The USA and allies represents overwhelmingly stronger alliance economically, politically and technologically.
    Notable quotes:
    "... And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors, ..."
    "... We will see fewer conventional offensives in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan ..."
    "... While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the West have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage, he told Sputnik. ..."
    "... given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation ..."
    Oct 18, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    In September 2014, Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA intelligence analyst, proposed a plan entitled "An Army to Defeat Assad." The CIA analyst envisaged the creation of a US Syrian proxy army that would take over the Syrian government forces (and deal a blow to Islamic State). However, the toppling of Bashar al-Assad was marked by Pollack as the overriding priority.

    "Once the new army gained ground, the opposition's leaders could formally declare themselves to represent a new provisional government. The United States and its allies could then extend diplomatic recognition to the movement, allowing the US Department of Defense to take over the tasks of training and advising the new force – which would now be the official military arm of Syria's legitimate new rulers," Pollack elaborated.

    In January 2015, the Pentagon announced that it kicked off a plan aimed at training Assad's opposition fighters, strikingly similar to that offered by Pollack in September 2014. So, nothing hinted at any trouble until September 30, when Russia suddenly threw a wrench in Washington's ingenious plan.

    "To get to the root of the current crisis in Syria and the Middle East overall, we must look at US policy overall," Germany-based American political analyst Phil Butler explained in an exclusive interview to Sputnik.

    "The current divisions within Syria and Northern Iraq are to a degree fabricated. Secular, religious, and even tribal differences in this region have been leveraged for centuries to divide Syria, as well as other nations in the region. You've mentioned Ken Pollack, and appropriately, I might add. Pollack, who's held many official positions within the Washington policy making establishment, is actually one of the authors of chaos in this region. Discussing such "bred" academics is a deep well, but suffice it to say the division of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring overall, the Georgia war, and the current Ukraine mess are all facets of the same flawed gem of US hegemony," the analyst told Sputnik.

    According to Butler, the current mission in Syria is not intended to be a splintering as we saw with Kosovo, in the Balkans.

    "As for the 'plan' in Syria, I believe there were 'contingencies' mapped out. As amoral as these schemes may be, they are not concocted by idiots. Contingency 1, in my view, was the literal overthrow of Assad. Vladimir Putin's moves, Russia's, have thwarted this potential at every turn. Contingency number two obviously involves another Yugoslavia in the making. And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors," the political analyst stressed.

    Meanwhile, Western reputable media sources have reported of an upcoming offensive on Raqqa, ISIL's "capital," the Pentagon is preparing to launch along with its Arab and Kurdish military allies.

    However, Middle East Eye reported on October 14 that there is no sign of such preparations on the ground: "The US-led anti-IS coalition dropped 50 tons of weapons to the newly created Syrian Arab Coalition on Monday in the Hasakah province, in order to avoid angering Turkey. But so far, no US weapons can be seen on the frontlines close to Raqqa, nor any sign of rebel troop preparations."

    "The reason we have not seen these latest weapons shipments being used, is the complexity of strategy on the ground has changed. No standing force, Al-Nusra, ISIL, or other jihadists put together, could withstand Russian air power. I believe we are about to see Assad's opposition morph their strategy to full guerrilla warfare as was the case in Afghanistan. We will see fewer conventional "offensives" in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan," Butler explained commenting on the issue.

    However, in contrast to the US' covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan, there were no US jet fighters in the region and thus far, no threat of a direct confrontation between the two global powers.

    Today, there are many military "actors" in the skies of Syria and Iraq. Does it mean the Pentagon's Afghani strategy may unexpectedly transform into a direct confrontation between US/NATO and Russia?

    "As for the threat of direct confrontation between the US and Russia in Syria, the possibility does exist. In this case however, I believe such a confrontation is actually another contingency for Washington," the American political analyst underscored.

    "While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the "West" have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage," he told Sputnik.

    "Having said this, given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation," Phil Butler concluded.

    [Oct 19, 2015] After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine

    After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine, it looks like Syria is on the mind of Washington strategists as a suitable replacement. The problem is that ground forces are not Russian.
    "... From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that? ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren, October 18, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    Published on 16 Oct 2015

    From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that?

    CrossTalking with Philippe Assouline, Marcus Papadopoulos, and Roshan Muhammed Salih.

    [Oct 18, 2015] US and Russia Should Form Coordinated Coalition in Syria – Stephen Cohen

    Notable quotes:
    "... The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting Assad ..."
    "... [Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine, ..."
    "... if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe. ..."
    sputniknews.com

    "My hope is that [US President] Obama and [Russian President] Putin will rise above themselves and form a substantial coalition in Iraq and in Syria. But let's be realistic… There are enormous obstacles," Professor Cohen noted in an interview with US progressive political commentator Thomas Carl "Thom" Hartmann.

    The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting Assad. "That won't happen," the professor underscored.

    ... ... ...

    "It [the Ukrainian crisis] could flare up at any moment in a way that could disrupt any fragile agreement between Putin and Obama," the professor stressed.

    According to Cohen, the US-backed regime in Kiev is sweating bullets about the possibility of close cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the Middle East.

    "[Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine," Cohen warned.

    Meanwhile, the grim specter of World War III is prowling across Europe and the Middle East. Professor Cohen has repeatedly stressed that if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151003/1027976725/us-russia-syria-coalition-cohen.html#ixzz3oz03EHB3

    [Oct 18, 2015] A journal of the Ukrainian National Academy of Science publishes the truth about Donbass. Panic ensues

    Notable quotes:
    "... Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from Donetskis , but also from Kievskis , Lvivskis , Rivnenskis and others, wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific publication. ..."
    "... Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law ..."
    Fort Russ
    Enrique Ferro's insight:

    "Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote A. Lopata.

    ... ... ...

    According to the scientist, this revolution was nothing more than a coup.

    "Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from "Donetskis", but also from "Kievskis", "Lvivskis", "Rivnenskis" and others," wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific publication.

    In addition, Lopata qualified the war in the Donbass as the genocide of the people in the east of the country by the army of Ukraine. "Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote A. Lopata.

    The author also points out that "the authorities of the country have made a decision to urgently direct the entire Maidan "fuel" material to Eastern Ukraine;" and that "there is no aggression of Russia against Ukraine, but instead there is a US war with Russia in Donbass "to the last Ukrainian."

    [Oct 18, 2015] Oil Market Showdown Can Russia Outlast The Saudis

    The author is pretty naive assuming the KAS can decide to move oil prices without the USA blessing and the US controlled financial market support of such a move. In a sense it's no longer KAS that determine the oil price, it's Wall street as volume of "paper oil" exceeds "real oil" by several times now. Making oil more like a play in another currency. Also probably some tangible or intangible compensation was promized for KAS for putting pressure on Russia.
    Oct 18, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The Saudi government is also scrambling. After an eight year hiatus from issuing sovereign debt, the Saudi government announced a plan during the summer to borrow $28 billion in 2015 and launched the borrowing with a $5 billion offering in August. The Ministry of Finance has banned contracts for new projects, hiring and promotions, and purchase of vehicles or furniture in the fourth quarter, while the newly created Council for Economic and Development Affairs must now approve all government projects worth more than $27 million. The Saudi government also is preparing to privatize airports and contemplating seeking private financing for infrastructure projects.

    Related: Airstrikes Have Yet To Stop ISIS Oil Industry

    The budget situation puts the Saudi government in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the size of the deficits requires drastic cuts in spending, but such drastic cuts would impact politically sensitive areas such as energy subsidies, government employment opportunities for Saudi citizens, education, and economic development projects. On the other hand, depleting Saudi government reserves to finance the deficits will put the Saudi sovereign credit rating at risk, which would raise the cost of borrowing as well as pressure the Saudi currency (the consequences of which are discussed below).

    [Oct 18, 2015] Irrational Unrequited Love of Ukrainians for the West

    This is how neocolonialism works: "global village' wants to move to "global town", while global town mercilessly exploits it.
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing, they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their geopolitical preferences . Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately, revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy. ..."
    "... Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now, Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic prospects of the alliance with us. ..."
    "... public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. Ive already talked about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West is able to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression . This explains such a persistent and irrational focus on Europe. ..."
    "... it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is not much higher than what was revealed by the survey. ..."
    Oct 15, 2015 | Fort Russ
    Most citizens of "independent" Ukraine are disappointed with Maidan, but they still believe in Europe

    The public consciousness in Ukraine continues to amaze with its irrationality. This is confirmed by the poll conducted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES).

    Despite the fact that the majority of Ukrainians acknowledge that Euromaidan did not meet their expectations, a dominant sentiment in Ukraine is in favor of the pro-Western geopolitical course.

    49% of respondents are of the opinion that Ukraine should better strive to deepen relations with Europe, while the percentage of those who prefer a closer relationship with Russia is only 8%.

    At the same time 56% of Ukrainians believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction, and only 20% hold the opposite opinion. The notion that the country is moving in the wrong direction is spread across the country and is shared by the majority of citizens in each region.

    The survey was conducted on the territory of Ukraine, controlled by the Kiev government, without regard to the views of some four million people living in the LPR and the DPR.

    It would seem that in the last eighteen months Europe has demonstrated that it is in no hurry to recognize Ukraine as its "own". Western aid is given precisely in those volumes that prevent the final collapse of Ukraine's statehood. At the same time, due to the influx of Western goods and severance of economic ties with Russia hundreds of Ukrainian enterprises are closed. The latest news in this regard: in Ukraine it has become unprofitable to produce even sugar leading to the closing of 15 sugar mills.

    The situation in the post-Maidan economy of Ukraine is much worse, however it has not affected the unrequited love of Ukrainians to the West. Why is this the case and what will be the outcome?

    - We must understand that the process of Ukraine's reorientation to the West began long before the Maidan, - says the Head of the Center for Political Research of the Institute of Economics, Head of the Department of International Relations of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Federation Boris Shmelev. - For a quarter century that has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union, more than one generation of Ukrainians has grown who are convinced that it is necessary not to be friends with Russia, but with Europe. That only this friendship with the West will ensure the prosperity of Ukraine.

    There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing, they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their "geopolitical preferences". Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately, revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy.

    "SP": - Why a year and a half since the "February coup" have not convinced Ukrainians that the EU is not going to make Ukraine a member state and that the West is helping Kiev only to the extent that the pro-Western regime does not collapse?

    - Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now, Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic prospects of the alliance with us.

    "SP": - But it is impossible to escape the logic: as long as Ukraine maintained relatively good relations with Russia, the situation in the Ukrainian economy was more or less tolerable. And as soon as Kiev finally turned towards the West, the economy began to crumble ...

    - All this is true. But public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. I've already talked about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West is able to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression". This explains such a persistent and irrational focus on Europe.

    "SP": - And can we explain such a low percentage of Russian sympathizers by the fact that some respondents, especially in the South-East of Ukraine are afraid to openly express their opinions?

    - Yes, it is possible. Although, it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is not much higher than what was revealed by the survey.

    [Oct 18, 2015] A Strong Press is the Best Defense Against Crony Capitalism

    Oct 18, 2015 | Economist's View

    Second Best, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:28 PM

    a strong press is the best offense in support of crony capitalism since there is no good guy with a press to defend against a bad guy with a press

    Ignacio, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 12:46 PM

    "When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of the solution, they become part of the problem."

    That is the conclusion, unfortunately correct. Most media are part of the problem. Mary R marked another problem with media: Who are their clients? The advertisers or the readers/viewers?

    Dan Kervick, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 01:58 PM

    "It is a corrupt form, in which incumbents and special-interest groups shape the rules of the game to their advantage, at the expense of everybody else: it is crony capitalism."

    Well, maybe. But the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the actual world - ever.

    Even if it did exist for a little while, it wouldn't last. You know what happens when people compete? Some people *win the competition*. And the winners acquire the power to make the rules, since there is no way of separating wealth from power. The tendency toward oligopoly, monopoly and the concentration of power is inherent in the normal functioning of capitalism. The ideal of maintaining some regulated perfect competition economy in which the playing field is perfectly level and none of the competitors has an institutional power advantage, is like trying to create a Monopoly game perpetually frozen in place at the first roll of the dice.

    Even if we had a perfect, perpetual balanced competition economy, it wouldn't be great, because life is about more than the struggle for victory and domination. The laissez faire nostalgists are still working to fit a 18th and 19th century mentality and reality into a 21st century world. A society based on free-wheeling entrepreneurial innovation, competition and exploitation might have made sense in a world of a few hundred million people moving out into the open spaces to exploit a planet filled with resources that earlier technology had been unable to acquire or use. But in our tight, crowded and environmentally stressed world, that no longer makes sense. We're going to have to get more organized and less competitive.

    Most intelligent people in the 20th century had gotten this. Then we in the US had a bit of a neoliberal holiday from history when we offshored industry elsewhere (along with its organized labor), and had a brief turbo period of high octane capitalism driven by financial games and services. But that era ended in 2008, and we're back to dealing with the inexorable crunch of history on a finite globe.

    likbez said in reply to Dan Kervick, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 02:56 PM

    Great observation: "the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the actual world - ever."

    In a way free press is an ideal which can temporary exists when there are two countervailing forces of equal political power. So in a way free press can exist temporary in a very unstable society. So some level of suppression of "free press" is a norm. That does not mean that it this suppression should not be challenged. But the political stability of society probably requires a certain level of brainwashing and thus "unfree press".

    But existence of nation states with conflicting interests presuppose existence of some semblance, surrogate of "free press" coverage across the borders. like in court the testimony of each side should be given equal attention, for most people it can provide some minimal level of "alternative coverage" of major events.

    I noticed that despite GB being a vassal of the USA, British press provides much better, more realistic picture of major problems in the USA society and even better, more realistic coverage of both foreign and some, less connected with GB geopolitical interests, internal events such as presidential elections. If you add to your menu the press from "less friendly" states such as Iran, China and Russia you probably can be dig out some real information about events despite for of disinformation of MSM. Coverage of MH17 tragedy is the most recent example were relying of the USA MSM coverage would be totally unwise. Even The Guardian is a better deal.

    In the USSR Voice of America and BBC were great sources of information despite the fact people understand that they are government propaganda outlets. But since agenda of the USA and British government were different they still were valuable source of information about internal events and developments in the USSR.

    And I would dare to say the level of propaganda in coverage of foreign events today that we see in the USA MSM would let Pravda propagandists blush.

    Julio said in reply to likbez...

    Good observations. My own experience is that coverage in other countries often has a different perspective, and I feel more informed after viewing it. Even CNN in Spanish often provides somewhat different viewpoints!

    My favorite example is the runup to the Iraq war. To my surprise, the most balanced and informed articles I could find were in English versions of Iranian newspapers.

    pgl said...

    The ideal:

    "Inquisitive, daring and influential media outlets willing to take a strong stand against economic power are essential in a competitive capitalist society. They are our defense against crony capitalism."

    Our sad current situation:

    "When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of the solution, they become part of the problem."

    Yes - many of the current media outlets are bought and paid for by the elites. That was his point!

    cm said in reply to pgl, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 05:27 PM

    I suspect reliance on advertising revenue is the larger factor (and it is also a large factor in consolidation). Advertisers (and the corporate/business clients they represent) want to reach audiences likely to be convinced to buy the advertised products and services. This will work to suppress any "content" that is incompatible with ad placement or the ad's target audience, or not palatable to the ad client.

    Even "progressive" outlets are subject to this and have to at least tone down the controversy, i.e. self-censorship.

    Larry, Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 03:27 PM

    A strong, independent press would be a fine thing. Looking at the huge crowd of journalists who are so far in the tank for Clinton, it isn't obvious to me that corporatism is that big an issue. Did you see that Cheryl Mills was working at State while negotiating a deal for NYU with Abu Dhabi?

    Where is the press scrutiny/outrage over that? Journalism yawns!

    anne said in reply to Larry... Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 04:34 PM

    Do set down references:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/while-at-state-clinton-chief-of-staff-held-job-negotiating-with-abu-dhabi/2015/10/12/e847b3be-6863-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

    October 12, 2015

    While at State, Clinton chief of staff held job negotiating with Abu Dhabi
    By Rosalind S. Helderman

    likbez

    The first victim of war is truth. Similarly the first victim of neoliberalism (aka casino capitalism aka crony capitalism) is press.

    This nice dream of "free press" is incompatible with reality of neoliberal society which, is its core is a flavor of corporatism. Under corporatism free press exists only for people who own it.


    btg said... October 18, 2015 at 08:04 PM

    The problem is the the media is no longer a variety of owners with integrity but an oligopoly of Wall Street conglomerates or mega-media corporations run by ideologues pushing the agenda (Murdock, talk radio, etc.) - so we get coverage that is either gutless because it tries to give equal time to patently absurd right wing ideas, is rabidly pro-business or actively pushing for the right.

    Ben Groves said...

    All capitalism is crony. From the beginning through the 400 years of dialectics since 1630's Amsterdam when the Iberian Sephardic Immigrants brought it there.


    DeDude said... October 19, 2015 at 07:08 AM

    A strong press, in contrast to a corporate press, can indeed be a critical part of the defense of our democracy. But it can also be an enemy of democracy and a tool for the plutocrats - try to turn on Fox if you need an example.

    reason said...

    There is a crucial word missing - independent.

    [Oct 18, 2015] MH17 downed by outdated BUK missile fired from Kiev-controlled area – Defense system manufacturer

    Notable quotes:
    "... if you can explain any single interest of Russia to destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false flag, but I am sure that this is absolutely risky business with the same bad PR as first case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later, be sure ..."
    Oct 13, 2015 | RT News

    In October, the BUK manufacturer conducted a second full-scale experiment using the missile and a decommissioned Ilyushin Il-86 passenger airliner. The simulation of the attack on the Boeing "unequivocally proved that if the plane was brought down by a BUK system, it was done with an outdated 9M38 missile from the village of Zaroshchenskoye," in Ukrainian military-controlled territory.

    The company also said that the last missile of this type was produced in the Soviet Union in 1986, that its life span is 25 years including all prolongations, and that all missiles of this type were decommissioned from the Russian Army in 2011.

    According to Almaz-Antey experts, the Dutch side does not explain why the investigation insists that the possible launch of the surface-to-air missile was executed from the settlement of Snezhnoye, controlled by rebel forces.

    A missile launched from Snezhnoye could not have inflicted damage to Boeing's left side and not a single element would have hit the aircraft's left wing and engine, insist the Almaz-Antey experts.

    ... ... ...

    The main proof that the aircraft was shot down from the direction of Snezhnoye was [the Dutch commission's] modeling of that process and interpretation of the damage to the fuselage. It does provide a quite visual imagery of how a missile on a head-on course could damage certain areas, yet this kind of modeling does not explain at all the real-incidence angles of striking elements [hitting the aircraft]," Novikov said.

    Analysis of the photos of MH17 debris led the company's experts to believe that the blast of the warhead damaged not only the cockpit of the Boeing 777 that crashed in Ukraine, but also the left wing and stabilizer.

    The detonation of the missile occurred at a distance of more than 20 meters from the left-wing engine and most of the strike elements were moving along the fuselage of the aircraft.

    ... ... ...

    The left wing and stabilizer also bear traces of damage, the size of which provides an opportunity to define them as inflicted by the strike elements of a BUK missile complex," adviser of the general constructor of Almaz-Antey, Mikhail Malyshevsky, said.

    The Almaz-Antey experts paid special attention to the fact that some of the damage registered on the MH17 debris was caused by disruption of the aircraft's structural components and not by the striking elements of the missile.

    The experts of Almaz-Antey also said that Ukraine possesses 9M38 missiles, but fell short of accusing either the Kiev authorities or the rebels in the east of Ukraine of causing the catastrophe.

    ... ... ...

    Simultaneously with the investigation of the Dutch Safety Board, the Dutch prosecutor's office is conducting a separate criminal investigation of its own aimed at establishing the perpetrators of the attack on passenger aircraft.

    A Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 flight MH17 passenger aircraft left from Amsterdam to the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014. The airliner was shot down and fell to Earth over the Donetsk Region in eastern Ukraine. All 298 people, 283 passengers and 15 crew, on board were killed. There were 80 children among the passengers. Most, 193 people, were Dutch nationals; altogether the airliner was carrying citizens from 10 countries.

    djajakondomis 4 days ago 06:12

    As I said. Just read the report and supplements! The specified area consists mainly out of Rebel area...

    Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov was involved during the investigation. There were even three main/big meetings, and every meeting took three days!
    At the second meeting Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov even presented the 9N314M warhead himself. The investigation team was even happy that there was consensus. On the third meeting Yan Novikov suddenly said; well, it was only an example we presented.

    However, based for instance on the butterfly shape, the whole research team (of all countries) were convinced it was a 9N314M warhead, except suddenly the Russian delegation.

    This investigation was based on the parts found within the bodies!! Not something found on the ground or whatsoever...
    Read the report!

    Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:05

    hanspy

    Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probably

    higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or Almaz-Antey .

    next they will say Sadam did it.

    Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:04

    Af Veth
    Whatever, anyway Russian Forces downed MH17. Thats was it counting.
    not Russian but CIA to justify they needs.

    Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:03

    Message deleted

    EU is slave from USA

    vladffff 4 days ago 01:03

    Took these rats 1 year to find this out?

    alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 21:01

    "[Almaz-Antey] added that among the materials received and examined by their experts were heavy fraction sub munitions, which only the older 9M38M1 missile modification is equipped with."

    That's a direct quote from the RT article from June 2015 regarding Almaz-Antey's first test.

    alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 20:32

    After their first "experiment" in June, Almaz-Antey said that "If a surface-to-air missile system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1 system." Why is he changing his story, especially now that the Dutch Safety Board reached the same conclusion? Seems fishy.

    Petr Antoš 5 days ago 17:45

    hanspy

    Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probablymore...

    ummm, ok, they even offered to buy old 777 a let it be downed while flying on AP over military area to proof their analysis; if you can explain any single interest of Russia to destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false flag, but I am sure that this is absolutelly risky business with the same bad PR as first case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later, be sure

    hanspy 5 days ago 17:28

    Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the rocket(probably higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or Almaz-Antey .

    Norma Brown 5 days ago 15:04

    this is a good result for Russia, as the only government involved that can be sued for criminal stupidity is Kiev, for allowing the flight into a war zone.

    [Oct 18, 2015] Zaroshchenske vs Snizhne as a launch point: early controversy

    After MH17 was shot done all intelligence services of NATO (with a lot of high tech) as well as Ukrainian SBU (with a lot of people on the ground; enough to monitor all major roads) were on alert. So the hypothesis that they were unable to locate the launch platform is a very weak hypothesis. It was next to impossible for rebels to move it from Snizhne to, say, Russia. This is a serious problem with version that it was BUK, unless it was a Ukrainian BUK.
    Looks like Snizhne was pushed as a smoke screen to deflect attention from Ukrainians.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. ..."
    "... the Russian evidence for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than 25 kilometres. ..."
    July 23, 2014 | Dances With Bears
    Russian generals Andrei Kartapolov (Army) and Igor Makushev (Air Force) have presented satellite pictures showing that on or before July 17 the Ukrainian military moved at least three Buk-M1 missile batteries – comprising a tracked launcher and a target acquisition radar van – out of their depot north of Donetsk, and into positions, all of which were within 30 kilometres of the Boeing's flight path; the SA-11's range is 30 kilometres. One unit in particular was photographed at the village of Zaroshchenske, south of the bigger settlement of Shakhtarsk, and south of the main road H21. This position is about 15 kilometres from the M17 flight path and from the impact site.

    The Russian location evidence can be seen on this Google map:

    ua_map
    Click for wider view of locations: https://www.google.co.uk/

    The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. But the Russian evidence for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than 25 kilometres. There is also a gap of several hours between the time of the Russian photograph and the confirmed firing time at 1720. Between the two locations, highway H21 would allow a mobile launcher unit and radar van to redeploy within 45 to 60 minutes.

    surface_map

    The Russian radar tracks identify the presence of a small Ukrainian aircraft with Su-25 identifiers on the Boeing flight path, and within range of the ground missile launcher within minutes of the shoot-down. The US intelligence briefing neither confirms nor denies the presence in the air of the Su-25; no US satellite or radar records have been released to corroborate the point. Instead, the US briefing denies the Su-25 fired rockets at the Boeing.

    Responding to the Russian radar presentation, President Petro Poroshenko told CNN the presentation was the "irresponsible and false statement of the Russian [defense] minister". Poroshenko appeared not to be familiar with the Russian radar evidence. He said: "When the Russian [Defense] ministry makes such a statement, it must provide proof. The sky over Ukraine is monitored by many satellites and air defense systems. Everyone knows that all Ukrainian planes were on the ground several hundred kilometres away [from the crash site]

    [Oct 17, 2015] Assad thinks that an independent state working for the interests of people is better then the state working for the interests of the West

    "... The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism, protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian hatred …" ..."
    "... Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all. ..."
    "... The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd be paupers in a year. ..."
    "... 12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria. ..."
    "... Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London. ..."
    "... I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion' abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Jen, October 15, 2015 at 9:54 pm

    BTW for anyone who is interested, here is a June 2015 article by Jay Tharappel on political reforms made in Syria in 2012 and the new constitution that was approved by the Syrian public via referendum in that year:
    https://ingaza.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/tharappel-how-has-syrias-political-system-changed-over-the-course-of-the-war/#_blank

    What Tharappel says:

    " … The new constitution introduced a multi-party political system in the sense that the eligibility of political parties to participate isn't based on the discretionary permission of the Baath party or on reservations rather on a constitutional criteria.

    As such, the new constitution forbids political parties that are based on religion, sect or ethnicity, or which are inherently discriminatory towards one's gender or race (2012: Art.8) – this means the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is still banned.

    What hasn't changed is the constitutional requirement that half the People's Council be comprised of 'workers and peasants' (1973: Art.53 | 2012: Art.60), which in practice means that the ballot paper contains two lists, one with candidates who qualify as 'workers and peasants', and another one with other candidates …

    … The Baath party no longer enjoys constitutional privilege. Presidential elections are contested between multiple candidates, and are no longer referendums seeking the electorate's binary (yes or no) approval for the Baath party's internally nominated candidate.

    The participation of political parties is based on an objective constitutional criteria [sic], not on the arbitrary powers of the executive to permit or exclude them.

    Finally, the Supreme Constitutional Court is significantly more independent."

    Another interesting article on Syria, this one by Carlos Martinez in 2013:

    http://www.invent-the-future.org/2013/09/decriminalising-bashar/#_blank

    " … In the words of its president, Syria is "an independent state working for the interests of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West." For over half a century, it has stubbornly refused to play by the rules of imperialism and neoliberalism … [In] spite of some limited market reforms of recent years, "the Ba'athist state has always exercised considerable influence over the Syrian economy, through ownership of enterprises, subsidies to privately-owned domestic firms, limits on foreign investment, and restrictions on imports. These are the necessary economic tools of a post-colonial state trying to wrest its economic life from the grips of former colonial powers and to chart a course of development free from the domination of foreign interests."

    The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism, protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian hatred …"

    So in other words, there is now no longer any justification for the US-led overthrow of Bashar al Assad because he is a "dictator".

    marknesop , October 16, 2015 at 7:35 am
    Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all.

    I have suggested before that Assad doomed himself when he refused Qatar's offer to run a gas pipeline across Syria and so to Turkey and Europe, for the expressed reason that he would not stab Russia in the back, and double-doomed himself when he accepted a similar offer from Iran, with whom Russia has no issues because it is not under American control.

    The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd be paupers in a year.

    Moscow Exile , October 16, 2015 at 4:35 am

    An alleged experiment in cutting off Russia from the Internet as part of "preparations for an information blackout in the event of a domestic political crisis". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11934411/Russia-tried-to-cut-off-World-Wide-Web.html

    A domestic political crisis?

    In your wet dreams, arseholes!

    Unbeknown to Western know-nothings about matters Russian, very many Russians are well aware of the lies spewed out by the Western mass media: the same cannot be said of Westerners and their knowledge of what Russians read in their media.

    See: inoСМИ.Ru

    I notice that in the British lying rags, the Ukraine has been pushed off the front page, as has the MH17 story and now Syria is being shunted to the sidelines.

    Nothing to see here! Move along now!

    In today's Telegraph, a German big-game hunter's shooting of a massive bull elephant overrides a Syria story on the front online page. MH17 and the Ukraine gets no mention at all.

    Today's headlines:

    Scenes of devastation as huge mudslide strikes California leaving thousands stranded
    Hatton Garden raider 'shows police where he hid jewels'
    'Half empty' private jets carry failed asylum seekers home
    SNP accused of 'happy clappy smothering' of second Scottish independence referendum debate
    Pc Dave Phillips murder: two women and a man charged with assisting offender

    12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria.

    Jeremn, October 16, 2015 at 7:57 am

    Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London.

    https://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E5617D97483FB3/

    Moscow Exile , October 16, 2015 at 11:12 am

    How the number of Ukrainians in Russia has grown:

    Всего в период с 1 апреля 2014 г. на территорию Российской Федерации въехало и не убыло по состоянию на указанную дату 1 089 618 граждан юго-востока Украины.

    Just in the period starting 1 April 2014, into the territory of the Russian Federation have entered and not left as of a specified date 1,089,618 citizens of South-East Ukraine.

    Fern , October 16, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion' abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home.

    [Oct 17, 2015] Russia's 'Import Substitution' Isn't Working

    Mark Adomanis became a turncoat and defected to the "dark side". Some problems for Russia are given. Still it is pretty valiant attempt in view of the dominance of the USA in world economy and, especially, finance. Also this is form of economic attack of EU: some European firms lost Russian market "forever". So far American firms are fared better but Coca-cola, Pepsi, chicken producers, and McDonalds might suffer.
    Oct 15, 2015 | http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2015/10/15/russias-import-substitution-isnt-working/

    Some very intelligent people saw this coming a long way off, accurately predicting that heightened tensions with America and the European Union would empower precisely those areas of the Russian economy that the West wants to see weakened

    ... ... ...

    From the second quarter of 2014 through the second quarter of 2015, the ruble value of Russia's imports decreased by almost 30% (the ruble value of exports, meanwhile, actually increased). That's actually not terribly surprising. When a currency depreciates as much as the ruble has over the past year you would expect imports to take a significant hit.

    But what has happened to domestic manufacturing? Has Russian business stepped into the space vacated by Western goods that are no longer affordable to many Russian consumers?

    So far, at least, the answer is a definite no. Official Rosstat data show that through the first half of 2015, Russian manufacturing actually shrunk by about 2.8%. The only sectors of the economy to show any growth were agriculture (up 2.4%), natural resource extraction (up 2.4%), and public administration (up 0.7%). The areas of the Russian economy where private business predominates, particularly consumer retail, have been absolutely walloped, with the overall retail sector shrinking by almost 9% over the past six months.

    ... ... ...

    Victor Lar 2 days ago

    Russian Cheese Production Surges 30% After Ban on Western Imports: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-cheese-production-surges-30-after-ban-on-western-imports/521891.html

    [Oct 16, 2015] Just three pieces of shrapnel supposedly points to BUK by John Helmer

    For some reason they investigate only version of surface to air missile. Possibility of air to air missile was not investigated. Dutch reps could attend Almaz-Antey experiments and collect shrapnel from them. They did not do this. Also they demonstrated provable negligence in collecting evidence (Ukraine at this point was EU vassal state and one phone call from Brussel would exclude any shelling of the area). The question why the plane was brought to the particular area was answered "to avoid thunderstorms". I doubt that at this altitude they can affect the plane. All this points to a cover up of Ukrainian false flag operation.
    "... According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers". ..."
    "... 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time. ..."
    "... The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from 4 – repeat four – fragments. ..."
    "... Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill. ..."
    "... By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. ..."
    johnhelmer.net

    AUTOPSY OF THE MH17 CRASH - DUTCH SAFETY BOARD REVEALS 3 POSSIBLE PIECES OF BUK SHRAPNEL IN THE BODIES OF THE COCKPIT CREW, AND CHEMICAL EVIDENCE IT CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE - AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ISSUE PUBLIC REJECTION OF AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ALLEGATIONS

    Eight pages of the DSB report – pages 88 to 95 - focus on the metal fragments. The number of these starts at "over 500 recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members and passengers." Many, apparently most, of these fragments turned out to be "personal belongings, aeroplane parts or objects that originated from the ground after impact." According to the DSB, "many were metal fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects." Of these just 72 were investigated further because they were "similar in size, mass and shape." 43 of this 72 were "found to be made of unalloyed steel". The term "shrapnel" may be a synonym for "unalloyed steel fragments", but the word doesn't appear at all in the DSB report. According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers".

    Of the 43 steel fragments investigated thoroughly - all of them recovered from the bodies of the cockpit crew or in the wreckage of the cockpit - 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time.

    The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from 4 – repeat four – fragments. These, "although heavily deformed and damaged, had distinctive shapes; cubic and in the form of a bow-tie". The DSB's exact count is two cubic shapes, two bow-ties. One bow-tie was recovered from the cockpit wreckage; one from the body of a cockpit crew member. Both cubic fragments were found in the bodies of the crew members.

    Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill.

    Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 92

    In addition, the DSB says it has examined chemical residues of the warhead explosive, and paint particles from the surface of missile parts reportedly recovered from the ground. Exactly where, when, and by whom the purported missile parts were found the DSB does not identify. In Section 2:12:2:8 of the report, the DSB says that "during the recovery of the wreckage, a number of parts that did not originate from the aeroplane and its content were found in the wreckage area. The parts found appeared to be connected with a surface-to-air missile. The parts that were suspected to be related to a surface-to-air missile were transported to the Gilze-Rijen Air Force Base [in The Netherlands; also reported as the Hilversum Army Base] in the same way as the aeroplane wreckage was. On arrival the parts underwent the same examination as the pieces of aeroplane wreckage." By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. At page 53 the DSB admits that "many pieces of the wreckage" were either not examined physically "until four months after the crash", or not recovered for examination for up to nine months after the July 17, 2014, downing.

    Source: http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf -- page 81

    [Oct 16, 2015] "Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing crashed

    "... Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on the map. (see map). ..."
    www.kp.ru
    Moscow Exile, October 15, 2015 at 9:37 pm

    "Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing crashed

    This time the Netherlands Commission of Inquiry has been caught lying red-handed about the Russian concern "Almaz-Antey", which developed the "Buk" anti-aircraft missile systems. "Almaz-Antey" has announced that a map covering the 320 square kilometer area from where a missile targeted against the Boeing could have been launched is not only erroneous but also that the Dutch in their report had indicated that their data were supposedly consistent with "Almaz-Antey"calculations. That is, they covered up their concoctions with the authoritative report of the Russian company.

    Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on the map. (see map).

    [Oct 16, 2015] Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 'most likely' it was shot down from ground Discussion

    The US key strategy is the same as British -- to cut Europe from Russia. This time it again work brilliantly... The fact the USA are withholding evidence implicates Kiev.
    "... Because it was supposed to clearly show that rebels did it . No need to rely on social media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;) ..."
    "... How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on you? ..."
    "... Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you be not to notice the difference? ..."
    "... Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone. ..."
    "... Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes? ..."
    "... "The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky. ..."
    "... Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum. ..."
    "... Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till now. ..."
    "... This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE isn't questioned. ..."
    "... the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'. ..."
    "... UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. ..."
    "... The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'. ..."
    "... On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain? ..."
    "... Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been allowed to state anything more than they have. ..."
    "... I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right on their borders. ..."
    "... What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's position and use. ..."
    "... Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.) ..."
    "... Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of reconnaissance on the matter. ..."
    "... Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft. Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But 2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no idea what hit them, ..."
    "... Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very thin on the ground. ..."
    "... It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication and suggested line. ..."
    "... the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report. ..."
    "... It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions. ..."
    "... This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement with one of the suspects, the Kiev government. ..."
    "... Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US. ..."
    "... Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ( rebels ) could have driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..) ..."
    "... The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers - right ..."
    "... Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar. ..."
    "... I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no right to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international treaties to civil aviation. ..."
    "... I don't understand your statement about the report says there was no abnormal communication . Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong. I wasn't there personally. ..."
    "... Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous. ..."
    "... I am quite sure that bullets are high energy objects but the Western media seems to ignore that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings. ..."
    "... Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100% unbelievable. All of it. ..."
    "... All of this is just speculation. Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time? Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers? Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if? Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment? Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find. Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers. Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area? So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative? ..."
    "... The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here. ..."
    Oct 16, 2015 | The Guardian
    Antidyatel -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 06:41

    Because it was supposed to "clearly show that rebels did it". No need to rely on social media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;)

    How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on you?

    Shaneo -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 04:55

    Ok, but John Kerry claimed to have seen the imagery of the launch, so you don't need to say 'likely' launch site.

    Ask to see this imagery and we will know where the launch site is.

    Will you do this?

    And does it not make you suspicious that this imagery is being withheld?

    Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 15 Sep 2014 03:46

    Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you be not to notice the difference?

    I will give you a better example. The PRELIMINARY report by FEMA on 9/11 was released in May 2002 - that was very heavy in terms of pages and released in May 2002 (8 months after the event). It was heavy in terms of pages and contained data not only about 4 planes and 3 buildings. It was quite detailed in terms of TECHNICAL data.

    There is absolutely no reason to withheld the factual data for public analysis. Particularly in this situation. The facts about the event will not change. Or should I stress on it - the already available facts SHOULD not change no matter how commission will later interpret them.

    Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:19

    Calm down with Su-25 theory. Even if Russian MoD was implying possible culpability of that plane, they didn't make the direct accusation. The whole mentioning was less than a minute out of the whole 30 min presentation, in which the main focus was on 4 Ukrainian BUKs in the area. Just from this proportion one can asses the priority of the versions that Russian MoD was considering.

    So stop fighting windmills, my Don Quixote!

    Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:12

    First of all, where did you get the data about 55 km?

    Even the latest modification of BUK-M2. While everyone is talking about BUK-M1. More to this, it is mainly claimed that a stand alone 9A310 unit was witnessed. It has FIRE DOME radar with max engagement range of 35 km (some sources limit it to 32 km)

    So your convinced part goes down the drain!

    Second, do you understand that the maximum radar range represents a radius of a 3D sphere? For the target flying at 10 km the relevant projection on the 2D map will be 33.5 km.

    Let's stop at this for now.

    2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:19

    And NO. And SU-25 fighter jet cannot "gain an altitude of 10km" as the Russian Defense Ministry asserted on July 21.

    According to its specification its altitude ceiling is 7 km, even though someone working Kremlin servers changed that to 10 km on Russian Wikipedia, hours after the Russian Defense Ministry's press conference.

    http://gawker.com/did-russian-officials-edit-wikipedia-to-back-up-a-bogus-1609071757

    2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:03

    No it is not what they were telling.

    What I put in quotes is EXACTLY what the Russian Defense Ministry was telling us.

    MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved.

    You are not getting this, are you ?
    Let me spell it out :

    That SU-25 DID NOT EXIST !

    Radar would have shown it, and it did not.
    Even General Peter Deinekin states that probably what the Russian Defence Ministry showed on their radar image was probably a part of MH-17 breaking off.

    If the Russian Defense Ministry would have actually shown the radar timelap (video) of when and where that dot on their radar actually appeared, then we could have all seen that for ourselves.

    But they did not, since it was no SU-25. It was a part of MH-17 breaking off.

    Instead they used the radar images of the PIECES of a civilian airliner that killed 298 innocent people to create a SU-25 conspiracy and point the finger at Ukraine.

    Despicable.

    Antidyatel -> jimbuluk 15 Sep 2014 01:30

    Is there any original source that explains the meaning behind "transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z"?
    Where did the Aviation Herald got this data from?

    2meters -> Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 01:27

    Antidytel, yes, MH-17 was probably about 35 km away from the BUK launch site south of Snizhne when the crew pressed the launch button.

    The radar range of a single BUK TELAR is at least 55 km.

    At 250 m/sec, MH 17 will thus have been on the BUK search radar something like 80 sec before they launched the missile.

    Even with conservative estimates of missile flight time and path, the Snizhne BUK launch crew had about a minute to lock on their radar, and wait for the 'target' to come into range.

    Convinced now ?

    Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 23:59

    I have to disagree with you. Even preliminary technical report should contain the technical data already available. There is no justifiable reason for withholding any information. The next report can just add new information.

    So the preliminary report should have provided:

    1) Civil and military radar data from Ukraine. It is very unprofessional for them not to at least request it from Ukraine side. If Ukraine refused to provide it, it should have been clearly stated

    2) ATC communications along the whole route of MH17

    3) full transcript from voice recorder. You can't possible believe that pilots were flying in total silence

    4) Technical data from the second black box on plane parameters. Particularly the data from gyroscope that would give the most precise data on the plane actual route

    5) other critical parameters.

    Seriously it is not a herculean task for a 2 months of job. They have a whole team to do it. How unprofessional can they be to fail with such simple task?

    The purpose of the preliminary report is not to give the abridged/filtered version of the data. The purpose should be tor provide the available data but to make only PRELIMINARY conclusions. Only in this sense it can be called preliminary.

    The current report can only be described by words SELECTIVE, EDITED, FILTERED and BIASED!!!

    Antidyatel -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 22:36

    4 different BUKs in the vicinity of the crash site were detected by Russians based on these BUKs' outgoing radar signal.

    Let's consider your points:
    1) BUK system captured by rebels in Luhansk region, was incomplete so the maximum radar range was 22 km. But we can first consider the improbable scenario that Russians first sneaked in and then sneaked our the complete set for the BUK system. Ok we can exclude the loader. So let's just say 2 units (actual launcher and radar unit), hence temporally I can agree on 35 km.
    2) If you go to google maps and estimate the distance from Snizhne (proposed location for rebel BUK) to Krasiy Luch (FDR point) it is approximately 24 km. (version of incomplete BUK system can already be discarded). BUK max missile speed 850 m/s. 24 km it will travel in 28 sec. BUK requires minimum 15 sec to lock on target. So even if we assume that "best" scenario, Boeing was traveling for minimum 43 sec before it's first appearance on BUK radar and rocket hitting it. Cruise speed of Boeing 777 ~ 900 km/h. So we get roughly 11 km. Just nice 35 km. But this is minimum. For example, the rocket doesn't reach 850 m/sec immediately.
    The point is that it would have been an extremely "lucky" coincidence for this scenario to work. And again I repeat, it will require the full set of BUK units, not just the launcher. The so named "proofs" of Russians sneaking in and out such a system are so laughable that I can't understand how people can talk seriously about it.
    4) The reference to the territory held by rebels is also laughable. The total number of rebels on that moment was ~5000. But even if we take 10,000, you will get a fraction of a rebel per square kilometre, if we assume that they are distributed equally. In reality majority of them were concentrated in fixed positions around Lughansk, Donetsk and Saur Mogila. also large portion of them was involved is annihilating surrounded UA units. If UA wanted to bring in BUKs into so named rebel controlled area there would be no problem with it.

    SirDeadpool 14 Sep 2014 22:31

    Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone.

    bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 18:14

    ShermanPotter -- Antidyatel
    14 Sep 2014 16:09
    The key is in the title it's a preliminary report...

    So you basically agree that presented data is incomplete....I also hope your level of English language comprehension will allow you to distinguish black box recordings and conversations between civilian ATC and military command that is not in the report, and according to Ukrainian reports was confiscated from civilian controllers.

    notherLex21 jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 16:46

    when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"

    The DSB rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf shows the transcript (page 15) where MH17 pilots last reply is at 13:19:56.
    Sorry, but the Aviation Herald is inaccurate.

    jimbuluk 2meters 14 Sep 2014 11:51

    I said "The Aviation Herald says problems with MH-17 started over N48.28 E38.08" Just read from avherald.com http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0

    "was enroute at FL330 about 20nm northeast of Donetsk (Ukraine) when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"

    Transponder data can't become unreliable without reason. And that reason led to the crash within two minutes. The distance between the point the transponder data became unreliable and Snizhne is approx 65 km, that's way beyond the range of BUK's missile, not to say about it's radar, - less than 9 km.

    ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 11:09

    The key is in the title it's a preliminary report, that examines the technical reasons for the crash of MH-17. In tandem is a criminal investigation.

    The Preliminary report, has established that MH-17 was shot down and that immediately before that event was operating normally with normal crew communications with ATC. The rest of what you are talking about is for the criminal investigative team to examine and report to the Court.

    Antidyatel -> 2meters 14 Sep 2014 09:46

    No it is not what they were telling.

    MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved. They only stated yhe facts that there was a potential for it to be involved. That is why additional data was requested from Ukraine to clarify. Stark difference to blanket accusations based on tea leaves in a cup that were loaded by the list of discredited a-holes in the beginning of your post

    Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 08:27

    For example, the missing part is the primary surveillance radar recordings. It would be expected that if Ukraine wanted to help with investigation. it would supply not only civilian traffic data but also the data of all military radars on that day. Not such a hard task. Report doesn't stress on it but clearly indicates that even civil traffic data was not submitted. They could easily reveal that data in the first few days after the incident or after the Russian MoD report and clarify the issue with military planes in the air at that time. What prevents them from doing it after 2 months?

    Out of the whole page of those recordings only 3 lines are with MH17. Nothing of an essence. There was absolutely no reason why not to provide the data from the moment MH17 entered Ukrainian airspace or even from start of the flight. It would take 2-3 hours max to compile the communication with ground control along the whole route. And they didn't need to wait even for black boxes to do it. How unprofessional your professionals can be?

    Most of the communication, that was revealed is related to communication between Dnepropetrovsk and Rostov. No point withholding that information as Russians have the same transcript, I guess. For MH17 the only portion of interest is 11 seconds before the disaster. This is bogus. And still there is absolutely no excuse not to release the whole transcript of the black box, in the situation which potentially can bring the world to the WW3. You don't joke with such things.

    ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 05:22

    So what information are you claiming is missing?

    As well as that you list Page 14 also describes that Ukrainian ATC supplied radio and telephone recordings and transcripts relating to MH-17.

    The transcript in the preliminary report is just of the last few minutes of its flight before being shot down, what more do you expect from a Preliminary report?

    Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 04:18

    Actually if you look strictly at the report specifies only 3 sources of ATC data:
    1. Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
    2. Secondary surveillance radar
    3. Automatic Dependant Surveillance

    The explanation of the last 2 are given at the end of page 14 of the report. Which shows that primary data from Ukrainian radars is still withheld.

    The transcript provided is appearing to be incomplete. It is not like they were afraid of the page limit. Why not to give the whole transcript? Also this transcript is strangely different from the one given in BBC web-site

    snowdogchampion snowdogchampion 14 Sep 2014 03:47

    Without speculating on who did it, here figures from the markets & background info. Key term: foreknowledge.
    The Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crash: Financial Warfare against Russia, Multibillion Dollar Bonanza for Wall Street

    2meters -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 03:07

    Isn't that exactly what western media and blogger and US intelligence had been telling us all along ?

    Interesting how this works with Kremlin war propaganda.

    For starters, please note that General Peter Deinekin with his statement directly contradicts the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia's military forces, Lieutenant-General Andrey Kartopolov, who started this whole SU-25 conspiracy theory on July 21 :

    The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

    and

    "The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification," he added. "It's equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up to 12km, up to 5km for sure."

    Which opened up the floodgates for SU-25 conspiracy theorists and their accompanied anti-Ukraine comments here in the Guardian comment sections and around the MSM.

    While in fact there was no Ukrainian or any other fighter jet around.

    Now, of course, the pro-Russian trolls will drop the SU-25 conspiracy theory and switch to the next one : that Ukrainians fired that SA-11 missile.

    Forgetting to look at the big picture : If the Russia or the Russian military had nothing to do with this BUK, then why the heck were they lying through their teeth on July 21 ?

    jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 02:29

    US says BUK was launched at Snizhne
    https://www.facebook.com/usdos.ukraine/photos/a.431664811935.225869.43732151935/10152288664556936/?type=1

    The Aviation Herald says problems with MH-17 started over N48.28 E38.08
    http://avherald.com/h?article=47770f9d&opt=0

    The distance between these two points is approx 65 km. Book's missile could reach 30 km. The Book's radar reaches even less - under 9 km, That's it.

    Antidyatel notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 02:25

    Probably true. Which narrows down to the simple choice: was it one of the 4 Ukrainian BUKs that were known to be in the area or an imaginary rebel's BUK.

    If we go strictly and watch the 30 min presentation by Russian MoD, they never accused Su-25 to be responsible for downing the plane. They only stated the fact that the plane was detected at that time and at that place. If they really wanted to falsely accuse ukie plane they would not state that it was Su-25.

    ShanghaiGuy -> Dunscore 13 Sep 2014 22:11

    Crap, 30mm cannon fire would require a sustained burst to cause catastrophic structural failure, audible on recorders. 30mm cannon is not typical air to air ordance, ground attack on slower aircraft , taken some chase at high altitude. Sorry your apologists bs is a fairy story.

    Ground launched AAM destroyed the airliner.

    Antidyatel Hektor Uranga 13 Sep 2014 22:02

    My dear Huylo Hector, immediately after the crush every theory was plausible. Each of them had to be eliminated based on facts. The fairy tail about rebels downing MH17 had an upper habd in first week because Kerry promised satellite images that clearly prove rebels' s culpability.

    After such images didn't materialise, the statement by Kerry became discredited. He had to be responsible for his words.

    So after that any other theory gets the same footing. The assertion that UA downed the plane became more probable after the data presented by Russian MoD. The quality difference to USA/EUROPE/Ukraine garbage comes from first presenting all the known fact and then letting everyone else to make a conclusion. Instead of giving a theory first and then ask to just believe. This stupid idol-worshiping by westerners will never stop amusing me.

    notherLex21 13 Sep 2014 17:17

    This Russian expects it was a BUK.

    Former Air Force Commander of the USSR and the Russian Army General Peter Deinekin:

    "Assault can not hit the plane with their weapons, he is a slow, low-altitude. Besides his actions could be seen on radar. And striking effect aircraft missiles are not as powerful as in" Buck "

    Shoot down the plane could altitude fighter MiG-29 or Su-27, but it at the time in that area was not, said the expert.

    http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html

    google translated:

    https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fmh17%2F20140910%2F1023539819.html&edit-text=

    merlin2 Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 16:47

    karl - entrusted with propagating the disinformation campaign?

    based on facts alone, there is not a single shred of evidence typing BUK launced by supposed "rebels" to the downing of MH17. There are, OTOH< quite a few pieces pf evidence pointing to cannon fire from an aircraft. Funny how the disinformation agents never want to draw attention to evidence that in any way points away from their favorite scenarios.

    Example: Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes?

    And what of the US intelligence evidence showing people on the ground manning a BUK and wearing UK uniforms?

    I am not suggesting that it's air-to-air or surface to air only. what we know so far may well conform both were in action. As sedman above mentions.

    As for this preliminary report it is quite a piece on work in how hard it strives NOT to point out some pretty obvious facts.

    bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 13 Sep 2014 16:42

    Not so fast, you do not need records to be provided that are recorded by the black boxes
    It is conversations between civilian and military ATC's that are of interest and there is no mention of that in your link.

    Secr3t krislej 13 Sep 2014 16:34

    Are you still trying to convince people of this idea that an SU-25 shot down MH-17.

    Maybe the Former head of the Russian Airforce and Army can convince you then?

    He states quite clearly that the idea that MH-17 was shot down by an SU-25 as completely untenable, he goes on to state that it is possible an SU-27 or Mig-29 would be capable but none were in the area.

    He also says that MH-17 broke apart in the air as a result of multiple sharpnel strikes and that it was likely from a BUK.

    And before you cry western conspiracy he stated this in Russian media.

    http://ria.ru/mh17/20140910/1023539819.html

    MrHMSH MoneyCircus 13 Sep 2014 16:03

    Firing a cannon from the side (the holes show entry from the side) would not get the spread of damage that you see, and it's unlikely that you could get that many hits in at all given how quickly you are closing.

    A SAM burst (from the kind of missile under suspicion) close to the front left side of the aircraft would yield a somewhat evenly spaced pattern of holes, as the fragments originate from one point and spread outwards.

    The gun fires 50 rounds per second, at the closing speed, the pilot would have had perhaps 2 seconds to fire, and he got around 30% of them hitting a target moving across him at 500mph? This theory belongs in Hollywood.

    Mrg Billman 13 Sep 2014 14:19

    If the Kiev regime can fire and destroy their own APC column like we seen at the begining of the conflict I have no doubts that they are capable of somehow orchestrating a downing of a civilian airliner.

    Realworldview ShanghaiGuy 13 Sep 2014 14:10

    ShanghaiGuy you need to keep up with the evidence, its not my opinion that it was shot down by a military aircraft, but that of US Intelligence analysts, as reported in US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft .

    The conclusion was that it was damaged by an air to air missile that shreds its target with flechettes, and then finished off with 30mm cannon fire that was responsible for the circular holes in fragments of the airframe, as these extracts show:

    KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.

    This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

    In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts", Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said "some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame".

    Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes - the shredding pattern associated with a warhead packed with "flechettes", and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent with that of cannon rounds.

    Parry's conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration, there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.

    bobby_fisher Asimpleguest 13 Sep 2014 12:32

    The plane was directed in to the war zone, specifically in to the small area, where 13 aircraft were already blown out of the sky in just a few weeks.
    It could not have happened without some interaction between civilian and military ATC's.....and these records are completely missing, in fact confiscated by SBU"

    http://www.nst.com.my/node/21260

    https://twitter.com/wavetossed/status/491468216909053952

    snowdogchampion snowdogchampion 13 Sep 2014 08:15

    isn't shooting down a civilian plane & blaming Putin for it a wonderful way for justifying sanctions against Russia? venturing far into speculations (quoted journalists have done, so I follow even if everyone here calls me an idiot).. what if someone decided to bring down a civilian plane, to make people very angry, cause everything (the West presents) points his way? then the result arre sanctions, and yuppie, USA can soon replace Russia as the main natural gas providor.. it's been all over the news.. and in the end, it's always about profits for the big multinationals

    snowdogchampion 13 Sep 2014 08:01

    So who did shoot the plane down? if you lost a relative on MH17, pls read
    http://journal-neo.org/2014/08/19/another-journalist-exposes-mh17-false-flag/

    "The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky.

    "Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum. He holds both Ukrainian and Israeli passports and runs his business empire from Switzerland, not Kiev, despite being Governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast in eastern Ukraine. His mercenary army does possess the BUK missiles allegedly used in the shootdown of MH-17, and he has threatened terrorist attacks on Russian-speaking officials in his oblast, and even assassinations.

    "Estimated to be the second-richest person in Ukraine, Kolomoisky also has strong connections inside Kiev's Borispol International Airport, whose air traffic control tower Ukrainian Interior Ministry troops reportedly stormed shortly before MH-17 was shot down. New Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, formerly wanted by Interpol for fraud, was the man who first designated the east Ukraine rebels as "terrorists," which ostensibly allows him to commit any atrocity against innocent civilians very much as Israel is doing in Gaza today.

    "Furthermore, in a personal interview with the Veterans Today Tbilisi Georgia bureau chief Jeffrey Silverman pointed shared with Engdahl the possible complicity of the Inmarsat Company in the MH17. Inmarsat, which lists the Pentagon and US Government as major clients, controls most international air traffic control communications systems. According to Silverman, during the earlier disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 the flight was "lost" due to Inmarsat turning off their signals, and it still refuses today to release the data it has about this flight.

    one more article http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140909/192783966/Journalist-MH17-Preliminary-Report-Says-Nothing-Leaves-Questions.html

    MoneyCircus -> nemossister 13 Sep 2014 06:26

    Look what The Guardian left out of its report - just found a more complete report of what the Dutch chief investigator said:

    ROTTERDAM: Dutch prosecutors said today they need to know where a missile that may have shot down flight MH17 was fired from in eastern Ukraine before criminal charges could be laid.

    "When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area," and possibly prosecute, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke told journalists in Rotterdam.

    Westerbeke said that they had not yet obtained US satellite photos of areas from which a missile might have been launched.

    "We will get them," Westerbeke said, adding that it was a "long process."

    errovi 13 Sep 2014 03:07

    Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till now.

    This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE isn't questioned. In the chain of events leading to the downing of the aircraft still assuming it was a mistake the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'.

    UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. So why didn't UkSATSE did not close that air space and waited till after the downing of MH17. The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'.

    Antidyatel -> Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 05:39

    The same AP journalist claimed to see the BUK himself and even the treads inn asphalt tgat this heavy system had left. But surprisingly he forgot to rake a photo not only of BUK but also of treads that ge has described so vividly. Spanish traffic controller story actually less contradictory.

    Shaneo -> ShiresofEngland 13 Sep 2014 03:06

    Immediately after, John Kerry claimed that the US witnessed the rocket launch on 'imagery'.

    So let's see it then.

    sedman -> ruffsoft 13 Sep 2014 01:15

    The BUK system is designed to deliver the payload from above, yes it avoids the target to get above it, then comes down and explodes above where the cockpit would be... This doesn't explain videos of MH17 descending intact with its right engine ablaze.

    sedman 13 Sep 2014 00:52

    Ukraine fighter shoots MH17 with air-to-air missile, takes out right engine. MH17 does not break up, but heads for a forced landing. Ukraine fighter finishes it off MH17 on its way down.

    But, we are lead to believe that the separatists were operating a BUK system made up of 5 separate mobile installations, 3 radar, 1 launcher and 1 control vehicle, which is capable of identifying B777 aircraft accurately (two transponders), then decided it would be in their interests to take out a civilian airliner, which would, even in an idiots assessment, bring the wrath of the world opon it. They are not terrorists, they are rebels, they are not using IEDs to blow up civilians, they just dont want to have Kiev taking their taxes and telling them what to do.

    On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain?

    Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been allowed to state anything more than they have. The facts that are being released in this report is evidence enough that the investigation is being manipulated and directed to ensure that conclusions can not be drawn from facts, all we can rely on is speculation from the press and comments. I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right on their borders.

    martinusher 12 Sep 2014 23:35

    What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's position and use.

    Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.)

    ThreeCents JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 20:56

    "Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should be carefully investigated."

    I agree very strongly. And I think the key word here is "investigation".

    Ah, but who is going to do the investigating?

    Well, I would favor an "Investigation Party" -- which would push hard on investigating all manner of corruption and conspiracy, and which would campaign on that basis.

    And I would favor an "Investigation Branch" of government, on the same level as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of government. It would be dedicated to making everything in government NOT secret! Secrecy = Tyranny. Truth = Liberty. Click here for more.

    UncleSam404 Karl Brandt 12 Sep 2014 20:48

    Whatever happened to Carlos anyway lol? I guess they couldn't locate this guy.

    tanyushka 12 Sep 2014 20:12

    why isn't the International Civil Aviation Organization in charge of the investigation as is custommay in these cases?

    why isn't in charge an international comission as the UN demanded unanimously?

    now, if we talk about chances... the Ukranian army had six BUK systems operative at the time of the incident while the DPR forces deny having a single one but... let's accept Kiev's claims that there was one, the chances are 6 to 1 that the Ukraninas shot...

    on the other hand, Russia claims that there was an Ukranian jet fighter close to the plane & it isn't even mentionedin the investigation

    BMWAlbert 12 Sep 2014 18:01

    This seems the most likely possibility, but I wonder at the release without any backing detail, it sounds like intended innuendo also.

    William J Rood EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 17:55

    Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims. I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of reconnaissance on the matter.

    If the US government had any real evidence whatsoever, you'd have seen that rather than all the photo-shopped social media stuff that's been going around. Lack of evidence is why CIA analysts have refused to support the State Department's lies. They learned their lesson from the Iraq War. Did you?

    Rob711 12 Sep 2014 17:35

    The shooting down scenario. Obviously they haven't picked up on some of the perfectly round holes in some of the debris. Never mind the question of why the unfortunate plane and it's passengers were flying over an area where 5 planes had been downed in the preceding two weeks

    ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 17:22

    http://www.just-international.org/articles/flight-mh17-what-youre-not-being-told/

    More propaganda, but something which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.

    So let's tread carefully and just ask a few more questions that these so-called journalists in the mainstream media are neglecting to ask. For example: Why hasn't the US government released its satellite pictures of the area right after the event?

    Obviously the USA would have satellites watching, and did expect after it happened that the White House would do some sort of presentation after a few days to prove who shot down MH17. They were quick to accuse and had hoped they had the evidence which would be damning, but they haven't.

    ShiresofEngland Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 16:43

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-21/russia-says-has-photos-ukraine-deploying-buk-missiles-east-rader-proof-warplanes-mh1

    Yes, and that is disputed. Each side keeps coming up with propaganda where not one of us knows the truth.

    ps the the poster below. It isn't 'lazy self indulgence'. Saying that I do not know who done it is a valid position, and more honest than most on here. Like everyone with any compassion I believe that the relatives of the victims of MH17 deserve the truth, something they have thus far not got.

    Luminaire ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 16:33
    That would mean a Ukrainian jet yes? Which the russian's showed radar data proving? Just before MH17 vanishes you can see a second trace, which the RU MOD say is a fighter jet.

    Except it doesn't. The MH17 trace splits in two, because one part is the 'supposed' location (based on the flightplan and predicted path), and the supposed SU-25 is actually MH17 as it breaks up.

    The reason this is obvious to anyone who actually does any research is that 'MH17' becomes a square, and the 'SU-25' is a circle. In that software the circle represents a 'real' radar contact, and the square is a predicted path - as squares always are.

    If there was a jet as well there would be 2 circles and a square, because MH17 did just VANISH so there would have been 2 'real' radar contacts.

    So there was no SU-25 - but hey dont let that stop you literally making stuff up and being 'quite sure' about it.

    Nicole Bresht -> krislej 12 Sep 2014 16:13

    A ground missile would have caused the MG17 to explode in a fireball... seems as if the cockpit had been shot out with an airborne cannon... not sure an SU fighter could reach needed speed/ height to pull this off.. more likely a MIG

    ide000 -> ShermanPotter 12 Sep 2014 16:05

    So far today we've had the SU25 shot down MH-17, and now this. You seem to be absolutely desperate to hang this onto anybody other than Russia. Even coming up with ridiculous scenarios to try and prove your case.

    Lets be precise, Russian ministry of defense didn't reliably identify plain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKhA50erngk at 14:04). They claim the plain was supposed to be SU-25.

    Actually I expected of Dutch experts at least to clarify whether they confirm or do not confirm presence of military jet in vicinity of MH17.

    Brian Beuken LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 15:50

    I very much doubt it was a deliberate act, possibly incompetence on the part of the BUK operators...

    But it was a BUK, the problem is while we can all spot the smoking gun we can't find enough of the "bullet" to silence the doubters...so lets lay out some facts and let them make up their own minds.

    Fragmentation patterns can contain a large number of holes that appear to look like "bullet" holes, but they are simply penetration holes

    However there are a lot of holes in a small area in the MH17 pics, this is highly indicative of a fragmentation warhead which can also explain some of the more isolated holes in other parts of the fuselage, the fragments can spread out from the nose to the tail but the concentration will be where the missile was closest where it exploded

    Also the holes are fairly small, bullet size some may say.. But modern warplanes do not fire bullets, they fire 30mm shells...quite devastating weapons which when fired from a moving target at a moving target leave a very clear trail, and a normally short burst of fire.

    Its logistically highly improbably that a ground attack aircraft, without a pressurised cockpit and not designed to take out air targets, with a max ceiling of 23k ft (unloaded) could get to a 33K ft airliner at cruising speed which is faster than the Su25's top speed..... But that's what some want us to believe...but if it did... it has a 30mm cannon...not itty bitty machine guns....and it would be one hell of a pilot who could get of dozens of shots in the same basic area... (lets also not ignore the fact that the pilot would know he was attacking a civil aircraft...pilots are generally pretty clever people, and know when they are committing war crimes)

    It could have been another aircraft, Ukraine and Russia both operate high speed interceptors...but again there's the problem with the gun.....they use cannons, not shotguns or itty bitty machine guns.

    Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft. Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But 2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no idea what hit them,

    Of course, there's always the lucky shot..but I doubt that...

    Iron has been recovered, many SAM's use Iron, some use steel bearings some use both....but shells are depleted uranium....so no shells....no bullets...(bullets are not iron).

    So these are facts....
    Make of them what you wish...but I'm struggling to see anything other than a large SAM....I don't know from who, or why, that's a different question...

    ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 15:47

    The plane went down over territory held by pro-Russia rebels, killing all 298 passengers and crew on board.

    Oh I get it so the implication is........
    Actually nothing as the launch site isn't known, and could just as easily been fired from Ukrainian or rebel held territory.

    A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane. Intercepted phone conversations between the rebels released by the Ukrainian government support that version of events.

    Which might be true, but there again might not and hasn't been verified. Might be propaganda and the source is hardly impartial.
    So what do we know? Highly probable that it was a BUK which brought down MH17. Ukraine has these weapon systems, the rebels may have captured one but how serviceable is questionable, and the Russians may have lent one with a crew but that hasn't been definitely verified. All of them could have been in the area, or maybe not.

    Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very thin on the ground.

    madjens1 12 Sep 2014 15:28

    It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication and suggested line.

    Then the idiots who read the guardian (who otherwise reject foreign countries being bismirched) swallow it all up

    KeloCote Mrg Billman 12 Sep 2014 14:54

    That would be true had the Ukrainians not warned the plane to stay away. In fact, ground control ordered the plane to climb to a higher altitude, and the pilot disobeyed.
    During its recent war on Gaza, Israel kept insisting that it's perfectly safe for civil aviation to continue landing in its airport near Tel Aviv. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rockets were flying near the whole path that a plane would take to land - at a time of Hamas's choosing. Israel was firing even more dangerous missiles at those rockets. Any claim that it's safe for civilian airlines to fly under such conditions is fundamentally dishonest. But Israel does not want to admit they've lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace. Similarly, Ukraine did not want to admit they're lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace, because there's a war going on. However, in this particular instance, ground control warned the pilot to divert to a higher altitude using a false pretext. Regardless of the false pretext, the pilot should have diverted - and by not doing so - is responsible.

    Realworldview 12 Sep 2014 14:36

    Malaysia Airlines flight MH17: 'most likely' it was shot down from ground

    Since when did a ground to air anti-aircraft missile use 30mm cannon shells to destroy its target. The evidence strongly points to it being a military aircraft that downed MH17 as Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Report: Malaysian MH17 was Brought Down by "A Large Number of High Energy Objects", Contradicts US Claims that it Was Shot Down by a "Russian Missile" argues, despite the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report.


    EugeneGur Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 14:18

    This scenario is just as unproved and likely unprovable as all the others. It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions.

    One would think given how fiercely the US accused Russia they'd be happy to provide evidence against Russia if they had any. Could that be that the evidence they have point the other way? And, of course, that non-disclosure agreement, which looks like an attempt at a coverup. Otherwise, why?

    This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement with one of the suspects, the Kiev government.


    DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 13:32

    Your maximum altitude is generally restricted by 2 factors. The first being that the maximum altitude is reached when all power produced by the engines is going into maintaining the altitude. Thus no more power is left available for the aircraft to climb any further. The second factor is pressurization. Thus the max psi differential between the atmosphere and cabin. When the airframe can't withstand the differential value between the cabin and the atmosphere the consequences can and will probably be very bad. This should not be a factor on the SU-25...as its more applicable to airliners (which in turn can reach roughly 40,000' before this becomes a factor)

    Thus back to the maximum altitude and the power produced by the engines. Thats btw also the reason why when they strip armament from an aircraft they reduce the weight etc and in turn can reach a heigher altitude with the same engines. Now the first problem here is that everybody assumes the stock version of the SU-25 (which has a max operating altitude of 7km) is the SU-25 the ukrainians used. Thus its impossible for it to reach an altitude of 10km etc.

    However...lets look at the SU-39...which is in fact a SU-25 which is upgraded...the max altitude for this aircraft is 10km. Furthermore...the Sukhoi lists its export model the SU-25K as having a max altitiude of 7km...that specific variant. We dont know for sure that Ukraine has any SU-25 variant that are upgraded enough to reach an altitiude of 10km. However we do know it is definitely possible for a SU-25 (depending on engines etc) to reach 10km. In short...its useless to quote the wiki or generic version of the SU-25 max altitiude as reference in saying its impossible to reach 10km.

    In the late 90's Sukhoi 25''s could already reach altitiudes in excess of 8.5km's.

    Hope all this makes sense :)

    Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:29

    Thanks for the information !

    1) Reuters. Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US.

    2) Obviously the incidents are in Crimea etc are orchestrated by Kiev.
    Any other explanation is nonsense. The nazi volunteers are the usual suspects. Let's hope that Mr Nuizmieks is given a chance to see the truth. We should prepare for the McCain trolls to try to blame any social problems on V Putin.


    Dunscore EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 13:16

    I agree with all your thoughts.

    Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ("rebels") could have driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..)

    The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers - right
    www.criminisewar.org

    Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar.

    Russia asked Ukraine 12 crucial questions a month ago - still no answer.

    US produced absolutely no professional evidence for the enquiry, nothing except boasting trolls.

    Retired veteran CIA secret data analysts wrote a group letter to Obama and Merkel to condemn US for bringing their profession into disrepute.

    Russia provided comprehensive data and evidence to the investigation.

    KeloCote Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:15

    I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no "right" to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international treaties to civil aviation.

    I don't understand your statement about the "report says there was no abnormal communication". Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong. I wasn't there personally.

    Rudeboy1 DownSouth77 12 Sep 2014 12:32

    The SA-11 has a proximity fused warhead. The missile detonates when it senses it is close to the target (proximity fuses then called Variable Time Fuses were used as far back as WW2 by the US and UK) . Fragmentation at the front end of the aircraft would indicate that the warhead detonated at the front of the aircraft. Damage from the warhead would be localised. Most SAM's (except the most modern) rely on prox fuses as the massive speeds they work at mean a direct impact isn't always possible (particularly on a manoeuvering target).

    But you're wrong on the SU-25. There is no way an SU-25 can intercept an airliner at 30,000 travelling at >500kn when that is above the height and speed that the SU-25 can operate at. If you know why it could please let us all know why.


    fragglerokk 12 Sep 2014 12:19

    of course he says that, the Dutch people would go nuts if they knew that Shell have signed a $10 billion fracking deal with the Ukraines who shot down a load of their citizens, it would be really bad for business especially since they have already started fracking Slavyansk after the Ukie artillery bombed it out of existence and created 1000s of refugees. The truth will out, the problem is they are all in it together, money, oil, gas, failed coups, up to their necks in it. The non disclosure agreement signed by the Dutch, the belgians, the Ukraines and Australians says it all, no facts, no figures and no details.. total fit up.


    Malkatrinho -> LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 12:19

    As the bookmaker William Hill once said "Believe nothing of what you hear, and believe only 5% of what you see, and be very suspicious of that 5%."

    That's got to be one of the most random quotes I've read.

    EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 12:13
    Typical Guardian, impartial and objective as ever. Do these conclusions point to the hand that launched these "high energy objects"? No, they do not. Even if it is proven beyond any doubt that the airplane was shot down by ground-to-air missile or even specifically by Buk, does it prove who did the shooting? No, it does not.
    However, pro-Russian rebels are mentioned more than once, so there is no chance to forget who is supposed to be blamed.

    It is possible that Donbass fighters shot down that plane by mistake thinking that was Kiev's plane coming to bomb their cities. Kiev could've done that as well, in its case likely deliberately. For some reason, they did have Buks in that area, although separatists do not have airplanes. Proving which scenario is correct would be difficult. Connecting Russia to this would be even harder if not impossible. Nobody would bother, though. If "Russia" is repeated often enough, some dirt will stick no matter what. It's been done already quite successfully.

    maico ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 12:13

    The report says there was no shrapnel damage bellow the cockpit floor. This means we can discount an air to air missile which is heat seeking and would hit the engine. The engine is of course well bellow the cockpit level.

    The shrapnel holes are various sizes and shapes pointing strongly to a proximity air-burst from a radar guided SAM. Obviously once most of the wreckage is recovered and reassembled in a hanger a definitive answer can be given. Shell casing and powder burn evidence may still be recoverable although I expect Russian security services have tampered with the wreckage.

    Robert Looren de Jong -> Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 12:12

    http://www.nst.com.my/node/21682

    BERA: Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein today denied reports in the social media that Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH17 was shot down by fighter jets.
    He said intelligence and evidence gathered from the fragments of the ill-fated aircraft clearly showed it was shot down by missiles that were launched to the air from the ground.
    "Based on military intelligence and evidence from a portion of fragments found, it is not likely the bullets were used from air to air but from surface to air. "Whether these were owned by Ukraine or the rebels who supplied by Russia. the bullets must have come from BUK System and this matter cannot be denied by Europe, Nato or Russia," he told reporters after officiating the Bera Umno's Wanita, Youth and Puteri wing division meeting here today. still trying to recycle that old debunked and proven wrong narrative?

    KeloCote 12 Sep 2014 12:10

    The pilot is responsible. He was ordered by Ukrainian air-traffic control to fly to higher altitude, and refused the order. Formally they told him it's because of other planes in the area, but more likely they knew it was unsafe to fly it being a war zone - and simply didn't want to admit they don't have control over territory they claim as their own. By refusing the order to fly higher - the pilot assumed responsibility for flying in a dangerous path. Since the pilot is dead - the airline is responsible.

    Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 12:05

    Also, the next day the extremely competent and knowledgable Malay minister said:

    "Hishammuddin said he was personally confident that flight MH17 was shot with a BUK missile based on his experience and knowledge as a defence minister. Hence, he advised the people not to be easily influenced by speculation and rumours being spread in the media social."

    I would like to put the emphasis on "personally confident" as well as on the title: "unlikely shot down by jet fighter".
    It's probably jut another "hunch" he had, like the one of MH370 having crashed in the Southern Indian Ocean... Or in Bangladesh... Or having landed in Pakistan... Or maybe a few miles closer to Australia. Well done Sir!

    Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:58

    Is this Russian, Malay or US propaganda:

    NST 7th August:

    "KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it"

    http://www.nst.com.my/node/20925

    Do you really expect anyone sane and humane to believe any news coming from Israeli media?! Gosh...

    SHappens 12 Sep 2014 11:27

    What a timely article and what an empty statement. Most likely, probably, it seems, could be, looks like.

    Conclusion: "It is going to be a long investigation," he said, while remaining cautious about what results the international investigation might achieve.

    Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 11:25

    De Jong and his mates: you should read the news straight from NST, not any other "repost" or reference, be it RT.com or ET.mars. Go back to early August news (4th or 7th, if not mistaken) and check out their official opinion on the subject. I've been in Malaysia for 2 weeks last month and though they're pretty careful with what they say - because of they western counterparts - and they truly blame both sides (this is subject is overhelming there), they have little doubt that it was shot down by a jet fighter. And this is supported by german and american experts so be careful with what you are being "fed".

    Western media never reported this though western countries only needed a few hours to "choose" who to blame for this tragic war crime.

    DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 11:08

    Firstly a Su-25 could have shot it down...no doubt about that. Its just a matter of if it happened that way.

    I have a question...something I haven't seen mentioned really. while I know aviation (work in the industry) I have very little knowledge of the BUK missle system...therfore the question.

    Why is the cockpit riddled with holes...yet other pieces of the aircraft as almost no holes in it. Wouldn't it be that if a BUK did it that the COMPLETE body of aircraft would have had similar amount of damage caused by projectiles? Yet I haven't seen one other piece of the wreckage that had near the type of projectile damage than the cockpit section. Why is that...for those saying it was a BUK missile that caused that damage to the cockpit section?

    Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:06

    http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.615512?

    REUTERS - The United States announced more sanctions against Russia on Friday, affecting oil and defense industries and further limiting the access of major Russian banks to U.S. debt and equity markets to punish Russia for its intervention in Ukraine.

    The sanctions, which for the first time targeted Russia's Sberbank, were timed to coincide with new European Union economic penalties that included restrictions on financing for some Russian state-owned companies and asset freezes on leading Russian politicians.

    The sanctions could be rolled back if Moscow withdrew its forces from Ukraine and established a buffer zone along the border among other conditions, a senior U.S. official said.

    SocialistPig 12 Sep 2014 11:00

    retired Russian army Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok believes the fact that international investigators have thus far failed to provide conclusive evidence suggests that they have something to hide.

    "You can find out what kind of missile was used against a downed plane one day after it was crashed," the retired colonel told The Moscow Times. During his career, Khodarenok operated S-75 and S-200 air defense systems.

    "Each missile type has its own shrapnel imprint. The shrapnel should have been preserved in the elements of the aircraft itself as well as in the bodies of the victims," he said.

    zelazny fintan 12 Sep 2014 10:54

    The Malaysian government disagrees with you and has reported that its experts say a fighter jet brought the plane down by first hitting it with a missile and then firing 30mm bullets into both sides of the fuselage.

    Photos of the fuselage contain unmistakable bullet holes. Anti-Putin people can deny the evidence and ignore the opinions of the Malaysian experts, but the fact remains that bullets can't travel 30,000 feet into the air and they must have come from a fighter jet.

    The USA certainly has known this fact from day 1, as have all of the Nato governments. They just can't figure out any positive spin, so they have decided to delay the release of the report for a year or so in the hope the public will forget.

    I wonder how much it will cost to make the family members of the dead forget?

    Jiri 12 Sep 2014 10:54

    If there was any evidence that the Russians or the East Ukrainians were responsible for the downing of MH17 it would have been made widely available and the maximum political mileage extracted from it.

    Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 10:53

    On this scale, and with so few voices to speak against it - yes. This is the first time I'm aware of where the US has effectively dictated the script for the entire western msm without even the Guardian offering a dissenting view.

    Since you find my massive 2.26 posts a day so disconcerting, I assume you'd like to drive all dissent from the comments too.

    zelazny -> RoyalBludger 12 Sep 2014 10:50

    Those look like large caliber bullet holes to me, and I have seen a lot of bullet holes in sheet metal.

    And I don't know of any rifle in the world, large caliber or small, that can shoot 30,000 feet or more. None can fire accurately even with the most skilled shooter at more than 2475 meters, the longest confirmed sniper kill.

    So if bullets hit the plane, they must have come from a fighter jet's 30mm cannon.

    The Malaysian government thinks this happened, but of course their opinion has no role in the Nato cover up.

    zelazny -> EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 10:44

    Obama has Guantanamo? What equivalent does Putin have?

    Obama tortures people and doesn't allow them to have a trial at all in most cases, and if they get one, they get a secret, military tribunal, in violation of the US constitution.

    In his 6 years in office, Obama has pardoned 52 people, despite the fact that US prisons hold over 2 million.

    Putin has pardoned thousands, including his billionaire political opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

    The comments threads on western sites show the massive love of war and mass murder among ordinary citizens like you, deceived by a life time of high tech propaganda. Western citizens like to compare those they fear to Hitler, not realizing that the victors in WWII deliberately slaughtered German and Japanese civilians by the millions. War criminals fought WWII, and some lost and some won.

    But all decent people lost in WWII, because since then the US and Nato have turned the world into a charnel house of war.

    flyingdutchman Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:43

    More usually SU25's carry armour piercing or APHE rounds. These will explode on impact even with a soft structure. Even allowing a slight delay after encountering an aircraft's skin these will then detonate leaving a much larger hole.

    Simple armor piercing rounds will not explode. APHE rounds will, but with a delay of around one millisecond or slightly less. Since the round travels at several thousand feet per second (and won't be slowed down significantly by anything in the aircraft's structure since the rounds are designed to punch through half an inch of hardened steel with ease) the explosion will only take place a few feet beyond the aircraft's skin. Also, fragments from the explosion will tend to be projected forward.

    Although aluminium isn't massively strong, it is stressed on an airliner. It's also not usually followed by empty air.

    Beneath the aircraft's skin there are structural parts (stringers and frames) with insulation in between. The structure is all aluminum, except for very few parts at the front that are reinforced with titanium in order to better resist bird strikes. Anyway, nothing compared to the stuff the average 30mm projectile is designed to deal with.

    OpiumAddict Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:41

    no evidence the rebels ever had a working Buk or anyone trained to use it.

    definite proof that Ukraine had several working Buks in the area with crews.

    dion13 zelazny 12 Sep 2014 10:37

    On 13 August, Pravda published a highly plausible version of the tragedy:

    "Boeing-777 was downed by Ukrainian MiG-29, expert says"

    http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/13-08-2014/128268-boeing_crash_ukraine-0/

    Just one excerpt:

    [...] the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25. Vasilescu indicates that radars show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface area [...] The fleet of the Ukrainian Air Force has fighter aircraft MiG-29 that are capable of intercepting Boeing-777. The fighters are based near Kiev and in Ivano-Frankivsk.

    ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:23

    An exploding missile would hit the bottom of the plane as it approached and would scatter shrapnel over the entire plane. The fact is that only the cockpit is heavily penetrated, and from the sides, both sides (entrance and exit holes are not hard to distinguish), which points to an air assault targeting the cockpit to disable the pilots.

    Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous.

    Can someone explain how a missile from the ground would produce both exit and entrance punctures in the cockpit on the sides? That seems impossible.

    This is just a phony investigation, with the lead suspect having veto power.

    High resolution photos from the following link show clearly holes which are pushed out and in. I am not forensic expert but I can tell in from out.

    A missile with exploding shrapnel would not produce in and out holes; the only way to get that result is to shoot from both sides. And a missile exploding would effect the bottom of the plane, in a random pattern; the holes in the plane are in the cockpit from the sides, both sides.

    http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/08/the-israeli-photo-of-mh17-who-is-yaron.html

    Take a look: holes punched out, holes pushed in: draw your own conclusions because the investigation will never reveal this fact, since Ukraine has veto power over the findings being published.

    The photos provided show the pilots were targeted, something an ground to air missile could not do. Also the holes across one of the wings are in a line, such as a machine gun would produce, not a random explosion. The theory of a missile from the ground cannot explain the photographic/physical evidence.

    Only an assault from the air makes sense once you examine the evidence provided by the photos Please take a look, especially at the closeup at
    http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf
    which shows holes with raised edges (exit) and holes with pushed in edges (entrance).

    ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:04

    The nations investigating have signed an agreement not to publish results unless all parties reach a consensus. If the parties found evidence of Ukrainian responsibility, Ukraine would veto and it would not be published. This form of censorship makes an independent investigation impossible, as well as its publication if it were.

    I am quite sure that bullets are "high energy objects" but the Western media seems to ignore that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings.

    For me, the clincher is that only the front part (cockpit) of the plane was penetrated----a missile that exploded would not target the cockpit---and that the holes in the cockpit show both exit and entrance punctures---something compatible only with being fired on from both sides. A missile would only penetrate from one side. It is not hard to distinguish an entrance and an exit hole, as one is push in, the other out.

    This investigation is, by agreement, not independent or impartial, since the Ukraine can block publication of any findings it does not like.

    It's just one more piece of the propaganda effort to demonize Russia and thus cover up the crimes of the Kiev regime

    Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 10:02

    However, Russian mass media information proved to be a fake. On September 9, the Dutch Safety Board published the report, the paragraph 2.5.4 of which says that Ukrainian State Air Traffic Services Enterprise provided the recording and a transcript of the radio and telephone communications regarding flight MH17

    Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100% unbelievable. All of it. There are so many different agendas by so many groups fighting each other like cats and dogs, all in the same buildings, that it is no wonder that so much confusion reigns there.

    dhammaguy 12 Sep 2014 09:57

    Shocking Analysis of the 'Shooting Down' of Malaysian MH17 http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

    Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:44

    John McCain has taught you well.
    You and he are obviously students of the "Shout it loud and shout it again and again" Goebbels doctrine -- If you are so desperate to put your case, go and join the police investigative team. You're such a cut and paste expert with carefully selected bits from wikipedia, they will find you useful somewhere.

    There's a flood of misinformation this morning. Much more than normal.
    You're louder than you normally are.

    Usually McCain orders the whole team out when the yanks have got something that they particularly want to distract from the public gaze.

    Most of your team is talking about the Buk again, sticking to the same old story, so obviously you are worried that the Dutch will latch onto the truth. Well they have nine months to find it, so you and your team of parrots will have to work very hard to keep them distracted. Best of luck !

    Given the fact that the steady level flight (in kilometers) above the ceiling is impossible,
    How do you KNOW that is true? Do you know every single situation where it might not be true. Are you an expert ? I don't mean a cut and paste expert..

    Keep writing, keep writing... you and your mates have got to keep the dutch police distracted. !

    Keep writing Keep writing !

    Bye...

    medievil -> Yatvyag 12 Sep 2014 09:38

    shot down over the Persian Gulf in 1988 by the SM-2 surface-to-air missile launched from the USS Vincennes. As a result of the Iranian Flight 655 catastrophe 290 passengers were killed including 60 children. The author emphasizes that after the incident American top officials not only dismissed all the accusations but blamed the Iranian pilot. However, nearly seven weeks after the tragedy the Pentagon had to recognize that all the "facts" the American top officials were referring to in order to shift the burden of responsibility on the Iranians were wrong. Strangely enough, the Pentagon's 53-page report on the incident "still concluded that the captain and all the other Vincennes officers acted properly."

    Although Fred Kaplan, the defense correspondent of the Boston Globe at that time, pointed repeatedly to the numerous embarrassing discrepancies in the Pentagon's narrative, the US senior officers qualified them as inessential. The most shocking fact, revealed in 1992 was that the USS Vincennes was in the Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian Flight 655, not in international as the Pentagon reported in 1988.

    "Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running to succeed Ronald Reagan as president, said on the campaign trail, "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts are," cites Fred Kaplan and adds bitterly, "Not until eight years later did the US government compensate the victims' families, and even then expressed "deep regret," not an apology." Medals awarded While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to date, neither admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal for "heroic achievement", his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." According to a 23 April 1990 article printed in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers and Lieutenant Commander Lustig for their performance in the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988. The citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all.

    Денис Панкратов -> fintan 12 Sep 2014 09:31

    If you're interested, I would say. And in Washington and in the Netherlands have long known who shot down the "Boeing". But will hide the truth to the end. Because this really does not fit into the ongoing today geopolitics.

    Geopolitics, as a rule, the subject is extremely pragmatic and cynical. For it not only 200 dead, for her and 200 thousand dead - empty words ...

    Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 09:26

    A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military plane.

    This is the ENTIRE source for the western case that a Buk shot MH17 down. It is a complete lie. The officer was never named, the story was never verified. The officer does not exist. Evidence please, if you disagree?

    Canonman -> Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:17

    That area has been under satellite surveillance for a long time by various US, NATO and Russian satellites - after all it is a war zone. Rest assured that there will be coverage of that area by various satellites.

    Perhaps you should lay off the personal insults? Or do you get off on being rude or a dick - 'Rudeboy-1'?

    Hansueli LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 09:16

    Well, before engaging in wild speculation, why not start from a simple possibility, like a simple fuck-up by the guys on the trigger? Seems far more likely than any hypothetical planned shoot down by CIA or anybody else, including Russia.

    Dunscore Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:16

    Of course the utter idiots that gave a highly advanced surface to air missile system to a bunch of idiots are not responsible at all.....it was just a mistake. I'm sure the relatives will understand.

    Your master McCain taught his baby trolls well -- But why do we always get the uneducated ones.

    Where is all your written evidence for your silly story ? Let's see something on paper and not just oral bullshit...

    JCDavis mraak 12 Sep 2014 09:09

    Since it hit the cockpit and not the tail, it had to be fired from the direction where the plane was headed.

    Not true. If it was fired from an aircraft well below the 777, the impact could have had the same signature. And depending on the guidance system, it could have hit the same area no matter where it was fired from--

    Electro-optical seekers can be programmed to target vital area of an aircraft, such as the cockpit.

    Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:08

    nd as such it is consitant with a buk missile

    If you can't even spell consistent, why should we pay any attention to wha you say ?

    Everyone is suddenly an expert on missile ballistics.
    Tell your audience please the source of all your qualifications.
    A PhD from Ronald McDonald's University ?

    Two german military pilots saw all the wreckage on the crash site and with 30 years experience, they made a careful detailed explanation over several A4 sides explaining why it was NOT a Buk. Have you read that ? Why do you contradict that ? Come on, let's have your knowledge on the table --
    McCain would be proud of you, you follow his script so well.

    What will you do when your master loses his job at the next US election?

    Canonman 12 Sep 2014 08:31

    All of this is just speculation.
    Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time?
    Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers?
    Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if?
    Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment?
    Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find.
    Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers.
    Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area?
    So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative?

    michaelantony 12 Sep 2014 08:19

    This investigation is a colossal waste of time and money and European taxpayers should demand an end to it. We all know what happened to the plane: it was shot down by accident while flying over a war zone where surface to air missiles were in constant use over previous days. None of the belligerents had an interest in shooting in down: whoever did it mistook it for a military craft belonging to the enemy. To try to find out which group to pin the blame on serves no purpose whatever except to further the warmongering agenda of NATO, which is trying to provoke the 3rd World War with Russia or justify even more crushing sanctions to grind Russia's population into further poverty. The real culprits for this horrible accident were Malaysia Airlines for flying over a war zone to save money and the aviation authorities for allowing them to do so. Those are the heads that should roll.

    LeWillow -> psygone 12 Sep 2014 08:07

    But you have to ask the question 'why would Putin shoot down a Malaysian passenger plane?
    It make no sense and would be completely stupid, and I don't think Putin is stupid somehow.
    The CIA on the other hand (and US Govt) would have a lot to gain from shooting down a plane and blaming it on Putin. They also have previous form when it comes to blowing planes out of the air.

    Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:05

    Correct. I joined in 2012 to participate in the Bradley Manning conversation. I have an abhorrence of evil, and the silence of mass media regarding its victims.

    What world do you inhabit where such an attitude makes a person 'unreal'?

    LeWillow -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:02

    "Actually what I find shocking is the bizarre pretence of you people to be real."

    By being 'real' do you mean believing everything the Western media tell us and everything the US Government. Is that what being 'real' involves?
    If it is, then you can keep it for yourself.

    jdanforth -> Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 08:01
    Apparently it was an entire year before Libya was blamed -first it was Iran. Al Megrahi's alleged accomplice was found not guilty, and when al Megrahi was granted a chance to appeal his case in court, he was abruptly released instead.

    In the case of Lockerbie, satellite imagery was immediately provided by both France and the US, and that was in the 1980s!

    ChristopherMyers 12 Sep 2014 08:01
    They are sooo hoping it was East Ukrainian fighters supplied by Russia, sounding more like a witch hunt all the time. I wouldn't rule out the Azov Battalion, they were in the area, they have Russian accents, and BUK's, they murder civilians because they are Russian, like in Odessa. They still don't know if it was a missile, or if it was an air to air or surface to air, or bullets from a Ukrainian fighter jet (which would be intent on targeting the cockpit). Forensics though, will reveal what struck it, then place the blame. Why not wait until then to burn the witch?
    Carl Jones 12 Sep 2014 08:00

    The preliminary report suggests MH17 was hit by multiple impacts. There are pictures on the alternative media that shows a section of the plane near the cockpit that was strafed by machine gun fire after it had been hit by an air to air rocket[s]. The preliminary finding are inconsistent with a ground to air rocket and their is no evidence to this effect.

    Quite simply, this is a cover up.

    SaoPaulo 12 Sep 2014 07:56

    The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here.

    JCDavis -> palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:55

    Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should be carefully investigated. But of course there is no one to do that as the press is almost totally subverted.


    palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:50

    he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years to identify suspects.

    Excellent comparison, the Lockerbie investigation is a great example of how investigators dismissed obvious clues as to the true perpetrators and used circumstantial evidence to "prove" that the Bond villains of the day (Libya) were the culprits.

    John Ashton's book lays the evidence for all to see of how everything can


    JCDavis JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 07:44

    Herbert E. Meyer, Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan administration--

    "If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head - that would also be okay with us."


    krislej Daniel Brown 12 Sep 2014 07:35

    You're clearly someone who doesn't have a clue:

    SU-25's carry the R-60 air to air missile with a range of 5 miles, they also have a 30mm auto-cannon. The wreckage of MH17 is strewn with what are more than likely 30mm shell holes, perfectly rounded and highly unlikely to be fragmentation from a rocket.
    SU-25's can also climb to the height of MH17 and stay there for a short period of time before having to descend.

    Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 07:33

    The Lockerbie investigation was subverted for political reasons and the enemy of convenience was then Libya. Abdelbasset al Megrahi who served 8 years in prison had nothing to do with Lockerbie and they know it.

    GoodmansParadox 12 Sep 2014 07:23

    ...he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years to identify suspects.

    An interesting analogy, considering the suspects identified were fabricated in order to frame Libya. Considering the case against the two Libyan suspects required they work together, it was even more notable that only one of them was convicted. So a fabricated prosecution was delivered a perverse verdict, yet the media still lapped it up and ran with the lie.
    Funny how, with the toppling of Gaddafi, we were supposed to be provided with the evidence of Libyan involvement. Three years and counting...

    And now, the same cheerleaders for blaming Gaddafi are blaming Putin. Plus ca change.

    kaptenemo 12 Sep 2014 07:20

    Could investigators and journalists please also consider the possibility that the Kiev troops did it? Right now, they should be investigating all leads, not only those pointing to the Eastern Ukrainians. After all, the Ukrainian military did shoot down a commercial plane in 2001, so another mistake cannot be excluded out of hand.

    fintan -> DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:18

    The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of the Rebels

    The Dutch "under orders"? From whom? Have some respect for a democratic, sovereign state that has lost nearly 200 of its citizens to a murderous attack by vicious terrorists and, I have no doubt, very much wants to find the truth about how and why it happened.

    Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:14

    What's possibly most shocking about this is the reiteration of discredited information - the supposed 'confession' of a rebel (taken massively out of context and heavily denied by the speaker) and the ludicrous fake audio of the rebel conversation which turned out to have been uploaded the day before the crash, then taken down again for editing.

    I wouldn't be surprised by this promulgation of lies if I found it on social media, but this is the Associated Press and I'm reading this in a once respected British newspaper. How in the name of any kind of decency did we come to sink as low as this?

    DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:12

    The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of the Rebels. We may talk about conspiracy theories - but in this case it smells like a cover up. The explosive residue left of the surface of the aircraft would surely indicate the type of weapon used as most explosives have a set 'signature'.

    Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:06

    There's no surprise in the fact the solution 'getting most attention' is the one most likely to discredit the rebels. I'd be more interested to know if they were giving any attention to anything else.

    [Oct 14, 2015] The JIT report could catalyze an official response from Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much fuel as possible. ..."
    "... I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is swimming naked. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com/

    John Helmer US Strategy In The Middle East Is Dying, Along With Its Authors, Carter And Brzezinski

    optimader, October 10, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    Blert,
    And BUKs use heat seeking missiles. refers to you post yesterday regarding engine heat of a B-777

    BUK missile are radar guided.. period.

    You can go find the link..
    Target detection

    The TELAR radar automatically categorizes targets by 3 types: aerodynamics;

    • aircraft with moving engines with an airspeed of over 100 m / s
    • ballistic missiles
    • helicopters

    The info is needed for calculation of the trajectory of the missile. The commander can recognize the unique footprint of a target and when agreed with that this is the target he presses a button for launch. The onboard computer will do the calculations for guiding the missile.

    This article in Russian language has a lot of detailed information on target recognition.

    The missile guiding

    Once the missile has been launched it is guided by the radar to the target using radar signals. The radar illuminates the target. The radar return is picked up by the missile. The missile receives control guidance from the ground using radio signals. This system is called a semi active homing radar.

    Buk, Buk-M1 and earlier versions of Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 missile systems uses an Argon-15 type of the onboard computer. The Argon-15 is able to detect target radar signal (shape, length, reverberations, envelope and videosignal). Argon-15 does not give to the crew the ability to change target. The commander must choose target on stage Search, then Argon-15 calculate algorithm Meet Zone, then indicate Target in zone, commander open fire it all. More information on the Argon-15 here.

    When close to the target the seeker head (radar in the missile) will take over from the guidance of the TELAR and will continue its route towards the target.

    The missile has a proximity fuse. This is fed by the radar. When the missile is within range the proximity fuse will detonate the explosive in the warhead. That will be around 17 meters from the target.

    Proportional navigation

    A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much fuel as possible.

    To intercept high-speed targets like aircraft and missiles, a semi active homing missile must follow a lead (collision) course. The intercept point is at the intersection of the missile and target flight paths. The best collision or lead course happens when the missile heading keeps a constant angle with the line of sight to the target. This course requires missile accelerations to be only as great as target accelerations. Specifically, if the target flies a straight-line, constant-velocity course, the missile can also follow a straight-line collision course if its velocity does not change. But in practice, this ideal situation does not exist. Missile velocity seldom stays constant. Irregular sustainer propellant burning changes thrust, and therefore affects speed…

    low_integer, October 11, 2015 at 2:40 am

    I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is swimming naked.

    [Oct 14, 2015] In Australia the news the Dutch investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points refuting some of Dutch claims

    "... which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time ..."
    "... Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile that corresponds to the fragments found. ..."
    "... here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT) investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above, with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JITs claims after apparently having done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime. ..."
    Jun 16, 2003 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    low_integer October 13, 2015 at 10:50 pm

    It is not just whether or not it was a BUK missile, it is also what type of BUK missile it was, if it was in fact a BUK that brought the plane down. Russia's contention is that the shape of the fragments found, which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time. I'm assuming the new type they use also has a distinctive fragmentation pattern, and I'm not sure how long it has been since they have phased out use of the old type, or if that information has been made available.

    Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile that corresponds to the fragments found.

    Interestingly, here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT) investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above, with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JIT's claims after apparently having done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime.

    I have also been hearing that it was reported that passengers may have remained conscious for up to 90 seconds.

    Still very unclear who is responsible, imo.

    [Oct 14, 2015] Russia states that their military no longer use older type of BUK missile which supposly hit MH17

    "... Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to other southern routes? ..."
    "... Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17? ..."
    "... Where is the radar plot of the MH17? ..."
    "... Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17? ..."
    "... The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage. None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon. You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage... ..."
    "... The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed. And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ? ..."
    "... and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC? ..."
    Oct 13, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    kaboomnomic

    About that MH-17. Here's the manufacturer version.
    https://www.rt.com/news/318531-mh17-experiment-almaz-antey/

    Here's the video of the experiment.
    https://youtu.be/EU-weRmf29c

    The MH-17 shot down by BUK-M1. Almaz-Antey have long discontinued this model. Russian troops use BUK-M2. It is a known fact. Even in the western military site.
    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/buk-m2e-air-defence-missile-system/

    Russian troops use this new BUK-M2 back in 2008. You can check this if you have the DU (depleted uraniums) fragmented casing, and test them with isotopes methodes. Which for some reasons, the dutch teams refused to do.

    - - -

    Again. Russian haters fails to mentioned this.

    As of the questions of:

    1. Why the ATC not closing the route?

    2. Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to other southern routes?

    3. Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17?

    4. Where is the radar plot of the MH17?

    5. Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17?

    There are alot of questions unanswered. And yet the dutch investigation still release the report.

    Why??

    The Indelicate ...

    The New York Times' clumsiness as to its pro-Israel/anti-Russian {and for that matter anti-constitutionalist and anti-libertarian} propaganda is stunning.

    They're either that stupid or that brazen - knowing that Americans are too stupid to parse misleading rhetoric.

    Of course, that's older Americans.

    Had I time and inclination, before absurd TPP copyright laws prevent it {from what I gather}

    a great web site would be unmoderated, space limited comments on ny times stories.

    Because imagine what doesnt get through...

    PrimalScream

    good questions. why the report? - So companies and citizens can claim financial damages. you seem to be implying that the BUK-M1 could have been sold on the black market, or provided by clandestine means. By who? To who? Those are questions that a lot of people hoped would be answered.

    ZerOhead

    The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage.

    None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon. You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage...

    eurogold

    The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed. And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ?

    FixItAgainTony

    and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC?
    http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/07/carlos-spanish-kiev-ai...

    [Oct 14, 2015] Putin Calls US and Allies Oatmeal Heads On Syria

    Oct 13, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    To be sure, there are a lot of absurd things about what Washington has done and is currently doing in Syria.

    There's the support for Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for instance, who has used ISIS as an excuse to wage war on his own people. Then there are the various efforts to arm and train a hodgepodge of different anti-regime rebel groups (with more embarrassing results each and every time). And just yesterday we learned that the best idea the Pentagon can come up with now is to literally paradrop "50 tons" of ammo on pallets into the middle of the desert and hope the "right" people pick it up.

    Of course when it comes to absurd outcomes in Syria, it's difficult to top the fact that at some point - and you don't have to go full-conspiracy theory to believe this anymore - either the West or else Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided some type of assistance to ISIS, which then proceeded to metamorphose into white basketball shoe-wearing, black flag-waving, sword-wielding desert bandits hell bent on establishing a medieval caliphate.

    Having said all of that, things took an even more surreal turn late last month when, after Russia stormed in via Latakia and started bombing anti-regime targets, Washington was forced to claim that somehow, Moscow's efforts would be detrimental to the war on terror.

    To be sure, there really wasn't much else the US could say. After all, you can't simply come out and say "well, we need to keep ISIS around actually and we'd much rather them then Putin and Assad, so no, we're not going to help the Russians fight terror." The only possible spin to avoid blowing the whole charade up was to claim that somehow, The Kremlin is helping terrorists by killing them (and not in the whole 72 virgins kind of way).

    Now as we've said before, Putin is there (along with Iran) to shore up Assad. There's no question about that and Moscow hasn't been shy about saying it. But at the end of the day, when you are trying to wipe out your friend's enemies and some of those enemies are terrorists, well then, you are fighting a war on terror by default and that's not good for terrorists by definition. By denying this, the US is effectively arguing against a tautology which is never a good idea, and we're running out of ways to describe the ridiculousness of it.

    Fortunately, Vladimir Putin is not running out of colorful descriptors.

    Here's Bloomberg with some amusing excerpts from a speech he gave at an annual conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday:

    Some of Russia's international partners have "oatmeal in their heads" because they don't understand clearly that its military campaign in Syria seeks to help the fight against terrorism, President Vladimir Putin said.

    Russia notified the U.S. and the European Union in advance "out of respect" that it intended to begin airstrikes against Islamic State and other militants in Syria, Putin said at an annual conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday. This showed Russia's ready to cooperate on Syria, while nobody ever warned the authorities in Moscow about their operations, he said.

    Putin's colorful phrase, normally used to describe someone as confused, to characterize relations with the U.S. and its allies on Syria comes amid deep tensions over the Russian bombing campaign and cruise-missile strikes that began Sept. 30. The EU demanded on Monday that Russia stop targeting moderate groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter warned that Russia's actions "will have consequences" and the bombing "will only inflame" Syria's four-year civil war.

    Russia "received no answer" when it asked its international partners to provide information on terrorist targets in Syria, or to say at least where its planes shouldn't bomb, Putin said. "It's not a joke, I'm not making any of this up," he said.

    And while the US insists on says things like this (out just hours ago):

    EARNEST: SOME RUSSIAN STRIKES IN SYRIA ARE HELPING ISLAMIC STATE

    Put makes a more logical argument. Namely that when one drops 50 tons of ammo from the sky into the most dangerous place on earth, there's absolutely no way to know for sure where it will ultimately end up:

    U.S. air drops of weapons and ammunition intended for the Syrian Free Army, which is fighting Assad's regime, could end up in the hands of Islamic State instead, Putin said.

    Yes, they might "end up in the hands of Islamic State" which we're sure wasn't what Washington had in mind. Oh ... wait...

    Silky Johnson

    That's kind of shit that happens when you lie to everyone and pretend to be all chivalrous an shit, but you're really a cuntface that arms monsters.

    CClarity

    In Ruski it means "mush for brains?

    NoDebt

    Yeah, I'm guessing it makes more sense in Russian. Where's Boris when we need him for translation?

    KungFuMaster

    I am not Boris, but the second best thing. This is what Putin said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8CGyFM2Q4

    So this an idiom which should be translated: They have mess/chaos in their head. Oatmeal is typical Russian food, but in this case the main characteristic is that oatmeal looks all the same and this implies that subject cannot differentiate and separate concepts, has a fuzzy filling in his head when he does not know what he is talking about.

    tc06rtw

    … I think we must realize politics influenced Mr. Putin's statements; He must be forgiven for his overly charitable description of the US and its allies.

    BALANDAS

    Here is my reliable information --- Putin fears that US arms terrorists in Syria.

    10/13/2015 14:12:30

    Moscow. October 13. Interfax-AVN - Moscow fear that the weapons and uniforms, which the United States supplied "Free Syrian Army" could fall into the hands of terrorists, said Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "Who said that the aircraft" Free Syrian Army "deliver ammunition and ammunition. Where is the" Free Syrian Army "? Do not fall if it all again as it was in the training of personnel in the hands LIH? Where is the guarantee?" - Putin said at an investment forum "Russia Calling".

    "It is only that all this was done, only that it happened just in the United States recognized that action failed, and now just somewhere to throw ammunition and ammunition. This? This is not a rhetorical question," - concluded the president.


    Paveway IV

    The U.S. oatmeal head's psychopathic plan is, was, and always will be to overthrow Assad.

    • Failure #1: To convince enough Syrians to die for the replacement U.S.- and Israeli-puppet Syria. Solution: outsource.
    • Failure #2: Rebrand unemployed al Qaeda head-choppers under the al Nusra banner from Iraq. Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided the funding, and Turkey and Jordan the training and staging points. Expect obedience.
    • Failure #3: Expecting said head-choppers to share your vision of a free, democratic U.S./Israeli puppet Syria. The head-choppers didn't give a damn about the U.S. plans because they were just going to keep Syria for themselves. But, hey - if the nut-jobs in the U.S. wanted to set them up with training and weapons, why not? Uh... 'moderate' rebels? Yeeaaaahh... that's right. We're 'moderate'. Free, democratic Syria? ...yeah, whatever.
    • Failure #4: Give the FSA TOW-2As for their unwinnable war. Al Nusra reaction: how about some TOW-2As for US? No? OK... I guess we'll just convince the FSA that have them that they really need to be in our 'joint opeations room' with the rest of our alliance (or lose their fucking heads). So, yeah... just keep giving TOWs to THEM.
    • Failure #5: Expecting the demoralized, crumbling, corrupt FSA left-overs (now effectively Shanghai'd by al Nusra and various other takfiri head-choppers) to make military progress with their criminal amphetamine-crazed, civilian-looting head-chopper buddies. At the same time, even more fanatical head-choppers ISIS evolves and secures a lot of the previous al Nusra funding and arms, pissing off THEM.
    • Failure #6: Coming up with the clownishly-stupid plan of USING ISIS to fight Assad since the FSA and al Nusra plan fell to shit. You would simple bomb ISIS if they attacked a non-approved target (al Nusra or the FSA) and steer them to desirec targets (Assad and Syrian infrastructure and oil wells) with ammo, equipment drops and intel. It actually worked for a few months, but ISIS knew what was going on all along. They've grown tired of the game and have plenty of weapons and ammo now (between U.S. airdrops and all the shit they seized whenever they roll over another Syrian army position).
    • Failure #7: Keeping ISIS financially strong enough to serve as your third army against Assad: Bomb the shit out of Assad's forces guarding oil and gas installations, then airdrop arms, ammo and equipment to ISIS so they can take them over and sustain their operations through black-market means. At least not as blatant as Iraq, where you transfer several hundred tons of gold to your new central bank in Mosul - days before ISIS simply walks in and takes it without a shot (almost like it was a planned gold transfer to ISIS).
    • Failure #8: Failing to anticipate that Putin would do the same thing for now: steer ISIS towards your FSA/head-chopper forces to kill them FOR you. He's done this north of Aleppo and decimated Jabha Shamiya, who is now scurrying back to more al Nusra-safe turf. Putin and Solemani have no plans to enable ISIS long term - just use them for a little short-term al Nusra meat-grinding until they, themselves are annihilated by Syria and allies.
    • Failure #9: Failing to understand how quickly the supply lines to Aleppo could be interdicted by a Russian air campaign. It turns out the resolve of both the Aleppo FSA (for a U.S. democratized and freedomized Syria) and the Aleppo head-choppers (for their caliphate) are directly dependent on a continuous supply of amphetamines, USD, weapons and ammo. Interferene with that opposition Wal*Mart drug and explosives logistics network has created quite a bit of consternation in Aleppo. The second in command of the opposition coalition there just quit, head-choppers are leaving for paying jobs and the few FSA left there are heading for Turkey. Aleppo might fall in a matter of weeks, maybe days - without much opposition at all.

    More to come. Waaayyy more to come.

    ZerOhead

    That's a lot of failures even for a completely inept Obama Administration. Too many failures perhaps?

    Paveway IV

    Not NEARLY enough. The next step of the Oded-Yinon (or whatever the clownfuckery is called) plan calls for a civil war in Turkey (Turks vs. Kurds), partitioning it and splitting off of a corrupt and psychopathic U.S./Israeli-puppet-led unified Kurdish nation. ZATO has hijacked Kurdish nationalism to force an artificial Kurdistan well before it's time.

    The purpose isn't to unify Kurds, it's to create a weak and corrupt Kurdish corridor from the Mediterranean to Iran. Guess why? Hint: Israel's U.S.-staffed war with Iran, discount stolen Iraqi oil from Kurdish Iraq for Israel, and the alternative northern route for Qatari gas lines (avoiding Syria altogether).

    See how that all works out? Russian soldiers die in Syria to clean up the U.S./Israeli mess they created there. At the same time, the Kurds will lose their long sought-after Kurdish nation to a Ukraine-like Jewish oligarch controlled, chaotic and eternally-squabbling hell-hole of a country (probably eternally at war with the Turkish partition next to them) kept barely alive by stolen Iraqi oil (who will also be trying to kill them).

    Psychopathy 101: Manufactured death and destruction is like a welcome mat to come in and fuck over the victims even more.

    Poundsand

    The hypocrisy is staggering and the entire world knows it. Assad has to go because of what? They say bombing his own people. Yet across the border Erdogan is actually bombing his own people and no one says boo. But I guess duly elected minority representation in a democratic country doesn't really count if you're Kurdish.

    The US is losing it's standing in the world and has become a corrupt sheriff in town and don't think that everyone except those here in America don't know it. As our military and moral authority wane, it will be picked up by someone else. It always is because there is nothing new under the sun.

    Son of Loki

    Neither the Law nor Morality stand in the way of The POTUS!

    SofaPapa

    Increasingly, even those here in America know it. The US government has minimal popular support for their actions of the past 15 years in the international stage. They are playing with fire both at home and abroad.

    McMolotov

    The establishment wants Hitlery but is quickly realizing she is likely unelectable. Bernie is a wildcard and uncontrollable, so they need to swing the electorate over to the GOP. Piling on Obama will accomplish just that. After they find a way to torpedo Trump, look for someone like Rubio to become the front-runner.

    Elections are nothing more than selections by the power elite at this point, but there still has to be a thin veneer of plausibility to the whole charade.

    Squid-puppets a-go-go

    lol very good mcmolotov - i think now it is a fulsome measure of the decay and corruption of the american republic that they need such monumental lengths to provide that thin veneer of plausibility to any of the available candidates.

    Raging Debate

    Obama is a disposable puppet. He reminds me of Ensign Benson, that black extra in Star Trek they send down to that scary, uknown planet. Kirk and Spock go down there afterward.

    WillyGroper

    PCR's take is O has come to his senses on neoCON fail from that interview.

    REALLY? Eye don't think so.

    bunnyswanson

    USA/Israel having been bombing Syria for years. Why continue now when Russia is on it? Especially since ISIS is Israel stealing land again, gas more specfically. Like O said, why bankrupt your nation for one ally.

    Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

    By "oatmeal" he (Putin) probably meant Russian "kasha", which when used figuratively means something like "unordered mess", when things are so intermixed as to be indistinguishable from each other. It also can be used to describe a messy, unclear, volatile situation. I believe that correct translation would be "muddleheaded", someone who is unable to think with clarity or act intelligently.

    gregga777

    For more than two decades the politicians and bureaucrats, holding elected and appointed offices, in Washington have uniformly despised military service and wouldn't be caught dead wearing a real uniform in the U. S. Armed Forces. [They had "better" things to do for their lives than serving in the military, to quote one former V. P.]. They uniformly lack the personal military experience, to create the necessary context needed for understanding, to judge the desirability of diplomacy where the use of military force is the last resort, not the first resort.

    kaboomnomic

    Don't trust bloomberg words? Use this YT video.

    https://youtu.be/OWBbyZ_sjHo

    Putin speech in 2011 about ASSMEEREEEKKAAAA intention. And what Russian would do.

    https://youtu.be/932K6tZ5Ea4

    Putin laugh when idiot german's reporter saying assmeerrreeekkaaa ABM missiles placed in EU are for intercepting Iran's missiles.

    https://youtu.be/Lewkw6-d-Wc

    Haha.. Hahaha.. Hahahahahahaha...

    spyware-free

    For those that doubt Qatari gas is not a component (if not the primary reason) for removing Assad we have this from Erdogan...
    "Assad, refusing the transit of Qatari gas and becoming a potential competitor in the European market, would have to be be eliminated."

    http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/10/erdogan-sheds-light-on-syria-blue-f...

    That doesn't dismiss Isreal's goals of weakening a regional enemy and grabbing more land as a catalyst as well.

    The Indelicate -> spyware-free

    Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.

    You don't build a pipeline through a war zone. You certainly don't spend billions in lieu of working around [look at a map]. And the US and Israel are not helping fucking Qatar send gas to Europe. That's Israel's job.

    spyware-free -> The Indelicate

    Each regional player has their own motivations behind attacking Assad. Turkey & KSA could care less about Isreal's intentions but the removal of Assad serves all their needs.

    The Indelicate ...

    "The great danger of faking your ability to do something in the public square is that someone with an actual desire to the job you are pretending to do might come along and show you up." This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight against ISIL. And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites are not happy about it.

    You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants (led by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but rather to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will not be able to serve as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another generation.

    How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements issued over the last several decades.

    The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.

    In 1982, as the Likud Party (which is to say, the institutional incarnation of the Revisionist Zionist belief, first articulated by Jabotinsky in the "Iron Wall" that the only way to deal with "the Arabs" in and around Israel was through unrelenting force and the inducement of cultural fragmentation) was consolidating its hold on the foreign policy establishment of Israel, a journalist named Oded Yinon, who had formerly worked at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published an article in which he outlined the strategic approach his country needed to take in the coming years.

    What follows are some excerpts from Israel Shahak's English translation of that text:

    "Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon…."

    {continues}

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/10/us-russia-syria-problem-fak...


    IndianaJohn

    Indelicate, -- that's really quite a load of indelicate deceit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ

    justdues

    Indelicate, look at his youtube , no need for sarc you,re on the same page

    jtg

    "Oatmeal in their heads", an apt description of the 'indispensable and exceptional' lunatics in the West. Why is it that to find a clear thinking leader I have to listen to Putin? Why is it that the West is now the axis of evil?

    The Indelicate ...

    he didn't literally say oatmeal - he basically said 'mush for brains'. Of course, he's calling them stupid, but he knows they are deliberately evil. But it is easier to fool people about America the white knight than it is to convince them they've been fooled. No matter how much evidence there is that this war was planned long ago.

    css1971

    Actually you often find that evil people are also stupid. Psychopaths are not generally noted for their intelligence. They're often charming, manipulative and great liars with enormous egos, but intelligent is not a requirement. Which is a problem where you have an electoral and corporate governance systems which consistently puts people who are narcissists and socialized psychopaths into positions of power. They don't have the real intellectual horsepower to do the job, though of course they think they do, and often their sycophants do also.

    The Indelicate ...

    'Psychopaths are not generally noted for their intelligence.'

    But serial killers are.

    http://allnewspipeline.com/Putin_Rips_Obama_NATO_West.php

    [Oct 14, 2015] Strategist We've Hit 'Peak Negativity' in the Energy Sector

    "... a prolonged period of low oil prices is now baked into analysts' earnings expectations, although some Canadian analysts will probably have to ratchet down their estimates even farther. ..."
    "... In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to be." ..."

    "... In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to be." ..."

    "... Earnings per share revisions are one of our most trusted contrarian indicators and the fact that they have hit extreme negative levels is encouraging to us for sector performance prospects ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Earlier this year, Bank of Montreal Chief Investment Strategist Brian Belski called energy stocks a value trap.

    He has become more constructive, upgrading the sector to market weight, from underweight.

    A confluence of factors influenced the strategist's decision to "neutralize" his portfolio position for both U.S. and Canadian energy stocks. The first is that the sector has reached what he called "peak negativity," underperforming the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index by the most since 1986, when the last supply side-driven crash in oil prices occurred.

    Second, a prolonged period of low oil prices is now baked into analysts' earnings expectations, although some Canadian analysts will probably have to ratchet down their estimates even farther.

    "Earnings per share revisions are one of our most trusted contrarian indicators and the fact that they have hit extreme negative levels is encouraging to us for sector performance prospects," he wrote.

    "Energy sector growth expectations in Canada have come down significantly, but still remain too optimistic given the oil price outlook and especially when compared to estimates for the U.S.," he added.

    ... ... ...

    In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to be."

    But the "pain trade," Belski now says, is for energy stocks to move higher.

    [Oct 13, 2015] MH17 Report Reveals Shocking Details of Jet's Last Moments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to reach the ground after the blast. Other, lighter parts would have taken longer, the report said. ..."
    Oct 13, 2015 | www.nbcnews.com

    The warhead - launched 33,000 feet below in the Ukrainian countryside - exploded less than one yard from the aircraft's cockpit, the Dutch report said.

    A split-second later, hundreds of "high-energy" fragments pierced the fuselage and the shrapnel instantly killed the two pilots and one crew member inside.

    There was no mayday call or attempt to maneuver, the report noted. The cockpit voice recorder stopped abruptly at the point of impact.

    Image: Dutch Safety Board Issue Their Findings On The MH17 Air Disaster

    The explosion also caused the cockpit to instantly separate from the rest of the aircraft. After that "instantaneous separation," the rest of the plane continued to fly for more than five miles before breaking into further pieces, according to the report.

    The center part of the airliner traveled beyond the rear section and came to rest upside down after hitting the ground. "Parts of the wreckage caught fire," the report added.

    Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to reach the ground after the blast. "Other, lighter parts would have taken longer," the report said.

    The debris field was more than 20 square miles.

    ... ... ...

    Investigators used paint to trace the missile

    Ukraine and its Western allies have long alleged that pro-Russian rebels fighting in eastern Ukraine brought down MH17 using a Russian-made missile system - a claim Moscow staunchly denies. While Tuesday's report apportioned no blame, it was the first confirmation that the airliner was shot down using the BUK missile launcher - a Russian-made system.

    Investigators came to this conclusion by analyzing a number of minute details.

    A 2.3-millisecond noise was recorded on the cockpit's voice recorders before the system stopped working. By triangulating the signal, experts were able to show that it originated outside the aircraft.

    Their conclusion was also based on "bow-tie"-shaped fragments found inside the bodies of the flight's crew members that were consistent with a 9N314M missile launched as part of the BUK system.

    The Dutch team that compiled the report also based this conclusion on "explosive residues and paint" that were found on some of the fragments

    [Oct 13, 2015] What's a Buk What to Know About the Cold War Missile That Downed MH17

    Oct 13, 2015 ] NBC News

    The Dutch board's Tuesday announcement followed a report by Buk's Russian manufacturer, Almaz-Antey, that contradicted the findings. The company said the damage patterns on MH17 did not match those it found in its own blast tests, Reuters reported.

    [Oct 13, 2015] EU tells Russia to 'cease' strikes on Syria rebels

    et Al, October 12, 2015 at 12:12 pm
    EU Observer: EU tells Russia to 'cease' strikes on Syria rebels
    https://euobserver.com/foreign/130641

    Blah blah blah blah
    ####

    Quite the hand wringing. Russia must do this and that and is urged but it is also hoped that Russia will join… Sanctions on Russia if it does not do what the do nothings say?? It would be nice if the EU intel agencies openly published which terrorist organizations in Syria sufficiently 'moderate' not to be bombed by Russia.

    Here's the link to the actual communique:
    http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/10/12-fac-conclusions-syria/

    1. The conflict in Syria and the suffering of the Syrian people is showing no sign of abating. The scale of the tragedy, having killed 250,000 men, women and children, displaced 7.6 million inside the country and sent over 4 million fleeing into neighbouring and other countries, is now the world's largest humanitarian disaster, with no parallel in recent history. The EU, as the largest donor, has demonstrated its willingness and commitment to do what it can to alleviate the humanitarian consequences. As the crisis intensifies there is an increasingly urgent need to find a lasting solution that will end this conflict. Only a Syrian-led political process leading to a peaceful and inclusive transition, based on the principles of the Geneva communiqué of 30 June 2012, will bring back stability to Syria, enable peace and reconciliation and create the necessary environment for efficient counter terrorism efforts and maintain the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian State. There cannot be a lasting peace in Syria under the present leadership and until the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all components of the Syrian society are addressed.

    2. The EU's objective is to bring an end to the conflict and enable the Syrian people to live in peace in their own country. The international community has to unite around two complementary and interlinked tracks – a political one that aims to bring an end to the civil war by addressing all the root causes of the conflict and establish an inclusive political transition process that will restore peace to the country – and a security one to focus on the fight against the regional and global threat of Da'esh.

    3. The EU reiterates its full support to the UN-led efforts and the work of UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura to build this political track. The EU emphasizes the need to accelerate the work of the entire international community on the political track in the framework of the UN-led process. The EU is already actively contributing to the UN initiatives and will increase its diplomatic work in support of the UN-led efforts, including the UN Special Envoy's proposal for intra-Syrian working groups.

    4. We call on all Syrian parties to show a clear and concrete commitment to the UN-led process and to participate actively in the working groups. The EU underlines the urgency for the moderate political opposition and associated armed groups to unite behind a common approach in order to present an alternative to the Syrian people. These efforts must be inclusive involving women and civil society. The EU will sustain its support to the moderate opposition, including the SOC, and recalls that it is a vital element in fighting extremism and has a key role to play in the political transition.

    5. The EU will continue to put all of its political weight, actively and effectively, behind UN-led international efforts to find a political solution to the conflict, and calls on regional and international partners to do likewise. We urge all those with influence on the parties, including on the Syrian regime, to use this influence to encourage a constructive role in the process leading to a political transition and to end the cycle of violence. The EU will pro-actively engage with key regional actors such as , Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and international partners within the UN framework to build the conditions for a, peaceful and inclusive transition. In this context, the Council recalls its decision to task the HRVP to explore ways in which the EU could actively promote more constructive regional cooperation.

    6. The protection of civilians in Syria must be a priority for the international community. The EU condemns the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks that the Syrian regime continues to commit against its own people. The Assad regime bears the greatest responsibility for the 250.000 deaths of the conflict and the millions of displaced people. The EU recalls that international humanitarian law applies to all parties, and human rights need to be fully respected. We call on all parties to stop all forms of indiscriminate shelling and bombardment against civilian areas and structures such as hospitals and schools and, in particular, on the Syrian regime to cease all aerial bombardments, including the use of barrel bombs in line with UNSC Resolution 2139 and the use of chemical weapons in line with UNSCR 2209. The systematic targeting of civilians by the regime has led to mass displacements and encouraged recruitment to and the flourishing of terrorist groups in Syria. This calls for urgent attention and action.

    The EU will reinforce its efforts to scale up the implementation of the UNSC Resolutions 2139, 2165 and 2191 to deliver cross-border and cross line assistance in order to help those Syrians most desperately in need.

    7. The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate attacks, atrocities, killings, conflict-related sexual violence, abuses of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law which are perpetrated by Da'esh and other terrorist groups, against all civilians, including against Christians and other religious and ethnic groups. The EU supports international efforts and initiatives to address these issues. The EU condemns Da'esh's deliberate destruction of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq, which amount to a war crime under international law.

    8. Those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria must be held accountable. The EU expresses its deepest concern about the findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. The allegations of torture and executions based on the evidence presented by the Caesar report are also of great concern. The EU reiterates its call to the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.

    9. The EU supports the efforts of the Global Coalition to counter Da'esh in Syria and Iraq. As a consequence of its policies and actions, the Assad regime cannot be a partner in the fight against Dae'sh. Action against Da'esh needs to be closely coordinated among all partners, and needs clearly to target Da'esh, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the other UN-designated terrorist groups.

    10. The recent Russian military attacks that go beyond Dae'sh and other UN-designated terrorist groups, as well as on the moderate opposition, are of deep concern, and must cease immediately. So too must the Russian violations of the sovereign airspace of neighbouring countries.

    This military escalation risks prolonging the conflict, undermining a political process, aggravating the humanitarian situation and increasing radicalization. Our aim should be to de-escalate the conflict. The EU calls on Russia to focus its efforts on the common objective of achieving a political solution to the conflict. In this context it urges Russia to push for a reduction of violence and implementation of confidence-building measures by the Syrian Regime along the provisions of UNSC Resolution 2139.

    11. The EU will intensify humanitarian diplomacy and seek ways to improve access and protection as well as to promote humanitarian principles and local consensus on guidelines for the delivery of aid.

    12. The EU has substantially increased its financial efforts to support those who have fled the conflict, within and outside Syria, with new commitments to humanitarian aid and to longer-term work supporting the resilience of refugees in the neighbourhood. The EU and its Member states have already provided €4 billion for relief and recovery assistance to those affected by the conflict inside Syria and refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries. The EU and its Member States will continue to provide humanitarian assistance through the UN, ICRC and international NGOs. At the same time, the EU will increase its longer-term development and stabilization assistance, to these and other partners, including through the EU Regional Trust Fund recently established in response to the Syrian Crisis (the "Madad Fund") which has now been equipped with over €500 million in EU funding to be matched by efforts from EU Member States and other countries. The EU calls on other countries to sustain and increase their own contributions in response to the Syria crisis. The Council agreed specifically on the need to increase the level of cooperation and partnership with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to ensure equal access to shelter, education, health and livelihoods for refugees and their host communities with the support of additional EU assistance.
    ####

    It must be better to stick to EU & US failure. What could possibly go wrong by having your Gulf allies send large quantities of weapons to jihadists?

    euractiv: Mogherini says Russian intervention in Syria neither positive nor negative
    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/mogherini-says-russian-intervention-syria-neither-positive-nor-negative

    EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini took a cautious position on Russian intervention in Syria, compared to the critical tone of a communiqué of the Union's foreign ministers adopted today (12 October).

    …For her part, Mogherini refrained from qualifying the Russian intervention as bad or good. Speaking about the hot issue ahead of the ministerial meeting, she said:

    "I guess it is much more complicated than just saying "positive" or "negative". It is for sure a game changer."

    But she added that "interventions against Daesh have to be clearly against Daesh and other terrorist groups, as defined by the UN"…
    ####

    Good crock of s/t vs. bad crock of s/t? Don't take the communique too seriously Russia? They make noise because they are doing nothing and can't even agree to do anything apart from put some words together on the page.

    marknesop, October 12, 2015 at 12:58 pm
    All of it is a malodorous crock of shit. The EU evidenced no particular interest in the plight of civilians in Syria up to this point, began to get interested and then almost wholly in a not-particularly-sympathetic way when floods of refugees were released from Turkey to stream into Europe recently, and have been in crisis mode only for the last two weeks since Russia has taken a hand at the request of the Syrian government. There was lackluster interest in a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors until then, because the west judged it was just a matter of a few more weeks and Assad would fall, without the west doing much of anything at all. Then it would remain only to swoop in, divest the rebel militias of their prize and pick a new western-friendly government of diaspora exiles.

    The western press is playing its usual game of simply alluding to facts until they become facts without any actual substantiation ever having been offered. Russia is deliberately bombing civilians and civilian-only infrastructure such as hospitals and schools because the western press says so. Almost a fifth of Russian cruise missiles fell irresponsibly on the territory of another country they passed over, because the western press says so based on information they were given by unnamed western officials, although Russia claims to have positive battle-damage assessments for every missile fired and Iran says the western allegation is untrue. But the west always gets the benefit of the doubt, just as if it had never been caught in a lie before.

    Lyttenburgh, October 12, 2015 at 12:59 pm
    Here, I can't help but (mis)quote Uncle Joe's famous: "FSA? And how many divisions did they have?"

    Like – no seriously? Who is braind dead enough to call the them, the complete losers, a <em.legitiate opposition ?

    Cortes. October 12, 2015 at 1:56 pm
    What is this Global Coalition of which they make mention?
    Patient Observer. October 12, 2015 at 2:44 pm
    "Good crock/Bad crock" – that sums up Western political debate.
    Patient Observer, October 12, 2015 at 1:20 pm
    Per a commentator on a Yahoo story on Syrian gains against the rebels:

    "They [KSA, UAE states] fund and supplies ISIS and Al Qaeda even drop supplies from the air to terrorists through their clandestine ops which our government [USA] knows well and does nothing."

    Made me wonder if the reason for SU-30s is to shoot these planes down – a no-fly zone aimed at shutting down these supply drops. The Saker pounds away at the point that Russian air assets in Syria are insufficient to enforce a no-fly zone against NATO. However, as just alluded, the purpose of the SU-30s may simply be to stop use of air drops to supply the terrorists.

    Given the missile and radars on the SU-30s, a hand full should be enough to clear the skies of transport planes over Syria. Russian naval ships can provide the radar coverage to identify such aircraft and vector the Su-30s as required and the rest should be history.

    [Oct 13, 2015] My comprehensive plan for US policy on the Middle East

    "... US policy is often clueless, often based on some Beltway fantasy, but there are very real people at stake here, not just tiresome geopolitics. Most US policy derives from stupid game-playing, but some part derives from genuine, well-founded fear of the consequences of inaction. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | Crooked Timber

    geo, 10.04.15 at 6:28 pm

    JQ@9: the supposed need to control ME oil was always nonsense, but it's nonsense on stilts now

    http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/enforce.htm:

    "Documents recently obtained from Cheney's Energy Task Force as the result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the public-interest group Judicial Watch indicate that Cheney and his colleagues had their sites on the black gold under the Iraqi desert well before Sept. 11.

    "Last July, the Commerce Department finally turned over records that included "a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects and 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts'," according to Judicial Watch's subsequent press release. There were also similar maps and charts for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The documents were dated March 2001."

    See also: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4458.htm.

    If only Bush and Cheney had listened to people who knew something about the oil industry and believed in the free market …


    Layman 10.04.15 at 8:38 pm

    "To cite just one example, cutting off aid to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel would cause a huge international crisis."

    I'm afraid it's not at all clear that the resulting crisis would be 'huger' than the ones we get for the aid. U.S. aid to Israel (for example) is almost entirely military aid. We're sponsoring Israel's efforts to colonize the West Bank and to periodically destabilize Lebanon. These are international crises, and we're funding them.


    Ze K 10.04.15 at 9:04 am

    30 minutes before opening this page I read this: http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/02/a-useful-prep-sheet-on-syria-for-media-propagandists/

    …and sent them $100.

    @16 "the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths are down to the regime."

    That is not what I get from The Angry Arab News Service, and no offense but I trust that As'ad AbuKhalil knows what he's talking about.

    Peter T 10.04.15 at 9:17 am

    Okay. So we airlift Allawis, Druze, Syrian Shia, Christians (30 per cent or so of the Syrian population) out, re-settle them in Arizona and leave the Islamists to fight it out. Oh, wait, we need to airlift out the Assyrians and Yezidi too. Then the Iraqi Shia and ISIS can fight it out. Iran will certainly intervene in force, but not our worry. Oh, and we'd better get most Jordanians out of the way too.

    US policy is often clueless, often based on some Beltway fantasy, but there are very real people at stake here, not just tiresome geopolitics. Most US policy derives from stupid game-playing, but some part derives from genuine, well-founded fear of the consequences of inaction.

    Donald Johnson 10.04.15 at 5:46 pm

    And here is a link to a Physicians for Social Responsibility paper which discusses the various studies and estimates of the death toll in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Their numbers are on the higher side–

    http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf

    [Oct 13, 2015] Flight MH17 downed by Russian-built missile, Dutch investigators say

    It was BUK -- Video contains important finding that fragment of missile paint and elements from the missile warhead in pilot bodies. It is mainly non technical watch-v=KDiLEyT9spI and does not cover conflicting evidence. So at last we know that there was a BUK missile the downs the airliner. I doubt that Dutch investigators make a mistake on this aspect of cause of the tragedy (that does not explains accurate round holes is the part of cockpit wreckage though). Still the set of old questions remains. But it we assume this was BUK, why nobody saw the dense smoke trail of the rocket in daylight and perfect weather. The dense smoke trail that should still be visible at the moment when the plane was hit and when several thousand eyes were watching the area in notably absent.
    The Guardian
    A Buk surface-to-air missile downed flight MH17, Dutch investigators have said as they unveiled a reconstruction of the plane that showed huge shrapnel damage to the cockpit and front section.

    Tjibbe Joustra, the chairman of the Dutch safety board, said the Malaysia Airlines plane was hit by a 9N314M warhead on 17 July 2014, as it flew at 33,000ft (10,000 metres) above eastern Ukraine. The warhead was fitted to a "9M28 missile" fired from a Russian-built Buk missile system, he confirmed.

    Related: MH17 crash report: Dutch investigators confirm Buk missile hit plane - live updates

    Speaking in front of the reconstructed plane – pieced together from parts of recovered debris, fitted around a metal skeleton – Joustra said all other scenarios to explain the disaster, which killed all 298 people on board, had been ruled out.

    An animated video was shown to journalists at the Gilze-Rijen airbase in the Netherlands, where the plane was part reassembled over three months. It showed the Buk missile exploding on the left-hand side of the cockpit. Thousands of metal objects were ejected, with hundreds then penetrating the plane with tremendous force, Joustra said.

    The impact and ensuing pressure drop killed the three pilots instantly, he said. On-board microphones captured the moment of impact – "a sound ping". This allowed investigators to determine the devastating blast occurred on the upper-left hand side of the cockpit.

    The damage was starkly visible. The front section of the Boeing 777 below the pilot's port window was perforated with large shrapnel holes. Other parts were relatively unscathed. Five windows in the business class section were visible, together with a door where the passengers entered. The pilot's seats had been remounted in the cockpit – a haunting sight.

    The plane's nose was missing, together with much of its upper front half. The colours of Malaysia Airlines – a red, blue stripe – were still visible. Exit holes left by shrapnel could be seen on the other right side; exploding fragments had ripped through the fuselage.

    Animation shows Russian Buk missile hit Malaysia Airlines MH17

    According to Joustra, the passenger plane broke up mid-air. The cockpit and the floor of the business class tore away almost instantly from the main body and crashed. The rest of the plane continued flying for about five miles in an easterly direction, hitting the ground about a minute to a minuter and a half later. Debris was scattered over 50 sq km.

    In a briefing on Tuesday morning to relatives of the victims, which took place in The Hague, Joustra said the passengers on board – two-thirds of whom were Dutch nationals – would have been unconscious within seconds.

    The board had previously made clear its findings would not deal with blame and liability; a criminal investigation by the Dutch prosecutor's office is scheduled to conclude in early 2016.

    The flightpath of MH17

    Joustra said the Buk had been fired from a 320 sq km area of eastern Ukraine, the scene of a conflict between pro-Russia separatists backed by Moscow and Ukrainian government forces. He said "further forensic investigation" would be needed to determine the exact launch site.

    The Netherlands, Ukraine and Russia had all carried out their own simulations into the missile's probable trajectory. Russia was the only one of seven countries involved in the report's preparation that dissented from its central conclusions, Joustra said, adding that Moscow believed "it was impossible to determine the type of missile or warhead with any certainty".

    It is widely assumed that Russia-backed separatists were responsible for bringing down MH17, but the US has stopped short of blaming Moscow directly. The Kremlin has blamed Kiev – variously suggesting that a Ukrainian military jet shot down the Boeing 777, or that a missile was launched from a government-held area.

    The Russian simulation includes areas under Ukrainian government control. The other simulations suggest the Buk was fired from separatist areas. An open source investigation by the website Bellingcat, published last week, tracks the Buk from a Russian military base in Kursk. It was then smuggled across the Ukrainian border.

    In Moscow, the makers of Buk missile systems, Almaz-Antey, gave a press conference on Tuesday morning, apparently to distract attention from the Dutch report.

    The manufacturer said it had performed two experiments it says prove one of its missiles could not have been launched from areas under pro-Russia separatist control.

    The Dutch safety board report, published in English and Dutch, concedes that family members had to wait "an unnecessarily long period of time" for formal confirmation that their loved ones were dead. The Dutch authorities "lacked management and coordination", he said.

    The victims came from nine countries, including Malaysia and Australia, and with 10 victims from the UK.

    Joustra also said there was a simple, "dispiriting" answer to the question: why was MH17 allowed to fly above eastern Ukraine? It had not occurred to anybody that the airspace was unsafe for civilian jets at cruising altitude, he said. This was despite 60 Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters had been downed since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in spring 2014.

    About 160 civilian planes flew over the area on the day of the disaster. Three were in "close proximity" when the Buk was fired, he said. Ukraine should have closed its airspace to civilian traffic, he added.

    [Oct 13, 2015] What happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC

    "... and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC? ..."
    Jun 16, 2003 | Zero Hedge
    FixItAgainTony

    and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference at ATC?
    http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2014/07/carlos-spanish-kiev-ai...

    [Oct 13, 2015] The headline is a bit over the top but relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate

    Warren , October 11, 2015 at 10:59 am

    RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria

    As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/raf-given-green-light-shoot-down-hostile-russian-jets-syria-1523488

    Moscow Exile , October 11, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    "The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."

    The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?

    The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified source is quoted as saying.

    That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was being threatened by the passenger aircraft.

    Patient Observer , October 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able to hit back hard?

    marknesop , October 11, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity. So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around his position.

    [Oct 13, 2015] Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Most Likely Hit by Russian-Made Missile, Inquiry Says

    Looks like Dutch report is a cover up of the state US position on the incident... After all it's from a vassal state.
    The New York Times

    ... ... ...

    "Flight MH17 crashed as a result of the detonation of a warhead outside the airplane above the left-hand side of the cockpit," said Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, using a common reference to the flight number. The explosion tore off the forward part of the plane, which broke up in the air. The crash killed all 298 people aboard; the investigation found that many died instantly, while others quickly lost consciousness. "It is likely that the occupants were barely able to comprehend their situation," the board found.

    ... ... ...

    The report is unlikely to produce consensus. Based on the impact pattern, the impact angle and other data, the Dutch board concluded that the missile originated in an area of about 320 square kilometers (about 123 square miles) in eastern Ukraine. But Russian experts say the area must be smaller, and Ukrainian experts say it was smaller still.

    The team of investigators was led by the Netherlands but included members from four other countries heavily affected by the crash: Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine.

    ... ... ...

    From the outset, the Russian government has tried to offer alternative versions of what caused the plane to break up over eastern Ukraine.

    Initially, the Defense Ministry presented what generals said was radar data indicating that a Ukrainian fighter jet had flown nearby, possibly shooting down the Malaysia Airlines flight. This year, officials with Almaz-Antey, the state corporation that manufactures the Buk antiaircraft missiles, held a news conference in Moscow to say that they believed one of their missiles had shot down the plane, but that an analysis of the angle of impact showed it must have been fired from territory controlled by the Ukrainian Army.

    Then, this month, after a Ukrainian security official had suggested in an interview with the Dutch news media that shrapnel removed from the bodies of the victims proved a Buk was to blame, Tass, the Russian state news agency, quoted an independent expert objecting that it was too early to conclude such a missile brought down the plane.

    Tass quoted the expert, Ivan P. Konovalov, the director of a Moscow research center, the Center for Strategic Trends, as saying that if the Dutch Safety Board indeed "reaches a firm conclusion that the Boeing was struck by a Buk antiaircraft rocket, then it should be taken into consideration that at that time only the armed services of Ukraine had these complexes and the People's Republics of Donbas had no such complex systems then or now." He was referring to pro-Russian separatist governments set up in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.

    In Moscow, officials at Almaz-Antey staged a dueling presentation on Tuesday with a dazzling element: the company blew up a civilian airline fuselage with one of its missiles, and showed the blast on video.

    The experiment that shredded the cockpit section of a decommissioned Il-86 airliner, company officials said, indicated the Ukrainian military fired the missile that brought down the Boeing, without elaborating on why.

    In the sky over Ukraine, the Russian officials said, the shrapnel struck the plane from an angle indicating the missile was launched from Ukrainian-held territory. Also, they said, Buk missiles in the Russian arsenal explode in a cloud of shrapnel that has jagged edges, described as having a "double-T" form. These, they said, leave a characteristic "butterfly"-shaped hole in airplane fuselages. The Russians insisted that no such holes were found in the wreckage; the Dutch report suggests otherwise.

    In any case, Yan V. Novikov, the director of Almaz-Antey, said the Ukrainian government bore responsibility for allowing the flight over a war zone. "I cannot say they are guilty, or not guilty, but the obligations of the country where a military conflict is underway is to inform aviation companies, or close its airspace," he said.

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 12, 2015] MH17 What we know on eve of Dutch Safety Board report

    Notable quotes:
    "... At the same time Russias Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone? ..."
    "... In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems. ..."
    "... "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter jet." ..."
    "... "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane." ..."
    "... a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters – with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask. ..."
    Oct 12, 2015 | RT News
    • Theory #1: 'Russian BUK Missile'

      The Dutch Safety Board delivered a preliminary report about a year ago, concluding that flight MH17 broke up in mid-air and came down after being hit by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the plane from the outside and ruptured the fuselage. The report did not mention where those high-energy objects came from.

      The first theory maintains that the MH17 flight was downed by a surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile. It is considered by many as the most likely theory and one that's been widely cited in the media. The only question is who did it.

      The West and Ukraine claim the rebels shot the plane with a Russian BUK missile. In the framework of this theory, a YouTube video of a BUK weapons system with one rocket missing being transported somewhere in Ukraine just hours after the crash was presented as a smoking gun, claiming that the missile system was sneakily cleared out of Ukraine into Russia.

      But some local bloggers identified the location as the Ukrainian town of Krasnoarmeysk, which was under control of the Kiev forces at the time.

      The fact that the video emerged online suspiciously quickly, was followed by lots of so-called social media evidence, and is almost impossible to authenticate, only fueled suspicions.

    • Theory #2: 'Ukrainian BUK missile'

      At the same time Russia's Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone?

      In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems.

    • Theory #3: 'Air-to-Air Missile'

      Another theory is that Flight MH17 may have been shot down from the air.

      Russia's Investigative Committee (IC) has been conducting its own investigation into the crash. On June 3, the Committee identified the key witness to the MH17 crash as Evgeny Agapov, an aviation armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. Agapov testified that on July 17, 2014 a Ukrainian Sukhoi SU-25 jet aircraft piloted by Captain Voloshin "set out for a military task" and returned without ammunition. Agapov implied that an air-to-air missile was missing and claimed he overheard Voloshin say to his colleagues that some plane was "in the wrong place at the wrong time."

      Also, in a video shot by Ukraine's anti-government militia when they arrived at the crash site immediately after the catastrophe and released by an Australian broadcaster almost a year after the tragedy, one important part was largely ignored.

      The video, shown by News Corp Australia, is a short, 5-minute clip made from an original video 17 minutes long, but the channel published online a full transcript of the original version.

      The transcript cited the rebel commander as saying "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian plane and ours brought down the fighter jet."

      Later, the same person says once again that there were two planes shot down, and another voice in the background says, "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down the plane."

      Those who oppose the theory say the Sukhoi Su-25 close support fighter jet spotted in the skies at the time of the incident cannot reach a height of 10,000 meters, where the Malaysian airliner was at cruising altitude. But a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters – with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask.

      The report coming out Tuesday will be technical in nature. Its goal is to specify how the plane was brought down, not to place blame on any side. This is the responsibility of the criminal probe, which is still ongoing.

      READ MORE:

    [Oct 12, 2015] Could The Syrian Conflict Change Global Geopolitics

    naked capitalism

    Few meetings ever started with dimmer prospects for success than the recent meeting between Presidents Obama and Putin.

    The real call for the meeting stemmed from the EU refugee crisis. With a human catastrophe brewing in Europe and the Middle East, EU leaders are urgently demanding that the U.S. and Russia set aside their differences and begin to work together in an effort to resolve the Syrian conflict, the major cause of the massive movement of people seeking sanctuary.

    Now, U.S./EU leaders are no longer insisting on the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from office as a pre-condition to negotiations over a new government, although the U.S. continues to insist that al-Assad's removal become part of any final settlement.

    But how can such fundamental differences be set aside when the two sides can't even agree on the enemy they're fighting? The U.S. and its allies have defined the Syrian conflict as a civil war against a despotic regime. The Russians define the conflict as an invasion by foreign Islamic radicals, paid and supported by U.S.' Middle Eastern allies.

    The EU has made its demands clear: solve the problem, we don't particularly care how, but it has to be done quickly. From that point of view, the U.S. and Russian leaders have little choice but to answer the call.

    Russia is attempting to form and lead a UN authorized coalition against ISIL, the radical jihadists' adversaries that conquered large parts of Syria and Iraq, while threatening to engulf the entire region.

    Obama has stated publicly that he welcomes help from Russia and Iran in the fight against radical jihadists, ISIL, in Syria, while still insisting that al-Assad must go. On their side, the Russians have made no secret of their strong objections to NATO-led regime change, citing the results of failed states in Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt.

    In a recent New York Times article, an Administration insider stated that the President believes Syria is a lost cause, one that U.S. military presence could only worsen.

    Obama has also shown little reluctance to lead from behind, when supporting NATO partners, particularly with a U.S. public largely opposed to America's military engagement in any further Mideast wars.

    But Russia is not NATO, and it's clear that the U.S. has no intention of following the Kremlin's lead in Syria, as its veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the UN Security Council clearly shows. Adding to that was the United States'strong condemnation of the Russian air attack on its first day of operations in Syria.

    The urgency of the moment favors cooperation, while geography gives Russia major advantages in leading the fight. Russia's relationship with Iran, already fighting on the ground in Iraq, with its ally Hezbollah fighting in Syria, provides Russia with a readymade army to complement its air attacks.

    With the Russians initiating air strikes against ISIL in Syria, the great fear of world leaders is that an accidental collision between opposing U.S. and Russian forces raises the risks of war between the two nuclear powers.

    While both sides deny any intent at military collaboration or sharing of military intelligence in Syria, the two Presidents have agreed to meetings of their military leaders, ostensibly aimed at reducing the risk of accidental conflicts between them. How that can be done without shared military intelligence about troop movements, and planned air attacks remains a mystery.

    Adding to the confusion is the increasingly cordial meetings between Russian and Saudi leaders.

    Many believe that the Saudis, and their Gulf Kingdom partners, hold the key to resolving the conflict, as the major backers of the 'moderate Islamic' rebels fighting the Syrian Government forces.

    The Saudis have largely refrained from criticizing the Russian military buildup in Syria, even though it bolsters the Assad regime, and the Kingdom continues to hold its cards close to its vest regarding their position on the new Russian military initiative in Syria.

    At the same time, there were conflicting signals in regards to the relationship between Iran and Russia. Reports surfaced in late September that the two countries, along with Syria and Iraq, were coordinating military efforts against the ISIL. But at the UN meeting, Iran's President Rouhani made the surprising statement that Iran saw no need to coordinate military efforts in Syria, with the Russian goal to support its embattled ally in Syria, while Iran's goal is eradicate ISIL.

    It's widely recognized that since the Iran nuclear deal, Iran and the U.S. have sought to move closer in other important areas. Still, Rouhani's UN statement seemed to belie the recent agreements between Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria to build an information center in Baghdad to share battlefield reconnaissance against ISIL.

    That also falls in line with the new agreement with Iran, Iraq, and Syria to provide an air corridor for Russian military flyovers to Syria for Russian fighter planes and transport aircraft.

    To observers, these agreements certainly smack of military coordination with Russia. Iran's need to distance itself from Russia seems to be made with an eye on the U.S., where hardline Presidential candidates threaten to tear up the nuclear agreement.

    The highly charged political atmosphere in the U.S., in the midst of a Presidential election, only adds to the fog of war in Syria, forcing public denials and secret agreements where there needs to be utmost clarity, making military cooperation in Syria almost impossible, while raising the risks of accidental conflicts between so-called partners.

    What then of western sanctions against Russia? In the eyes of the west, the Syrian conflict is beginning to eclipse Ukraine in importance. The U.S. seems satisfied to leave the Ukraine issue to Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine for settlement.

    The EU is most likely to be the first mover to ease sanctions, realizing, as a number of EU leaders have stated, that it is fundamentally incompatible to rely on Russia's military might while starving the Russian economy.

    In January, the EU sanctions are set to expire, requiring a unanimous vote of all member states for extension. The odds are rising that the EU will allow sanctions to expire.

    If so, major global business will once again flock to Russia. That would include the return of major western energy companies that have played a critical part in Russian energy development. Once that starts, it will become far more difficult to reverse the momentum or re-impose sanctions.

    Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions in place.


    Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 5:31 am

    Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions in place.

    Here you mean "Given the political instructions to Washington from Tel Aviv". I don't see any general feeling in the American people that demands ongoing conflict with Iran. This is not politics at all – just pure old tail wagging the dog.

    JeffC -> Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 11:18 am

    Sanctions against Russia, not Iran.

    Older & Wiser, October 7, 2015 at 6:48 am

    The un-named 1800 lb Mr. and Mrs. Gorilla couple in the room are oil & gas.
    Pipelines anyone ?

    Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    Are there really pipelines in Syria? I thought it was through Iraq and Turkey.

    ambrit, October 7, 2015 at 7:13 am

    Given Russias' long term relationship with Syria, I'm bemused that any Neo of any stripe could with a straight face suggest that the Russians would abandon the Syrian Government to a bunch of Western backed wreckers.

    Maintaining a foothold in the Middle East is basic Grand Strategy. America does it with Israel, so Russia does it with Syria.

    In the long run, the Middle East is beginning a shake up. The post WW1 borders were incompatible with the ethnic groupings of the region. Now those old 'drawn on a map' borders are being broken apart and the pieces reassembled. This process can take years or decades to work out. The time frame depends on how 'responsible' the Great Powers are in dealing with the realignment process.

    Do notice the framing of the issue in the MSM. "Irresponsible Russia" and "Assad Must Go" are everywhere proclaimed. Like the magicians they are, the MSMs rely on misdirection to try to pull off the 'trick.' While the West tries to browbeat the Russians, the Russians are persistently acting in their, and in the Syrian Governments, perceived best interests.

    On the air front, the Russian "incursions" look to be standard battlefield intelligence work. Send a plane or two 'over the border' and see what sorts of anti air radars 'lock on' to your aircraft. This is something any competent air commander would want to discover. This is also a thinly veiled threat to the West; "Look! Anyone can play this game!" The basic point being; there is no such thing as a 'no fly zone,' if you are willing to fight.

    The Russian message is basic; "Put up, or shut up."

    NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 9:05 am

    The post WWI borders are fairly similar to Ottoman administrative districts. The Kuwait city-state answered to the governor of Baghdad within their framework. The issue has been foreign powers using sectarian ties to divide the little people from cooperation which was achievable under the Sultan for 500 years. Even Hussein found the Shiites to be exceptionally loyal during the Iran-Iraq War.

    The rise of the Saudis, allowing the Israelis to knock over Lebanon and run an apartheid state, and supporting oppressive regimes which would have fallen or reformed (pretty much all the Gulf states which also have ancient borders) are major issues. There have always been states centered around the modern cities (Ur and Babylon were replaced by Baghdad) or provinces. I believe the creative borders argument was always a "White Man's Burden" excuse to justify control. "Professor Scott, why do they fight in the Middle East?" Excuses about unfortunate cartography sound better than "I needed to build a railroad and did the want to pay the locals, so I cooked up a rape story in one village, handed out guns, and slaughtered the adult males in the other village."

    On the other hand, Africa was carved up bizarrely based on rail and ship movements.

    todde, October 7, 2015 at 8:11 am

    KSA claims Assad must go and I doubt they will support Russia.

    Who is supporting IS? I find it hard to believe they can maintain armed conflict on several fronts without a state backer.

    Where are the 10s of billions of dollars in turkeys central bank in accounts called unknown foreign sources and errors and adjustments?

    Iran will support Assad regardless of American actions.

    blert, October 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    Two factors.

    Iran was using Turkey as a front, Ankara collected its 'cut.' Turkey was laundering monies from the Gulf, too, probably Golden Chain funding for the fanatics in Syria. Erdogan has more side action than Rick's Cafe American.

    Eureka Springs, October 7, 2015 at 9:02 am

    Madness R U.S. US, Saudi, Turks and Israeli's must be held at bay at the very least. It's (Russia, Iran, Syria) who are the only entities resembling a possible humanitarian, rule of law base of action now or possibly working towards that kind of end game.

    That's how low we are, R or D, … the creators and perpetrators of al Q and all of their newly named lackeys doing our dirty work continuously since the 1980's. It's not impossible to know who we are and what we have long done… Reading Obama's words and Putin's it is clear Putin is being far more honest and consistent in both action and words.

    Maybe we should stop blowing up hospitals and imprison leaders who order or even allow it to happen. Nah, there are too many unarmed citizens in wheelchairs who must be shot.

    blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:02 pm

    Bin Laden has gone on record - time and time, again - denouncing your thesis. He never needed American funding - ever. He would never, ever, grovel to the kafir.

    It's only recently that 0bama started funding AQ's front organs, al Nusrah inparticular. BOTH ISIS and al Nusrah are joined at the hip and are al Qaeda fronts. They only had a falling out, circa 2011.

    The FSA is a total fiction. It's a Western media construct. Syria is a fight between brutal Assad and two feral al Qaeda fronts… that can't be controlled. The UK, US and Jordan trained most of ISIS' cadres in the Jordanian desert back in 2011-12. They then went rogue. That (mostly Jordanian) force is still the dominant core of ISIS. Our crass media is complicit in covering up a reality that the rest of the planet is hip to.

    Eureka Springs , October 7, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    Agree with you after your first three lines. I guess those shoulder fired missiles which al Q used to take out Russian helicopters in Afghanistan during the '80's were Costa Rican made and supplied.

    Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    So Bin Laden was actually giving money and guns to Zbigniew Brzezinski instead of the other way around?

    You have seen that famous photo of Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski right? Just google it.

    Stephen V, October 7, 2015 at 10:44 am

    Never expected to hear this re: Iran– https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/317844-oily-mess-tax-us/

    A retired Army Colonel who served under Colin Powell actually says he's afraid of a future Israeli false-flag operation that will start a US war with Iran
    – move the cursor to 15 mins...

    Steven, October 7, 2015 at 11:10 am

    Somewhere I remember reading an analysis of the Syrian conflict along the following lines:

    1. It does indeed involve geopolitics – with the aim being to replace Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas with that from U.S. Middle-eastern 'allies'. To do that it is necessary to build a pipeline across Syria – and insure the Syrian government is firmly in the pocket of the U.S. and its allies.
    2. Without wishing to denigrate the influence of AIPAC, this conflict has far more to do with preserving and possibly extending US global hegemony (with a continuing full-employment program for the country's Congressional military-industrial complex) than it does Israel's inordinate control over US foreign policy. All the blather about democracy vs. dictatorship and/or Sunni vs. Shia vs. Sunni is just offal fed to the cannon fodder used by powers great and small to get it to sacrifice itself for their ambitions.
    3. Like ambrit said, this is just "basic Grand Strategy". It is way past time for US 'leaders' to recognize the full spectrum dominance they enjoyed in the aftermath of WWII was (charitably) an accident of history and come to terms with a multi-polar world and the concept of collective security to which they gave so much word of mouth to a population disgusted with the carnage and destruction of the second "war to end all wars".

    Hespeler1, October 7, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    Steven, Pepe Escobar has written extensively about the "pipeline wars" ("pipelinestan"), the Empire is trying to starve Russia's finances in part by bypassing Russia's pipelines. Greece was pressured into refusing to be the Turkish Stream's terminus and distribution hub for Southern Europe. We all know how much they needed the revenue from that, but TPTB said no. Grand Strategy=break up Russia, steal her resources, put pressure on China. I fear that the Empire won't stop until they accomplish this, or are buried.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, October 7, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Sometimes things are just so obvious. US "veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the UN Security Council". Could be because the US wants to lead a bigger, better coalition, maybe ours will include Samoa or something. Or, um, duh, could be because US doesn't really want to fight ISIS since that's our dog in this fight. Funny how a few days bombing by Russia has had a real impact on actual ISIS fighters…whereas US bombing tends to be on stuff like bridges and power plants and hospitals that hurt Assad more than they hurt ISIS.

    I mean how bleeding obvious when we get John McCain high fiving ISIS…and our grand plan was to find "moderate" maniacs that would do our bidding. "OK everybody, form a line, if you're an extremist take the T-shirt on the left, if you're a moderate take a T-shirt on the right". That strategy has worked out so well for us in the past, we spent $500M and trained precisely "4 or 5" guys.

    Yankee go home.

    sid_finster, October 7, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

    Is it not most edifying that Iraq is now apparently allowing Russian cruise missiles to fly over its territory, or at least not objecting? (Not that Iraq could do much about it…)

    Harry, October 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    Iraq is part of the Russian coalition as well as China and you probably do know that Iraqi prime-minister already made a statement that he would not object against Russians decimating ISIS on the Iraqi territory. And look, oil prices are already going up – that's what Putin really needed and this is one of the eight reasons why he started a war in the Middle East.

    NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    Started a war? You do realize training a day arming rebels is an act of war even if Congress hides the funding in the classified budget or if it's done by the CIA instead of corporate approved soldiers. The U.S. government has started numerous wars without Congressional approval, mostly because Congress is still afraid of elections. Russia is allied with Syria. If anything Putin has shown remarkable constraint.

    Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm

    There are three sides to Syria:

    1. New Caliphate – Includes Turkey & Saudi Arabia – Look at a map and think contiguous empire -ISIS is their tool.

    2. US dislike of Assad, and allied with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but dislikes New Caliphate and ISIS.

    3. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc, dislike New Calipahe, becue of potential threat to Russia from Muslim arc from Iran through to China (the Stans).

    Which leaves the US's allies in direct opposition to the US' goals, and leads to lies, deceit and deception from parties (1) and (2).

    The role of ISIS is to destabilize Syria and Iran, to create an opportunity for Turkish Troops (500,000 man army), and Saudi money to enter, the region "to keep the peace," thus furthering their imperial ambitions.

    The US is trying to eliminate Assad, but not enable a new Caliphate, and undermine Russia's and Iran's influence in the area, because Oil and exceptionalism (for exceptionalism see collective ego, or stunning arragance).

    Russia and Iran see the solution to a New Caliphate as Assad in power, and a weakening of US influence.

    aka: Quagmire

    NotTimothyGeithner -> Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm

    The U.S. government's side* is childish at best. The only real plan was Sunni elements of the army would assume power when Assad was removed from power with a little Saber rattling much like Libya with the GNC. Obama's ego prevents him from recognizing what a stupid idea this was and how radically different types Assad a day Gaddafi's power bases were.

    *They are hiding behind the war powers act and approval from post 9/11 legislation. Congress an otherwise President are too cowardly to call our actions acts of war which is what they are.

    washunate, October 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm

    No.

    But seriously, it is interesting seeing what the Oilprice guys think their audience wants to hear. They are clearly inside the MSM echo chamber. You have everything from dichotomous balance (because truth has two sides) to the charged political atmosphere (which sadly forces otherwise honest and transparent leaders to engage in secrecy and deception against their will).

    I particularly love how casual the author is with the notion that the President of the United States has an explicit policy goal of deposing the leader of a sovereign nation. Ho hum, just another head of state that must go.

    susan the other, October 7, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    This summary by Berke also reflects my puzzled observations. It wasn't that long ago that we worried about a fundamentalist insurrection in SA and so we politely made ourselves scarce to help the Saudis out.

    There's probably now a pre-arranged trade off for the Saudis and Iran: SA gets to take over Yemen; Iran gets to create a corridor through Syria. Who knows. I thought the meeting at the UN between Obama and Putin was such thinly disguised cooperation that surely some MSM would comment – but none did.

    And the EU has stated (above) that sanctions against Russia are incompatible because the EU is "relying on Russia's military might" and shouldn't therefore starve the Russian economy. Wow, let's hear the story on that please.

    So did Holland send in the French bombers to help out Russia? Maybe SA and RU are chummy because Russia is going to get the contract to build the new pipeline from the Gulf to Europe.

    blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:08 pm

    Actually all of the load growth, for OPEC, is towards India and points east. American fracking has released a glut of oil into the Atlantic Ocean market space.
    Nigeria essentially lost North America as a customer - all together. If Libya and Venezuela get their act together, the glut becomes even more pronounced. Then toss in Brazil's new out put.

    Brian M, October 7, 2015 at 8:10 pm

    many of the fracked wells will fail amazingly quickly. So, this may not be true for long...

    skippy, October 7, 2015 at 8:14 pm

    A giddy operator with the rights to a gas-rich parcel of land can't just drill willy-nilly. Well design considerations are very complex and attention to detail must span the construction, testing phase, and decommissioning of the well post-production. Moreover, drilling wells are often constructed uniquely with regard to the geology and geography of the specific location. For instance, because much of the shale formation in Pennsylvania lies beneath a shallower gas formation, it is easier for the shallower gas to escape during the initial drilling process. This in turn has made it difficult for drillers to design failproof wells that can be sealed off from the younger deposits completely.

    http://frackwire.com/well-casing-failure/

    Jim, October 7, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    At this point in the Syrian crisis it appears that the national security network (several hundred high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies) are still debating among themselves what the U.S. response will be to Russian military initiatives in Syria and potentially Iraq.

    For all Bernie Sanders supporters, it will be interesting to see what his stance on Syria will be. Will he break( at least rhetorically) with these national security elites( who since WWII have basically dictated Presidential moves in the national security arena) or will he cave to this present structure of networked power despite his "democratic socialist" credentials.

    Will Sanders maintain this continuity of American foreign policy that so shocked Obama supporters?

    Will the United State continue on its path of greater centralization, less accountability and emergent autocracy despite whoever wins the increasingly powerless Presidencyj?

    RUKidding, October 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    Here's my bet for the answer to your last 2 Q:

    1. Yes
    2. Yes

    James Levy, October 7, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Unfortunately, I concur.

    The amazing thing is watching the utter horror and confusion of the MSM and the Talking Heads as the Russians do things (bombing ISIS! Firing cruise missiles!!!) that the US does just about every other Tuesday, as if these things are some kind of massive breach of the peace on the order of Hitler invading Poland. The lack of any self-awareness is stunning.

    Oregoncharles, October 7, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    "Russia is attempting to form and lead a UN authorized coalition against ISIL"

    The obvious solution, especially if it does not include the US. I'm anti-interventionist in general, but ISIL poses us the problem the Nazis did: this cannot be allowed to stand. They're actually taking us back to the 7th Century, morally, and for that matter doing things Mohammed probably wouldn't have stood for. Except in degree, most of their actions are not unprecedented, even in modern times; what's unprecedented is their extreme openness about it. Hypocrisy is an acknowledgment of morality; these people are trying to CHANGE morality, reversing hundreds of years of hard-won progress. They're a kind of monster we thought we were rid of. And they've been successful enough militarily, at least in that deeply destabilized region, to present a real threat.

    Ultimately, they will have to be suppressed; it won't be easy or bloodless. The Russians' proposal may be self-interested, but it's the only approach likely to work. American bombing certainly won't.

    ISIL's PR skills bother me on another level: they're extremely convenient for the interventionists. They've even got me going. And there are real connections between it and the US authorities, especially in Iraq, to say nothing of the Saudis. I can't help but wonder whether it's a CIA operation, either run amok or conceivably still under control. (If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention.)

    Steven, October 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm

    I keep wondering how much of what goes on here in the commentariat of Naked Capitalism is just preaching to the choir and how much represents (well deserved) contempt for the official government / MSM (but I repeat myself) line among the population at large. That contempt – if it exists – is in my humble opinion – a national security issue / crisis.

    JTMcPhee, October 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm

    Quoting the captain of the Titanic, "More steam! Full speed ahead! We gotta show the world what this baby will do!"

    [Oct 12, 2015] OPEC Crude Little Change - Peak Oil BarrelPeak

    "... Ron's excellent charts are telling me that Opec is not going to be producing as much or MORE oil on a daily basis, if any, very much longer. With only three countries carrying the load, and all the others combined just holding steady over the last few years, DEPLETION is sure to take a bite out of those other smaller countries production pretty soon. ..."
    "... It looks as if the only countries with any REAL hope of increasing production enough to really matter on the world stage, near term, are Iran and Iraq and the USA. The USA is out of the running until prices go up and then, according to what I read here, it will take a year or maybe two to ramp up again. ..."
    "... Nobody can predict when oil prices will rise with any accuracy. I will suggest it will be in the future, maybe late 2016, maybe not. ..."
    Aug 30, 2012 | peakoilbarrel.com

    Oil Barrel

    OPEC says world upstream spending will be down only 20% in 2015 but North American upstream spending will drop by 35%. I guess that is because of the big drop in shale spending.

    Ovi, 10/12/2015 at 10:52 am

    3Q15–4Q15–1Q16–2Q16–3Q16–4Q16
    -13.5-13.4-13.4-13.5--13.5-13.7

    Above is the OPEC projection for US production out to Q4-16. Looks optimistic to me. For the above to be true, there must be some underlining assumption regarding increasing oil prices to restart drilling.

    Ron Patterson, 10/12/2015 at 1:01 pm

    Yes those numbers are totally unrealistic, just as unrealistic as the US Short Term Energy Outlook numbers. In the chart below US Total Liquids are the left axis while C+C numbers are the right axis.

    Total liquids for the US STEO includes refinery process gain. And they even count refinery process gain on imported oil. So it looks like the OPEC MOMR numbers do not include refinery process gain.

    AlexS, 10/12/2015 at 2:53 pm

    The EIA expects U.S. non-C+C liquids supply to increase by 1.17mb/d between January 2014 and December 2016, of which 1.03 mb/d – NGPLs.

    brian, 10/12/2015 at 1:40 pm

    'God-trader' Andy Hall's fund loses $500M

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/06/god-trader-andy-halls-fund-loses-500m.html

    Ves, 10/12/2015 at 2:05 pm

    Was he trading based on IEA, EIA or OPEC forecast numbers? :)

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/12/2015 at 2:31 pm

    Ron's excellent charts are telling me that Opec is not going to be producing as much or MORE oil on a daily basis, if any, very much longer. With only three countries carrying the load, and all the others combined just holding steady over the last few years, DEPLETION is sure to take a bite out of those other smaller countries production pretty soon.

    It looks as if the only countries with any REAL hope of increasing production enough to really matter on the world stage, near term, are Iran and Iraq and the USA. The USA is out of the running until prices go up and then, according to what I read here, it will take a year or maybe two to ramp up again.

    Am I right about this? Are there any other countries that have any real hope of substantially increasing production near term?

    I am thinking about buying a LOT (for an individual) of diesel fuel as soon as I think the price is starting up again. I know, predicting IS HARD , but a bigger stash of diesel is as good as silver and gold in a jar buried in the back yard. Will probably stock up on lime and fertilizer as well, these inputs are extremely sensitive to and correlate with oil and gas prices.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/12/2015 at 2:53 pm

    Hi Old Farmer Mac,

    Just take my price predictions and assume the opposite will be true, or flip a coin :)

    Nobody can predict when oil prices will rise with any accuracy. I will suggest it will be in the future, maybe late 2016, maybe not.

    Petro, 10/12/2015 at 10:26 pm

    …there will be no price rise, just the volatility of: "…a bomb went off here…", "…a war started there…" and "…a russian jet was shot down over there…somewhere…".

    be well,

    P.S: the "hoard" of diesel is not a bad idea, OFM

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/12/2015 at 2:52 pm

    This new SEC regulation might help people interested in peak oil and oil prices come by more and better data.

    It will probably go into force second half next year from the looks of things.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/256535-wind-at-secs-back-on-long-overdue-oil-transparency-rule

    Chris, 10/12/2015 at 3:31 pm

    OPEC has reached a plateau, oscillating between 28 mbpd to 31.6 mbpd since 10 years now. World production peaked so far in June. Saudi Arabia production in decline since June, US production in decline since several months. Peak oil in 2015? I am curious to see the December production…

    Dennis Coyne, 10/12/2015 at 6:23 pm

    It looks like the latest OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report predicts that World Oil Supply and Demand will be in balance by 3Q16, if OPEC output remains at 3Q15 levels. There will still be a supply overhang which may require another quarter or two of either decreased supply or increased demand (or both) to bring oil stocks back to normal levels.

    As always, these forecasts are notoriously inaccurate so oil prices could remain low until 2018 if demand is lower or supply is higher than OPEC forecasts, or they might rise in early 2016 if the opposite is true. It's a coin flip.

    Greenbub, 10/12/2015 at 7:43 pm

    Wouldn't most oil producers go out of business if prices stayed low until 2018?

    [Oct 12, 2015] Saudi Arabia Halts Government Spending Due To Oil Price Fall

    Aug 30, 2012 | OilPrice.com

    Saudi Arabia has reportedly resorted to spending cuts to cope with a budget deficit caused by the steep decline of oil prices over the past year.

    Bloomberg reported Oct. 8 that the Saudi Finance Ministry has directed government agencies not to embark on any new spending initiatives for the rest of the year. It also froze government hiring and promotions, suspended the purchase of furniture and vehicles and urged revenue collectors to accelerate their operations.

    ...oil accounts for around 90 percent of Saudi revenue. But the kingdom's finances also have been strained by its involvement in wars in Syria and Yemen.

    As a result, Saudi Arabia's ratio of debt to GDP is in danger of rising to 33 percent in five years, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The report says the Saudi budget has gone from a surplus to a deficit of more than 20 percent of GDP, more than twice as deep as those that beset the United States and Britain in 2008 and 2009, the darkest period of the recent recession

    ... ... ...

    The spending cuts aren't Saudi Arabia's first effort to manage its deficit. Bloomberg quoted other anonymous sources as saying Riyadh had planned to raise at least $24 billion from bond sales by the end of 2015. This was in response to a drop in the kingdom's foreign assets, which at that time had fallen for the seventh consecutive month to $654.5 billion, its lowest in more than two years.

    [Oct 12, 2015] Could oil prices really shrink to twenty dollars per barrel

    "... When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the demand is creeping up, ..."
    "... So therefore, to think that [low] oil prices will be with us forever may not be the right way of thinking ..."
    "... Despite its warning, Goldman Sachs said there was a less than 50 percent chance of oil falling to $20 per barrel. Instead, its base case scenario for 2016 was $45 per barrel -a level that Birol said was still too low for U.S. shale producers to maintain current production. ..."
    Oct 06, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    ... Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), told CNBC on Tuesday that low prices would prompt U.S. producers to cut output, creating upward price pressure.

    "When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the demand is creeping up," Birol told CNBC on Tuesday from the Oil & Money conference.

    "So therefore, to think that [low] oil prices will be with us forever may not be the right way of thinking."

    ... ... ....

    Whether or not U.S. shale players will cut production in response to ongoing low prices is a moot point however. They could instead respond by increasing production in order to satisfy creditors eager for results. Plus, against some odds, shale producers have managed to lower productions costs, although these remain high in comparison to conventional oil production.

    Despite its warning, Goldman Sachs said there was a less than 50 percent chance of oil falling to $20 per barrel. Instead, its base case scenario for 2016 was $45 per barrel -a level that Birol said was still too low for U.S. shale producers to maintain current production.

    "It is proven it is a very resilient type of production, but this level of prices, $45, $50 is not good enough to induce reinvestments and for production to continue to grow. Therefore, we expect as of next year, production growth will decline in the United States," Birol told CNBC.

    The secretary general of OPEC, Abadall El-Badri, also forecast that oil production from countries outside his group would fall next year.

    ... ... ...

    "We see that non-OPEC supply is declining and in 2016, we see there is an increase in demand … so in a nutshell, there is a balance in the market in 2016. How much this will reflect on the price I really cannot tell," he later added.

    ... ... ...

    Standard & Poor's (S&P) appeared more bullish on oil prices than Goldman, forecasting on Tuesday that Brent oil would average $55 per barrel in 2016, up from an average of $50 for the remainder of this year.

    [Oct 12, 2015] Problem of fracking wells decline in shale industry

    "... this disaster would have overtaken the fracking patch even if oil prices had not tanked, because its root problem was the hideous decline rate of fracking wells, most of which are exhausted within four years. ..."
    "... Imagine if they built houses of water-soluble materials. You buy a house for $200,000 or so, and at the end of four years its uninhabitable and worthless, and you have to buy another one. You might have been making good money those four years, but enough to set aside $50,000 a year? Thats been the fracking problem from the beginning, and virtually every company in the business has had to borrow heavily – actually, recklessly - to stay in the game. ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Another interesting article linked on Peakoil.com, which links to a Fortune article:

    http://www.dailyimpact.net/2015/09/30/fortune-frackers-face-mass-extinction/

    As I've reported here over and over, this disaster would have overtaken the fracking patch even if oil prices had not tanked, because its root problem was the hideous decline rate of fracking wells, most of which are exhausted within four years.

    Imagine if they built houses of water-soluble materials. You buy a house for $200,000 or so, and at the end of four years it's uninhabitable and worthless, and you have to buy another one. You might have been making good money those four years, but enough to set aside $50,000 a year? That's been the fracking problem from the beginning, and virtually every company in the business has had to borrow heavily – actually, recklessly - to stay in the game.

    Which is over. For most. There will always be some operators diligently wringing out the last few drops of combustibles, but the Brave New World of American oil supremacy in a cowed world, the age of American energy security, the renewed American oil economy - all creations of marketing departments in search of the proverbial greater-fool investors and lenders - are toast.

    [Oct 12, 2015] Oil rig count drops for a 6th week

    According to driller Baker Hughes, the number of active oil rigs fell by 9 to 605, putting the count at the lowest level since the week ending July 30, 2010. The combined tally of oil and gas rigs fell 14 from last week to 795, the lowest since May 2002. We saw a renewed drop in the oil rig count last week, which fell by 26, the biggest decline since the rig count topped out a year ago.

    Earlier this week, Baker Hughes reported that the average US rig count for September was 848, down 35 from the prior month.

    [Oct 12, 2015] In Midst of War, Ukraine Becomes Gateway for Jihad

    A new player among far right forces in Ukraine...
    "... Photos: Tomasz Glowacki ..."
    "... Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander ..."
    "... At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym. ..."
    Feb. 26 2015 | theintercept.com
    "OUR BROTHERS ARE there," Khalid said when he heard I was going to Ukraine. "Buy a local SIM card when you get there, send me the number and then wait for someone to call you."

    Khalid, who uses a pseudonym, leads the Islamic State's underground branch in Istanbul. He came from Syria to help control the flood of volunteers arriving in Turkey from all over the world, wanting to join the global jihad. Now, he wanted to put me in touch with Ruslan, a "brother" fighting with Muslims in Ukraine.

    The "brothers" are members of ISIS and other underground Islamic organizations, men who have abandoned their own countries and cities. Often using pseudonyms and fake identities, they are working and fighting in the Middle East, Africa and the Caucasus, slipping across borders without visas. Some are fighting to create a new Caliphate - heaven on earth. Others - like Chechens, Kurds and Dagestanis - say they are fighting for freedom, independence and self-determination. They are on every continent, and in almost every country, and now they are in Ukraine, too.

    In the West, most look at the war in Ukraine as simply a battle between Russian-backed separatists and the Ukrainian government. But the truth on the ground is now far more complex, particularly when it comes to the volunteer battalions fighting on the side of Ukraine. Ostensibly state-sanctioned, but not necessarily state-controlled, some have been supported by Ukrainian oligarchs, and others by private citizens. Less talked about, however, is the Dudayev battalion, named after the first president of Chechnya, Dzhokhar Dudayev, and founded by Isa Munayev, a Chechen commander who fought in two wars against Russia.

    Ukraine is now becoming an important stop-off point for the brothers, like Ruslan. In Ukraine, you can buy a passport and a new identity. For $15,000, a fighter receives a new name and a legal document attesting to Ukrainian citizenship. Ukraine doesn't belong to the European Union, but it's an easy pathway for immigration to the West. Ukrainians have few difficulties obtaining visas to neighboring Poland, where they can work on construction sites and in restaurants, filling the gap left by the millions of Poles who have left in search of work in the United Kingdom and Germany.

    You can also do business in Ukraine that's not quite legal. You can earn easy money for the brothers fighting in the Caucasus, Syria and Afghanistan. You can "legally" acquire unregistered weapons to fight the Russian-backed separatists, and then export them by bribing corrupt Ukrainian customs officers.

    "Our goal here is to get weapons, which will be sent to the Caucasus," Ruslan, the brother who meets me first in Kiev, admits without hesitation.

    WITH HIS WHITE hair and beard, Ruslan is still physically fit, even at 57. He's been a fighter his entire adult life. Born in a small mountain village in the Caucasus, on the border between Dagestan and Chechnya, Ruslan belongs to an ethnic minority known as the Lak, who are predominantly Sunni Muslim.

    The world that Ruslan inhabits - the world of the brothers - is something new. When he first became a fighter, there wasn't any Internet or cell phones, or cameras on the street, or drones. Ruslan joined the brothers when the Soviet Union collapsed, and he went to fight for a better world, first against the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. He then moved to Azerbaijan, where he was eventually arrested in 2004 on suspicion of maintaining contact with al Qaeda.

    Even though Ruslan admits to fighting with Islamic organizations, he claims the actual basis for the arrest in Azerbaijan - illegal possession of weapons - was false. Authorities couldn't find anything suspicious where he was living (Ruslan was staying at the time with his "brothers" in the jihad movement) but in his wife's home they found a single hand grenade. Ruslan was charged with illegal weapons possession and sent to prison for several years.

    In prison, he says he was tortured and deliberately housed in a cell with prisoners infected with tuberculosis. Ruslan took his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, accusing the authorities in Azerbaijan of depriving him of due process. The court eventually agreed, and asked the Azerbaijani government to pay Ruslan 2,400 euros in compensation, plus another 1,000 euros for court costs.

    But when Ruslan was released from prison, he didn't want to stay in Azerbaijan, fearing he would be rearrested, or even framed for a crime and again accused of terrorism. "Some of our people disappear and are never found," he says. "There was one brother [who disappeared], and when he was brought for burial, a card was found showing that he was one of 30 people held in detention in Russia."

    In Russia, a warrant was issued for Riuan's arrest. Returning to his small mountain village was out of the question. If he goes back, his family will end up paying for what he does, anyhow. "They get to us through our families," he says. He condemns those who refused to leave their own country and fight the infidels. This was the choice: either stay, or go abroad where "you can breathe freedom."

    "Man is born free," Ruslan says. "We are slaves of God and not the slaves of people, especially those who are against their own people, and break the laws of God. There is only one law: the law of God."

    After his release from prison in Azerbaijan, Ruslan became the eternal wanderer, a rebel - and one of the brothers now in Ukraine. He came because Munayev, now head of the Dudayev battalion, decided the brothers should fight in Ukraine. "I am here today because my brother, Isa, called us and said, 'It's time to repay your debt,'" Ruslan says. "There was a time when the brothers from Ukraine came [to Chechnya] and fought against the common enemy, the aggressor, the occupier."

    That debt is to Ukrainians like Oleksandr Muzychko, who became one of the brothers, even though he never converted to Islam. Muzyczko, along with other Ukrainian volunteers, joined Chechen fighters and took part in the first Chechen war against Russia. He commanded a branch of Ukrainian volunteers, called "Viking," which fought under famed Chechen militant leader Shamil Basayev. Muzychko died last year in Ukraine under mysterious circumstances.

    Ruslan has been in Ukraine for almost a year, and hasn't seen his family since he arrived. Their last separation lasted almost seven years. He's never had time to raise children, or even really to get to know them. Although he's a grandfather, he only has one son - a small family by Caucasian standards, but better for him, since a smaller family costs less. His wife calls often and asks for money, but Ruslan rarely has any to give her.

    IN THE 17th century, the area to the east of the Dnieper River was known as the "wilderness," an ungoverned territory that attracted refugees, criminals and peasants - a place beyond the reach of the Russian empire. Today, this part of Ukraine plays a similar role, this time for Muslim brothers. In eastern Ukraine, the green flag of jihad flies over some of the private battalions' bases.

    For many Muslims, like Ruslan, the war in Ukraine's Donbass region is just the next stage in the fight against the Russian empire. It doesn't matter to them whether their ultimate goal is a Caliphate in the Middle East, or simply to have the Caucuses free of Russian influence - the brothers are united not by nation, but by a sense of community and solidarity.

    But the brothers barely have the financial means for fighting or living. They are poor, and very rarely receive grants from the so-called Islamic humanitarian organizations. They must earn money for themselves, and this is usually done by force. Amber is one of the ideas Ruslan has for financing the "company of brothers" fighting in eastern Ukraine - the Dudayev battalion, which includes Muslims from several nations, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even a few Russians.

    The brothers had hoped the Ukrainian authorities would appreciate their dedication and willingness to give their lives in defense of Ukrainian sovereignty, but they miscalculated. Like other branches of fighters - Aidar, Azov and Donbass - the government, for the most part, ignores them. They're armed volunteers outside the control of Kiev, and Ukraine's politicians also fear that one day, instead of fighting Russians in the east, the volunteers will turn on the government in Kiev. So ordinary people help the volunteers, but it's not enough. The fighters associated with the Ukrainian nationalist Right Sector get money, cars and houses from the rich oligarchs.

    Ruslan has a different plan. He's afraid that if they begin stealing from the rich, the Ukrainian government will quickly declare their armed branch illegal. He's decided to work in the underground economy - uncontrolled by the state - which the brothers know best.

    Back in the '90s, the amber mines in the vast forests surrounding the city of Rivne were state-owned and badly run, so residents began illegally mining; it was a chance at easy money. Soon, however, the mafia took over. For the right daily fee, miners could work and sell amber to the mafia at a fixed price: $100 per kilogram. The mafia conspired with local militia, prosecutors and the governor. That was the way business worked.

    As a result, although Ukraine officially produces 3 tons of amber annually, more than 15 tons are illegally exported to Poland each year. There, the ore is processed and sold at a substantial profit. The Rivne mines operate 24 hours a day. Hundreds of people with shovels in hand search the forest; they pay less to the mafia, but they extract less amber and earn less. The better off are those who have a water pump. Those people pump water at high pressure into the earth between the trees, until a cavity 2 to 3 meters deep forms. Amber, which is lighter than water, rises to the surface.

    At one point, Ruslan disappeared in Rivne for several weeks. When he returned, he was disappointed; he'd failed to convince the local mafia to cooperate with the brothers' fight for an independent Ukraine. But now, he has other arguments to persuade them. His men are holding up the mines, by not allowing anyone into the forest. Either the local gangsters share their profits, or no one will get paid.

    Ruslan doesn't like this job. He knows it won't bring him any glory, and could land him in prison. He would have preferred to be among the fighters at the front lines, where everything is clear and clean. He says he can still fight, but he's already too old to really endure the rigors of battle, even if he doesn't want to admit it. He may still be physically fit, but fighters don't usually last longer than a few years. Then they lose their strength and will to fight.

    He has other orders from Munayev: he's supposed to organize a "direct response group" in Kiev. The group will be a sort of rear echelon unit that take care of problems, like if someone tries to discredit the Dudayev battalion. It will also collect debts or scare off competition. There's no doubt the new branch will work behind the lines, where there isn't war, but there is money - as long as you know where to get it. If need be, the direct response group volunteers will watch over the mines in Rivne, or "will acquire" money from illegal casinos, which operate by the hundreds in Kiev.

    Ruslan sends me photos of the group's criminal exploits: they came into the casinos with weapons, and broke into the safes and slot machines. They disappeared quickly, and were never punished. The money went to food, uniforms, boots, tactical vests and other equipment necessary for the fighters. The mafia knows they can't beat them at this game. The brothers are too good, because they are armed and experienced in battle. The police aren't interested in getting involved either. In the end, it's illegal gambling.

    I told Ruslan that it's a dangerous game. He laughed.

    "It's child's play," he says. "We used to do this in Dagestan. No one will lift a finger. Don't worry."

    RUSLAN FINALLY DROVE me to see his "older brother," to Isa Munayev, and his secret base located many miles west of Donetsk.

    Riding in an old Chrysler that Ruslan bought in Poland, we drove for several hours, on potholed and snowy roads. Ruslan had glued to the car one of the emblems of Ukraine's ATO, the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation, which includes both soldiers and volunteers in the fight against separatists.

    The bumper sticker allows him to drive through police traffic stops without being held up - or if he is stopped, they won't demand bribes as they do from other drivers. The ATO sticker, Ruslan's camouflage uniform, and a gun in his belt are enough to settle matters. Policemen salute him and wish him good luck.

    He drives fast, not wanting to rest, sleep or even drink coffee. If he stops, it's to check the compass on his belt to check the direction of Mecca. When it's time to pray, he stops the car, turns off the engine, places his scarf in the snow and bows down to Allah.

    Asked whether - after so many hardships, after so many years, and at his age, almost 60 now - he would finally like to rest, he answered indignantly, "How could I feel tired?"

    There's much more work to do, according to Ruslan. "There's been a small result, but we will rest only when we've reached our goals," he says. "I'm carrying out orders, written in the Holy Quran. 'Listen to God, the Prophet.' And I listen to him and do what I'm told."

    On the way into the city of Kryvyi Rih, we met with Dima, a young businessman - under 40 - but already worth some $5 million. He's recently lost nearly $3 million from his business in Donetsk, which has been hit hard by the war. Dima worked for Igor Kolomoisky, one of the oligarchs who had been funding Ukraine's volunteer battalions. Dima and Ruslan have only known each other for a short time. Ruslan claimed Dima owed him a lot of money, although it's unclear from what. Ruslan kept bothering him, threatening to blackmail him. Finally, he got $20,000 from Dima.

    That's not nearly enough to support the Dudayev battalion. But Ruslan had something bigger to offer Dima: amber. Now, Dima was ready to talk. He came up with the idea to find buyers in the Persian Gulf, including wealthy sheikhs. They would like to sell an entire house of amber: furniture, stairs, floors, and inlaid stones. It only takes contacts, and Ruslan has them. The brothers from Saudi Arabia like to help the jihad in the Caucasus and the Middle East.

    The next day, Ruslan was behind the wheel again. The old Chrysler barely moved, its engine overheated. A mechanic with an engineering degree and experience working in Soviet arms factories connected a plastic bottle filled with dirty water to the radiator using a rubber hose.

    "I don't know how long I'll last," Ruslan says suddenly. "It depends on God. I'll probably die on this road. But I don't have any other road to take."

    Photos: Tomasz Glowacki

    Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander

    * At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym.

    The material for this story is part of BROTHERS, a documentary film being developed for Germany's broadcaster WDR – Die Story and Autentic, produced by Propellerfilm, broadcast date May 18th, 10pm (MET).

    [Oct 12, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts: A Decisive Shift In The Power Balance Has Occurred

    ... my former CSIS colleague, Zbigniew Brzezinski, normally a sensible if sometimes misguided person, has written in the Financial Times that Washington should deliver an ultimatum to Russia to "cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets." By "American assets," Brzezinski means the jihadist forces that Washington has sicced on Syria.

    Brzezinski's claim that "Russia must work with, not against, the US in Syria" is false. The fact of the matter is that "the US must work with, not against Russia in Syria," as Russia controls the situation, is in accordance with international law, and is doing the right thing.

    Ash Carter, the US Secretary for War, repeats Brzezinski's demand. He declared that Washington is not prepared to cooperate with Russia's "tragically flawed" and "mistaken strategy" that frustrates Washington's illegal attempt to overthrow the Syrian government with military violence.

    Washington's position is that only Washington decides and that Washington intends to unleash yet more chaos on the world in the hope that it reaches Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, a former director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's intelligence organization, said that Washington needs to understand that "Russia also has foreign policy; Russia also has a national security strategy" and stop crossing Russia's "red lines." Gen. Flynn thus joins with Patrick J. Buchanan as two voices of sense and sensibility in Washington. Together they stand against the arrogance and hubris that will destroy us.

    Several commentators, such as Mike Whitney and Stephen Lendman, have concluded, correctly, that there is nothing that Washington can do about Russian actions against the Islamic State. The neoconservatives' plan for a UN no-fly zone over Syria in order to push out the Russians is a pipedream. No such resolution will come out of the UN. Indeed, the Russians have already established a de facto no-fly zone.

    Putin, without issuing any verbal threats or engaging in any name-calling, has decisively shifted the power balance, and the world knows it.

    ... ... ...

    worbsid

    It is completely impossible for Obama to admit he is wrong. Note the 60 Min interview.

    Mini-Me

    Wondering which host the neocons will attach themselves to after having sucked the US dry. A parasite should never kill its host.

    A Lunatic

    Following advice from the likes of Brzezinski is a large part of the problem......

    BarnacleBill

    I've posted this before, but... we can't ask the question too often: Who sold ISIS all those Toyotas? ISIS didn't buy them themselves out of some Texas showroom, custom-built for desert warfare! Right?

    http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-sold-isis-all-those-toyotas.html

    johmack2

    I must admit this certainly seems like a wild BEAST in action. Wreakless, seemingly unpredictable causing mass chaos in its wake


    Chad_the_short_...

    Why don't they want to hit israel? I thought all muslims wanted a piece of Israel.

    Macon Richardson

    Do you really have to ask?

    Reaper

    ISIS are the nutured harpies of Barack, McCain and the neo-cons, which inflict death and mayhem upon their targets. ISIS's evil is Barack's, McCain's and the neo-con" projected evil.

    In US law, they are called principles and as such deserve equal punishment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2 ISIS's acts are war crimes. The principles abetting ISIS are as guilty as ISIS. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

    War crimes text (Geneva Convention): "To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

    a)violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

    b)taking of hostages;

    c)outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and de-grading treatment." https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf


    Salah

    Anyone making these bullshit comments about ISIS being the USA's extra-military arm (or Israel's) has obviously NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY. Ditto any of the alphabet covert services.

    ISIS is the enemy, period. They cleverly arose in a vacuum, and disperse at the first sign of military opposition that has its shit together.

    Yeah, go out there and tell some US special ops his buddy's death, maybe at the hands of ISIS, was his own govt's doing.

    Go do it you insulated fucks...I dare you. And see what happens. First rule in clandestine warfare; don't shit in your own mess tent.

    SgtShaftoe

    I was in the military, enlisted and officer corps. I lost a few of good friends from my unit in Iraq II. ISIS is absolutely a creation of CIA/DoD (at a distance, like planting seeds and watering them), just as so many other tragedies have the blood squarely on the hands of the same. I've seen it with my own eyes. Sorry dude, you're fucking wrong. When military people see shit they shouldn't have seen, they're either brought in, or they accidentally fall out of the sky. That's just the way it is.

    Winston Smith 2009

    "ISIS is the enemy, period."

    Absolutely.

    "They cleverly arose in a vacuum"

    And what created that vacuum? The lack of the only thing, apparently, that can keep these religious fanatics absolutely infesting that area of the world in line: a dictator. Who foolishly removed the dictator in Iraq? These ignorant, arrogant assholes:

    -----

    In his book, "The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End," Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

    A year after his "Axis of Evil" speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq's first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

    Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, "I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!"

    "From the president and the vice president down through the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, there was a belief that Iraq was a blank slate on which the United States could impose its vision of a pluralistic democratic society," said Galbraith. "The arrogance came in the form of a belief that this could be accomplished with minimal effort and planning by the United States and that it was not important to know something about Iraq."

    -----

    "Yeah, go out there and tell some US special ops his buddy's death, maybe at the hands of ISIS, was his own govt's doing."

    Only indirectly, but the astoundingly arrogant stupidity at the highest levels of his government unnecessarily caused the conditions that led to it. It was and is their absolutely clueless meddling that is the problem.

    And don't get the idea that I'm a pacifist. Far from it. Geopolitical gaming including the use of military force has been and always will be the way the world works. There's nothing I or anyone else can do or ever will be able to do about that. Since that is the case, I want the "coaches" of my "team" to be smart. They aren't.

    They're f'ing bumbling idiots!

    Dre4dwolf

    I would agree it is in bad taste to go tell someone who is active military that they are fighting an enemy their own govt created.

    But

    When something is hard to say, a lot of times its just the truth.

    Now if the people listening aren't open minded to the possibility, well . . . there exists the potential to get decked in the face by a marine.

    Also, ISIS is not a direct branch of U.S. forces, its a group the U.S. funded, created to perpetuate a war so that the U.S. can spill into borders outside of current combat zones .... the scenario is sorta like well ..."O I know we attacked Iraq, but there is this new boogieman and he is called Isis and BTW hes living in your garage so I have to invade your land now... "and so on and on new invasion one after the other into new areas all blamed on the spread of isis ISIS IS HERE, WE NEED TO INVADE, ISIS IS THERE WE NEED TO INVADE,

    ISIS IS EVERYWHERE ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO U.S.

    Thats probably what the strategy was, and it failed horribly when Russia exposed the hypocrisy when it directly decided to engage and terminate the ISIS group , it revealed that the U.S. has no intention of squelching ISIS, and now you have proof that the U.S. govt is just para-dropping weapons in random locations all around the middle east..... they dont even care who gets the weapons, they just want a bunch of pissed off people armed to the teeth . . .

    The greatest hypocrisy of all is the fact that while the U.S. govt is dropping weapons all over the place (its a weapons free-for-all bonanza ) right now, they are pushing Gun Control and Confiscation here at home....

    What does that say about your govt? when it is actively caught red handed arming terrorists, while pushing gun confiscation domestically ??? lol its not that far of a stretch to connect the dots... cmon

    SuperRay

    Salah you sure are righteous. Like you've been in the deep shit. Maybe we should call you four leaf instead. What do you think?

    Bullshitting a soldier who's risking his life for what he thinks is a noble cause, is unconscionable. You're saying - trust your leaders, they know best. I say, what planet on you on, you fucking moron? The neocon assholes who are guiding, or mis-guiding, policy in the middle east should be lined up and shot for treason. Why is Russia destroying ISIS at blistering speed? Because they want to destroy it. We could've done the same thing, but is we destroyed ISIS and 'won' the battle against terrorism, the defense contractors might not make tons of money this year. We always need an enemy. Get It? We've always been at war with Eurasia? There's no money for the Pentagon without war, so we have to always have an enemy. Duh

    datura

    I feel awful that Russia is now almost alone in this enormous fight:-(....We in the West won't help them. It feels like WWII again and Russians will have to bear the grunt alone again. Westerners don't seem to change. We are practically good for nothing cowards. Sorry to say, but it is so. And we even dare to judge them in any way??? We dare to judge their leader or their level of democracy? It just makes me sick.

    These is how Russian ladies, who fought in WWII, looked like. These seemingly fragile creatures...more valiant than Western men at those times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kraFEWO7Z44

    Dre4dwolf

    They aren't alone, the U.S. is leaving care packages full of weapons and supplies all over the middle east for Russia to discover. Its like an easter egg hunt, except there is no easter because your in a Muslim shit-hole, and.... there are no bunnies, just pissed of Jihadis who want to shoot you.

    Better find the eggs before they do.

    Mike Masr

    And the US regime change in Ukraine resurrected Frankensteins' monster Nazism!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJQW_0utHKY

    The Indelicate ...

    ISIS meaning CIA/Mossad.

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

    I think the world is beginning to understand that the anglo-Zionist Banking and Warfare Empire can not be reasoned with.

    [Oct 12, 2015] The Tragic Ending To Obama's Bay Of Pigs: CIA Hands Over Syria To Russia

    One week ago, when summarizing the current state of play in Syria, we said that for Obama, "this is shaping up to be the most spectacular US foreign policy debacle since Vietnam." Yesterday, in tacit confirmation of this assessment, the Obama administration threw in the towel on one of the most contentious programs it has implemented in "fighting ISIS", when the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force.

    But this, so far, partial admission of failure only takes care of one part of Obama's problem: there is the question of the "other" rebels supported by the US, those who are not part of the officially-disclosed public program with the fake goal of fighting ISIS; we are talking, of course, about the nearly 10,000 CIA-supported "other rebels", or technically mercenaries, whose only task is to take down Assad.

    The same "rebels" whose fate the AP profiles today when it writes that the CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.

    The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing to promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and on Friday, the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force, instead opting to equip established groups to fight IS.

    It is this effort, too, that in the span of just one month Vladimir Putin has managed to render utterly useless, as it is officially "off the books" and thus the US can't formally support these thousands of "rebel-fighters" whose only real task was to repeat the "success" of Ukraine and overthrow Syria's legitimate president: something which runs counter to the US image of a dignified democracy not still resorting to 1960s tactics of government overthrow. That, and coupled with Russia and Iran set to take strategic control of Syria in the coming months, the US simply has no toehold any more in the critical mid-eastern nation.

    And so another sad chapter in the CIA's book of failed government overthrows comes to a close, leaving the "rebels" that the CIA had supported for years, to fend for themselves.

    From AP:

    CIA-backed rebels in Syria, who had begun to put serious pressure on President Bashar Assad's forces, are now under Russian bombardment with little prospect of rescue by their American patrons, U.S. officials say.

    Over the past week, Russia has directed parts of its air campaign against U.S.-funded groups and other moderate opposition in a concerted effort to weaken them, the officials say. The Obama administration has few options to defend those it had secretly armed and trained.

    The Russians "know their targets, and they have a sophisticated capacity to understand the battlefield situation," said Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who serves on the House Intelligence Committee and was careful not to confirm a classified program. "They are bombing in locations that are not connected to the Islamic State" group.

    ... ... ..

    Incidentally, this is just the beginning. Now that the U.S. has begun its pivot out of the middle-east, handing it over to Putin as Russia's latest sphere of influence on a silver platter, there will be staggering consequences for middle-east geopolitics. In out preview of things to come last week, we concluded by laying these out; we will do the same again:

    The US, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, attempted to train and support Sunni extremists to overthrow the Assad regime. Some of those Sunni extremists ended up going crazy and declaring a Medeival caliphate putting the Pentagon and Langley in the hilarious position of being forced to classify al-Qaeda as "moderate." The situation spun out of control leading to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and when Washington finally decided to try and find real "moderates" to help contain the Frankenstein monster the CIA had created in ISIS (there were of course numerous other CIA efforts to arm and train anti-Assad fighters, see below for the fate of the most "successful" of those groups), the effort ended up being a complete embarrassment that culminated with the admission that only "four or five" remained and just days after that admission, those "four or five" were car jacked by al-Qaeda in what was perhaps the most under-reported piece of foreign policy comedy in history.

    Meanwhile, Iran sensed an epic opportunity to capitalize on Washington's incompetence. Tehran then sent its most powerful general to Russia where a pitch was made to upend the Mid-East balance of power. The Kremlin loved the idea because after all, Moscow is stinging from Western economic sanctions and Vladimir Putin is keen on showing the West that, in the wake of the controversy surrounding the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Russia isn't set to back down. Thanks to the fact that the US chose extremists as its weapon of choice in Syria, Russia gets to frame its involvement as a "war on terror" and thanks to Russia's involvement, Iran gets to safely broadcast its military support for Assad just weeks after the nuclear deal was struck. Now, Russian airstrikes have debilitated the only group of CIA-backed fighters that had actually proven to be somewhat effective and Iran and Hezbollah are preparing a massive ground invasion under cover of Russian air support. Worse still, the entire on-the-ground effort is being coordinated by the Iranian general who is public enemy number one in Western intelligence circles and he's effectively operating at the behest of Putin, the man that Western media paints as the most dangerous person on the planet.

    As incompetent as the US has proven to be throughout the entire debacle, it's still difficult to imagine that Washington, Riyadh, London, Doha, and Jerusalem are going to take this laying down and on that note, we close with our assessment from Thursday: "If Russia ends up bolstering Iran's position in Syria (by expanding Hezbollah's influence and capabilities) and if the Russian air force effectively takes control of Iraq thus allowing Iran to exert a greater influence over the government in Baghdad, the fragile balance of power that has existed in the region will be turned on its head and in the event this plays out, one should not expect Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and London to simply go gentle into that good night."

    Which is not to say that the latest US failure to overthrow a mid-east government was a total failure. As Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma says "probably 60 to 80 percent of the arms that America shoveled in have gone to al-Qaida and its affiliates."

    Which is at least great news for the military-industrial complex. It means more "terrorist attacks" on U.S. "friends and allies", and perhaps even on U.S. soil - all courtesy of the US government supplying the weapons - are imminent.

    BlueViolet

    It's not a fiasco. It's a success. AlQaeda/ISIS created by Israel and financed by US.

    Stackers

    Never forget the first chapter of this story happened in 2011 Benghazi Libya when the Turkey brokered arms deal went bad, Obama admin abandoned them and one CIA op posing as an ambasador and his security detail were killed.

    This thing has been a shit show from day one and involves scandal after scandal

    The Indelicate ...

    Video: Israeli forces open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza killing seven

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/10/israeli-palestinian-demonstrators

    Paveway IV

    There is no such thing as 10,000 CIA 'rebels' - that's only their on-line name.

    There is a 10,000-man CIA assassination team or better still - mafia hit squad - in Syria. They're not rebels, they're not terrorists, they're not even mercs. They are paid criminal assassins, nothing more. My country hired them, so my country is guilty of racketeering and assassination. There are no degrees of separation here - the U.S. is directly responsible. Since the acts were perpetrated by people who are also violating the Constitution of the U.S., they are criminals and traitors.

    We should do something about them... right after this season of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.

    WTFRLY

    White House still ignores murder of American reporter Serena Shim who filmed western aid to ISIS February 27, 2015

    1 year almost since her death. Today would have been her 30th birthday.

    SWRichmond

    You and I (and perhaps others) wonder how 10,000 "moderate rebels" were vetted before being trained and equipped. I am guessing an interview with some commander-wannabee, who said "yes I am a moderate" and then CIA said "awesome, here's $500,000,000.00 and a boatload of sophisticated weapons. Go hire and train some more moderates." Or maybe CIA just asked McCain and took his word for it.

    ...but few believe the U.S. can protect its secret rebel allies

    Some secret...

    This kind of shit is what you get when the deep state breathes its own fumes.

    Lore

    Exactly. American hands are drenched in blood. It's not enough just to withdraw from Syria and leave a bunch of mercs and "assets" to burn, and it's not enough to go after the individuals behind specific atrocities like 911, the bombing of the hospital, or the weddings, or Abu Ghraib, or Benghazi, or, or... Nothing will be fixed or resolved until those responsible for drafting, approving and implementing the pathological policy behind all the loss of life over the past decade are prosecuted and brought to justice. Unless and until that happens, America has abandoned its moral foundation and is doomed as a nation. It's just a practical observation.

    geno-econ

    Neocons went a step too far with their marauder agenda in Ukraine and Syria. Now they have been silenced by Putin with a show of force exposing US weakness. Both Bush and Obama showed weakness in not controllling Neocon influence in Wash. and is now reflectrd in political party turmoil. EU should rejoice because US policy in Syria caused refugee problem which will subside with end of civil war in Syria. Kiev government now also realizes US will not support real confrontation with Russia and Russia will not give up Crimea. Neocon experiment in achieving growth through regime change has been a total failure and huge drain on US economy.

    greenskeeper carl

    I agree 100%. What I'm dreading is listening to all the republitards in the next debate trying to one up each other on the war mongering. The problem with 'let Russia have it' is that it will be talked about by the right as though that's a bad thing. It will be spun as an Obama fuck uo(which it is) not because of the simple fact that it was never any of our business in the first place. To them, EVERYTHING is our business, and they will be spending the next few weeks talking tough about how they will stand up to Putin.

    RockyRacoon

    You got it right, Carl. If they want to see Russia get its butt kicked, give them Syria, and Afghanistan, and Iraq and all the other crappy countries that the U. S. has managed to destabilize. Wish the Russians luck in putting that all back together. Better yet, encourage them to annex the whole shootin' match into the Russian alliance!

    Hey, wait.... could this have been the long term plan all along? Hmmm.... Maybe them thar neocons are smarter than they look. Nah, never mind.

    sp0rkovite

    The article implies the CIA "lost" Syria. When did it ever "win" it? Total political propaganda.

    datura

    There are some risks, yes, dead Iranian general, perhaps soon some dead Russian soldiers. But unlike the USA, Iran is fighting for its existence here. They know if Syria falls, they could be next. As for Russia, it is very similar. As one expert said: "When the USA looks at Syria, they see pipelines, profit from weapons, money and power." But the first thing Putin sees, when looking at Syria, is Chechnya. Syria is very close to Russia, but very far from the USA. And that is a huge difference.

    For example, yesterday, some ISIS fighters were arrested in Chechnya. Luckily, FSB discovered them before they could do some harm. Not even talking about those ISIS fighters, who came to Ukraine, to fight against the pro-Russian rebels!!! You can see, how close and how important is this to Russia and why Russia cannot give up here and has to go to all the extremes. Including the parked nuclear submarine near Syria.

    I could say to the US lunatics: you shouldn't have kept poking the bear. You shouldn't have supported terrorists in Chechnya. You should have left Ukraine to Russia. As Putin said very clearly in Valdai: "Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still attempting to construct their New World Order-until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain."


    Bring the Gold

    Do you have a link for that Putin statement?

    JohninMK

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valdai_speech_of_Vladimir_Putin

    agent default

    House of Saud better be careful, because once Syria is taken care of, they will pay dearly for arming ISIS. If Russia wins in the ME Qatar and SA are up for regime change and the US cannot stop it.

    Neil Patrick Harris

    no no no. It's a about Israel seizing legal authority to drill for oil and nat gas in the Golan Heights/Southern Syria. The plan was to arm ISIS, help ISIS defeat Assad, let ISIS be terrible ISIS who will then threaten Israel, giving the Israelis a perfect excuse to invade Syria, defeat ISIS and look like a hero, then build a pipeline through Turkey, right in to Europe.

    But thankfully Putin cockblocked those racist Zionists, and he is going to get all the oil and gas for himself. Poor ol' Bibi gets nothing. Checkmate.

    Freddie


    http://www.moonofalabama.org/

    Moon of Alabama web site is saying the See Eye Aye and Pentagram are not giving up. If anything, they plan on ramping it up. How many more civilians do they want to kill? Sickening.

    ThirdWorldDude

    This shitshow is far from over. It might be just a coy in their efforts to improvise another Afghanistan.

    "Saudi Arabia is ramping up its supplies of lethal weaponry to three different rebel groups in Syria in response to the Russian airstrikes on Syrian rebels, British media reported, citing a Saudi government official in Riyadh. He did not rule out supplying surface-to-air missiles to the rebels..."

    techpreist

    Given our military spending I think we actually could win an all-out war. We have enough nukes to glass the planet a dozen times after all.

    However, bullies don't want to fight with someone who could actually fight back, and who could change the wars from this abstract thing that "creates jobs" and only hurts a few Americans (10k Americans = 0.003% of the population), to something that people actually might not want.

    viahj

    if this is framed as an Obama failure in foreign policy (it will) in the upcoming US political Presidential selection, the candidates will all be falling over themselves to come to the aide of our "ME Allies" to restore order. there will be a push to re-escalate US involvement in the ME especially with the pressure of Israel over their owned US politicians. a US retreat in the short term while fortunate for the American people, will not stand. the warmongers will be posturing themselves as to which will be the loudest in calling for re-engagement.

    [Oct 11, 2015] What Ambulance-Chasing Lawyers Reveal About the MH17 Shoot-Down

    Insufficient evidence for prosecution to declare shooting of MH17 a terrorist act..
    Notable quotes:
    "... The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is refusing to declare a terrorist act. ..."
    "... Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'. ..."
    "... If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it. ..."
    "... It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good enough in a civil jurisdiction. ..."
    "... Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can say those crafty Russians got away with it. ..."
    "... Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Fifteen weeks later, by the time Abbott spoke in November, he had been briefed on the evidence gathered by Australian pathologists and the Victorian State Coroner from the bodies of MH17 victims. No evidence of shrapnel from a Buk missile warhead had been found. For that story, read on.

    ... ... ...

    The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is refusing to declare a terrorist act.

    ... ... ...

    For the Dutch Government's compilation of its official statements on the MH17 crash, open this file. According to van der Goen, none of the investigating countries has legitimate authority to prosecute, "if only because the Netherlands and the other countries mentioned are possible suspects themselves - and they refuse to see this. So the case will be endlessly shelved. Eventually, it will be adopted at a parliamentary inquiry that mistakes were made, but then noone will still be awake. Excellent solution."

    Ilargi, October 8, 2015 at 1:53 am

    Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'.

    Chris Williams, October 8, 2015 at 2:35 am

    I don't know how our clever governments (US, Australia, Netherlands, UK etc) are going to get out of this one. Perhaps, as JH suggests, they will continue to defer and prevaricate, keeping their 'evidence'… until know one cares.

    If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it.

    JTMcPhee, October 8, 2015 at 9:09 pm

    For a different and more complete view, one might read here:

    America's Flight 17: The time the United States blew up a passenger plane-and tried to cover it up. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/07/the_vincennes_downing_of_iran_air_flight_655_the_united_states_tried_to.html

    And here: Sea of Lies, http://alt-f4.org/img/seaoflies.html

    Not some "itchy radar operator," it would seem. But the Narrative must be protected…

    low_integer, October 9, 2015 at 6:22 am

    So the damage to the body would come from the exploding engine. It's so big, spinning so fast, that the energy released is far, far, greater than the warheads. !!!

    So, you can't tell either way based on the plane's body. You'd have to have microscopic analysis of the engine components - which would be very challenging and take just about forever.

    Obfuscation. The parts in a passenger aircraft's jet engine that are moving, the turbine blades, are made of nickel-based superalloys and I believe they are single 'grain' components, which means they have consistent strength throughout and would be very unlikely to fracture. Also, damage to the fuselage of a passenger jet from turbine blades would be easily identifiable due to their shape and position as the energy of the turbine blades would be dispersed at right angles to the direction of thrust. Lastly, the casing around these blades would, at the very least, absorb a significant amount of this energy.

    Are you the guy who replied to one of my posts that Cthulu caused 9/11?

    RBHoughton, October 8, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good enough in a civil jurisdiction.

    Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can say those crafty Russians got away with it.

    If not, eastern Ukraine and Russia will score a huge win and we will have even more egg on our faces than usual. Its bad enough that fewer people believe us but its far worse that they begin to prefer Putin's version.

    The hopeful thing here is the lawyers. Older readers will recall people used to study law because they respected the concept of a law-based society. It was not just about the money. Some of these vocational lawyers can still be found and it is my hope that they get fully involved in this case. Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out.

    Thanks again Naked Capitalism for reporting important news that is neglected by others.

    [Oct 11, 2015] Russia's Move In Syria Threatens Energy Deals With Turkey

    In 2014, Gazprom delivered 27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines. Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since 2010, and Turkey – now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand in Turkey is expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.

    ... ... ...

    With European demand projected to grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas on demand.

    It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly damage Russia-Turkey relations.

    Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now top out at 32 bcm, if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have agreed to draft the text of an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's general election. And that's it.

    [Oct 11, 2015] Series of small earthquakes hit near Oklahoma crude oil storage hub

    The US Geological Survey (USGS) reported that nine quakes ranging in magnitude from 2.5 to 3.7 were recorded between 5.07pm on Saturday and 5.27am on Sunday. No injuries or damage were reported. Geologists say damage is not likely in quakes below magnitude 4.0.

    The latest seismic activity came after a 4.5 magnitude temblor on Saturday afternoon near Cushing and a 4.4 magnitude quake on Saturday morning south-west of Medford.

    The Oklahoma Geological Survey has said it is likely that many recent earthquakes in the state have been triggered by the injection of wastewater from oil and natural gas drilling operations.

    Cushing is home to the world's most important crude oil storage hub, which is used to settle futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

    Cushing emergency management director Bob Noltensmeyer said on Sunday that no significant damage was found at the oil facility, only "shattered nerves".


    Orwell2015 11 Oct 2015 19:50

    Oh the irony of it all, which sadly will be lost on most.

    [Oct 11, 2015] Russian maker of missile that destroyed MH17 to explain disaster

    ARTEMIVSK, Ukraine - How do you prove you didn't blow up a plane? In Russia, you blow up a plane.

    A Russian missile manufacturer said Friday that it had exploded a missile beneath a decommissioned Boeing airliner similar to that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, shot out of the sky over eastern Ukraine last year, proving the passenger jet was not downed by one of its missiles.

    "The company will present the results of a real-time simulation of a Buk missile hitting a passenger jet which we hope will help us understand what exactly caused the July 17, 2014 crash of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in Ukraine's Donetsk region," Almaz-Antey said in a statement.

    The company did not say when the experiment took place or how it was conducted, and it did not immediately reply to Mashable's request for comment. Its report will be released on Tuesday, Oct. 13, the same day a joint international investigation led by the Dutch Safety Board will release its full report into the causes of the downing.

    At a press conference in Moscow in June, Almaz-Antey said it was prepared to carry out such an experiment to prove MH17 was downed by an older version of their missile that isn't in service with the Russian military, but is in Ukraine's arsenal.

    Company officials at the time did not say whether the aircraft would be in flight during the experiment.

    MH17 was downed over the village of Hrabovo, eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpa on July 17, 2014. All 298 passengers and crew on board the jetliner were killed and their remains scattered over the battlefields in war-torn Donetsk region.

    Western governments and Kiev have accused Russian-backed separatists of shooting down the passenger jet, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military aircraft, with a Buk SA-11 missile provided by Moscow. Their accusations are supported by preliminary evidence gathered by open source sleuths Bellingcat, as well as investigators and Mashable's own investigation.

    On Wednesday, Vasyl Vovk, a senior officer of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) who has been involved in the investigation into the downing, told Dutch news site NOS that the fragments found in the aircraft wreckage and in victims' bodies matched pieces from two Buk missiles that investigators examined for comparison.

    The Kremlin and separatist leaders have blamed Kiev for the disaster, insisting it was downed either by a Ukrainian Buk missile or a government jet fighter.

    While the Dutch report due next week will shine a light on what caused the plane to crash and burn, it will not lay blame.

    A separate criminal investigation headed by Dutch detectives and involving investigators from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine is still pending.

    Attempts by the United Nations Security Council to create a tribunal to prosecute those responsible for the crime was vetoed by Russia, a permanent member of the council, in July. Moscow has called the move "premature" and decried the Dutch-led investigation as biased.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Three main reasons for which NATO is not attacking Russia right now

    Notable quotes:
    "... The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom. ..."
    "... One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. ..."
    "... Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, theyre running free. ..."
    "... It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar. ..."
    "... Its a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the rebels . The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. Moderate rebels morphed into relatively moderate insurgents and all kinds of other permutations. ..."
    "... McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other unstable personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the responsible players like Obama and Kerry. The responsibles can always point to the lunatics and extract concessions from frightened opposite side. ..."
    "... On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup detat, hes made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkeys EU aspirations. ..."
    "... Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the a , b and c of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War. ..."
    "... The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe. ..."
    "... Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but were brainwashed idiots. ..."
    "... We have become a Propaganda Wonderland. ..."
    "... Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth. ..."
    "... The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russias surprise intervention in Syria and its a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months. ..."
    "... Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program thats so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat. ..."
    "... The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world. ..."
    "... excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan ..."
    the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    by system failure

    The first, and probably most important reason for which NATO is not attacking Russia for the moment, is the upgraded Russian nuclear arsenal. As in the Cold War 1.0 era, the nuclear strength of both superpowers, capable to destroy the planet many times, was a key preventing factor against a direct conflict between the USA and the former Soviet Union.

    Moreover, the US indirect aggression against China lately, a stupid strategy coming from the neocon agenda, brought China closer to Russia, building an even stronger alliance between them. They are both now in a race of developing further their nuclear arsenals and this is a key deterrent which prevents NATO to confront them openly.

    The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom.

    The relations between the United States and other major countries inside the alliance appear to be in a quite bad shape, especially those with Germany and Turkey. The recent Volkswagen emission scandal confirmed that, indeed, there is an underground fierce economic war between the United States and Germany. Besides that, the relations between the two countries started to worse rapidly after the known revelations of the NSA interceptions.

    Concerning Turkey, it is known that the US promote the creation of a Kurdish state because it serves better their interests. This is totally unacceptable for Erdoğan,who is occupied by the illusion of the Turkish expansionism. Washington is not very happy seeing ISIS being used by Turkey to fight Kurds, instead of operating in full force against Assad regime.

    Other key allies like France, are not very happy with the sanctions, imposed by the US, against Russia. The economic damage is not insignificant. The most characteristic example concerning France, is the cancellation of the deal concerning the Mistral warships, by Russia.

    The third reason, is that the US need Russia and even Iran to clean up the mess in Middle East. A mess which was created by the US and their allies in Middle East when they started to arm anti-Assad forces to confront the Assad regime. Now, ISIS is out of control.

    However, the Americans had enough troubles with the attrition wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They wouldn't risk further mess by bringing 'boots on the ground' to confront ISIS. The recent deal with Iran, concerning its nuclear program, is not accidental. Besides, Pentagon announced that will stop training new militant forces in Syria, which is actually an admission of failure of its so far strategy.

    shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 1:05:32 PM | 9

    Beware bloggers:

    Cold War II to McCarthyism II, June 8, 2015

    Exclusive: With Cold War II in full swing, the New York Times is dusting off what might be called McCarthyism II, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't get in line with U.S. propaganda must be working for Moscow, reports Robert Parry.

    snip

    Perhaps it's no surprise that the U.S. government's plunge into Cold War II would bring back the one-sided propaganda themes that dominated Cold War I, but it's still unsettling to see how quickly the major U.S. news media has returned to the old ways, especially the New York Times, which has emerged as Official Washington's propaganda vehicle of choice.

    What has been most striking in the behavior of the Times and most other U.S. mainstream media outlets is their utter lack of self-awareness, for instance, accusing Russia of engaging in propaganda and alliance-building that are a pale shadow of what the U.S. government routinely does. Yet, the Times and the rest of the MSM act as if these actions are unique to Moscow.

    BIG SNIP

    USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/08/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii/

    Soros is coming to get us. :) Look for uptick in trolls. Hope Operation Summer Rains trolls have retired.

    Lysander | Oct 10, 2015 1:16:14 PM | 14

    Best defense for Russia is the ability to retaliate in kind. Yemen against KSA and PKK against Turkey. It doesn't mean they won't arm the terrorists, but it does mean it will be costly for them. And the Russians can always play the "gee it looks like your manpads fell into the wrong hands and they went and shot down an Aapache in Iraq."

    james | Oct 10, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 18

    what is the disconnect between the us admin and the cia? is this some sort of good guy, bad guy routine that they like to have going? are they supposed to make out like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing too? looks like the cia is calling the shots... so much for that friggin' democracy joke under the nobel peace prizer's command..

    actually i think skipping the vetting and training of those working for the usa administration and the cia is a huge problem.. they can do that when they want to put weapons in isis's hands to overthrow assad, but they need to stop doing it to their own country as it's doing to blow up in their face..on 2nd thought maybe they are hoping for regime change in the usa! that's one way to get an amerikkkan regime change in your own country - destroy it..

    i am sorry to hear of the horrible event in ankara.. i can't imagine sultan erdogan being happy about it either..who advises this dipstick? or, is that an example of how things will go better with isis?

    Virgile | Oct 10, 2015 1:45:51 PM | 19

    This is where Iran comes in...

    It is clear that if the USA starts a proxy war in Syria against Russia, Iran will retaliate by hitting the USA ally, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen.

    In parallel to Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels, we will see Iran (and Russia) arming the Houthis in Yemen. I expect heavy military escalation on the Saudi Yemeni border soon

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 1:51:14 PM | 21

    @17 shadylady
    Impotence is an unfamiliar feeling in DC, so they are all "pissed" right now. Generals, politicos, arms merchants, lobbyists, think tankers, all of them. They are scrambling for a response, but can't find a single one that wouldn't lead to a worsening of their position.
    We are witnessing the last gasp of American hegemony, and the process is natural and irreversible.

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:00:19 PM | 22

    nmb @2, Thanks for the link. One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. I agree and evidently some faction in the US with Obama as its point-man agrees. However this faction is so weak that it cannot even seem to speak out forthrightly, but relies on undermining the neocon strategy, which remains the same. The unipolarists are still determined upon absolute rule generally-- and destruction of Syria and its govt specifically.

    shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 2:04:53 PM | 23

    @ MMARR @ BOG @ James, I love reading Pepe Escorbar and M.K. Bhadrakumar

    NATO all dressed up, nowhere to go in Syria

    Neither Erdogan nor Russian President Vladimir Putin is spoiling for a fight. By the way, what actually happened over the weekend on the Turkish-Syrian border too is shrouded in mystery and increasingly it seems Ankara and Moscow are in some foreplay over new ground rules for the non-existent Turkish-Syrian border.

    From Erdogan's latest remarks, he seems to be tapping down tensions.

    snip
    The European Union's proposal to 'assist' Turkey in handling the refugee flow from Syria is a case in point. The EU offers to subsidize Turkey financially provided Ankara kept custody of the Syrian refugees. Ankara has an open mind – everything depends on how generous the EU funding will be. Clearly, $1.5 billion is 'peanuts'.

    Turkey does not want foreign troops to come and defend it. Its preference is that the US and Germany would change their mind and allowed the Patriot batteries to remain in Turkey. (Alas, they are not agreeable.)
    snip

    A broad Turkish-Russian understanding over Syria may even emerge out of it. Erdogan will most certainly expect Putin not to arm the Syrian Kurds.

    MORE: http://atimes.com/2015/10/nato-all-dressed-up-nowhere-to-go-in-syria/

    Always love Escobar, waiting for his next article:
    http://atimes.com/category/empire-of-chaos/

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:16:15 PM | 25

    Shady Lady @3, "Do we have a rogue CIA now?"

    Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, they're running free.

    It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar.

    He weakened the Pentagon's program to send in fighters, but I don't think there's anything he can do against the CIA I guess he still appoints the director, but making that change wd be an awfully dangerous move.

    Does anyone know if there are elements in the military who resist the military adventurism for whom McCain and the neocons are the point-men?

    gemini33 | Oct 10, 2015 2:35:41 PM | 30

    @11 Penelope

    It's a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the "rebels". The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. "Moderate rebels" morphed into "relatively moderate insurgents" and all kinds of other permutations.

    It's also interesting to note the way they refer to their numerous anonymous sources. We have become a Propaganda Wonderland.

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 2:42:38 PM | 33

    @25 Penelope

    McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other "unstable" personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the "responsible" players like Obama and Kerry. The "responsibles" can always point to the "lunatics" and extract concessions from frightened opposite side.

    People who take their bluster seriously are making a mistake, because that's exactly their goal. Yet it's simply a bluster, a theater, and nothing more.
    Therefore, nobody in the US military "resists their adventurism", because they are all part of the same team, only with different roles.

    Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 2:49:58 PM | 35

    Proxy wars were how the Cold War 1.0 was fought, and after a brief hiatus, that's how the new Cold War 2.0 will be fought, what has changed is the weaponry and the type of warfare, mainly from guerrilla wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to hybrid and asymmetrical warfare. The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world.

    On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup d'etat, he's made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkey's EU aspirations.

    Welcome to the, now official, Cold War 2.0!

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 3:11:58 PM | 39

    @27 Penelope

    Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the "a","b" and "c" of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War.

    So, Moscow will definitely refrain from any preemptive action with regard to undermining Saudis or Turks. They usually prefer to sit and watch, to talk and to calculate the odds, and only then move a figure on a chessboard. Americans move first and think later, believing they can always kill the opponent, if the game develops not to their liking.

    As for Russia not supplying Syria or Iran with S-300, I think that was done mostly in order not to alarm and antagonize the West prematurely, while Russia's military was moving swiftly on the path of wholesale reorganization and modernization. In Putin's world, it seems, everything has its own time and its own place.

    ToivoS | Oct 10, 2015 3:34:37 PM | 42

    The Russians must have had a very clear understanding that when they attacked those "al Nusra" and other "moderate" targets in Northern Syria that they that these forces were being supplied and encouraged by the CIA Russia knowingly attacked US backed forces. Perhaps Obama and Kerry are too stupid to realize what that means. What it means is that there are very powerful forces inside the US government and military that will see this as an attack on the United States of America and that we must respond to that aggression. I hope that Obama is starting to understand what he is up against. He should be trying to bring those agencies under control. Any tiny efforts to neutralize those War Party forces with compromise will only make matters worse. It is time exert executive control over these groups and execute top level purges if they resist. Somehow this seems unlikely.

    I hope Putin and Lavrov thought this through before they acted. The outcome could be very dangerous indeed. I was terribly worried last week when the Russian attack began that it would produce a strong reaction inside the US government among all of those war monger plants inside State, the military and intelligence agencies that have been slowly gaining power for the last decade. All of that cheering we have been hearing over the last week here at MOA has been serious -- representatives of the US hegemon do not like to be ridiculed.

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 3:36:53 PM | 43

    BOG @ 13, I don't think it's a divide between the executive & military. I think the majority of each is committed to an aggressive foreign policy. Obama I think is resisting it and only giving rhetorical agreement. I'm not sure who else is in the resistors' faction.

    Thanks for posting about the withdrawal of the USS Theodore Roosevelt "just one day after Russian missile strikes from the Caspian. Didn't make sense to me, cuz Russians aren't threatening ships.

    In fact, departure was well telegraphed in advance: In April, June & July. Announcement was that for first time since 2007 there wd be a two month gap in the Fall w/o an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. Replacement in December. Reason: Only 10 active now, stead of 11 & ideal maintenace schedule is 7 months deployment; as it is we're deploying for 8 months. Oct 5 announced imminent departure, day before Rusian missiles.

    This was potentially important; thanks for posting it. The links are boring. Don't bother; I only posted them for completeness.
    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-u.s.-aircraft-carrier-gap-in-the-gulfTh Oct 5, announcing imminent departure
    http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/carrier-gap-in-gulf-is-a-symptom-not-a-crisis/
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/navy-admiral-confirms-us-pulling-aircraft-carrier-from-persian-gulf-this-fall/

    GoraDiva | Oct 10, 2015 3:51:04 PM | 46

    A good update on the Syrian ops - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/john-helmer-us-strategy-in-the-middle-east-is-dying-along-with-its-authors-carter-and-brzezinski-putin-al-assad-get-to-dance-on-their-graves-david-ben-gurion-too.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

    alaric | Oct 10, 2015 4:04:07 PM | 50

    The Russians surely anticipated such a move from the US so i assume Putin has a counter move for the US. China's participation would certainly supply that but there are lots of things Putin can do, many are mentioned above.

    The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe.

    I doubt US allies will be able to endure this US push to implement Brzezinki's nefarious plot and Israel's similar plan for the ME. I expect some major defections from the US camp.

    Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but we're brainwashed idiots.

    zedz | Oct 10, 2015 4:06:51 PM | 51

    IMO the lack of western reaction is due to two things - 1) Russians have some toys that the west can't neutralize and 2) Europe wants to survive and wants no war anyway

    I think the arab statements are pure posturing, they'll basically trade Syria for Yemen in the end.

    Erdogan played both east and west and betrayed both. He has no future, this way or the other. The current chaos there could come from both sides just as well.

    Vintage Red | Oct 10, 2015 4:12:00 PM | 53

    gemini33 @30:

    "We have become a Propaganda Wonderland."

    The US has become Humpty-Dumpty, claiming "words mean what I want them to mean." We all know what happened to Humpty-Dumpty...

    tom | Oct 10, 2015 5:30:31 PM | 59

    Please don't hate me because I was right, once again.

    Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth.

    Like I said weeks ago when b and others here gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt, which was never deserved. How could Kerry be a proven unreliable liar in regards to Ukraine, but he's capable of telling the truth in Syria ?! it makes no sense. Desperate, wishful thinking.

    The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russia's surprise intervention in Syria and it's a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months.

    And when Russia inevitably becomes Iraqs foreign helpful power, replacing the US there, then expect far more US support for jihadi terrorists. If the US is left out of the loop in Iraq, they will counter that with more jihadis and more weapons. It's why they are the evil empire and the Great Satan.

    Oh, and that time frame of the Russian involvement in Syria will be only four months, like I said was bullshit yesterday, guess what, it's time to hate tom again, because I was spot on there too.

    Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program that's so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat.

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 5:50:11 PM | 62

    @57 Penelope

    In geopolitics the words of intent almost always hide the real intent. They are meaningless.

    All of this verbal saber-rattling is nothing more than psy-ops, the lowest cost form of warfare. People are simply trying no nudge the Russians to engage in talks, as well as enhance their own position at the negotiating table. US government also has to calm down the viewers of FOX News. Moscow understands that.

    My prediction - neither the West nor the Gulf Arabs (who operate some of the world's biggest and fines airlines) will supply high-tech anti-aircraft weapons to head choppers. Russians produce the best such toys in the world, and the blowback for this "act of war" could be vicious.

    harry law | Oct 10, 2015 6:06:25 PM | 66

    "On Friday, Russian air power "destroyed two command centres of the militants, an ammunition depot in the Hama Province, 29 field camps, 23 fortified stations and positions with ammunition and equipment."

    Radio intercepts revealed ISIS now faces a shortage of fuel, weapons, ammunition and increasingly the will to fight in the face of an onslaught against which they're defenseless.
    Thousands "are demoralized and are actively leaving the battle zone, moving in eastern and northeastern directions," Konashenkov explained.

    Areas targeted in the last 24 hours included Raqqa (the main ISIS stronghold), Hama, Idlib, the Damascus countryside and Aleppo." http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.uk/ Not bad for a start, won't do McCains health any good.

    Satellite images located a hidden Idlib province command center. "After analysis of pictures from space and after air reconnaissance by drones," Russian air strikes destroyed it.

    Wayoutwest | Oct 10, 2015 7:33:26 PM | 73

    HL@66

    The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing. Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall.

    The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

    The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

    ben | Oct 10, 2015 7:56:14 PM | 77

    LoneWolf @35 said: " The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world."

    Yep, and as long as the dollar reins, they'll create all they need to meet their goals.

    nmb @ 38 said: "I'm afraid things can get worse with the 2016 US elections. Any GOP will certainly promote the neocon agenda, but also Hillary will adopt such policies. I doubt that the US deep state will let any chance for Sanders."

    Agreed. It's the money people, til' that changes, nothing changes. Go BRICS, go!

    Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 11:21:16 PM | 83

    @Wayoutwest@73

    The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing.

    I don't think the takfiris you so much defend would have the same opinion. They are being blown to bits, and that according to your buddy-buddy at the Syrian "Observatory for Human Rights" (sic!).

    Islamic State loses 132 members, 70 villages and farmlands in the northeast of Syria

    Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall. The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

    Wrong again. IS performs and behaves like a conventional army, with entire regions, cities and territory under their control, some of them for years now, with a functioning economy, bureaucracy, the entire infrastructure of a state. They are not a rag-tag guerrilla group, they have ties to the infrastructure they have stolen, gas and oil fields to defend, training grounds, C&C centers, etc. IS might use non-conventional, guerrilla tactics in their fighting, as many armies do, that doesn't turn them into a non-conventional force. A guerrilla moves to fight another day, does not engage in attrition tactics.

    The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

    You pretend to be so well informed. How would you know those details? Your takfiri rats are running all over because their time for reckoning is up, now they have to pay for their crimes, and are being sent to hell in bits and pieces so their master can use them for fuel.

    crone | Oct 10, 2015 11:47:30 PM | 86

    excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan

    comment section informative also

    [Oct 10, 2015] Obama Launches A Proxy War On Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia bombed some of the CIAS trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didnt receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful: ..."
    "... Erdogans AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation. ..."
    "... Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi young leader deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    But instead of building on that agreement and of further working with the Russians, the U.S. is now slipping into a full war by proxy against the Russian Federation and especially with its contingent in Syria. Obama had claimed that he would not get drawn into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but his administration, the Pentagon and the CIA, is now doing all it can to create one. The Russian support for Syria is not limited. With the U.S. administration now moving into a position where war on Russia in Syria becomes the priority the fighting in and around Syria will continue for a long time.

    The official Pentagon program to train Syrian insurgents will cease to vet, train, arm and support those mercenaries. But the program will not end. The Pentagon will simply shorten the process. It skips the vetting and training part and will arm and support anyone who proclaims to want to "fight ISIS":

    The move marks an expansion of U.S. involvement in Syria's protracted ground war and could expose the Obama administration to greater risks if weapons provided to a wider array of rebel units go astray, or if U.S.-backed fighters come under attack from forces loyal to Assad and his allies.
    ...
    Under the new plan, leaders of groups already battling the Islamic State undergo vetting and receive a crash course in human rights and combat communications. Many of them have already received that training outside Syria, officials said.

    Eventually the Pentagon plans to provide ammunition and basic weapons to those leaders' fighters and would carry out airstrikes on targets identified by those units.

    We know how well things go when some rogue proxies identify targets they want the U.S. air force to hit. The destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz and the 50 something killed in the U.S. attack on it, on request of Afghan special forces, tell the story.

    Significant military aid to those fighters, in an area where Islamist extremist groups are mixed with and often fighting beside moderate opposition rebels, would mark a departure from previous U.S. policy. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter, declined to give specifics on any new aid that might arrive in northwest Syria. But the official said that "these supplies will be delivered to anti-ISIL forces whose leaders were appropriately vetted," and described them as "groups with diverse membership."

    That would be these diverse groups which all include al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Shams and other Jihadis. Even if not directly given to them the fact that al-Qaeda demands a "toll" of 1/3 of all weapons going through its controls, and sometimes takes all, shows that this program is effectively a direct, though unacknowledged, armament program for al-Qaeda.

    The new program is separate from a CIA-led effort to aid rebel factions in Syria. It was not immediately clear how Friday's announcement might affect the CIA program.

    The CIA runs a similar but much bigger program since 2012. Weapons are handed out to everyone who wants to take down the Syrian government. Most of those weapons have landed in the hands of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

    Indeed it is the CIA, under its torture justifying chief Brennan, which has pushed the Obama administration away from Kerry's conceding statement and into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

    Russia bombed some of the CIA'S trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didn't receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful:

    Reports indicate that CIA-trained groups have sustained a small number of casualties and have been urged to avoid moves that would expose them to Russian aircraft. One U.S. official who is familiar with the CIA program - and who like other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters - said the attacks have galvanized some of the agency-equipped units. "Now they get to fight the Russians," the official said. "This improves morale."
    ...
    Brennan departed for the Middle East last week as the Russian strikes intensified. U.S. officials said that the trip was previously planned and not related to the bombings but acknowledged that his discussions centered on Syria.

    ...
    The decision to dismantle the Pentagon's training program - whose small teams of fighters were often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria - may force Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.

    U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target civilian aircraft.

    The person who told the Saudis to deliver 500 TOW missiles to Syria ASAP was likely CIA chief Brennan. He also ordered to plan for attacks on the Russian base.

    So instead of a calming down and cooperation with Russia to fight the Islamic State the Pentagon was told to shorten its program and to hand out weapons to everyone who asks. The CIA is feeding more weapons to its mercenaries via its Gulf proxies and is planning for direct attacks on Russians.

    The war on Syria, and now also on Russia, is unlikely to end in the near future. With the U.S. throwing more oil into the fire the war will burn not only in Syria but in every other country around it.

    Two suicide bombers blew themselves up today at a rally of the Kurd friendly HDP party in Ankara. Some 90 people were killed and some 200 wounded. This is the biggest terrorist attack modern Turkey has ever seen. The Turkish government disconnected the country from Twitter and forbid any reporting about the terror attack. The HDP party is leftist and supports a peaceful struggle for Kurdish autonomy. The militant Kurdish PKK in Turkey is currently fighting skirmishes with Turkish security forces in the east of the country. It has now announced that it will stop all attacks unless when it is attacked first. The sister organization of the PKK in Syria, the YPK, is currently fighting against the Islamic State. Erdogan's AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation.

    Whatever else it was, the bombing, very likely by Islamic State suicide bombers, is a sign of an ongoing destabilization of Turkey. The instability will increase further until there is a major policy change and a complete crackdown on any support for the Jihadis in Syria as well as a complete closure of the Turkish-Syrian border.

    Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi "young leader" deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Three main reasons for which NATO is not attacking Russia right now

    Notable quotes:
    "... The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom. ..."
    "... One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. ..."
    "... Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, theyre running free. ..."
    "... It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar. ..."
    "... Its a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the rebels . The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. Moderate rebels morphed into relatively moderate insurgents and all kinds of other permutations. ..."
    "... McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other unstable personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the responsible players like Obama and Kerry. The responsibles can always point to the lunatics and extract concessions from frightened opposite side. ..."
    "... On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup detat, hes made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkeys EU aspirations. ..."
    "... Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the a , b and c of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War. ..."
    "... The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe. ..."
    "... Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but were brainwashed idiots. ..."
    "... We have become a Propaganda Wonderland. ..."
    "... Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth. ..."
    "... The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russias surprise intervention in Syria and its a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months. ..."
    "... Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program thats so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat. ..."
    "... The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world. ..."
    "... excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan ..."
    the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    by system failure

    The first, and probably most important reason for which NATO is not attacking Russia for the moment, is the upgraded Russian nuclear arsenal. As in the Cold War 1.0 era, the nuclear strength of both superpowers, capable to destroy the planet many times, was a key preventing factor against a direct conflict between the USA and the former Soviet Union.

    Moreover, the US indirect aggression against China lately, a stupid strategy coming from the neocon agenda, brought China closer to Russia, building an even stronger alliance between them. They are both now in a race of developing further their nuclear arsenals and this is a key deterrent which prevents NATO to confront them openly.

    The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom.

    The relations between the United States and other major countries inside the alliance appear to be in a quite bad shape, especially those with Germany and Turkey. The recent Volkswagen emission scandal confirmed that, indeed, there is an underground fierce economic war between the United States and Germany. Besides that, the relations between the two countries started to worse rapidly after the known revelations of the NSA interceptions.

    Concerning Turkey, it is known that the US promote the creation of a Kurdish state because it serves better their interests. This is totally unacceptable for Erdoğan,who is occupied by the illusion of the Turkish expansionism. Washington is not very happy seeing ISIS being used by Turkey to fight Kurds, instead of operating in full force against Assad regime.

    Other key allies like France, are not very happy with the sanctions, imposed by the US, against Russia. The economic damage is not insignificant. The most characteristic example concerning France, is the cancellation of the deal concerning the Mistral warships, by Russia.

    The third reason, is that the US need Russia and even Iran to clean up the mess in Middle East. A mess which was created by the US and their allies in Middle East when they started to arm anti-Assad forces to confront the Assad regime. Now, ISIS is out of control.

    However, the Americans had enough troubles with the attrition wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They wouldn't risk further mess by bringing 'boots on the ground' to confront ISIS. The recent deal with Iran, concerning its nuclear program, is not accidental. Besides, Pentagon announced that will stop training new militant forces in Syria, which is actually an admission of failure of its so far strategy.

    shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 1:05:32 PM | 9

    Beware bloggers:

    Cold War II to McCarthyism II, June 8, 2015

    Exclusive: With Cold War II in full swing, the New York Times is dusting off what might be called McCarthyism II, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't get in line with U.S. propaganda must be working for Moscow, reports Robert Parry.

    snip

    Perhaps it's no surprise that the U.S. government's plunge into Cold War II would bring back the one-sided propaganda themes that dominated Cold War I, but it's still unsettling to see how quickly the major U.S. news media has returned to the old ways, especially the New York Times, which has emerged as Official Washington's propaganda vehicle of choice.

    What has been most striking in the behavior of the Times and most other U.S. mainstream media outlets is their utter lack of self-awareness, for instance, accusing Russia of engaging in propaganda and alliance-building that are a pale shadow of what the U.S. government routinely does. Yet, the Times and the rest of the MSM act as if these actions are unique to Moscow.

    BIG SNIP

    USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/08/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii/

    Soros is coming to get us. :) Look for uptick in trolls. Hope Operation Summer Rains trolls have retired.

    Lysander | Oct 10, 2015 1:16:14 PM | 14

    Best defense for Russia is the ability to retaliate in kind. Yemen against KSA and PKK against Turkey. It doesn't mean they won't arm the terrorists, but it does mean it will be costly for them. And the Russians can always play the "gee it looks like your manpads fell into the wrong hands and they went and shot down an Aapache in Iraq."

    james | Oct 10, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 18

    what is the disconnect between the us admin and the cia? is this some sort of good guy, bad guy routine that they like to have going? are they supposed to make out like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing too? looks like the cia is calling the shots... so much for that friggin' democracy joke under the nobel peace prizer's command..

    actually i think skipping the vetting and training of those working for the usa administration and the cia is a huge problem.. they can do that when they want to put weapons in isis's hands to overthrow assad, but they need to stop doing it to their own country as it's doing to blow up in their face..on 2nd thought maybe they are hoping for regime change in the usa! that's one way to get an amerikkkan regime change in your own country - destroy it..

    i am sorry to hear of the horrible event in ankara.. i can't imagine sultan erdogan being happy about it either..who advises this dipstick? or, is that an example of how things will go better with isis?

    Virgile | Oct 10, 2015 1:45:51 PM | 19

    This is where Iran comes in...

    It is clear that if the USA starts a proxy war in Syria against Russia, Iran will retaliate by hitting the USA ally, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen.

    In parallel to Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels, we will see Iran (and Russia) arming the Houthis in Yemen. I expect heavy military escalation on the Saudi Yemeni border soon

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 1:51:14 PM | 21

    @17 shadylady
    Impotence is an unfamiliar feeling in DC, so they are all "pissed" right now. Generals, politicos, arms merchants, lobbyists, think tankers, all of them. They are scrambling for a response, but can't find a single one that wouldn't lead to a worsening of their position.
    We are witnessing the last gasp of American hegemony, and the process is natural and irreversible.

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:00:19 PM | 22

    nmb @2, Thanks for the link. One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. I agree and evidently some faction in the US with Obama as its point-man agrees. However this faction is so weak that it cannot even seem to speak out forthrightly, but relies on undermining the neocon strategy, which remains the same. The unipolarists are still determined upon absolute rule generally-- and destruction of Syria and its govt specifically.

    shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 2:04:53 PM | 23

    @ MMARR @ BOG @ James, I love reading Pepe Escorbar and M.K. Bhadrakumar

    NATO all dressed up, nowhere to go in Syria

    Neither Erdogan nor Russian President Vladimir Putin is spoiling for a fight. By the way, what actually happened over the weekend on the Turkish-Syrian border too is shrouded in mystery and increasingly it seems Ankara and Moscow are in some foreplay over new ground rules for the non-existent Turkish-Syrian border.

    From Erdogan's latest remarks, he seems to be tapping down tensions.

    snip
    The European Union's proposal to 'assist' Turkey in handling the refugee flow from Syria is a case in point. The EU offers to subsidize Turkey financially provided Ankara kept custody of the Syrian refugees. Ankara has an open mind – everything depends on how generous the EU funding will be. Clearly, $1.5 billion is 'peanuts'.

    Turkey does not want foreign troops to come and defend it. Its preference is that the US and Germany would change their mind and allowed the Patriot batteries to remain in Turkey. (Alas, they are not agreeable.)
    snip

    A broad Turkish-Russian understanding over Syria may even emerge out of it. Erdogan will most certainly expect Putin not to arm the Syrian Kurds.

    MORE: http://atimes.com/2015/10/nato-all-dressed-up-nowhere-to-go-in-syria/

    Always love Escobar, waiting for his next article:
    http://atimes.com/category/empire-of-chaos/

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:16:15 PM | 25

    Shady Lady @3, "Do we have a rogue CIA now?"

    Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, they're running free.

    It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar.

    He weakened the Pentagon's program to send in fighters, but I don't think there's anything he can do against the CIA I guess he still appoints the director, but making that change wd be an awfully dangerous move.

    Does anyone know if there are elements in the military who resist the military adventurism for whom McCain and the neocons are the point-men?

    gemini33 | Oct 10, 2015 2:35:41 PM | 30

    @11 Penelope

    It's a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the "rebels". The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. "Moderate rebels" morphed into "relatively moderate insurgents" and all kinds of other permutations.

    It's also interesting to note the way they refer to their numerous anonymous sources. We have become a Propaganda Wonderland.

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 2:42:38 PM | 33

    @25 Penelope

    McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other "unstable" personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the "responsible" players like Obama and Kerry. The "responsibles" can always point to the "lunatics" and extract concessions from frightened opposite side.

    People who take their bluster seriously are making a mistake, because that's exactly their goal. Yet it's simply a bluster, a theater, and nothing more.
    Therefore, nobody in the US military "resists their adventurism", because they are all part of the same team, only with different roles.

    Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 2:49:58 PM | 35

    Proxy wars were how the Cold War 1.0 was fought, and after a brief hiatus, that's how the new Cold War 2.0 will be fought, what has changed is the weaponry and the type of warfare, mainly from guerrilla wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to hybrid and asymmetrical warfare. The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world.

    On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup d'etat, he's made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkey's EU aspirations.

    Welcome to the, now official, Cold War 2.0!

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 3:11:58 PM | 39

    @27 Penelope

    Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the "a","b" and "c" of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War.

    So, Moscow will definitely refrain from any preemptive action with regard to undermining Saudis or Turks. They usually prefer to sit and watch, to talk and to calculate the odds, and only then move a figure on a chessboard. Americans move first and think later, believing they can always kill the opponent, if the game develops not to their liking.

    As for Russia not supplying Syria or Iran with S-300, I think that was done mostly in order not to alarm and antagonize the West prematurely, while Russia's military was moving swiftly on the path of wholesale reorganization and modernization. In Putin's world, it seems, everything has its own time and its own place.

    ToivoS | Oct 10, 2015 3:34:37 PM | 42

    The Russians must have had a very clear understanding that when they attacked those "al Nusra" and other "moderate" targets in Northern Syria that they that these forces were being supplied and encouraged by the CIA Russia knowingly attacked US backed forces. Perhaps Obama and Kerry are too stupid to realize what that means. What it means is that there are very powerful forces inside the US government and military that will see this as an attack on the United States of America and that we must respond to that aggression. I hope that Obama is starting to understand what he is up against. He should be trying to bring those agencies under control. Any tiny efforts to neutralize those War Party forces with compromise will only make matters worse. It is time exert executive control over these groups and execute top level purges if they resist. Somehow this seems unlikely.

    I hope Putin and Lavrov thought this through before they acted. The outcome could be very dangerous indeed. I was terribly worried last week when the Russian attack began that it would produce a strong reaction inside the US government among all of those war monger plants inside State, the military and intelligence agencies that have been slowly gaining power for the last decade. All of that cheering we have been hearing over the last week here at MOA has been serious -- representatives of the US hegemon do not like to be ridiculed.

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 3:36:53 PM | 43

    BOG @ 13, I don't think it's a divide between the executive & military. I think the majority of each is committed to an aggressive foreign policy. Obama I think is resisting it and only giving rhetorical agreement. I'm not sure who else is in the resistors' faction.

    Thanks for posting about the withdrawal of the USS Theodore Roosevelt "just one day after Russian missile strikes from the Caspian. Didn't make sense to me, cuz Russians aren't threatening ships.

    In fact, departure was well telegraphed in advance: In April, June & July. Announcement was that for first time since 2007 there wd be a two month gap in the Fall w/o an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. Replacement in December. Reason: Only 10 active now, stead of 11 & ideal maintenace schedule is 7 months deployment; as it is we're deploying for 8 months. Oct 5 announced imminent departure, day before Rusian missiles.

    This was potentially important; thanks for posting it. The links are boring. Don't bother; I only posted them for completeness.
    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-u.s.-aircraft-carrier-gap-in-the-gulfTh Oct 5, announcing imminent departure
    http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/carrier-gap-in-gulf-is-a-symptom-not-a-crisis/
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/navy-admiral-confirms-us-pulling-aircraft-carrier-from-persian-gulf-this-fall/

    GoraDiva | Oct 10, 2015 3:51:04 PM | 46

    A good update on the Syrian ops - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/john-helmer-us-strategy-in-the-middle-east-is-dying-along-with-its-authors-carter-and-brzezinski-putin-al-assad-get-to-dance-on-their-graves-david-ben-gurion-too.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

    alaric | Oct 10, 2015 4:04:07 PM | 50

    The Russians surely anticipated such a move from the US so i assume Putin has a counter move for the US. China's participation would certainly supply that but there are lots of things Putin can do, many are mentioned above.

    The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe.

    I doubt US allies will be able to endure this US push to implement Brzezinki's nefarious plot and Israel's similar plan for the ME. I expect some major defections from the US camp.

    Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but we're brainwashed idiots.

    zedz | Oct 10, 2015 4:06:51 PM | 51

    IMO the lack of western reaction is due to two things - 1) Russians have some toys that the west can't neutralize and 2) Europe wants to survive and wants no war anyway

    I think the arab statements are pure posturing, they'll basically trade Syria for Yemen in the end.

    Erdogan played both east and west and betrayed both. He has no future, this way or the other. The current chaos there could come from both sides just as well.

    Vintage Red | Oct 10, 2015 4:12:00 PM | 53

    gemini33 @30:

    "We have become a Propaganda Wonderland."

    The US has become Humpty-Dumpty, claiming "words mean what I want them to mean." We all know what happened to Humpty-Dumpty...

    tom | Oct 10, 2015 5:30:31 PM | 59

    Please don't hate me because I was right, once again.

    Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth.

    Like I said weeks ago when b and others here gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt, which was never deserved. How could Kerry be a proven unreliable liar in regards to Ukraine, but he's capable of telling the truth in Syria ?! it makes no sense. Desperate, wishful thinking.

    The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russia's surprise intervention in Syria and it's a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months.

    And when Russia inevitably becomes Iraqs foreign helpful power, replacing the US there, then expect far more US support for jihadi terrorists. If the US is left out of the loop in Iraq, they will counter that with more jihadis and more weapons. It's why they are the evil empire and the Great Satan.

    Oh, and that time frame of the Russian involvement in Syria will be only four months, like I said was bullshit yesterday, guess what, it's time to hate tom again, because I was spot on there too.

    Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program that's so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat.

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 5:50:11 PM | 62

    @57 Penelope

    In geopolitics the words of intent almost always hide the real intent. They are meaningless.

    All of this verbal saber-rattling is nothing more than psy-ops, the lowest cost form of warfare. People are simply trying no nudge the Russians to engage in talks, as well as enhance their own position at the negotiating table. US government also has to calm down the viewers of FOX News. Moscow understands that.

    My prediction - neither the West nor the Gulf Arabs (who operate some of the world's biggest and fines airlines) will supply high-tech anti-aircraft weapons to head choppers. Russians produce the best such toys in the world, and the blowback for this "act of war" could be vicious.

    harry law | Oct 10, 2015 6:06:25 PM | 66

    "On Friday, Russian air power "destroyed two command centres of the militants, an ammunition depot in the Hama Province, 29 field camps, 23 fortified stations and positions with ammunition and equipment."

    Radio intercepts revealed ISIS now faces a shortage of fuel, weapons, ammunition and increasingly the will to fight in the face of an onslaught against which they're defenseless.
    Thousands "are demoralized and are actively leaving the battle zone, moving in eastern and northeastern directions," Konashenkov explained.

    Areas targeted in the last 24 hours included Raqqa (the main ISIS stronghold), Hama, Idlib, the Damascus countryside and Aleppo." http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.uk/ Not bad for a start, won't do McCains health any good.

    Satellite images located a hidden Idlib province command center. "After analysis of pictures from space and after air reconnaissance by drones," Russian air strikes destroyed it.

    Wayoutwest | Oct 10, 2015 7:33:26 PM | 73

    HL@66

    The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing. Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall.

    The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

    The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

    ben | Oct 10, 2015 7:56:14 PM | 77

    LoneWolf @35 said: " The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world."

    Yep, and as long as the dollar reins, they'll create all they need to meet their goals.

    nmb @ 38 said: "I'm afraid things can get worse with the 2016 US elections. Any GOP will certainly promote the neocon agenda, but also Hillary will adopt such policies. I doubt that the US deep state will let any chance for Sanders."

    Agreed. It's the money people, til' that changes, nothing changes. Go BRICS, go!

    Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 11:21:16 PM | 83

    @Wayoutwest@73

    The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing.

    I don't think the takfiris you so much defend would have the same opinion. They are being blown to bits, and that according to your buddy-buddy at the Syrian "Observatory for Human Rights" (sic!).

    Islamic State loses 132 members, 70 villages and farmlands in the northeast of Syria

    Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall. The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

    Wrong again. IS performs and behaves like a conventional army, with entire regions, cities and territory under their control, some of them for years now, with a functioning economy, bureaucracy, the entire infrastructure of a state. They are not a rag-tag guerrilla group, they have ties to the infrastructure they have stolen, gas and oil fields to defend, training grounds, C&C centers, etc. IS might use non-conventional, guerrilla tactics in their fighting, as many armies do, that doesn't turn them into a non-conventional force. A guerrilla moves to fight another day, does not engage in attrition tactics.

    The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

    You pretend to be so well informed. How would you know those details? Your takfiri rats are running all over because their time for reckoning is up, now they have to pay for their crimes, and are being sent to hell in bits and pieces so their master can use them for fuel.

    crone | Oct 10, 2015 11:47:30 PM | 86

    excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan

    comment section informative also

    [Oct 10, 2015] US oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year

    U.S. shale oil needs $80 to grow
    "... U.S. oil production growth will stop this month and begin to decline early next year due to low oil prices, the former head of oil firm EOG Resources, Mark Papa, said on Tuesday. ..."
    "... He said the main reason for the decline would be the lack of bank financing for new shale developments. ..."
    "... If U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, Papa said U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd – or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years. ..."
    "... In its Short-Term Energy Outlook the EIA revised higher estimates of US oil production: by 62 kb/d on average for the second half of 2015, by 49 kb/d for 1H16 and by 22 kb/d for 2H16. I think this largely reflects the revision of its historical estimate for July. ..."
    "... Of course, at an overall decline rate of 10%/year from existing production, operators need to put on line close to 1.0 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells. At a probably more realistic decline rate of about 15%/year from existing production, they would need to put on line about 1.5 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells (at current production levels). ..."
    "... We see (U.S. oil production declines) continuing into next summer. ..."
    "... About two weeks ago, as reported in the Daily Oklahoman, Harold Hamm (Continental Resources) said that by May of 2016, US production decline would be so significant and obvious that the crises would be over ..."
    "... I wonder if Dennis might have been technically wrong, but actually fundamentally correct, about an oil price bottom in January, when Brent averaged $48. Brent averaged $47 in August, and probably about the same in September, and its currently trading at about $53 this morning. It seems to me that the bottom line is that monthly lows so far in his cycle have been in the high 40s. ..."
    "... Incidentally, I had forgotten how rapid the run-up was in oil prices from 2007 to 2008. From June, 2007 to June, 2008, monthly WTI prices exactly doubled (hitting $134 in June, 2008), and Brent almost doubled (hitting $132 in June, 2008). Brent then fell to a monthly low of $40 in that price decline, in December, 2008. ..."
    "... Do you think your numbers show that improvements in drilling efficiency have finally reached a limit? ..."
    "... Enno. Saw you comment on the Seeking Alpha article re: CLR. Am I correct that a massive write down is coming for CLR at year end, and thus a massive loss in earnings? ..."
    "... I think John Keller and Blaine brought up that banks are not on the hook for most of the debt, but unsecured bonds make up the bulk of it. It is odd, however, to see banks eager to loan funds to LTO companies who could possibly default on unsecured debt and who are insolvent, on paper, at least. ..."
    "... Why do unsecured bond holders just take a bath and take no action? It would seem to me that upon default, the unsecured bond holders could obtain a judgment against the defaulting company and lien the assets. Seems this might be some leverage to get some money out of the defaulting company/first lien banks, who probably do not want to go through the foreclosure process? ..."
    "... As mentioned before, my guess is that improvements in early production levels are temporary and technological – adding more sand to the frack, fiddling the engineering/choke – to improve IP, and thus asset bases and the potential size of loans, at the expense of ultimate recovery. Companies that need to do this far outnumber the genuine oil companies that merely try to extract oil for a lower price than they sell it for, and comprise at least two of the three top producers. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    U.S. shale oil needs $80 to grow

    U.S. oil production growth will stop this month and begin to decline early next year due to low oil prices, the former head of oil firm EOG Resources, Mark Papa, said on Tuesday.

    Papa, now a partner at U.S. energy investment firm Riverstone Holdings LLC, told an industry conference in London that the U.S. shale oil industry needed oil prices of at least $80 a barrel to resume production growth.

    "We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth," said Papa, who was a key figure helping to spur the U.S. shale oil boom when he was at EOG Resources.

    U.S. oil production has been growing by around 1 million barrels per day (bpd) year-on-year since mid 2012, thanks to the introduction of new drilling techniques that have released oil and gas from shale formations. But output in North America has started to slow in recent months as prices have fallen sharply.

    Papa said U.S. oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year. He said the main reason for the decline would be the lack of bank financing for new shale developments.

    If U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, Papa said U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd – or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 9:16 am

    In its Short-Term Energy Outlook the EIA revised higher estimates of US oil production: by 62 kb/d on average for the second half of 2015, by 49 kb/d for 1H16 and by 22 kb/d for 2H16. I think this largely reflects the revision of its historical estimate for July.

    From the report:

    "Based on the latest survey-based reporting of monthly crude oil production estimates, U.S. production averaged 9.4 million b/d in the first half of 2015. This level is 0.2 million b/d higher than the average production during the fourth quarter of 2014, despite a more than 60% decline in the total U.S. oil-directed rig count since October 2014. However, crude oil production started to decrease in the second quarter of 2015, beginning with Lower 48 onshore production in April. Although the Lower 48 onshore decline was offset by production gains in the Gulf of Mexico that kept total production growth positive in April, total U.S. production began declining in May.

    EIA expects U.S. crude oil production declines generally to continue through August 2016, when total production is forecast to average 8.7 million b/d. Forecast production begins rising in late 2016, returning to an average of 9.0 million b/d in the fourth quarter. A total of 12 projects are scheduled to come online in the Gulf of Mexico in 2015 and 2016, pushing up production from an average of 1.4 million b/d in the fourth quarter of 2014 to more than 1.6 million b/d in the fourth quarter of 2016.

    Expected crude oil production declines from May 2015 through mid-2016 are largely attributable to unattractive economic returns in some areas of both emerging and mature onshore oil production regions, as well as seasonal factors such as anticipated hurricane-related production disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico. Reductions in 2015 cash flows and capital expenditures have prompted companies to defer or redirect investment away from marginal exploration and research drilling to focus on core areas of major tight oil plays. Reduced investment has resulted in the lowest count of oil-directed rigs in about five years and in well completions that are significantly behind 2014 levels.

    Oil prices, particularly in the second quarter of 2015, remained high enough to support continued development drilling in the core areas within the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, and Permian formations, with July and August showing the first consecutive month-to-month increases in the oil-directed rig count since September and October 2014. However, WTI prices below $60/b through the forecast period are anticipated to limit onshore drilling activity and well completion totals, despite continued increases in rig and well productivity and falling drilling and completion costs. The forecast remains sensitive to actual wellhead prices and rapidly changing drilling economics that vary across regions and operators.

    While projected oil production in the Gulf of Mexico rises during the forecast period, oil production in Alaska falls. Production in these areas is less sensitive to short-term price movements than onshore production in the Lower 48 states and reflects anticipated growth from new projects in the Gulf of Mexico and declines from legacy fields in Alaska."

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/06/2015 at 9:35 am
    Of course, at an overall decline rate of 10%/year from existing production, operators need to put on line close to 1.0 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells. At a probably more realistic decline rate of about 15%/year from existing production, they would need to put on line about 1.5 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells (at current production levels).
    Greenbub, 10/06/2015 at 11:59 am

    If we returned to $80/barrel (and that could happen pretty easily if the dollar fell or other causes), that would mean we would have over 11 million bpd in four years. When would peak oil happen in that case?

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/06/2015 at 12:58 pm

    At the 1965 to 1970 rate of increase in US C+C production, the US would have been producing about 73 million bpd in 2015:

    http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 1:14 pm

    U.S. oil output on brink of 'dramatic' decline, executive says

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-oil-outlook-usa-idUSKCN0S021Y20151006

    Delegates at the Oil and Money conference in London, an annual gathering of senior industry officials, said world oil prices were now too low to support U.S. shale oil output, the biggest addition to world production over the last decade.

    "We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth," the former head of oil firm EOG Resources Mark Papa, told the conference.

    The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell Plc agreed, saying U.S. oil producers would struggle to refinance while prices remained so low, leading to lower output in future.

    "Producers are now looking for new cash to survive and they will probably struggle to get it," Ben van Beurden said.

    Longer term, there was a risk that low levels of global production could bring a spike in oil prices, he said.

    If prices remained low for a long time and oil production outside OPEC and the United States declined due to capital expenditure cuts, there was not likely to be any significant spare capacity left in the system, he said.

    "This could cause prices to spike upwards, starting a new cycle of strong production growth in U.S. shale oil and subsequent volatility," van Beurden said.
    Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told reporters on the sidelines of the conference the U.S. oil industry had reacted to lower prices by improving its productivity.

    But this process could not continue forever.

    "Now we are seeing the limits at least in the near term and it is beginning to impact production," Sieminski said. "We see (U.S. oil production declines) continuing into next summer."

    Clueless, 10/06/2015 at 4:06 pm
    About two weeks ago, as reported in the Daily Oklahoman, Harold Hamm (Continental Resources) said that by May of 2016, US production decline would be so significant and obvious that the crises would be over [paraphrasing].
    Steve, 10/06/2015 at 9:33 am
    Utica showing signs of age? From an anti-fracing org, but more importantly, is the data valid?

    The Curious Case of the Shrinking Utica Shale Play
    September 29, 2015

    http://www.fractracker.org/2015/09/shrinking-utica-shale-play/

    Ted Auch, 10/07/2015 at 12:13 pm
    First I would just like to clarify that while FracTracker might seem like an "anti-fracing org" we believe that the pro/con labels are typical of debates in US (i.e., you are either with us unconditionally or against us!).

    There is plenty of room in the middle and at the margins for sound research and mapping with respect to hydraulic fracturing and the broader hydrocarbon industrial complex with respect to land-use/land-cover (LULC), waste generation and transport, water use and watershed resilience, Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI), and potential threats to ecosystem services.

    That said we are very interested in modeling the spread between Utica production expectations and reality.

    1. Herein we compiled a very robust data set of 1,100 Utica wells to construct this spacially explicit model using a technique called Empirical Bayesian Kriging.
    2. The data we have compiled speaks to Ohio's Utica wells experiencing 84% declines in oil and gas production on a per day basis from years 1 to 2. From that point forward oil and gas declines by 25% and 10%, respectively. Furthermore, the newer wells are experiencing more pronounced exponential declines in productivity.
    3. We aren't "set[ting] up a straw man premise" about production but simply showing that the Ohio DNR is woefully lagging behind in updating their constituents as to the realities of the Utica from an oil, gas, and brine perspective.
    coffeeguyzz , 10/07/2015 at 9:58 pm
    Mr. Auch

    Straight up, if you honestly are unaware of the difference between flow back water and produced water, you may want to get an education right quick.
    I checked the brine output for the three wells mentioned in the article, and found the 1,800 barrel was for TWO days after the well came online. The NEXT 91 days, this Chesapeake Trueshall well produced 170 bbl/d.

    Exact same premise for the EM and Gulfport wells. (Gulfport's Bolton well is currently producing 15 barrels of water a day).

    Anyone who remotely thinks the dry gas Utica is shrinking or diminishing in any way is simply uninformed.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/07/2015 at 5:30 am
    I wonder if Dennis might have been technically wrong, but actually fundamentally correct, about an oil price bottom in January, when Brent averaged $48. Brent averaged $47 in August, and probably about the same in September, and it's currently trading at about $53 this morning. It seems to me that the bottom line is that monthly lows so far in his cycle have been in the high 40's.

    Incidentally, I had forgotten how rapid the run-up was in oil prices from 2007 to 2008. From June, 2007 to June, 2008, monthly WTI prices exactly doubled (hitting $134 in June, 2008), and Brent almost doubled (hitting $132 in June, 2008). Brent then fell to a monthly low of $40 in that price decline, in December, 2008.

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RWTC&f=M

    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 1:45 pm
    Hi Jeffrey,

    I think I was just plain wrong on my guess at an oil price bottom in January.

    I also was wrong about how fast LTO output would decline (I thought at under $50/b) the decline in LTO output would be much steeper and that the well completion and drilling rates would decrease much faster than has been the case.

    If the LTO output had fallen as fast as I thought back in January, $48/b for Brent might have been the bottom. I have no clue what will happen going forward. Do you still expect oil prices might reach $65/b or higher by Jan 2016 (even with no OPEC cut)? Everything has moved much slower than I anticipated, certainly Steve Kopits forecast from Feb 2015 wasn't correct and I have not heard any new forecasts from him, what's your take, July 2016 oil prices reach $70/b?

    robert wilson, 10/07/2015 at 3:51 am
    Biography M. King Hubbert Available April 2016 http://www.oracleofoil.com
    Enno Peters, 10/07/2015 at 5:47 am
    Yesterday the NDIC released the latest update on the status of all wells in ND (no production numbers).

    What I found most interesting is that a very low number of 66 wells were spudded in ND in September. The last time so few wells were spudded in ND was early 2010. This number may still be revised (I expect up to 10% higher), but it is much lower than the 121 wells spudded in August, and the 109 wells spudded in July. It also indicates that the trend of the rising number of spuds/rig/month has reversed, as shown in the chart below (latest data is for September).

    A similar temporary rise in this 'drilling capacity factor" (wells spud/rig/month) was also visible during the 2009 downturn, as can be seen. I have no explanation for it.

    So yes, drilling efficiency has increased over the last 4 years, from an average of 0.6 wells spud/rig/month, to recently almost 1.2 wells spud/rig/month, but it is still a far cry from 2, which Lynn Helms mentioned in a recent update.

    I expect that this big drop in new wells spudded will show up as lower output, in a delayed response, somewhere mid/end next year, as the current fraclog is depleted slowly each month (meaning more wells are being brought online than drilled), as has been the case since December 2014.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 6:33 am
    Thank you Enno, very interesting.

    The average rig count in North Dakota in September was 67. If 66 wells were spudded, there is only 1 well spud/rig/month.

    Do you think your numbers show that improvements in drilling efficiency have finally reached a limit? What is your estimate of the current fracklog in ND and what was its peak level this year?

    Thanks again

    Enno Peters, 10/07/2015 at 7:46 am
    Alex,

    "Do you think your numbers show that improvements in drilling efficiency have finally reached a limit?"

    That appears to be the case based on the latest data. However, the last few months showed large fluctuations, so a few more months would be useful to come to a more firm conclusion.

    "What is your estimate of the current fracklog in ND and what was its peak level this year?"

    If I assume that 125 wells were brought online in August, and 115 in September (vs 136 in July), the below picture emerges.

    I provide 2 measures for the fraclog:
    1) Uncompleted well inventory: This is the well inventory counted from the start of spudding a well, and before first production. This is an accurate measure, as the data is available. It has been trending down since last November (1260), and could drop to about 940 by the end of September, based on the above assumption. It will never come close to 0, as there are always a few months between spudding a well and first production.

    2) Estimated fraclog: This is the well inventory, counted from 5 months after spudding, and before first production. Historically, there used to be about 5 months (although this number has varied) in between these 2 activities, so I think this is a more reasonable estimate of the actual number of wells where completion is clearly being delayed. This number has been rising until June, as more wells spudded late last year past the 5 months waiting time, and I expect it to keep dropping since then. According to this measure the June peak was at 500 wells, and by the end of September dropped somewhat to 460. Now that the number of spudded wells has dropped significantly in September, I expect that this measure of the fraclog will start to drop more rapidly early next year, if a steady number of wells are completed.

    I am quite curious of the quality of the wells in this fraclog. So far, despite high-grading, no improvement in well productivity has been seen in 2015, compared with 2014. This is somewhat surprising, but on the other hand it would make sense if operators typically have focused on their best areas in the past already. In the current price environment, I belief it is rational to expect that operators keep employing the same strategy, of bringing their best wells online first (except EOG, which is not bringing any wells online, some of which are known to be very good). If that is the case, the average well in the fraclog may be of lesser quality than the wells being brought online so far. For example, it could contain a greater ratio of Three Forks wells. This is just a theory, which may be revealed in the data in the coming year.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 8:35 am
    Thank you Enno.

    I think the best definition of the fracklog is "drilled but uncompleted wells" (DUC), but this information in unavailable. I agree that your "Estimated fraclog" better reflects the real trend than the "well inventory counted from the start of spudding a well, and before first production".

    One question: how do you estimate the quality of the wells in this fraclog if these wells are not yet producing?

    Enno Peters, 10/07/2015 at 8:46 am
    "One question: how do you estimate the quality of the wells in this fraclog if these wells are not yet producing?"

    I have no information on the quality of the wells in the fraclog, nor any estimate. What I meant was that I suspect that the quality of those wells may be less than the wells being brought online during the recent period. This could be confirmed once the fraclog wells are online, and we can measure their performance.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 8:49 am
    O.K., thanks Enno
    shallow sand, 10/07/2015 at 9:05 am
    Enno. Saw you comment on the Seeking Alpha article re: CLR. Am I correct that a massive write down is coming for CLR at year end, and thus a massive loss in earnings?

    Also, surprising to me how much shale stocks have rebounded with WTI just improving by about $4-$5 per bbl.

    Enno. 10/07/2015 at 9:23 am
    Shallow,

    Correct. But it will be presented as "a one-off non-cash write-off, typically ignored by analysts", despite being massive and having been paid up front. :-)

    Indeed the rebound is somewhat surprising. Perhaps a short squeeze?

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 10:25 am
    Impairment charges at record levels for North American E&P peer group (IHS Herold)

    1 September 2015
    http://blog.ihs.com/impairment-charges-at-record-levels-for-north-american-ep-peer-group-ihs-herold

    The elevated level of asset impairments in the first half of 2015 have exceeded the previous annual high of the past decade in 2008. Given continued low commodity prices, we predict continuing severe impairments for companies in our North American E&P peer group during the remainder of 2015, with companies with high DD&A expense and assets outside core areas of the best plays most at risk. With proved reserves used as collateral for debt financing, E&Ps taking major write-downs in 2015 could have difficulty obtaining financing from their banks if prices remain depressed.

    • Our preliminary second-quarter 2015 data shows the North American E&P peer group (Large, Midsized, and Small) took a total of $31 billion in impairment charges during the quarter, surpassing the first-quarter total of $29 billion. This propels the first-half 2015 total to $60 billion, far exceeding the previous high of $49 billion in 2008, as well as the 10-year annual average of $18 billion.

    shallow sand, 10/07/2015 at 11:58 am
    It appears that some companies began taking charges in Q1, and are taking a charge each quarter, while others are waiting until the end of 2015.

    What is the reason for this difference? Accounting methods?

    It appears that there are just two months left for SEC reserve value calculations for year end, 2015. As I and others brought up several months ago, many companies will have PDP PV10 smaller in value than the amount of their long term debt.

    I think John Keller and Blaine brought up that banks are not on the hook for most of the debt, but unsecured bonds make up the bulk of it. It is odd, however, to see banks eager to loan funds to LTO companies who could possibly default on unsecured debt and who are insolvent, on paper, at least.

    Again, I do look for US conventional production to continue to absorb the hit, as many conventional producers tend to be small business owners, who actually have to be concerned about paying debt back, no matter to who it is owed.

    Why do unsecured bond holders just take a bath and take no action? It would seem to me that upon default, the unsecured bond holders could obtain a judgment against the defaulting company and lien the assets. Seems this might be some leverage to get some money out of the defaulting company/first lien banks, who probably do not want to go through the foreclosure process?

    Or once the interest payment is missed, do the defaulting companies immediately file BK?

    Blaine, 10/07/2015 at 10:55 pm
    I would think it would usually be in the interest of the junior creditors to to force bankruptcy as soon as possible, while it still looks as if there might be value left over after addressing more senior liabilities. Their problem is that unless they have a debt covenant, they can't force a bankruptcy until the company actually defaults on a payment, and for the most part, the bonds don't have one.

    Remember how all the E&Ps made such a big deal about how they didn't have any debt due soon? Payments due are generally quite small. There's really no standard approach, but when they started realizing they were in trouble, a lot of the companies issued secured second lien bonds which cut ahead of the older bonds, and they've been using the cash from these (plus credit lines) to make all contracted payments.

    gwalke, 10/08/2015 at 6:35 am
    One way to achieve this might be to stratify them by county, using McKenzie, Mountrail, Dunn and Williams as 'core' counties, as well as by targeted formation (as you have said).

    Our analysis was that high-grading was relatively difficult, at least geologically, as the industry was already completing 84% of its wells in core counties. The percentage has increased this year, but there was little headroom for them to improve. Obviously this excludes sub-county level high-grading, but it is not unreasonable to have expected companies to generally bring their best wells on first even in the absence of price pressure. In the daily reports companies have still been completing wells in peripheral counties like Bottineau and Bowman.

    As mentioned before, my guess is that improvements in early production levels are temporary and technological – adding more sand to the frack, fiddling the engineering/choke – to improve IP, and thus asset bases and the potential size of loans, at the expense of ultimate recovery. Companies that need to do this far outnumber the 'genuine' oil companies that merely try to extract oil for a lower price than they sell it for, and comprise at least two of the three top producers.

    Enno Peters, 10/08/2015 at 7:01 am
    thanks for your comments gwalke, I agree with you.
    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 2:36 pm
    Hi Enno,

    So with a frac log of 450 wells and assuming 70 wells drilled per month and 140 wells completed, we run out of the frac log in less than 7 months, if the frac log is 900, this gets extended to 13 months under the same assumptions. So possibly output could be maintained until April or September if well quality doesn't deteriorate. Great stuff, thanks!

    Blaine, 10/07/2015 at 10:39 pm
    What is your source for the "Wells Spud" data, and why do we believe that this the date is accurate? Clearly the count from ND should be correct in the sense that it matches the actual wells, and the operators will eventually have to file paperwork with the correct spudding date.

    But is there a reason they need to promptly report the spudding of a well? If your source is the ND well status reports, is there a reason why they shouldn't be a month or two stale?

    Enno Peters, 10/08/2015 at 4:08 am
    I get this data from:

    https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/
    – Go to the GIS Map Server
    – Click on "download shape files" (top right)
    – download the wells.zip at the bottom
    – open the wells.dbf in Excel

    I have worked with this data over a year, and I found that every update typically contains minor revisions, mostly over the last few weeks. The revisions are typically changing the spud date with 1 day forwards/backwards, and a few new spud dates in the previous period. This was typically a minor occurrence, therefore I said above it could still be revised upwards with about 10% in my experience.

    Blaine, 10/08/2015 at 9:18 pm
    Thanks. Since that's actual spud date data and not a proxy, I agree that the older data should be quite accurate, and that the accuracy of the more recent data can be determined from the revision history, and is apparently accurate as well.

    Increasing pad size should be causing an increase, but that should be longer term, and not this kind of spike.

    The only thing that I can think of that would cause the spike is crewing. Maybe when they're about to lay people off, they have more people standing around waiting to fix anything that goes wrong? Even if they had the same number of people per rig, they wouldn't be busy with setting up the next pad. The effect is larger than I would have thought, but after all wells are drilled by people, not rigs. Maybe someone with some experience could comment if this seems reasonable?

    Enno Peters, 10/09/2015 at 1:29 am
    "The effect is larger than I would have thought, but after all wells are drilled by people, not rigs. "

    That's a good point.

    gwalke, 10/08/2015 at 6:39 am
    Current daily report data is also very interesting. We are only five days in (of 22) to forecasting September production, but on current data new wells would only add around 25kbpd. That's compared to around 51kbpd added by July's new wells.
    Enno Peters, 10/08/2015 at 7:03 am
    One thing I noticed is that many (300+) inactive wells have been recently put back on active again. I am not sure how big an impact that will give.

    [Oct 10, 2015] The danger of the succession war in Saudi Arabia

    "... That could mean that only one branch of this family of some seven thousand princes will have power, a prescription for potential conflict as thirty-four of the thirty-five surviving lines of the founders family could find themselves disenfranchised. ..."
    "... Todays Saudi Arabia is reminiscent of the dying decade of the Soviet Union, when one aged and infirm Politburo chief briefly succeeded another-from Brezhnev to Andropov to Chernenko ..."
    "... In moves announced on Saudi state television, Salman replaced Crown Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz and named the powerful interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, as next in line. He also named his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as deputy crown prince and relieved the long-serving foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, who has shaped the kingdoms foreign policy for nearly four decades. ..."
    "... But that was before their father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, 79, ascended to the throne. Now Prince Mohammed, the eldest son of the kings third and most recent wife, is the rising star. He has swiftly accumulated more power than any prince has ever held, upending a longstanding system of distributing positions around the royal family to help preserve its unity, and he has used his growing influence to take a leading role in Saudi Arabias newly assertive stance in the region, including its military intervention in Yemen. . . . ..."
    "... some Western diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the prince and the king, say they are worried about the growing influence of the prince, with one even calling him rash and impulsive. And in interviews, at least two other princes in the main line of the royal family made it clear that some older members of the clan have doubts as well. Both questioned the costs and benefits of the Yemen campaign that Prince Mohammed has spearheaded. . . . ..."
    "... The prince, one of the grandsons of the states founder, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, has told the Guardian that there is disquiet among the royal family – and among the wider public – at the leadership of King Salman, who acceded the throne in January. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    coffeeguyzz, 10/07/2015 at 6:12 am

    WTI just hit $49.50 this AM

    Reports are coming out of KSA that King Salman is in a hospital in critical condition.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/07/2015 at 7:28 am

    In regard to Saudi Arabia, I usually reference "On Saudi Arabia," which was published in 2013. Following is a link to, and excerpt from, Chapter One:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307473287?ie=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

    What scares many royals and most ordinary Saudis is that the succession, which historically has passed from brother to brother, soon will have to jump to a new generation of princes. That could mean that only one branch of this family of some seven thousand princes will have power, a prescription for potential conflict as thirty-four of the thirty-five surviving lines of the founder's family could find themselves disenfranchised. Saudis know from history that the second Saudi state was destroyed by fighting among princes. Older Saudis vividly recall how this third and latest Saudi state was shaken by a prolonged power struggle between the founder's two eldest sons after his death in 1953.

    Today's Saudi Arabia is reminiscent of the dying decade of the Soviet Union, when one aged and infirm Politburo chief briefly succeeded another-from Brezhnev to Andropov to Chernenko-before Gorbachev took power with reform policies that proved too little too late. "They keep dying on me," Ronald Reagan famously said of the four Soviet leaders he dealt with in less than three years. The next U.S. president almost surely will have the same experience with ailing Saudi rulers.

    An article from April, 2015:

    King Salman of Saudi Arabia Changes Line of Succession
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/world/middleeast/king-salman-of-saudi-arabia-changes-line-of-succession.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

    BEIRUT - King Salman of Saudi Arabia issued a series of surprise royal decrees early Wednesday, shaking up the line of princes slated to succeed him to the throne, replacing a number of ministers and further enhancing the power of his own line.

    In moves announced on Saudi state television, Salman replaced Crown Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz and named the powerful interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, as next in line. He also named his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as deputy crown prince and relieved the long-serving foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, who has shaped the kingdom's foreign policy for nearly four decades.

    The moves show Salman is shifting further away from the legacy of his predecessor, King Abdullah, who died in January.

    Saudi Arabia has joined a United States-led coalition that is bombing the militants of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It is also leading a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels who have seized a large portion of territory in neighboring Yemen. The new appointments are unlikely to lead to big changes in these policies.

    Of all the changes, the reordering of the line to the throne is likely to draw the most scrutiny inside the kingdom because of competition between branches of the sprawling royal family for positions leading to the throne.

    An article from June, 2015:

    Surprising Saudi Rises as a Prince Among Princes
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/world/middleeast/surprising-saudi-rises-as-a-prince-among-princes.html?_r=0

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Until about four months ago, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 29, was just another Saudi royal who dabbled in stocks and real estate. He grew up overshadowed by three older half brothers who were among the most accomplished princes in the kingdom - the first Arab astronaut; an Oxford-educated political scientist who was once a research fellow at Georgetown and also founded a major investment company; and a highly regarded deputy oil minister.

    But that was before their father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, 79, ascended to the throne. Now Prince Mohammed, the eldest son of the king's third and most recent wife, is the rising star. He has swiftly accumulated more power than any prince has ever held, upending a longstanding system of distributing positions around the royal family to help preserve its unity, and he has used his growing influence to take a leading role in Saudi Arabia's newly assertive stance in the region, including its military intervention in Yemen. . . .

    The sweeping changes have thrust the young prince into power at a time when Saudi Arabia is locked in a series of escalating conflicts aimed at defending its vision of the regional order and holding back its chief rival, Iran. The kingdom is financially sustaining the rulers of Egypt and Jordan and propping up the Sunni monarchy in neighboring Bahrain against a revolt by its Shiite majority. It is also arming rebels in Syria against the Iranian-backed president, fighting in the United States-led air campaign over Iraq and leading its own air assault on an Iranian-backed faction in Yemen. And it is ramping up its military spending even as plunging oil prices and growing domestic expenditures have reduced its financial reserves by $50 billion over the last six months, to less than $700 billion.

    "The king has put his son on an incredibly steep learning curve, clearly," said Ford M. Fraker, the president of the Middle East Policy Council and a former United States ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "The king is obviously convinced he is up to the challenge." But some Western diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the prince and the king, say they are worried about the growing influence of the prince, with one even calling him "rash" and "impulsive." And in interviews, at least two other princes in the main line of the royal family made it clear that some older members of the clan have doubts as well. Both questioned the costs and benefits of the Yemen campaign that Prince Mohammed has spearheaded. . . .

    Prince Mohammed's three older half brothers - sons of their father's first wife, Sultana Bint Turki Al Sudairi, who died in 2011 - all have distinguished résumés and were once considered contenders for top government roles. . . .

    Prince Mohammed, however, is the firstborn son of the King Salman's third and most recent wife, Fahda bint Falah bin Sultan, who worked hard to promote him as his father's successor, according to Western diplomats who know the family, several family members and associates who have worked for the family.

    "He is her eldest," said one longtime associate who works closely with the clan. "For her, he is her glory at the end of the day."

    Someone recently posted a story about a memo circulating among the Saudi Royal family that was highly critical of King Salman and his designated successors.

    Saudi royal calls for regime change in Riyadh (September 28, 2015)
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/28/saudi-royal-calls-regime-change-letters-leadership-king-salman

    A senior Saudi prince has launched an unprecedented call for change in the country's leadership, as it faces its biggest challenge in years in the form of war, plummeting oil prices and criticism of its management of Mecca, scene of last week's hajj tragedy.

    The prince, one of the grandsons of the state's founder, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, has told the Guardian that there is disquiet among the royal family – and among the wider public – at the leadership of King Salman, who acceded the throne in January.

    The prince, who is not named for security reasons, wrote two letters earlier this month calling for the king to be removed.

    "The king is not in a stable condition and in reality the son of the king [Mohammed bin Salman] is ruling the kingdom," the prince said. "So four or possibly five of my uncles will meet soon to discuss the letters. They are making a plan with a lot of nephews and that will open the door. A lot of the second generation is very anxious."

    "The public are also pushing this very hard, all kinds of people, tribal leaders," the prince added. "They say you have to do this or the country will go to disaster."

    Saudi King Hospitalized for Dementia (October 6, 2015)

    http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/10/06/713917/story.html

    Informed sources told Arabic-language al-Ahd news agency that King Salman is now in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) section of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in the Saudi capital.

    The sources also said that given the Saudi king's unstable and aggravating health conditions, officials have ceased plans to transfer him to US hospitals.

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/07/2015 at 2:29 pm

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/07/russia-saudi-oil-cooperation-is-hogwash-kilduff.html

    I agree with this guy, the chances imo of the Russians and the Saudis getting together to cut back on oil production are exceedingly slim to approaching zero.

    My opinion is based not on their finances but on their rivalry. The Saudis have a LOT of reasons to fear and hate the Russians and to try to bankrupt them.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Oilfield cannibals: to save cash, US drillers strip idle rigs

    "... (Cannibalization) will slow the industrys ability to ramp the rig count back up so it will delay the production response from oil prices, ..."
    "... While there are no official statistics available, cannibalization has been so pervasive in this slump that industry experts say it is possible a majority of the 1,100 rigs that are not working have been scoured for parts. ..."
    "... Investors, still seeing an oversupply of rigs, and are encouraging companies to scrap more rigs to halt the slide in daily rental rates, now around $20,000, depending on the rigs speed and power. ..."
    "... However, the scrapping of more rigs would likely increase the number of those ripe for cannibalizing, analysts said. ..."
    "... Our U.S. domestic customers, the oil producers, are shutting off all capital spending on just about anything, said Hewell, whose Houston company is backed by Houston-based private equity firm Global Energy Capital LP. ..."
    "... The current US active rig count is 809. The 2014 peak level was 1931. In 2011 rig count exceeded 2000. Total number of oil and gas rigs, including rigs idled for long-term, was close to 3000. The common view among experts is that when drilling activity rebounds active rig count will is unlikely to exceed 1200-1400 units. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 8:50 am

    Interesting trends in the US onshore drilling sector:

    Oilfield cannibals: to save cash, U.S. drillers strip idle rigs

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-oil-services-parts-idUSKCN0S109S20151007

    In a bid to save cash, rig owners are cannibalizing parts such as motors and drill pipe from idled rigs to fix 800 active ones in the U.S. when stuff breaks.

    In good times, they would buy new equipment … when parts fail. Now, they just pick over any of about 1,100 rigs idled by the price crash.

    Cannibalization is so widespread in this downturn that services companies and others say even after oil prices recover it will take six months or more to see a significant rebound in drilling and production – a timeframe that will allay fears of a quick uptick in drilling promptly sinking prices again.

    NOV [National Oilwell Varco] has said so many rigs are idled that firms could cannibalize drill pipe for up to a year before placing new orders.

    "(Cannibalization) will slow the industry's ability to ramp the rig count back up so it will delay the production response from oil prices," said James West, oilfield services analyst with Evercore ISI.

    While there are no official statistics available, cannibalization has been so pervasive in this slump that industry experts say it is possible a majority of the 1,100 rigs that are not working have been scoured for parts.

    Land rig utilization is hovering around 60 percent for larger U.S. drilling contractors, according to data from Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Helmerich & Payne Inc, which has a higher utilization rate because it has a fleet of newer rigs.

    There are lots of spares available because the U.S. rig fleet was near a 15-year high when prices started to tumble.

    Investors, still seeing an oversupply of rigs, and are encouraging companies to scrap more rigs to halt the slide in daily rental rates, now around $20,000, depending on the rig's speed and power.

    "Companies have to continue to scrap idle rigs and do all that they can to balance supply with demand," said Robert Thummel, a portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital Advisors.

    However, the scrapping of more rigs would likely increase the number of those ripe for cannibalizing, analysts said.

    To escape the downturn gripping the U.S. shale market, Premium Oilfield is expanding in the Middle East.

    "Our U.S. domestic customers, the oil producers, are shutting off all capital spending on just about anything," said Hewell, whose Houston company is backed by Houston-based private equity firm Global Energy Capital LP.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 12:51 pm

    Ves,

    The current US active rig count is 809. The 2014 peak level was 1931. In 2011 rig count exceeded 2000. Total number of oil and gas rigs, including rigs idled for long-term, was close to 3000. The common view among experts is that when drilling activity rebounds active rig count will is unlikely to exceed 1200-1400 units.
    Furthermore, there is a constant shift towards newest and most efficient rigs.
    I am sure that most rigs that drilling companies are disassembling are relatively old and will never be needed.

    Ves, 10/07/2015 at 1:44 pm

    Alex,

    I am not sure that I would agree that explanation on justification for disassembling the rigs.

    1) "Experts" predict that rig count will not likely exceed 1200-1400 rigs.

    Well then why these experts did not foresee collapse in 2013-14 and advise drilling companies to rain spending on the new rigs? The simple truth is that their opinion is worth it as much yours or mine.

    2) Second justification that they are disassembling rigs are relatively old and will never be needed is also weak. They need them now because the parts that are taking from them are for the rigs that are drilling right now. So these are not obsolete rigs. They do serve the function.

    3) And the third about constant shift towards newest and most efficient rigs. Well my question is did the drillers retired the loans that they got for the current rigs? With huge decline in the rig rates the answer is clearly not. So the question is where they will find capital to buy newer and fancier rigs? They will not get it. So that is why this is delusion on their part.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 2:39 pm

    Ves,

    U.S. oil & gas active rig count remained within a relatively narrow range between 1700 and 2000 for almost 4 years, while US C+C production increased from 5.5 mb/d to 9.5 mb/d, and natural gas and NGL production was also increasing.

    Drilling companies were actively modernizing their drilling fleet, so there were also about 1000 permanently idled old rigs.

    There is no doubt that all existing rigs will not be needed even if the drilling activity rebounds.

    (1) Shale production will increase at much slower rates, and the drilling frenzy of 2011-14 will not be repeated.

    (2) New rigs are more efficient and

    (3) The is a constant shift to pad drilling

    Thanks to (2) and (3) less rigs are needed to drill the same number of wells.

    (4) If the demand for rigs start ito rise, customers (the E&P companies) will require newer and more efficient rigs, so there is no need to store old rigs.
    Remember the 80's, when 3/4 of U.S. rigs were scrapped

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/07/2015 at 2:25 pm

    It has been common practice almost forever to strip parts off of idle equipment in slow times to keep equipment still on the job running.

    For example, a couple of EXPERIENCED guys with a boom truck can remove a twenty thousand dollar (used) diesel engine from a dozer in half a day – and put it in a dozer on the job in another day and a half.

    The bad engine that comes out can be put in the maintenance shop for a rebuild at leisure and installed in the donor dozer at leisure or kept on a pallet for a ready spare.

    This way the mechanics are kept busy, helping keep the crew together, the dozer on the job gets fixed pdq, and the twenty or thirty grand needed to purchase a rebuilt or used running engine in a hurry is conserved to help the company get thru bad times.

    Almost nothing is actually LOST except a day or two day of labor. The cost of that labor is apt to be less than the cost of a rental dozer for a couple of days.

    Now I have never been around an oil rig, but I bet a five hundred horsepower weather proof electric motor can be removed in a day and that a new one would cost at least fifteen or twenty thousand and probably more.

    Getting a bad one rewound would most likely take at least a week to a month because when times are slow for contractors, they are generally pedal to the metal for the specialists who fix stuff contractors cannot fix in their own maintenance shops.

    Any large company that uses a lot of big diesel engines most likely has in house diesel mechanics. But electric motors are so dependable hardly any company has enough to maintain their own electric motor shop – so they get sent out.

    Having said all this, older machines are indeed frequently robbed to the point they are never put back in service.

    Manufacturers expect to make more money on parts than they do on selling new equipment, over the years. If you go to a heavy truck dealer and ask for the prices of the fifteen or twenty most expensive parts of a given truck, the total will exceed the price of a complete truck by a wide margin.There would be a thousand parts still to be bought to assemble a truck.

    It doesn't cost THAT much to keep parts in a warehouse and ship them to a dealer. Parts are THE profit center- along with the service department of course.

    It is totally common place for a dealer to bill labor at five or more times what a mechanic makes.

    People who sell new parts like to make fun of used parts, but the fact of the matter is that as soon as you drive a car off the dealer lot, with ten miles or less on the odometer, EVERY single part of it is a USED part.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Another Petro-State Throws In The Towel The Last Nail In The Petrodollar Coffin

    "... 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF). ..."
    "... As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. ..."
    "... Assuming oil prices remain low, mainland tax revenue will plummet as they are very much a function of what goes on offshore, while expenditure will rise as they do in all welfare states during a down cycle. ..."
    "... In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016 ..."
    "... For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US. ..."
    "... To be blunt, the prospect in Washington DC of the loss of dollar world wide hegemony is creeping closer and closer. What does this mean to the worlds only super power and vast global empire? Well, it puts in threat the ability of Washington to print green paper and have all the rest of the earth to supply in return manufactured goods, energy, commodities and services. All in return for green paper. Washington spends twice what its taxes return each year. That leaves 1/2 of the entire federal spending to come from printed green paper. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    According to the proposed budget submitted by the current 'blue-blue' government the Norwegian deficit will reach another record high in 2016. Mainland taxes are expected to bring in 1,008 billion NOKs, while expenditures are estimated at 1,215 billion NOKs. In other words, 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF).

    While record mainland deficits covered by the petroleum sector is nothing new in Norwegian budget history, on the contrary it is closer to the norm, the 2016 budget did raise some eyebrows. The other side of the ledger, the net inflow to the SWF from activities in the North Sea will, again according to budget, be lower than the required amount to cover the deficit. This has never happened before and is testimony of the sea change occurring in the world of petrodollar recycling. Interestingly enough, the need to liquidate SWF holdings is helping to create further deflation in the Eurodollar system in a self-reinforcing loop.

    As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. A SWF as the Norwegian was created through a surplus of exports over imports meaning it can only be utilized through future imports over exports. When the Norwegians look at their wealth expressed in Norwegian kroner it all looks fine, but expressed in dollars the SWF has shrunk considerably in size. Thus, the surfeit imports expected by the Norwegian populace cannot be met. Norway rode high on a wave of liquidity which pushed up commodity currencies, leading Norwegians to consume more imported goods today, without realizing they were tapping into the principal of their future. When the tide turns the gross misconception is revealed.

    The Government claims it is all fine though. The current down-cycle will, according to them, end early 2016 so despite a 2 percentage point reduction in corporate- and personal income tax, mainland tax revenues are expected to increase 1.9 per cent. That is obviously a pipedream, just as the expected 17.9 per cent increase in interest and dividend income which will make sure the SWF continue to grow at a healthy pace despite the massive mainland deficit.

    Assuming oil prices remain low, mainland tax revenue will plummet as they are very much a function of what goes on offshore, while expenditure will rise as they do in all welfare states during a down cycle.

    If we are right, a global recession is imminent, meaning the expected increase in dividend income will never materialize.

    In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016.

    For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US.

    Robust growth in the US will prompt Yellen to hike, spiking the dollar (as Eurodollar claims scramble for actual dollars) while paradoxically a recession in the US will lead to the exact same outcome. The goldilocks scenario of 1-2 per cent growth is the best that the Norwegian government can hope for. It will minimize the gap between the lies and propaganda spewed out by the Ministry of Finance and reality.

    Latina Lover

    Death to the Fed Reserve! Time for a currency reset. Down with the Banksters, or rather, hang them high!

    Lumberjack

    Just in:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/statoil-reports-oil-spill-of-norway-coa...

    news printer
    Muslim Press Claims Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Hospitalized for Dementia

    Informed sources told Arabic-language al-Ahd news agency that King Salman is now in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) section of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in the Saudi capital.

    The sources also said that given the Saudi king's unstable and aggravating health conditions, officials have ceased plans to transfer him to US hospitals.


    According to witnesses, his exact state of dementia is a source of speculation but he is known to have held cogent conversations as recently as last October. !!!!!!!


    He can also forget what he said minutes ago, or faces he has known all his life. This is typical of the disease.

    en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/10/06/713917/story.html

    Jack Burton

    "the world of petrodollar recycling"

    The USA Dollar hegemony system was partly built upon Petro Dollar recycling. And of course Chinese trade surplus recycling. We have already seen the Chinese Treasury selling. That is a nail in the world reserve currency. Falling oil revenues dry up another major dollar recycling system.

    Many on ZH have noted the not so gradual approach of World War. To be blunt, the prospect in Washington DC of the loss of dollar world wide hegemony is creeping closer and closer. What does this mean to the world's only super power and vast global empire? Well, it puts in threat the ability of Washington to print green paper and have all the rest of the earth to supply in return manufactured goods, energy, commodities and services. All in return for green paper. Washington spends twice what it's taxes return each year. That leaves 1/2 of the entire federal spending to come from printed green paper.

    To be clear. When Washington loses the power to print, it has lost over half of it's global power in one stroke. The prospect of that can only lead to global war. The US Neoconservatives are laying the foundations for global war, World War Three. It is either go to war, or lose the global super power status built on Money Printing.

    Unless you think America remains the global super power based on it's vibrant productive economy?

    [Oct 09, 2015] Dutch media sue govt, demand it release full info on MH17 crash

    Notable quotes:
    "... "frustrated" ..."
    "... "black marker policy." ..."
    "... "It seems to me that [such actions] are unworthy of an open, democratic society," ..."
    "... "some countries and international organizations," ..."
    "... "some persons." ..."
    "... "Given the social impact of the MH17 plane crash as well as many questions raised by the relatives [of the victims of the catastrophe], it is vital that the government's actions and efforts in the aftermath of this disaster should be transparent," ..."
    "... For journalists, this openness is essential for monitoring the activities of the government, ..."
    "... "It is not just about the families of the victims but also about the actions of the Dutch government and the political situation in Europe." ..."
    "... "Finding out the causes [of the MH17 crash] and bringing the perpetrators of the attack on the plane to justice is a top priority," ..."
    "... "However, it is also important that the actions of politicians and government officials in the aftermath of the catastrophe could be accurately reconstructed," ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | RT News
    Three Dutch media companies have filed a joint lawsuit against the country's Security and Justice Ministry, demanding that it disclose more documents relating to the MH17 catastrophe investigation after the ministry's refusal to release the information.

    The Netherlands Broadcasting Foundation (NOS); the Dutch subsidiary of the European TV, radio and production company RTL Group; and the Dutch daily Volkskrant have joined forces to appeal the Netherlands Security and Justice Ministry's refusal to make public "many documents" concerning the Malaysian Airlines MH17 crash in Eastern Ukraine last year, NOS said in a press release.

    The three media companies had previously appealed to the ministry separately, asking it to disclose MH17 investigation data based on the Freedom of Information Law (WOB). The aim of the companies was to bring to light the details of the tragedy, as well as to reconstruct the actions of Dutch officials after the catastrophe.

    READ MORE: E. Ukrainian self-defense hands over MH17 debris to Dutch investigators, following RT documentary

    The three media companies asked for the reports of ministerial and other official committees that were involved in the MH17 investigation to be released. In response to the media outlets' request, the ministry reportedly released about 575 documents related to the MH17 case, including the correspondence of the members of the national crisis group that was formed immediately after the tragedy.

    ... ... ...

    Peter Klein, deputy senior editor of Dutch RTL News, said he was "frustrated" with the government's attempts to blur over the truth with the "black marker policy."

    "It seems to me that [such actions] are unworthy of an open, democratic society," he said in the RTL press release.

    The Netherlands National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, Dick Schoof, who released the documents after the request of the media companies, said that the disclosure of the documents that had not been made public could lead to deterioration of relations with "some countries and international organizations," as well as damage the reputation of "some persons."

    Even the objection procedure launched by the media outlets has changed nothing in the ministry's decision. NOS, RTL and Volkskrant have now undertaken joint legal action, asking the Utrecht District Court to launch an appeal for all of them within a single lawsuit, according to NOS press release.

    READ MORE: MH17 investigators to RT: No proof east Ukraine fragments from 'Russian' Buk missile

    The three companies have launched the joint appeal procedure as they claim they want to emphasize that transparency is of crucial importance in the MH17 case.

    "Given the social impact of the MH17 plane crash as well as many questions raised by the relatives [of the victims of the catastrophe], it is vital that the government's actions and efforts in the aftermath of this disaster should be transparent," Philippe Remarque, editor-in-chief of De Volkskrant, said in the company's press release.

    "For journalists, this openness is essential for monitoring the activities of the government," he said.

    READ MORE: MH17 probe not truly independent and intl tribunal aimed at hiding its ineffectiveness – Lavrov

    Marcel Gelauff, editor-in-chief at NOS, said the wider public interest would be served by the publication of the documents: "It is not just about the families of the victims but also about the actions of the Dutch government and the political situation in Europe."

    "Finding out the causes [of the MH17 crash] and bringing the perpetrators of the attack on the plane to justice is a top priority," Peter Klein said in the RTL press release.

    "However, it is also important that the actions of politicians and government officials in the aftermath of the catastrophe could be accurately reconstructed," he added.

    William Rollinson 10.10 11:01

    OO Billy
    USA hasnt released any of their satellite imagery or the AWACs radar tapes... I wonder why? Maybe they only havemore...
    No but they could get a nice clear image of Russian planes on the ground in Syria?
    When it suits them they release information, when it suits them, they with-hold information.

    William Rollinson 10.10 10:58

    Yuri Ivanovich
    The government is still waiting for the US to find a way to blame it on Russia. So far,more...
    "Russia would've been blamed right after the downing."

    It was, about 95 minutes after, if memory serves me well. The US couldn't wait to blame Russia, just as they blamed her for 'civilian' deaths in Syria, before their planes had even left the ground?

    Then when Russia fire missiles from the Caspian Sea, the US say one fell short on Iran and killed people, wouldn't we expect Iran to inform of this?
    The fact that the US and their Oligarch media owners completely own western media, what the people read or see is controlled!

    Yorky 09.10 07:06

    Unfortunately the outcome of this enquiry is a foregone conclusion. There is no way the US will allow the investigating countries prove the US wrong. The pressure on the investigating countries will be enormous. Kerry will never be forced to say he was wrong. All the sanctions that were imposed by US and EU because of MH17 would have to be questioned. That will not be allowed to happen

    Derek Maher 09.10 06:40

    Judgeing by the actions of Kiev and the shambles of the on the ground crash site inspections,Plus the secretcy and long delay by the Dutch one would assume the findings will produce some very shady results.The victims families have not been served well in this tragic case.

    Patricia Histed 09.10 03:57

    The truth would make it impossible for EU national leaders to support Kiev. Wonder if they have developed a scapegoat plan to dump all the blame on someone in Kiev? After all, it will not do to show how multiple EU leaders were in on the lies and attempted resource grab. If the Dutch media outlets can make this happen it could be a game changer and prevent escalation in the Ukraine just when America plans to draft a bill that seeks to pour fuel on the weakening fires in the Ukraine. Supplying neo-Nazis with millions in arms does the trick. The poor US-Saudi petrol dollar...it needs war...it needs to destabilise the EU and Russia and wipe out all non-OPEC oil nations as well as any that threaten Saudi control of the region. The EU would be wise to side with Russia. America is not its friend. The sweet talking American politicians can say all they want but the refugee crisis speaks volumes. Russia's decisive actions could mean Syrians could return home and rebuild but what does America want to do...send more arms into the area...create more refugees. Whether this is a side effect or a desired effect is irrelevant. It is destabilising the EU's economy. Personally, I think it is a desired side effect. If the US can take the EU dollar down the US-Saudi petrol dollar is the last man standing and will be what people flee to propping it up as it gasps for breath.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Russian military operation in Syria bolsters oil market, domestic stocks

    Oct 09, 2015 | RT Business

    Oil prices have risen 12 percent in October to a two-month high. Rising crude coincides with Russia's airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria which began on September 30.

    The price of Brent in London increased over one percent to $53 per barrel on Friday. US benchmark WTI is trading higher than $50 per barrel for the first time in three months after hitting six-year lows in late August. Other factors contributing to rising oil prices include a weakened dollar and shrinking US production.

    Crude prices can be particularly responsive to unrest or violence in the Middle East, one of world's biggest oil-producing regions. While Syria does not have significant oil reserves, crude prices rise over fears the conflict could spread to the broader region.

    "Syria is not a crude oil producer-its real significance to the energy markets is not a heightening of its ongoing internal conflict but rather the risk of contagion within the region at large," the Wall Street Journal quotes NUS Consulting Group as saying.

    norbert kimar 4 hours ago

    "Syria is not a crude oil producer.." the Wall Street Journal.." I thought ISIS etc made $1-2million/day from smuggling Syrian oil.

    Nana Akosua -> Baakan Agyiriwah 6 hours ago

    LOL, it's all about the war, the fighting, the blood and the gore that makes the stocks rise and the blood boil in delirium. Funny how war makes the cash registers ring and the banksters happy, they don't care who does it, just do it!! what a mad, mad, mad world we live in.

    Illya Kuryakin 7 hours ago

    So Russia's CIA-Saudi Extermination Policy is paying for itself. Nice!

    PeterNZL 11 hours ago

    grzeghh

    Putin's the man. He scored 7 goals in the ice hockey match in Sochi and that was just
    more...

    Obama, too, was a skilled athlete. He scored 2000 civilians before winning his Nobel Peace Prize. Remarkable!

    [Oct 09, 2015] As oil bust takes hold, Eagle Ford workers losing jobs, pawning goods -

    Oct 09, 2015 | www.expressnews.com
    Sep 5, 2015 | San Antonio Express-News

    Eagle Ford production peaked in March at 1.7 million daily barrels, but then slid six straight months, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. The agency expects the field to pump 1.48 million barrels daily in September, still enough to fill 94 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.

    Allen Gilmer, CEO of Austin-based Drillinginfo, said dropping prices chip away at the Eagle Ford.

    At $100 oil, most operators can make money.

    Because costs for everything from drilling to fracking have come down 30 percent this year, vast swaths of the field still are profitable at $60 per barrel, the oil price for much of the spring.

    "The Eagle Ford at $60 a barrel is not a whole lot different than the Eagle Ford at $100 a barrel," Gilmer said.

    But crude oil prices around $40 turn the economics of the field upside down, and only 15 percent of the whole field makes money, Gilmer said.

    ... ... ...

    The numbers show an industry fallen on hard times.

    The number of drilling rigs working in the Eagle Ford dropped by half in the past year, from 203 to 93. Across the country, more than 1,000 drilling rigs have been stacked.

    McMullen County pumped 2.7 million barrels of oil in June, down from 3.6 million barrels the same month last year.

    DeWitt County's total property value, much of it based on oil and gas wealth, fell by $1.15 billion this year, down 16 percent.

    The Eagle Ford's biggest oil producers have issued a series of gloomy announcements. Houston-based EOG Resources made just $5.3 million in the second quarter, down 99 percent from the same period last year. ConocoPhillips last week said it would lay off 10 percent of its workforce. Marathon Oil Corp. posted a $386 million net income loss for the second quarter.

    Dennis Elam, associate professor of accounting at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, said the smaller, more overleveraged shale companies are drilling wells just to pay debt. "They're chasing the water right down the drain," he said.

    Now, Zavesky has hired some of his old deputies back and said the police academy has seen a bump in enrollment.

    He's also seen an uptick in oil field crime - the theft of tools from work sites and people stripping copper from the drilling rigs parked along the side of the road.

    Joy Tipton, who owns the Little White House Country Store in Fowlerton, judges the oil market by what time she starts to hear traffic rumbling down Texas 97. The noise used to start around 5 a.m., with trucks hauling sand, water and oil flowing past her place like a mechanical river. In August, it stayed quiet until around 9 a.m.

    Blink-and-miss-it Fowlerton, with 62 residents the last time the Census Bureau bothered to count in 2000, hugs the La Salle-McMullen county lines. In recent months, a small restaurant and oil field supply company closed their doors.

    ... ... ...

    Boom-bust cycle

    In some ways, Texas still hasn't outrun the long shadow of the 1980s oil bust, an implosion that took down the state economy. So many people left the industry then, never to return, that there's a gap in the workforce. Nearly everyone is old or young. The industry calls it the "great crew change," and it means that a large part of the workforce never has seen a downturn.

    ,,, ,,, ,,,

    Eric Bell of San Antonio energy services umbrella company Group 42, said the U.S. oil business has gone through the stages of grieving this year. "The first quarter was a complete sense of denial," Bell said.

    Then came anger and a "bargaining and sad mopey phase" when everyone talked about how oil would pop to $70 or $80 by summer. It didn't. "Now finally it kind of seems like there's a sense of resignation or acceptance," Bell said. "Some companies are just in trouble."

    And yet, the familiar grind of the oil patch continued in so many ways. The Eagle Ford this year still is expected to draw $20 billion in industry investment, far more than any other field, says research firm Wood Mackenzie.

    Kim Triolo Feil

    if only these guys had the foresight to do BTEX blood/urine baseline testing before a workday and then after a workday...nah these companies come and go so even if they had evidence of being exposed...who they gonna sue to pay their cancer bills if that happens down the road?

    [Oct 09, 2015] Oil bust

    Oct 09, 2015 | jdeanicite.typepad.com
    I cite

    excerpt from here

    The number of drilling rigs working in the Eagle Ford dropped by half in the past year, from 203 to 93. Across the country, more than 1,000 drilling rigs have been stacked.

    McMullen County pumped 2.7 million barrels of oil in June, down from 3.6 million barrels the same month last year.

    DeWitt County's total property value, much of it based on oil and gas wealth, fell by $1.15 billion this year, down 16 percent.

    The Eagle Ford's biggest oil producers have issued a series of gloomy announcements. Houston-based EOG Resources made just $5.3 million in the second quarter, down 99 percent from the same period last year. ConocoPhillips last week said it would lay off 10 percent of its workforce. Marathon Oil Corp. posted a $386 million net income loss for the second quarter.

    Dennis Elam, associate professor of accounting at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, said the smaller, more overleveraged shale companies are drilling wells just to pay debt. "They're chasing the water right down the drain," he said.

    South Texans track other economic measures - traffic jams on rural roads or the advertised prices for hotel rooms in the region, now as low as $40.

    A few years ago, DeWitt County Sheriff Jode Zavesky lost seven employees in three weeks to the oil field. The police academy in Victoria had to cancel classes because everyone was going to work in the oil field instead. "We've got great benefits," Zavesky said. "But a young guy can't buy diapers on great health insurance."

    Now, Zavesky has hired some of his old deputies back and said the police academy has seen a bump in enrollment.

    He's also seen an uptick in oil field crime - the theft of tools from work sites and people stripping copper from the drilling rigs parked along the side of the road.

    Joy Tipton, who owns the Little White House Country Store in Fowlerton, judges the oil market by what time she starts to hear traffic rumbling down Texas 97. The noise used to start around 5 a.m., with trucks hauling sand, water and oil flowing past her place like a mechanical river. In August, it stayed quiet until around 9 a.m.

    Blink-and-miss-it Fowlerton, with 62 residents the last time the Census Bureau bothered to count in 2000, hugs the La Salle-McMullen county lines. In recent months, a small restaurant and oil field supply company closed their doors.

    That left Tipton as the only one to give unsolicited advice to oil field workers who stop to buy a soft drink or after-work beer: "Don't speed. Don't eat your dessert before you eat that sandwich. There's a police officer down there."

    [Oct 09, 2015] How do consumers respond to lower gasoline prices

    Oct 09, 2015 | Econbrowser
    The evidence thus is that consumers were indeed responding to the most recent price declines the same way they usually did, namely, by spending most of the windfall. The fact that we don't see this as clearly in the aggregate data suggests that the economy has been facing other headwinds that partly offset the stimulus from lower gasoline prices.

    Another consumer response to lower gasoline prices is increased consumption of gasoline itself, though these adjustments take more time to develop. U.S. vehicle miles traveled, which had been stagnant while gas prices were high, have since resumed their historical growth.

    ... ... ...

    And the average fuel efficiency of new vehicles sold in the United States, which had been improving steadily through most of 2014, has fallen with oil prices.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Goldman Sachs This Oil Rally Is Not Going to Last

    Oct 09, 2015 | www.bloomberg.com

    Bloomberg Business

    Currie claims that the oil glut is now being sustained by production outside the U.S.

    [Oct 09, 2015] A proxy cold war in Syria

    Oct 07, 2015 | Peak Prosperity
    President Obama recently assured that we're not engaging in a proxy war in Syria. Well this latest news doesn't help sell his story. Boy, the players are getting me nervous. Let's hope things don't escalate and false flags are raised even higher.

    Russian Airstrikes In Syria Hit CIA-Trained Rebel Weapons Depot

    "Russian airstrikes late Tuesday have destroyed the central weapons depot of a U.S.-trained rebel group, according to its commander. The Liwa Suqour al-Jabalpur rebel group, which opposes Syria President Bashar Assad's authoritarian regime, was trained by the CIA at training camps in Saudi Arabia and Qatar."

    sand_puppy

    NATO Threatens to send ground troups to Syria

    NATO Threatens To Send In Troops After Russia Stations Ground "Battalion" In Syria

    Thanks to the fact that the West selected Islamic militants (ISIS) as its anti-Assad weapon of choice, Putin gets to pitch his efforts to defend Assad as a "war on terror."

    ZH predicted:

    ..."the Pentagon will use the gambit of a Russian ground campaign, credible or not, to get permission from Congress to send a 'small', at first, then bigger ground force of US troops in Syria to, you guessed it, 'fight ISIS'....

    A commenter after the ZH article notes:

    A recently released classified document obtained by WikiLeaks establishes that active US planning for regime-change predated the outbreak of the Syrian civil war by at least five years.

    From another article:

    The question today is merely one of timing. .... How long before Israeli planes come into contact with Russian or Iranian fighters? How long before U.S. troops come into contact with Russian troops? How long before Israel or Saudi Arabia strike Iran? And if the U.S. backs out completely, how long before the entire dynamic of the Middle East is flipped and America loses petro-status for the dollar? With the speed of events forming a fiscal-political riptide, it is hard to imagine we will be waiting very long to find out.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Russias Syria gambit could be a game changer – but only if it hastens transition

    Everything that has happened recently is down to this geopolitical struggle the Arab Spring, Crimea, Sochi, MH17, OPEC glut, insane monetary policy... It's all a battle between the New York-London Bretton Woods world order and Putin's vision of a Eurasian Economic Union controlled by a Beijing-Moscow axis. ..."
    Oct 05, 2015 | The Guardian

    aLLaguz 1 Oct 2015 20:27

    It is not that Russia will or wont persuade Assad to step down... western nations don't want to negotiate ... they want Assad out... anything else is NO.
    Russia will persuade not Assad.... but western nations to sit and negotiate...

    The moment is the best ever for Russia and Assad. The flood of refugees put presure in EU and US to stop the war.... which means that now, the negotiation table is in balance....

    ISIS will be wipe out.

    Rebels will acquire an important status and drop down weapons with anmesty... maybe a political party ... who knows

    Assad will be in power after the war...

    New elections will be made ... in time ... democratically, and new rules for minorities...

    Russia will maintain its base and its political influence will be greater...

    Money for reconstruction will be from China and Russia... Iran also ... which leads to a new Syria allied more tightly to them ... the block will be stronger than ever ..
    what else? who knows ....

    GoloManner -> makz 1 Oct 2015 17:55

    And you know this how, exactly? I mean, do you see no reason why anyone other than an Islamist would oppose Assad?

    Initially certainly

    But any secular or democratic opposition forces have been annihilated or swallowed up by Islamists as this conflict has descended into sectarian civil war. I wish it weren't the case., I wish the opposition was made up of plucky liberal democrats too but that's just wishful thinking

    It is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of experts such as Patrick Cockburn who answered the question of who the moderate rebels were, thus

    Well, they aren't is the answer to that. They scarcely exist on the ground. That's one of the extraordinary things about the plan that was announced this week to combat ISIS, the Islamic State, is that in Syria the main opponent of the Islamic State is to be the Syrian armed moderates. But nobody can find them on the map.

    The main military force in Syria is the Syrian army, the Syrian government. The main opposition force is ISIS. Then there are a series of other jihadi groups. Like, there's one called Jabhat al-Nusra. It's pretty powerful. It's also the Syrian affiliate of bin Laden's al-Qaeda. So the jihadis dominate that.

    So it's kind of saying that everything will depend on these moderates who are to be vetted and trained in Saudi Arabia, and then these poor guys are going to fight not only ISIS, the most ferocious guerrilla group in the world, but the Syrian army. So this is really not a policy. It's kind of make-believe.

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12373

    makz -> threehunglow 1 Oct 2015 15:35

    Whilst I am well aware that the Assad government is fascistic in nature, and am familiar with events such as the Hama massacre, I must say that when I was working in Syria, not even a year before all the trouble kicked off, it certainly did not feel like such a dreadful place. I spent a lot of time in Damascus, Hama and Masyaf, and they were all pretty lively places full of people who certainly seemed happy enough. I can't imagine that many people would not happily return to those days, given the reality of the present.

    Lillianne -> robertthebruce2014 1 Oct 2015 13:55

    Because America wants a new cold war to rebuild its stockpile. America is terrified of world peace - its economy would simply collapse. It doesn't support AlQaeda as such but it's insistent on prodding the Russian bear.

    robertthebruce2014 1 Oct 2015 13:29

    Why is the West supporting Al Qaida? I thought Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11!?!

    Peter Cini 1 Oct 2015 13:21

    Hear this and hear this now: The Putin Doctrine has put an end to Anglo-American Regime Change rampages, especially in the Middle East. The days of Washington and London deciding which government will be allowed to survive are over. Farewell to Pox Americana.

    Patriotic Americans and Brits will welcome the emergence of Putin the Peacemaker. So will Western Europe unless they want to see the whole region empty out on their doorsteps.

    Maybe this is what Obama wants too...

    Sergei Konyushenko 1 Oct 2015 12:49

    Islamic Holocaust: Western wars have killed AT LEAST 4 million Muslims since 1990

    http://www.sott.net/article/303020-Islamic-Holocaust-Western-wars-have-killed-AT-LEAST-4-million-Muslims-since-1990

    Vermithrax -> chuckding 1 Oct 2015 12:17

    The media that have been using ISIS as the bogeyman to justify western boots on the ground. Lot of effort being made there if it doesn't matter. Obama clearly wanted to bomb Assad so the pipeline through Syria came from Saudi not Iran. Now if he wants to do the Suadi's dirty work for them he'll have to start WW3.

    Vermithrax rooster29 1 Oct 2015 12:13

    Because they can't attack Assad directly and because their deliberately rubbish campaign against ISIS will be exposed for what it is. I said that in my original post. Pay attention.

    Indianrook 1 Oct 2015 11:53

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/russia-launches-fresh-airstrikes-on-syria-targets The title of the above news is
    "US-backed Syrian rebels say they have been hit by Russian airstrikes." Can The Guardian would explain whom we could call rebels and whom we could call terrorist? By the way The Guardian has not opened the comment option for the above news.

    Dean Griffiths 1 Oct 2015 11:20

    Though it pains me to say it perhaps the best thing is for the West to back away from Syria and leave it to Putin to sort out. It's been a brave fight by the FSA but the conflict has been raging now for over 4 and a half years with no sign of a decisive military victory. since the war began 1 out of every 100 Syrians has died and 1 in 3 have been displaced and 1 in 4 have fled the country. Now Putin has flexed his Military muscle you would think that it will only be a matter of time until the FSA are defeated, as the West will only back them so far.

    I have absolutely no liking for Assad and his regime but it appears to me that it is the only one that may be able to bring some stability to the country and I believe a majority of Syrians do still support him. The west instigated regime change in Iraq & Lybia to get rid of similar dictators and just created instability and a power vacuum which has lead has lead to the grow of ISIS.

    If Assad did move aside there is no suggest that Syria would fair any better than Iraq or Lybia. The opposition in the West of the country is fragmented and the Jihadists (who would be left in control of much of the eastern part of the country) would exploit this and there are the Kurds in the north who would be demanding independence. If Assad was to defeat the opposition forces in the West it would only be a matter of time before he turned on the Jihadists in the East. That would in theory at least, allow the West to do more about getting rid of ISIS in Iraq.

    lesterburnham15 -> TarquinFintimlin 1 Oct 2015 11:09

    Afghanistan does not fall into the middle east geo-political arena lies to the east of Iran, my notion of the middle east encompasses turkey to iran down to yemen. like the Caucasus is southern russia, armenia, azerbaijan and georgia. The great game involve russia v britain control of India, Afghanistan, more central asia.

    but what you go on about is lies like your a classic head banger.

    TarquinFintimlin -> lesterburnham15 1 Oct 2015 11:00

    Really? I seem to remember a certain conflict called Afghanistan. That wasn't that long ago. Russia has also a long history of military bases in Syria. And let's not even start on the Great Game, Russia's involvement in the Caucasus Mountains and the long rivalry between Turkey and Russia in the region. All of that still has a MASSIVE impact on the modern Middle East. And that was LONG before the US was ever involved.

    AlexisWolf -> JethrowToumme 1 Oct 2015 10:34

    Yeah right. If you think you have to be a Kremlin stooge to see the folly of Western warmongering then you are unable to learn why Iraq/Libya/Afghanistan etc have been such a disastrous criminal failure that risks the safety of us all.

    AlexisWolf -> Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 10:28

    Apx 70% of the Syrian armed forces are Sunni. How does that fit into your ignorant rant?

    AlexisWolf -> Roguing 1 Oct 2015 10:25

    They're in Syria but they're not Syrian, they come from dozens of countries, that makes them all armed invaders. What would any other country do if it was them being invaded??

    Exodus20 1 Oct 2015 10:19

    It is all a big game of deception and lie from Iraq, to Libya, to Syria. US is bombing the factions of ISIS which it doesn't control to help the faction which were started by funding from "our friends and allies (ref General Wesley Clark)" and may still control. Russia is bombing the factions which are oppose to Assad which include the factions the West and Saudi are still supporting.

    diddoit -> ubipromaya 1 Oct 2015 10:18

    The approach seems to have been 'the enemy of my enemy...' to date. Strange how IS seemed to have got stronger and immune to bombing. The Saudis are now furious Russia is bombing , why do you think that is?

    Massimo D'Ulisse -> CordTrousers 1 Oct 2015 10:12

    Obama is an inept dreamer, and he's preventing an effective solution by demanding Assad removed before anything else on ground of his atrocities. Now, in the worst case, Assad might have killed hundreds, maybe thousands of opposers - but that's 1/100 of the victims of this horrible civil war. So Obama prefers to see this war going on, and an entire populace displaced and moving to Europe, instead of accepting reality - an unhappy one, but still reality.

    We must remember that under Mr Saddam Hussein, the number of people dying in Iraq every year was much, much less than the victims of the after-war period.

    Sheeba Sunil -> Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 10:10

    I would say over 70% of Syrian people - including Sunnis, Alawites, Christians, Druze & Shias - support Assad. They all support not for their love towards Assad, instead for their hate towards western funded opposition rebels. Syrian people are largely liberal and moderate. They don't want their country to be ruled by Sharia loving blood thirsty jihadis.

    Quite unsurprisingly, western/arab intervention in Syrian war made Assad more popular than ever.

    JohnSouttar Riaz Danish 1 Oct 2015 09:52

    Assad was swept to power again in elections because of what he represented to the whole country. Peace and prosperity. Christians, Shiites, Sunnis and other ethnicities getting on with each other. Women allowed to vote and stand in elections. A secular state. Most people and families want that but in neighbouring countries would be imprisoned for expressing that view openly. Goodness me most of our best political leaders were from some sort of minority - perhaps even aristocracy. That is the true definition for an inclusive government. Now why did some Arab countries not like that? Do you really think the Syrians want a Chechen emir running their town? Or the Saudis to dictate that they have Sharia law? A world like that we are selling Afghanis out to now run by the Taliban after so many collaborated with us, women who dared to get education and will soon die for it. Given the choice most Muslims are not at all fanatical and that is why so many have come to countries like Britain and Germany.

    irgun777 1 Oct 2015 09:51

    " Russian aircraft had launched 30 fresh airstrikes against Jaysh al-Fateh, a powerful rebel coalition that includes Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra Front. "

    Guardian today. It looks like the Russian are doing a good job !

    hugodegauche 1 Oct 2015 09:50

    Imposing failing western systems on Syria will not work. It has not worked in Iraq nor Libya nor anywhere else in the Arab world. Assad is not great but clearly better than those who oppose him (I say better in the purely Hobbesian sense of providing a minimum of governance)

    The sensible possible is for Assad to be supported with some tinkering on internal reforms to save everyone's face. Israel needs to remain strong and alert whoever is in power in Damascus or in fact Syria implodes entirely.

    stuart255 1 Oct 2015 09:39

    This is now beyond ridiculous where the Western media protests Russia bombing "moderate rebels" such as the AL QAEDA affiliated Al Nusra.

    Pray tell, who are all of our drones bombing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan??
    Isn't it Al Qaeda affiliated groups?

    Putin has trapped us on the wrong side of history, Russia is acting within international law under permission of the sovereign government of Syria and the West is now the deer-in-the-headlights as Russia takes on the role of Global Policeman.

    This is a foreign policy disaster. Putin is going to be the power that gets to redraw the Sykes-Picot line and Europe is going to be beholden to Russian gas for the next half century.

    In 2012 Putin was elected with the promise of bringing a Eurasian Economic Union to reality and Hillary Clinton whilst Secretary of State publically said that the US sees this as Soviet Union 2.0 and will do everything to stop or slow the progress of Putin's Eurasian Union which would by default be that largest economic zone on the planet by some margin. Thus driving a horse and cart over the Wolfowitz Doctrine.

    Everything that has happened recently is down to this geopolitical struggle the Arab Spring, Crimea, Sochi, MH17, OPEC glut, insane monetary policy... It's all a battle between the New York-London Bretton Woods world order and Putin's vision of a Eurasian Economic Union controlled by a Beijing-Moscow axis.

    This is the greater context of our time.

    JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 09:30

    You can imagine how humiliating and embarrassing it is to appear on TV complaining about Russia bombing Al Qaida, blaming Assad for the rebel sarin gas attack and 'butchering' his own people and suggesting that the moderate opposition are the answer when in fact they are mostly Libyan and Chechen mercenary killers. One can also see the military advisors tearing their hair out at the political pressure put on them to carry on this charade especially now Russian planes are there. Also how poorly paid the script writers must be. It is not for the benefit of the population, just to pretend to the donors and Congressional lobbies that they are trying. Not very hard I would think.

    tiagoTIMAO 1 Oct 2015 09:28

    "they make no distinction between different armed groups, Islamist, jihadi or democratic"
    kkkkkkkkkkk, show me this democratic groups. The democratic IS, or democratic FSA, or Al-Nursa. You're kidding

    Zagradotryad 1 Oct 2015 09:21

    The simple fact is there is no 'moderate' Syrian opposition. They all want to wade knee deep in the blood of Alawite children.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Alawites

    rooster29 -> Danny885500 1 Oct 2015 09:19

    The reason the free market neo-con Tories are attacking the BBC is a matter of ideology. Apart from the distaste of any organisation being run by the state (apart from when it's necessary) they know that any privately owned media such as Sky and ITV will be biased towards and support right-wing governments anyway, making the tax-paid BBC an anachronism. The Tory's plan for the BBC is most definitely eventual privatisation. Demonization by the government and right-wing media is always a first step to the real objective.

    rooster29 -> GenoDutch 1 Oct 2015 09:13

    BBC the best journalism? You're having a laugh aren't you?

    How about this from Sarah Montague, one of their top R4 stars - when she was interviewing Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya'alon she might just as well have given him a soapbox and let him get on with it. After a flood of complaints, BBC head of editorial complaints, Fraser Steel, wrote: "Mr Ya'alon was allowed to make several controversial statements on those matters (conflict with Palestinians) without any meaningful challenge and the programme makers have accepted that the interviewer ought to have interrupted him and questioned him on his assertions."

    This is a clear-cut case of deliberate bias on Montague's part (it can hardly be explained by inexperience) I know the vast majority of politicians in the UK are scared stiff to make any Kind of criticism of Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, but it's depressing to see one of the top BBC interviewers being cowed into submission as well.

    snickid 1 Oct 2015 09:12

    Russia's Syria gambit could be a game changer – but only if it hastens transition

    The Guardian continues to live in fantasy land over Syria. The grotesque and awful truth is that there are only two sides in the Syrian civil war: Assad and the extreme Islamic fundamentalists:

    1. Putin supports Assad.

    2. Obama in practice supports the extreme Islamic fundamentalists (apart from ISIS), such as Jaish El-Fateh, who are the only credible armed opposition to Assad.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    Putin is bad, for actively supporting a brutal and corrupt regime in Syria. But Obama is mad as well as bad (worse, in fact, than Putin) for supporting the same fundamentalists whom the US has supposedly been fighting since 2001 in its 'war on terror', and who will commit genocide against all non-Sunnis (and quite a lot of the Sunnis as well), if they ever succeed in defeating Assad.

    nearfieldpro -> rooster29 1 Oct 2015 09:11
    The BBC is to the British state what Pravda was to the soviet Union

    So true, so very true.

    Fuel -> erica999 1 Oct 2015 09:08

    They're taking out groups that would be pro-Turkish in their interests. Turkey wants a natural gas pipeline to run through Syria and over its land. Russia would then have competition for its natural gas supplies to Europe and the Russian's don't want that.

    The pipelines would run from Saudi and Qatar which support ISIS. However, the lure of cheaper gas and breaking the Russian monopoly means Saudi and Qatar have grudging support from the US and Europe, although Europe/US supports the Syrian rebels, i.e. the al Nusra groups because the FSA is wishful thinking. Hence Turkey being happy about ISIS hurting pro-Assad forces and Kurds, while simultaneously providing support to the al Nusra/rebel groups that would be favourable to their regime. ISIS wouldn't, it wants to rule Turkey too.

    As Turkey supports al Nusra/Syrian rebels, etc. Russia will take out those groups first and reduce and/or negate European and US interests (cos we won't want ISIS there) and Turkey's influence, which explains the initial bombing patterns. After the al Nusra/rebels/etc. are defeated, Russia will go after ISIS. Russia will have the backing of China and Iran to do this as ISIS has already produced maps that lay claim to territory in Western China and all of Iran.

    Basically it's a three-sided stand-off with lots of business and geo-political vested interests at stake. Russia knows Western countries won't risk an escalation by entering and not when lots of people in the West are happy that at least one country is taking on ISIS/al Nusra/etc.

    Is this how you do conspiracy theories and troll?

    MichelleSegato 1 Oct 2015 09:00

    What is the Guardian's definition of moderate opposition? A group is moderate opposition because de US is funding them? Or, because it doesn't perform any beheadings?

    What would Obama call a group of Americans armed to their teeth, roaming the US and killing American soldiers? What would Obozo do? What if those Americans were armed by Russia? Would they be moderate for that reason?

    GoloManner -> GoloManner 1 Oct 2015 08:58

    Oh and in case that's not enough. The group openly pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda in 2013

    The al-Nusra Front's pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda has ended speculation over the suspected ties between the Syrian jihadist group and the Islamist militant network. The announcement came just days after al-Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called on jihadis to do everything possible to bring about an Islamic state in Syria.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18048033

    rooster29 -> demdike 1 Oct 2015 08:38

    "If Iran and Hizbollah involved, it's time for Israel to attack Hizb., in Lebanon."

    Maybe you were on holiday dike, but fyi the last time Israel tried to take on Hezbolla they were soundly thrashed, as they were the time before.
    If it wasn't for Hezbolla, there would most certainly be hundreds of Israeli settlements scattered all around southern Lebanon by now, in exactly the same way they dominate the Palestinian West Bank, and the Syrian Golan heights. In the absence of an effective Lebanese army to defend southern Lebanon Hezbolla have no choice but to do it themselves. Hezbolla didn't exist before the Israeli invasion of 1982, just like the French Resistance didn't exist before the Germans invaded their country.

    Chris East -> MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 08:38

    These rebels were put there and paid to create trouble. How do you know that it was Assad's people who attacked them. It was more likely CIA snipers.

    lids 1 Oct 2015 08:35

    Absolute must listen interviews on today's R4 World at One with MArtha Carney.

    1. Patrick Cockburn acknowledged expert stating clearly that there are no moderates in Nort West Syria, Homs etc

    2. Chair of Defence Committee stating clearly that any vote in UK Parliament leading to UK bombing Syria would only be a military "gesture"
    Any idea that moderates were about to come to the centre stage and lead Syria was childish politics to the extreme.

    3 (And Bestof all) Woeful absolutely woeful interview with US Ambassador to UK who, when asked who was representing the moderate view in SYria and could sit round and negotiate Syria's future was unable to name a single person.

    Surprised Marta is still in a job after all that. Brilliant journalism from BBC.

    GoloManner 1 Oct 2015 08:33

    Air strikes against anti-Assad forces – not just Isis

    Who cares. They are all Islamists anyway

    Let's put this myth to bed once and for all. THERE ARE NO LONGER ANY MODERATE FORCES IN SYRIA. They have long since been destroyed or coopted by Islamist groups.

    Moderate forces is a myth that exists only in the head's of US and UK policy makers.

    The US recently trained a group of "moderate rebels" and sent them into Syria where they immediately defected to Al Nusra with their weapons. Al Nusra, armed by Saudi Arabia are the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda.

    So if Russia wants to bomb them, good. We should sit back and watch the show. I hope they blow them to hell.

    irishinrussia -> erica999 1 Oct 2015 08:31

    Yes and no. They can not operate without a secure base - Russia lacks the power projection tools (primarily aircraft carriers, bases in friendly neighbouring countries, allied airspace) to operate without that Tartus zone. So their first objective is securing that zone. Furthermore I would be very surprised if they care more for Assad than their own national interests.

    However, to help Assad, they must first have a secure base. Furthermore, ignored by the Western media, Assad's forces can not fight IS if their supply and communications lines are not secure and there are other rebels in the way. They also can't leave areas exposed to rebel attack because forces have been diverted to attack IS. Assad's forces must consolidate their hold on a secure rear before they can attack IS strongholds. This is not complicated strategic thinking.

    rooster29 -> Vermithrax 1 Oct 2015 08:27

    "Once again Putin outplays Obama. "

    No he hasn't. Putin has been trying to organise co-ordination with the US towards a solution in Syria for at least three years. The Americans don't want to have anything to do with the Russians, and they certainly don't want a solution in Syria. They want to keep the Middle East and Afghanistan in a perpetual state of destabilisation, and they are succeeding, which isn't difficult considering their military is bigger than the rest of the world combined.

    Rudeboy1 astoirin 1 Oct 2015 08:15

    The best the Russian airforce can deliver is some form of close air support to the SAA. Unfortunately, for them, the SAA has not shown the inclination or ability to press home attacks regardless of support. The recent actions in Idlib and the Ghab plain being cases in point. After 5 years the SAA are still hopeless and just never seem to learn.

    easterbeilbs 1 Oct 2015 08:13

    In another article U.S. Defence Chief Carter is quoted as saying "Russia risks escalating the civil the war".

    How much worse can it get? It's been going on for 4 1/2 years, up to 250,000 have been killed and millions displaced. What is he talking about?

    The answer is. He doesn't know.

    This article suggests the west supports the Syrian Opposition Forces. But it does not.

    The west is playing a very light hand because the Syrian Opposition Forces, established during the Arab Spring quickly became a fighting branch of the 'Muslim Brotherhood in Syria' who seek to set up an Islamic State.

    The other forces, as indicated being bombed by the Russians, include the al-Qeada affiliated al-Nusra.

    So the Russians, perhaps rightly, are not limiting themselves to ISIS targets, rather those who are at the front line against Assad.

    The west needs to end its oil drip fed obsession with the Saudi led gulf nations as it's the 'Islamic Revival' from these regions that have spawned al-Qeada, the Taliban, ISIS, and a whole heap of other extremist groups.

    BalanceIt MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 08:06

    If you compare Independent coverage on the Middle East to coverage from the mainstream you'll start to see a significant divergence.

    An independent examination of the financial motivations behind why the US (and UK) behaves as they do would be a start but you'll never see that from Fleet Street. Secondly a contrast between the attempted Syrian overthrow and past overthrows like Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do Fleet Street insist on assuming it will be alright if the UK would just start bombing the country. It's wilful blindness because there is an agenda to take over any country which hasn't yielded its financial infrastructure to the US financial hegemony.

    It's a reason to watch China and Russia building up their competing financial infrastructure. That's the real conflict between Russia and the US. Again not covered by Fleet Street because they have, in essence, been told not to.

    It's certainly subtler than being told not to run a story. It would be indicated to them what areas need coverage and what must be avoided. Russia must be evil. The US must be sincere although can be considered naive or partially foolish but not too much. As the BRICS bank comes online and as they actively compete with US domination watch more stories come up about how China is so evil.

    The US has no right to attempt to overthrow a Government of another land.

    rooster29 1 Oct 2015 08:00

    After the UK media being long-time silent on indiscriminate civilian deaths (used to be called 'collateral', but they don't call it anything now) resulting from US-led bombing of Syria, they are now going bananas over civilian deaths (allegedly) after just one sortie by Russia, which the Daily Hatemail calls 'carpet bombing'.

    At this rate Russia will surely be accused of genocide before the week is out. It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that people actually believe this shit, as well as all the other lies, like Russia only giving the Americans 'one-hour's notice'. What do they think Putin was doing at the recent summit at the UN for God's sake? Israel and Russia agreed eleven days ago in Moscow to coordinate military actions over Syria in order to avoid accidentally trading fire, and the US didn't know about this??? Of course they did.

    The Guardian doesn't come out of this well, being as they joined the rest of the pack, leading with this 'one-hour notice' bullshit. Have they got no one paying attention? Or do they just copy what others are making up? makes me wonder, I tell you.

    JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 07:59

    If I use a shotgun on a gang of armed men breaking into my house I will go to prison. They will sue me. If the police shoot an unarmed man not much happens at all. Gadaffi and Assad shoot armed protestors and they must get killed, replaced and go to court. Ukraine protestors throw petrol bombs, fire at police and deserve our support. Protestors and police shot with same gun means that elected government must go. We do something illegal like invade Iraq - all ok. Russia do something legal like support the Syrian government at their request then dare to bomb an Al Qaida outfit ………. Does Putinbot mean someone who has opened their eyes and noticed the elite are scantily clad today?

    paulcrawfish 1 Oct 2015 07:50

    Russia's goals are discussed by BBC journalist, Jonathan Marcus, on their online site today and I couldn't agree more with the sense behind their objectives.

    "It wants to see the so-called Islamic State defeated and some order restored in Syria, where it has long maintained a strategic interest. It believes Western policy in the region has been self-serving and wildly naive. Existing regimes have been toppled leaving little more than chaos in their wake."

    We need to join forces with Russia and stop the ridiculous pro-Gulf position of replacing Assad with Al Nusra and its affiliates. Islamic fundamentalism is the biggest evil in the world currently. This is whether the fundamentalist agrees with violent means or just propagates their tribalist religion to others who then are so inspired that they adopt violent means.

    raykaram01 1 Oct 2015 07:43

    "game change" about time.

    Four and a half years left to the USA and the West and what have we seen? More misery for the Syrian people. Even those in Turkey had enough. Why? Nobody cared for them to have a descent life or have any hope of return.

    Otherwise, the article tells us that they rely on reports from the region. Unless I see it personally with my own naked eyes, I do NOT believe any one.

    Russia might force the West and Turkey to stop playing politics and start doing the right thing by the Syrian people. Otherwise, all of the glory may go to the Russians.
    But, most of all, where is true journalism? Has Al Jazeera converted all of them.

    Rob Rob 1 Oct 2015 07:35

    Assad has been looking tired in recent months, which is hardly a surprise really. I first really began to notice him from his January 2013 Damascus speech, which made obvious to me his high intellect and absolute loyalty to his people. Assad is in realty no dictator, and to be dealt the hand the West has played over and over again has prolonged and deepened the agony of his people.No matter how fast he clears the invaders they are rapidly reinforced with Western Arms and money. Why so? He has been forced to clear and smash to rubble every area over and over again. Cameron did a great job of pretending to look thoughtful when presented with Washington's intelligence ,upset as they were to have not been informed of the plan.

    But who in their right mind would trust the Administration of 2015? It's a great shame to have this unspoken trust so vexed and bend out of shape to the point of total dismay!

    America is not the Angel it once was,they seem to have gotten rid of all the good ones and replaced them all with total madmen....The insanity is in Washington and coming to your very own street all too soon. Thanks for nothing, Yanks! GO home! Everything to touch turns to crap right now..:( What you all need to do is worry about Fukushima and the endless unfolding of death it is bringing to your people and this Planet.

    paulcrawfish 1 Oct 2015 07:21

    Regime change is a mad policy. The West's policy is bizarre and will just end up with Al Nusra and its affiliates in power. They are promoted by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and to keep them happy we've ridiculously decided that they are the realpolitik choice because better than Islamic State. However, clearly Assad is actually a better choice than Al Nusra if you're a minority, so I support Russia taking out all Islamic groups. Keep Syria secular!

    retsdon JohnSouttar 1 Oct 2015 07:15

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-sense-of-despair-is-sweeping-through-iraq-this-email-from-my-driver-in-baghdad-proves-it-10509799.html

    Good piece in case you missed it.

    brokedog 1 Oct 2015 07:12

    I love how the US likes to blame Russia for things America is doing. There is fuck all anti Assad forces besides Isis affiliated ones. America is still basically arming Isis against Assad

    ustas6873 1 Oct 2015 07:10

    Even if a bombs exploded in an empty desert the US would still have accused Russia of all sins. The United States has no purpose to fight with the ISIS, it is necessary to destroy the al-Assad. And they will achieve this by any means, including the support of supposedly moderate opposition and generally ISIS.

    Massimo D'Ulisse 1 Oct 2015 07:07

    The US have no credibility.

    Whatever they say about Mr. Putin, it will be easy for him to dismiss it saying "who provided that information? the same intelligence that reported that Iraq had mass destruction weapons to justify the second Gulf Ware?"

    And if the Russians make more mess, Mr Putin will have an easy game saying "you did mess up the whole region, so what do you want to teach us?"
    Reality is that the US really cocked up everything in Middle East, and now if we really want to get rid of ISIS, realistically we have to side with Mr Putin and the despicable Mr Assad.

    Realworldview
    Direct Russian military action in the Middle east is certainly a new development, in this case Syria, but given many other nations including the UK have been engaged in military action in this area for decades, so why should anyone be surprised Russia has finally decided to have a go at supporting its own geopolitical interests.

    The virtually immediate mainstream media reaction to the first Russian airstrikes typified by headlines like "US accuses Russia of 'throwing gasoline on fire' of Syrian civil war" in the Guardian and similar headlines in many other media sources, demonstrates just how one sided the "information" or better "propaganda" war is. To provide some balance, these two article published on Zero Hedge are worth reading - Propaganda War Begins: Russia's Syria Strikes Targeted US-Backed "Moderate" Rebels and This Is How Russia Handles Terrorists: Moscow Releases Video Of Syria Strikes that ends with this this statement, which should give one food for thought, but probably won't, and certainly not by US, UK and European political and military elites:

    The bottom line going forward is that the US and its regional and European allies are going to have to decide whether they want to be on the right side of history here or not, and as we've been careful to explain, no one is arguing that Bashar al-Assad is the most benevolent leader in the history of statecraft but it has now gotten to the point where Western media outlets are describing al-Qaeda as "moderate" in a last ditch effort to explain away Washington's unwillingness to join Russia in stabilizing Syria.

    This is a foreign policy mistake of epic proportions on the part of the US and the sooner the West concedes that and moves to correct it by admitting that none of the groups the CIA, the Pentagon, and Washington's Mid-East allies have trained and supported represent a viable alternative to the Assad regime, the sooner Syria will cease to be the chessboard du jour for a global proxy war that's left hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead.

    undersinged 1 Oct 2015 07:01

    Editorials like this dismay me. "Transition"? Why? Assad may represent a minority, but that's a good thing. Because the Alawites are a minority, they tolerate the religious and ethnic diversity that exists in the country. If he were to go, whoever replaced him, whether Shia or Sunni, would probably try to impose an absolutism on the country, suppressing all other sects, with possible outcomes including multiple decades of war and/or tyranny, possibly including genocide.

    The West's attempt to encourage democratic revolutions in that part of the world was catastrophically misguided. A stable, reasonably competent government is best left alone, even if you don't think it's as democratic as it should be, or if you don't agree with some of its ideology. Destabilizing states tends to open Pandora's box.

    MahalaM -> Samuelepicurus 1 Oct 2015 06:59

    Your missing the bit where the US had been working with the Syrian 'opposition' prior to 2011 and used legitimate protest as cover to send in their extremists. Assad has operated an amnesty for combatants prepared to come back and fight for the Syrian army. You think he set loose ISIS?

    Al Nusra came from Al Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS are a branch of that. Assad has lost 60% of his territory to ISIS - he took care of the "FSA" back in 2012 - it makes no sense that he would be supporting the US armed Jihadis just on the offchance the West were going to come in and take them out for him. I'm sure he saw the videos of how Western intervention worked out for Gaddafi and Hussein

    inequitable -> B5610661066 1 Oct 2015 06:37

    Indeed. Over 100 killed at a recent wedding. Saudi Arabia is indiscriminately devastating one of the poorest Countries in the ME with US support using banned cluster bombs supplied by the US firm Textron and funded by HSBC and other leading banks.

    rentierDEATHcult 1 Oct 2015 06:24

    In 2012, Defence Sec Leon Panetta said this: "I think it's impor­tant when Assad leaves - and he will leave - to try to pre­serve sta­bil­ity in that coun­try. And the best way to pre­serve that kind of sta­bil­ity is to main­tain as much of the mil­i­tary, the police, as you can, along with the secu­rity forces, and hope that they will tran­si­tion to a demo­c­ra­tic form of gov­ern­ment. That's a key"
    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/30/panetta-says-when-not-if-al-assad-falls-syrian-military-should-remain-intact/

    So the priority for Washington (& other EU NATO members) is to preserve the current regime - the military apparatus, police state, and the secular architecture of Syria - but dispose of the House of Assad as part of a political agreement.

    Russia, despite its loyalty to the current regime (which goes back decades), will sacrifice Bashar al Assad if it can continue benefitting from the lucrative arms trade and maintain its naval and military installations in the country.

    Trouble is, this cosy international arrangement has overlooked something, quite, important. The vast majority of the Syrian people!

    Has somebody stopped to consider that they may want to take full advantage of this (historic) opportunity to opt for some (real) change - instead of window dressing?!

    And America's record of supporting/promoting real change is a dubious one, to say the least.

    I'm sure a lot of Egyptians are, still, seething at the moral gymnastics performed by Washington during the Arab Spring before seeing Pax Americana repose back into its (default) setting of supporting the military junta in Cairo.

    Any 'change' overseen by the international powers is guaranteed to be NO CHANGE AT ALL. Sure, the Assad family will, probably, go into exile but the regime will continue - blessed by the very same forces that have sponsored the bloodletting of the current regime in Damascus.

    WalterCronkiteBot 1 Oct 2015 06:05

    We keep hearing about this transition process involving the credible opposition. The credible opposition are the SNC and FSA apparently.

    How the SNC are (or at least were) really a group of non Syrians including Bilderberg attendees and people from Kissinger backed think tanks. Supported by Human Rights reports from a man working from his home in Coventry.
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking

    Two UN reports detailing FSA war crimes, and explaining that they enforce Sharia law. Of course Assad's crimes are covered too.
    http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/19/69&Lang=E
    http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/HRC/19/69&Lang=E

    These are the moderates that represent Syrian people... who are funded by the US, aren't Syrian, and have their military wing running Sharia courts. They are about as credible as Peter Andre. I dare say he would do a better job.


    LeftOrRightSameShite -> LordDespencer 1 Oct 2015 06:03

    given that it is Assad's "governmentalism" that led to the chaos on Syria.

    Certainly contributed to it. There is also evidence that the US as of 2006 was looking to seize upon an opportunity to oust Assad. Events in 2011 provided just that.
    This US cable released by Wikileaks provides more details.

    There is also evidence the US had mercenaries operating in Syria (and Libya) in 2011/12. Against Assad of course.

    Tony Blair in a 2006 speech to the World Affairs Council in LA proclaimed:

    "we need to make clear to Syria and Iran that there is a choice: come in to the international community and play by the same rules as the rest of us; or be confronted"

    Bit rich isn't it? What did he mean by "confronted" do you think? What's the agenda then? Again, Tony provides enlightenment:

    "For me, a victory for the moderates means an Islam that is open: open to globalisation"

    hmm
    I've got a whole archive of links such as the above. If they prove one thing, it's that this whole episode is rotten and we are being fed stories that often distract from real intention.

    seamuspadraig -> LafayetteInFrance 1 Oct 2015 05:29

    The Saudis know full well that only a ground force can finally eradicate ISIS.

    ISIS is Saudi Arabia's ground force in Syria.

    kimorris 1 Oct 2015 05:26

    In the 1980's film Threads the similarity with the unfolding Syria story is chilling. In the film Iran is the country of conflict, after an exchange of conventional weaponry the USA detonate a single battlefield nuke. Escalation ensues until all out global thermonuclear war continues to it's conclusion, destruction of most of the planet. It should be remembered the USA is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war.

    AXWE08 1 Oct 2015 05:19

    The narrative from Washington is more and more divorced from reality. The hope was that ISIS and/or Al Nusra would ultimately deplete Syria's limited military resources and remove Assad and the Baathist government that had held Syria together for decades - regardless of the resulting consequences to the Christian, Jewish and Alawite population in that part of Syria. The Neoconservative strategy has now been frustrated by Russia and the bluster from Washington is that the Russian targets were not 'legitimate' - as if one type of terrorist is officially approved by Washington and others not. It has been a commonplace that the US/Saudis are behind ISIS and Al Nusra and this response gives the game away. What is this grip the NeoCons have on American thinking? Putin has his shortcomings, but he towers above Obama and his horrid crew of western leaders.

    ThomasPaine2 1 Oct 2015 04:56

    The Americans don't really make good foreign policy decisions. I'm struggling to think of any single foreign adventure they haven't fucked up totally.

    Why they think they are good at it beats me.

    Assad, like him or loathe him, is a relatively stable, sane, locally popular and established leader. I suspect that the reason for all of this chaos in the ME is to keep Israel's enemies divided. The death and destruction it causes, matters not.

    For America to accuse Russia of pouring fuel on the fire is like David Cameron calling for the humane treatment of pigs.

    BalanceIt -> MentalToo 1 Oct 2015 04:42

    The US has forced violent regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. How are those countries doing? Terribly is the answer. In Syria the US, through its proxies Suadi Qatar Turkey, have been attempting a violent overthrow of ANOTHER regime leading to yet another humanitarian catastrophe. None of these moves by the US and Russia are about democracy, to claim they are is lunacy.

    And no The Guardian is not independent, everyone in the industry knows big newspapers run these types of stories past the security state before publishing.

    SHA2014 1 Oct 2015 04:39

    Sometimes it is worth reading the Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11140860/Qatar-and-Saudi-Arabia-have-ignited-time-bomb-by-funding-global-spread-of-radical-Islam.html

    SHA2014 -> huffingtonboy 1 Oct 2015 04:10

    Fixation on barrel bombs seems to be the code word for delegitimization. Let us start talking of daisy cutters, phosphorus bombs cluster bombs and the like, used by US and allies in recent attacks on civilian areas.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Bank Of England Tells British Banks To Reveal Their Full Exposure To Glencore And Other Commodity Traders

    See Glencore - Wikipedia: "According to an Australian Public Radio report, "Glencore's history reads like a spy novel".[14] The company was founded as Marc Rich & Co. AG in 1974 by billionaire commodity trader Marc Rich, who was charged with tax evasion and illegal business dealings with Iran in the US, but pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001.[15] He was never brought before US courts before his pardoning, therefore there was never a verdict on these charges."... "In 2005, proceeds from an oil sale to Glencore were seized as fraudulent, in an investigation into corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Allen-Mills 17 June 2008)" ... "In May 2011 the company launched an IPO valuing the business at US$61 billion[26] and creating five new billionaires.[27] Trading was limited to institutional investors for the first week and private investors were only allowed to buy the shares from 24 May 2011." ... "A BBC investigation in 2012 uncovered sale documents showing the company had paid the associates of paramilitary killers in Colombia. In 2011, a Colombian court had been told by former paramilitaries that they had stolen the land so they could sell it on to Glencore subsidiary Prodeco, to start an open-cast coal mine; the court accepted their evidence and concluded that coal was the motive for the massacre. Glencore refuted the allegations" ... ""In Ecuador, the current government has tried to reduce the role played by middle men such as Glencore with state oil company Petroecuador" due to questions about transparency and follow-through, according to Fernando Villavicencio, a Quito-based oil sector analyst." ... A visual Relationship Map of Glencore executive board and stakeholders with their connections.
    Oct 09, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

    Overnight we got confirmation that Glencore has indeed become a systemic risk from a regulatory standpoint after the FT reported that the Bank of England has asked British financial institutions to reveal their full exposure to commodity traders and falling prices of raw materials amid concerns over the impact of the oil and metals slump. Or, in other words, their exposure to Glencore, Trafigura, Vitol, Gunvor and Mecuria.

    Dr. Engali

    The BOE is trying to figure out who is going to need a bail out before shit hit the fan.

    Edit: Oh by the way, that 11% move to the upside is short covering not a sign that Glencore is okay you dumb fucks.

    "The shares jumped as much as 11 percent in London". "Analysts promptly cheered the move"...., Idiots.

    junction

    Why is the Bank of England protecting Stemcor, the mining giant owned by the Oppenheimer family? Former PM Tony Blair is probably the person responsible, protecting MP Margaret Hodge She should have been sent to prison in 1994 for her role in protecting the pedophile ring operating in the London Borough of Islington instead of going to Parliament. Hodge is an Oppenheimer family member who backed Blair.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/uk-stemcor-restructuring-steel-...

    Dubaibanker

    Glencore has closed Dubai office. https://www.difc.ae/glencore-investments-dubai-limited

    Glencore has closed Singapore http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/glencore-to-close-down-sin...

    Glencore has sold Nickel project for pennies in Brazil http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/28/us-horizonte-glencore-idUSKCN0...

    Glencore has fired hundreds in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-09/glencore-slashes-queensland-jobs-n...

    Glencore will fire thousands in Zambia and shut some operations http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/23/us-zambia-mining-glencore-idUS...

    Glencore has closed a mine in South Africa and laid off hundreds http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/uk-glencore-safrica-idUKKCN0S11...

    I have heard they fired hundreds in Zug...does anyone have a link?

    Kayman

    "The BOE is trying to figure out who is going to need a bail out before shit hit the fan."

    More precisely, the BOE is trying to figure out how much money will be needed to stiff the taxpayers on behalf of their swill drinking friends.

    kliguy38

    Glencore was a massive Ponzi from the start and designed to fail. When it goes it will pull a 2 Trillion in derivatives down its rabbit hole. They know it and they're stalling for another bagman to take the derivatives. gl with that one.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Is russian oil production peaked ?

    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 10/04/2015 at 5:11 pm

    RE: Russian oil production statistics from various sources

    Ron,

    I personally never questioned the reliability of Russian oil statistics. But as you have repeatedly raised this issue, I did a brief assessment of the data from various sources.

    The Russian Energy Ministry provides very detailed data on oil + condensate production by each Russian producer on a daily basis. As in Soviet times, these numbers are reported directly by the companies to the Ministry. They can be easily verified as all oil produced is transported by pipelines owned by the state –owned Transneft. Small quantities are processed for internal use by the companies at mini-refineries, but their throughput is also reported to the ministry.

    The Ministry reports production in tons without converting it in barrels per day. However other sources (including Russian and foreign oil companies operating in Russia) use conversion ratios at 7.33 and 7.3 for Russian oil production. In the table below I calculate both numbers.
    NGL production is reported separately and is not included in C+C numbers.

    IEA oil production statistics include C+C+NGLs, however in their recent monthly Oil Market Reports the IEA is also mentioning C+C production for Russia. These numbers are very close to the data provided by the Russian Energy Ministry. In the past, the IEA did not disclose separate numbers for the Russian C+C, and it was first mentioned in the May OMR (p.25):

    "Despite sanctions and lower oil prices, Russian producers managed to maintain crude oil output near record levels through April, hovering around 10.7 mb/d since the start of the year. Including gas liquids, Russian output exceeded 11 mb/d in both March and April."

    Note, that the IEA works closely with Russia and gets data directly from the Russian Energy Ministry.

    The EIA has detailed oil and other liquids production data for many countries and releases it excel format:

    (International Energy Statistics, Petroleum Production http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1). This is very useful when you don't have other sources of data. However in many cases the EIA does not get information directly from national sources and uses third party data. Besides these numbers are relatively rarely updated and in some cases look incorrect. For example, their newest international oil production data are for April 2015.

    The EIA also publishes "Total liquids supply" data for the key producers in the STEO, where the numbers are updated monthly. (STEO excel file, Table 3b. Non-OPEC Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply).

    Note that the updated numbers for Russia in the September STEO are 143 kb/d higher for April and 132 higher for March, compared with the EIA International Energy Statistics. Given that the EIA constantly estimates Russian refinery processing gains at 26 kb/d, we can easily calculate C+C+NGL production estimates up to August by subtracting 26 kb/d from the STEO Total liquids numbers.

    As a result, as can be seen from the table below, EIA's C+C+NGL production estimates for Russia are only marginally below the IEA's numbers (the average discrepancy for Jan.-Aug. 2015 is ~40 kb/d).

    You can also note that the EIA's estimate for Russia's NGLs output in the first 4 months of 2015 is around 755kb/d, while the IEA's number is only ~350 kb/d. I think that the EIA classifies all or part of Russian condensate production as NGLs, while in the IEA and the Russian Energy Ministry's statistics it is included in the C+C output.

    Finally, JODI data is based on national statistics. As it says on its website: "The data are submitted by the national authority of the participating country. These data are considered authoritative and are not subject to alteration by any of the JODI partner organisations." (https://www.jodidata.org/about-jodi/faqs.aspx). Nevertheless, in some cases JODI
    data differs significantly from national statistics. JODI does not explain its methodology, and its officials do not respond to emails to comment on why its data differs from figures provided by national agencies.
    JODI provides data on both Russian oil and NGL production. NGL data is much higher than IEA's numbers, but slightly lower than the EIA.
    JODI data is released with significant delay to the IEA and especially to national statistics. I also noticed that, unlike the IEA, they generally do not update the numbers released earlier. That can partly explain, why JODI numbers for Russia are lower than data from other sources. On average, JODI's C+C+NGL numbers for January-July 2015 are
    203 kb/d lower than IEA and 164 lower than EIA.

    In general, all serious experts on Russian oil industry use the official numbers provided by the Energy Ministry.

    Russian oil production statistics from various sources

    shallow sand , 10/04/2015 at 5:33 pm

    I think Russian production would be easier to measure given it is much lower decline, there aren't as many companies nor as many governmental agencies measuring it.

    It appears to me US data is the most variable and likely inaccurate.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/05/2015 at 3:48 pm

    Hi Ron,

    I think AlexS has solved the discrepancy between the EIA/JODI data and the IEA/Russia data. It is mostly a matter of how pentanes plus should be classified.

    The EIA puts some of these(field or wellhead pentanes plus) in the C+C category and the pentanes plus produced during natural gas processing (to produce dry gas to ship to customers) is included in the NGL category. Canada and Russia group all pentanes plus together in the condensate category (which makes perfect sense from a chemistry perspective), this accounts for about a 400 kb/d difference between EIA estimates for Russian C+C and the Russian Energy ministry estimates. The rest of difference might be due to the EIA assuming a different estimate for the density of Russian C+C (possibly they use the density of the Urals blend which would have a reciprocal of 7.25 barrels per metric ton) than the IEA (which uses about 7.31 barrels per metric ton).

    AlexS, 10/05/2015 at 10:15 am

    Dennis,

    In fact, the lighter is the barrel, the more barrels are in 1 ton.
    43961 ktons reported by the Energy Ministry for September
    is 10741 kb/d with 7.33 conversion ratio
    10697 kb/d with 7.3
    10551 kb/d with 7.2
    10404 kb/d with 7.1
    10258 kb/d with 7.0
    10111 kb/d with 6.9

    As I said earlier, the most widely used ratio is 7.33 (the numbers in Reuters and Bloomberg articles, as well as all Russian statistics by Energy Intelligence, etc.) and 7.3 (apparently used by the IEA)
    I also prefer 7.3, as I think the average Russian barrel is heavier than 7.33.

    That said, the Russian oil output is getting lighter due to the growing share of new fields in eastern Siberia, Far East (Sakhalin) and some other regions. Thus, according to Platts, the Urals blend API is 31.55 API,
    ESPO (East Siberia) is 34.8, Sokol and Vityaz (Far East) are 39.7 and 34.4 API degrees, respectively.
    (Source: http://www.platts.com/im.platts.content/insightanalysis/industrysolutionpapers/espoupdate0510.pdf )
    So in theory, as the share of lighter crudes rises, the conversion ration should also increase. But I doubt that the IEA, EIA or JODI are changing their conversion ratios.

    The EIA and JODI do not specify which conversion ratios they are using for Russia. If they are using 7.2 or 7.1, that could partly explain the discrepancy between their numbers and Energy Ministry and the IEA numbers.

    However the key difference is the volume of condensate and NGL output. It seems that JODI and the EIA account most of condensate production as NGLs. Therefore, their NGL volumes for Russia are much higher than the IEA, and their C+C volume estimates are lower than the numbers provided by the IEA.
    The IEA normally reports only combined C+C+NGL volumes, but this year they also include C+C production numbers for Russia (in the OMR main text). By subtracting C+C from C+C+NGL we get the IEA's estimate for Russian NGL production at 340-350 kb/d in the past several months. This compares with the EIA's 755 kb/d average monthly estimates (January-April) and JODI's 710 kb/d estimate (January-July).

    I think that the IEA's numbers are more accurate, as in 2010 they published a study on global NGL production, where they carefully analyzed NGL and condensate production for the key producing countries using national statistics, as well as information provided by individual companies.
    ("Natural Gas Liquids Supply Outlook 2008-2015." IEA, April 2010. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ngl2010_free.pdf )
    Here are their numbers for Russia's output levels in 2008:
    Condensate: 356 kb/d
    "Other NGLs": 180 kb/d
    Total NGL and condensate: 536 kb/d

    From the IEA report: "The Russian Ministry of Oil and Energy does not report NGLs per se, but they do report LPG and condensate production per company. In this study we have applied the reports of LPG and condensate production per company as a starting point to arrive at a proxy for Russian NGL production. Based on the reported figures at August 2009 the LPG production of Russian gas processing plants was 230 kb/d, while the condensate production was 361 kb/d, a total of 591 kb/d."

    In this report, the IEA projected a sharp increase in Russia's "Condensate and other NGLs" production from 536 kb/d
    In 2008 to 817 kb/d in 2015. Indeed, as we know now, both condensate and NGL output has increased even faster in the past few years due to: 1) increasing production of wet gas, 2) better utilization of previously flared associated gas, and 3) development of several new gas condensate fields. Thus, in the first quarter of 2015, gas condensate output jumped 18% year on year to 7.86 million tons (~640 kb/d) due to the launch of new production facilities in West Siberia, primarily by Novatek and Gazprom Neft. As per the IEA numbers, NGL output also almost doubled from 180 kb/d in 2008 to 340-350 kb/d in 2015.

    Apparently, JODI did not researched as deep as the IEA into the Russian NGL and condensate output, so they account most of condensate as NGLs.
    As regards the EIA, their list of sources for International Energy Statistics [http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/docs/sources.cfm] does not include the Russian Energy Ministry. This is rather strange, as they get data from the national agencies of such countries, as Cuba, Mongolia and others. Apparently their numbers for Russia are based on statistics from JODI, the IEA and the "Russian Energy Monthly, Eastern Bloc Research" (never heard of it).

    That said, I do not suspect JODI and the EIA of being biased against Russia. These are just different statistical methodologies.

    Ronald Walter , 10/05/2015 at 10:34 am

    If you measure 100 cc of oil in a graduated cylinder, since the density, specific gravity, is less than water, 100 cc of oil will weigh less than 100cc of water. 1 cc of agua weighs 1 gram, 1 cc of oil will weigh less than one gram, you will need more oil, a greater volume, to obtain a weight of one gram for the oil.

    A metric ton of oil will occupy a volume greater than one cubic meter, more barrels.

    AlexS , 10/05/2015 at 11:51 am

    Russian crude oil and NGL production (kb/d)
    Source: JODI

    Longtimber, 10/06/2015 at 3:40 pm

    Jan 2012 Refineries came on line (?) Mother Russia keeps the good stuff for value added high density i.e.. Diesel/jet fuel? Russian polymers in the 90's were terrible and next to useless for packaging. Many markets now well supplied with SABIC Polymers. https://www.sabic.com/americas/en/productsandservices/plastics/

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 4:13 pm

    In January 2012 JODI changed its methodology and started treating Russian condensate production as NGL

    Stavros H, 10/05/2015 at 7:36 am

    No, Russian production is genuinely at an all-time high. It's not like the Russians count Lukoil's production in Iraq as "Russian" LOL!

    Consider also that Russia is under sanctions specifically designed by the West to harm its oil output.

    Peak-oilers are over-eager to claim that country "X" or "Y" has peaked in terms of oil production. This is often not the case.

    The only countries that have peaked in oil production, are the capital rich ones of the West. The reason for that is very clear. Those countries started exploiting their oil reserves earlier, and even more importantly have had the capital and technology to extract even the most marginal of deposits. Even in those cases, ultra-cheap financing can lead to temporary booms (US shale, Canadian sands) even if production takes place at a considerable financial loss.

    Countries like Iraq, Iran, Russia or Kazakhstan still have lots of untapped reserves.

    This also partly explains the current World Crisis that could even escalate into WWIII.

    Glenn Stehle, 10/05/2015 at 7:45 am

    There's an interesting article in OilPrice on Russia:

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-Russia-Plotting-To-Bring-Down-OPEC.html

    The author uncritically accepts the myth of the "Great American Shale Revolution," which, as you say, is a play in which "production takes place at a considerable financial loss."

    Nevertheless, the take-away is the importance that oil and gas play in geopolitics.

    Frugal, 10/05/2015 at 8:51 pm

    Countries like Iraq, Iran, Russia or Kazakhstan still have lots of untapped reserves.

    Which oil reservoirs are untapped in these countries?

    [Oct 09, 2015] Troubles with refinanciang in shale industry

    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:14 pm

    Willbros Group amends credit facilities

    October 5, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/willbros-group-amends-credit-facilities.html

    Willbros Group Inc. has completed amendments to its 2015 term-loan and ABL credit facilities. The amendments establish less-stringent term loan financial covenants beyond the end of the first quarter of 2016 that are designed to address the impact of current market conditions.
    Consistent with the company's expected revenue levels for 2016, the ABL commitment has been reduced from $150 million to $100 million, with an accordion feature to expand up to $175 million to accommodate future revenue growth.
    These amendments also enable Willbros to proceed with its asset sale initiatives, including the sale of its Professional Services segment, which will allow the company to strengthen its balance sheet through debt reduction.
    The amended financial covenants are more aligned with current market conditions and the company's performance objectives, and the amendments approve the sale of certain assets, including discrete assets that it may market in future periods. Net proceeds will be used primarily for debt reduction and secondarily for working capital.
    ====================================================
    PDC Energy extends maturity of revolving credit facility

    October 2, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/pdc-energy-extends-maturity-of-revolving-credit-facility.html

    PDC Energy Inc. has extended the maturity of its revolving credit facility by two years to May 2020. The borrowing base has been reaffirmed at $700 million of which the company has elected to keep its commitment level at $450 million.
    CFO Gysle Shellum stated, "We are very pleased with the support of our bank group and its agreement, given the current market conditions, to not only reaffirm our current borrowing base, but to also extend the maturity of the revolving credit facility by two years. This liquidity and flexibility provides us the ability to continue operating with a clear focus on maintaining favorable debt metrics and executing on our strategic vision of delivering shareholder value through continued production and cash flow growth, and strong returns."
    PDC Energy's operations are focused on the horizontal Niobrara and Codell plays in the Wattenberg field in Colorado and on the condensate and wet gas portion of the Utica shale play in southeastern Ohio.
    ===============================================

    Chesapeake amends revolving credit facility

    October 1, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/chesapeake-amends-revolving-credit-facility.html

    Chesapeake Energy Corp. has amended its five-year, $4 billion revolving credit facility agreement maturing in 2019 with its bank syndicate group.
    Key attributes include:
    • Facility moves to a $4 billion senior secured revolving credit facility from a senior unsecured revolving credit facility
    • The initial borrowing base is confirmed at $4 billion, consistent with current availability
    • Previous total leverage ratio financial covenant of 4.0x trailing 12-month earnings before interest, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is suspended
    • Two new financial covenants include a senior secured leverage ratio of 3.5x through 2017 and 3.0x thereafter, and an interest coverage ratio of 1.1x through the first quarter of 2017, increasing incrementally to 1.25x by the end of 2017.
    Chesapeake's credit facility may become unsecured when specific conditions set forth in the credit agreement are met. During an unsecured period, the total leverage ratio would be reinstated and the senior secured leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio would no longer apply. While Chesapeake's obligations under the facility are secured, the amendment gives Chesapeake the ability to incur up to $2 billion of junior lien indebtedness. As of Sept. 30, Chesapeake has $12 million in outstanding letters of credit under the facility with the remainder of the $4 billion available.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:16 pm

    New Source Energy Partners updates on pending borrowing base deficiency

    September 29, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/new-source-energy-partners-updates-on-pending-borrowing-base-deficiency.html

    New Source Energy Partners LP, due to a pending borrowing base deficiency under its revolving credit facility, will be prevented from paying the quarterly cash distribution on its 11% Series A cumulative convertible preferred units.
    "While it was the Partnership's intention to pay this distribution, there are covenants in our credit agreement with our reserve based lending group that prevent our ability to make the payment while in a deficiency," said Kristian Kos, chairman and CEO. "We are not in a deficiency at this time. However, based on initial communication from our reserve based lending group, we expect to be in a borrowing base deficiency after our biannual redetermination takes place in early October, which will prevent us from making a distribution on Oct. 15. We will be working with our lenders to finalize the new borrowing base over the next several days, as well as exploring alternatives to remedy the deficiency to allow the Partnership to resume making distributions on the preferred units as soon as possible."
    New Source Energy Partners is an independent energy partnership engaged in the production of its onshore oil and natural gas properties that extends across conventional resource reservoirs in east-central Oklahoma and in oilfield services that specialize in increasing efficiencies and safety in drilling and completion processes.
    =====================================================

    Bill Barrett reaffirms borrowing base

    September 29, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/bill-barrett-reaffirms-borrowing-base-sells-certain-uinta-properties.html

    Bill Barrett Corp.'s (NYSE: BBG) semi-annual borrowing base review has been completed with the bank group reaffirming the $375 million borrowing base related to its revolving credit facility maturing in April 2020. The credit facility has $375 million of commitments and there are currently no borrowings under the credit facility.
    As part of the redetermination process, the company and its lender group agreed to amend the maintenance covenants in the revolving credit facility by replacing the leverage covenant limiting the maximum total debt to trailing 12-month EBITDAX ratio of 4.0x with a covenant limiting the maximum senior secured debt to trailing 12-month EBITDAX ratio of 2.5x through March 31, 2018, after which the leverage covenant reverts to a maximum total debt to trailing 12-month EBITDAX of 4.0x, as of June 30, 2018. In addition, an interest coverage ratio requirement was included, pursuant to which the ratio of EBITDAX to interest expense may not be less than 2.5 to 1.0 for each quarter through March 31, 2018.
    =======================================================

    Approach Resources confirms reaffirmation of lender commitments in credit facility at $450M

    September 28, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/approach-resources-confirms-reaffirmation-of-lender-commitments-in-credit-facility-at-450m.html

    Approach Resources Inc. has completed the scheduled semiannual borrowing base redetermination of its revolving credit facility, and as a result, the bank group has set the lender commitment amount and borrowing base at $450 million.
    Under the terms of the credit agreement, the bank group redetermines the borrowing base semiannually, using the banks' estimates of reserves and future oil and gas prices. The next borrowing base redetermination is scheduled to occur by April 1, 2016. As of Sept. 24, Approach had $276 million outstanding under its revolving credit facility, resulting in liquidity of $177 million.
    Approach Resources is an independent energy company focused on the exploration, development, production, and acquisition of unconventional oil and gas reserves in the Midland Basin of the greater Permian Basin in West Texas.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:17 pm

    Enterprise increases capacity of bank credit facilities to $5.5B

    September 17, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/enterprise-increases-capacity-of-bank-credit-facilities-to-5-5b.html

    Enterprise Products Partners LP's operating subsidiary, Enterprise Products Operating LLC, has increased its bank credit facilities by $500 million to provide the company with up to $5.5 billion of aggregate borrowing capacity.
    The facilities consist of an amended $4 billion multi-year revolving credit agreement that matures in September 2020 and a new $1.5 billion 364-day revolving credit agreement, both of which are unconditionally guaranteed by Enterprise on an unsecured and unsubordinated basis. As of today, aggregate available borrowing capacity under the increased bank credit facilities is $4.7 billion.
    ==================================================

    Gastar borrowing base maintained at $200M

    September 1, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/gastar-borrowing-base-maintained-at-200m.html

    Gastar Exploration Inc. has completed its second scheduled borrowing base redetermination of its revolving credit facility for 2015 and, as a result, the borrowing base has been reaffirmed by the lending participants at $200 million.
    Currently, Gastar has drawn $65 million under its revolving credit facility, resulting in $135 million of unused borrowing capacity. The next scheduled borrowing base redetermination is to occur by May 1, 2016.
    Gastar's principal business activities include an emphasis on unconventional reserves, such as shale resource plays. In Oklahoma, Gastar is developing oil-bearing reservoirs of the Hunton Limestone horizontal play and expects to test other prospective formations on the same acreage, including the Meramec shale play (middle Mississippi Lime) and the Woodford shale play, which Gastar refers to as the STACK play. In West Virginia, Gastar is developing liquids-rich natural gas in the Marcellus shale play, and has drilled and completed two dry-gas Utica/Point Pleasant wells on its acreage.
    ========================================

    RSP Permian completes bolt-on Midland Basin acquisitions and increases borrowing base

    August 26, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/08/rsp-permian-completes-bolt-on-midland-basin-acquisitions-and-increases-borrowing-base.html

    RSP Permian Inc. closed an amendment with the lenders under its revolving credit facility that, among other things, increases the borrowing base 20% to $600 million. The company currently has no amounts drawn under its revolving credit facility and the next scheduled borrowing base redetermination is May 1, 2016.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:21 pm

    Exterran Holdings secures financing to enable spin-off of businesses

    October 6, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/exterran-holdings-secures-financing-to-enable-spin-off-of-international-services-and-global-fabrication-businesses.html

    Exterran Holdings Inc. (NYSE: EXH) has provided an update to the planned financing in connection with its previously announced separation.
    In November 2014, Exterran Holdings said that it intends to separate its international contract operations, international aftermarket services, and global fabrication businesses into a stand-alone, publicly traded company named Exterran Corp. Upon completion of the spin-off, Exterran Holdings, which will continue to own and operate its contract operations and aftermarket services businesses in the US, will be renamed Archrock Inc.

    As previously announced, Exterran Corp. entered into a $750 million revolving credit facility on July 10 that would become available upon the completion of the separation and the satisfaction of certain other conditions. On Oct. 5, Exterran Corp. amended and restated the credit agreement to provide for a new $925 million credit facility, consisting of a $680 million revolving credit facility and a $245 million term loan facility. The revolving credit facility will have an interest rate subject to a leverage grid with an expected initial interest rate of LIBOR plus 2.75%. The term loan will carry an interest rate of LIBOR plus 5.75%, with a 1.00% LIBOR floor.

    Availability under the new credit facility is conditioned upon the completion of the separation and the satisfaction of certain other customary conditions. The revolving credit facility will mature five years after the effective date of the separation transaction, and the term loan facility will mature two years after the effective date of the separation transaction.
    The new credit facility includes, among other covenants, financial covenants requiring Exterran Corp. to maintain (after the separation) an interest coverage ratio of not less than 2.25:1.00 and a total leverage ratio of not greater than 3.75:1.00. Should Exterran Corp. refinance the term loan facility with the proceeds of certain qualified unsecured debt or equity issuances, the financial covenants in the revolving credit facility will be modified to require that Exterran Corp. maintain a total leverage ratio of not greater than 4.50:1.00 and a senior secured leverage ratio of not greater than 2.75:1.00, while the interest coverage ratio will not change. Such capitalized terms are defined in the amended and restated credit agreement.
    In connection with the spin-off, Exterran Holdings anticipates that Exterran Corp. initially will borrow under its new credit facility and transfer an amount of proceeds to Exterran Holdings which, when taken together with the proceeds from borrowings under the Archrock credit facility as described below, will enable Exterran Holdings to repay all of its existing indebtedness.
    As of June 30, on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the spin-off, Exterran Corp. would have borrowed and transferred to Exterran Holdings approximately $539 million. Subsequent to June 30, and prior to the completion of the spin-off, Exterran Holdings expects to incur additional borrowings under its existing credit facility of between $40 million and $50 million to finance expenses related to the completion of the spin-off, which will increase the amount that Exterran Corp. borrows under its new credit facility and transfers to Exterran Holdings.
    Also, Exterran Holdings entered into a $300 million credit facility on July 10 that would become available upon the completion of the separation and the satisfaction of certain other conditions. On Oct. 5, Exterran Holdings executed a first amendment to the credit agreement that, among other things, increases the aggregate commitments under the revolving credit facility from $300 million to $350 million. The revolving credit facility includes, among other covenants, financial covenants requiring Archrock Inc. to maintain (after the separation) an interest coverage ratio of not less than 2.25:1.00 and a total leverage ratio of not greater than 4.25:1.00 (except that the maximum total leverage ratio during a specified acquisition period will be increased to 4.75:1.00), as those capitalized terms are defined in the credit agreement. The revolving credit facility will have an interest rate subject to a leverage grid with an expected initial interest rate of LIBOR plus 1.75%.

    [Oct 09, 2015] WTI Crude Tops $50, Energy Stocks Soar To Biggest Week Since 2008 (But Credit Aint Buying It)

    "... output from the world's biggest consumer drops and Shell and PIMCO claim the worst may be over (while Goldman sees lower for longer suggesting this rally is a squeeze). However, while Energy stocks and raw materials are soaring, credit markets remain notably less impressed. ..."
    "... at $50 big oil will maintain dividends and bonuses but cut capex to the bone. kick the can bitchez. ..."
    "... ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    WTI Crude is back above $50 to its highest in almost 3 months following a 10%-plus gain on the week (the 2nd best since Jan 2009). This surge has sparked the biggest surge in European and US Oil & Gas stocks since 2008 as Bloomberg notes, output from the world's biggest consumer drops and Shell and PIMCO claim the worst may be over (while Goldman sees "lower for longer" suggesting this rally is a squeeze). However, while Energy stocks and raw materials are soaring, credit markets remain notably less impressed.

    ... ... ...

    As Bloomberg reports,

    Oil may rise to a "baseline" of about $60 a barrel in one year's time as the impact of supply cuts becomes more evident from early 2016, Greg Sharenow, an executive vice-president at Pimco, said in an e-mail. U.S. crude output is down about 440,000 barrels a day from a four-decade high of 9.61 million barrels in June.

    Still, companies remain cautious after a rally earlier this year was shortlived. While production cuts may help draw a line under the rout, prices are set to remain "lower for longer" because of excess inventories, according to Pimco, which manages $15 billion of commodity assets. Shell plans for a long stretch of low prices, Van Beurden said this week in London.

    "People could be thinking, how much worse can it get from here, so there's a rotation from short positions to long," Michael Powell, a managing director of investment banking at Barclays Plc, said in London this week. "Then you ask, is this the spring of this year all over again?"

    buzzsaw99

    at $50 big oil will maintain dividends and bonuses but cut capex to the bone. kick the can bitchez.

    Herdee

    Suckers rally, just manipulated like all markets in order to give big oil in the U.S. the chance to hedge on the downside for winter recession. All the crooks on Wall Street need another load of suckers for a big fat pay check before Christmas.

    LawsofPhysics

    Who gives a shit about paper bullshit?

    Some people will have access to the calories and commodity chemicals required to maintain a decent standard of living. Most will not.

    Same as it ever was...


    [Oct 09, 2015] Problem of toxic water disposal in shale industry

    "... An oil crisis is eventually inevitable -- and it is inevitable that the oil will be burnt – somewhere. Where doesn't matter in environmental terms. The best imo we can hope for politically is to slow down oil consumption so it lasts a little longer. ..."
    "... If Ron is right about Peak oil happening shortly, i.e. within a year or two, the tune might change. To quote OFM "In the event of a real crisis we may wish like hell for a non existent Keystone". ..."
    "... Told me something very interesting. He said, that he and other guys in his industry aren't drilling for oil, but rather some were drilling "Water Injection Wells." Says, companies have to continue drilling these deep wells to get rid of the toxic water that comes from extracting oil, especially shale oil. ..."
    "... He also says as shale wells get older and lose production it becomes even less commercially viable to keep the well pumping when they have to inject higher volumes of water back into the ground that are coming via the shale oil industry. ..."
    "... I thought ROCKMAN'S post on peak oil.com, which Jeffrey referred to here recently was very telling. Something like 30% of the EFS wells completed in July, 2014 are presently shut in. That is a terrible percentage. Peruse the monthly ND well production report. Lots of shut in wells in ND too. Many are not Bakken, but quite a few are, which is not good considering the play is not ten years old. ..."
    "... I'd say a company such as Whiting is not looking good right now. SEC PDP PV10 will be less than long term debt at year end, production is falling, still cash flow negative and still must drill and complete wells to keep production from falling of a cliff. ..."
    "... So to summarize: of the 129 EFS wells that began producing in July 2014: 40 wells (31%) suffered a 100% decline rate per year. Actually it's higher since not all produced for the entire 12 months but I'll let that slide: there were 4 wells that stopped producing after a month or so and only recovered less than 6,000 bo each. And the 89 wells still producing in July 2015: they have suffered a decline rate of 73%. ..."
    "... Electric expenses are only second to labor in most water floods IMO, and many times can even be higher than labor. However, chemicals also are a major expense. ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/04/2015 at 1:05 pm

    ... ... ...

    An oil crisis is eventually inevitable -- and it is inevitable that the oil will be burnt – somewhere. Where doesn't matter in environmental terms. The best imo we can hope for politically is to slow down oil consumption so it lasts a little longer.

    We have a somewhat better shot at limiting coal consumption because wind and solar power plus gas can be readily substituted for coal.

    This comment is about what WILL be rather than what OUGHT to be.

    Ovi, 10/04/2015 at 8:00 pm

    ... ... ...

    If Ron is right about Peak oil happening shortly, i.e. within a year or two, the tune might change. To quote OFM "In the event of a real crisis we may wish like hell for a non existent Keystone".

    If the environmental lobbies were really concerned about CC, they should be pushing for a North American approach on how to deal with all oil production, not just focused on Canadian oil.

    SRSrocco, 10/04/2015 at 1:58 pm

    Ron & Group,

    Maybe some of you that are working in the field can add to this. I had a phone conversation with a fella who has been looking for oil in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma for the past 30+ years. Says… he knows just about everyone looking for conventional plays in his neck of the woods.

    Told me something very interesting. He said, that he and other guys in his industry aren't drilling for oil, but rather some were drilling "Water Injection Wells." Says, companies have to continue drilling these deep wells to get rid of the toxic water that comes from extracting oil, especially shale oil.

    Says this could become a big issue going forward as the EPA may start cracking down on this further. He also says as shale wells get older and lose production it becomes even less commercially viable to keep the well pumping when they have to inject higher volumes of water back into the ground that are coming via the shale oil industry.

    Would love to see if anyone else here can comment on this.

    shallow sand, 10/04/2015 at 2:19 pm

    Depends on the well.

    Bakken wells seem to produce less water as they age. Mississippian production in KS and OK seems to have a high water cut, making same uneconomic. EFS and Permian more of a mixed bag.

    Earthquake issues arise from these wells, not from the frac itself.

    shallow sand, 10/04/2015 at 2:57 pm

    Steve. I'm not entirely sure on water cut in Bakken, seems it does vary well to well.

    Just as with any other oilfield, some wells are better than others.

    As I have pointed out here many times before, OPEX per BOE usually is lowest immediately after the well is completed, especially if it is flowing.

    I thought ROCKMAN'S post on peak oil.com, which Jeffrey referred to here recently was very telling. Something like 30% of the EFS wells completed in July, 2014 are presently shut in. That is a terrible percentage. Peruse the monthly ND well production report. Lots of shut in wells in ND too. Many are not Bakken, but quite a few are, which is not good considering the play is not ten years old.

    LTO economic issues are coming home to roost. Just hard to say how much longer banks and investors keep propping it up.

    I'd say a company such as Whiting is not looking good right now. SEC PDP PV10 will be less than long term debt at year end, production is falling, still cash flow negative and still must drill and complete wells to keep production from falling of a cliff.

    However, no personal liability for debt and hype can keep extend and pretend going for a long time, maybe long enough to kill a lot of other high cost production.

    SRSrocco, 10/04/2015 at 3:17 pm

    shallow,

    I couldn't agree more about your assessment of the current state of affairs in the U.S. Shale Oil Industry. Actually, I have found out a lot of data by reading many of your comments here in the blog. I have been a bit low-key in commenting lately, but I still enjoy reading many of Ron's posts and comments.

    As you may be aware, I have my own blog, https://srsroccoreport.com/ . It's a precious metal website that includes energy into the mix. Energy is excluded by most precious metal analysts… which I find completely frustrating to say the least.

    While some label me a Gold or Silver Bug, I look at the precious metals as stores of economic energy… whether that be oil, gas, coal or human-animal labor. I agree that the "Extend & Pretend" model has been going on longer than most realized. However, when it finally cracks, I would stand very far away from anything tied to debt… STOCKS, BONDS, REAL ESTATE and etc.

    So, it will be interesting to see how things play out this fall if we finally get the Stock Market Crash from hell.

    steve

    Dennis Coyne, 10/06/2015 at 11:25 am
    Hi Shallow Sands,

    They started drilling in the Bakken in 1953. Very few wells that started producing in 2007 have stopped producing, only 3% in the Bakken/Three Forks. For wells starting production in 2008 about 5% of wells have stopped producing, for 2009 wells 3% have stopped producing.

    I define "stopped producing" as 12 months or longer of zero output counting back from the most recent month reported. I used the data through Feb 2015 so these numbers may have changed somewhat over the past 8 months.

    I question whether Rockman used a reliable method for reporting on the Eagle Ford. In many cases the RRC will report output as zero when the company has not yet reported output for a lease (or the data is pending review for accounting reasons), Drilling info gets its data from the RRC and the data is not very complete. The 30% of wells that Rockman claims have stopped producing in the Eagle Ford may just be an artifact of this incomplete data.

    Ron Patterson , 10/06/2015 at 1:21 pm
    The 30% of wells that Rockman claims have stopped producing in the Eagle Ford may just be an artifact of this incomplete data.

    I really don't think so. Rockman wrote:

    So to summarize: of the 129 EFS wells that began producing in July 2014: 40 wells (31%) suffered a 100% decline rate per year. Actually it's higher since not all produced for the entire 12 months but I'll let that slide: there were 4 wells that stopped producing after a month or so and only recovered less than 6,000 bo each. And the 89 wells still producing in July 2015: they have suffered a decline rate of 73%.

    I don't think Rockman would make such a silly mistake as you suggest. It appears to me that he is tracking each well and the 40 that dropped out did so at different times and simply never returned to production.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 11:43 am
    Hi Ron,

    I don't have access to the Drilling info database so perhaps you are correct. I am very skeptical of Rockman's claims. I think he assumes that because output is reported as zero, that the output is in fact zero.

    I followed some Eagle Ford wells for a while and the "missing output" is often just delayed reporting which shows up later. For a better test Rockman would have to look at wells that started producing in July 2013 and see how many of those wells were still producing in July 2014, that would avoid most of the delayed reporting artifacts.

    If he did so he would probably find that 5% or fewer wells had stopped producing (where this is defined as zero production for 12 consecutive months or more).

    Rune Likvern, 10/04/2015 at 4:22 pm
    Steve and FWIIW,
    In December 2014 I presented an analysis based on work by Enno and I that showed actual developments for water cut for LTO wells in Bakken (lots of charts).
    General trend is that water cut (and GOR) increases as the LTO wells ages.
    http://fractionalflow.com/2014/12/11/will-the-bakken-red-queen-outrun-growth-in-water-cut/
    shallow sand, 10/04/2015 at 5:18 pm
    Rune. Thanks! I thought maybe you had addressed this.

    I think an interesting exercise related to the high decline and increasing water cut would be to assume a company, such as Oasis, we're to cease all drilling, completion and refrac work.

    Is there any way OAS, who I think is 100% ND and MT, could come close to retiring debt at the present strip.

    I would note OAS is attempting to sell all of its non-Bakken/TF acreage and production.

    A confidentiality agreement is required to view the data. The public data indicates 625 BOEPD from 95 wells. I looked at MT site, several wells are shut in. Looks the same for ND.

    I read the article Jeffrey linked comparing LTO wells to water soluble houses. I can't really tell what is better for these companies. Keep drilling at a loss or stop and try to pay down debt. What a deal.

    Might be amusing if we weren't in a pickle with much of our production also.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/05/2015 at 6:42 am
    A rough metaphor for the shale players is the book and movie "Thinner," by Stephen King. A gypsy places a curse on the lead character, who weighs about 300 pounds. No matter how much he eats, he loses weight, and only by consuming vast quantities of food per day is he able to minimize the weight loss.
    Rune Likvern, 10/05/2015 at 8:15 am
    shallow,
    I posted the chart below some weeks ago.

    The chart shows Oasis credit and debts stacked (columns) along their retirement profile (time axis) and the growing lines (using October-15 as baseline) shows estimates on Oasis cumulative net cash flow with oil prices at respectively $50/b and $70/b [WTI] and no wells added post October-15 (this causes a steep decline in LTO production).

    The chart assumes that the credit facility is fully utilized by October 2015.

    With average oil price of $50/b Oasis may clear the first hurdle, the second one (due Feb 2019 becomes challenging).
    With average oil price of $70/b Oasis may find it difficult to meet debt retirements as from 2022.

    How oil prices develop is a big if, but I expect these to be low for some time. The other thing is possible rollovers of debts.
    To me the best strategy in a low oil price environment would be to stop drilling (LTO) wells that has the prospects of becoming unprofitable [due to the high front end loaded production]…..and pray for a higher oil price.

    Fred , 10/04/2015 at 2:20 pm

    EPA's regulations require that all onshore "produced water" be reinjected, very few exceptions. Of course, as well age, the water cut increases and reinjection becomes a significant cost factor.
    Boomer II , 10/04/2015 at 2:45 pm

    Says this could become a big issue going forward as the EPA may start cracking down on this further.

    Given the corporate and political opposition to the EPA, I can envision waste water wells being regulated at the state level.

    Oklahoma Acts to Limit Earthquake Risk at Oil and Gas Wells – The New York Times

    Watcher, 10/04/2015 at 2:59 pm

    Noted last post, I suspect we have underestimated OPEX for shale out years. Lower oil output means the onsite tanks fill slower to be off loaded by less frequent truck visits.

    But the trucks for production water still have to make the trip to drain the faster filling water tanks.

    John S, 10/04/2015 at 9:49 pm

    SRSRocco,

    A water injection well is a different animal to me than a "water disposal well". An injection well is used in field operations to maintain reservoir pressure by injecting water or reinjecting gas into the reservoir and would be drilled by the operator not a third party service provider. Water would probably have to be treated chemically before injecting into a reservoir.

    A salt water disposal well is used to dispose of produced water that is a by product of field operations. Often these are drilled and operated by 3rd party service contractors but many times an operator will drill and operate its own disposal wells.

    In Texas, the general rule is that produced salt water from one surface tract can not be disposed of on a another surface tract without the consent of the surface owner. Consent is generally given in return for a per barrel fee. It is my experience, that operators take advantage of surface owners in this regard especially when the surface owner is absentee. Other times the surface owners operate these wells as a business and accept produced water from many different operators.

    Some surface owners also sell fresh water to operators as a business too.

    Large unitized fields generally have their own disposal wells for produced water and the operators run them as part of the unit operations.

    Many salt water disposal operators try to convert old abandoned wells into disposal wells. There has to be a formation with enough porosity and permabilty to take the water either on a vacuum (which is the ideal situation) or on a pump which takes a lot of electricity to operate.

    shallow sand , 10/04/2015 at 10:58 pm

    John S, good comment.

    How much electricity it takes to dispose of produced water makes a big difference in well economics right now.

    In my experience, it takes more pressure, and thus more electricity, to inject water in the producing zone, as opposed to disposing of water in the most suitable non-producing zone.

    Electric expenses are only second to labor in most water floods IMO, and many times can even be higher than labor. However, chemicals also are a major expense.

    Having a salt water disposal well that can take a lot of water on a vacuum or at low pressure can be an asset. I have recently seen some commercial disposal wells for sale, with monthly net income as high as $30K.

    A good water supply well is also very useful in water flood operations. However, very important that the water can easily commingle with water in the producing zone. Otherwise, tremendous chemical expense and/or down hole problems may result. Also, tends to clog lines.

    I would say most US water floods are not doing well economically at present. In the last thread had a discussion about an MLP, Mid-Con, and their expenses.

    Many MLP are heavy into water floods. Also, think OXY and Chevron are big water flood players in the Permian, in addition to CO2 floods. I think many CO2 floods originally were water floods.

    MBP indicated secondary and tertiary production is still profitable in the Permian. Would be interested to see OPEX, taxes and G&A for some of the larger water and CO2 floods.

    Kinder Morgan has two of the largest CO2 floods in SACROC and Yates. Might see if they break out those costs. I think they have an advantage in that they own a lot of CO2 transmission lines.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Possible super spike in oil prices

    "... CAPEX cutbacks will bite hard after a lag period and supply will be unable to meet demand which may lead to a super spike in oil prices, followed by recession and lower demand. ..."
    "... In my view, that might happen not earlier than the beginning of next decade. There is still a surplus in the market of around 2 mb/d. It would take time before it is erased. As prices start to rise again, there will be additional supply from Iran, Iraq and Brazil. Libyan oil will also eventually return to the market. ..."
    "... Super spikes in oil prices are possible in the future. The oil industry is cyclical and is known for big fluctuations in prices. But I do not think that potential price spikes in the next decade is what is seriously worrying the Saudis at this moment. So their decision not to cut output now seems quite logical to me. ..."
    "... I believe that Canadian oil sands and US LTO output will fall faster than OPEC anticipates and may bring supply and demand into balance by June 2016 (assuming OPECs demand forecast is correct). ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel
    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 12:09 pm
    Dennis,

    You said: "Here is the problem if OPEC follows the path that you suggest. CAPEX cutbacks will bite hard after a lag period and supply will be unable to meet demand which may lead to a super spike in oil prices, followed by recession and lower demand."

    In my view, that might happen not earlier than the beginning of next decade. There is still a surplus in the market of around 2 mb/d. It would take time before it is erased. As prices start to rise again, there will be additional supply from Iran, Iraq and Brazil. Libyan oil will also eventually return to the market.

    Finally, while LTO output might indeed "begin to crash in 2016" if oil stays below $50, the shale industry will not be killed. After all, the necessary infrastructure remains in place; there is a vast fleet of drilling rigs and fracking equipment. Some companies might go bust, but their assets will be bought by bigger and stronger players. Financial markets will be cautious and access to capital for LTO producers will be more difficult, but it will not be cut. I agree that "LTO may not rebound as fast as some believe", but I think it will take no longer than 6 to 9 months. If and when WTI reaches $65 LTO industry will show first signs of life, and at $75-80 it will resume steady growth.
    Annual growth rates of 1 mb/d are in the past, but 500 kb/d are quite possible, probably not for 7-8 years, as Mark Papa says (see Ron's link below), but at least for 4 -5 years.

    Super spikes in oil prices are possible in the future. The oil industry is cyclical and is known for big fluctuations in prices. But I do not think that potential price spikes in the next decade is what is seriously worrying the Saudis at this moment. So their decision not to cut output now seems quite logical to me.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 12:21 pm
    Hi AlexS,

    Well if your assumptions about new oil coming to market are correct then there will be no danger of a superspike in oil prices.

    I don't think $70/b oil will cause a lot of new output to come to market. The Saudis export about 8.8 Mb/d of crude and petroleum products, an extra $20/b amounts to $176 million per day or $64 billion per year.

    For all of OPEC about 27 Mb/d of crude plus products are exported, so raising oil prices by $20/b increases revenue by $520 million per day (assuming 1 Mb/d lower output) or about $190 billion per year.

    The oil market may adjust very smoothly in the absence of any cartel action, but this will be historically unprecedented.

    I have a little faith in markets, but you must be a true believer in free markets. I am not, markets need some regulation and in the absence of the RRC or OPEC, the oil market will be Volatile.

    Rune Likvern, 10/06/2015 at 3:45 pm
    Shallow,
    I am much on the same page as AlexS here.
    It is hard to know what OPEC's true objectives are; there is a lot of chatter in the media.
    I noticed KSA recently (again) cut the price to some of their Asian customers.

    A lower oil price stimulates consumption (demand) and there are some new developments that still may grow the supply side. Then there is Brazil, Iran, Iraq and Libya (to name some).

    To me the big unknown is how demand, especially in emerging Asian economies develops and the slowdown in China's imports of commodities (iron ore, coal, nat gas etc) are signs of a slowing economy. China has been pulling their neighbors, so as China slows so will others.

    If one follow the commodities flows to China through the Chinese factories the end products normally ends up with consumers all over the world. Lower commodity prices may be a sign about consumer's general financial health (a demand issue). These are indicators that may be helpful in understanding directions for global oil demand.

    There are also some reports about China now filling their strategic petroleum reserve. In other words, what one needs to do is break the demand into consumption and stock build.
    OECD has a huge (and growing) stock overhang which needs to be worked through.

    Now I hold it 70+% probable that OPEC will not cut during their next meeting later this year.

    Dennis Coyne , 10/07/2015 at 1:22 pm
    Hi Rune,

    Interesting.

    I would think that $50/b will not result in a lot of new oil coming from Brazil, Iraq is in chaos, Libya about the same so probably not a lot of new supplies coming from any of those 3. We might see some new output from Iran, the question for me is will this offset the declines in Canada, US, and the North Sea due to CAPEX cutbacks. You are correct that there are a lot of stocks out there, so any danger of a spike in oil prices is minimized by the excess stocks (roughly 250 million barrels based on OPEC's Monthly report in September).

    I believe that Canadian oil sands and US LTO output will fall faster than OPEC anticipates and may bring supply and demand into balance by June 2016 (assuming OPECs demand forecast is correct).

    The slowdown in China may be positive for many Asian nations that compete with China exporting their products to other nations, but only if there is not a bigger fall in exports to China than the increase in exports to other nations. The fall in the value of the Yuan in August may help China's exports.

    Most economic forecasts have World growth at about 3% in 2015, these are not much better than long term weather forecasts so we will find out in time.

    One thing I would say is that if AlexS and Rune agree on a forecast of the oil industry, it is likely correct.

    On the other hand Jeffrey Brown and Steve Kopits seem to think the oil market will become tight sooner rather than later.

    I just don't know what the future will bring.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 1:49 pm
    Dennis,

    IEA, EIA and OPEC forecast that supply and demand will be balanced by 4Q 2016 ,
    and they anticipate relatively modest increase in Iran supply and no increase in Libya.
    That means that global crude and products inventories will continue to increase for at least the next 3 or 4 quarters, although not as fast as in the first half of 2015.
    Once the balance is reached and then demand starts to exceed supply, it will take time before the excess volume of inventories is wiped out.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Open Thread, Oil and Gas

    "... Seems like that add pops up a lot. With WTI averaging about $46 for Q3 and right there yet today, seems like OIL BUST is now the more appropriate term. ..."
    "... Oil production and related liquids is generating about $5 billion per day less worldwide than it did in the 2012-2014 time frame. Big transfer of funds from one group to another. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia, with its huge foreign reserves, could withstand for 3 or 4 years at $50 oil. By that time, prices will improve. ..."
    "... We could live with 60-70% of the 6/14 high for quite awhile, which would be $63-74 WTI. ..."
    "... That price range sounds about right for 2016, but I think we may see it creep up by 2017 (maybe at a 5 to 10% annual rate of increase) because those prices will not be enough to encourage much investment so demand will outstrip supply and drive oil prices up. I think it likely we will see $100/b by 2018 (possibly higher), if the peak has arrived by 2018 (and output is either on a plateau or slowly declining) then oil prices may head to about $150/b within 3 to 5 years, though a recession would put a damper on the oil price rise eventually (within 1 or 2 years of reaching $150/b is my WAG.) ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Oct 04, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

    Longtimber , 10/05/2015 at 12:47 pm

      Gotta wonder bout such an Ad in an article titled "us-shale-oil-industry-will-simply-vanish"

      Most Likely it's the Investor that will vanish – the oil industry will be "right sized" when forced focus on fundamentals. Sad.. but the Ad title … OIL BOOM is spot on.

    shallow sand, 10/05/2015 at 3:50 pm

    Seems like that add pops up a lot. With WTI averaging about $46 for Q3 and right there yet today, seems like OIL BUST is now the more appropriate term.

    Oil production and related liquids is generating about $5 billion per day less worldwide than it did in the 2012-2014 time frame. Big transfer of funds from one group to another.

    KSA realizing around $180 billion less on an annual basis. Wonder how long before they feel backed into a corner enough to do something. Looks like Russia may outlast them, as KSA is pegged to dollar and Russia isn't.

    Maybe Jeffrey can send KSA royals some good bean dish recipes and some free ice cream cone coupons from DQ. LOL!!

    AlexS , 10/05/2015 at 4:47 pm
    shallow sand,

    Saudi Arabia, with its huge foreign reserves, could withstand for 3 or 4 years at $50 oil. By that time, prices will improve.

    shallow sand , 10/05/2015 at 7:14 pm
    AlexS. KSA could go longer than that as I assume many banks would be willing to loan them money with reserves as collateral. They also could issue many more billions of unsecured bonds.

    However, OPEC did not go years without cutting in 1986, 1999 and 2009.

    Each time the cut worked. The price went up significantly. 1986 was not as successful as the other two cuts.

    I may be wrong, but for US producers, it is likely the only hope.

    AlexS, 10/05/2015 at 8:49 pm

    shallow sand,

    In 1986, OPEC actually started increasing production after unsuccessfully trying to stabilize prices by cutting output over the previous 5 years. Their market share dropped from 45.4% in 1979 to 27.6% in 1985, but was constantly increasing from 1986 and has reached 41.9% in 1998. Over the whole period prices remained low (with only a short spike during the Gulf war in 1990). But, for OPEC countries, this was partially offset by the increased production volumes from 15.9 mb/d in 1985 to 30.7mb/d in 1998 (almost twice).

    shallow sand, 10/05/2015 at 10:45 pm
    AlexS.

    I am just looking at history regarding a cut. The past may not be repeated, I agree.

    • 1985-1986. WTI dropped 62.4% from 11/85 to 7/86, from around $31 to $11.50. In November, 1986, OPEC set a target price of $18. 1/87 WTI averaged $18.65. By 7/87 the average was up to $21.34. I do agree the price collapsed again in 1988, but recovered. The price typically was 60-70% of the $31 high in 1985 until the 1998 collapse.
    • 1998-1999. The price dropped approximately 55% from late 1997 to 12/98, when the monthly average was $11.35. I remember that very well. Glum Christmas Party. We were at $8 and change. 3/23 OPEC announced 2.2 million barrel cut. 7/99 average $20.10. 12/99 average $26.10.
    • 2008-2009. Price dropped 71%. June, 2008 average $133.78. February average $39.09. OPEC announced stages of cuts, 500K 9/08, 1.5 million 10/08, 2.2 million 12/08. By 6/09, monthly average 69.64. By 12/09, $77.99
    • 2014-15. Price dropped almost 64% from June, 2014 to August, 2015. June averaged $105.79. August, 2015 averaged $42.87.

    Maybe OPEC will not cut in December, 2015. Going by history they will soon. They have not let things go more than 18 months from the peak in the past. 12/4 meeting will be at 18 months from June peak.

    Go read news stories from 1986, 1999 and 2008-2009. KSA was concerned about the price each time and stated such. Things are not peachy, contrary to both KSA and Russia official mantras.

    Again, I could be wrong, just looking at history. Otoh, maybe lower for longer is needed to stifle the ridiculous North American CAPEX. When reading stories from late 2008, COP had announced a CAPEX budget cut of 18% to $2.8 billion for 2009. By 2014 the CAPEX budget had ballooned to over $17 billion. COP, of course, is a big player in tar sands and all major US LTO plays, so would be a good proxy for "out of control spending.".

    shallow sand, 10/05/2015 at 10:56 pm

    AlexS

    We could live with 60-70% of the 6/14 high for quite awhile, which would be $63-74 WTI.

    Apparently at this time the crude market does not believe this is enough to stifle North American (sans Mexico) production.

    What do you think about this price range from maybe 7/16-12/20? Where do you see LTO in that scenario?

    Dennis Coyne , 10/06/2015 at 9:53 am

    Hi Shallow Sands,

    That price range sounds about right for 2016, but I think we may see it creep up by 2017 (maybe at a 5 to 10% annual rate of increase) because those prices will not be enough to encourage much investment so demand will outstrip supply and drive oil prices up. I think it likely we will see $100/b by 2018 (possibly higher), if the peak has arrived by 2018 (and output is either on a plateau or slowly declining) then oil prices may head to about $150/b within 3 to 5 years, though a recession would put a damper on the oil price rise eventually (within 1 or 2 years of reaching $150/b is my WAG.)

    Others predict a permanent recession (or very slow growth) due to high debt levels.

    If that hypothesis is correct, the future economic outlook is indeed very grim, even in this scenario supply would decrease faster than demand (due to low prices and lack of investment) and oil prices would eventually rise (probably not until 2020), but at a slower rate of increase maybe reaching $100/b in 2025.

    I don't find the excess debt story very compelling, but many do.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 9:41 am

    Shallow sand,

    Parallels with 1985-86, 1998-99, 2001-02 and 2008-09 may lead to erroneous conclusions.

    Sharp oil price declines in 1998-99, 2001-02 and 2008-09 were caused by cyclical demand reduction during global recessions. It was relatively easy, for OPEC, to support prices by cutting output, as demand quickly rebounded. OPEC restored production levels in a few months and didn't lose its market share.

    By contrast, oil price decline in the 80s was due not only to a deep recession (1980-83), but also to long-term trends triggered by the oil price shocks of 1973-74 and 1979-80. These included oil substitution by natural gas in power generation and industry, oil/energy saving measures, and a sharp increase in oil production in the North Sea, Alaska, Mexico and Western Siberia. OPEC initially tried to offset falling demand and the tide of rising non-OPEC supplies by cutting its own output, but this proved inefficient. Competitors were taking its market share and prices continued to decline. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members changed their market strategy from defending prices to defending market share.

    The current oil price slump is due to long-term trends in supply (primarily LTO, but also Canada and some OPEC members). Cutting OPEC output to maintain prices would only support LTO and other non-OPEC supplies, including costly projects such as Arctic. As we have seen in 2Q15, even at $60 WTI tight oil producers are ready to increase drilling activity, but at the current $45 LTO production is declining.

    Therefore, it doesn't make sense for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors to cut output and support competitors. They will wait until rising demand and stagnating or declining non-OPEC production will finally erase excess supply. That will take much less time than in the 80-90s, as current spare capacity is only about 2.5 mb/d vs. 11-12 mb/d in 1985.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Another Petro-State Throws In The Towel The Last Nail In The Petrodollar Coffin

    "... 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF). ..."
    "... As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. ..."
    "... In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016 ..."
    "... For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US. ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    According to the proposed budget submitted by the current 'blue-blue' government the Norwegian deficit will reach another record high in 2016. Mainland taxes are expected to bring in 1,008 billion NOKs, while expenditures are estimated at 1,215 billion NOKs. In other words, 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF).

    While record mainland deficits covered by the petroleum sector is nothing new in Norwegian budget history, on the contrary it is closer to the norm, the 2016 budget did raise some eyebrows. The other side of the ledger, the net inflow to the SWF from activities in the North Sea will, again according to budget, be lower than the required amount to cover the deficit. This has never happened before and is testimony of the sea change occurring in the world of petrodollar recycling. Interestingly enough, the need to liquidate SWF holdings is helping to create further deflation in the Eurodollar system in a self-reinforcing loop.

    As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. A SWF as the Norwegian was created through a surplus of exports over imports meaning it can only be utilized through future imports over exports. When the Norwegians look at their wealth expressed in Norwegian kroner it all looks fine, but expressed in dollars the SWF has shrunk considerably in size. Thus, the surfeit imports expected by the Norwegian populace cannot be met. Norway rode high on a wave of liquidity which pushed up commodity currencies, leading Norwegians to consume more imported goods today, without realizing they were tapping into the principal of their future. When the tide turns the gross misconception is revealed.

    The Government claims it is all fine though. The current down-cycle will, according to them, end early 2016 so despite a 2 percentage point reduction in corporate- and personal income tax, mainland tax revenues are expected to increase 1.9 per cent. That is obviously a pipedream, just as the expected 17.9 per cent increase in interest and dividend income which will make sure the SWF continue to grow at a healthy pace despite the massive mainland deficit.

    Assuming oil prices remain low, mainland tax revenue will plummet as they are very much a function of what goes on offshore, while expenditure will rise as they do in all welfare states during a down cycle.

    If we are right, a global recession is imminent, meaning the expected increase in dividend income will never materialize.

    In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016.

    For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US.

    Robust growth in the US will prompt Yellen to hike, spiking the dollar (as Eurodollar claims scramble for actual dollars) while paradoxically a recession in the US will lead to the exact same outcome. The goldilocks scenario of 1-2 per cent growth is the best that the Norwegian government can hope for. It will minimize the gap between the lies and propaganda spewed out by the Ministry of Finance and reality.

    Latina Lover

    Death to the Fed Reserve! Time for a currency reset. Down with the Banksters, or rather, hang them high!

    [Oct 08, 2015] Crude Oil Surges Above $50 a Barrel for First Time Since July

    Oct 08, 2015 | www.bloomberg.com
    Oil surged above $50 a barrel in New York for the first time since July on speculation that demand is picking up.

    ... ... ...

    WTI for November delivery rose $1.62 to settle at $49.43 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was the highest settlement since July 21. Futures touched $50.07. The volume of all futures traded was 45 percent higher than the 100-day average at 3:01 p.m.

    ... ... ...

    Global oil demand will increase by 1.5 million barrels a day this year, El-Badri said in the statement to the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee. Commercial oil inventories in developed countries remain about 190 million barrels above the five year average , he said.

    [Oct 08, 2015] Oil's Rally Was A Bunch Of Noise And Won't Last, Goldman Sachs Says

    While financial market can dictate oil price for a considerable length of time then can't do it forever. At some point the fact that a lot of oil production need break-even price of 65 and realistic price $75 per barrel will change the game Wall Street is playing. Some "overenthusiastic" shorts might lose. Also credibility Wall Street is probably close to zero to attempt to manipulate market via MSM are not as effective as in the past.
    Oct 08, 2015 | Barrons.com
    Last month, Courvalin said that oil prices could fall as low as $20 as the global glut drags into next year. See last month's post, "There Will Be Blood: Goldman Slashes Oil Price Forecasts." Here's the laundry list of what Goldman says hasn't changed in the past week:
    1. The global oil market is currently well oversupplied.
    2. This oversupply is driven by strong production growth outside of the US with Lower 48 production already declining and gradually tightening light US crude balances.
    3. Low prices are required in 2016 to finally bring supply and demand into balance by year-end and sustain a US production decline of 585 kb/d next year.
    4. Although demand growth has surprised to the upside this year at 1.6 million b/d growth, risks are clearly to weaker demand growth in 2016.

    Dave wrote:

    Goldman has lost all credibility LONG ago. They are looking to load up before the rebound and are trying to drive prices down temporarily.

    Earnst wrote:

    Only about 20% of trade is between actual buyer's and seller's. There is a terrific bias towards longs and the use of technical analysis as well as conditioned responses to factors such as middle east conflict. It was a new day yesterday but by God it's an old day now; they'll capitulate.

    Big Al wrote:

    These are the same guys who called for oil in the $20s. They are either: trying to protect some short positions, clueless as to oil and gas industry fundamentals or incompetent at best. Everyone in the industry knows that shorting energy is like playing Russian roulette. You could get lucky, but if you keep playing long enough, you wind up dead.

    Jeff wrote:

    Hmmmm.... Rig count at lowest level in years. US production swinging lower. Saudis signaling for higher prices as they bleed $12B per month. Seems like higher prices up to $60 not unreasonable.

    dsr wrote:

    Not many know this, but Goldman owns a large interest in an oil refinery in Indiana. The lower oil is the higher the crack spreads for them, equals $$$$$. They also sell 70,000 barrels of crude per day to another refinery and then buy the product to sell on the market. Do a Google search on Goldman's forecast for energy over the last 18 months and you will see the light of absurdity. It's beyond funny. We have lost 1 million barrels of oil per day in non-opec production in the last 6 months, and at the same time demand is surging, and this guy says "not much has changed." No credibility.

    kim wrote:

    The vampire squids are having to eat crow right now and they are trying harder than ever to jawbone down the price of oil to save their credibility and probably make a few shekels in the process. Put a little salt and pepper on that 20 dollar per barrel crow that you are having to eat there Damien; makes it go down better.

    Phil wrote:

    If Goldman said it will go down, bet for oil, it will go up!

    George wrote:

    And where is the $200/barrel oil they predicted a couple of years ago? Oh, not here yet so now they are predicting $20. Losers.

    anonymous33 wrote:

    people should read the report. Nowhere does the analyst or Goldman predict $20 oil. That number is specified as a very specific condition which even they say is not going to happen. Typical over-reaction by the public.

    [Oct 08, 2015] Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    Oct 08, 2015 | www.eia.gov

    The current values of futures and options contracts for January 2016 delivery (Market Prices and Uncertainty Report) suggest the market expects WTI prices to range from $32/b to $67/b (at the 95% confidence interval) in January 2016.

    ... ... ...

    Projected U.S. crude oil production averages 9.2 million b/d in 2015 and 8.9 million b/d in 2016.

    [Oct 08, 2015] Why Barrons Is Wrong On $75 Oil

    Blast from the past. Note that key arguments still look reasonable... But prediction is not ;-)...
    "... New unconventional oil reserves in the U.S. require an average break-even price of $65, which does not justify or support a $75 price. ..."
    "... Barrons assumes that all new unconventional reserves are here for the long term and will continue to increase production, which is not the case. ..."
    "... The article references Citigroup energy analyst Eric Lee, who believes that most of this new oil could be recovered for around under $75 per barrel, leading to a global decrease in price. ..."
    "... after examining existing extraction cost data it is hard for the supply side economics to actually work out and support $75 oil for a sustained period of time. ..."
    "... This increased demand would put worldwide oil consumption at 91.60 million barrels per day in 2014 and 92.97 million barrels per day in 2015. ..."
    Apr. 2, 2014 | Seeking Alpha
    Barron's assumptions as to the leading factors of lowered oil pricing do not make sense after examining the supply side economics.

    New unconventional oil reserves in the U.S. require an average break-even price of $65, which does not justify or support a $75 price.

    Barron's assumes that all new unconventional reserves are here for the long term and will continue to increase production, which is not the case.

    The cover of Barrons this past week read "Here Comes $75 Oil". The article highlights that due to several new "game changers" in the oil production market that within the next 5 years the oil market would fall to $75 a barrel. The three main reasons that would contribute to cheaper oil are deep-water oil, shale oil, and oil sands. All of these newfound resources are estimated at roughly one trillion barrels in newfound oil. Adding that onto the existing global oil reserve estimated at 1.5 trillion, makes this newfound oil a major factor in the future of oil pricing. The article references Citigroup energy analyst Eric Lee, who believes that most of this new oil could be recovered for around under $75 per barrel, leading to a global decrease in price.

    As much as $75 oil sounds nice and would no doubt be a major boon to the U.S. and world economies. Yet after examining existing extraction cost data it is hard for the supply side economics to actually work out and support $75 oil for a sustained period of time. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), they expect worldwide consumption of petroleum products to grow by 1.2 million barrels per day in 2014 and 1.5 million barrels per day for 2015.

    This increased demand would put worldwide oil consumption at 91.60 million barrels per day in 2014 and 92.97 million barrels per day in 2015.

    [Oct 08, 2015] What's Next For Oil Prices

    "... investments in new or expanded oil projects will be reduced by 22.4 percent to $521 billion this year – down $130 billion from 2014 – thereby reducing the supply of crude and putting upward pressure on prices. ..."
    "... He said he expects global demand for oil will rise by 1.3 million barrels a day in 2016. ..."
    "... When will the end of that tunnel appear? Within the next 18 to 24 months, el-Badri predicted. ..."
    Oct 08, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    In London, OPEC Secretary-general Abdallah Salem el-Badri said investments in new or expanded oil projects will be reduced by 22.4 percent to $521 billion this year – down $130 billion from 2014 – thereby reducing the supply of crude and putting upward pressure on prices.

    "Less supply in the very near future. Less supply means high prices," el-Badri said in a speech at the Oil and Money conference.

    El-Badri's expectations on investment were supported by the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, who told the meeting that investments in oil projects this year will fall by about the same rate forecast by el-Badri.

    "Upstream investment will be at least 20 per cent lower [this year] than in 2014," said the chief of the Paris-based IEA, which represents 29 oil-consuming countries. "In terms of money spent, it's the highest [drop] in history."

    Oil prices will also rise, ironically, because the current low prices have encouraged consumers to buy more fuel, according to el-Badri. He said he expects global demand for oil will rise by 1.3 million barrels a day in 2016.

    The current low price of oil has strained the budgets of many oil-producing countries, including wealthy Middle Eastern states. The price of oil is now less than $50 per barrel, less than half what it was in June 2014. Yet el-Badri argued, "We are not in disarray. We see some light at the end of the tunnel."

    When will the end of that tunnel appear? Within the next 18 to 24 months, el-Badri predicted.

    Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, doesn't see oil prices stabilizing quite that soon, however. He told the conference that while oil prices are due to recover, their rise won't be as fast as el-Badri expects

    ... ... ...

    This [shale] technology can't make money unless oil sells for at least $60 per barrel.

    Related: A Key Indicator Low Oil Prices Are Lifting Demand

    [Oct 08, 2015] Oil prices are soaring as Saudi Arabia gets the upper hand over shale producers

    "... At 848, the number of U.S. drilling rigs is only half what it was in January, and the lowest level since 2003. The Department of Energy said Tuesday it estimated U.S. oil production fell by 120,000 barrels a day last month, and will continue to fall through mid-2016. It now expects U.S. crude output to fall to an average of 8.9 million b/d next year from 9.2 million this year. ..."
    "... The International Energy Agency now expects global demand to rise by 1.7 million b/d this year. ..."
    "... Pretending that there's still some kind of competition between shale oil and OM's and ignoring the worldwide credit collapse is just plain stupid. OM's are clearly in liquidation because of the credit collapse, and not because they're winning some artificial competition against the shale oil producers who're themselves effectively out of business. ..."
    "... Massive credit is required to drill, and it's not there. ..."
    Oct 08, 2015 | fortune.com
    October 7, 2015 | Fortune

    Baker Hughes' closely-watched rig count showed that the number of drilling rigs in the U.S. turned down sharply in September after signs of a brief revival in the previous two months. At 848, the number of U.S. drilling rigs is only half what it was in January, and the lowest level since 2003. The Department of Energy said Tuesday it estimated U.S. oil production fell by 120,000 barrels a day last month, and will continue to fall through mid-2016. It now expects U.S. crude output to fall to an average of 8.9 million b/d next year from 9.2 million this year.

    ... ... ...

    The International Energy Agency now expects global demand to rise by 1.7 million b/d this year.

    KI time

    Pretending that there's still some kind of competition between shale oil and OM's and ignoring the worldwide credit collapse is just plain stupid. OM's are clearly in liquidation because of the credit collapse, and not because they're winning some artificial competition against the shale oil producers who're themselves effectively out of business.

    Massive credit is required to drill, and it's not there. Government has effectively provided more than $4.2 Trillion$ in bailouts since 2005 as cover for the worldwide credit collapse. Now Government is stone broke and can't do it anymore...

    [Oct 08, 2015] Black Gold May Be Down, but Its Not Out

    "... while there are alternatives ranging from electric batteries to natural gas, none are as convenient or deliver the same energy-dense punch as plain old petroleum products. ..."
    "... the way oil is bought, sold and used has changed almost beyond recognition in less than a year. For the first time in generations, oil is being driven by markets [aka Wall Street speculators -- NNB] rather than giant cartels. ..."
    "... Bad for the bulls, right? Maybe not â€" oil always seems to bubble upward. Paul Horsnell, head of commodity research at Standard Chartered Bank in London, tells OZY that U.S. production is “falling relatively quickly.†As a result, he says, a sharp price increase is in the cards, perhaps to near $75, compared with prices in the $50 range today. Philip Verleger, president of the consulting firm PKVerleger, also sees oil rising in the near term; he says U.S. companies have been laggards about reporting their cutbacks, and that government statistics overstate oil production as a result. ..."
    Oct 08, 2015 | news.yahoo.com

    For better or worse, oil never really seems to lose out in the long run. You’d think the case against it would be easy to make: It’s last century’s go-to energy source and a nightmare for the environment. There are also those nagging concerns about peak oil and even peak car, given that millennials seem way less interested in their own wheels than their elders were at that age. But oil is still by far the biggest traded commodity in the world. It’s uniquely useful, and so far irreplaceable, as a cheap, liquid fuel â€" after all, you can’t run a car on coal or fly a plane on solar, and while there are alternatives ranging from electric batteries to natural gas, none are as convenient or deliver the same energy-dense punch as plain old petroleum products. All the fracking in the world hasn’t yet diminished the sense that the days of Texas Tea are far from over.

    By contrast, the way oil is bought, sold and used has changed almost beyond recognition in less than a year. For the first time in generations, oil is being driven by markets [aka Wall Street speculators -- NNB] rather than giant cartels. OPEC, long the bogeyman of the oil market, has been neutered by a huge surge in U.S. production; at the same time, low gas prices don’t seem to be encouraging people to drive longer or buy more gas guzzlers the way they have in the past. “This time it is not business as usual,†said Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, in a recent speech.

    The most jaw-dropping change by far: OPEC’s effective capitulation in its decades-old game of rigging oil prices. Last November, Saudi Arabia opened its oil taps in what experts considered an attempt to kill off “high cost†U.S. shale-oil production. But it turned out that U.S. operations haven’t been so high cost after all; oil expert Daniel Yergin, vice chair of the research and consulting company IHS, notes that U.S. prospectors improved their efficiency by 65 percent in just a year. U.S. oil production is up to stay, he says â€" and that means oil prices are likely to stay low.

    Bad for the bulls, right? Maybe not â€" oil always seems to bubble upward. Paul Horsnell, head of commodity research at Standard Chartered Bank in London, tells OZY that U.S. production is “falling relatively quickly.†As a result, he says, a sharp price increase is in the cards, perhaps to near $75, compared with prices in the $50 range today. Philip Verleger, president of the consulting firm PKVerleger, also sees oil rising in the near term; he says U.S. companies have been laggards about reporting their cutbacks, and that government statistics overstate oil production as a result.

    Some forecasters believe oil’s great run won’t end for decades â€" most of us still love our cars, and demand for them continues to grow in the developing world. But there’s also the threat that governments worried about global warming and pollution might finally cap the gusher.

    Says Verleger: “The oil industry has no friends.â€

    [Oct 07, 2015] Putin Has Just Put An End to the Wolfowitz Doctrine

    "... Syria ..."
    "... Putin is trying to put an end to a doctrine that has caused 25 years of Bushist Crusader mayhem. Will he succeed is another question. ..."
    "... But having got the ball rolling is a tipping moment and Humpty Dumpty of NWO is now a broken toy of a bygone age, especially as its created the destruction of Pax Americana's main hold on the world : Oil duopoly and monetary hegemony all gone down the shute in debt debasement folly. ..."
    "... Just as the first Iraqi war was seminal in the fall of the Soviet Union IMHO when the world (and particularly the Soviet military analysts) were able to see the overwhelming technical superiority of the US smart weapons and the ease with with the US disposed of Saddam's huge standing army (breaking the illusion that the Soviet Union was a superpower on the par with the US), the move into Syria by Russia by the invitation of the legal government of Syria is in my opinion just as historic and seminal, the bell weather for a major sea-change in the the power structure of the world. ..."
    "... the MSF hospital in Kunduz fiasco in juxtaposition with the well planned Russian strikes against ISIS (which the US supposedly has been attacking for 13 months), raises the question: if you needed someone to protect you, do you trust the Russian military or the US military? ..."
    "... The above question is a fatal doubt intruding into the all powerful US paradigm - if the Saudis and other important players (Germany!) start to question US power and cozy up to the Russians, the US petrodollar is done for, and with it US dollar as WRC - the US as a nation will start an inevitable slide into third world status if that occurs. Imagine what happens for example if the US has to pay its military budget from actual assets or savings rather than just print dollars it needs to buy the hugely expensive F35 or send billions to Israel... ..."
    "... The most rabid neocons may push the US into a poorly thought out confrontation, and get us all killed in the worst case. ..."
    "... What has Putin proved? That the US desires not to destroy ISIL, but to empower ISIL. When has Assad ever attacked the US? Never. ..."
    "... Everything the US government says is a lie. Everything the government's Ministry of Truth's media reports is a lie. With every lie the sheeple to emote for government. Barack is evil incarnate. The US is a tool of neo-cons and the exceptional American fools. Evil succeeds, when the American sheeple follow. ..."
    "... Don't praise the day before the sunset. Imho, the more accurate statement would be: Putin has challenged the Wolfowitz doctrine. ..."
    "... The neocons are not defeated until the truth about 9-11 if widely accepted, or, more properly, that which is untrue is widely rejected. it is their achilles' heel. The crime is too great, too evil and too poorly done to be explained away or ignored. once a growing majority of the nation sees through this lie (and the fraction is already larger than many imagine), new things become possible. this is not yesterday's news. There is no statute of limitations on treason or murder. The day will be won mind by mind. do your part. ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    4-Star General Wesley Clark noted:

    In 1991, [powerful neocon and Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz] was the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy – the number 3 position at the Pentagon. And I had gone to see him when I was a 1-Star General commanding the National Training Center.

    ***

    And I said, "Mr. Secretary, you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm."

    And he said: "Yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, and we didn't … But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won't stop us. And we've got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran, Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."

    Crocodile

    Putin has put an end to the Wolfowitz doctrine - end

    Then Putin has found a cure for psychopathy; unlikely.

    As you know, October is "Pink" month, the month they remind women of the deadly disease brought on women in which the big corporations are raping in billions and they would/will NEVER give you the cure, for their is no profit in a cure. Stupid is as stupid does.

    Pinkwasher: (pink'-wah-sher) noun. A company or organization that claims to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon product, but at the same time produces, manufactures and/or sells products that are linked to the disease.

    Here are the results of those efforts: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/statistics/trends.htm (NONE from the disease perspective)

    Minburi

    This shit is from 2007? Wow... Just Wow!! It's only gotten worse since then!

    Why is nothing being done?

    Crocodile

    The rich are getting richer and the middle class is being dismantled and you say "why is nothing being done?"

    Johnny_Dangerously

    So is the Greater Israel thing just a wild conspiracy theory? Along with the 3rd temple and "cleansing" the rest of Palestine?

    Because I'd bet you my life savings that it is not a conspiracy theory as to Netanyahu and his ilk in Likud.

    shutterbug

    the USA people have some cleaning up to do, starting in the White House, every governmental agency and after that probably other federal departments...

    BUT have you ever seen Walking Dead clean something up???

    Icelandicsaga.....

    Wolfowitz type thinking is spin off of Angl American establishment that grew out of Brtish empire/banking/trade ..some say reverts back to East India Trade cartel..but recent history, read for free online insider chronicler Georgetown U. Professor Carrol Quigley, who lays it out in Tragedy and Hope.http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X........ of his uotes: It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the United States has been attacking for years in the belief that they are attacking the Communists.

    Thus, the use of fiat money is more justifiable in financing a depression than in financing a war.

    By the winter of 1945-1946, the Russian peoples were being warned of the dangers from the West.

    In post Cold War guys like Harvards Samuel Huntington...discussed Anglo..American hegemony in Clash of Civilizations. Another who laid out the post Cold War game plan ..Francis Fukuyama in his The End of History. pentagon adviser Thomas Barnett laid out the countries to be taken sown in The Pentagons New Map. The guy is a wack job, but pentagon took him seriously.

    Followed by PNAC..Project for a New American Century?..guys like Wolfowitz, Kagan, Kristol, Cheney et al first proposed invading Iraq a second time. But the genesis for fucked up US policy on steroids, was fall of Soviet Union. That is when elite, shadow govt and banking class from IMF TO World Bank to BIS came into their own. I recall this invade and bring democracy and KFC capitalism began in major policy journals in 1992..just about same time HW BUSH gave his ""new world order" speech at UN. It has been FUBAR evrr since.

    Given what ""economic advisers" from US like Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, Jonathan Hays caused in early days of new Russia, I do not blame them if they hate our guts. We have created chaos and destruction from Balkans ""war" to Ukraine ..Iraq..Libya..Syria. we have turned into a rabid stupid uncontrollable beast. Wolfowitz and his ilk were midwives. Enclosed pertinent links that may be helpful.

    http://www.amazon.com/Clash-Civilizations-Remaking-World-Order/dp/145162......

    and Francis Fukuyama...

    Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama (born October 27, 1952) is an American political scientist, political economist, and author. Fukuyama is known for his book The End of History and the Last Man (1992), which argued that the worldwide spread of liberal democracies and free market capitalism of the West and its lifestyle may signal the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and become the final form of human government. However, his subsequent book Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity (1995) modified his earlier position to acknowledge that culture cannot be cleanly separated from economics. Fukuyama is also associated with the rise of the neoconservative movement,[2] from which he has since distanced himself.[3]

    Fukuyama has been a Senior Fellow at the Center on Democracy,

    MSimon

    No expense is too great to send a message. Until it is.

    MEAN BUSINESS

    False. What's your fucking problem?

    MSimon

    OK no expense is too great.

    An estimate of what the war is costing Russia.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/countingthecost/2015/10/russia-econo...

    Looking around I found out that Russia depends on Western companies for oil field eqpt. The war is causing it to defer projects.

    On top of that Russia needs to balance its economy with more consumer manufacturing. The war is deferring some of that that.

    War steals from the future. And then there is this bit of news. Propaganda or reality? Or a set up for a false flag attack?

    FBI has foiled four plots by gangs to sell nuclear material to ISIS: Authorities working with federal agency stop criminals with Russian connections selling to terrorists

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3262821/FBI-foiled-four-attempts...

    Johnny_Dangerously

    "FBI has foiled four plots by gangs to sell nuclear material to ISIS:"

    Sure they did.

    And they *did not* assassinate that kid down in Florida for refusing to sign a confession.

    Hell In A Ha...

    "An estimate of what the war is costing Russia."

    The cost of this bombing campaign against ISIS is costing Russia, there is no hiding from this fact, but the cost is also being burdened by Syria and Iran. Secondly, the Military Industrial Complex(MIC) does not have total control Iran, Syria and most importantly Russia, like it does over the U.S government. IE; The Russians have flown to date less than 100 sorties and have significantly downgraded ISIS, to the point western governments and media have been bitching about the loss of innocent civilian life(translated; U.S, U.K and allied special forces are being killed by Russian bombs). Conversely the U.S air-force have officially flown over 1800 sorties in an attempt to downgrade ISIS and have been unsuccessfu to datel. 1800 sorties and a lot of bombing achieving nothing, is a great payout for the MIC.

    So an obvious question must be asked. The Russians have flown and bombed just 4% compared to the U.S air-force and have downgraded ISIS. Are the Yanks vastly inferior and incompetent than the Russians? And if the answer is no, then the only logical conclusion must be the Americans never really targeted ISIS and we the public are being fed a pack of lies and propaganda.

    falak pema

    Well said.

    Putin is trying to put an end to a doctrine that has caused 25 years of Bushist Crusader mayhem. Will he succeed is another question.

    But having got the ball rolling is a tipping moment and Humpty Dumpty of NWO is now a broken toy of a bygone age, especially as its created the destruction of Pax Americana's main hold on the world : Oil duopoly and monetary hegemony all gone down the shute in debt debasement folly.

    Dear Henry's legacy to the Trilateral world now looking like Petrodollar's metamorphosis into Humpty Dumpty.

    But where it leads to is a debatable question.

    Quo Vadis.

    flapdoodle

    The *really* big problem with the US Deep State is the following:

    1) The US Dollar as World Reserve Currency is based on, well, the fact that it is the WRC. The "faith" the rest of the world invests in the Dollar is only backed by momentum - and the perceived preeminence of the US armed forces.

    2) Just as the first Iraqi war was seminal in the fall of the Soviet Union IMHO when the world (and particularly the Soviet military analysts) were able to see the overwhelming technical superiority of the US smart weapons and the ease with with the US disposed of Saddam's huge standing army (breaking the illusion that the Soviet Union was a superpower on the par with the US), the move into Syria by Russia by the invitation of the legal government of Syria is in my opinion just as historic and seminal, the bell weather for a major sea-change in the the power structure of the world.

    3) Russia in Syria has, at least in its first appearances, greatly neutralized ISIS, which was touted as a huge almost invincible juggernaut, putting on a clinic of technical prowess and coordination almost comparable to the US effort in Iraq 1.

    4) The paradigm of the all powerful US military has taken a big hit, if not by its lack of technical superiority (the F35 fiasco does not inspire confidence in US technical capability), but by its intentions, will, and competence. the MSF hospital in Kunduz fiasco in juxtaposition with the well planned Russian strikes against ISIS (which the US supposedly has been attacking for 13 months), raises the question: if you needed someone to protect you, do you trust the Russian military or the US military?

    5) The above question is a fatal doubt intruding into the all powerful US paradigm - if the Saudis and other important players (Germany!) start to question US power and cozy up to the Russians, the US petrodollar is done for, and with it US dollar as WRC - the US as a nation will start an inevitable slide into third world status if that occurs. Imagine what happens for example if the US has to pay its military budget from actual assets or savings rather than just print dollars it needs to buy the hugely expensive F35 or send billions to Israel...

    6) What gives pause are what the US might do about what has just happened in Syria. The most rabid neocons may push the US into a poorly thought out confrontation, and get us all killed in the worst case.

    7) Whatever response the US tries will not change the death of the US Dollar as WRC. The only question is how soon it will be cast aside (and my gut tells me it will be relatively soon, regardless of how "oversubscribed" dollar denominated debt is to the actual number of dollars in circulation)

    GMadScientist

    Fuck off. Neocons can own their fucking mistake until the end of time. It was stupid. You did it (and elected the fucker TWICE!). So get the fuck over it.

    falak pema

    You are missing the point : Its PAX AMERICANA's mess; but it was the Wolfowitz doctrine of the BUSHES (father and son Incorporated along with Cheney) that started it.

    Boy King is just a mouthpiece (reluctant now but gung-ho in Libya) of that same imperial game.

    History is a bitch and you can't play King Canute with it !

    NuYawkFrankie

    re Putin Ends Wolfowitz Doctrine

    Now we should do our part, and put an end - a permanent end -to Mastermind War-Criminal "Rat Face" Wolfowitz; then the demonic KAGAN KLAN.

    The other NeoCON warmongers can be rounded-up shortly thereafter trying to board flights to Tel Aviv, Israel

    dreadnaught

    Seen on a wall in a bus station: "Kill a NeoCON for Christ"

    WTFUD

    Long time GW! Nice watching all dem US made Saudi bought weapons go up in smoke. Now that's what i call Change you can believe in. Go Vlad, some US base collateral damage in Baghdad would be equally welcome.

    The Plan to keep Russia busy with Ukraine mischief is another multi-billion farce gone up in smoke.

    Really nice watching the EU erupt in a burden of refugees, none of which was ear-marked in the austerity budgets of the poodle-piss vassal states.

    Cat-Al-Loan-iA here i come, right back where we started from . . .

    Reaper

    Evil is power. What has Putin proved? That the US desires not to destroy ISIL, but to empower ISIL. When has Assad ever attacked the US? Never.

    Everything the US government says is a lie. Everything the government's Ministry of Truth's media reports is a lie. With every lie the sheeple to emote for government. Barack is evil incarnate. The US is a tool of neo-cons and the exceptional American fools. Evil succeeds, when the American sheeple follow.

    bunnyswanson

    You leave out the most important detail. STATE CAPTURE

    Share the insults with the nation who has trained our cops in methods used against Palestinians, beating the crap out of everyone who shows the least bit of hesitation to obey their orders.

    Okeefe = Full page of videos explaining ISRAEL EXPANSION PROJECT Greater Israel.

    Dead politicians, dead journalists and many dead business people, all strangely similar yet some nobody from nowhere is sent to prison, with wide eyed drugged look.

    ISRAEL is the source of the evil so fucking remember that prickface.

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=israel+expansion+project+o%...

    gezley

    The source of the evil is not Israel, at least not the political entity known as Israel in the Middle East. The source of the evil is something far deeper, a Power of Darkness that exists somewhere else, a Power that created this modern state of Israel in the first place. In my opinion, that power of darkness, the truly evil "Israel", occupies the City of London, otherwise known as the Jewish Vatican, the counterpoint in this world to the other square mile that matters, the Holy See.

    That's where the problems for the US and the Middle East have their beginning, middle and end. Solve that problem and America and the Middle East will both wake up to a bright new future.

    Luther van Theses

    "Soviet client regimes?" Didn't it ever occur to this dummy they are countries in their own right, people live there, you can't just take their countries away from them?

    Bismarck said 'God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States of America.' We must be in good shape considering we've had fools like Wolfowitz and drunks like G.W Bush running the country.

    opport.knocks

    Let's not give too much credit to Paul Wolfowitz, and his "doctrine". It was just a restatement of Halford MacKinder's "Heatland Theory" and Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halford_Mackinder

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

    jcdenton

    Speaking of Ziggy, the guy just snapped ..

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/06/is-terrorists-may-blast-mosques-...

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/06/zbig2putin/

    August

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/06/zbig2putin/

    Decent article....i.e. better than aveage for veteranstoday. IMHO.

    Ol' Zbigniew sez that he USA should "disarm" Russian forces in Syria.

    Guess the US Police will have to use some flash-bangs on the Russkies, and shoot their dogs, too.

    fleur de lis

    Brzezh has been a psycho for a long time, and has harbored a seething hatred for the Russians that still spews poison to this day. He pushed the idiots in DC to support the serial killer Pol Pot who murdered more than a million Cambodians, and that was a long time ago. He was sly enough to get the Chinese to do the direct support. Still crazy after all these years.

    The Cambodians were fightng with the Vietnamese who were allied with the Russians, so that was reason enough for him regardless of all the Cambodian deaths.. The Western powers had no good reason to be mixed up in Asia except as blood sport.

    Jorgen

    "Putin has put an end to the Wolfowitz doctrine."

    Don't praise the day before the sunset. Imho, the more accurate statement would be: Putin has challenged the Wolfowitz doctrine.

    jeff montanye

    The neocons are not defeated until the truth about 9-11 if widely accepted, or, more properly, that which is untrue is widely rejected. it is their achilles' heel. The crime is too great, too evil and too poorly done to be explained away or ignored. once a growing majority of the nation sees through this lie (and the fraction is already larger than many imagine), new things become possible. this is not yesterday's news. There is no statute of limitations on treason or murder. The day will be won mind by mind. do your part.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsoY3AIRUGA .

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GNww9cmZPo

    http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticl...

    11b40

    Here are some examples of people in senior government position who have Israeli citizenship. Will America ever wake up and end this idiocy, which was brought about in 1967 by a Supreme Court decision guided by Justice Abe Fortas, a prominent Jewish American. If some these names are not familiar, google them for a real surprise, or follow this link:

    http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Story-Dual_Citizenship_Loyal_T...

    Jonathan Jay Pollard
    Michael Mukasey
    Michael Chertoff
    Richard Perle\
    Paul Wolfowitz
    Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
    Douglas Feith
    Edward Luttwak.
    Henry Kissinger
    Dov Zakheim
    Kenneth Adelman
    I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
    Robert Satloff
    Elliott Abrams
    Marc Grossman
    Richard Haass
    Robert Zoellick
    Ari Fleischer
    James Schlesinger
    David Frum
    Joshua Bolten
    John Bolton
    David Wurmser
    Eliot Cohen
    Mel Sembler
    Steve Goldsmith
    Adam Goldman
    Joseph Gildenhorn
    Christopher Gersten
    Mark Weinberger
    Samuel Bodman
    Bonnie Cohen
    Ruth Davis
    Daniel Kurtzer
    Cliff Sobel
    Stuart Bernstein
    Nancy Brinker
    Frank Lavin
    Ron Weiser
    Mel Sembler
    Martin Silverstein
    Lincoln Bloomfield
    Jay Lefkowitz
    Ken Melman
    Brad Blakeman

    Beginning to see the problem?

    OldPhart

    Here's a full taste of Wolfowitz as he was interviewed by some metro-sexual I've never heard of...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0-wwFE_DaM

    The faggot's got some solid points over Wolfowitz.

    [Oct 07, 2015] Syria SITREP October 07th 2015 by John Rambo

    Nice antidote to Guardian propaganda ;-). this is actually a huge risk for Russia as ISIS is serious, tenacious opponet that has some resources in Russian part of Caucasus.
    "... Islamists are now being struck by US jets in Iraq but by Russian jets in Syria, leaving only Jordan and Turkey as the only safe havens left. ..."
    "... For Russia this is a gamble. Many hawkish individuals are screaming that this will be a second Afghanistan. Undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists within the Caucuses are fuming at the Russian involvement in the Middle East, and unlike the United States, Russia is within reach of these domestic jihadists. It's safe to assume Russia probably stepped up domestic surveillance and security in potential hotspot areas within its territory. [Source] After all it wasn't that long ago when Prince Bandar was talking about how he can "turn-on and turn-off" the Chechen Jihadists. Who knows how much truth that holds… if any… but better to play it safe. [Source] ..."
    "... ISIL is not a stupid player in this conflict. The Islamic State has been able to fool the US into providing weapons and training for the jihad for quite some time. ISIL has also endured a year of strikes from the US and its Arab partners, sometimes averaging to a dozen strikes a day. There have been more bombs dropped on ISIL in the past year than the 5 years in Afghanistan. [SOURCE] But now there is a sense of despair in the air. The difference is the effectiveness of the Russian strikes. Thanks to the human intelligence assets infiltrated inside opposition groups by Syrian intelligence the Russians have been able to get very accurate information on rallying points, command posts, storage areas, and even locations of leadership personnel of these terrorists. Human intelligence provides more accurate data than drones, flybys, signal interception, or game theory analysis. Human intelligence is right there, right now. ..."
    "... Also the hysteria will run deeper now if any special forcers advisors were in those IS command bunkers… ..."
    October 07, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker

    It's been a week since the Russian airstrikes began in Syria.

    From the Syrian military standpoint this was perfect timing. Morale has been an all-time low amongst the Syrian Arab Army and Hezbollah forces deployed in Syria. Heavy intermixed regular and irregular fighting for a better part of four and a half years is draining to any military, let alone a small country such as Syria. [Source]

    Syria is a destroyed country. It is nothing but a husk of its former self. Ancient historical sites that once drew in the tourists have been pillaged and demolished by the Islamic State. Infrastructure such as roads, power lines, and water systems has been set back forty years. Major segments of its population are refugees displaced internally and abroad. Syria truly will never be the same again. [Source]

    So one can safely say the Russian air strikes (and potential increased involvement) has been a blessing to the Pro-Assad forces on the ground. Syria has been restricted to fighting one military front at a time due to manpower shortages, giving opponents the ability to take advantage of lightly reinforced government-held areas and outskirt outposts. These Russian air strikes will not only strengthen SAA ground offensives but also support defending forces at the fringes of government control. For the Syrian draft dodgers the Russian air strikes are taken as a form of hope; finally there are other countries besides Iran that want to see a stabilized Syria. Islamists are now being struck by US jets in Iraq but by Russian jets in Syria, leaving only Jordan and Turkey as the only safe havens left.

    As for Russia, it has decided to step up and do what the Americans can't (or won't) do and that is to try to put the Islamic extremism genie back in the lamp, in Syria anyway. For Russia this is a gamble. Many hawkish individuals are screaming that this will be a second Afghanistan. Undoubtedly Wahhabi Islamists within the Caucuses are fuming at the Russian involvement in the Middle East, and unlike the United States, Russia is within reach of these domestic jihadists. It's safe to assume Russia probably stepped up domestic surveillance and security in potential hotspot areas within its territory. [Source] After all it wasn't that long ago when Prince Bandar was talking about how he can "turn-on and turn-off" the Chechen Jihadists. Who knows how much truth that holds… if any… but better to play it safe. [Source]

    For Russia has a lot to lose in this intervention. A downed and captured pilot may be a domestic political nightmare. Even though the Russian airbase is heavily guarded and patrolled 24 hours of the day, the potential for material loss of fighter jets in a surprise suicide attack is still there. Let's not forget how resourceful Islamists can be. It seems over the years even the most blockheaded of mujahids can surprise you in today's 21st century of warfare. Take a look at the Taliban's successful attack on Camp Bastion in Afghanistan in 2012 where they successfully destroyed six harrier jets (and severely damaging two more), a C-130 plane, and killed 2 marines while trying to gun for Prince Harry himself (who was stationed at the base as part of his military service). [Source]

    The government of Syria formally requested aid from Russia and Russia replied in the form of airstrikes. Why Russia chose now to help Assad and not earlier is still a puzzle. Of course Russian gains a few things from this expedition. For one, it's better to these Wahhabis, especially the Chechens who were imported to the area thanks to Saudi Arabia, in Syria than to have to fight them in Russia.

    Secondly this is a perfect chance to test out some military hardware. Not only is this an opportunity to see how well these aerial weapon systems work in conjunction with coordinated ground operations in real life combat scenarios (with a ground force comprised of ex-Soviet and Russian equipment) but also test out the electronic warfare systems against the regional players. Turkey, Israel and Jordan all have electronic warfare units. Air warfare and electronic warfare go hand-in-hand. There is no such thing as a modern air operation without electronic warfare being involved.

    And finally to keep Assad afloat, an ally and for some reason one that has had a long history of support from Russia (and once USSR). In the past providing advanced weaponry of all forms, from anti-tank missiles to anti-air weapon systems, tanks to fighter jets, etc. etc. Of course in keeping the Assad government alive so too are the Russian naval base in Syria.

    Still one must wonder. Russia must gain something more than that. Especially with the risk it is undertaking.

    ISIL is not a stupid player in this conflict. The Islamic State has been able to fool the US into providing weapons and training for the jihad for quite some time. ISIL has also endured a year of strikes from the US and its Arab partners, sometimes averaging to a dozen strikes a day. There have been more bombs dropped on ISIL in the past year than the 5 years in Afghanistan. [SOURCE] But now there is a sense of despair in the air. The difference is the effectiveness of the Russian strikes. Thanks to the human intelligence assets infiltrated inside opposition groups by Syrian intelligence the Russians have been able to get very accurate information on rallying points, command posts, storage areas, and even locations of leadership personnel of these terrorists. Human intelligence provides more accurate data than drones, flybys, signal interception, or game theory analysis. Human intelligence is right there, right now.

    So let's take a look at the actions, potential actions, and events of each actor in this theater of war:

    Russia:

    • Expanded an airbase and reinforced it with ground security forces which include round-the-clock helicopter gunship patrols.
    • Advanced electronic warfare platforms spotted at Latakia [Source]
    • Has created a Joint Information Center (co-ordination) with the organizations that have units on the ground such as Syria, Iran and Iraq. [Source]
    • Plans to cull the number of renegade Chechens in Syria instead of waiting for them to come home and cause trouble in Russia
    • The opportunity to test out the latest variants or upgrade kits on fighter jets in combat situations for realistic performance data (Su-24M, Su-25SM, and Su-30SM are upgraded variants of their original make design for a modern electronic warfare-laden battlefield).
    • Consistently attacking ALL opposition positions, starting with those threatening the Syrian regime first and moving up to ISIL; perhaps in tangent with an Iraqi ground op.
    • Mulling expanding its mission into Iraq if requested by the Iraqi military.
    • Big international prestige and PR campaign…. If successful.
    • The Russian deployment is somewhat an assurance against Israeli air strikes on IRGC and Hezbollah forces.
    • Russia has the option to punish Turkey for its support in allowing ISIL to use its borders by discretely (or overtly) aiding the Kurds; as the Kurds have been a US ally since the Iraq invasion in 2003 the US can't overtly denounce the aid.
    • This entire air operation might be a way to bridge the gap between the US and Assad. The US is unwilling to work with Assad and Iranian forces on the ground, but Russia has no scruples in doing so. The US, with its considerably larger air force in the region, can strike while Iran and Syria provide the intel alongside Russia. The US can save face, Russia can save an ally, and Syria and Iraq are literally just saved. (Wishful thinking).

    Syria:

    • Syria right now is taking cover to recoup and to play some propaganda cards to try to get as many people on the regimes side as possible.
    • Draft dodgers may be incentivized to commit to their conscription due to the positive foreign intervention from a superpower (finally, a nation with high-tech equipment actually bombing the terrorists for once).
    • Syrian military morale, which was low due to the never ending flow of foreign fighters, has slightly increased because of the Russian air strikes.
    • The Syrian military has been restructured twice times throughout the conflict. First from its old Soviet-modelled format to a hybrid military incorporating conventional and irregular forces to a garrison-style force adjusting for a protracted conflict. [Source]
    • Syrian Air Force is freed up to provide direct air support to Syrian Arab Army units while Russian Air Force maintains pressure on the "rear" of the opposition with surgical strikes on command centers, training sites, and storage areas.
    • There are some heavy urban battles to come for the Syrian Arab Army which is projecting a lot of causalities (some even suggesting the Russians will provide the SAA infantry-based thermobaric weaponry to help clear our urban city centers).

    Iran, Hezbollah:

    • News everywhere of amassing ground forces. It seems that Iran and Hezbollah are going to commit larger forces in ground offensives orchestrated along Russian air strikes.
    • Iran, under the cover of Russian air strikes, has managed to transfer mores weapons that were too hard to do with the threat of Israeli air strikes. This includes advanced anti-air missiles and converted SCUDs for anti-ship roles. [Source]
    • Iran might be committing IRGC battalions in Syria and may be mulling the deployment of greater assets.
    • Hezbollah counter-intelligence (or Syrian secret police) units may attempt to assassinate opposition rebel leadership being harbored in Jordan or Turkey. In the past an FSA commander was found murdered, Jordanian government claimed it was criminal and not politically motivated. Others claim it was an assassination. [Source]

    Iraq:

    • The US currently has a significant number of advisers in Iraq and specifically Baghdad. This includes AH-64 Apache gunships which turned back ISIL when it was about to descend on the capital. [Source]
    • Iraq has consistently provided fuel and diesel to Syria as part of its struggle against ISIL. Both Iraq and Syria are plagued by ISIL and other dissident factions.
    • Iraq may petition Russia to envelop Iraq in its air operation should events in Syria turn for the better. [Source]
    • US support for Iraq is extend

    Islamic State:

    • Right now ISIL is reinforcing towns and cities under its control by constructing tunnels, reinforced foxholes, and other bunkers to ride out the Russian air strikes; much like the tactics used by Hezbollah in the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah. This is to preserve the manpower for any ground assaults. Expect multi-month sieges.
    • Probably planning for some type of attack inside Russia proper as retaliation like those seen in Europe. Perhaps targeted on ambassadors or other dignitaries.
    • Some forces have retreated to Turkey and Jordan until the situation dissipates.
    • Might commit to a PR stunt such as bombing internationally protected civilian facilities like schools or hospitals and blame it on Russian air strikes. Remember the Chlorine gas attack which was immediately pinned on the Assad government, but both the UN and Russia proved was committed by the rebels in hopes of drawing foreign intervention. [Source]
    • Convince Turkey to provide high-tech anti-air weaponry (Turkey has been proven to have direct talks to the leadership of ISIL) [Source]
    • Human shields can possibly be used in some PR stunt.
    • It seems that ISIL has been taken by surprise by the Russian air strikes. This means that the US has been purposely leaving them alone in certain areas.
    • The current interim operating procedure for ISIL is to spot when Russian fighters take off from their base and begin warning units. So far it may involve "moving munitions 15 meters underground", "moving tanks, cars, and cannons daily never leaving them in one spot", "keeping your engines on at all times", "be prepared to move at a moment's notice", "destroy sim cards of all 'senior' commanders", "stay away from villages" [Source]

    GCC-Supported Opposition ARMY OF CONQUEST (FSA & remnants of Al-Qaeda in Syria; Al-Nusra Front):

    • These groups are seen as terrorists in the eyes of Russia and have been struck.
    • A number of FSA fighters have already surrendered to the government and a larger number has already fled to Jordan thanks to the psychological impact of the Russian strikes.
    • Fresh reinforcements, most likely thanks to Saudi Arabia and Qatari money, has arrived from the North Caucasus including Ukrainian specialists and experts (suggesting some new type of weapon system may be soon given to the opposition forces or targeted against the Russian forces in Syria). [Source]
    • Right now the Army of Conquest is a conglomeration of forces which include various Islamist factions including Al-Nusra Front, and mercenary forces hired, trained, or supplied by the CIA, Turkey, GCC, or other Western-affiliated actors. They "fight alongside" the FSA. It fights against the Islamic State, Hezbollah, and the Syrian government. [Source]
    • The FSA is rumored to be gone, just a media myth. The majority defecting to ISIL. There are only Islamists of varying shades. [Source]
    • The Army of Conquest is being coordinated by commanders stationed in operation rooms sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar and hosted in Jordan and Turkey, safe from Russian air strikes (for now….) [Source]

    Arab Nations (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan):

    • Saudi Arabia right now is being bogged down with its operations in Yemen. Iran may have tipped the scales by offering some sort of material support to the Shia-Houthis now engaged in fighting the Yemen government and its Saudi backers.
    • Saudi Arabia is also trying to confront Iran in other proxy wars, including Iraq, Lebanon and potentially Bahrain.
    • If the US doesn't act in time Saudi Arabia will take it upon itself to finance some sort of attack on Russia either in Syria or somewhere. If this doesn't materialize then Saudi Arabian capabilities are beyond incompetence.
    • Qatar will be fronting the majority of the financing for the opposition forces. Qatar has always been the hotbed of international terrorist financing [Source]
    • Jordan has been playing both sides. It assisted the US in training a proxy force which would cross from Jordan into Syria, but has also tipped off Syrian intelligence of these forces so they may be arrested or destroyed before doing harm. It has been trying to shift back to neutral. [Source]

    Israel:

    • Israel has been informed of the Russian air operation.
    • Israel will not risk an air confrontation with Russia. After the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, secretary-general of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah was giving a speech in Beirut right after the ceasefire as a show of solidarity with the people. Israel was denied the ability to launch an air strike assassination against this very important target due to the deployment of French Air Force fighter jets during his speech [Source]
    • Israel has committed mock air attacks on UNIFIL before to trigger a response. It may commit the same action against Russian or Assad forces in a hope to draw out a reaction. [Source]
    • A weakened Syrian state, now without large stockpiles of chemical weapons, may be forced to accept the Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights.
    • Israel will continue to provide medical aid to rebel and Islamist fighters in the Golan Height [Source]
    • Israel claims it can overcome the S-300 and deal a marketing blow to Russia if it needs to strike targets inside Syria, such as weapon shipments to Hezbollah. [Source]

    Turkey:

    • Probably the biggest loser of the entire debacle. Not only is Assad going to remain standing but it looks like the Kurds will be in a better position to resist Turkey thanks to their quasi-state-like Kurdistan that intersects through Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran.
    • Wants a NATO or US-sponsored no-fly zone on its border with Syria to allow operations against the Kurds to remain unimpeded.
    • Turkey, being denied further escalation against Syria, has used the Syrian refugee crisis as means to attack the EU by letting them pass through into EU proper.
    • Turkey has had to deal with jihadis seeping over the border, with car bombs and other terrorist acts occurring throughout the country. If jihadis flee back into Turkey this could be more trouble.
    • A ground invasion of Northern Syria to create a buffer zone for the opposition seems unlikely.
    • Russia has accidentally strayed into Turkish air space for a few seconds, creating some chest-thumping by NATO [Source]
    • US Patriot missiles mandate expires on October. Are they still in Turkey? [Source]
    • The EU is currently working on a crisis plan with Turkey to stem the flow of refugees. [Source]

    United States of America:

    • The US currently has limited options to the Russian air strikes.
    • The US still has a significantly larger air fleet in the region and has committed a ludicrous amount of airstrikes, drone strikes, missile strikes, and other strikes.
    • It will suffer an international PR fiasco if Russia can restore some order in Syria within a few months. [Source]
    • US along with its allies (perhaps Turkey and/or France) may attempt a ground operation in the North-East part of the country; perhaps to divide the country in some spring 1945 Berlin situation.
    • The US can actively arm opposition forces with heavier weapons, risking their proliferation, to deny any Russian gains.
    • The Ukrainian operation may be ramped up again.
    • The US may be looking to accept any face-saving measure to get out of the Syrian mess seeing the red line the Russians have drawn in regards to Assad. Avoiding major conflicts with Russia as more important than pleasing the Saudis and their secret war against Iran.
    • Currently the US and Russia are just starting to work on an agreement to coordinate air operations in Syria. [Source]
    • Air strikes are still being commenced in Iraq against ISIL and Afghanistan against the Taliban.

    • Chances are both the US and Russia are monitoring each other's electronic emissions.


    on October 07, 2015 · at 3:07 pm UTC

    article from Counterpunch on humanitarian hypocrisy:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/07/the-double-speak-of-american-civilian-humanitarianism/

    Penelope on October 07, 2015 · at 3:12 pm UTC

    Four Russian Navy warships have fired a total of 26 missiles at the position of the terrorist group Islamic State in Syria, Russia's Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu announced. The missiles were fired from the Caspian Sea.
    "Four missile ships launched 26 cruise missiles at 11 targets. According to objective control data, all the targets were destroyed. No civilian objects sustained damage," Shoigu said.

    The missiles flew some 1,500 km before reaching their targets, probing their efficiency.

    The missile attacks came from Russia's fleet in the Caspian Sea, which borders Russia, Iran and three other littoral countries. The precision weapons hit all intended targets.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

    Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 3:47 pm UTC

    One of the unintended consequences of Russia's military action is exposing how stupid Kiev was claiming every five minutes they were fighting the Russian army and airforce. Also exposing the absurd attempts of msm journalists. I think many will see what has happened and grasp the fact that that if the Russians had entered it would have been over and out very quickly for the kiev junta. The west and nato is seething at this flexing of military muscle knowing that they have lost the plot/narrative big time here. Cruise missiles flying through iran and Iraq and hitting their terrorist targets, conveniently passing turkey, poetry in motion!

    Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:02 pm UTC

    Yes, been the buzz for a few hours (everywhere except here in sleepy Sakerland) - basically a 26-missile birthday salute for Putin using equipment only 'lawful' if not launched on land from the only sea/lake that the US/Nato cannot have a boat in. Brilliant!

    A couple more weeks then on into Iraq (by invitation) and Obama's pivot out of the Middle east will be all but completed - with Putin's boot-prints embossed on his backside to boot.

    The degenerate Saudi regime are squealing all the way to market and it's not hard to see why. Egypt's SiSi and military are on side with the Russians, Yemen is a war-crimes mess and UN Human Rights a joke - and cracks in the US/Nato un-affordable facade are occurring with high ranking suggestions that the Obama Administration are funding ISIS.

    "Do you realise, now, what you have done, Mr Obama?"

    Game, set, match, dip-shit!

    mmiriww on October 07, 2015 · at 4:11 pm UTC

    What is not mentioned here is they took out some IS command bunkers with their advisors without any warning. The US just admitted that they have special forces observing IS.. So does the SAS of UK and Australia, all dressed up as IS.. Russia already gave warning so they could leave and I bet a lot of them have seeing the hysteria and the terrorists running for the hills after their commanders left for safer zones..

    But I bet no one expected to get hit with millions dollar cruise missiles deep in IS held territory. Also the hysteria will run deeper now if any special forcers advisors were in those IS command bunkers…

    Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:31 pm UTC

    Article is a good reason why when it comes to geopol news/events, I can barely stomach reading ZH for its time-wasting infotainment content, delivered smarmy smug style.
    I see the root story of many of his articles on other websites between 2 & 10 days before it appears there.

    Notice his inexcusable disgraceful slam against the SAA, as if they don't exist & haven't for eons?
    In all that time, while they've been worked over from the air by the murderous 'coalition', almost a
    quarter million dead & up to 1/3 of Syria's civilians living as refugees.

    Sickening.

    Solon on October 07, 2015 · at 3:16 pm UTC

    Important article on Matt Drudge, the media, politics, social control and the corporate takeover of American culture and the citizens' minds.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/07/matt-drudge-blisters-corporate-media-hillary-clinton-and-sick-americans-in-rare-interview/

    He knows. He understands.

    This is the key analysis in a nutshell. Understand what he is saying you understand America and why it is a danger to itself and the world.


    teranam13 on October 07, 2015 · at 3:27 pm UTC

    Keep your eye on Erdogan: He has royally p-ssed off the Kurds within Turkey and now the jihadis will flee back over into Turkey to cause mayhem there. He is up for power renewal Nov 1st so he may try to play the US like the Saudis do in which case things will get very nasty .

    The "we have good relationship with Russia" is a diplomatic deception like Hitler had good relationship with Stalin: he is playing a very dangerous double game but he thinks he is up to it because he is blinded by his arrogance. Hubris follows arrogance like winter follows Fall.

    Martin from Soviet East-Berlin on October 07, 2015 · at 3:57 pm UTC

    Thank you John for this excellent work!

    From me for now only some links that some may find interesting:

    Russian Warships Launch Missile Attack On Syrian Targets, Clearing Way For Iran Ground Invasion
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-07/russian-warships-launch-missile-attack-syrian-targets-clearing-way-iran-ground-invas

    And here is a nice and live video from the Russian Ministry of Defence of this missiles leaving Caspian Sea for the "any target within Saudi Arabia and Qatar" range
    Массированный удар высокоточным оружием по объектам ИГИЛ в Сирии из акватории Каспийского моря
    (Massive attack of precision weapons targetting ISIS in Syria, shot from the Caspian Sea some 1500 kilometers away)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMasnaAf_H4

    Russia Sends The USA A HUGE Message From The Caspian Sea
    http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/10/russian-missiles-hit-is-in-syria-from-caspian/

    Putin: Who created ISIS?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbZDyr2LkdI&app=desktop

    Here some readers' comment found on above ZH link:

    A)
    """""Eisenhorn
    Eisenhorn's picture

    This situation just highlights the stupidity of the western game plan.

    This has always been about natural gas lines through Syria into the southern EU.

    The west needed to distract Russia with the debacle in the Ukraine to prevent her from being able to respond in Syria adequately.

    That effort failed abysmally.

    Syria is a Russian vassal state. From the beginning of this effort the endgame was ALWAYS you must be prepared to fight the Russians in Syria to achieve your goal. If you are not prepared for that eventuality, then your plan was doomed from the start.

    Russian CANNOT allow Middle East natural gas to flow into the EU. The only thing keeping the Russians relevant geo-politically are their a) Nukes and b) EU reliance on Russian natural gas.

    So since the Ukraine "force Russia to fight on two fronts" plan just crashed and burned, you now have to either fight them directly in Syria or tuck your tail and go home leaving the Middle East to the Russians.

    We obviously will not abandon our gulf allies in the region, so at this point it is only a matter of time before we start shooting Russians and Iranians.

    Grab your popcorn, it's about to get very ugly.

    The psychopaths are truly running the asylum."""""

    B/C/D …)

    Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:01 | 6639068 agent default
    agent default's picture

    The US will cut and run but there is one thing that I have no answer for. If Russia settles in the ME, Saudi Arabia and Qatar will have to play nice since it will become obvious that the US cannot and will not help them. So two things happen. Either they drop the dollar, or regime change and then they drop the dollar. Either way the petrodollar is finished. What does the US intend to do about this and how far are they willing to go? I honestly don't have any sort of answer for this situation.

    Login or register to post comments

    Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:29 | 6639200 flapdoodle
    flapdoodle's picture

    The *really* big problem with the US Deep State is the following:

    1) The US Dollar as World Reserve Currency is based on, well, the fact that it is the WRC. The "faith" the rest of the world invests in the Dollar is only backed by momentum – and the perceived preeminence of the US armed forces.

    2) Just as the first Iraqi war was seminal in the fall of the Soviet Union IMHO when the world (and particularly the Soviet military analysts) were able to see the overwhelming technical superiority of the US smart weapons and the ease with with the US disposed of Saddam's huge standing army (breaking the illusion that the Soviet Union was a superpower on the par with the US), the move into Syria by Russia by the invitation of the legal government of Syria is in my opinion just as historic and seminal, the bell weather for a major sea-change in the the power structure of the world.

    3) Russia in Syria has, at least in its first appearances, greatly neutralized ISIS, which was touted as a huge almost invincible juggernaut, putting on a clinic of technical prowess and coordination almost comparable to the US effort in Iraq 1.

    4) The paradigm of the all powerful US military has taken a big hit, if not by its lack of technical superiority (the F35 fiasco does not inspire confidence in US technical capability), but by its intentions, will, and compentence. the MSF hospital in Kunduz fiasco in juxaposition with the well planned Russian strikes against ISIS (which the US supposedly has been attacking for 13 months), raises the question: if you needed someone to protect you, do you trust the Russian military or the US military?

    5) The above question is a fatal doubt intruding into the all powerful US paradigm – if the Saudis and other important players (Germany!) start to question US power and cozy up to the Russians, the US petrodollar is done for, and with it US dollar as WRC – the US as a nation will start an inevitable slide into third world status if that occurs. Imagine what happens for example if the US has to pay its military budget from actual assets or savings rather than just print dollars it needs to buy the hugely expensive F35 or send billions to Israel…

    6) What gives pause are what the US might do about what has just happened in Syria. The most rabid neocons may push the US into a poorly thought out confrontation, and get us all killed in the worst case.

    7) Whatever response the US tries will not change the death of the US Dollar as WRC. The only question is how soon it will be cast aside (and my gut tells me it will be relatively soon, regardless of how "oversubscribed" dollar denominated debt is to the actual number of dollars in circulation)

    Login or register to post comments

    Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:30 | 6639250 agent default
    agent default's picture

    The dollar is the reserve currency because that's what OPEC demands in exchange for oil. The moment this changes, the only momentum behind the dollar will be the containers full of dollars flung back to the US.

    Login or register to post comments

    Wed, 10/07/2015 – 09:50 | 6639379 conscious being
    conscious being's picture

    Right snd OPEC demands $'s because they don't want to get bombed, etc. It's military force, or death controls as Radical would say, enforcing dollar acceptance. When the threat is no longer believable, countries will be free to dump the dollar and stop paying the imperial tax.

    Login or register to post comments

    Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:31 | 6639568 Urban Redneck
    Urban Redneck's picture

    No. The dollar is the WRC and maintains that status because BANKERS structure and denominate financial markets around USD hegemony and complementary (arbitrageable) currencies. If the 6 largest oil traders in Geneva changed the preferred denomination of their PAPER oil contracts to EUR, CNY, or basket tomorrow, the impact on WRC would be orders of magnitude larger than ANYTHING that OPEC ministers could ever do.

    Login or register to post comments

    Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:05 | 6639457 Omen IV
    Omen IV's picture

    you give no value to Iran in your analysis –

    the Russian weapons and tactics coupled in a few weeks with Iran on the ground with Soleimani leading will tell SA – its over – from Iran to Libya will potentially be at peace – if the SA fuck around they will be taken out – The Princes want Mansions in London / Paris / LA with binders full of women and Ferrari's – they are lovers not warriors

    we will have Iraq firmly under Iran control with the Kurds with their own land driving Erdogan crazy and the USA Fucking the world somewhere else

    Login or register to post comments

    Wed, 10/07/2015 – 10:17 | 6639513 BarkingCat
    BarkingCat's picture

    We don't want to see Russia become dominant and US collapse.
    What we want is at least one more equal power to keep the children in check.
    That is exactly what those psychopaths in government are – children. They sure behave like it."""""

    Carmel by the Sea on October 07, 2015 · at 4:12 pm UTC

    Russian Navy Fires 26 Cruise Missiles into Central Syria: ISIS Positions Targeted
    http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russian-navy-fires-26-cruise-missiles-into-central-syria-isis-positions-targeted/

    Russia would Consider Extending Air Strikes to Iraq if Requested
    http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-would-consider-extending-air-strikes-to-iraq-if-requested/

    ISIS Suffers Heavy Losses After Another Failed Offensive in Deir Ezzor: Terrorists Blame Russia
    http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/isis-suffers-heavy-losses-after-another-failed-offensive-in-deir-ezzor-terrorists-blame-russia/

    Anonymous on October 07, 2015 · at 4:47 pm UTC

    Hmmmm….maybe this is why Nutty was in such a tizzy these past 2 weeks.

    Maybe when Putin told him he'd clean up Syria in record time, he meant or inferred the Golan, too?

    I always figured Nutty would be the prima donna candidate to accelerate this crisis further & faster along to its appointed conclusion ca NOV 30, so watch out for another Wile E. Coyote moment from him sooon.

    http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-and-popular-committees-launch-counter-attack-in-the-golan-heights/

    The Syrian Arab Army's 90th Brigade – in coordination with Fouj Al-Joulan (Golan Regiment) and Liwaa Suqour Al-Quneitra (Al-Quneitra Hawks Brigade) of the National Defense Forces (NDF) – have launched a counter-attack in the Golan Heights after the Islamist rebels of Jabhat Al-Nusra (Syrian Al-Qaeda) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) took control of the strategic hilltop of Tal Al-Ahmar.

    Daniel on October 07, 2015 · at 4:56 pm UTC

    The Syrian oxymoron "explained"

    Let me se if I can get this right? We have country A which officially claims that it is "fighting" a war against terrorists (which by the way it has created it self in the first place) but doesn't want to bomb because of the following logic "yes they are bad but Assad is worse" and then we have country B which states it will fight terrorism and is actually doing what it says ,on the very invitation of the host country (whit in the boundaries of international law) which is plagued by the same terrorists threat, that country A is both supporting and "fighting" against simultaneously!? (now how this is possible I really don't know?)

    Country A is opposed to the idea that country B is willing to help in the fight against the terrorists in a mutually beneficial joint venture. Country A is against this very same joint effort whit country B, because country B wants to fight even the terrorists that country A considers to be the "good terrorists" depending on whom they are fighting against? Now if you didn't understand a word of what I just said, that is perfectly all right, because I didn't understand it my self either? But this is about the closest that I could interpret Washington's policy stance on Syria these days.

    TooLegit2Quit on October 07, 2015 · at 4:57 pm UTC

    Some Russian humor here for you guys. The drawing is pure, unadulterated genius (does anybody know the cartoonist?) Oh, and the best punch line ever; these are leaflets dropped on ISIS =)

    Article here [propaganda puke alert]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3261603/Don-t-make-worse-Helicopters-drop-leaflets-ISIS-rebel-fighters-warning-ahead-huge-Russian-backed-ground-offensive.html

    You can skip to the picture here: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/10/06/08/2D218BDB00000578-0-image-a-1_1444118222619.jpg

    PS; if you do click on the article and scroll down to the comments you will see that public opinion overwhelmingly supports Russia, this is happening in most news papers comment sections that I monitored so far, even the Guardian.

    -TL2Q

    [Oct 07, 2015] This Month Could Make Or Break The Oil Markets

    Russia forecasts that its production will be drop 2 million tons (to 528 from the current 530) .
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    October could be a crucial month for struggling drillers. With drillers undergoing credit redeterminations, October could see a wave of debt restructuring and cuts to credit lines, potentially forcing deeper cuts in the shale patch.

    ... ... ...

    In the U.S., production declines continue, although fitfully and inconsistently. After several months of large declines in production, the supply picture has become a bit murky. For example, output fell by 222,000 barrels per day between April and May, and then by another 115,000 barrels per day from May to June. But in July, production actually increased by 94,000 barrels per day. The gains came from the Gulf of Mexico, and not the shale patch. Offshore projects are long-term propositions and don't respond quickly to shifts in oil prices. However, even taking out the offshore gains, U.S. production would have only declined by 53,000 barrels per day, a slower pace than what was seen in previous months.

    gcjohns1971

    "Saudi Arabia will continue to seek a rebound in oil prices only by a contraction in production from countries such as Russia, Canada, and the United States."

    This is a red herring because the United States, even in the unlikely event of an oil surplus, is by law not an oil exporter.

    What the 'Shale Revolution' has done is send those formerly exporting to the US to fight for markets elsewhere.

    ... ... ...

    cashtoash

    But Garrrrrtman said on CNBS [yesterday on fast money] that oil has bottomed, time to buy buy buy

    Doctors Without Borders: we received no advance warning of US airstrike

    This is war crime.

    The Guardian


    Pat Driscoll -> Haynonnynonny 7 Oct 2015 19:32

    Obviously Kunduz was not a safe place, was it? And perfectly reasonable when you are under deadly attack - particularly by a so-called "protector" - to complain about it.

    Paul Lorenzini -> liberalexpat 7 Oct 2015 19:32

    Kosher islamists?


    Gerard White -> DontHaveDontSpend 7 Oct 2015 19:31

    Well, do you actually believe anything the United States says? I mean, they created this whole "War on Terror", WMD BS, they created Islamic State, they committed similar atrocities in Fallujah. The US is a terrorist state.

    Pat Driscoll -> Haynonnynonny 7 Oct 2015 19:31

    What statistical reports? Let's start with the last 13 months in Syria shall we? The official U.S. statistical report for innocents killed reports a total of : ZERO. Why is that? Because the U.S. military hasn't kept track. Iraq? Well, until the Iraq government complained after numerous massacres, the U.S. military also DIDN'T KEEP RECORDS. Same with Afghanistan.

    crankyyankee1945 -> smokinbluebear 7 Oct 2015 19:28

    let's see:......exaggerating and contorting the initial information from a diverse and complicated command structure, falsely stating that the US has refused to cooperate with an international investigation which has not been convened or decided upon......isn't that what cynical propagandists who could care less about the suffering or solemnity of a situation except to reprehensibly frame it callously for maximum shallow indoctrination effect do?

    Donkzilla -> donkeyshit 7 Oct 2015 19:25

    the chances of this US attack on kunduz hospital having been a mistake is close to zero. the question therefore is and remains: why?

    Chaos and mass murder is causing the biggest refugee crisis since WW II, that's why.

    An apparent war of annihilation on the Taliban is actually a war of attrition on Russia for selling oil and gas in euros. Millions of refugees flooding into the EU may break the EU and destroy the euro, that's what the US are hoping for, there is no other logical reason I can see for the US murdering innocent civilians.

    hadeze242 7 Oct 2015 19:22

    the buck stops here. He is the Commander in Chief ... then, behave like one.

    US Obama should return his Swedish Nobel Peace Prize. To keep it (and the European money attached to the prize) means to besmirch the Peace Prize & all other past recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize.


    BrightSpots -> Alto Cumulus 7 Oct 2015 19:20

    Have to say it, but I think the USA went native and turned terrorist quite some time back. They have dabbled in it continually and on every continent since WWII. But terrorism has become the USA's modus operandi in the last 14 years.

    Every horror IS have committed, the US has committed tenfold in one shape or form.

    Civilians to Military deaths have been at a rate of 1000's to 1 for a decade and a half.

    Their rage since 9/11 has resulted in more refugees than WWII and phenomenal civilian rates. With circling drones terrorising people, killing sleeping children and firing again at neighbours who go to rescue their dying screaming neighbours children. You know you will be targeted if you help, so you have to listen to the kid's prolonged death and hate yourself for not going to help, because the fly boys in their bunker in Nevada will get you.

    That's not war, that's not security. That's sadistic terrorism on a par with IS.

    SocalAlex -> outkast1213 7 Oct 2015 19:14

    We are far from a fascist police state

    I wouldn't be too sure about that. Do you know, for example that - unreported anywhere except, briefly, in The Nation - the U.S. has no quietly changed the legal definition of "the border" to include everywhere within 100 miles of a coast or official land border ? And that this definition includes the places where 2/3 of Americans live, and includes entire states, among them Florida and Maine?

    Why does this matter? Because, "on the border", the Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies are free to do whatever they want, and normal laws don't apply. They can enter your home and search your things or even arrest and detain you with no probable cause and your other standard rights (including even the right to a lawyer) don't legally apply either! The ACLU has termed it "a Constitution-free zone", and that's no exaggeration!

    And thanks to a minor wording change to an obscure law, 2/3 of Americans now live in this Constitution-free zone! This happened with no political debate whatsoever, and, given it was never reported, it's needless to say no public debate either!

    Sorry, but to me that sounds very much like the tactics of "a fascist police state"...

    CliftonSantiago -> Sam Ahmed 7 Oct 2015 19:13

    No, you completely misread what I was saying. Which isn't surprising considering your crass profanities, which I suspect reveal a limited vocabulary and poor reading comprehension skills.

    I was agreeing with your point in principle, but disagreeing with your solution, which is one of despair. Only through the pursuit of transparency will the US, UK and their middle-eastern allies be held accountable by the other nations of the world. Only by revealing their complete hypocrisy with irrefutable evidence will one be able to weaken their position. Just look at the damage that Wikileaks, Snowden, and Manning have done to the US propaganda machine.

    Surrender is completely pointless. Why should one give up hope as you suggest? Do you live in Dostoevsky novel? Not me.


    Federalist10 7 Oct 2015 19:11

    There is some debate among lawyers about the extent to which an insurgency such as Afghanistan's technically constitutes an international armed conflict – and accordingly whether the duty to warn applies.

    If we continue to willfully ignore this law, then we are as bad as the bad guys we had in mind when we first wrote it.

    When did American Exceptionalism become an excuse for American Hubris?

    SeanThorp -> charles47 7 Oct 2015 19:11

    Are you deliberately misreading the article or merely missing the point?

    I'm reading that different branches of the Afghan security services are saying that they were coming under fire and even that the Taliban were using the hospital as a base. Afaik only one building in the hospital came under fire not the 'whole hospital' as you have imagineered.

    do try to keep up

    Oh the irony.


    Donkzilla DallasWilliams 7 Oct 2015 19:10

    ... you can continue this list for as long as you'd like. Enjoy!

    The US is responsible for the chaos and mass murder behind the biggest refugee crisis since WW II, refuting that fact with a straw man list of conspiracy theories is a piss poor attempt at discrediting the conclusions I have drawn about US strategy.


    Olorin 7 Oct 2015 19:07

    Even if there were terrorists inside of hospital, even if Afghans were asking for bombing area of their choice THERE IS NO EXCUSE to bomb innocent civilians.

    This is war crime. US Air Force should be careful even if ally ask for bombing their own territory they should check twice what is in targeted area. This is serious...


    gossy -> Haynonnynonny 7 Oct 2015 19:06

    When the last US troops go, the Afghan government will collapse pretty quickly and we'll see what a house of cards it really was, supported by US and EU grants, subsidy, and bribe money - that's all. Within 12 months of the US going the Taliban will be in Kabul and sitting down to govern. The next US president will then be faced with the usual McCain/Republican cry of being "weak on terror" - and so the BS goes on.


    Alto Cumulus -> dusablon 7 Oct 2015 19:01

    Continued: and that lie fails to explain why the hospital was pounded over and over despite desperate calls pleading for the US bombing to stop, and that lie fails to explain why we did not utilize our pinpoint accurate weaponry on the "area adjacent."


    macmarco 7 Oct 2015 18:59

    NYT says Obama is considering three different legal arguments on why the hospital attack was not a crime. My guess is that he and the DOD will claim that someone in or near the hospital was an imminent threat and had to be taken out to save lives. Obama used "imminent threat" excuse to assassinate two American citizens one a teenbage boy drinking tea. It sailed through both the media and legal community witout one objection.


    hadeze242 -> Batleymuslim 7 Oct 2015 18:59

    no ... even CNN (today) clearly states & shows the vidio the 30 min US bombing run on the MSF hospital (a white cross from above) was approved by US Control Centre 3 separate times. in google speak: can i hit it again ? yes, hit it. 2nd fly around: can I hit it a 2nd time? yes, go. 3rd fly around: hit is again? yes, do it again.


    katiewm 7 Oct 2015 18:58

    Why would a civilian hospital ever be considered a legitimate target for an air strike, regardless of whether "warning" was issued? This is shameful.

    Alto Cumulus -> dusablon 7 Oct 2015 18:58

    What? Weren't the taliban INSIDE the hospital dressed in scrubs? No.

    Now yet ANOTHER revision: that the Taliban was "using area adjacent" to hospital.
    Problems is, hospital staff has refuted that lie. And that lie fails to explain why the HOSPITAL ITSELF

    Move on to your next lie.

    DiggersAndDreamers -> Sal2011 7 Oct 2015 18:55

    And in accepting that there is some sort of justification for it, we condone it,

    I completely agree, it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms and those who are culpable should be brought to justice.


    CliftonSantiago -> thatshowitgoes 7 Oct 2015 18:53

    Your sarcasm aside, that is exactly what Americans think that means. Just look at the Republican party's website: https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Pretty scary actually...


    CliftonSantiago DontHaveDontSpend 7 Oct 2015 18:49

    You are obviously, and deliberately (american patriot?) ignorant of the articles of the Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory member (regardless of the Bush regime's attempts at redefining their obligations). https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter7_rule25


    ExpatJohn22 7 Oct 2015 18:45

    Doctors without borders, can you stop whinging, Really? just one bomb. We have to concentrate on demonizing Russia. You are spoiling the show.


    [Oct 07, 2015] Russia Claims ISIS Now On The Ropes As Fighters Desert After 60 Airstrikes In 72 Hours

    The rebels in Syria are mixture of Islamic fundamentalists and Sunni liberation movement. So preserving Assad in power while better then chaos like in Libya, still does not solve the country problems, problems which probably are connected with population growth while resources are dwindling and growth of sectarian divisions within the country. The same mechanism as in Ukraine... Poverty breeds nationalists and religious fundamentalists. As both the USA and Israel are trying to use those grievances for forming fifth column and toppling of the government, meddling in the country affairs will not go away. And Russians took a huge risk here. Religious fundamentalists are good, highly motivated fighters. Afghans in mountain terrain manages to hold their against Russian air force for years (with substantial military support from the USA, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). USA supplied Stringer missiles that destroyed many Russians attach helicopters. Not it is more difficult to do as ISIS is the force the USA would be embarrassed openly to cooperate with, but covert channels remain.
    Oct 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    One question that's been asked repeatedly over the past thirteen months is why Washington has been unable to achieve the Pentagon's stated goal of "degrading and defeating" ISIS despite the fact that the "battle" pits the most advanced air force on the planet against what amounts to a ragtag band of militants running around the desert in basketball shoes.

    Those of a skeptical persuasion have been inclined to suggest that perhaps the US isn't fully committed to the fight. Explanations for that suggestion range from the mainstream (the White House is loathe to get the US into another Mid-East war) to the "conspiratorial" (the CIA created ISIS and thus doesn't want to destroy the group due to its value as a strategic asset).

    The implication in all of this is that a modern army that was truly determined to destroy the group could likely do so in a matter of months if not weeks and so once Russia began flying sorties from Latakia, the world was anxious to see just how long the various rebel groups operating in Syria could hold up under bombardment by the Russian air force.

    The answer, apparently, is "less than a week."

    On Saturday, the Russian Ministry of Defense said it has conducted 60 bombing runs in 72 hours, hitting more than 50 ISIS targets.

    According to the ministry (Facebook page is here), Islamic State fighters are in a state of "panic" and more than 600 have deserted.

    ... ... ...

    ... ... ...

    the phantom

    I guess this means no more 2 mile long ISIS, toyota truck convoys flying black flags? Still a ways to go... need to see the Syrian/Iranian ground troops start moping up, then it's for real. Once that happens, the panic will really hit ISIS and the rest of the terrorists. That's when those dogs go back to their masters, the Saudi's, and ask some real tough questions. I would not want to be a member of the royal family when that happens.

    [Oct 07, 2015] Summers Global Economy The Case for Expansion

    Oct 07, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Economist's View

    Larry Summers continues his call for fiscal expansion:

    Global economy: The case for expansion: ...The problem of secular stagnation - the inability of the industrial world to grow at satisfactory rates even with very loose monetary policies - is growing worse in the wake of problems in most big emerging markets, starting with China. ... Industrialised economies that are barely running above stall speed can ill-afford a negative global shock. Policymakers badly underestimate the risks... If a recession were to occur, monetary policymakers lack the tools to respond. ...
    This is no time for complacency. The idea that slow growth is only a temporary consequence of the 2008 financial crisis is absurd. ...
    Long-term low interest rates radically alter how we should think about fiscal policy. Just as homeowners can afford larger mortgages when rates are low, government can also sustain higher deficits. ...
    The case for more expansionary fiscal policy is especially strong when it is spent on investment or maintenance. ... While the problem before 2008 was too much lending, many more of today's problems have to do with too little lending for productive investment.
    Inevitably, there will be discussion of the need for structural reform... - there always is. ...
    Traditional approaches of focusing on sound government finance, increased supply potential and the avoidance of inflation court disaster. ... It is an irony of today's secular stagnation that what is conventionally regarded as imprudent offers the only prudent way forward.

    [The full post is much, much longer.]

    bakho said in reply to pgl...

    If Bush would have done fiscal stimulus instead of tax cuts and low interest rates in 2001, we could have avoided the worst of the 2008 mess. When the wealthy hoard capital in an unproductive way and use their political power to increase their wealth, it leads to a stalled economy.

    Peter K. said...

    Everyone is for fiscal stimulus. Even Republicans like Ben Bernanke and Martin Feldstein.

    "The problem of secular stagnation - the inability of the industrial world to grow at satisfactory rates even with very loose monetary policies - is growing worse in the wake of problems in most big emerging markets, starting with China."

    Interest rates are low by historical standards but monetary policy isn't "loose."

    If it was loose we'd see inflation and tight labor markets.

    bakho said in reply to Peter K....

    Monetary stimulus at the ZLB is weak and carries more risk than fiscal stimulus. The problem for Yellen and the Fed: fiscal policy is dragging the economy down. Monetary policy would be adequate if fiscal policy were doing its part. It does not even come close. The Fed can create more money, but the wealthy are positioned to grab it so very little goes to where it is needed.

    Monetary policy, no matter how good cannot fully correct for bad or inadequate fiscal and regulatory policy.

    D said in reply to Peter K....

    "Even Republicans like Ben Bernanke..."

    Maybe that should be: former Republicans like Ben Bernanke.

    http://qz.com/518111/bernanke-im-not-really-a-republican-anymore/

    "I didn't leave the Republican Party. I felt that the party left me."

    -JJF

    Peter K. said...

    "It is an irony of today's secular stagnation that what is conventionally regarded as imprudent offers the only prudent way forward."

    Summers borrows/steals from Krugman.

    bakho said in reply to Peter K....

    The Fed lacked the authority for Cramdown and Geithner who had the power block most of the help that should have bailed out home owners. Obama's Harvard buddies were against Cramdown, the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banksters so a good policy was blocked.

    BigBozat said in reply to JaaaaayCeeeee...

    "But why is Larry Summers saying that the problem before 2008 was too much lending? Said so baldly, doesn't it just support austerians, like the Tory argument that Labor caused the recession by spending too much on entitlements?"

    Only if you conflate "lending" with "public debt" (and/or argue that spending on entitlements is a totally non-productive use of the public fisc). If the Tories are good at conflating (and/or believe entitlements are a complete waste of money), then yeah I guess they could make claims... 'tho they'd be either disingenuous or ignorant in doing so.

    FWIW, I tend to associate "lending" more with private sector activity. What Larry means by "too much lending" - in this case, anyway - was the cheap & poorly/fraudulently underwritten credit-fueled housing sector bubble.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to BigBozat...

    The problem was private debt. There was long secular run of private debt to gdp prior to the crash. Eventually private debt was at its highest level since 1929.

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/09/private-debt-is-the-main-problem/


    [Oct 07, 2015] Volatility and Oil

    "... For example the energy cost to major chemicals of running their plants is significant in the united states this about 6% of the national energy consumption. Since 1994, Dow has reduced its energy intensity by 22 percent through a structured program targeting process improvements. This has saved 1.6 quadrillion BTUs, equivalent to the energy required to generate all of the residential electricity used in California for one year. The savings have totaled $8.6 billion on an investment of $1 billion. ..."
    "... Vertical means incorporating finding, processing, converting chemically modifying, distributing and selling products. However even in the present time it is interesting to note how BP beat its guidance in the last quarter and other companies such as Exxon are not doing too badly. ..."
    "... Exxon is an interesting case since it purchases more crude oil that it actually produces, and so a lower price helps its energy and raw materials cost structure. ..."
    "... In conclusion oil is, like it or loath it, a central pillar of our modern society. Alternative sources, such as solar cells (photovolteic), wave, wind and geo thermal, do not currently posses the necessary infrastructure to support the global energy need. ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | community.3dsbiovia.com
    Petroleum is a volatile product. The chemistry that enables it as such a high density energy and ubiquitous energy source is volatile. The economic environment around oil is volatile, with a growing tide of alternative energy sources, and climate change issues. The political environment around oil is volatile. However oil currently is and will I believe remain for the foreseeable future, the essential underpinning of modern societies around the globe. This is why companies like Exxon call themselves energy organizations. Its not a vain attempt to change their image but rather a real understanding of the nature of chemicals and energy and the value they bring. if you need to understand this, image that we had no fuel for transportation, goods delivery, power-stations, and lights; it would be a very cold parochial world.

    User-added imagel

    Recently we have seen a precipitous change in the energy or per barrel price of oil, across the broad markets. To many people this is shocking and upsetting; a sign of a global economic contagion. However this is not the first significant price shock in the energy sector. When I started in BP oil was about 65-70 dollars a barrel for Brent Crude and was projected to go to 80-90. Unfortunatley due to economics and supply or demand, it actually dropped. Well the oil majors learnt from that shock, the Gulf and early Oil crises. They became fully integrated corporations. The drill, produce, refine, blend, distribute and own end point of sales. They balance their exposure in the upstream and highly risky area, with that of continuous margin driven volume production in refining, and more batch driven specialty chemicals in the downstream and products domain. Now as the oil price drops, the margins and profit in upstream decreases, but the energy costs of running crackers and separating and converting columns decreases.

    For example the energy cost to major chemicals of running their plants is significant in the united states this about 6% of the national energy consumption. Since 1994, Dow has reduced its energy intensity by 22 percent through a structured program targeting process improvements. This has saved 1.6 quadrillion BTUs, equivalent to the energy required to generate all of the residential electricity used in California for one year. The savings have totaled $8.6 billion on an investment of $1 billion.

    So as prices drop the downstream parts of integrated petrochemicals is healthy. The gasoline stations, do not clearly make a lot of money, but the refineries and chemical production outlets are very healthy and currently running at maximum capacity, (a friend verified last week). This balanced portfolio is how the companies manage the significant shifts in costs. It also is why they really need an integrated systems view of the whole business. They need to manage, cost, risk and velocity across different sectors, with differing information, material and economic considerations. being able to have flexibility across a refinery to take advantage of local and global price shifts and consequent supply and material shifts (quality content etc) is important.

    Further to this, oil and the exploration of oil has often been subject to regulations. There have been a number of very sad incidents involving oil companies that have affected the environment. In order to continue to operate, the petrochemical companies are very mindful of their "Green License to Operate". therefore they carefully track using inventory and supply chain technologies all of the products, their regulatory and environmental impact and their health, safety and fire code compliance. They do this across all their divisions, to both ensure information tractability and of course compliance to specified procedure.

    Lastly oil has always been as a product subject to taxation regimes. These change and as many of you will have heard the allowances for drilling in for example the United States are considerable. Exploration and Production has always been the riskiest side of the vertically integrated, oil company's portfolio. Vertical means incorporating finding, processing, converting chemically modifying, distributing and selling products. However even in the present time it is interesting to note how BP beat its guidance in the last quarter and other companies such as Exxon are not doing too badly.
    http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Global-oil-price-factors-420x305.png

    Note Exxon is an interesting case since it purchases more crude oil that it actually produces, and so a lower price helps its energy and raw materials cost structure.

    In conclusion oil is, like it or loath it, a central pillar of our modern society. Alternative sources, such as solar cells (photovolteic), wave, wind and geo thermal, do not currently posses the necessary infrastructure to support the global energy need. In order to provide a mode complete energy portfolio, Petrochemical companies are actively investigating carbon capture and conversion to methanol for energy consumption. They are likewise working very hard to optimize their entire business processes, documentation and innovation activities along a systems model approach

    [Oct 07, 2015] US Ruling Circles Split On Use of Jihadists in Syria

    "... Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. Theyve come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. ..."
    "... They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that dont want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest. ..."
    "... in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world. ..."
    "... there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And theres nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight. ..."
    "... And although that warning didnt cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think thats why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that theyve been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | therealnews.com
    BALL: So what is going on here? It almost sounds like a neo-Cold War indirect conflict of superpowers vying for colonial control over their property, or a fight over whose anti-Assad allies should be supported. What is going on?

    FORD: Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. They've come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. And the Russians say that they are not just defending the government that they have had relations with for decades. They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that don't want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest.

    BALL: But again, for those of us who have varying understandings of what's happening here, it would seem like the U.S. would not have a problem with Assad's territory being bombed, given that the U.S. and Obama's administration in particular is no fan of Bashar al-Assad and his leadership there in Syria. Why then are they having a problem with what Russia's doing, and to what extent are the problems that are claimed to be addressed there actually caused in their origin by the United States and its policies?

    FORD: Well, the United States has, and Obama knows the United States has, problems that go beyond the Russian intervention. They have problems with their own policy, which has brought them to this state of affairs. And in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world.

    And the reason that I say another chance is because it was the Russians back in 2012 who gave President Obama a similar opportunity to re-think that jihadist 35-year-old policy when they proposed that the international community supervise the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. That was back in 2012. And that allowed President Obama to back off from his threat to attack Syria, to bomb the Syrian government. I think that President Obama backed off on that threat not because of domestic or international opposition. The United States acts unilaterally all the time, I think he could have gotten away with it. I think that Obama was genuinely afraid of what would happen if the Syrian government collapsed. And make no mistake about it, if the United States had attacked the Syrian government directly the dynamic of the situation would have compelled the United States to keep on attacking until that government was totally destroyed, just like they did to Col. Gaddafi's government in Libya only one year before.

    But it is very clear, now quite clear in hindsight but I think it was visible back then, that there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And there's nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight.

    And although that warning didn't cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think that's why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that they've been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

    So the Russian intervention is now forcing Obama's hand. He's going to have to decide if he's going to continue this policy with the jihadists, or if he's going to go for some kind of containment or stabilization of the battle lines in Syria. We know it's quite obvious that Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states wanted an all-out offensive to take out the Assad government once and for all, but that has been checked definitively by the Russians. And that gives Obama another chance to cooperate with the people in the region, with Syria and with Iran, and with the government of Iraq, as well as with the Russians. He has that chance again, if he takes it.

    [Oct 07, 2015] Uncertain Times Ahead For The Saudis

    "... If the U.S. shale complex finally folds under the weight of its own debt, bad economics, and less forgiving capital markets allowing Riyadh to raise prices again having secured the future of the country's market share ..."
    "... However, there are quite a few things that can go wrong here that would serve to destabilize the situation and if the rumors about a rebellion within the royal family are true, the slightest misstep could end up being catastrophic. ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    ...between maintaining subsidies, defending the riyal peg, and fighting two proxy wars, Saudi Arabia's fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly, forcing Riyadh to tap the bond market in an effort to help plug a hole that amounts to some 20 percent of GDP.

    ... ... ...

    Referring to reports that the number of drilling rigs deployed by U.S. shale producers is falling, Naimi said: "Eventually, economic producers will continue to prevail," the paper reported.

    Naimi disagreed with analysts who believe OPEC's market share would fall further, the paper reported. "On the contrary, OPEC's market share will be higher," he said.

    Maybe so, but make no mistake, this is a precarious time for the Saudis. If the U.S. shale complex finally folds under the weight of its own debt, bad economics, and less forgiving capital markets allowing Riyadh to raise prices again having secured the future of the country's market share, and if Iran and Russia end up being content with preserving the regional balance of power and don't move to push the issue in Iraq and Yemen once they're done "saving" Syria, then the Saudis may well weather the storm.

    However, there are quite a few things that can go wrong here that would serve to destabilize the situation and if the rumors about a rebellion within the royal family are true, the slightest misstep could end up being catastrophic.

    [Oct 07, 2015] Chris Hayes and Paul Wolfowitz, Amazing Interview

    YouTube

    OldPhart

    Here's a full taste of Wolfowitz as he was interviewed by some metro-sexual I've never heard of...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0-wwFE_DaM

    The faggot's got some solid points over Wolfowitz.

    [Oct 06, 2015] Turkey cannot endure Russian violation of airspace, president says

    That's how guardian handlers want turkey to react... Those US and GB dances about Kosher islamists vs. non-Kosher islamists are disgusting.
    "... Presumably the first step is to force coalition members to work with the government on airstrikes, rather than intruding daily into Syrian airspace. The tactics chosen seem to have the goal of harassing away the Turkish air force from Syrian airspace. ..."
    "... OH!!! The sky is falling! Turkey, that violates (using armed fighter jets) Greece's airspace over the Aegean DAILY, condemns the violation of its airspace. After having continuously violated the Syrian and Iraqi airspace (and bombed) for months. Oh the hypocrisy....! ..."
    "... they have exposed the West and NATO's complicity in keeping the Syrian war going, with the aim of removing Assad. It's quite brilliant geo-politicking. ..."
    "... Well, after only ONE DAY of military intervention Russia scared the s*** out of ISIS in their very capital. One has to wonder what exactly have the coalition of hypocrites been striking for more than a year!!! - because it surely does not seem like they were actually attacking ISIS. ..."
    "... We have had a nuclear deal with Iran and although most westerners consider Iranians, Turks and Kurds to be Arabs they are not. The alliances and interests are far more complex that just a Sunni/Shia divide. This is on the border of Europe, Israel and NATO. ..."
    "... Are you misinformed due to blatant western propaganda, or are you a misinforming propagandist? Minsk I and Minsk II were both initiated by Russia with EU states Germany and France; the US and UK were intentionally bypassed and left out (probably because we both supported Ukraine's war against the east). ..."
    "... Russia conducted Moscow I and Moscow II negotiations with internal Syrian rebel groups. The "rebel" groups that refused to participate were the likes of jabhat al Nusra and Army of Conquest and other extremist groups (most of which are manned by foreign jihadists); of which the truth has been revealed in the past week or so that such groups are proxy armies funded and armed by the US, GCC states and Turkey, among others. ..."
    Oct 06, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

    brews12 6 Oct 2015 19:29

    The west is not sure what to do now there plot to topple Assad has failed. The West thought Assad would fall easily but no. Then they tried arming the jihadis (sorry moderate forces) that didn't work. Then they set up Islamic state isil or whatever it's called now (funny how the name changes) they must be seen as the worst terrorists ever so the west has an excuse to fly aircraft over Iraq and then syria supposedly to destroy Islamic state but in reality to aid toppling the Assad regime (my apologies the butcher Assad regime)
    I always find it unusual that the west was getting much more friendly towards Libya and syria just before the Arab spring more than likely so blame would not fall there way when supposed civil war started.

    Arab spring conviently starts just as troops start pulling out or Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Some other questions we must now ask.

    1. 9/11 conspiracy theories now more plausible.
    2. Obama as president was this done as a smokescreen.
    3. Cameron elected UK pm way behind in polls and if not elected unlikely to get permission to bomb in syria heavily supported by sun newspaper.
    4. Turkey in nato why or perhaps we can see why now.

    TomFullery -> Richard Alan 6 Oct 2015 19:29

    You obviously don't know how bad things are now. USD 3'000 is just a pipedream these days and Ukraine is bankrupt (but the West doesn't like to admit it).

    I hear clowns on CIF daily talking about how the Ruble is in freefall but look at the Hryvnia. Every time I visit Kiev I get more UAH for my Euros, I get better service in restaurants both because the staff are desperate not to lose their jobs and also because as likely as not I, along with the ubiquitous loudmouthed, fatarsed Yanks, am the only customer.

    Ironic that I have profited from US aggression and empire building.

    TomFullery -> Marcedward 6 Oct 2015 19:24

    An apt description of the US as it thrashes around snapping and biting everywhere these days trying to remain world hegemon. But Russia has finally become assertive (Georgia and Ukraine tweeked the bear's tail one too often).

    China is playing the chess game which may last just a few decades or may last as long as the US has existed.


    kconroy869 6 Oct 2015 19:04

    In a strange way, the more I see and hear about Putin, the more I admire his principles. That is not to say that I think he is right with some actions, but there is a strong logic to his views and responses. He is undoubtedly a leader. Obama, Cameron and many others are more interested in sound bites and media control than actually doing the right thing.


    Shad O 6 Oct 2015 18:52

    The "bad Turkey", "bad Russia" post miss the point. The question is: why? Going through the facts:

    1. With with only 4 dedicated air-air fighters in Syria, Russia cannot be intentionally risking their their aircraft or challenging Turkey in their own airspace.

    2. The actions of of Syrian MiGs seems too timely to be coincidental.

    3. All incidents seem to involve Turkey. No other state, including those bombing Syria seems to be targeted.

    4. While the Russians were somewhat apologetic, another incident happened on the following day.

    Now, if we remember, the timing of the Russian operation coincided with the start of the calls for "safe zones", effectively pre-empting any further action in this direction. "Safe zones" were one of creeping escalation plans, which would eventually lead to strikes on government forces directly. Russia's plan is the opposite: they want to restore the government's control all over the country. For that they need to have the "anti-IS" coalition deal with the Syrian government.

    Presumably the first step is to force coalition members to work with the government on airstrikes, rather than intruding daily into Syrian airspace. The tactics chosen seem to have the goal of harassing away the Turkish air force from Syrian airspace. Turkey is the logical first target: with their muddy record of bombing kurds and armed incursions into Iraq (again, after Kurds), they know full well their position is very shaky, and that they are protected by NATO agreements only if the state comes under attack, not if their aircraft in Syrian airspace gets shot down.

    Russia's apparent apologetic response, followed by more incidents is unsurprising. Their current modus operandi is big on the "speak softly" approach. It allows them to follow up with whatever they want and seem consistent with their earlier statements. While at the same time, they can keep doing what they plan to do if negotiations do not give the desired outcome.


    Vocalista Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 18:50

    RT is just as useful in weighing up what is really happening in the World as any other media outlet.

    Let the reader decide eh...?


    log1c4l 6 Oct 2015 18:40

    Poor old Recep. He was about to get his safe zone for Nusra and then Putin deployed Su-30s, Su-34s and the Moskva with its S300s.

    Now he's crying into his beer with Breedlove and the rest of the Islamist/Ziocons.

    Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 18:40

    If I understand correctly, it is Turkey today the main sponsor of the ISIS and that is Turkey on the verge of revolution. And it is in this country population is largely adheres of radical views where the United States held nuclear weapons. And it is this country is supported by NATO. Am I right?

    Cydonian1 6 Oct 2015 18:34

    OH!!! The sky is falling! Turkey, that violates (using armed fighter jets) Greece's airspace over the Aegean DAILY, condemns the violation of its airspace. After having continuously violated the Syrian and Iraqi airspace (and bombed) for months. Oh the hypocrisy....!

    vampire76 6 Oct 2015 18:31

    People where prepared to turn a blind eye to NATO's illegal invasion of Syria if it meant getting rid of these terrorists, now that the Russians came along and highlighted how it should be done and not by arming the guys your supposed to be attacking, NATO should just get out of the way and let Russia do the job properly.


    Budovski -> Ximples 6 Oct 2015 18:27

    Turkey can endure spending 5 years of state support for terror networks and ensuring Jihadis can cross across its borders, and retreat back to recoup, but it can't endure an accidental 10 sec airspace incursion? Turkey has violated Syria's borders, bombing Kurds, violates Syria's airspace and also violates Greece and Iraq's airspace. When is this rogue state getting kicked out of NATO?


    Vocalista foolisholdman 6 Oct 2015 18:23

    All wars are bankers wars:

    LINK


    objectivereporting 6 Oct 2015 18:19

    NATO is laughable at best. Please shut the hell up and let the Russkies get rid of the evil named ISIS. You (NATO) had one full year and the Islamic State actually expanded under your air strikes. Few days and ISIS is already running away with families to Iraq and Jordan from Russian sorties. Only thing we need now is for Iraq to make a request for Russian assistance so we can finally "degrade and destroy" ISIS along with ground ops from the Syrian army. OK Obama? All legal according to international law as opposed to the bullying the US-led coalition used to interfere with Syria's sovereignty.


    Amying 6 Oct 2015 18:16

    NATO have no jurisdiction over Syria and the interfering in the country by Turkey, US, etc is illegal.

    Russia's presence was requested by the legitimate government. Only Russia has the authority to bomb targets in Syria.

    Turkey is not going to be backed by other NATO members if they taker action against Russian jets.


    Vocalista HouseholdCarvery 6 Oct 2015 18:12

    "The people/govts etc do have agency for their own actions y'know."

    Rubbish - the American people and the British people have no control of their governments as witnessed by Blair and Bush attacking Iraq after millions of people marched in both countries in protest.

    A recent vote for Syrian action was undermined in the British Parliament so the bombing is done by the back door without media coverage and also using drones...

    DavidEG 6 Oct 2015 18:06

    They, their masters and their NATO stooges Will endure a complete demise of CIA-trained "moderate al-qaeda" in a matter of week. Jihadis, moderate and hardline, are fleeing Syria in droves

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/609680/Islamic-State-ISIS-Russian-bombing-terror-Syria-Caliphate-defeat

    sutjeska -> Chiselbeard 6 Oct 2015 18:01

    The ones in Ukraine don't want to hack people's heads off for being not quite Muslim enough. They don't sell children as sex slaves, or dynamite cultural heritage sites. Also, they don't get training and weapons from the Americans.

    Kholrabi 6 Oct 2015 18:01

    Come on Cameron, you worm, repeat after me with all your fusty, clueless Tory parasite mates, soon to go the dodo way: Get Hague and the one with the snout to stand in line too.

    "Erdogan must go, we can't have peace in Syria and the Middle East unless Erdogan goes"

    "The Saudi Pillock must go, the whole gang of those murdering backwards must go, for peace in the Middle East."

    Send a pot belly to your best mate and equally useless worm, Obama.

    Say something decent while you still have the time; you will not make it to twenty twenty, or anywhere near that date.


    TomFullery -> Chiselbeard 6 Oct 2015 18:00

    You missed the US-instigated Nazi putsch there Dude. Things were ticking over quite nicely for years in Ukraine until the US tried a takeover.

    Russia checkmated and got a huge chunk of real estate in addition.


    Mmirra -> Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 17:47

    What do you think, would ISIS gentleman who wrap children in bombs and send them to suicide missions ever use civilians as shileds or would they try to protect them? There will be innocent people dying until the war is over.


    fotorabia23 -> TomFullery 6 Oct 2015 17:44

    Its ok..all the fascists are coming out in force...they can squeal Putin this that and the other..but we know what their true agenda is.Their group masturbation of Western -Israeli-Saudi imperial hegemony is coming to an end..and they cant handle it.


    Sarah7 -> johhnybgood 6 Oct 2015 17:42

    Don't forget Operation Ajax -- because the Iranians certainly haven't forgotten.

    Mohammad Mosaddegh was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a covert coup d'état orchestrated by the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence Service.

    Prime Minister Mosaddegh's most notable policy was the nationalisation of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC).

    The 1953 coup was followed by the installation of the brutal and autocratic Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, aka the Shah of Iran -- whose vicious secret police, the Savak, remain the stuff of legend -- and the Iranian oil industry was immediately re-privatised and returned to British Petroleum (BP). Mission accomplished!

    Mosaddegh was imprisoned for three years, and then put under house arrest until his death in 1967.

    The direct causal relationship between Mosaddegh's decision to nationalise Iran's oil sector and the covert U.S. and British orchestrated coup resulting in his ouster could not be more obvious.

    Many Iranians continue to regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history.

    Alas, one can only imagine what Iranian society might be like today had Prime Minister Mosaddegh's popular brand of secular, tolerant, democratic socialism been allowed to develop and flourish.

    The phenomenon of regime change orchestrated and driven by outside influences produces terrible results -- in Iran those results produced the repressive Shah, who was followed in turn by the even more repressive Ayatollah Khomeini and the strict, reactionary, Islamic republic that still governs Iran today.

    See the 'Arab Spring' -- in particular, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen -- for further evidence of U.S. orchestrated regime change gone horribly wrong.


    fotorabia23 Don9000 6 Oct 2015 17:23

    Bollox..'most Western nations'..the pious..the proud..the elite..the righteous..they started the war by arming proxy terrorists...creating a third entity in this filthy war..

    so 'the boots on the ground' are not English -French speaking and doesn't look like an embarrassing invasion...unless it its CIA-Mi6 trainers ..who hid in Jordan..providing training and logistics. Fact. Stop being such a shill.


    gossy Roguing 6 Oct 2015 17:22

    The Afghan Mujahideen were never just the peasants they were presented as - now were they? They had Stinger missiles and anti tank weapons supplied by the CIA The CIA's current crop of Islamic Jihadis in Syria have the same but what they don't have is any real support among the populations they terrorize. The Russians are seen as liberators.


    Simpleguest Roguing 6 Oct 2015 17:21

    I'd like to remind you that US, together with NATO, also failed to defeat the Afgans under far more favorable (for US/NATO) conditions (lack of outside powers supporting and supplying the Afgans), which makes them (US/NATO) all the more silly.


    murnau 6 Oct 2015 17:20

    Turkey 'cannot endure' Russian violation of airspace, president says

    Is this the same Turkey that ranges over parts of Syria and Iraq with its aircraft bombing the PKK who are fighting ISIS who are allies of Erdogan. Turkey shot down a Syrian plane which was fighting ISIS 18 months ago saying it had strayed into Turkish airspace but the plane came down in Syria. Didn't Erdogan ban youtube for a while when they had evidence of a false flag operation he was concocting to be used as an excuse to attack Syria. When the Kurds were fighting ISIS in Kobani Erdogan stood by and watched.

    As for the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg isn't Nato violating Syrian airspace with its half hearted attacks on the Islamic State over the last year. The US state department laughingly report that cement mixers and excavators have been hit on the bombing runs along with Toyota pickup trucks that the US sent over.

    ISIS terrorists were leading cavalry charges across Iraq and Syria mounted on Toyota Hilux trucks provided to them by the U.S.

    http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/10/non-lethal-aid-toyota-hilux-trucks-isis.html

    Turkish war planes continued their airstrikes on Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) rebels group in northern Iraq and Syria - See more at:

    http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2015/8/3/turkish-warplanes-attack-kurdistan-pkk-rebels#sthash.65CYhO5R.dpuf


    TomFullery Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 17:12

    Which innocents?

    How many?

    Which is your source?

    How do you feel about the 500'000 innocent Iraqi kids who starved to death as a result of US sanctions and which Madeleine Albright described as "a price worth paying"

    How do you feel about the US war against Vietnam which resulted in 3 million Vietnamese deaths?


    kenalexruss -> TarquinFintimlin 6 Oct 2015 16:47

    I don't know if you're an idiot savant or not, but you sure act like you can read my mind. How dare you suggest that because I question Obama policy, that I must therefore be in support of Russia? Only pathetic morons can come up with such illogical drivel. If you are indeed a realist, you must accept the fact that the US is in support of extreme terrorism and that's fcuked up, much like your moronic mentality. Pathetic.

    A realist sees things as they are and calls them accordingly.


    Abiesalba -> Hippokl 6 Oct 2015 16:42

    Make no mistake, the destruction of ISIS is not Putin's primary objective.

    Oh, is that so?

    With respect to Syria / ISIS, Russia has direct interests in defeating ISIS because ISIS is already operating (!!!) inside the Russian Federation - in the North Caucasus region.
    -
    -
    See for example:

    ISIS Declares Governorate in Russia's North Caucasus Region (June 2015)

    Note that southern Russia is also on the map released by ISIS in 2014 depicting the regions that ISIS aim to rule over within the next five years:

    map of ISIS (original in Arabic) and map of ISIS (showing current borders with state names in German).

    So Putin not only has the request from Syria's government (Assad) for military help which the 'coalition' striking Syria lacks. Putin / Russia also has direct interests in defeating ISIS. Apart from ISIS spreading to Russia via the Caucasus, Russia is also worried about ISIS spreading its influence into the Central Asian (Muslim) countries hence bringing ISIS to Russia's borders there too. In addition, Russia has a military base in Syria which is strategically very important to Russia (the only Russian base in the Mediterranean / warm seas).

    Russia is also VERY close to Syria and Iraq.

    So it seems to me that Russia has much more legitimate reasons for strikes in Syria than the 'coalition' and Russia also knows what it wants to achieve.

    And of course Russia has tried to get allies for intervention in Syria some years ago, when the situation was less complex and ISIS has no risen to power yet. It seems to me that Putin judged the situation correctly yet again.


    BG Davis Karl Gerhardt Hohenstauffen 6 Oct 2015 16:38

    What's odd is the number of up votes for this verbal and conceptual tossed salad.
    Turkey bombs Kurds because they are Kurds. Nasty, but not odd.
    Saudi Arabia bombs Houthis because they are Shiite. Nasty, but not odd.
    US weapons end up in ISIS hands because they were captured. Not odd.
    ISIS sells oil. Good business, not odd.
    It's awfully hard to build a conspiracy theory from unrelated obvious facts.

    The solution is Putin bringing Assad to the negotiating table.

    Now please explain what justifies CIA / the US training and arming 'rebels' in Syria? What the hell are the US and CIA doing there anyway?


    Abiesalba -> Vatslav Rente 6 Oct 2015 16:35

    It may be better to create an efficient army to throw out from the continent all American bases and to maintain neutrality in the dispute United States-Russia.

    Agree.

    Yesterday there was a comment here in Slovenia under an article about NATO condemning Russia over Turkey's airspace: Time for us [Slovenia] to exit NATO asap. It had already been too late yesterday. --- 91 thumbs up, 15 thumbs down

    Note that Slovenia was in Yugoslavia during the Cold War. And Yugoslavia was a leading member of the Non-Aligned movement which was in effect a buffer between the two blocs. So we were friends with both the west and the east and the third world. The Non-Aligned movement also gave shelter and support to all those colonies emerging in that period from the devastating colonial rule by the glorious west.

    Tito's funeral in 1980 was the greatest state funeral in history by the number of high delegations from countries around the world (larger than Mandela's). It was during the freezing Cold War, but representatives of both the Nato and the Warsaw states (including the UK), as well as China and many Non-Aligned former colonies attended.

    At that time, the democrat Jimmy Carter was the US president, and he was attacked in the US press and by the republican (!) George Bush because he did not attend the funeral personally, but rather 'only' sent the US vice-president. I think that this (a republican slamming the US president for not attending a 'commie' funeral) illustrates quite nicely what Yugoslavia's position was in the world.
    -
    But I think that in the present situation the EU should get closer to Russia. This really is in strategic and economic interests of both sides. Russia is also historically and culturally a part of Europe. It would be stupid to chase Russia away and make it get closer to China.

    The escalation of the Ukraine crisis was a bad mistake of the EU which then so stupidly followed the US/UK hysteria and imposed economic sanctions on Russia which are hurting both sides (but not the cheerleaders US/UK).

    And this constant vilification of Russia with respect to Syria by NATO and US/UK is revolting too.

    And anyway it is now clear that the EU has to consolidate its foreign policy and also establish some joint police/defence forces/border guards.

    And the UK will soon vote itself out of the EU too, which will make things in the EU much simpler. Because the UK as an US poodle is the one who endangered the people of all other EU members and made us all targets of terrorists. Remember how strongly Germany and France opposed the Iraq war.

    So it is now a good time for the EU members to get out of NATO, let the UK float off into oblivion and to consolidate our foreign and defence policy and seek actively to get close to Russia again (I do not think this would be difficult to do once the glorious US/UK duo is out of the picture). This would also make the situation of Ukraine much easier to sort out. And Russia would be pleased to be the 'big power' in this alliance.

    I would be really good for Europe to unite now (including Russia) rather than put another Iron Curtain between us and Russia (which would happen if the EU claimed 'neutrality').


    BG Davis 6 Oct 2015 16:31

    "Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Russian government was not involved in efforts by volunteers to travel to Syria to aid the Assad regime"
    Exactly what they said and continue to say about Ukraine.


    John Kayoss -> PrinceEdward 6 Oct 2015 16:31

    Not only does Russia have no law against Homosexuality, but it is illegal to discriminate against anyone for sexual orientation or gender identity for employment purposes, thus it has better protections than the majority of US states.


    MangawhaiJo 6 Oct 2015 16:24

    In response to a question covering 1) The Bombing of the Afghanistan Hospital by US Forces and 2) The incursion into Turkey Airspace by Russian Aircraft, Nato's secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg response was (in summary):

    1) The Hospital bombing will be subject to a full investigation before comment should be made

    and

    2) The Russians should be condemned for a clear violation and serious breach of sovereign airspace.

    In terms of seriousness - these acts are hardly comparable ('War Crime' v airspace incursion), the lopsided answer by the NATO secretary general does nothing for their credibility.

    RobertLlDavies -> Manolo Torres 6 Oct 2015 16:21

    If you keep on diverting us with facts, it's only a matter of time before you're exposed as a "Putinbot". The only true sign of an independent mind is that you parrot US and NATO foreign policy.

    PrinceEdward -> impartial12 6 Oct 2015 16:21

    Religious Freedom exists in Russia, and there is no law against Homosexuality. Besides, the West's attitude about Homosexuality was the same 5 minutes ago. What do the "Moderate Jihadis" (not to be confused with Moderate Serial Killers, or Moderate SS Troops) believe about Homosexuality? When does the US/UK start the sanctions against Saudi Arabia?

    vr13vr -> SwissArmy1984 6 Oct 2015 16:17

    In other words, move the Syrians out of their own country and let ISIS have it. Which is exactly what ISIS wants.

    vr13vr -> Trumbledon 6 Oct 2015 16:16

    You are jumping to conclusions. First, it is the US government that declared them all civilians, which might not be accurate at all and is subject to how good the US intelligence is, which is questionable, judging the number of US errors. Secondly, it is also a matter of definition. By default, all the terrorists are civilians. So if it is opposition that the US supports, it will be "civilians" and "opposition." If it is opposition that someone else supports, it is called "terrorists." You also start with the assumption that somehow Russia cares less about civilians than any other country and I'm not sure where that assumption came from. The "weather forecast bit" was not a response to any official report. it was a weathergirl bit that very briefly mentioned the basic weather averages in the region as a curious bit of information.

    But before any discussion could be made, remember that the attack on the civilians has not been proven. It came from the Pentagon as some sort of assumption and in the age of propaganda war it is hardly a reliable information.


    coughined MeandYou 6 Oct 2015 15:51

    The Russians have outsmarted the West in Ukraine, where the West sponsored regime change, and now they have exposed the West and NATO's complicity in keeping the Syrian war going, with the aim of removing Assad. It's quite brilliant geo-politicking.

    Unfortunately, I think the yanks are going to get pretty pissed off; especially when the House of Saud is on the blower demanding they do something about Russian involvement.


    coughined -> PixieFrouFrou 6 Oct 2015 15:47

    They've been wasting millions of dollars of ordnance on a few soft targets. Why do you think 'all 41' anti-Assad 'insurgent' groups (they some how cease to be terrorists now the Russians are involved) have apparently united to fight the Russians? probably because the Russians are hitting real targets.

    You can imagine the terrorists/insurgents:

    "Fuck me, these bastards are actually trying to kill us!"
    "Yeah, nobody mentioned this when we picked up our dollars last week."
    "I'm off home to Saudi/Jordan/Pakistan/Portsmouth. This isn't fun any more."


    Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 15:47

    The initial strategy of the Turkish war against Syria was invented by former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe (Alain Juppé) in 2011. Later, France withdrew from the cases.

    Juppe inclined oscillating Erdogan to support the attack on the traditional ally of Turkey - Syria - in exchange for the French support Turkey's accession with EU.

    Today, Turkey is a key sponsor of ISIS. It has betrayed its ally and plundered Syria. Turkey deserve better fate. Famous foreign policy Ahmet Davutoglu "There are no problems with neighbors" has turned out into a huge problems with all its neighbors, thanks to the foolish ambition of Erdogan and his gang.


    Abiesalba -> gimmeshoes 6 Oct 2015 15:45

    At the moment Russia is bombing everybody but Daesh.

    Re Russia allegedly not attacking ISIS - see for example here:
    -
    -
    Syria conflict: Russia air strikes stepped up

    BBC, 2 October 2015
    -
    The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said Russian air strikes had hit a training camp and a camouflaged command post near the IS "capital" of Raqqa, and that 12 IS fighters were killed in the attack.

    Activists and residents of the city said IS had cancelled Friday prayers and emptied mosques, amid fears of further Russian air strikes.
    -
    -
    Well, after only ONE DAY of military intervention Russia scared the s*** out of ISIS in their very capital. One has to wonder what exactly have the coalition of hypocrites been striking for more than a year!!! - because it surely does not seem like they were actually attacking ISIS.

    Go Russia!


    gossy 6 Oct 2015 15:31

    Turkey should be more worried that the Russians are looking for ISIS training camps and supply bases in Turkey that the Turks provide on their behalf. These supply lines will need cutting and of course if any Turkish hospitals get bombed in the process, well, they can hardly object now can they? as this has become the approved method of dealing with hospitals.


    Bosula 6 Oct 2015 15:30

    Turkey, US, Australia and NATO backed France violate Syrian airspace everyday they undertake another bombing and drone attack. These countries are all in breach of international law. NATO should comment on this.

    Only Russia has Syrian approval to fly in their airspace.


    Manolo Torres xpeters 6 Oct 2015 15:29

    Much more people goes to Russia than to the UK.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053


    Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 15:27

    According to the French political analyst Thierry Meyssan, it is exactly Erdogan "organized looting of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, taken out equipment." Similarly, he organized the theft of archaeological treasures and created an international market.


    Vatslav Rente -> Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 15:21

    Thank You, very interesting opinion.

    It is quite natural that Russia and the USA defends its interests. But I don't understand the desire completely economically independent of Europe, to make ourselves a nuclear target. Why? To obtain from USA questionable security guarantees against the "Russian threat" or to participate in its military adventures of the U.S. state Department around the world?

    It may be better to create an efficient army to throw out from the continent all American bases and to maintain neutrality in the dispute United States-Russia. I am sure it will bring the world more stability in the short-term... (but in the future Europe will participate in the redistribution of markets and resources on an equal footing, with the addition of China will bring more imbalance and is likely to lead the world to a new World War).


    SHA2014 -> truthbetold13 6 Oct 2015 15:09

    The Shia Sunni modern political divide unfortunately has been artificially created in a typical divide and rule fashion by the neo-imperialists. Most muslim countries or at least most individuals in muslim countries did not give a damn about this sort of thing. However certain powers that be thought that this is a useful way of causing trouble and maybe this has worked to a certain extend. It certainly fits the roles of the different regional powers Iran vs KSA and Turkey. I think the man in the street is really not bothered about this. Certainly if you want to believe that this is the root of the problem you also have to concede that the west's role in this is to support and use the sunni extremist in causing upheaval in the region under the guidance of KSA.


    RobertLlDavies Roguing 6 Oct 2015 15:03

    They had been fighting the pro-Communist (PDPA) government of Afghanistan for years before the Soviet intervention in 1979, planting bombs in cinemas and civilian airplanes, assassinating schoolteachers etc., backed by the USA and Pakistan. These were the wonderful "freedom fighters" we were supporting ...


    elder berry TarquinFintimlin 6 Oct 2015 15:01

    United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War, against post-revolutionary Iran, included several billion dollars' worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran

    from Wikipedia,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war


    Rinoul 6 Oct 2015 14:58

    In October 2014, US Vice President Joe Biden said that Erdogan's regime supported ISIS by "hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons. There are rumors that the main source of funds to support ISIS today is the sale of Iraqi oil from the oil fields in the region of Mosul, where they are carefully protected. Apparently, Erdogan's son is the one who provides the export of oil controlled ISIS. Bilal Erdogan (Bilal Erdoğan) owns several shipping companies. According to unconfirmed information, he signed a contract with the European mining companies to transport the stolen oil to Asian markets. Apart from the fact that his son Bilal leads illegal trade brings big profit to ISIS, Syumeye Erdogan (Sümeyye Erdoğan), the daughter of the president of Turkey, has the secret hospital, located in Turkey, near the Syrian border. Every day the Turkish army trucks to bring dozens of wounded jihadists where they receive medical treatment and sent back to conduct a bloody jihad in Syria. Moreover, it is persistently Erdogan kills Kurds - the most efficient army to defeat the ISIS.


    johhnybgood 6 Oct 2015 14:51

    The West has instigated regime change to any sovereign nation that refuses to follow its demands. These are normally - accept Central Bank loans, accept the dollar for trade, and ensure that leaders do as they are told. They have got away with this since 1945.

    Iraq, Libya, Syria, Vietnam, and a host of African and South American countries have been exploited and worse since then. Since 911, the US went into overdrive with the War on Terror, and has been responsible for millions of deaths during several interventions. Now with Syria going the same way, Russia, together with other countries who are not prepared to see the world destroyed by crazy western imperialism, have intervened to put a stop to it. More power to them. The head of the snake must be cut off, and I do not mean ISIS, before the world can return to sanity.


    Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:47

    "this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg was quoted as saying by Reuters.

    Two? Really? What a total scandal.

    Thinking about it, the US has been serially involved for a very long time in all sorts of wars, military coups and 'interventions' in other countries which involved "non-accidental" breaching of sovereignty of other states – including serial breaching of Syria's airspace for more than a year now. Some comment about that, Mr Stoltenberg?

    To refresh your memory, see this list of the US military interventions:
    -
    FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO SYRIA: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS

    by Dr. Zoltan Grossman


    lids 6 Oct 2015 14:36

    Wait a minute: The nation that inherits the chair for human-rights at the UN (Saudi Arabia), is calling for Jihad against another sovereign member of the same council?

    Did they draft a fitting resolution for the committee to make it sound?


    Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:36

    Breaking news:

    The US has its nuclear weapons illegally positioned all over Europe and in Turkey!
    -
    Well, decades old news, but very true.

    The US have their at best semi-legal (in reality illegal) nuclear weapons positioned in five European NATO members: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.

    Germany (the powerful Merkel's government!!!) has been trying to get rid of the US nukes for years - to no avail. In fact, the US is now (under the orders of the Nobel laureate Obama) upgrading its illegal nukes in Europe.

    I am from Slovenia, and a few years ago we found out that the US has nukes in Italy quite close to our border. Well, the US nukes have been on two sites in northern Italy for decades (one site in the metropolitan area of Milano), but the Italians did NOT know about them.

    Ironically in the meantime, during the last decades, Italians have repeatedly convincingly rejected use of nuclear power in Italy in several referenda - even if this means higher electricity bills for them. Only to find out that they have been sitting on nuclear weapons all along. Surely Italians have protested - eh, the US is upgrading these nukes now.

    Oh, and how about the best friend of the US ever, Israel. It is NOT a nuclear power according to international treaties. But the Israel nukes - finally Pentagon admitted a few months ago:
    -
    It's Official: The Pentagon Finally Admitted That Israel Has Nuclear Weapons, Too

    March 2015
    -
    After five decades of pretending otherwise, the Pentagon has reluctantly confirmed that Israel does indeed possess nuclear bombs, as well as awesome weapons technology similar to America's.
    -
    -
    The US is really a totally dangerous country. Lying, killing, serially illegally overthrowing governments in other countries, serially waging illegal wars, serially committing massive crimes against humanity, serially training and arming all sorts of dangerous militant groups, serially breaching all sorts of international conventions that they did sign while refusing to even sign some other ones etc. etc. etc.

    Time to say NO to the US. Indeed, the cards of world power have quite substantially reshuffled recently - but the Americans have not noticed this yet.

    Now let us go back to vilifying Russia…


    Wareenan Kongsai 6 Oct 2015 14:30

    Isis are a nasty bunch why would anyone support them? I thought at least Elton John woul have said something about their erosion of gay rights.The church seems quite quiet over the genocidal destruction of Christian communities too. All of this seems a long way from the teachings of Jesus Christ, time to check the moral compass and find our way.


    Sarah7 Bosula 6 Oct 2015 14:25

    Indeed, it looks like Stoltenberg must have stumbled upon bellicose pipsqueak Anders Fogh Rasmussen's old Viagra supply and decided to double down.

    I couldn't imagine how anyone could be worse than 'Fog of War' Rasmussen, but Stoltenberg has exceeded my worst expectations and then some.

    Of course, NATO is a wholly-owned and operated subsidiary of the U.S., and it is the U.S. president, the Pentagon, and the CIA who set the tone for the outdated warmongers who participate in this international criminal enterprise.

    The time to pull the plug on NATO is long past due.

    Vatslav Rente 6 Oct 2015 14:25

    Clowns... ha ha ha:)
    Broke the space Turkey? What? This is normal when inexperienced pilots bombing Syria or departing from the Crimea (new Russia) violate the country's airspace with the interests of which could not have been deemed. What's next? The Turks will refuse the Russian gas, or 20-25 % of Russian tourists? The vassal of the USA shouts about sovereignty? WOW:) IN reality, no one here brandishing weapons, the capabilities of air force and air defense of Turkey are well known Russia. NATO understands this, every year American planes violate air borders of alliance countries and countries of the third world without warning. And that? - NOTHING.

    Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:24

    Can somebody please explain what the US strategy is here?

    It seems to be this:

    While Assad's forces and CIA 'moderate rebels' fight each other (because this is democratic), they will at the same time fight together to wipe out together ISIS and those 41 or so 'insurgent' groups.

    Or is it that the the CIA boys will defeat everyone and rule Syria happily ever after as long as Russia keeps out.

    Back in the real world, Putin is the only one with a plan and he is right too: Assad is a part of the solution.

    When this devastating war ends, the only chance that Syria has is to have some rather 'firm fist' rule it for some time (and it can be Assad with some elements of opposition if they actually seriously exist as Syrians and not CIA boys). Then when the wounds heal a little, the regime can be gradually relaxed.

    It is not possible to go from massacring each other to loving democracy in one step. Building democracy is a process. Democracy / a fair society Middle-Eastern-style whatever it is cannot materialise just like that via a decree.

    Bosula -> Roguing 6 Oct 2015 14:23

    At least Russia is bombing so called moderate Al Quaida factions which the US and Turkey support. What sort of democratic regime would US backed Al Quaida lead to in Syria?

    Worth asking yourself this question and then you might support Russia bombing Al Quaida as well.


    Anette Mor 6 Oct 2015 14:19

    Western type of mess up. In war - no clarity who is your enemy, who is your friend and why. In peace - strong solidarity in whom to bully by not inviting to a dinner or placing in the corner talking over them Low life cheap approach. All gone down hill since they started eating on streets (and over own keyboards) and drinking from these horrendous paper cups.


    Bosula -> Reia Hriso 6 Oct 2015 14:18

    Turkey, Australia, US, NATO and their Saudi mates are supporting the Al Qaeda in Syria which is seen in some Orwellian way as moderate. The US and the Saudis are supplying Al Quaida with arms.

    Russia just sees Al Qaeda as another terrorist group and is bombing the shit out of them.


    truthbetold13 -> MahsaKaerra 6 Oct 2015 14:18

    But that is not true is it? There are more than that on the list i have helpfully attached below - and that is not counting covert operations:Guatemala (1920), Turkey (1922), China (1922-1927, Mexico (1923), Honduras (1924-25), Panama (1925), El Salvador (1932), Iran (1946), Uruguay (1947), Greece (1947-1949), Philippines (1948-54), Puerto Rico (1950), Korea (1951-1953), Iran (1953), Vietnam ( 1954), Guatemala (1954), Egypt (1956), Lebanon (1958), Vietnam (1960 - 1975), Cuba (1961), Laos (1962), Iraq (1963), Panama (1964), Indonesia (1965), Guatemala (166-67), Cambodia (1969-75), Oman (1970), Laos (1971-73), Chile (1973), Libya (1981), El Salvador ( 1981-1992), Nicaragua (1981-1990), Lebanon (1982-84), Grenada (1983-84), Libya (1986), Iraq (1990-91), Somalia (1992-94), Yugoslavia (1992-1994), Liberia (1997), Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011)

    Sources: "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive, "180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982)"


    Zaurora 6 Oct 2015 14:15

    Under normal circumstances, this could be the routine*. A NATO-ally country and bordering Russian presence. However, Erdogan and minions are determined to make Turkey the battle field for WW3.

    What I wonder is, how come NATO is still capable of trusting Erdogan's government after all that happened since the Syrian war started? Does anyone not remember who tried to go on a full scale war on Syria with NATO's backing up? It was always known that most of the groups in Syria which Turkey supported were terrorists, not? At a point, some western governments supported them through Turkey too, not? And lately, reports of this fatal mistake started pouring down, not? Wasn't it 3 weeks ago when nearly all of the NATO members but Turkey decided on moving on with Assad for at least a while longer?

    Say, conflict of interest with Russia is understandable. Abandoning principles, not.

    *http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/military-aircraft-interventions-have-surged-top-gun-but-for-real


    Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 14:12

    Here is something about those great allies of the coalition of hypocrites whom Putin is NOT 'allowed' to bomb:
    -
    -
    Turkey and Saudi Arabia alarm the West by backing Islamist extremists the Americans had bombed in Syria

    Independent, May 2015
    -
    Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad's regime that includes al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, in a move that has alarmed Western governments.

    The two countries are focusing their backing for the Syrian rebels on the combined Jaish al-Fatah, or the Army of Conquest, a command structure for jihadist groups in Syria that includes Jabhat al-Nusra, an extremist rival to Isis which shares many of its aspirations for a fundamentalist caliphate.

    The decision by the two leading allies of the West to back a group in which al-Nusra plays a leading role has alarmed Western governments and is at odds with the US, which is firmly opposed to arming and funding jihadist extremists in Syria's long-running civil war.


    dadykool1979 -> deSales 6 Oct 2015 14:12

    Turkey is intrinsically unstable. Atatürk's post-Ottoman modern 'secular' Turkey was built on excessive suppression of ethnic and religious groups. Around 25% of Turkish citizens are long-violated ethnic Kurds speaking a Persian-related language, many of whom dream of uniting with neighbouring Kurds in Iraq, Iran and Syria, to form a geographically-contiguous Kurdistan. Another roughly 25% of Turks in the country's middle, follow the Alevi sect of Islam, a Shia-Sufi tradition very different from the dominant Sunnis; Alevis have been persecuted for centuries.

    And the remaining half of Turkey is divided along a spectrum from the secular Kemalist followers of Atatürk with their support in the military, to somewhat or highly religious Sunnis ... the Sunnis now fragmented in this huge CIA-funded standoff, with some Sunnis going with Prime Minister Erdogan, while others are under Erdogan's new biggest enemy, that CIA-funded 'spiritual leader' Gülen. Turkey in 3 or more fragments may be the result of all this.


    PaulWal -> Stretch23khan 6 Oct 2015 14:05

    Good question. It's all corporate. The media organisations have huge interests in the states. The U.S. Govt is a very vindictive, spiteful lot. One wrong report, and the fcc will come calling.

    It's quite funny that piddly little rt has been compared to these media behemoths that have had free rein for decades, with no censure and disaster ensuing.


    MisterPastry 6 Oct 2015 14:04

    Why do we 'endure' Turkey's support for ISIS? Why are we constantly being lied to about the nature of this Western-inspired series of regime changes in the Middle East? Since when has any violent terrorist group been 'moderate'? Why has the UN not condemned US, UK, Israeli and French airstrikes on Syria? (The Syrian government - the one recognised by the UN, regards them as war crimes.) Our leaders never answer these questions; worse still, our MSM never asks them!


    stevekeenan1 6 Oct 2015 14:03

    It is good news to have the Russian Government backing the Assad regime, otherwise the situation would be alot worse. The long time Syrian ally Russia has being flying sorties against ISIS and Al NUSRA(AL QAEDA in Syria), and they won't be as soft on those human heart eaters as their NATO counterparts have been. If ISIS had attacked NATO in Afghanistan, the US would have decimated their ranks within 24 hours. It is unbelievable that they cannot stop them while they use the 2500 Humvees the Yanks handed over to them.


    JohnSouttar 6 Oct 2015 14:03

    If any remember the complicated Iran-Contra affair in 1985 it involved handing over missiles to "moderate elements" in Iran in exchange for help with the release of US hostages in Lebanon. There was more to it but no one really knows who in the administrations knew what. That may well be true now. We have had a nuclear deal with Iran and although most westerners consider Iranians, Turks and Kurds to be Arabs they are not. The alliances and interests are far more complex that just a Sunni/Shia divide. This is on the border of Europe, Israel and NATO. Most of it smacks of a charade. Turkey looks out across the deep Black Sea at Russia.


    MonotonousLanguor Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 14:01

    According to GWB it was Mission Accomplished. Thankfully, we have a vibrant, prosperous Iraq in place now. Ever since GWB convinced the Saudi Royal Family to hold elections, we have witnessed a real flowering of Democracy in Saudi Arabia. Those elections Saudi Arabia could be real close. The Woman's Freedom Party in Saudi Arabia (WFPSA) could hold the key. Hillary has been a long time supporter of them and recently spoke to them in Mecca.


    jmNZ Metronome151 6 Oct 2015 14:00

    The chemical warfare blamed on Assad was perpetrated by one of the rebel groups funded by Arabia - and trained by the West.


    kenalexruss 6 Oct 2015 13:59

    Not a fan of Russia at all, but I am ashamed of my government for bombing a hospital in Afghanistan and denying it and especially about lying to the world about ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Those atrocities and lies don't serve me. They don't serve the American people! They are an injustice to all! These people would bomb America itself if it furthered their interests!

    Saudi Arabia et.al. created ISIS and the US stands behind and supports Saudi Arabia. The ties between the US and Al Qaeda just got a bit closer. All those wacky conspiracy theories just made a little more sense regarding 9-11...


    duncandunnit 6 Oct 2015 13:57

    turkey is been very childish, it is russia that is cleaning up all the shit that both the usa and the uk cause while creating and arming isis. Over the last few months the usa has proved yet again it can cause big issues that both it cannot sort out and that costs the eu a fortune.


    Abiesalba 6 Oct 2015 13:50

    We have Stoltenberg in the news here in Slovenia too. So here are some posts from the comments section of SLOVENIA's national broadcaster in relation to Russia breaching Turkish airspace (my rough translation from Slovene to English):

    The Turks are bombing the Kurds who are fighting against ISIS and are among the few in Syria who are doing the West a favour (nobody wants extremists in Europe).

    And the Turks have been bombing the Kurds for several months now, hence supporting Islamic expansionism.

    Considering these circumstances, I support Russians shooting down every Turkish plane entering Syria's airspace.

    I suspect that the Americans sold the Turks some junk planes at a high price anyway, so the Russians should not have many problems with them.

    --- 195 thumbs up, 19 thumbs down

    [Note that people have to be registered posters to be able to recommend comments. And recommends over 100 are a huge number for this website - we are only 2 million people speaking the Slovene language.]
    -
    -
    What? Is this [Russia breaching Turkish airspace] supposed to be newsworthy? Well, if the media reported every time that the Americans breach the airspace of other sovereign countries, they could just as well start sending out tweets – every second.

    --- 81 up, 8 down
    -
    -
    In the news: "The general secretary of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has already declared Russia's breaching of Turkish airspace to be unacceptable. He also summoned an emergency session of the NATO ambassadors where this topic will be discussed."

    Well, I expected an emergency NATO meeting to condemn the terrorist attack of their own forces on a hospital, murdering doctors and patients.


    --- 59 up, 1 down
    -
    -
    It seems this is the end of the line for NATO's bombarding of the Kurds. Wait for NATO to go totally bezerk when the oil smuggling route from ISIS to Turkey is cut off.

    --- 48 up, 7 down
    -
    -
    Oh, so the Russians have disturbed the coalition's routine and plans. Expect for news about many more such "incidents" to come in the near future. However I think that the Russians have thick enough skin not to be too upset about such propaganda sound bites.

    --- 71 up, 8 down
    -
    -
    Well, we can declare this breaching of airspace to be 'collateral damage' of the war on terror too. Now can the NATO members (including my own country) explain which 'collateral damage' is worse – flying into someone else's airspace where nothing happens or murdering 20 doctors and patients. Frankly, they should go and stick their drivel about airspace somewhere.

    --- 112 up, 9 down
    -
    -
    ATL: "NATO condemned the incursion into airspace of the NATO member Turkey and called on Russia to stop attacking the Syrian opposition and civilians and that it should align its fight against ISIS with the international community."

    Ha ha ha. The "international community" has been ASLEEP for two years, and now the Russians poked them a little. It seems that Russia is keeping the international community awake at night. GO GO RUSSIA.

    --- 128 up, 13down
    -
    -
    The Russians breach airspace for a few seconds. The Americans bomb a hospital. And the Russians are supposed to be the 'bad guys' here?

    --- 81 up, 8 down
    -
    -
    How are incursions into Yemen's airspace by the Saudi criminals going these days?

    --- 69 up, 8 down


    TomFullery -> EightEyedSpy 6 Oct 2015 13:45

    Which planes were they taking out?

    B52s, F5s, F105s, F111s, Hughies, Jolly Green Giants - basically every model the US military had deployed (around 4'000 in total).

    Anyway, General John W. Vogt, commander, Seventh Air Force (PACAF) can explain it better than me:

    "By July 1972, in the middle of the Linebacker operations, for the first time in the history of the United States Air Force, the loss-to-victory ratio swung in favor of the enemy. We were losing more airplanes than we were shooting down. This had never happened before anywhere in the world. Our losses were due, as I said, to our going blind into a heavily netted threat radar environment, confronting the best MiGs that the Soviets had available for export, flown by highly trained North Vietnamese pilots"


    SHA2014 -> Botswana61 6 Oct 2015 13:44

    THis is different now. Talking about learning from mistakes, the West certainly hasn't from the catalogue of disasters: Afghanistan, Somalia, Syria. Libya, Ukraine. Oh I forgot Vietnam. Not a comprehensive list by the way.


    Anette Mor -> SayNoToEvil 6 Oct 2015 13:36

    Russia count all nationalities in census. 180 last time I checked. About hundred of local origin with own land. All, even smallest got own autonomy in one of several forms available. All speak own language, tv, schools, court, official papers. State parliament low chamber got one nation-one voice representation so 80m Russians got as much power as some 100k nation. What independence you think they want? Freedom to hate and kill each other? Anybody wanting that (on American money) would face half of own nation who are not into hating neibours. You already brought your own vision to Libya Iraq and Syria - hate and violence. That is not independence. Independence is ability to chose for yourself.


    Johnnyw1 6 Oct 2015 13:32

    NATO is a relic of the Cold War. It lost its entire reason for being when peace finally broke out between USSR and the West, and it should have been laid quietly to rest. But that would never do, would it... the industrial/military/political complex keeps itself fat and rich by keeping us afraid, inventing enemies by the dozen, quietly looting our taxes the while. https://youtu.be/Jib1B2cyWpE


    Anette Mor -> DrDrug 6 Oct 2015 13:29

    There was a fight on Holand hight reported in Russian press between apparently former rebels who took Assad side and ISIS. The leader of these former rebels said he swapped sides after rebels group leaders were all invited to Israel for training. He thought it got too far and refused to go with the lot. They then attacked him and he took Assad side.

    TomFullery -> MTavernier 6 Oct 2015 13:28

    Russia didn't want a Nazi putsch in Kiev engineered in Washington.

    Russia didn't like the way the putschists were immediately talking about reneging on the Sevastopol lease when they seized power

    Russia didn't like the way the putschists started talking about banning the Russian language.

    Russia didn't like the attacks in eastern Ukraine by the Ukraine military.

    You reap what you sow.

    truthbetold13 -> jezzam 6 Oct 2015 13:27

    Odd comment when it was the US that deliberately caused the whole civil war, Assad has governed his country well for decades, and Putin has only just intervened at the request of the Syrian government. Think i know who the genocidal lunatics are here - but then i, unlike you, have a functioning brain.

    NewsCorpse 6 Oct 2015 13:20
    A year ago Putin was telling it like it was and still is. Russia has been incredibly patient and steady.

    <24 Oct 2014 Putin at Valdai (Extract Q&A)
    "I never said that I view the US as a threat to our national security." - "President Obama views Russia as threat, but I don't feel the same way about the US." - "The politics of those in the circle of power in the US is erroneous." - "I consider this absolutely unprofessional politics." - "It is not grounded on facts, in the real world." - "Can they not think a step ahead?" - "We don't stand for this kind of politics of the US. We consider it to be wrong." - "Look at Libya and what you did there, that got your Ambassador murdered." - "Was it us that did this? Who's fault is it? It is your fault." - "You must stop acting out of imperialistic ambitions and politics."
    https://youtu.be/Ykb5sxTl1Rw (7 mins)

    World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules (FULL VIDEO)
    Its been called the most important speech Vladimir Putin has EVER delivered. Putin targets American exceptionalism, revolution building and asks if it is the US that has abandoned the global rule book? Putin was addressing a plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club, Sochi, Oct 2014, a forum for leading intl analysts focused on Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9pQcqPdKo

    Compare Putin's clear headed commnets in 2014 with that of Karl Rove when GW Bush was President: "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality."


    snickid Reia Hriso 6 Oct 2015 13:19

    If a NATO was to fly a military over Russia airspace it would be shot down, without warning.

    Nonsense.

    US spy planes, for example, regularly overfly Russia with impunity, e.g:

    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-most-lethal-us-warplanes-the-planet-13364


    Anette Mor Middlengland 6 Oct 2015 13:17

    Voting matters very little. British arms supplied to "rebels" are already in Syria to kill Russians and British instructors are already in Ukraine to train Ukranians to kill ethnic Russians in Donbass. You do not know Britain is at war wirh Russia, but Russians do, as they are at receiving end. They know since Chechen terrorists, wanted by peaceful Chechen people for crimes against humanity, were given asym in the UK just as Russian oligarch stolen tons of money from the state and stake holders. 20 years on Britain is at war with Russia and you worry some vottibg going to maje it worse or may be hope some Corbyn coming to power may change it. Too little too late. Russians lost all patients and blown off, you still fail to notice how much you hurt them.


    StevenJ19 6 Oct 2015 13:13

    Turkey has a shameful record of double-dealing in this Syrian crisis, so its complaints should be treated with the contempt they deserve.


    adognow -> Jack Seaton 6 Oct 2015 13:05

    A war between NATO and Russia is certain to result in nuclear annihilation of most of the planet.

    Which is why Erdrogan is going to be tiptoeing around this issue carefully before he arms any Islamic crazy left and right. But that of course, assumes that Erdrogan is a rational player and is arming Islamists because of some neo-Ottoman delusions rather than the fact that he believes in the end times, apocalyptic bullshit that ISIS, al-Nursa and the other Islamist terrorists believe in.

    But nonetheless, the idea of NATO and Russia going to blows over Turkey is ridiculous and is political suicide for any NATO leader to suggest, especially if because Turkey started an incident by arming terrorists. I don't know about you, but I sure as fuck object to having myself irradiated over Erdrogan.

    Matt G

    Haider al-Abadi - "Council of Ministers considers Turkish airstrikes on Iraqi territory a dangerous escalation and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty"

    Apparently a few seconds violation of Turkish airspace is of top concern however the repeated violation and bombing of Northern Iraq by the Turkish air-force is apparently expectable. However, these violation go back a long time all the way to 2012.

    "The Iraqi government condemns these violations to Iraq's airspace and sovereignty, warns Turkey against any violations of Iraq's airspace and territory," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said in a statement following a cabinet meeting.

    "Our country is exposed to external interventions. Every day we hear of aircraft from neighboring countries violating our airspace. The national sovereignty of Iraq is being violated deliberately or non-deliberately. We do not approve of that, and we cannot remain silent in the face of it. Others should question themselves on Iraq's sovereignty, security, airspace and territorial waters," said Maliki.

    On top of their Iraqi incursions they've also been bombing the PKK inside of Syria http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/turkeys-bombing-campaign-in-syria-and-iraq-is-the-last-thing-we-need-in-the-fight-against-isis-10422167.html

    and shelling Syrian Kurdish villages http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/07/turkey-denies-targeting-kurdish-forces-syria-150727133342474.html

    and http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/01/us-kurds-turkey-idUSKCN0Q632X20150801.

    However, that's only the half of it when you take into account Turkey has been buying and actively involved in the smuggling of Syrian and Iraqi oil from ISIS controlled areas and Turkey intelligence has been accused of involvement in arms smuggling http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/02/isis-detainee-turkish-intelligence-forces-helped-smuggle-weapons-to-jihadists-in-syria/. It seems somewhat hypocritical that NATO has overlooked this for several years.

    On the other hand:

    "I will not speculate on the motives … but this does not look like an accident, and we have seen two of them," Stoltenberg was quoted as saying by Reuters.

    As far as I'm aware there has only been one airspace violation. This second incident the accusation seems to be that the Russian Mig had locked it's radar onto the jet's.

    Separately, the armed forces said a Mig fighter plane had harassed a Turkish squadron of F-16s patrolling the border with Syria, locking its radar on the Turkish warplanes.

    However, nothing has been mentioned what side of the border the jets were flying Turkish or Syrian. However, considering the Russian Mig locked it's radar on to the Jets and the vagueness of the report, it's a good assumption that those F16's were flying in Syrian airspace and it was a warning.

    BMWAlbert , 6 Oct 2015 12:59

    Well, at least the Russians are popular with the kyrgyzstan Turks (boo-hoo):

    http://atimes.com/2015/10/kyrgyzstan-set-for-closer-ties-with-russia-after-polls/

    Looks like Kyrgyzstan didn't get enough cookies.

    haphazardly ,6 Oct 2015 12:59

    The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging "strategic boldness," with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake.

    How stupid can Americans get... they still do not realize that the great and powerful US only attacks underdeveloped defenseless countries and not countries that are able to fight back. Russia can fight back and they're allied with China, so threats against Russia is unthinkable. Are they looking for WWIII or what? :/


    Krishnamoorthi 6 Oct 2015 12:52

    All the bastards who condemn the Russian flights straying for a few seconds or minutes in to Turkey have to remember that these are the same people who invaded Iraq and still continue to enter the Syrian airspace without permission from the Syrian government or a mandate from the UN!


    RetiredMD -> centerline 6 Oct 2015 12:51

    The US is sowing as many bad seeds in your mind about Russia as it can. At some time in the future they will need to make an excuse for hitting Russia either with ordinance or with more sanctions. The US is trying to slowly brainwash the rest of us in the world so we'll be quite happy when they make their despicable moves in the future. Not on my watch!

    butitisnotthisday 6 Oct 2015 12:51

    I presume the 5 mile exclusion zone "imposed" by Turkey is there to make sure ISIS and their friends, including the good terrorists are protected...apparently Russia does not give a shit about what the Turks say or want.


    peterpierce24 -> Mr_HanMan 6 Oct 2015 12:50

    I would not overestimate significance of polite gestures in politics. About two years ago Putin once remarked that 'Turkey yet has to decide where it is in Syrian conflict'
    in spite on the fact that Turkey wanted Assad to go. I think Putin just keeps his options vacant in relations with neighbours and blurring mutual disagreements.


    Lyigushka -> AboycalledBeaye 6 Oct 2015 12:47

    'Three army groups, including more than three million German soldiers, supported by 650,000 troops from Germany's allies (Finland and Romania), and later augmented by units from Italy, Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary, attacked the Soviet Union across a broad front, from the Baltic Sea in the north to the Black Sea in the south. SS units from the Baltic states were involved in rounding up Jews and Communists'
    Hint
    It's called Google...


    Middlengland 6 Oct 2015 12:45

    It is quite correct that Russia cannot violate Turkish airspace as a matter of International Law.

    However, the same critics of Russia are violating Syrian airspace without the authority of the Syrian Government.

    Having been asked to provide assistance by the Syrian Government, it would also be perfectly lawful for Russia to shoot down drones and aircraft which violate Syrian airspace.

    I suspect that this is the point they are making - UK be warned before we vote on yet more military action. You are not only violating International Law (again) but you are now playing a very dangerous game indeed.


    Mr_HanMan 6 Oct 2015 12:44

    Turkey and Russia have excellent relations, Putin and Erdogan are good friends because they are pretty much alike. Russia is building Turkey's first nuclear reactor a $20billion deal and theres the pipeline project to. Relations are so good that Turkey didn't say anything on the Crimean matter when it has its own interests in the crimea. Putin even wished Erdogan good luck in the upcoming elections and said he hoped Erdogan's AKP won when the 2 were in Moscow opening Moscow's grand mosque just 2 weeks ago. So none of this makes sense, I don't know why Russia would want to strain relations with Turkey.

    haphazardly -> Indianrook 6 Oct 2015 12:44

    I knew it was propaganda as soon as the MSM said that 41 Islamic terrorist groups are going to "unite"... They probably fight against one another on which social media to use for recruiting terrorists... Twitter, Facebook or Instagram.


    salthouse 6 Oct 2015 12:42

    It's a fair bet this incursion was planned (an accident on purpose) between the Presidents of Turkey and Russia, at their recent meeting, in order to boulster the image of the Turkish President as the great defender and wise leader of the Turkish nation under dire threat from a myriad of hostile and potentially invading powers, and thereby enhance and promote the chances of Erdogan's party, AKP, winning the November election in Turkey with a majority sufficient to enthrone the President, by a new constitution, as one close to absolute power and rule. All the fall out, the apparent outrage and counter threats, is probably false bluster.


    OlegB07 -> Bruce Alan Scapecchi 6 Oct 2015 12:40

    All countries of the West and USA are eagerly awaiting this moment ... And everybody knows the reason: ISIS is your friend and partner.
    And Russia destroys your partners in Syria. Of course it is a tragedy for you.


    JiminNH -> Indigo Rebel 6 Oct 2015 12:39

    Diplomacy is a delicate thing and Russia has been fixing for a war, clearly.

    Are you misinformed due to blatant western propaganda, or are you a misinforming propagandist? Minsk I and Minsk II were both initiated by Russia with EU states Germany and France; the US and UK were intentionally bypassed and left out (probably because we both supported Ukraine's war against the east).

    Russia conducted Moscow I and Moscow II negotiations with internal Syrian rebel groups. The "rebel" groups that refused to participate were the likes of jabhat al Nusra and Army of Conquest and other extremist groups (most of which are manned by foreign jihadists); of which the truth has been revealed in the past week or so that such groups are proxy armies funded and armed by the US, GCC states and Turkey, among others.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/moscow-talks-syria-point-plan-150409094410056.html

    Of course, the late reporter Serena Shim proved that Turkey even armed ISIS in its fight against the Kurds; no wonder why Turkey violates Syrian airspace to bomb the Kurds but not ISIS.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799924/mystery-american-journalist-killed-car-crash-turkey-just-days-claimed-intelligence-services-threatened-coverage-siege-kobane.html

    Empirical evidence clearly shows that Russia has been critically involved in diplomatic efforts to stop the war in Ukraine and attempt to stop the war in Syria.
    The US has been nothing but a bystander in diplomatic efforts to end the wars in those two nations.

    So which is it? Are you a victim of propaganda, or a propagator thereof?


    BMWAlbert 6 Oct 2015 12:37

    Is the Turkish President speaking of the actual Turkish airspace or that airspace plus the 5 mile. With supply routes to ISIS and the other 41 gangs in the less-extreme terrorist alphabet soup getting weapons largely from Turkey, I imagine taht teh extra five miles would secure the crossings (a problem if the Russians do not recognize the arbitrary five mile zone)...this stpry makes me think that rumor's of the President's son being involved in the oil dumping trade with the Mosul refineries in N. Iraq may be true...he seems to be getting very emotional about a five second transgression in a grey zone.

    In other news, it appears that General Breedlove has been playing Dungeons and Dragons, calling the recently imposed RU de-facto no-fly-zone a "Sphere of Negation", sounds like something that might have been made in the golden days of Gondor. Obviously though, the RU airstrikes have been more effective due to better intelligence, must be one of the seven seeing stones.


    Foracivilizedworld -> PeterHG 6 Oct 2015 12:36

    And not just the Turks.. The US, UK, Franc, Israel.. and others...

    What I don't understand is that how politicians talk about respecting borders with a straight face....


    TomFullery -> Botswana61 6 Oct 2015 12:36

    P.S. Please, remind us what's happened to mighty invincible Soviet Union?

    A lesson possibly that no empires last forever.

    The US imperium is in terminal decline but as empires go its rise was remarkably fast and now it is declining before our very eyes.

    The US - the biggest premature ejaculation in history.


    hfakos -> truk10 6 Oct 2015 12:29

    Where did you get those numbers? We don't do body counts -general Tommy Franks. I guess that guy running the "Syrian" Observatory for Human Rights out of his Coventry garage is a reliable source to you.


    RudolphS 6 Oct 2015 12:29

    And while the U.S. is complaining about Russian intervention in Syria are the yanks knee-deep involved in another tragic civil war in the middle-east. Read Trevor Timm's article for the Guardian here: nullhttp://www.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/05/america-yemen-crisis-is-partly-our-fault


    The Western hypocrisy is deafening.

    TomFullery -> Bluebird8 6 Oct 2015 12:29

    It was 5 billion.

    And the neocons' useful idiots conveniently ignore the fact that the conflict in Ukraine kicked off only after the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev.

    Interesting how the economics and finance ministers of Ukraine are Lithuanian and Polish (not sure in which order) - both countries being staunch US stooges. They were given Ukrainian citizenship on the day they took up their posts.

    US Vice President Joe Biden's son was appointed to the board of directors of Ukraine's largest energy company, also shortly after the Nazi putsch.

    The governor of Odessa is Mikhael Saakashvili, US stooge, architect of the war against Russia and now fugitive from Georgian justice.

    brianboru1014 -> NeuLabour 6 Oct 2015 12:26

    Agreed.
    ISIS are Saudi Arabia's Frankenstein and we in the West pretend to hate them but we love Saudi cheaper oil more than anything else. We really did not try to bomb them seriously, but the Russians know what's up and they are in the process of eradicating them from strategic areas in Syria

    fotorabia23 -> truk10 6 Oct 2015 12:25

    The Lancet reported that 567000 children died through sanctions after 1991.A later study, published in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the 2nd invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.Your wrong.

    [Oct 06, 2015] Oil jumps $2, breaking range as supply seen ebbing

    Oct 06, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    Global oil demand will grow by the most in six years in 2016 while non-OPEC supply stalls, according to a monthly U.S. energy report that suggests a surplus of crude is easing more quickly than expected.

    Total world supply is expected to rise to 95.98 million barrels a day in 2016, 0.1 percent less than forecast last month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its Short-Term Energy Outlook. Demand is expected to rise 270,00 bpd to 95.2 million barrels a day, up 0.3 percent from September's forecast.

    Russia's energy minister said Russia and Saudi Arabia discussed the oil market in a meeting last week and would continue to consult each other.

    OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri said at a conference in London that OPEC and non-OPEC members should work together to reduce the global supply glut.

    Iran's crude sales were on track to hit seven-month lows as its main Asian customers bought less than before.

    [Oct 06, 2015] Oil needs a capitulation Goldman Sachs

    "... The problem is, you can't believe anything these Racketeers masquerading as Bankers at Goldman Sachs say ..."
    Oct 06, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    Jeff Currie, global head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs, says the risk of crude oil reaching $20 a barrel is driven by "breaching storage capacity."

    R.T. Arcand

    The problem is, you can't believe anything these Racketeers masquerading as Bankers at Goldman Sachs say. After all they're the ones who will tell you to buy, so they can do a pump and dump against you.

    Not to mention that these pathetic fools in 2008 had to go so low as to throw in the towel on Free Market Economics to become a bunch of pathetic Fascist TARP Welfare Queens because they were too stupid to keep their fraud with the Ratings Agencies alive with their fraudulent bundled mortgages. Goldman Sachs is the parasite that needs to be destroyed if this nation or even humanity is to advance.

    Compare how much the Apollo program cost, compared to the Fascists in the banks and their fraud and bailouts. It's time Americans go after these fascists with the same urgency the "Greatest Generation" did.

    [Oct 05, 2015] Lawrence Wilkerson The American 'Empire' Is In Deep, Deep Trouble

    Oct 05, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Former US army colonel and Chief of Staff for Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson unleashed a most prescient speech on the demise of the United States Empire.

    As Naked Capitalism's Yves Smith notes, Wilkerson describes the path of empires in decline and shows how the US is following the classic trajectory. He contends that the US needs to make a transition to being one of many powers and focus more on strategies of international cooperation.

    The video is full of rich historical detail and terrific, if sobering, nuggets, such as:

    "History tells us we're probably finished.

    The rest of of the world is awakening to the fact that the United States is 1) strategically inept and 2) not the power it used to be. And that the trend is to increase that."

    Wilkerson includes in his talk not just the way that the US projects power abroad, but internal symptoms of decline, such as concentration of wealth and power, corruption and the disproportionate role of financial interests.

    Wilkerson also says the odds of rapid collapse of the US as an empire is much greater is generally recognized. He also includes the issues of climate change and resource constraints, and points out how perverse it is that the Department of Defense is the agency that is taking climate change most seriously. He says that the worst cases scenario projected by scientists is that the world will have enough arable land to support 400 million people.

    Further key excerpts include:

    "Empires at the end concentrate on military force as the be all and end all of power… at the end they use more mercenary based forces than citizen based forces"

    "Empires at the end…go ethically and morally bankrupt… they end up with bankers and financiers running the empire, sound familiar?"

    "So they [empires] will go out for example, when an attack occurs on them by barbarians that kills 3000 of their citizens, mostly because of their negligence, they will go out and kill 300,000 people and spend 3 trillion dollars in order to counter that threat to the status quo. They will then proceed throughout the world to exacerbate that threat by their own actions, sound familiar?…This is what they [empires] do particularly when they are getting ready to collapse"

    "This is what empires in decline do, they can't even in govern themselves"

    Quoting a Chinese man who was a democrat, then a communist (under Mao) then, when he became disenchanted, a poet and writer…"You can sit around a table and talk about politics, about social issues, about anything and you can have a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person. But start talking about the mal-distribution of wealth and you better get your gun" …."that's where we are, in Europe and the United States".

    pretty bird

    America is going through a tough time right now. But she's been through tougher times. I wouldn't bet against her.

    Manthong

    Gee, might this be a Smedley Butler moment?

    Crud.. looking at the Roman Empire, and Revolutionary France, you do not need to be a Phd in economics (theory, not science) or political science (?) er, NO.. theory.. to figure out where this is heading.

    Oh regional Indian

    It's pretty clear that the Empire dream is crumbling.

    Which does not bode well for people on the INSIDE of the empires gates.

    Perhaps more true for the west in general right now and to a lesser or greater extent, cultures world-wide that have been brought to their knees by the false (Jewish/Zio inspired and funded) libertarianism of freedom via sex drugs and rock and roll.....it's time to go inwards.

    The next 4-5 years are going to be shocking hard in the west as everything you were brought up to believe in shows it's true, tattered colours of specious beginnings, ugly/lost individuals (Sanger, Kinsey, Steinem, Leary, Greatful Dead etc. etc. to name but a few) and a funding hand that showed it's biases early but a populace with their eyes on the TV, hands on their (or someone else's gentalia), beer and bad food...too far gone to rise in any manner of protest at all...

    America is definitely sliding down a deep dark hole...

    Not finger pointing, just reality...

    Apathy is a cancer...

    Everyone should give this a listen...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZSBFxanDAw

    Handful of Dust

    Did I read "Colin Powell"? The same Colin Powell who sold his country down the river into one of the most costly bloodiest wars in American history with a bareface lie about non-existent WMDs and a phantom threat from a cave-dwelling desert country of camel jocks?

    THAT Colin Powell?

    omniversling

    "Chief of Staff for Colin Powell"...was it Wilko who prepped the vial of ANNNNTTHHHRRAAX for Powel to present to the world via the UN PROVING the WMD case for bombing Iraq back to the stoneage?

    TAALR Swift

    Nothing wrong with reading Machiavelli, but you're better off watching this YT 11 minute clip from a former CIA agent:

    "Ex CIA agent explains how to delete the elite!"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLr8ZvgURg0


    luckylongshot

    Great article. However while it exposes the cycle of power centralisation that leads to empires growing and collapsing it does not propose what needs to be done to stop this cycle occurring. This can be done by teaching the public to think critically, having a constitution that you stick to and decentralising power so different arms keep each other from becoming too powerful. Imagine if the NSA reported to the public and was tasked with ensuring politicians were not bribed and that businesses did not try to influence politics? In business the formula is decentralise power, treat people with respect and weed out the narcissists...and then enjoy large profits: This works wih nations and empires as well....why not try it.

    Urban Redneck

    The military and civil unrest threats due of climate change are not BS. What is BS are the contortions (both distortions and outright lies) and that the brass knob jockeys at the Pentagram will perform to receive moar funding for reducing competition for potentially much more scarce resources.

    The larger threat isn't actually rising temperatures, but rather falling temperatures and changes in average precipitation. A single freeze in Florida can decimate citrus production, a wetter or drier than "Goldilocks" year can wreak havoc on production of various grains, and that is all without the .gov idiocy that is the People's Republic of Draughtifornia.

    On a one-year timeline the weather costs are bad enough, but on a slightly longer climate timeline... not even the EBT equipped North American Land Whale has enough stored fat to wait out new McFodder if production has to migrated to follow climate change, which for some perennials (e.g the trees necessary for the all-American apple pie) means much more than a one year wait for first harvest.

    So anyway... reducing competition... assuming you are a major power grand poobah (instead of a neo-Ethiopian Arab Spring despot), you can invade someone else to steal their food, invade someone else to reduce your domestic demand for food, or you can FEMA camp the useless eaters and put them on la diète noir, (if you can't afford Zyklon B, and the infrastructure to properly deploy it). Regardless, this is Military Planning 101 level stuff.

    AMPALANCE

    Industrial farming it destroying top soil on a massive scale, we reached peak production years ago. Combine that with a decrease in biodiversity from unconstrianed Trojan Horse GMO's, and the prospect of a catastrophic food shock is very real. Don't forget peak Phosphorus is expected to be reached around 2030, and depleated in 50 to 100 years, it true would prove devastating for humanity.

    Motasaurus

    Reached peak production years ago?

    Pleasr do explain then how all food crops have increased yield every year while reducing the amount of both land and fertilisers used to do so.

    We're no-where near peak production, and the higher the atmospheric CO2 content climbs, and the milder the winters we have (from a warming atmosphere), the more food we will be able to produce. We're not even half way to the optimal atmospheric CO2 levels of 1000ppm for food crop growth yet.

    techpreist

    Here's a fun graphic from the journal Nature (Science and Nature being the two most prestigious journals in modern science):

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/fig_tab/461472a_F1.html#...

    By mainstream academia's own numbers, industrial farming (the primary cause of nitrogen pollution is a far bigger problem than official global warming. But you never hear a peep about it because the main cause of this type of pollution is a combination of 1) subsidies and 2) GMOs which require much higher N input to get the growth that's possible from genetic modification. Since the solution is less control over farming, they have no problem driving the Earth off a cliff.

    junction

    Wilkerson has the freedom to travel and talk because he receives a fairly large military pension. What neither Wilkerson or any other critic of the current rulers of the United Staes will say is that the United States has no economic future anymore. The Wall Street looters have pillaged the country, first stealing the assets of corporate pension funds and now finishing off their brigandage by stealing all the future tax income of this country through the criminal use of derivatives. America is now a country with poisoned water supplies (fluoridation which causes heart disease), poisoned food (glyphosates and antbiotic contamination) and a poisoned electoral system where the top 0.1% chooses the winners.

    The super-rich have their bolt holes outside the USA because they don't want to be around when this country, now a near Nazi state complete with death squads and Nazi People's Court-type hanging judges and prosecutors, completes its transformation by setting up concentration camps.


    pachanguero

    This asshole is part of the problem. Fuck him and his bullshit Glow-Ball warming scam. He should be in jail for the Iraq War along with Obama and Bush.

    TheObsoleteMan

    What do you expect from him, he is a CFR member and a CIA/NSA asset. No one ever retires from the CIA, you just aren't assigned projects and you are pensioned, but the only way you ever leave the CIA is in a box. He is not an American, he is a globalist. You have to be, or your not allowed into the CFR.


    Dark Daze

    Here's a fucking news flash for you Einstein. Your 'team' as you so quaintly put it has spent the last 250 years murdering, bombing, assassinating and fucking over 3/4's of the planet. Originally, just after the revolution, there was a period of say 20 years (just as Jefferson suggested) where the citizenry of the US was peacful and productive. Then, not long after the death of the last of the original Father's of the Revolution, the psychopaths arrived (General Hull at Fort Detroit) and started their crap with an attempted invasion of Canada (1812-14). That didn't work out so well, so you went south and fought with the Spanish, the Mexicans, every country in central and south america, declaring that the US had a god given right to control the entire area of North and South America (the Monroe doctrine). On the way you made sure you wiped out virtually every 'dirty injun' you could find, burned a few dozen 'witches' at the stake, invaded China and brought the opium/heroin trade to America (the Connecticut Yankees in their Clipper ships) and generally forced yourselves on an unwilling world. There are only two western democracies that have never engaged in empire, Australia and Canada. All the rest, the UK, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Greece, the Macedonians (greeks), France, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Hungary have all tried and failed at establishing empires, killing millions along the way. I read your Constitution a few years back (probably one of the most enlightened documents ever created), and I seem to remember a passage about 'not becoming entangled in foreign intrigues'. Too bad you didn't take that to heart. They left you a clear, easy to understand, definitive document on how to live and you fucking destroyed it, and yourselves in the process.

    The rest of the history is available to anybody that cares to investigate, which means not very many Americans, who prefer to remain conveniently ignorant of your bloody history.

    in4mayshun

    News flash for YOU...All significant Governments throughout history have killed lots of people to remain in power. And FYI, Canada and Australia don't matter cause they're really just extensions of Europe, as they follow in lockstep.

    The Old Man

    Refernce France: 1790 through 1816. Sorry. But paper doesn't work unless you feed it war. When war is always an option, society fails in the common place. Reinvent society. I mean you got iPhones and all this crap. How hard is it to think this through?

    Lyman54

    Australia and Canada were just proxy extensions of the British Empire. Canadians served in the Napoleonic wars, Crimea, the Boer War, WW-1, WW-2 and Korea. It wasn't until Korea that the media would actually call Canadian troops Canadians.

    Socratic Dog

    Aussie eh. While I don't dispute anything you say, I have to suggest the Aussie government is even worse in that it slavishly follows the US lead in fucking EVERYTHING, including killing and maiming women and children in their millions in places far from its shores. I saw a couple of days ago in the SMH (once-great local rag) that Australia is waiting for US direction on how to respond to the Russian "provocation" in Syria. They're ready to go to war with russia to protect, err, not exactly sure what they're ready to protect, but it must be important. Israel maybe? Australia has become a pathetic lap dog, starting with Vietnam. And just like the USSA, the people support the government position in most anything.

    conscious being

    Mossad did 9-11. Terrerists come in a lot of shapes and sizes.

    Memedada

    Both Mr. Banzai and rbg81 are displaying a surprising (this forum taken into account) lack of insight into the power-structures of the US empire.

    I thought it was obvious to all – who pays attention – that the 'electorate' (especially the president) are mere pawns of a hidden (not that well hidden) power-elite. The people actually ruling US are not named in MSM (the 0,01 % - and no, that's not anyone on the Forbes list). That US have a 'colored president' does not make any difference – his masters are the same.

    Second: US have no real elections. An election requires an informed and educated population. US has the opposite. The medias are controlled by the 0,01%, the public education system have been eroded and made into an extension of the 0,01%'s propaganda-machine and there's no independent think tanks and/or institutions that can help the population get informed (the absolute majority of think tanks and research institutions in US are founded and funded by and for the 0.01%). Moreover, since you got 'Diebold' it doesn't matter – the votes are counted the way the 0,01% wants them to be counted.

    Third: communist in what way? What's your definition of communism? If he – I don't listen to him – actually said anything that could be interpreted as communist it doesn't count (he speaks nothing but BS – distractions). What political actions has he taken that you would consider 'communist'?

    + who don't despise USA for what it has become today? US deserves nothing but contempt – and until there's a real revolt/revolution the US population deserves the same contempt.

    IridiumRebel

    My wife, who has been involved with Doctors Without Borders albeit briefly, asked about the errant strike that killed 19+. I stated what happened. After she gasped, I went on to say that our current leadership and trajectory as a nation has to be purposeful in its fuckery and stupidity. It's willful. They HAVE to be making these stupid decisions on purpose. There is no other possible answer. No way they could be making these decisions and think they will do anything but make us weaker and less trusted if it's even possible.

    AmericanFUPAcabra

    The GPS coordinates for that hospital had been given to the US months in advance. They knew it was there (probably helped build it with your money) In fact when the first bombs started falling phone calls were made to the US and NATO that they were hitting the wrong place- and guess what? The air strikes kept coming down for 30 minutes.

    You can go on Youtube and watch Robert Ford (john negroponte's protege) making the news circuits lately blaming the people in the hospital for not having an evacuation plan. THEY DO NOT FUCKING CARE ABOUT CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. It has nothing to do with fucking up. A handful of Kissinger quotes come to mind.


    Dark Daze

    Well, it is very coincidental that less than 24 hours after 'the taliban' shot down a cargo plane carrying 'contractors' (CIA?), the hospital was bombed. There is more to this story than we know. Regardless, it still shows basially one thing which is that governments everywhere are out of control.

    delacroix

    a fuckup would be if they bombed the opium wharehouse.

    Jorgen

    "a fuckup would be if they bombed the opium wharehouse."

    Yes, indeed, it would be...

    Rumors Persist That the #CIA Helps Export #Opium from #Afghanistan http://t.co/yeihvYEvB3 pic.twitter.com/MYiDWqdPYV

    - The Anti Media (@TheAntiMedia1) September 26, 2015

    Paveway IV

    "...No way they could be making these decisions and think they will do anything but make us weaker and less trusted if it's even possible..."

    It would be most unhelpful to think of the actions of any branch of the U.S. government or military today as being in the interests of the people they serve. You can be certain that psychopaths running the U.S. (many groups with overlapping, occasionally competing but generally complementary interests) are in TOTAL control, and the organizations have morphed to serve ONLY psychopathic leaders, not normal ones. Arguing about which specific group of psychopaths is at the top of the heap or what their motivations are is also totally meaningless - it just doesn't matter. THAT isn't the problem.

    The real problem is that the machinery of all of these government organizations has been fundamentally changed to serve only psychopathic leaders. They can no longer accomodate a 'normal' leader in any sense of the word. Replacing the heads of every one of these organizations today wouldn't work - the organizations themselves would reject a 'normal' person in charge and would oppose them at every turn or simply drive them out. It's well past the point of just getting 'the right' leaders in place.

    The U.S. is on psychopath auto-pilot. There are no personal consequences for 'bad' decisions by those in charge of our government organizations. The leaders are making the exact same kind of decisions that every other failing empire has made during its decline since forever.

    Perceptions of strength/weakness or trust/distrust are immaterial to the psychopaths in charge, as long as everybody seems to obey them. They're in a desperate scramble to maintain their OWN illusion of control before things go full-retard - they could care less what anyone else thinks of them or their decisions today.

    o r c k

    Agree, but just imagine living in most European Countries and knowing that the end of your ancient culture is only a few decades away due to the psychopathy of your "leaders".

    Being surrounded by a warlike, mean-spirited and superstitious clan of early humans and NO way out whatsoever.

    Jorgen

    "They HAVE to be making these stupid decisions on purpose. There is no other possible answer."

    Here is one theory on why the MSF hospital was bombed:

    This is interesting... Did Obama Bomb Doctors Without Borders for Opposing TPP? http://t.co/2GEIbaQKyd

    - AntiMedia UK (@AntiMediaUK) October 5, 2015

    Flying Wombat

    The Processes and Logic of The Deep State - Professor Peter Dale Scott

    Unusually, just a single speaker this week: one two hour interview with the doyen of deep political research, Canadian Professor Peter Dale Scott. He provides not only a lot of details of the evolution of the post WW2 deep state in the USA, but also sketches out its guiding principles, some of the deeper patterns which allow one to understand the superficially confusing and contradictory actions of the US deep state.

    Access show here: http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=516544

    SFopolis

    Colin Powell has been treated as a great man for doing what? Semi-admitting that he knew we had it all wrong and everybody in power was (is) a war criminal?

    In my opinion he is worse than all of the rest, because he had the platform and could have single handidly prevented this whole mess and exposed so many falshoods. Instead he did exactly what he knew was wrong. If he were a patriot and such a great man, he wouldn't have done what he did.

    tool

    WTF happen to him. Did he disappear into obscurity because of the extreme shame he felt for presenting that huge steaming pile of horse shit to the UN in front of the world .

    I'm guessing not because people like that don't feel remorse or shame. They just get paid and live happily ever after!

    conscious being

    Colin proved himself to be a useful tool when he was brought in as the black face to do his part in covering up The Mai Lai Massacre in VietNam. His career took off after that.


    [Oct 05, 2015] Major Interview (38 questions!) of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the Iranian Khabar TV channel

    Oct 05, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Sake
    At the same time, the lies they propagated at the beginning of the events in Syria, in order to promote their positions to their audiences, have started to unravel. You cannot continue to lie to your people for years. You might do that for a limited period of time. Today, as a result of technological advances in the field of information, every citizen in every part of the world could know part of the truth. These parts have started to come together in the minds of their people, and they have found out that their governments have been lying to them concerning what has happened in Syria. They have also paid the price either through terrorist operations, the terrorism that started to affect those countries or through the waves of migrants coming to their countries, not only from Syria, but from different countries in the Middle East. All these factors started to effect a change, but I would like to stress once more that we cannot trust Western positions regardless of whether they were positive or negative.

    Question 2: Mr. President, some countries, like France, used to have good relations with you, between 2008 and 2010. You enjoyed good relations with President Sarkozy. Why have such people moved to the enemies' side and started calling for overthrowing the Syrian regime?

    President Assad: Because Sarkozy was charged by George Bush's administration to build contacts with Syria. Those contacts had a number of objectives which aimed in general at changing the political line of Syria. But there was an essential objective that the Americans wanted Sarkozy to achieve. At that time there was talk about how the 5+1 group should deal with Iran's nuclear file, specifically how to deal with nuclear materials or the radioactive materials which were enriched in your reactors in Iran. I was required to persuade Iranian officials to send these materials to Western countries to be enriched and returned to Iran, without any guarantees of course. That was impossible. It did not convince us, and the Iranian officials were not convinced.

    When the West was unable to change Syrian policies, they found an opportunity at the beginning of the events of what is called the "Arab Spring", an opportunity to attack the states whose political line they didn't like. That is why the period you are talking about was concerned with appearances. In other words, the West opened up to Syria, but in fact that period was replete with pressure and blackmail. They haven't offered one single thing to Syria, neither politically, or economically, or in any other field.

    Question 3: What you said was about France. How do you read the positions of other countries, like the UK and the USA?

    President Assad: Their positions today?

    Intervention: I mean that France wanted to intervene through the relationship that connects you with Iran. How did other countries, like the UK and the USA get involved in dialogue with you at that time?

    President Assad: Yes. When we talk about these states, we are taking about an integrated system. We use the term "Western countries", but these Western countries have one master, which is the United States. All these countries behave in accordance with the dictates of the American maestro. Now, the statements of all these countries are similar. They say the same thing, and when they attack Syria, they use the same language. That is why when the United States gives the signal, these countries move in a certain direction, but there is usually a distribution of roles. At that time France was asked to play that role, considering the relatively good historical relations between France and Syria since independence. There is a big Syrian community in France, and there are economic, even military, and of course political relations. That is why the best option for them was to ask France, and not any other country. But ultimately, Western officials follow the orders of the American administration. This is a fact.

    Question 4: Does that mean that you know specifically what the West wants from Syria?

    President Assad: They want to change the state. They want to weaken Syria and create a number of weak statelets which can get busy solving their daily problems and internal disputes with no time for development or extending support to national causes, particularly the cause of Palestine, and at the same time ensuring Israel's security. These objectives are not new. They have always been there, but the instruments of dealing with them differ from time to time.

    Question 5: It seems that some of these countries, working on behalf of the United States, have very close ties with the terrorists, and their policies are identical with those of the terrorist groups. What is the damage that such countries, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, can inflict on regional security and stability?

    President Assad: There are, of course, different kinds of terrorism in our region, but they are all overshadowed by what is called Islamic terrorism because these terrorist groups or organizations have adopted Islam without having anything to do with Islam in reality. But this is the term being used now. These groups are promoting sedition among the different components in the region in general. This means that the greatest damage is the disintegration of societies in time. Now, fortunately, there is a great awareness in our society about the danger of sectarian sedition, and the necessity of uniting ranks, particularly as far as the Muslims are concerned. But with time, and with the continuation of sectarian incitement, creating gaps between the different components of society and producing a young generation brought up on the wrong ideas, that will be a very serious danger. This disintegration will become one day a de facto situation, and will lead to confrontations, conflicts and civil wars. This is very dangerous, and it is not exaggerated. It is a fact.

    Question 6: Now, it has become common in international forums for states to announce that the Syrian crisis cannot be resolved except through a political solution. But Saudi Arabia and the Saud clan insist that you should step down from your position. What is your response to that?

    President Assad: What I said a short while ago: any talk about the political system or the officials in this county is an internal Syrian affair. But if they are talking about democracy, the question begs itself: are the states you mentioned, especially Saudi Arabia, models of democracy, human rights or public participation? In fact, they are the worst and the most backward worldwide; and consequently they have no right to talk about this. As to Erdogan, he is responsible for creating chasms inside his own society, inside Turkey itself. Turkey was stable for many years, but with his divisive language, and his talk about sedition and discrimination between its different components, neither he nor Davutoglu are entitled to give advice to any country or any people in the world. This is the truth, simply and clearly.

    [Oct 05, 2015] An Up Close And Personal Look At The Russian Firepower Deployed In Syria

    "... command and control centers, ammunition and explosives warehouses, communication centers, mini-factories for the production of weapons of suicide bombings and militant training camps ..."
    "... finally ..."
    "... The Entire Mainstream Western Media Is a Troll Army http://russia-insider.com/en/entire-western-media-troll-army/5918. Good title, and, for the most part, seemingly true. ..."
    "... LOL , What makes you think the US was trying to defeat ISIS? Mainstrem fucking News Media???? Just go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or some shit. ..."
    Oct 05, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    greenskeeper -> carl

    this post misses the point. The point isn't russia's hardware, which isn't any more impressive than anything we have. The point is the russians are actually TRYING to get rid of 'ISIS', and are therefore able to do so. While the JSF is overpriced junk, Americans hardware has consistenly beaten russian hardware in every conflict they have faced each other. This isn't a hoo-rah, 'murika post at all. the reason US weapons and air power havent decisively defeated ISIS is becasue that is not what the US govt wants to do, it wants them to succeed and get rid of assad. Any modern nation can destroy ISIS from the air, the russians are just actually trying to do where the US was more interested in another misguided attempt at regime change.

    Latina Lover

    Technologically, most American Hardware may be ahead of the Russian equivalents, but lag when it comes maintaining it during extended battle conditions. Russian tech is designed to be very tough, versatile and fixable under battle conditions. In the Ukraine, for example, 50 and 60 year old artillery pieces still function despite heavy continuous use.

    Poundsand

    Actually, our hardware is a lot better, as our the boys who deliver it both on the ground and in the air. But you're right, we have a bunch of politicians who pick targets, play for PR points, avoid PR problems at all costs. How long did Barry wait to send in the boys to get Osama? (heck, 8 months just to get his facsimile shows you how bad it's gotten).

    Turn 'em loose and then you would see some shock and awe!

    My only concern is supplies. Back in '93 we are down to how many Tomahawks? Remember they destroyed the tooling to make them before they had the next one ready to roll out. Reliance on high tech weaponry is fine and dandy, until you need 100x more than you thought you would. Then it's back to mass production of whatever you can get to shake off the wing.

    MrPalladium

    "Actually, our hardware is a lot better,"

    It is certainly a great deal more expensive. The problem is that the defense contractors and the military officers monitoring them control the narrative on how good our weapons might be. You really have no clue until you encounter another capable opponent and run the equipment in the fog of actual war.

    So much of our defense budget is spent maintaining clearly obsolete equipment and base structure (shades of General Pershing's horse cavalry at the outbreak of WWII - my father was there at the time) including all surface naval vessels which would be destroyed in a few days in any war against China or Russia. Also, half the military bases in the U.S. are really nothing more than glorified jobs programs. And most of the many foreign U.S. bases are nothing more than U.S. soldiers as goats tethered to the stake as bait to provoke attack and obtain an excuse for war with the nations they surround. I know, I was in that position many years ago in Berlin and nothing has changed.

    We are thus the empire of the unready, shackled by the past and lead by fools.

    Mentaliusanything

    The USA is lagging (sadly) in the electronic protection feild.

    Currently the Russians have a capability (proven) to block F22 raptor short and long distance missiles, They have another more frightening tool which scares the hell out of the Pentagon

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article185860.html

    oh and something comes to mind about lead pencils continuing to work well because of simplicity - well that again is mandated in all Russian weaponary.....

    Buck Johnson

    Actually no, US military goods aren't better than Russian. Both have limits and draws. What the US is afraid of is the fact that Russia has the capability one to negate their advantages and two of course nukes. Remember during the second gulf war we went nuts when Russia was giving Saddam Hussein devices that scrambled cruise missiles guidance systems and others using GPS. Also Russia has advanced anti-tank weaponry that can destroy and at least disable our M1 tanks. And many of their stuff that they sell or use is old or was developed back in the 80's or 90's. Same with the US.

    cowdiddly

    To be frank Russia is still using some of its older stuff like the Su25s and su24 nice heavy fighter/bomber but which is being replaced by those awesome duckbill su34s but some of that old stuff still proved pretty effective in Ukraine.

    I mean who we kidding, if Russia wanted to they could level the whole place in 3 months with those Tupolev 22s and T95s and some moabs and thats still conventional. God help us all is one of those SATAN missiles was ever used, the deadliest fastest nuke of all. I even hate the sound of that wicked weapons name. Moscow to Ny in 25min, not enough time to find a good rock to crawl under. None would survive the response which makes this whole endeavor of poking the sleeping bear even more insane.

    This article came by my screen today and they supposedly moved two of these bad boys in place. An interesting piece to say the least. with a range of 300km I think from what I seen in Ukraine these might have been turned on for a second or two behind the border in Russia to give some of those battles a little bump but who knows, I dont think anyone can prove.

    I think its things like this that they are bitching about and shitting bricks because most of the ground troops look to be to protect an airbase that is operating 25km from hostile forces. Lets see the US do that. Impressive feat in itself

    And why use Russians when you have plenty of Hezbollah, Iranian, and Syrians willing to do the dirty work. It would be stupid.

    Jamming the Jihad. can permanently fry electronics and take out low orbit satellites.

    http://sputniknews.com/world/20151005/1028033057/syria-russia-electronic...

    Son of Captain Nemo

    We have Obama.

    Scares the hell out of me.?...

    What exactly scares you the most? The part about starting unilateral wars for the last 14 years that got us into this mess?... Or the fact that somebody else like Russia's military is going to take charge to clean up that mess and in the end show us just how bad we really are along with the crisis we made "refugees" and otherwise!

    Ode to the American clandestine establishment that thought John McCain, "Fairy" Graham and Retired General Vallely were the worst of your problems!...

    Son of Captain Nemo

    Adding to that part about how bad "we" the U.S. really is...

    This certainly caught my attention....

    Russians will be targeting "command and control centers, ammunition and explosives warehouses, communication centers, mini-factories for the production of weapons of suicide bombings and militant training camps". ...

    Just think how Syrians and Iraqis will think of the Russians when suicide bombers and IED stop going off in those places that have already killed upwards of 10,000 to 15,000 Iraqis in the past 8 months alone and who knows how many of the 240,000 Syrians that have perished in the last 3 years alone to them?...

    Like I said. I sure hope there are no Blackwater/Xi/ Academi types wandering about the ground right about now in either of those countries doing this on a weekly basis and finally getting caught?!! at it!

    It will be just like the roundups by Ukrainian rebels they suffered at the end of 2014 where many of them were shot in the back of the head and put into an open pit with no headstone or marker to claim them again!

    Johnny_Dangerously

    The Entire Mainstream Western Media Is a Troll Army http://russia-insider.com/en/entire-western-media-troll-army/5918. Good title, and, for the most part, seemingly true.

    Drink!

    stant

    Nobody here is really a Vlad fan it just comes out that way we post on the facts

    Lostinfortwalton

    You hate to be pragmatic but there probably aren't a whole lot of "moderate" rebels left. That leaves the 'chop your head off, blow your head off with explosive chord' ISIS. If the Russian Air Force can go for it and put an end to those savages, why not? Apparently the USAF and USN dropping one bomb a day isn't doing a whole lot.

    sgt_doom

    Brother lostinfortwalton, us sane people are with you all the way!

    Boomberg

    Those savages never really existed. Just a bunch of thug mercenaries given guns and license to pillage and rape all the women with impunity by the US and allies. They are disappearing rapidly now and going back home to be good little Muslims now that the party is over.

    viator

    Don't forget the Sukhoi SU 30SM advanced fighter which has very little use in Syria unless you want to shoot down somebody else's advanced fighter aircraft. Then it is very useful.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0S4Vrnmz7k

    bruno_the

    this puppy can fly too. Just saying:

    https://youtu.be/b-VNSJMiNt0?t=27

    Smegley Wanxalot

    Look everyone, people somewhere gotta die so that the US MIC can thrive. Guess those people are just the eggs obama said you gotta break to make an omelette.

    johmack2

    If IRAN is successful with iraq and syria, they should move to setup a Middle Eastern Economic Union that will eventually be joined in the AIIB and partnered with the Russian EURASIAN bloc. The "MEEU" bloc of countries should also act as a defensive ring(an ME NATO equivalent) with RUSSIAN and CHINESE BASES installed( TWO TO FOUR JOINT MILITARY BASES IN THE ME WONT KILL RUSSIA OR CHINA) as well as an economic engine capable of becoming an regional economic power house for the region. IRAN should also give RUSSIA an fighter jet operating BASE near the coast of IRAN for rapid deployment. IF you guys think the americans dont have something up their sleeves you are sorely mistaken, the first rule of war is never underestimate your enemy.

    BustainMovealota

    "..watch Russia do in a matter of weeks what the US has failed to accomplish in 13 months"

    LOL , What makes you think the US was trying to defeat ISIS? Mainstrem fucking News Media???? Just go back to watching Dancing with the Stars or some shit.

    AlfredNeumann

    Russia/Syria are the righteous ones here. Not the USA funded ISIS and Al-Qaeda terrorists.

    There is no such thing as a moderate terrorist (Lavrov said). He is Right. Act accordingly Vlad.

    spyware-free

    For those curious about Russian radar and air defense capabilities you might be interested in this;

    Top US and NATO Commanders Admit They Cannot Oppose Russian No-Fly Zone

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/top-us-and-nato-commanders-admit-t...

    "American military expert, a former Colonel of the U.S. army Jack Jacobs said that the United States can't interfere with Russians in Syria, as Russia de facto set up a no-fly zone, cutting off access to any aircraft with the help of air defense systems deployed on land and on ships of the Russian navy in the Mediterranean."

    "The Russians have indicated that they can see everything, and getting closer is not worth it, otherwise it will be shot down", - said the American military.

    "Frankly we were surprised by the air defense system of Russia, most likely there are the latest systems S-400. I have no other ideas," - said Colonel Jack Jacobs.

    [Oct 04, 2015] Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly. ..."
    "... The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth. ..."
    "... "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces ..."
    "... USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors. ..."
    "... It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government. ..."
    "... It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets. ..."
    "... The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched. ..."
    "... Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words. ..."
    "... whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults. ..."
    "... the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. ..."
    "... The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force. ..."
    "... The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys). ..."
    Oct 01, 2015 | The Guardian


    Normin 2 Oct 2015 13:16

    Russia had to step in and bring attention to the proxy groups operating in Syria under US support. After years of lies the divide and conquer, regime change to puppet government plan has been exposed.

    The US support of these groups against Assad coincides with Israeli security concerns which deem a destabilized Middle East a boost to Israel's security. This unprecedented foreign state influence starts in Washington with Congress, various advisers, think tanks, lobby groups, and full media support.

    It's interesting to see how Russia acts to pursue state interests without being hobbled by the concerns and questionable influence of another country that does not have similar foreign policy interests as the USA. Time for a change in US policy, it's long overdue.

    mgeary 2 Oct 2015 12:56

    Sadly, as always in war the truth is amongst the first victims.

    This conflict is another product of the old "divide and conquer" tactic, adapted to the current reality. When you do not like a nation`s leadership, you find a group of dissidents, train them, arm them and let them loose.

    The civilians, women and children killed, the lives ruined and the homes lost are just collateral damage.

    The situation in Syria is by the making of the powers involved, so complicated, with so many factions involved, that we should be very careful when we pass judgement.
    Several of the people commenting here and some reporters have already done so with bias, according to their interests.

    Thomas Hood -> eelolondon 2 Oct 2015 12:44

    If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly.

    Glauber Brito 2 Oct 2015 11:25

    It is difficult to criticize Russian involvement in the Syria, when considering that it has been the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, which incidentally claimed well over 100,000 civilian lives, that sent the entire Middle East into turmoil.

    The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth.

    Which is exactly what the Russians are telling their viewers and listeners. It would be utterly refreshing, if the media would start demonstrating the same critical bias towards the government and the use of language, as they do of the Russians.


    Madranon LaterNow 2 Oct 2015 09:16

    I suspect that this is all about the House of Saud's internal war manifesting in proxy wars destabilising the region in some sick power struggle between the royal families.
    Besides, the only real victims in this are the non Sunnis, the groups that Saudi Arabia has long persecuted within its own borders for decades. The aim, i believe is a totally Sunni middle east with all other sects and religions driven out or exterminated. With the help of western weapons, Britain likes to make a few bob out of any civil war and regional horror.

    WhetherbyPond -> diddoit 2 Oct 2015 03:13

    "the term Ziocons is offensive."

    I meant to give offence. Being violently nationalistic, expansionist, racist and corrupt is offensive. If the apartheid state of Israel was any other country the west would be up in arms and calling for sanctions and regime change; however, because of the vile actions of the Nazi's and others, and the fact that the west did very little to help the poor souls who were being persecuted and murdered, the Ziocons use the guilt that is rightly felt in the west as a shield to cover their actions and silence their critics.


    SHappens 123dcp 2 Oct 2015 02:16

    US journalist Nir Rosen wrote in 2012, "every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without explanation ... Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters ... but described in reports as innocent civilians killed by the security forces ."
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/21/the-douma-market-attack-a-fabricated-pretext-for-intervention/

    The figures about casualties comes from The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH) is an agency close to the rebels financed by Arab monarchies and Western states and headquartered in London. It publishes its toll of months of war Syria. These macabre figures reveal surprising dishonesty of traditional media and contradict the pro-interventionist propaganda. Note that Reuters was not allowed to check their figures.

    The OSDH announced that there would have been 220,271 deaths.

    Nearly half of the victims of war are soldiers and loyalist militiamen.

    The number of "Bashar soldiers" killed is higher than the number of civilians killed. On the other hand, the Syrian Arab army is essentially composed of conscripts, that is to say citizens who defend their country, their institutions and their government, we can say that the army is inseparable from the Syrian people.

    Therefore, it is also dishonest to hold Assad responsible for the deaths of more than 220,000 Syrians as do the media and provocative militants since the first victim of the war in Syria is the army, so the people in uniform, so the "people pro-Assad".

    Let us turn now to the number of civilian casualties. The OSDH counted 104,629 killed.

    This figure does not distinguish the Syrians that could be broadly described as "pro-government" or "pro-rebellion".

    The number of civilians, including women and children, which can be in the pro-Assad camp of anti-rebel or neutral is probably extremely high especially if one takes into account the mass killings which occurred by terrorist groups in the Kurdish areas of the north of the country, in neighborhoods and Shiite villages and Christian and among the Sunni patriots all over the country.

    The anti-government armed groups have also claimed hundreds of executions of civilians including children, suspected of sympathy with the Syrian regime.

    As for victims of the armed opposition, the OSDH recorded 37,336 killed, twice less than killed Syrian soldiers (90,000) and one fifth of the total number of victims of war (220,271).

    These armed groups are themselves engaged in wars that cause the death of many pro-rebel fighters and their families. Thus among the 104,629 civilian victims of the Syrian confit, it should take into account hundreds of rebels killed by pro-rebel civilians.

    On reading the tragic toll of the OSDH, the Syrian situation shows that this is not Bashar, but the rebellion that is killing the Syrian people. Therefore, the Syrian state is right to fight against terrorism to restore peace in the country like any other state in the world

    Which leads us to defend the non-interference and peace in Syria, with Assad.
    http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/04/310000-people-killed-since-the-beginning-of-the-syrian-revolution/


    GERALD710 -> eelolondon
    2 Oct 2015 00:47

    I agree and disagree.
    The protests began in Daraa. Where the protesters did an idiotic thing. The region was suffering from a severe drought. Now instead of protesting for relief aid, they were protesting for the downfall of the regime?????

    There was nothing at all peaceful in the protests of Hama and Homs in 2011 where protestors deliberately murdered policemen and women and the Muslim Botherhood was busy already chanting 'Alawites in Coffins and Christians to Beirut'. A very dangerous chant in the two cities where minorities made up more than a third of the population.

    I am sorry, if a bunch of Islammist nutjobs start talking of putting my people in coffins and deporting my allies to Beirut, I would have leveled them to the Ground. Have you seen the Old City of Homs? That would have been anyone's reaction.

    Sparingpartner 1 Oct 2015 20:45

    If you can't own the economy, fuck the place up! Great policy in the so called propagation of democratic freedoms... and while you are at it, explain to me once gain why Australia needs to not only be involved in this inglorious cluster-fuck but want to urge the Americans to step it up - like they're not doing enough?

    Sweet Jesus in heaven save me from the do-gooders in this world!

    buildabridge -> Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 20:34

    Or a deliberate cunning foreign policy to divide and create chaos?

    Back in 2005 Bashra under occupation by British forces:

    "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces"

    http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1556

    buildabridge -> ComradeFunk 1 Oct 2015 20:15

    Not so sure. USA is still the strongest military power with the furthest reach by miles. It has the smartest and best funded Foreign Offices and Spy Networks, human and electronic. This chaos in the Middle East, any slowly further North, is US foreign policy firing on all cylinders, to create chaos in Eurasia to prevent Eurasia from settling down and trading peacefully with each other, and so USA becoming sidelined. USA is succeeding and winning with minimal loss, far away from Eurasia. USA remains strong and Eurasia becomes weaker fighting with itself, just like WW1 and WW2.

    USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors.

    mandzorp -> eelolondon 1 Oct 2015 18:06

    Russia are bombing in support of the government of Syria. It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government.

    cherryredguitar -> tubes99 1 Oct 2015 17:47

    Just making the point that the US/UK are on the same side as Islamic nutters who eat dead people's internal organs.

    TheChillZone -> LoveisEternal 1 Oct 2015 17:26

    Yeah, whereas the West's nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc has gone soon well. Russia can't do any worse than us....and at least hey are doing something to fight isis and the legions of terrorsst groups that are lining up to take control of Syria. It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets.

    KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:07

    As a matter of fact the Russian intervention at Syria's invitation was necessary because of the failure of the US to halt ISIS. Yes, the same ISIS that the USA originally armed ( to fight Assad). Syrian Government forces currently control territory that holds 80% of the Syrian population and you can be sure that ISIS are now doomed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and others, with or without the support of the outmaneuvered (again) USA.

    The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched.

    Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press in the US and UK.


    retsdon 1 Oct 2015 17:20

    whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to shore up his position and stave off demands that he step down.

    Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words.

    Here, try the truth.

    whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults.

    You just can't bring yourselves to admit that your neo-liberal masters have cocked their little adventure up completely this time, can you? Eh?


    Realworldview 1 Oct 2015 17:04

    Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention

    Very true, the collapse of the Syrian army was looking increasingly likely. This interesting article on the Saker website adds further clarity, by discussing what will not happen, what will happen, what has already happened, and what might happen. Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria that ends with this paragraph, which raises the prospect of some "interesting times" in Syria and the wider Middle East:

    Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid Russophobes in the West are still out there (albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".

    If nothing else, it explains the wall to wall media propaganda blitz that started with the first Russian air strikes.

    KriticalThinkingUK -> psygone 1 Oct 2015 16:45

    Wake up psygoon...

    the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. Its a fact whether you like it or not...the US propaganda offensive to try and cover up their stupidity will go nowhere. The truth will out and the terrorists will be destroyed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran and Iraq etc, with or without the support of the USA. The Russian intervention against ISIS has massive support in Europe, who can take no more refugees. Europe, the whole of the middle east, Russia and above all the Syrian people (especially the Kurd and Christian minority communities) all need a stable government in Syria, not another failed state like Libya and Iraq.


    Abiesalba -> Jack Seaton 1 Oct 2015 16:02

    As for ISIS being a threat to Russia, does anyone seriously believe that ISIS are going to get anywhere near those maps you linked to?

    Yes. The media in the European countries which are on the ISIS map reported about this map with concern already when it was published a year ago. (One of the links to ISIS maps in my previous post goes to Slovenia's national broadcaster, the other to an Austrian newspaper - both Slovenia and Austria are on the ISIS map).

    Because unlike you, we understand that ISIS does not have to physically occupy all these countries. Its strategy is to first have groups pledging allegiance to ISIS in these countries. And in this respect, ISIS is VERY successful and has in only one year spread its influence into rather many countries. Besides, it has also claimed incredibly much territory in Syria and Iraq, while the US-led coalition (comprising very mighty armies) claim they are fighting against them!

    And ISIS is already in the Russian Federation!!!! See for example:
    -
    -
    8 ISIS supporters killed in N. Caucasus special op

    (2 August 2015)

    Russian security forces have foiled a terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to ISIS in Ingushetia, in the Northern Caucasus, according to the National Anti-Terror Committee (NAC). Security forces seized explosives, weapons and over 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
    -
    -
    How Russian Militants Declared A New ISIS 'State' In Russia's North Caucasus

    (26 June 2015)

    The Islamic State group announced the creation of its northernmost province this week, after accepting a formal pledge of allegiance from former al Qaeda militants in the North Caucasus region of Russia.

    Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 16:01

    The west is physiologically defunct. Fact. Their fragile idealistic bits-and-pieces approach to having a belief system, full of irrational claptrap is being so painfully allowing the Syrian conflict to run and run.

    However terrifying the reality becomes the west withdraws into a sort of elitist denial and always seem to have international law on their side however many times they break it!

    It seems a long time ago now that anyone in the West thought and articulated with such clarity, realism, and sense as the Russians. The political correct bigots in the West created this situation , one where no-one dare talk sense for fear of ridicule. Long live Putin.


    AgeingAlbion 1 Oct 2015 15:30

    Putin at least has been consistent throughout. He has backed Assad from day one.

    The west first thought it was going to be another wonderful Arab Spring, then thought they could manage to back the "right" rebels as opposed to Isis, then said chemical weapons were a "red line" them failed to do anything when the red line was crossed then said Assad must go before negotiations and now meekly accept he might have to be part of the solution.

    How much has that dithering achieved and how many lives has it cost? If Russia moves in directly and uses the Red Army to destroy Isis will it really be worse than our messing around?

    SHappens 1 Oct 2015 15:26

    Good summary. As an add on from Dr Bachar al-Jaafari, permanent syrian UN delegate 16/09/2015

    - In the North, there are outlawed groups of called armed terrorists " Armed with the conquest " [Jaïch al-Fath], financed by Qatar and Turkey, that sends every day thousands of shells on Aleppo, killing hundreds and mutilating thousands of our citizens, preventing them from meeting their elementary needs on a daily basis.

    In the South, rages another terrorist army financed by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, member state of this organization, country brother and neighbor of Syria. An army which proceeds in the same way by despicable terrorist acts against our citizens in this region.

    In the suburbs of Damascus(damask), rages another army from the city of the Duma, a group of terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia, called up " Armed with the Islam " [Aich al Islam].

    There are three terrorists groups who are armed, the first under the command of Turkey, the second in command of the Jordan, the third under the command of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Backed up by the US, UK and France.

    The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force.

    The US coalition's airstrikes look like at best a gesture, at worst a smokescreen for future bombing campaign against Syria. The war prevented on September 2013 would be triggered under a new guise. But Russia took the ground. The priority is the fight against jihadism, associated with integrating the power of the political opposition, elections and a regional peace conference.

    The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys).

    Russia is about to put an end to this circus, hopefully with little collateral damage (thus beware of western propaganda on civilians toll) having high weapons tech to select targets accurately as mentioned in this article.


    Abiesalba -> KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:22

    Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press in the US and UK.

    Very true. Here is Slovenia, the public opinion seems to be very strongly siding with Russia and against the insane US (judging from comments on forums).

    And the US/UK media are truly an amazing brainwashing propaganda machine, straight from Orwell's 1984.


    Jan Burton 1 Oct 2015 14:47

    Russia isn't dumb or dishonest enough to make the meaningless distinctions between ISIS and other Islamist groups that the west insists on making. They're all out for the same thing and only differ on the details.

    Putin in merely doing what needs to be done.

    cherryredguitar 1 Oct 2015 14:48

    Given that the so-called moderate rebels have a leader who videoed himself cutting a dead person's body open and eating one of the guys internal organs, the Russians are right not to differentiate between them and Isis.

    Destroy all the extremists, even the ones that the Americans and Saudis like.

    Abiesalba -> RobertNeville 1 Oct 2015 14:46

    the Russians are allowed to fly the skies of Syria and the US is not.

    Yes. Because the Syrian government asked Russia for a military intervention, whereas the US apparently have some superior right to illegally breach international borders as they wish and bomb whomever they like (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan).

    By the way, the very fact that Iraqi government asked for a military intervention is used by the US-led coalition to justify their strikes in Iraq.

    jvillain -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:44

    The US, France and finally to a slightly lesser degree the UK want Assad gone more than they want ISIS, Al Quaida or the Army of God gone. If Assad falls all his weapons will belong to ISIS and crew as well as having total control of a state. The so called rebels are only 5% or so of the people fighting. All the other opposition groups have either merged with ISIS or been eliminated.

    If Assad falls there will no longer be a choice but to put western boots on the ground in Syria in a big way.

    WhetherbyPond 1 Oct 2015 14:43

    The Ziocons in the US are very upset that their geopolitical game is being thwarted by Russia.


    Abiesalba -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:41

    It surely is interesting how the Anglo-American media today went all hysterical about the alleged civilian casualties in Russian air strikes.

    Well, how about some hysteria about this then:
    -
    -
    About 3000 people, including 162 civilians, killed in US- coalition airstrikes on areas in Syria

    The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, June 2015
    -
    SOHR documented the death of 2896 people at least since the beginning of the U.S led coalition air strikes on Syria in 23/Sep until this morning, while hundreds others were wounded, vast majority IS extremists.

    The number of civilians who were killed in the coalition airstrikes on oil areas, where there are oil refineries, oil wells, building and vehicles, in the provinces of al- Hasakah, Deir Ezzor, al- Raqqa, Aleppo and Idlib has risen to 162, including 51 children and 35 women.

    Among the deaths, there are a family of a man, his wife and their 5 children killed due in US- led coalition airstrikes on the village of Dali Hasan in east of the town of Serrin in northeast of Aleppo and 64 civilians killed by a massacre committed by the U.S led coalition warplanes on Friday's night in 04/30/2015 when they targeted Bir Mahli village near the town of Serrin in Aleppo with several air strikes, and the death toll of this massacre includes:

    – 31 children under the age of 16 including ( 16 females and 15 males ).
    – 19 women above the age of 18.
    – 13 men above the age of 18.
    – A 18 years old boy.
    -
    -
    For more about civilian casualties due to the US-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq, see the Airwars website:

    584 – 1,720 civilians killed:

    To date, the international coalition has only conceded two "likely" deaths, from an event in early November 2014. It is also presently investigating seven further incidents of concern; is carrying out credibility assessments on a further 13; and has concluded three more investigations – having found no 'preponderance of evidence' to support civilian casualty claims.

    [Oct 04, 2015] Saudis Mull Launch Of Regional War As Russia Pounds Targets In Syria For Fourth Day

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. ..."
    "... Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise. ..."
    "... Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection? ..."
    "... I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding. ..."
    "... You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans. ..."
    "... The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking." ..."
    "... And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either. ..."
    "... The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. ..."
    "... The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach. ..."
    "... Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?). ..."
    "... McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow. ..."
    "... America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil. ..."
    "... For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football. ..."
    "... The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean. ..."
    "... But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents. ..."
    "... Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

    Looney

    Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)

    strannick

    Like the US, these vile medieval "regional allies" try to frame their propaganda to show that this is about removing the dictator Assad, who actually is one of the most benign in that demented region. Its not.

    They want him out because he opposed their pipeline, favoring instead the Iraqi Iran Shiite pipeline, which all three nations agreed to create. So much for national self determination. Otherwise they wouldnt give a shit what deranged lunatic ran Syria, or if Syria was ruled by some king as demented and tyranical and genocidal as they, -the Saudis and Qataris- are themselves.

    Winston Churchill

    Its not about an indefencible gas pipline at all.

    By deception we wage war.

    Its about potable water in south Lebanon.

    Without that Israel is a failed desert state within ten years.

    Go do the research yourself, all the data has been out there for nearly fifty years.

    Hidden in plain sight.

    swmnguy

    Israel has to have the Litani river from source to outlet.

    The pipeline from Qatar is a real project too, though.

    Captain Debtcrash

    Saudis' won't mess with Russia because they know the US probably wouldn't intervene on their behalf, we don't want to mess with Russia either and vice versa. It was already agreed we would let them do what they want and talk a good game in opposition.

    That said, if I'm wrong, I don't think we will have to worry about low oil prices any more.

    Oracle of Kypseli

    Desal water is much more expensive than oil.

    And... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. The Jordan river is now a small slow moving creek.

    Winston Churchill

    The Litani is part of the headwaters of the river Jordan.

    The Golan overlooks the Jordan.Whick looks like a stream in comparison to what is was fifty ago, and a dried up mud hole relative to 150yrs ago. I wish I could post a photo from the 1860's I have of the Jordan, its a glass plate negative taken by my great grandfather.

    Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise.

    If, as reported yesterday, Putin is going to supply Hezbollah direct with armaments, Putin will have a Israels balls in a vice, no wonder Nutjob is going apeshit..

    Jack Burton

    Good point Winston. I have always been dubious about the Pipeline argument. As you say, even if built, this pipeline would run through very hostile places, sure to be hit over and over again.

    Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection?

    Israel must, with in a decade take and hold souther Lebanon of perish. The only water left is there, Israel must have it. So they will take it, to hold it, they need Syria dead and Lebanon a failed stated.

    I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding.

    The Indelicate ...

    the Qatar pipeline argument never made any sense because:

    1] you don't build a pipeline through chaos which will last years, which is precisely what Israel, most of all wants - a bloodletting that destroys another regional economic, and to an extent military rival.

    2] Cost/benefit wise it doesn't make sense to spend this sort of money and time to go through Syria - look at a map.

    3] Israel's Leviathan find, it's plans to ethnically cleanse the remainder of Palestine, and find/create pretexts to attack and invade more of Lebanon, Syria, and Sinai. It's plans to steal the gas that, if international law applied to the Jewish State, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon.

    Early Zionist Interest In Lebanon - Laura Zittrain Eisenberg
    http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/history/zionism.html

    Israel Wants The Litani River Desperately
    http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2010/08/israel-wants-litani-rive...

    HOORAY FOR HEZBOLLAH!
    http://www.tomatobubble.com/id775.html

    flysofree

    This is a load of crap. I lived in the Caribbean and our source of water was desalinization plant. It wasn't as expansive as you say, even the poorest locals could easily afford it. The problem with desalinization plants was that intake valves would clog up with seaweed during storms!

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is planning any aggression towards its neighbors. It's also no secret that ALL of Israel air strikes into Syria involved intercepts of weapons shipments from Iran; that's clearly stated in mainstream media reporting!

    You must be a deluded old twig, if you even attempt to compare Nazi Germany Lebensraum policies of total liquidation of local populations to modern Israeli politics of settler land grab in the West Bank.

    Winston Churchill

    I'm old like you Jack, but travelled extensively throughout the MENA, a family tradition you could say, my great grandfather and grandfather were involved in opening up tourism/biz to a lot of the area.Long before oil was discovered. Have some 'wrong side of the blanket' relatives who I keep in contact with as well.

    SWRichmond

    Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)

    Putin is confident in his backing at home. Russian people are, for lack of a better way to put it, accustomed to "doing without" while supporting the motherland. Saudi, on the other hand, has completely spoilt their home population with their temporary wealth (now in doubt), paying them just to live, making them soft and expectant, petulant, self indulgent (sound familiar?). Putin is quite obviously "going for it", pressing his position, because he believes he will prevail. The gloves are off. USA is broke, and Putin knows it. Petrodollar is on its death bed, and he knows it, and he is willing to overtly hasten its death.

    Final question, for bonus points: how do nations traditionally finance wars?

    Answer: BY DEBASING THEIR CURRENCIES.

    PacOps

    Didn't someone pull some kind of shit like that on the Soviet Union a few decades back? ;-)

    Sun, 10/04/2015 - 11:48 | 6628206 swmnguy

    The Russian people can feed themselves. Not lavishly; cabbage and "cole" vegetables; potatoes; a little meat, fish and poultry; cold-weather grains; but they can feed themselves. Not so much for the Saudis and Qataris etc. Also, the Russians make their own stuff. They don't have to import slaves who outnumber them.

    Yes, if the luxury is suddenly removed from their lives, the Russian people wouldn't notice, never having had much in the first place. But the Saudis and Qataris can't survive in their current arrangements.

    kananga

    "So, millions of Saudi refugees invading Europe?"
    More like, 100 Saudi Royals invading Monaco.

    lincolnsteffens

    You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans.

    Sir Edge

    Yes...

    Plus One Kabillion SWR... Perfectly Said...

    "USA is preparing to rip itself apart. For some reason Americans believe they can foist death, destruction, mayhem and hopelessness upon the entire rest of the planet, while somehow remaining immune from it themselves. The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking."

    strannick

    Exactly.

    How dare Russia and Iran tinker with America and Suadis bombed out, fucked up Shangrala that is their legacy in the Middle East.

    researchfix

    They know what´s coming. Iran and Russia will chase ISIS to the Saudi border. And then they stop the chase. And then the next chapter enfolds.

    cosmyccowboy

    Stick with the small bucket, I do not believe that the Saudi little boy lovers and women beaters sill last long against the Russians, Syrians and Iranians. Their mercenaries will flee from a real fighting force!

    HowdyDoody

    Saudi are being setup as Zion's stooges. If they win - ZIon gets lebensraum to the north of Israel, if they lose - lebensraum to the south. The inevitable public reason for the land grab - poor defenseless little Israel needs a buffer zone between it and the Muslims.

    LetThemEatRand

    And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either.

    Bendromeda Strain

    And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia.

    Do not fail to miss the "go to" interview with the demon worshipper at The European Council of Foreign Relations. Saudi Arabia's interest just happens to *currently* align with the globalists. Convenient for them - for now.

    TheReplacement

    I disagree. I think the drivers are unnamed and the royals of KSA are both a faction and a pawn. They would look at themselves and see a faction. When looked down upon by TPTB they are pawns (like 99.999999% of humanity).

    I also do not see most Americans cheering for Putin. I see most Americans are absolutely ignorant and clueless as per usual. Some think they are informed and think evil Putin grasping at empire. I cannot speak to Putin's motives and I do hold suspicion of anybody who has maintained power like his as long as that man. Still, I have to ask them what exactly Putin has done.

    "Invaded Ukraine."

    Really? Show me pictures and video that isn't years old and taken from a completely different country while I show you pictures and video of the US State Department funding and fomenting a violent uprising by neo nazis against a constitutionally elected government (this is not to say that I disagree in any way with Ukrainians taking action of their own volition but that isn't what happened).

    "Well, he shot down that jetliner."

    Proof? The west has all the evidence and we have no proof. You do realize the official report only confirmed that the jet was in fact shotdown. They have presented no evidence that either confirms nor denies any particular faction did in fact shoot it down.

    "He's invading Syria."

    Putin was invited by the Syrian government because ISIS and their allies were starting to win the war despite our forces supposedly bombing them all year. If we were bombing and droning them, in addition to the fighting by the Iraqis, Syrians, and Kurds, then why were they still winning? If Russia, Syria, and Iran all want to defeat ISIS then who is it that wants ISIS to win - who is supporting the bad guys in black if all the other bad guys are trying to kill them?

    "I don't know. You wanna watch the Redsox?"

    JustObserving

    The corrupt, criminal, cruel cabal that rules Saudi Arabia should have collapsed years ago. So let them start another war and collapse now. Karma is a bitch. Hope ISIS are pushed into Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

    The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. Was the US dropping care packages and videos made in Langley?

    The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach.

    http://www.rt.com/news/314885-isis-usa-anniversary-campaign/

    TheReplacement

    I question that narrative. Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?).

    JustObserving

    Does the Doomsday clock have a seconds hand ?

    Does it have a nanosecond hand?

    Threat of wider war mounts as Russia continues airstrikes in Syria

    More prominent are voices calling for an even more reckless US policy of escalation against both Assad and Putin. They speak for powerful sections of the foreign policy and military-intelligence establishment that are implacably hostile to the nuclear deal with Iran and bent on war with Russia and China.

    John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke for this faction Wednesday. He declared from the Senate floor, "Into the wreckage of this administration's Middle East policy has now stepped Putin. As in Ukraine and elsewhere, he perceives the administration's inaction and caution as weakness, and he is taking advantage."

    On Thursday, McCain told CNN that he could "absolutely confirm" that the initial Russian strikes were "against our Free Syrian Army or groups that have been armed and trained by the CIA…"

    McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/02/syri-o02.html

    falak pema

    That the Sunni clans find the Russian Iran entente a threat to their creationist minded ideology is understandable--to the extent that Turkey has reverted to obscurantist logic and effaced Ataturk's legacy from its current political inclination-- and that Saud and Qatar, as inheritors of the Pax Americana Oil protected legacy, have reverted to the same ideological stance in a regressional spiral that shocks the word-- is one thing ; that the West adheres to this same logic is another. The history of the wahhabist arabs monarchies is diametrically opposed to that of the West in terms of political priorities.

    The latter trend, of regression to neo-feudal ideology, is a betrayal of western values that are the bedrocks of our society.

    There is no excuse for this regression, now brought out to the open by a Shia theocracy aligned with a autocratic Russia, which make the so called democratic West look like the new Evil Empire.

    We are now in a spiral in West that will bring down democracy and replace it by a neo-feudal autocracy that will have nothing to envy the most evil traits of the Spanish Inquisition.

    America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil.

    Even Putin and Khameini look like moderates!

    ThroxxOfVron

    Russia is not allied with Iran.

    That both Russia and Iran perceive that it is in their individual interestes to intervene in Syria does not make them allies.

    The only reason that Russia and Iran welcome the others intervention is that it temporarily relieves each of them of the full weight of the financing costs of their respective interventions which would be higher if undertaken alone, and relieves both of some amount of the international political pressures being manifest by the US/Zio powers opposed to their interventions.

    Russia and Iran do not share the same goals and will not employ the same methods.

    Any appearance of mutual support is tangenital and temporary. It will dissipate rapidly when their true divergent interests become apparent in due course and as their opportunities in the Trans-Syrian theater evolves.

    Likely the two will immediately become opponents in Syria as other forces are ejected from the theater in much the same manner as Russia and the British/US did in Germany when Berlin fell at the end of the WW2.

    What I do not think is being spoken of publicly is the fact that Iraq is effectively being carved up while the focus is on Syria.

    I do not think Iraq will exist, or certainly will not exist with the same territorial boundaries, when the Trans-Syrian ( Great Sunni/Shia ) War is concluded.

    swmnguy

    I would guess Kurdish leaders are doing everything they can to get an audience in the Kremlin about now. This is their best chance ever at an independent Kurdistan, protected by Iran and Russia. There won't ever be a better moment for them. The US has been using them as we used the Hmong in Laos in the Vietnam War. Time for the Kurds to get out of the firing line and into an arrangement with local regional powers who will actually pay them in the coin of their choosing in return for their services.

    swmnguy

    I don't think Saudi Arabia can do anything more than transfer some ancient handheld anti-arcraft missiles to their Syrian proxies, through third-parties. I can't imagine the Saudis openly attacking the Russians. I doubt they'd ship anything directly traceable back to them.

    For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football.

    But if you look at the atlas, and at Russian behavior since the 1970s, it's pretty obvious why they aren't going to tolerate radical insane Sunni mercenary armies running around in their backyard. In Syria, different from Ukraine, the local recognized government can invite them in. Now it looks like the local recognized government in Iraq has invited them in, too.

    The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean.

    The Saudis will whine and cry, but not do much. Israel is going to get real quiet. I'd guess the US will cut bait on their proxies. But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents.

    45North1

    All this crap really ramped up about the time Libya was destroyed by NATO. Civilian deaths certainly have soared from 2011 to now.

    Not saying there is a coincidence with respect to Libya being destroyed , but I can't help but think there is some link between liberated Libyan weapon staches and the accelerated actions of the various iterations of Syrian Rebels and re-labeled Terrorists in Syria. Syrian People have subsequently suffered. Infrastructure has been destroyed, Syria risks a future as a failed state (ala Libya) if overrun. I am sure Syria can take some comfort in knowiing that Libya got a new Central Bank as NATO munitions were still landing.)

    Hopefully Policies of other players in the Syrian mess don't adopt the in for a penny , in for a pound approach to this debacle.... but I have my doubts.

    Islam needs to get itself together if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.

    Pigs will probably fly first.

    Atticus Finch

    Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious.

    Paracelsus

    Correct. Gaddafi would have had tons of munitions.These were transported with US help thru Turkey into Syria.With the Iraq war destabilizing the entire region,

    The Kurds were able to establish there own mini-state with the bonus of oil in the ground. Turkey has always been the weak man in the area politically, and has always opposed an
    independent Kurdish nation.

    I am waiting for the first Russian warplane to be brought down and the pilot roasted in a cage (on video). I can't see where the Russkies would be very happy with the CIA/Mercs who provided the ManPads for this event. The Russkies are very good at the airpower thing. The Iranians are tough on the ground. The Russkies seem to want to get this over in months or less.

    Funny how they don't seem to worry about any UN Security Council condemnation. Chinese Veto?

    Well, death of the PetroDollar system. History in front of our eyes.. The only wildcard is the Israelis threat to use nukes if they don't get their way. Aside from the PetroDollar collapse, there exists a strong threat of China and others dumping Treasuries on the finance markets (if they are unhappy with US foreign policy).

    "May you live in interesting times".....

    Truly Inspiration

    You really raise serious questions about just how "intelligent" US intelligence actually is??

    Why shall US target their own people when the ISIS top commander is an AMERICAN! You don't believe it?

    Nada a 19 year old woman just escaped from hell,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3253107/Is-ISIS-commander-AMERIC...


    sudzee

    SA worried that the "coalition of the good and honest" Russia/Syria/Iran and Iraq will corner ISIS and force them south thru western Iraq/eastern Jordan into Saudi Arabia itself. The Royal Family, beheaders in chief, will receive the goes around.

    AlfredNeumann

    Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
    Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

    Gregor Samsa

    This cartoon says it best: http://sputniknews.com/cartoons/20151002/1027919479/us-russia-syria-cart...

    forgotten in th...

    Here some social media statements by members of the "moderate islamic opposition" that Barack Obama and his two piece of shit (Cameron and Hollande) are supporting.

    From wikipedia

    In response to reports of Russian intervention, the Army of Conquest's Liwa al-Haqq commander Abu Abdullah Taftanaz posted a tweet addressing the "infidel Russians", inviting them to send troops to Syria and saying that "we have thousands like Khattab" who would "slaughter your pigs".[76][77] Abu Abdullah Taftanaz also tweeted Russian military terms for Syrian rebels to familiarize themselves with if they intercepted Russian radio chatter.[78][79][80][81][82] Reportedly Chechen and Caucasian foreign fighters have begun flocking to the coastal regions of Syria where the Russians are based in order to seek them out.[83]

    Ahmad Eissa al-Sheikh, a commander in Turkish/Saudi-backed Ahrar ash-Sham,[84] threatened to bring upon "Russian hell in a Levantine flavor" if they encountered the Russians.[85][86] Harakat Fajr ash-Sham al-Islamiya leader Abu Abdullah ash-Shami tweeted about the "globalization" of the "Levantine Jihad".[87][88] He also tweeted that on the Russians and said that "The Levant will become their graveyard, with the permission of Allah".[89] The Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front[90] has set a reward for the seizure of Russian soldiers of 2,500,000 Syrian pounds (approximately US$13,000).[91][92]

    The Syria based, Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric Abdallah Muhammad Al-Muhaysini threatened that Syria would be a "tomb for its invaders" or "graveyard for invaders" in response to the Russian intervention and brought up the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[93][94][95]

    AlfredNeumann
    Syria Update# Air Duel between the Sukhoi Su - 30 Russian SM and Israeli F-15 Tags:
    Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU - 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15's fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.

    The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea

    On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.

    Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.

    The mighty Israeli military doesn't do so well against opponents who can actually fight back! They'll probably bomb Gaza again so they can feel butch about themselves!

    Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3ncnOMUxV

    Amun

    "on November 2, 1917, British imperialism in Palestine began when Lord Balfour, the then British foreign secretary and former prime minister, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, one of the leaders of the Zionist movement. This letter became known as the "Balfour Declaration".

    In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people. And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land.

    Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right – to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish immigration to Britain. No wonder Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed the declaration.

    And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate in Palestine. "

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9645925/Britain-must-atone-for-its-sins-in-Palestine.html

    Abiesalba 1 Oct 2015 14:29

    With respect to the total mess in Syria, to my knowledge there has been only one recent poll conducted across Syria (see below). The pollsters say that the poll is representative of the people of Syria. A similar poll was also conducted in Iraq. Both polls were conducted in June-July 2015:
    -
    82% of Syrians agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (17% disagree).

    85% of Iraqis agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (10% disagree).
    -
    -
    Among the warring sides in Syria, Assad has the highest (!) support – 47% of Syrians think he has a POSITIVE influence (50% negative) .

    Compare to the groups which the US 'coalition' and the Anglo-Americans media claim we should all support:

    Free Syrian Army – 35% positive, 63% negative

    Syrian Opposition Coalition – 26% positive, 72% negative
    -
    Considering the polling results, anyone claiming that Assad should be removed is working AGAINST half of the Syrians. Putin is right – Assad has to be included in any solution to the war. Else, there will immediately a rebellion of half of Syrians against FOREIGN powers toppling Assad.

    Assad will not come to the negotiating table without Putin.

    Besides, it is clear that for Syrians (and Iraqis), the truly BAD guys are the Americans.
    -
    -
    PUBLIC OPINION IN SYRIA
    -
    Fieldwork: June 10 to July 2

    Respondents: 1,365 Syrians from all 14 governorates of the country
    -
    -
    Thinking about the persons and the groups which are working now in Syria, Generally, do you think that their influence is negative or positive on the matters in Syria
    -
    Positive … Negative
    -
    47% … 50% … Bashar al-Asad
    43% … 55% … Iran
    37% … 55% … Arab Gulf Countries
    35% … 63% … Nusra Front
    35% … 63% … Free Syrian Army
    26% … 72% … Syrian Opposition Coalition
    21% … 76% … Islamic State
    -
    -
    There are many reasons around to explain the presence of ISIL in Iraq/Syria, please tell me if strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or a strongly disagree for the reason that explains the presence of ISIL?
    -
    Agree … Disagree
    -
    82% … 17% … ISIL is foreign made by the US

    59% … 40% … As a result of widespread sectarian politics in the Arab countries and in Turkey

    55% … 44% …ISIL is made by some Arab regimes

    50% … 48% … ISIL is created by foreign countries to find a balance with Iran

    44% … 55% … Wrong policies pursued by the Syrian government

    42% … 56% … Syrian regime made ISIL for marking the opposition to terrorism

    39% … 57% … Iran is supporting this organization to weaken Iraq and take it under its control

    22% … 76% … Sectarian congestion that has arisen in Syria
    -
    -
    Do you support or oppose the international coalition airstrikes in Syria?
    -
    Support … Oppose

    47% … 50%
    -
    -
    According to your view, which of the following represent the best solution for the crisis which Syria is in today?
    -
    51% … Political solution
    37% … Military solution
    -
    -
    Note: The poll has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

    Sources:

    Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS (16 September 2015)

    Full polling reports by the British ORB International (affiliate of WIN/Gallup International):

    * Syria http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/syriadata.pdf

    * Iraq http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/iraqdata.pdf

    [Oct 04, 2015] Gulf states plan military response as Putin raises the stakes in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms of a counter-escalation ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may limit both their military and financial resources. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | The Guardian

    Regional powers have quietly, but effectively, channelled funds, weapons and other support to rebel groups making the biggest inroads against the forces from Damascus. In doing so, they are investing heavily in a conflict which they see as part of a wider regional struggle for influence with bitter rival Iran.

    In a week when Russia made dozens of bombing raids, those countries have made it clear that they remain at least as committed to removing Assad as Moscow is to preserving him.

    "There is no future for Assad in Syria," Saudi foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir warned, a few hours before the first Russian bombing sorties began. If that was not blunt enough, he spelled out that if the president did not step down as part of a political transition, his country would embrace a military option, "which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power".

    ... ... ...

    "The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms of a counter-escalation," said Julien Barnes-Dacey, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may limit both their military and financial resources.

    [Oct 04, 2015] My comprehensive plan for US policy on the Middle East

    Crooked Timber

    5566hh, 10.04.15 at 2:02 am

    Seriously though, I think a non-plan isn't really that useful. Why not have an actual plan? Something like this:
    1. End all drone strikes
    2. Cut off all military aid to countries in the Middle East
    3. Cut off diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia
    4. End all CIA or other covert support for groups in the region
    5. Put sanctions on any state in the region that funds terrorist groups
    6. Abolish the CIA, or at least covert CIA political interventions (this would help to address a lot of other problems outside the region too)
    7. Withdraw all US forces from the Middle East
    8. Encourage Britain to abandon its plans for a base in Bahrain
    9. Provide development aid (non-military) to the region
    10. Put diplomatic pressure on repressive regimes in the region

    Val, 10.04.15 at 3:12 am

    A U.S. air strike killed 20 MSF workers and patients in Afghanistan. A U.S. spokesperson called it collateral damage

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/kunduz-charity-hospital-bombing-violates-international-law

    It's bullshit. That's what contemporary warfare does – kills civilians. The vast majority of those who die in contemporary warfare are civilians. It's not collateral damage, it's what war does. I don't know (as I've written on my blog) how anyone can justify war these days.

    Frank Wilhoit, 10.04.15 at 3:17 am

    The United States has only one option left in the Middle East. That is to build a time machine, go back to 1911, and prevent Winston Churchill and Jacky Fisher from converting the British Navy from coal to oil. Admittedly, serious obstacles stand in the way of implementing this approach, but there is no alternative.

    John Quiggin, 10.04.15 at 3:40 am

    @5 This amounts to spelling out my plan

    @8 Or, alternatively, set the time machine for 2015, when the US is virtually self-sufficient in oil, and the price is at a historic low (the supposed need to control ME oil was always nonsense, but it's nonsense on stilts now)

    [Oct 04, 2015] Funds To Play Oil's (Slow) Recovery: ETF.com

    "... USO holds front-month futures, and to avoid taking physical delivery when those contracts mature, it rolls its position forward to the next futures contract-but the farther-dated contracts are often higher priced (due to storage costs and other factors), meaning that when USO sells its front-month contract it will be able to buy less of the next-month futures. This has led to underperformance for the fund this year, which has fallen nearly twice as much as spot oil prices. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | Barrons.com
    Unfortunately, Roy notes, the United States Oil Fund (USO), the most common way to play oil, has often backfired for investors. USO holds front-month futures, and to avoid taking physical delivery when those contracts mature, it rolls its position forward to the next futures contract-but the farther-dated contracts are often higher priced (due to storage costs and other factors), meaning that when USO sells its front-month contract it will be able to buy less of the next-month futures. This has led to underperformance for the fund this year, which has fallen nearly twice as much as spot oil prices.

    Luckily, USO isn't the only way to play oil. The PowerShares DB Oil Fund (DBO) seeks to minimize the costs of rolling contracts forward by choosing the most advantageous futures contract to switch to, instead of always using the next month's, as USO does. Roy also notes that the United States Brent Oil Fund (BNO) holds Brent oil, popular in Europe, which in recent years has started to diverge in price more frequently from West Texas Intermediate, a grade of oil commonly sold in the U.S. In the first three quarters of 2015, Brent lost less than WTI.

    However, none of those oil products were able to avoid the big drop in crude prices. For more buy-and-hold investors, Roy suggests the Energy Select SPDR (XLE) that holds energy-related stocks (like Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX) etc.). He concludes:

    For long-term investors, an equity-based energy ETF like XLE is superior to the futures-based ETFs mentioned earlier, for several reasons: 1) an investor doesn't have to worry about roll costs; 2) the companies can grow their oil production, creating value for shareholders even in a flat oil price environment; 3) they often pay dividends. XLE currently has a yield of more than 3.3 percent.

    Year-to-date, XLE is down by 21 percent, less than the futures-based ETFs. Over the past five years, XLE is up 20.4 percent, compared with losses ranging from 40 to 58 percent percent for the other three ETFs.

    [Oct 04, 2015] Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria

    Oct 04, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker
    Evaluation:

    In purely military terms this is a rather minor development. Yes, the Syrian Air Force badly needs some modernization (the fact that they are using helicopter-dropped 500kg barrel bombs is a proof that they don't have enough aircraft to deliver guided or even unguided 500kg aerial bombs) and the Russians will be bringing some very capable aircraft (SU-24s and SU-25s for sure, and in some specific cases they could even use Tu-22M3s and SU-34s). But this will not be a game changer. Politically, however, this marks yet another triumph for Vladimir Putin who has forced the US Empire to renounce its plans to overthrow Assad. Because, and make no mistake here, the Russians are now there to stay: a limited Russian military presence will now turn into a major Russian political commitment. Furthermore, not only will Tartus continue to serve a fairly limited but not irrelevant role for the Russian Navy, the airbase in Latakia will become a hub of Russian military operations and, in effect, a forward operating base for the Black Sea Fleet.

    Conclusion: a game changer after all?

    Yes. But not because of some Russian military move. Consider this: for the United States the main purpose of Daesh was to overthrow Assad. Now that the US is declaring that they "don't plan to arm the Syrian rebels at the moment" and that Assad will not be overthrown, the utility of Daesh to the AngloZionist Empire has just taken a major hit. If the Empire decides that Daesh has outlived its utility and that it has now turned into a liability, then the days of Daesh are counted.

    Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid russophobes in the West are still out there (albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".

    [Oct 04, 2015] Carl Icahn Warning About the High Yield Bond Market Bubble

    Icahn predicts junk bind crash for almost a year now. that does not mean that he is wrong. But that does mean that he is a bad timer. Also he might be a buyer of CDS on junk bonds. Carl Icahn mentioned that although the short-term outlook for the energy sector is bad, the sector as a whole could make a comeback in a couple of years.
    "... In the context of the high yield bond market, activist investor Carl Icahn mentions the use of credit default swaps as a form of protection or insurance against credit events. However, he terms these products as "arcane" and implies that investors should possess sophisticated knowledge of the fixed income markets to enter that playing field. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | marketrealist.com
    May 15, 2015 | Market Realist

    Oil price nosedive could trigger a crash in the junk bond markets

    According to Sean Hanlon's December 16, 2014, article Oil's Price Decline Weighs On High Yield Debt in Forbes, US energy companies borrowed heavily using the junk bond market to finance hydraulic fracking operations. However, this occurred when oil prices were above the $100 per barrel level, resulting in an economically viable business model.

    With the nosedive in oil prices in the latter half of 2014, the ability of these energy firms to retain their profitability was called into question-including their ability to service the payments on their high-yield debt.

    ... ... ...

    As seen in the above graph, the prices of the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) declined with the fall in oil prices. With the looming uncertainty over oil prices, the times ahead are probably not bright for the high yield bond market.

    Credit default swaps and a correction in high yield bonds

    In the context of the high yield bond market, activist investor Carl Icahn mentions the use of credit default swaps as a form of protection or insurance against credit events. However, he terms these products as "arcane" and implies that investors should possess sophisticated knowledge of the fixed income markets to enter that playing field.

    Credit default swaps (or CDS) are analogous to insurance contracts. The buyer of the CDS makes periodic fixed payments to the seller of the CDS, who receives these premiums and in exchange, compensates the buyer in the event of a default involving the underlying reference entity.

    ProShares launched the ProShares CDS North American HY Credit ETF (TYTE) and the ProShares CDS Short North American HY Credit ETF (WYDE) in August 2014. Although TYTE offers investors a long exposure to North American high yield bonds, WYDE offers a short exposure to the same. For instance, investment in WYDE could hedge a portfolio of high yield bonds against a drop in prices. The decreased prices typically result from increasing defaults by energy firms due to falling oil prices.

    In the final part of this series, we'll discuss Carl Icahn's view on the energy sector. The analysis specifically focuses on the outlook for oil companies such as EOG Resources (EOG), Exxon Mobil (XOM), Phillips 66 (PSX), and Valero Energy Corporation (VLO). Phillips 66 and Valero are oil refiners, EOG Resources is independent and lacks downstream operations, and Exxon Mobil is an integrated company.

    EOG Resources has an 8.2% weight in the iShares US Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (IEO). Phillips 66 has a 7.2% weight in IEO, and Valero has a 4.9% weight in IEO. EOG is also part of the iShares US Energy ETF (IYE), with a 3.1% exposure.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Moscow and Kiev in positive mood over talks to end east Ukraine conflict

    Notable quotes:
    "... The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. ..."
    "... But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, ..."
    "... I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree? ..."
    "... Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia. ..."
    Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

    Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 20:37

    Dear, you refer to "one blonde said!". On some vague feelings, assumptions... Enough speculation about Crimea, please! Let's stick to facts! Crimea 80% of the population - Russian. Not only Pro-Russian, and ethnic Russians. Russia does not need were the little green men of Crimea! But for drunk and scared of the Ukrainian military in the Crimea, for the Wahhabis, who through the streets went to the cars with black flags for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, importing explosives and suitable for shooting on the streets, probably Yes. Crimea was similar to the Autonomous Republic, until authonomy has destroyed by abandoning the Constitution. It was abolished by the President! Crimea held a referendum for secession from Ukraine long before the coup in Ukrainein 2014 .

    Note that the Americans tried to seize Crimea under the guise of NATO exercises! Was absolutely illegal attempt to build an American military base in Crimea for the U.S. Navy landed the Marines on may 26, 2006, of which the citizens of Crimea dishonorably discharged. And during the state coup in Ukraine in the Black Sea suddenly a us warship.

    In Debaltsevo the Ukrainian neo-Nazis fought with men that were deprived of the government, the President, sovereignty, language, external management is introduced, destroyed the economy. Take away the right to life. Whose wives, parents and children every day are killed by shells from anti-aircraft weapons in schools, hospitals, shops, bus stops, fill up with planes of white phosphorus, the water is shut off and the light stopped issuing wages and pensions, imposed humanitarian blockade.

    To fight with desperate men, defending their home, or engage in rape and looting among the civilian population, where the majority of the elderly, women, children - different things.

    Sarah7 -> Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:58

    One more thing:

    Actually, the first photograph accompanying this piece by Shaun Walker shows Poroshenko looking particularly angry and miserable -- if looks could kill, Merkel would be in big trouble!

    That said, in the same photo, Putin appears calm, sanguine, and in a very 'positive mood' compared to his counterparts. Go figure.

    Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:49

    Moscow and Kiev in 'positive mood' over talks to end east Ukraine conflict

    If you look at the photographs that accompany the following piece, Poroshenko does not appear to be in a 'positive mood' over the recent meeting of the Normandy Four, and Merkel looks like she is going to spit nails. Perhaps this explains their dour faces:

    Checkmate!

    3 October 2015

    Finally the Penny Drops: Merkel Admits Crimea is Part of Russia
    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20151003/1027980523/merkel-admits-crimea-is-part-of-russia.html

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the first time publically accepted the fact that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and that the peninsula will stay as part of Russia, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma, said on his Twitter account, according to Gazeta.ru. (Emphasis added)

    "Important: After a meeting in Paris, Merkel for the first time admitted that Crimea won't return to Ukraine. That means the crisis is only about the east of the country," Pushkov wrote. (Emphasis added)

    The Normandy Four talks on Ukraine reconciliation concluded in Paris on Friday.

    The leaders of the Normandy Quartet countries managed to agree on the procedure of the withdrawal of heavy weapons in eastern Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.

    "We were able to agree on the withdrawal of heavy weapons," Merkel said following the Normandy Four talks in Paris. "There is hope for progress. We are moving toward each other."

    On the whole, the results of Friday's Normandy Four talks in Paris set a positive tone, Angela Merkel said, adding that she was satisfied with what the participants achieved during the meeting.

    The Normandy Four are planning to meet for a followup in November, presumably to keep Poroshenko in compliance and moving head with the implementation of Minsk II.

    PS -- It was the evil Putin wot done it!

    HollyOldDog -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 18:55

    The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. This mess is for Ukraine alone to sort out and Mikheil Saakashvilli is not the man for the job - his corruption runs far to deep for any action that is more than cosmetic.

    BMWAlbert -> Елена Соловьева 3 Oct 2015 18:38

    IDK the number of Russian nationals in the Donbas forces, something between 1-10K as a rough guess, these are not formal formations (some are organized at the battalion level as all-Russian units, just an observation from the Russian language news coverage of the closing of Debaltsevo earlier this year, e.g. so called "Khan" battalion, this is just televised news, but there must be more than one such unit, hence the estimate-there are enough weapons captures from UAF in the earlier battles also to arm a small army in Donbas, but this does not rule-out direct supplies (I would imagine something low-key and NOT the big white convoys), this would be the natural minimal level of support I would infer/expect in this case and seems a fair inference. I am not replicating mindless statements from ATO leaders, and remember that Rada twice tried

    Crimea was an autonomous region in UA and with rights to hold a referendum under the early 2014 UA Constitution and an earlier legal attempt in 1993 was surprised, also that RU had large forces already legally stationed in Crimea/Krim according to the Kharkov treaty and that in some cases, civic authority, Sebastopol by the RU naval command being a case in point-a continuation of old practices. My sense from personal friends is that among the young, and old generally, the pro-RU sentiment in Krim is strong (incl. one girl with whom I have lost contact, who works there in what is now RU, due to current conditions).

    But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, this includes well-educated people, ibcl. in one case (a blonde) the desire to 'exterminate' the Russians-but I would not count the opinions in Donbas as only those enduring the bombardments, there are also many refugees, many in RU itself of course, whose opinions vary from those expressed sometimes here with all due respect, so yes it is complicated.


    HollyOldDog -> William Snowden 3 Oct 2015 18:13

    Putin wants Ukraine to succeed but the only way it can do this is for the Ukrainian citizens to take over its government and boot out the Self-serving Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have their place in Ukraine but that is to stay out from forming Government decisions and confine their endeavors to modernizing and improving the infrastructure of Ukraine Industrial base which would improve the finance and conditions for all of Ukrainian citizens. It's going to be a difficult road but Russia and the EU can help, though clinging on to the influences of the USA would surely be a retrograde step.

    Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 18:07

    What's so complicated? The war is real or not! Evidence of finding the 200 000 Russian soldiers in Lugansk and Donbass, or have or not! Crimea after the collapse of the USSR was a disputed territory, which Ukraine annexed unilaterally, without considering the opinion of the Russian Federation and, more IMPORTANTLY, against the wishes of the citizens of the Crimean Republic, which, actually, was constitutional and presidential, while Ukraine did not destroy this status! It is Ukraine annexed the Crimean Republic, and the Russian city Sevastopol, which is in the Republic even geographically not part of, Mr. specialist on Ukraine! Demarcation implies the absence of territorial disputes. And, by the way! Another monstrous stupidity of your media! Poor Ukraine after the coup d'état, followed by the external management of the country by the EU and the US are terrorized by the evil Russian, because it is weak and has no nuclear weapons because of the Treaty of non-aggression from the Russian Federation? Really? Ukraine did not pay its portion of external debt of the USSR and the Russian Empire, therefore, is not the successor,and cannot claim to nuclear power status! Ukraine is a priori not have a right to this weapon, because it was not the owner initially, as the successor! The coup in Kiev was held under the slogan "Cut all Russians!", which in Ukraine 2 years ago, it was a few million, and that is what they are doing throughout the Ukraine, especially in Eastern Ukraine and was planning to do in Crimea. The burning of people in Odessa - a vivid example.

    Beckow -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 17:11

    You cannot survey people in the middle of a civil conflict on how much they like or dislike what is described as the "enemy". It simply cannot be done, the numbers are meaningless.

    Look at Ukraine's economy and you will see the future of this conflict. The living standards are down so low that all else will become meaningless - people actually care about their incomes and living standard.

    Your slogans about "illegal", "privileged sphere" are not what any of this is about, they are not what people in Ukraine think about or what matters to them. But if you insist on slogans, there is one simple answer: Kosovo. West bombed Serbia, killing about a thousand civilians, to force Albanian separation in Kosovo. All talk about "international law" is kind of meaningless after that.

    Informed17 -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 15:53

    I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree?

    Manolo Torres -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 15:49

    I have condemned the actions of the Russian government in chechnya many times, if you are going to speak about anyones hypocrisy, you should at least know with whom are you talking.

    Manolo Torres
    9 Sep 2014 09:42
    0 Recommend
    Look, I already replied, I wasn´t careful with my question. Of course the Russians have committed many abuses, namely the war in Chechnya. I also explained the differences between that war and the wars by US/NATO that have simply no justification on grounds of self defense.


    My concern with human life was shown by my condemnation of every violent act: the massacre in Odessa, the airstrikes and shelling that killed thousands in Ukraine, the war in Iraq and Syria, the war in Chechnya or the neo-nazi movement inside Russia (as we were discussing yesterday before you started shouting and got overwhelmed by the numbers I showed you).

    As for the Ukrainians I don´t you are as stupid as to blame Putin for the Ukrainian governments shelling of residential areas. And perhaps you know that there is an investigation for MH17.

    i am not like you Rob, I am not a fanatic and I only make judgements when I think I know the facts. You are just shouting and looking every time more ridiculous.

    A good start for you would be to say that you stand corrected for the Amnesty report. Do it, I have done it, feels good.

    Can I do anything else for you?

    Laurence Johnson -> gimmeshoes 3 Oct 2015 14:15

    Poroshenko is in a bit of a legal quagmire as his government has not at any stage controlled the entire nation and its borders at any time. His current claim on Eastern Ukraine in legal terms is more a wish list than a legal document of fact.

    His only path is partition to legalise his government to govern what they have today, or to negotiate the handing over of East Ukraine to his governments control in order that he can legitimately govern the entire nation and its borders. An invasion of East Ukraine is probably not going to work legally, or on a more practical basis.

    Informed17 -> Worried9876 3 Oct 2015 14:10

    This is too categorical. Chocolate man wants anything that allows him to keep cashing in on his "president" title. The only thing that's unacceptable to him is if his masters try to prevent his thievery. Then he is likely to become angry and unpredictable. Might even remember about Ukraine, although that's highly unlikely.

    elias_ 3 Oct 2015 14:04

    Looks to me like Putin wins. Crimea in the bag, the eastern regions stay in Ukraine with enough clout to prevent nato membership and keep the nazis at bay. And stupid EU and US get to pay the bill for reconstruction. The sanctions hurt all sides but are forcing much needed reforms in his country, he may even become a net exporter of food products instead of importing from the eu. He gets a refund for the Mistrals and makes the poodle French look untrustworthy. Oh well, serves the sneaky bastards right (you know who i mean "fuxx the eu").

    Laurence Johnson -> Alexzero 3 Oct 2015 14:03

    Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia.

    [Oct 03, 2015] The Mind of Mr. Putin By Patrick J. Buchanan

    October 02, 2015 | Information Clearing House

    ...Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.

    • Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces for control of Kunduz. Only 10,000 U.S. troops still in that ravaged country prevent the Taliban's triumphal return to power.
    • A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar's capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us - to Tehran. The cost to Iraqis of their "liberation"? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.
    • How has Libya fared since we "liberated" that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist "Libya Dawn" in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt's dictator.
    • Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world. Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a "humanitarian catastrophe." "Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years," said the international head of the Red Cross on his return. On Monday, the wedding party of a Houthi fighter was struck by air-launched missiles with 130 guests dead. Did we help to produce that?

    What does Putin see as the ideological root of these disasters?

    "After the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think they were strong and exceptional, they knew better."

    Then, adopting policies "based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity," this "single center of domination," the United States, began to export "so-called democratic" revolutions.

    How did it all turn out? Says Putin:

    "An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life."

    Is Putin wrong in his depiction of what happened to the Middle East after we plunged in? Or does his summary of what American interventions have wrought echo the warnings made against them for years by American dissenters?

    Putin concept of "state sovereignty" is this: "We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the right one." The Soviet Union tried that way, said Putin, and failed. Now the Americans are trying the same thing, and they will reach the same end.

    Unlike most U.N. speeches, Putin's merits study. For he not only identifies the U.S. mindset that helped to produce the new world disorder, he identifies a primary cause of the emerging second Cold War.

    To Putin, the West's exploitation of its Cold War victory to move NATO onto Russia's doorstep caused the visceral Russian recoil. The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government led straight to the violent reaction in the pro-Russian Donbas.

    What Putin seems to be saying to us is this: If America's elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America's moral imperialism.

    Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying. They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.

    There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.

    Wednesday and Thursday, Putin's forces in Syria bombed the camps of U.S.-backed rebels seeking to overthrow Assad. Putin is sending a signal: Russia is willing to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States to prevent us and our Sunni Arab and Turkish allies from dumping over Assad, which could bring ISIS to power in Damascus.

    Perhaps it is time to climb down off our ideological high horse and start respecting the vital interests of other sovereign nations, even as we protect and defend our own.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

    Mid-East Coup As Russia Pounds Militant Targets, Iran Readies Ground Invasions While Saudis Panic

    Zero Hedge
    Dutti

    Congratulations to Russia and Iran to standing up [to neocons strategy], I hope their strategy will work.

    Why can Saudi-Arabia with the approval of the western powers bomb a foreign country, Jemen, without Jemen having attacked Saudi? Of course Saudi claims they do it at the request of the president Hadi of Jemen who fled to Saudi. If that is accepted by western powers, then how would those western powers have reacted if Russia would have attacked and bombed the Ukraine, at the request of the democratically elected president Yanukovich who fled to Russia?

    I think the house of Saud is setting itself up for real bad long-term Karma or, if you prefer, the Saudis create a lot of enemies for themselves by destroying the people and their neighboring country of Jemen. Reminds me of why Americans are often times not liked in many parts of the world.

    Americans often claim that Assad is a Tyrant, a Murderer and a Dictator and that's why he must go. Why does the US not call the House of Saud by the same names and try to overthrow them? I guess because the House of Saud is an obedient servant of the US, and Assad is cooperating with a different power - Russia.

    The western mainstream media treats the Saudi atrocities in Jemen as a sideshow, while blowing up the story about Assad and demonizing him. What's the alternative to Assad?

    Let's see how other countries, Iraq and Libya, with worse Tyrants - Saddam Hussein and Ghaddafi have "developed", thanks to western intervention.

    In addition, the US is always talking about the evil Iranians, and how they took American hostages back in 1979. You don't hear much about the fact that the US staged a coup in 1953, deposed the democratically elected president Mossadegh and installed the Shah, who, just like the House of Saud became a servant for US interests. After the Iranians were finally able to get rid of the Shah who had been in power for over 25 years they understandably did not have much love left for the US. The pendulum went to the other side.

    If you look at all these facts in context, it's easy to see the hypocrisy of the US and it's western "allies".

    Lost My Shorts

    It sounds like -- we are covertly supporing ISIS while pretending to attack them, and getting huffy because Putin is really attacking them. Or wandering around like a headless chicken. Or just wasting money. Not sure.

    Crash Overide

    "Remind me ... WTF are we doing in Syria ?!"

    Trying to profit from destruction and keep control on the US civilian population through fear of boogeyman terrorists.

    Just remember, when they fail abroad, they will start chaos at home.

    Lock and load my fellow countrymen... eyes open.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Putin Checkmates Obama On New World Order WWIII

    "... Currently the movers and shakers in charge of US policy are as evil as they come, and EVERYBODY knows it. ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | YouTube

    wiz987

    You are missing one of the main issues, the whole region is unstable because of the power struggle between Sunni and Shiatt muslims.

    Sebastin Otis 15 hours ago

    +wiz987 that's correct but who created this situation? USA of course. By killing saddam hussein and muammar el gaddafi, because they didn't want to trade oil in US dollars and because of US power hungry mentality. What US governments over the past few decades did and still been doing deserves sanctions needing to be imposed on the USA for number of decades. Thanks to them the world is more unstable than ever before over the past few hundred years.

    Joe Habid

    And who started that mess? Before operation Iraqi freedom or whatever you want to call it, you know the one that was supposed to find W.M.D. in Iraq , did you ever hear of sectarian violence ? C 'mon. Let's call it what it is.

    facereplacer

    It's fantastic. How can the west say "don't get ISIS!"

    They can't. They've been scaring the crap out of everyone with phony beheadings and other nonsense. Obama and the west have done nothing. I mean, this is chess and it makes me laugh.

    StopTheMorons

    It appears that Putin gave a very straightforward interview on 60 minutes. If there is one thing honest about him it's that he doesn't pretend to be someone he's not unlike those in the US government and the media who have been working hard to vilify him.

    BITARTEN

    bombing and killing terrorists beheading people is not only correct but good

    samuski36

    I bet Obama might have thought at one point, "I could school Putin on the basketball court...maybe."
    Seriously though, great video! Many thanks for bringing us actual news and insightful comment on it. And most of all, watch your six! Telling the truth is fatally dangerous these day's!

    Mike Paoli

    Americans are VERY EASY to deceive. They DEMAND LIES as TRUTHS are NOT as entertaining. They WORSHIP actors(IMPOSTORS). This is above all the scariest aspect of the entire state of affairs. Think about it! They PREFER an IMPOSTOR pretending to be somebody as opposed to the REAL person. Even though there is a ton of film with the REAL person they PREFER an IMPOSTOR and a STUPID movie.

    666sigma

    Obama is a putz. He backed ISIS in Syria. Those are his so called moderates. Putin called him out.

    The sad thing is that Putin told the truth and our government lied. This is unbelievable. Fucking Russia is telling the truth and our government is lying. Putin is telling the truth and our community organizer is no different than a neocon?

    I don't see how our douche bag in chief can save face.

    Barry N

    First point...Obama is not a World Leader. Russia and China have had enough of the US back CIA criminal actions.
    I as a American applaud Putin in showing Obama what a idiot he is. The world does not need the CIA and all its corruption.

    Goat Culler

    Right on Luke! the media here in New Zealand is feeding Kiwis fake! American crap demonising Russia.This move is a must to save Syria and its People. Nice! Move Russia and co ;-)

    robert alexander ho 13 hours ago

    Bravo.....the story of 9/11 or XIIX has to be reopened to put all these murderous criminals in jail. The NWO is essentially the wish to return to the Old world of imperialist domination of the same greedy players of the western alliances. The western alliances economies are in shambles and bankrupt , the societies are morally bankrupt and totally inept!

    hal "huh" us

    israel is controlling isis to destabilise the middle east, because israel wants to expand its borders into iraq, palestine, syria, etc.

    R Lionheart

    Thank you for helping us understand. Why is there such a western obsession with Assad? He is no more of a despot than King Salman or Porky Pigshanko or Obama. It is OK for Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinian, its OK for Porky Pig to murder Ukrainian children, its OK for Salman to murder wedding goers in Yemen - but oh my oh my it is not OK for Assad to defend his own government from rebels Assad must go - if Assad must go then Porky pig, Salman, O-bomb-a, Netanyahu, and all the other murdering pigs must also go!

    ArcesitorGmail

    I wish more Americans would understand that those in our governments who control the military industrial complex, Central Banking Systems and Multinational Corporations, to name a few, are no longer interested in representing of the PEOPLE of America. The game now and for the last 60 to 100 years has been "What political regime can we install?" "What government can we overthrow?" "What internal rebellion can we fund and arm?" to force those leaders of a sovereign nation that does not wish to buy our goods, drill our oil, borrow our money, distribute our corporate law to its population at the expense of its population.

    While at the same time, convincing us at home, with the help of our muzzled, biased corporately owned media that this is all being done in the name of "National Security" or "The Interests of our Nation and Its Allies".

    Horrific things are being done in our name. For power, money, commodity and ego. Please, everyone. Push the conversation.

    John Mastroligulano

    I know what you are saying but you do realize that they are part of the same exact Worldwide Oligarchy they only pretend to be at odds to thin the herd. If they didn't pretend to be enemies then how else would they be able to manipulate enough of the people into attacking one another for what they set in motion or sit back & allow to happen while controlling the mechanism's of check/balance.

    rockslyde1776

    Love Putin or hate him, it's interesting to watch the process of someone who knows what they're doing. In contrast to Berrie.

    Ryan Richard
    Migrant Crisis & Syria War Fueled By Competing Gas Pipelines (Link 1) http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/ [Wikileaks revelations of US State Department leaks that show plans to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2006. The leaks reveal that these plans were given to the US directly from the Israeli government and would be formalized through instigating civil strife and sectarianism through partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and even Egypt to break down the power structure in Syria to weaken Iran and Hezbolla] (Link 2) Assange on 'US Empire,' Assad govt overthrow plans & new book 'The WikiLeaks Files' (EXCLUSIVE) http://www.rt.com/news/314852-assange-wikileaks-us-syria/ Assange: "...That plan was to use a number of different factors to create paranoia within the Syrian government; to push it to overreact, to make it fear there's a coup...so in theory it says 'We have a problem with Islamic extremists crossing over the border with Iraq, and we're taking actions against them to take this information and make the Syrian government look weak, the fact that it is dealing with Islamic extremists at all.'"

    sgdeluxedoc

    OK nobody is calling Putin a saint. But lately Russia has been , morally, on the right side every time. Of course they've made mistakes. So did the US in WW2.

    Currently the movers and shakers in charge of US policy are as evil as they come, and EVERYBODY knows it. Ain't nothin anybody can do about it.

    And I don't think Putin considered his checkmate on B.H.O. such a coup, considering how stupid his opposition is.. Lastly, ain't no way, nohow, that the zionists are wagging Putin's tail. Russia has a long history of not letting them (the ultra-zionists) play them.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Germany to supply Ferguson insurgents in the US with weapons

    "... Translator's note: I like satire: just change a few words, and this could be your newspaper, or some pages in the Congressional Record. Satire actually helps one realize what is going on. ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | fortruss.blogspot.be

    October 1, 2015 | Fort Russ

    Translated from German by Tom Winter

    Translator's note: I like satire: just change a few words, and this could be your newspaper, or some pages in the Congressional Record. Satire actually helps one realize what is going on.

    The Federal government of Germany wants to supply weapons to insurgents in the US.

    "The red line has been crossed!" With these words, a visibly frayed Foreign Minister Steinmeier appeared this morning before the press. "With the murder of yet another black activist, the Obama regime once again shows its ugly head!". Background: On August 09, the totally unarmed black civil rights activists Michael Brown was shot by police. Now on August 19, another black activist in St. Louis, not far from Ferguson, has been shot in cold blood by white policemen.

    "The world can not continue to stand idly by," Steinmeier stressed at the press conference. "Here are peaceful human rights activists protesting against heavily armed police in a profoundly racist apartheid regime."

    Therefore, the point now been reached, "in which Germany, too, must take responsibility for the oppressed peoples of the world," said Steinmeier.

    As several media have unanimously reported, the government is now considering supplying arms to the rebels.

    Next comes consideration what to supply in support of the rebels in Ferguson: protective vests, helmets, and night vision devices, and light infantry weapons?

    Many MPs in the government coalition feel this does not go far enough. Given that the police and National Guard are geared up with weapons of war like an army, several CDU MPs are calling for supplying the rebels with heavier munitions. "We are currently discussing the proposals," an unnamed deputy is quoted. "We cannot rule out that the weapons may end up falling into the wrong hands."

    In view of these events in the US, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen will not rule out the use of Bundeswehr soldiers. However, out of sensitivity and respect for the local activists "only colored members of the Bundeswehr would participate in such a mission."

    [Oct 03, 2015] The Tragedy of American Diplomacy by William Appleman Williams

    J. Lindner, June 7, 2004

    In the Tragedy of American Diplomacy, William Appleman Williams illustrates how America fails to honor its own principles when it approaches foreign policy. America believes in self-determination and the right to develop its own brand of democracy. Unfortunately, no other nation is afforded the luxury of self discovery. Other nations must conform to America's vision of democracy or face the terror of America?s military might. This, to Williams, is the tragedy.

    Cuba is his first case. America wanted Cuba to adhere to American visions which meant wealth for the sugar planters and their American backers. When Cuba sought its own course and threw off a repressive regime, America objected. The rift has existed ever since as no American administration will ever acknowledge Cuba's right to govern its own affairs so long as Castro is in power.
    Williams then systematically follows the years from 1898 through 1961 and paints a similar picture. It does not take the reader long to get the idea and carry the argument beyond Williams' parameters and show that everything from Grenada to Lebanon to Afghanistan to Iraq can be shown in the same light. American puppet governments are not granting freedom and democracy to their constituents as much as they are part of a ruling class dominated by the business interests that exploit their workforce and deny requests for reform until the entire population is ripe for rebellion (remember the Shah of Iran). One wonders if the Saudi government is the next great western ally to fall victim to a popular revolt of Muslim fundamentalists.

    Williams is a master of detail and works his arguments creatively in an entertaining fashion. Neoconservatives of today will have the same objections as their predecessors from the 1950s in acknowledging Williams as a valid author. But Williams makes a strong case and if more people were exposed to his writing, our country might even find a way to avoid the same pitfalls. A Saudi revolution would disrupt oil markets and jeopardize world economies. Perhaps if some thought is put into policy such a scenario is avoidable and preventable. If people are willing to give Williams a chance American foreign policy might eventually reflect a broader American vision rather than the interests of a few.

    Karun Mukherji, April 8, 2006

    Erudite, splendidly crafted, fine piece of scholarhip

    Williams book explores paradoxical nature of US Foreign Policy.

    Firstly author refutes orthodox view that accidental, inadvertent turn of events transformed America into a global power. Williams has argued market forces unleashed by private free enterprise economy dictated the growth of American power; it has also molded country's foreign policy and continues to do so. To comprehend this fully one has to understand the intricacies of Capitalism.

    It goes without saying that Capitalism carries within it the seed of self destruction. Late 19th century American economy was convulsed by frequent bouts of economic depression which led to wide spread social unrest. Home markets saturated with goods which people find difficult to absorb as they had only limited purchasing power. 'Frontier' had close down and country's leading intellectuals [William Jackson Turner ,Brooke Adams, Alfred Thayer Mahan] frantically called for overseas expansion avert an impending economic doom

    Thus economic considerations compelled successive American Presidents [Grover Clevland, William Mckinley, Thedore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson] to remake the world in America's image. Unfortunately this policy boomeranged because Afro ,Asian, Latin American world refused to share American view.

    Iniquitous, unfair trade practised by US helped Washington to enrich in detriment to welfare of latter economies. This was closely followed by American tendency to externalise evil. It posits the view that other nations have a stake in America's continued, prosperous existence. This preposterous notion, according to the author, has been the starting point America's troubles. Actually problem lay in fundamental nature of capitalist economy. Attempts to reverse this trend triggered counter revolutionary wars in Asia, Latin America. The above feature forms essence of this book; this idea continues to permeate the book.

    Williams provide fresh interpretation on the onset of Cold War. He holds Truman administration accountable for the coming of iron curtain in Eastern Europe. Firstly in immediate postwar years US taking advantage of its economic might tried to extend its 'open door' policy into Eastern Europe. Further exploiting atomic monopoly the President tried to reverse political order which emerged in areas under Soviet control.

    We may pause here try to establish reasons behind America's post war hostility toward Soviet Union. Unlike Britain which during the days of the empire could invest and dominate worldwide, America upon the end of World War II inherited a divided world.

    Soviet economy with its emphasis on industrial self sufficiency apart from shutting the door US investment was in the process of curtailing imports substantially. With the success of Communist revolution 1/3rd of world's population had wrenched free from capitalist sphere influence. With so much production capacity lying idle, US by the end of World War II was haunted by a spectre of another depression. Challenge before America -- challenges her still-wheather market will shrink.

    Marshall plan leading to massive post war reconstruction Western Europe must be seen from this angle. Rebuilding war-ravaged economies stimulated economic growth in US. Thus in my opinion Marshall plan must not be construed as a manifestation of American altruism; it was motivated by economic self interest.

    Author's stress upon market forces dictating the American destiny broadly agrees with Marxian interpretation of History. Perhaps this was reason why Williams was dubbed Marxist, Stalinist by conservative, liberal elite of his country. This book deserves to be read by those who believe current anti American sentiment sweeping the world stems from sheer envy for American prosperity.

    Tim, December 31, 2009

    Creates a clear path through 20th century American history

    The fact that this book has become a classic is hardly debatable. Williams' examination of American foreign policy is now in its fourth printing with this 50th anniversary edition. The book takes a detailed look at "The Open Door Policy" which evolved out The Open Door Notes of the late 19th century. It shows that, for better or worse, American Capitalism had to find and constantly expand into foreign markets in order for there to be freedom and prosperity at home.

    Williams argues that not only American leaders but the general population internalized this belief so deeply that it was considered the very basis of morality in the world. Any other way of looking at society was believed to be simply wrong, and in fact, evil. Williams undoubtedly knew that this way of looking at Capitalism, and the world at large, coincided directly with the predictions of Marx concerning Capitalism's globalization. The Policy of the Open Door can be used to explain the objectives of every foreign military excursion we have undertaken since the end of the 1800's.

    It continues to this day in our oil-hungry drive for control of the nations in the Middle East and South Asia. It creates real and imagined enemies that have accounted for the build up of America's military might over the years. Overall I found this examination of American foreign policy to be quite satisfactory and rational in explaining the successes and failures of American actions over the years. Where I would criticize Williams is in his characterization of America's leaders having a truly benevolent anti-colonial attitude towards the lesser nations in which America invested and set up "trade".

    Williams argued repeatedly, and the commentators in the 50th anniversary edition did as well, that the government really believed they were benefiting mankind as a whole by not only exporting America's goods, but American values, and that the only "Tragedy" was the failure of these policies. I think it a bit uncritical to state this unequivocally. To argue that American leaders (both government and civilian) did NOT know that they were exploiting nations and purposely directing the trade to benefit Americans regardless of the effect on foreigners is quite bold. I believe that the greed of Americans and the drive that is inherent in Capitalistic countries meant that these leaders knew EXACTLY what they were doing, and that they had little true regard for the welfare of nations.

    Our failure to see that there is more than one way for societies to organize themselves is certainly a problem of ignorance in American culture, and Williams is right to argue that blaming America's leaders becomes a scapegoat. Americans need to change themselves first and realize the error of their ways...that it will cause destruction at home and abroad...before we will see any change in leadership and our destructive policies.

    However, the American empire is really not that different than others in history. The drive for power becomes all consuming, and ultimately leads to disregard for humanity...unless that humanity happens to be at the top of the American food chain.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Obama says Russian strategy in Syria is 'recipe for disaster'

    That's Shaun Walker, nut the point of view he expresses are point of view of the US government.
    Oct 03, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

    Russia's failure to distinguish between Islamic State fighters and moderate opposition forces battling against Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, is a "recipe for disaster," Barack Obama has said, as more evidence emerged that Moscow is targeting anti-regime rebels and not just Isis.

    The US president said his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, "doesn't distinguish between Isil [Isis] and a moderate Sunni opposition that wants to see Mr Assad go. From their perspective, they're all terrorists. And that's a recipe for disaster."

    ... ... ...

    Moscow's strategy appears to be to mainly attack central and north-western Syria, areas that form the gateway to Damascus and the coast. But Russian planes also bombed targets west of Raqqa, the capital of Isis's self-proclaimed caliphate – apparently the first time likely Isis positions have been hit.

    Alexei Pushkov, a top Russian foreign affairs official, told French radio he believed the air campaign could last about three to four months. He also hit out at western criticism, tweeting: "The US is criticizing Russia for 'lack of selectivity in our targets' in Syria. So what stopped them from picking the right targets over a whole year, rather than just pointlessly bombing the desert?!"

    [Oct 03, 2015] Huge Carl Icahn Energy Purchases Highlight Recent Insider Buying

    "... Cheniere Energy Inc. (NYSE: LNG) was the clear highlight of the week. This liquefied natural gas player had a very high-profile buyer step up to the plate more than once. Activist investor and Wall Street legend Carl Icahn bought a gigantic amount of the company's stock. ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | 24-7 Wall St.

    We cover insider buying every week at 24/7 Wall St., and we like to remind our readers that while insider buying is usually a very positive sign, it is not in of itself a reason to run out and buy a stock. Sometimes insiders and 10% owners have stock purchase plans set up at intervals to add to their holdings. That aside, it still remains a positive indicator.

    Cheniere Energy Inc. (NYSE: LNG) was the clear highlight of the week. This liquefied natural gas player had a very high-profile buyer step up to the plate more than once. Activist investor and Wall Street legend Carl Icahn bought a gigantic amount of the company's stock. He purchased 2,042,928 shares at a price of $47.14 apiece. The total for the buy came to a massive $96.3 million. Not stopping there, Icahn purchased an additional 1,503,313 shares at $48.30. The total for second buy was a whopping $72.6 million.

    ALSO READ: September Worst Month in History for Energy MLPs: 3 Bargains Right Now

    Oddly enough, as Icahn was buying millions of shares of Cheniere Energy, the CEO of the company was selling. He parted with a total of 100,000 shares at between $46.25 and $50.42 per share. The total for the sale came to $4.8 million. It was also the only one major company that reported insider selling last week. Cheniere shares ended trading on Friday at $50.50, and it is pretty easy to assume that Icahn's high-profile purchase was viewed as very positive.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Oil Tanker Rates Soar Above $100,000 a Day as China Hiring Jumps

    Oct 03, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    The world's biggest crude oil tankers earned more than $100,000 a day for the first time since 2008, amid speculation that a surge in Chinese bookings is curbing the number that are left available for charter.

    Ships hauling 2 million barrel cargoes of Saudi Arabian crude to Japan, a benchmark route, earned $104,256 a day, a level last seen in July 2008, according to data on Friday from the Baltic Exchange in London. The rate was a 13 percent gain from Thursday.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Shale High depletion rates in Bakken

    "... Roughly the US will need more than 9,000 wells at more than $50 billion to counterbalance the declines. ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    "... Sooner or later, you'd realize that Shale is an industry of diminishing returns. In plain terms, a temporary bubble waiting to burst thanks to depletion. SEST? Enjoy. But then, we've warned you. ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | www.oil-price.net

    As you can see, Bakken is the star of the region. So, who wants to point that the Emperor has no clothes? In other words, the higher-than-normal rate of depletion of fracked wells?

    Well, what is depletion? Depletion is a naturally occurring phenomenon. All non renewable resources undergo reduction over a period of time. Oil and gas aren't exempted from this equation, either

    ... ... ...

    Fracked wells age very fast. The initial production is very high so is the rate of depletion. The point is, a newly fracked well may produce 1,000 barrels a day, but this falls by sixty percent the next year, thirty five by the third and fifteen percent by the fourth. Oil companies should replace forty to forty five percent of the current production each year to maintain/increase production. For now at least, the number of wells and cost of production can keep pace with profits because of the higher oil prices. But what happens when the price comes down?

    The depletion rates will make the wells unviable and the search of oil will continue elsewhere. Roughly the US will need more than 9,000 wells at more than $50 billion to counterbalance the declines.

    ... ... ...

    Sooner or later, you'd realize that Shale is an industry of diminishing returns. In plain terms, a temporary bubble waiting to burst thanks to depletion. SEST? Enjoy. But then, we've warned you.

    [Oct 03, 2015] U.S. manufacturing barely expands in September as global growth weakens, oil drillers cut back

    Oct 03, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    New orders and production both fell sharply and a measure of hiring also declined, according to the ISM, a trade group of purchasing managers. All three measures still barely remained in expansion territory.

    U.S. manufacturers are getting hit by slower growth in China, the world's second-largest economy, and a stronger dollar, which makes U.S. goods more expensive overseas. The 15 per cent rise in the dollar's value in the past year has also made imports cheaper compared with U.S.-made goods. Oil and gas drillers are also cutting back on their orders for steel pipe and other equipment in the wake of sharply lower oil prices.

    [Oct 03, 2015] What Blows Up First Part 5 Shale Oil Junk Bonds

    Prediction "The weakest of these companies will default in the coming year, and if oil prices fall another $10, perhaps most of these companies will default. " definitely proved to be false. But it looks like junk bond problem does exist. see Icahn warning Spe 26, 2015. Actually he issues similar varning in Ocr 2014 -- Carl Icahn says high-yield 'junk' bond market in a bubble - CNBC Reuters
    "... As for what might cause the junk market to crack, one prime candidate is the oil industry. The shale boom has led a lot of energy companies to ramp up production using other people's money, much of which is coming from junk bonds. Now, with oil down from $100/bbl to around $80, the nice fat coverage ratios on these bonds are looking disturbingly skinny. This chart shows the divergence between overall junk spreads and energy-sector junk spreads. ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | November 18, 2014

    One of the surest signs that a bubble is about to burst is junk bonds behaving like respectable paper. That is, their yields drop to mid-single digits, they start appearing with liberal loan covenants that display a high degree of trust in the issuer, and they start reporting really low default rates that lead the gullible to view them as "safe". So everyone from pension funds to retirees start loading up in the expectation of banking an extra few points of yield with minimal risk.

    This pretty much sums up today's fixed income world. And if past is prologue, soon to come will be a brutally rude awakening. Most of the following charts are from a long, very well-done cautionary article by Nottingham Advisors' Lawrence Whistler:

    Junk yield premiums over US Treasuries are back down to housing bubble levels...

    ... ... ....

    As for what might cause the junk market to crack, one prime candidate is the oil industry. The shale boom has led a lot of energy companies to ramp up production using other people's money, much of which is coming from junk bonds. Now, with oil down from $100/bbl to around $80, the nice fat coverage ratios on these bonds are looking disturbingly skinny. This chart shows the divergence between overall junk spreads and energy-sector junk spreads.

    ... ... ...

    The weakest of these companies will default in the coming year, and if oil prices fall another $10, perhaps most of these companies will default. This will of course be dismissed as a localized disturbance unlikely to spread to the broader economy - which is exactly what they said about subprime mortgages last time around.

    Bruce C

    The whole "shale oil" theme is a "scam". The original investors fell for the very same thing that continues to be rehashed, so they engineered a way to unload it onto the "relatively dumb" money. That's where we are now. After those new INSIDE investors/suckers realized that projected resources were not the same as extractable ones (at certain price levels) and that current production rates were subject to (downward) change (because the whole process is basically insane and extreme) it only makes sense that more funding could only be obtained by issuing bonds (equity was extracted in the "first round" when new wells geysered, etc.)

    But don't laugh too hard, yet. Between a totally foolish and pathetic Congress, a totally full of shit President, a desperate national central bank, and "TBTF" philosophy in general, this construct may well be supported way beyond its "natural" life.

    History is a fascinating spectrum of human nature. There doesn't seem to be any limits to the lows or the highs, and especially the durations of effort and "pragmatism" to advance certain agendas and IDEALS. That's not always "good" or "bad", and it is definitely hard to know in real time.

    socalbeachdude

    John, you are 100% correct in your article, particularly with your conclusion that this "will of course be dismissed as a localized disturbance unlikely to spread to the broader economy - which is exactly what they said about subprime mortgages last time around."

    Frank DiGiovanni

    Funny.. Your website is about the demise of the dollar.. Than its about oil stocks who have plunged along with oil due to a strong dollar
    .. Seems you are just looking for negatives..

    digriff > Frank DiGiovanni

    While you are assuming the strong dollar is the cause of the oil prices I would say "the last guy to drown in the pool is technically the best swimmer (dollar) but did still drown in the end".

    Frank DiGiovanni > digriff

    Point is .. You have been complete incorrect on the dollar.. Then write negatively on oil.. You are just a negative person.. Currency value is all relative to other currency; have to have winners and losers.. Not everybody drowns. You seem foolish with such a comment..

    [Oct 02, 2015] The pretense that it was a Russian invasion in Donetsk is exactly that, a pretense.

    At fist I thought that Twaddleradar, member since Aug 9, 2015A is a new NATObot. It it looks like he is a regular Russophob... Still amazingly prolific spamming the whole discussion. It's definitly not enough for him to state his point of view and voice objection. Such commenting incontinence is very disruptive in Web forums.
    Notable quotes:
    "... WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit. ..."
    "... The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. ..."
    "... Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much. ..."
    Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

    ID075732 2 Oct 2015 22:51

    Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    This old chestnut again... Evidence please of this sweeping claim?

    No mention of Putin drafting the Minsk agreement, this is what happened. Then presenting it as a road map for a resolution to the Ukrainian Civil war? As I recall it was Merkell and Holland who rushed to Moscow in February to meet with Putin and thrash out a solution which was then presented to Poroshenko.

    As the USA is now in an election cycle and with the Syrian War on Isis takes centre stage with Russian involvement, it looks like the their sock puppet, Petro Poroshenko has been hung out to dry. Finally being told to get back in his box... for now, probably as no more funds via the IMF will be directed into this proxi-conflict if it continues (well they were breaking their own rules giving Ukraine money when it's at war with itself).

    Finally, this made me smile...

    It has been a busy diplomatic week for Putin, who has not been a frequent guest in western capitals over the past year

    Actually Putin has had a very busy diplomatic year building international partnerships across Asia and the BRIC's, Trade agreements with China and Saudi Arabian investment into Russia. The Silk Route project and much more. It seems to me some of the Graun's journalists should get out more, like Putin has been doing!

    PrinceEdward -> Twaddleradar 2 Oct 2015 21:12

    Meanwhile every Ukrainian male is so full of patriotism, there is no need for a 5 draft rounds in Ukraine because they're flooding with so many volunteers, they turn them away. Stories of parents paying $1000 to get their kids out of the draft, or countless thousands of 20-something Ukrainians running away to Russia and Poland to get student visas, is just propaganda.

    MrJohnsonJr 2 Oct 2015 21:07

    Ukraine has a fucking nerve to require a diplomatic effort to have it explained to them what a murderous losers the turned out to be and that another of their "revolutions" brought nothing but a major waste of human life and EU and Russian taxpayer money.

    KriticalThinkingUK 2 Oct 2015 20:39

    Its great isnt it what can be achieved when Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine get together for serious negotiations. Just like in Minsk 1 and 2 when the same group first established peace in Ukraine, behind the backs of the USA and UK who were pointedly not invited to those talks either.

    What is the key to this progress? Simple. Dont invite the rightwing cold war loonies to attend. Keep them out at all costs. That is to say exclude from all talks USA, UK, NATO, Poland and the rest of the crazy warmongers who have worked so hard to encourage conflict.

    If these negotiations are successful expect further progress over the next decade in other spheres between Germany and Russia. In fact objectively by all measures it is in the long term interests, both economic and political, for these two major European powers to co-operate as natural trading partners....the US warmongers worst nightmare!

    Interesting times................

    Mazuka 2 Oct 2015 20:35

    " Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."

    WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit.

    NotYetGivenUp -> HHeLiBe 2 Oct 2015 19:18

    You confuse Crimea, which voted for secession after Russian forces ensured Kiev military didn't engae in anti-secessionist reprisals (as stated by Putin), with East Ukraine, in which Kiev generals admitted they were fighting Donbass forces, not Russian forces.

    The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. But any honest appraisal of the facts on the ground, through observation of events as they happened, show that the rejection of the Kievan coup was by the people of Donbass, and is a popular rejection, not the nonsense Russian invasion peddled by the media in the west.

    Mr Russian 2 Oct 2015 19:13

    The compromise plan would involve the Ukrainian parliament passing a law stating these elections were indeed legal, but they would be organised by the rebels.

    Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much.

    [Oct 02, 2015] EIA's Latest Petroleum Report Yields Few Surprises

    "... If the government approves the planned tax hike, investments could slump by 50 percent and total oil production drop by 100 million metric tons over next three years, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in an interview to state TV Friday. ..."
    Oct 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    ... ... ...

    I took the Weekly Energy Review and averaged it into monthly average. As you can see it differs greatly from both the Monthly Energy Review and the Petroleum Supply Monthly. However for last July and August it agrees pretty closely with the Monthly Energy Review. And it says [USA] production dropped just over 200,000 barrels per day from August to September.

    This is the weekly data, since December from the Weekly Petroleum Status Report. It has U.S. production dropping every month since June.

    ... ... ...

    I thought the below article said a lot about Russia.

    Russian Oil Producers Head for Tax Showdown Amid Output Warnings

    Russia's Energy Ministry estimated last week that oil output would be stable until 2035 at a level of about 525 million metric tons a year, or 10.5 million barrels a day, as investment in new projects offset declines at older fields. If the government approves the planned tax hike, investments could slump by 50 percent and total oil production drop by 100 million metric tons over next three years, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in an interview to state TV Friday.

    "In a lower capex environment, the output decline at mature Russian fields may reach some 5 percent already next year," Alexander Nazarov, oil and gas analyst at OAO Gazprombank, said by phone. "New projects won't be able to cushion the total decline."

    They are saying that if they get enough investment in new projects to offset declines in their old fields, then they can keep production flat for the next 20 years. Otherwise they are headed lower. Their old fields will be declining at about half a million barrels per year. I don't think even if they do get the tax breaks they can come up with that much new oil. And most certainly they cannot do it for 20 years.


    [Oct 02, 2015] This is a War – pure and simple. The Global Informational War.

    Lyttenburgh, October 2, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    The fact that Mark Adomanis have completely devolved into shit (there is no other words to describe the last couple of his articles for his newest haunt – the "Russia! Magazine") had been the last straw for me. I realized once and for all that all those journos, op-ed authors, analytics and – most of all – legions of opinionated and well informed commenters (read – edgy teens and/or ignorant self-absorbed ignorant morons). I'm talking about the Western segment of the Net – knew that EuroUkrs and Russian Liberasts active in the Net are a lost cause and evolutionary dead-end long time ago. It's the citizens of the supposedly "Free World" sprouting lies, repeating them and then eagerly believing them – 'cause that's what they want to hear to confirm their long established biases – who were re-evaluated by me.

    There is hardly any dialog possible or even exchange of opinions – not to mention this absolutely teeny-weeny and unimportant thing like actually listening to your opponents arguments and facts.

    This is a War – pure and simple. The Global Informational War.

    Reading some comments and articles made me realize (deep-deep inside) that Stalin's methods while dealing with the Enemies were way too humane and ineffective. Oh, no-no! Nope! Only Ivan Grozny – only hardcore! I still find morbidly amusing how Ivan IV executed either some monks or the dyak of the Posolskiy prikaz's who've screwed up big time by ordering them to be tied up to a powder keg and then blown up. And let's not forget that czar Ivan was most prolific writer of letters and perfected the now much valued art of trolling, dissing and flaming his opponents nearly 450 years ago!

    I won't wax for a long time about any of such articles – I'll just comment on one of them which represent a true quintessence of the "Modern Western Journalism" ™.

    Russian Airstrikes in Syria Could Last Four Months, Officials Say

    Yes – this is The Vice News, a №1 choice for any opinionated and conscientious edgy teens, hipsters, San-Franciscan barefooters and Hikkies around the world when they want to learn about the world at large. For me – I think that the name is aptly chosen for this disgusting excuse for the "Modern Journalism". They do embody one of the Mortal Sins nearly perfectly, namely – the Sloth.

    Article immediately plunges us into the convoluted and weed-brownies destroyed mind of the average VICE NEWS 'author':

    "Russia's airstrikes in Syria could continue for three to four months, according to the head of the lower house of the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee, as controversy continues over what Moscow's attacks are actually targeting."

    Wow! What you say – "controversial", huh? Well, I'm a silly foreigner Not From the West, and English is not my first language. So I'm gonna to recheck what this "controversial" word means. Let's try Merriam-Webster, shall we?

    "relating to or causing much discussion, disagreement, or argument: likely to produce controversy"

    Oh, that! Well – there is no "controversy" about airstrikes in Russia. Soviet Federaciy voted unanimously for that. Russians (with the exception of delegated to the very Oblivion of a small bunch of the radical "patriots", chronic "putinslivshiks" and liberasts) are totally in favor of that. Who's disagreeing the most are the Western governments and the Free and Independent Western Media ™. But in that case the word "controversial" can (and should) be applied just to about everything. Honest and free-spirited journos are refraining from doing that when it doesn't suit theig agenda.

    "Officials announced on Friday that airstrikes had been carried out for a third day in row and " that these hit 12 Islamic State (IS) targets."

    I will just leave this sentence hanging here for a while – but I will return to it soon!

    "Yet the US, which is leading its own air campaign against IS, says Moscow has been using its campaign as a pretext to hit other groups opposed to Russia's ally, President Bashar al-Assad.

    Some of the groups that have been hit are supported by countries which oppose both Assad and IS, including at least one group that received training from the CIA"

    Well, thank you VICE NEWS for this frankness and honesty! Oh, those vily Ruskies! Bombing poor and innocent "rebels", who are as pure as baby's tear!

    "Russia's air campaign in a country already being bombed by a US-led coalition of Western and Arab countries means that the Cold War superpower foes Moscow and Washington are now flying combat missions over the same country for the first time since World War II.

    Well, this is not quite true. In fact last time both Washington and Moscow flew combat missions over the same country was in… Vietnam, I think. Everybody remembers brave North Vietnamese ace Li Si Tzeen, right? ;)

    "Russian Su-34, Su-24M, and Su-25 warplanes flew 18 sorties, hitting a command post and a communications center in the province of Aleppo as well as a militant field camp in Idlib, a Defense Ministry statement said. A command post in the province of Hama was also completely destroyed, it added."

    Once again – I will just leave it here. And now this:

    "The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict with a network of sources on the ground, said IS had no presence in the western and northern areas that were struck."

    AH, YIISSSSS! Nary an article about Syria by the VICE now goes without referencing this august body of the first hand and reliable reporting of the Sacred Truth! Surely, we must trust it completely, folks! They are UK-based, after all!

    But I will still ask this nagging ugly question – what the hell is this "Syrian Observatory for the Human Rights" which VICEers are so often quote (without providing links to the actual statements, naturally)?

    Oh, you gonna love this! According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung article of 2012 this "SOHR" was the primarily source about the situation "on the ground" for all major Western propaganda outlets. The fact is… there is no such thing as "Syrian Observatory for the Human Rights". There is only one guy actually- some Osama Suleyman, living in Coventry, who have adopted the nom de plume Rami-Abdul-Rahman (http://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/rami-abdul-rahman/). According to his own words, Suleyman had been jailed 3 times in Syria for the "opposition activism" and then emigrated to Britain in 2000. In Coventry he and his wife own a clothing shop and now both of them are British naturalized citizens.

    In short – the sort of people who absolutely 100500% can keep their arms on the pulse of the current events taking place in Syria and report with absolute accuracy only the Truth. Yay!

    Well, as for the other claims, about "poor kids bombed by Ruskies", I'll just leave this picture here:

    Also, as you have probably noticed by now, when the VICEers had to quote despicable Russian sources they all too often use such terms as "they claimed", "they stated" and "according to them". So we know from the starters – we should not trust them! They Russians! But is the source is some brave (and, doubtlessly, pro Western/Democracy/Moderate Islamist) they are to be trusted – they "say" and "tell". Charming fellows. Why should they lie?

    And no – As Everybody Knows ™, the West doesn't employ propaganda. True story!

    [Oct 02, 2015] Brian Friel Irelands great theatrical explorer

    Oct 02, 2015 | The Guardian

    On top of his original work, Friel did a beautiful adaptation of Turgenev's Fathers and Sons, translated most of Chekhov's major plays and dramatised many of his short stories. He was always understandably in thrall to the Russian master. But his great achievement was that, in a vast variety of plays, he explored the condition of Ireland and embodied the idea of theatre as a vital secular ritual.

    IanShuttleworth 2 Oct 2015 11:35

    The first play I ever saw in a proper theatre - thanks to my then-English teacher, Robin Glendinning - was Faith Healer in the Grand Opera House in Belfast, with the godlike Donal McCann. So Friel was pretty much the start of my theatregoing life, which has been so vital to me both personally and professionally.

    BelfastJawbox , 2 Oct 2015 07:55

    I saw Friel's 'Philadelphia, Here I come' at the Lyric Theatre, Belfast, yonks ago with Liam Neeson and John Hewitt in the main roles. It was one of the most electrifying and poignant theatre experiences I've had and provided me with the enormous incentive to become a regular theatre goer.

    Friel's incisive, powerful, theatrical presence will be sorely missed.

    Ciaran Mc Aliskey 2 Oct 2015 09:30

    Saw at Dancing at Lughnasa two weeks ago in the Lyric in Belfast with Catherine McCormack. Was fantastic! Translations was my favourite text covered at A-Level also. RIP

    [Oct 02, 2015] EU has been hit by 'out of control bulldozer', says Iain Duncan Smith

    "...I too want Iain Duncan-Smith to be hit head on by an out of control bulldozer. ..."
    Oct 02, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

    Lyigushka -> OliColl 2 Oct 2015 22:29

    'Leaving the EU ".is not in the interests of the US" '
    That's my vote decided then, bye EU.


    MikeSivier 2 Oct 2015 22:18

    Why does The Guardian, along with the other news media, insist on giving credibility to this disreputable individual by continuing to publish his words?
    He has been caught lying so many times that it is frankly irresponsible to repeat anything he says - without a disclaimer - and expect to keep your own reputation intact.


    dreamer06 2 Oct 2015 22:12

    Btw, Guardian, why aren't you reporting on the story about the clashes between migrants of an Islamic faith and Christians in the refugee camps in Germany, and that Germanys Senior Police Chief, Jörg Radek, has said refugees now needed to be separated by religion because of the tensions. By all means show the positive things happening there, but hide the dark side.


    BlueBeard 2 Oct 2015 21:43

    There are lies, damned lies and Iain Duncan Smith.

    JonathanPacker 2 Oct 2015 21:48

    On the other hand when I see a photo like that (I would never let the Grauniad photographer take one of me!) it looks like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and I know it can't last.

    Encouraging.

    valdez 2 Oct 2015 21:41

    It's a sad indictment of the state of democracy, that someone widely regarded as a cretin, even his own party, can sustain a very senior position for this long.


    Allseeingguy 2 Oct 2015 21:10


    I know about 500 people have made this joke already but... ...I too want Iain Duncan-Smith to be hit head on by an out of control bulldozer.

    Hopefully while he was in a factory on a photo-op, and the bulldozer was under the control of someone who was only in that job due to workfare and couldn't reach the brake pedal due to their disability. His last words would be "You're not fit to work" to which the disabled bulldozer driver would reply "ATOS said I am" to a round of applause from his colleagues.

    That's how much I dislike IDS, I imagine things like that upon reading things like this.


    lolbayfcp 2 Oct 2015 21:01

    He must think we're barmy.

    Schengen is about the free movement of citizens of EU countries. Border checks are still allowed if the host country wants to implement them. I've been checked at every border driving from Sweden to the UK sometimes.

    The free movement of labour is about citizens of EU nations.

    Refugees won't be making EU capitals rethink their belief in free movement of labour or 'reform'. It'll make some capitals that don't want muslims & aren't taking any anyway say some things a little turd like IDS will take for support & spin despite it being meaningless for the issues that Cameron has sought reform on that pre-date this crisis & those capitals are still 100% behind.

    Jeebus....they are just such 'not clever people' & they treat us as such too but he's talking rubbish like he ALWAYS does


    PollyAnthus 2 Oct 2015 20:50

    Ian Duncan Smith is an "out of control" narcissistic psycho whose policies are killing, poor, vulnerable and disabled people. Why is this person who obviously should not be allowed anywhere near a government post in high office being featured in this newspaper? The man is dangerous and his views extreme.


    ProbablyafakeID 2 Oct 2015 20:40

    Surely a crisis in part brought about by this governments and the previous governments support of bombing places like Libya.... Or other middle eastern countries...

    It's a vile man who knowingly does wrong.... Such a man is IDS.

    This government is a threat to peace, economic stability, international security and very much your family (unless you have a couple of million in the bank of course)

    [Oct 02, 2015] This Week In Energy Don't Be Fooled By Latest U.S. Production Data

    "... Libya is producing less than 400,000 barrels per day, far below the 1.6 million barrels per day it produced during the Gaddafi era. ..."
    Oct 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    ... ISIS attacks in Libya could have a much more direct impact. On October 1, ISIS militants attacked one of Libya's main oil ports, Es Sider. The port is under the control of the recognized government and has been closed since December 2014, preventing Libya from reviving oil exports. One guard at Es Sider was reportedly killed but the attack was repelled. Still, Libya has been torn apart by conflict, and the two warring factions are at a stalemate, with a security vacuum across most of the country.

    Libya is producing less than 400,000 barrels per day, far below the 1.6 million barrels per day it produced during the Gaddafi era.

    [Oct 02, 2015] Job Growth Weakens in September

    Oct 02, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Economist's View

    Dean Baker:

    Job Growth Weakens in September:

    ... ... ...

    The average hourly wage dropped slightly in September, bringing the annual rate of growth over the last three months compared with the prior three to 2.2 percent, the same as its rate over the last year. The drop in the hourly wage, combined with the fall in hours, led to a 0.3 percent drop in the average weekly wage.

    ... ... ...

    On the whole this report suggests the labor market is considerably weaker than had been generally believed. The plunge in oil prices is taking a large toll on the formerly booming mining sector. In addition, the high dollar and the resulting trade deficit is a major hit to manufacturing. The 138,000 three-month average rate of private sector job growth is the lowest since February of 2011. The strong growth in government jobs is not likely to continue with budgets still tight. With GDP growth hovering near 2.0 percent, weaker job growth is to be expected, but it will make it much more difficult for the Federal Reserve Board to raise rates this year.

    Mike Sparrow:

    This looks like a adjustment to the ADP's 2015 mean more than anything else. That is the trouble with the birth/death model. It misses turning points and this mid-cycle correction started in January. Yet, they kept NFP elevated in many of the next 7 months outside March which was another mess(created by the weather that time). ADP was much more tamed and consistent.

    The good news is, it looks like the global economy may have bottomed in September and China's move to more consumption balance is panning out a bit, which will help growth there. Though the multi-national boom is over as investment driven growth necessarily reduces in these countries. Monthly wages also accelerated.

    anne said in reply to Mike Sparrow...

    I think the ADPs are better than the NFPs, though on a wet field field hockey in tricky and who knows which school will win. Anyway, Go ADPs! I was a midfielder.

    am said...

    Correct take off by DB that this weak report makes rate rises this year difficult to justify. Chair Yellen identified weakness in the labour market in her last report. This latest monthly labour report shows that that weakness continues.

    DB concentrates on the weak stats for the prime age groups of men and women and states that it is clearly not retirement related. If he has any analysis on older cohorts continuing in employment longer than normal and impacting on the 25-54 cohort employment rates then I would appreciate a link.


    anne said in reply to am...

    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

    January 4, 2015

    Employment-Population Ratio, 2000-2015

    2000 ( 81.5) *
    2001 ( 80.2) Bush
    2002 ( 78.8)
    2003 ( 77.9)
    2004 ( 78.1)

    2005 ( 78.5)
    2006 ( 79.2)
    2007 ( 79.5)
    2008 ( 78.5)
    2009 ( 74.5) Obama

    2010 ( 73.9)
    2011 ( 73.8)
    2012 ( 74.9)
    2013 ( 75.2)
    2014 ( 75.9)

    September

    2015 ( 76.5)

    * Employment age 25-34

    am said in reply to anne...

    Thanks again.

    It is clear that there is a structural change in employment. It may also be partly demographic but it is more than that hence I say structural.

    cm said in reply to JohnH...

    You can only offshore jobs that can actually be performed offshore. Not to deny offshoring which has been rampant in tech and various industries where services/labor can be delivered over the internet, but the probably more significant factors overall have probably been automation and computer/IT enabled "self service" i.e. pushing work off to the customer/client or just cutting the service level - e.g. "self help" web FAQs instead of printed manuals and phone support, or phone support (offshore or not) who basically read from the same documents/scripts you can search on the internet for yourself.

    cawley said in reply to JohnH...

    While I want to be cautious in thinking that I speak for anyone else, I would guess most of the QE supporters on this blog fully recognize that there are other factors besides interest rate/fed policy.

    In fact, I would hazard (tho I may be wrong) that most of them would have preferred stronger fiscal policy.

    Maybe I'm just projecting my own view which is that fiscal policy would have been preferable. Unfortunately, it was not happening. Clearly the republicans weren't in the mood - at least as long as there was a non white muslim atheist socialist communist dictator from the other party in the House f/k/a White. To me, it doesn't seem like Obama had a sufficient appetite either - altho some argue that didn't matter.

    That being the case, monetary policy was pretty much the only game in town. Is it a panacea? Hell no. Has it been enough to get the economy back to full employment? Obviously not. Is it possible there are/will be some pernicious unintended consequences? Maybe, but I would argue they are second order concerns compared to employment and probably manageable.

    But I've got no reason to think that withholding QE would have resulted in better fiscal policy - or any other change that would have improved employment. And I tend to think that the counterfactual consistent with no QE and the same fiscal policy would have been even worse employment.

    Peter K. said in reply to JohnH...

    "Strong dollar, weak dollar. It doesn't seem to matter. "

    You're just a nihilist. Facts and theory don't matter. Dean Baker:

    "In addition, the high dollar and the resulting trade deficit is a major hit to manufacturing. The 138,000 three-month average rate of private sector job growth is the lowest since February of 2011."

    New Deal democrat said in reply to pgl...

    This downshifting in the employment numbers was foreseeable, and foreseen:

    http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2015/10/told-you-so-weakening-job-growth-edition.html

    It is party strong US$, partly oil patch collapse, and part pass-through from last year's stall in housing starts.

    Fred C. Dobbs said...
    What the Terrible September Jobs Report Means for the
    Economy http://nyti.ms/1Vsx2rO via @UpshotNYT
    NYT - Neil Irwin - Oct 2

    The September jobs numbers are easily the worst of 2015 so far. They offer an unpleasant combination of a bad overall headline, bad details and bad timing, amid a volatile and unsettling time in global markets.

    The weak numbers offer some vindication for those Federal Reserve officials who preferred to hold off on interest rate increases last month to ensure the economy was on sound footing before tightening the money supply. They also give reason to worry that those wild market swings in August were less random fluctuations and more an indication that something deeper is wrong with the global economy - not so much that the stock market drop in August caused weak September jobs numbers, but that there is an underlying economic fragility causing both.

    The question now is whether it means anything - whether the United States economic expansion, which seemed set to roar into 2015, is slowing in some meaningful way. We don't know that yet, and it would be a mistake to leap to that conclusion. But that possibility became quite a bit more plausible after the September numbers popped onto economists' computer screens.

    As always, it is a useful exercise on jobs report Fridays to take a deep breath and remember that this is but one set of indicators, with a large margin of statistical error, that will be revised repeatedly. But the fact that the latest jobs numbers are consistent with another report, from the Institute of Supply Management, earlier this week that suggested United States manufacturing slowed to a standstill in September doesn't do anything to help an economy-watcher maintain that zen perspective.

    The new numbers are poor on pretty much every level. American employers added a mere 142,000 jobs last month, far below the analyst forecast of 201,000 or the average over the last year of 229,000. Revisions pushed July and August numbers down substantially. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.1 percent.

    This is usually the point in one of these stories where we would list the silver linings - the countervailing details that suggest it isn't as bad as all that. This report doesn't really offer any. Average weekly hours fell. Average hourly pay was unchanged. The number of people in the labor force fell by 350,000, and the number of people who reported having a job fell by 236,000.

    We don't even have a major snowstorm or other weird weather event to blame, nor a strike in a major industry, nor some outsize shift in the results from one category of employer that might suggest an aberration.

    The most positive angle I could come up with, with credit to the anonymous Twitter user @modestproposal1, is the possibility that with the unemployment rate scraping relatively low numbers, we should expect the rate of job creation to slow simply because the pool of potential workers is dwindling.

    That said, that theory doesn't match up with the stagnant hourly pay and data in the survey of households suggesting people may be leaving the work force. ...

    modest proposal @modestproposal1
    Remain cognizant that job growth may naturally slow as we approach full employment and will instead be interpreted as economy slowing

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
    The pool of skilled/trained
    workers dwindles; those who remain
    are simply not worth hiring?

    [Oct 02, 2015] Showdown at the UN Corral

    Antiwar.com
    If there was any doubt that Washington has learned absolutely nothing since George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, then President Obama's address to the United Nations has confirmed the world's worst fears. It was an oration that combined the most egregious lies with the wooly-minded "idealism" that has been such a destructive force in world affairs since the days of Woodrow Wilson. First, the lies:

    "The evidence is overwhelming that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It's an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack."

    The evidence is far from "overwhelming," and the only insult to human reason is the dogmatic repetition of this American talking point. As Seymour Hersh pointed out in the London Review of Books:

    "Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country's civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad."

    And this isn't the only time this President hasn't told the whole story when it comes to the findings of US intelligence agencies: that's why fifty intelligence analysts are in open revolt at his cherry-picking of intelligence in order to show we're making progress in the fight against the Islamic State. And now we have former CIA chief David Petraeus, who was forced to resign, openly coming out with a proposal that we ally with the al-Nusra Front in order to overthrow Assad and edge out the Islamic State. Shouldn't that arouse suspicion that Washington has been covertly cooperating with al-Nusra – the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda – all along, and that Petraeus merely wants to formalize his deal with the Islamist Devil?

    Here's another lie:

    "[I]n Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.

    "I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson, that point to the problem that the country now confronts, a democratically elected government struggling to provide security, armed groups in some places, extremists ruling parts of the fractured land. And so these critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look at Libya.

    "And no one's more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi.

    "But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better, if Gadhafi had been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission? It's far more likely that without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed."

    It is beyond embarrassing that the President of the United States is going before the world assembly of nations proclaiming that he and his allies prevented Libya from being "engulfed in civil war and bloodshed." What does he think is happening there at this very moment?

    The reality is that the intelligence did not show a "genocide" was in the making. Officials at the Defense Intelligence Agency – the same agency now being accused by its analysts of "cooking" intelligence to suit the administration's political agenda – could provide no empirical evidence for the assertions made by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Col. Moammar Gaddafi was planning on slaughtering civilians en masse.

    The claims made by the Obama administration that intervention was the only alternative to "genocide" were contested, at the time, by Alan J. Kuperman, writing in the Boston Globe:

    "The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially – including Zawiya, Misurata, and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi."

    "It is hard to know," Kuperman continues, "whether the White House was duped by the rebels or conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds." With the truth-challenged Hillary Clinton at the helm of this misbegotten misadventure, it isn't at all hard to draw the conclusion that the "genocide" claim was an outright lie perpetrated by the administration and its Libyan Islamist allies.

    That these brazen falsehoods are coupled with phrases oozing with liberal "idealism," calls for "international cooperation," and proclamations that all Washington desires is "peace" throughout the Middle East and the world makes for a toxic and particularly nauseating cocktail. Bashar al-Assad is a "tyrant," but the regime of Gen. Abdel al-Sisi, which overthrew the democratically elected government, is merely guilty of making "decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy."

    Speaking of Assad, Obama's focus wasn't on the spread of the Islamic State but on the Syrian strongman, who is barely holding on to power by his fingernails. He cited Washington's support for the so-called "moderate" rebels, but complained that – for some unspecified reason – "extremist groups have still taken root to exploit the crisis." What he didn't mention – although Putin did – is that these alleged "moderates" have gone over to the extremists in droves, raising the question: were these US-funded Good Guys always Bad Guys in an ill-fitting disguise?

    [Editorial note: This is the first part of a two-part column contrasting President Obama's UN speech to the address delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The second part, dealing with Putin's remarks, will be published on Friday.]

    [Sep 30, 2015] Obama Re-Defines Democracy – A Country that Supports U.S. Policy naked capitalism by Michael Hudson

    September 29, 2015

    In his Orwellian September 28, 2015 speech to the United Nations, President Obama said that if democracy had existed in Syria, there never would have been a revolt against Assad. By that, he meant ISIL. Where there is democracy, he said, there is no violence of revolution.

    This was his threat to promote revolution, coups and violence against any country not deemed a "democracy." In making this hardly veiled threat, he redefined the word in the international political vocabulary. Democracy is the CIA's overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran to install the Shah. Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan's secular government by the Taliban against Russia. Democracy is the Ukrainian coup behind Yats and Poroshenko. Democracy is Pinochet. It is "our bastards," as Lyndon Johnson said with regard to the Latin American dictators installed by U.S. foreign policy.

    A century ago the word "democracy" referred to a nation whose policies were formed by elected representatives. Ever since ancient Athens, democracy was contrasted to oligarchy and aristocracy. But since the Cold War and its aftermath, that is not how U.S. politicians have used the term. When an American president uses the word "democracy," he means a pro-American country following U.S. neoliberal policies. No matter if a country is a military dictatorship or the government was brought in by a coup (euphemized as a Color Revolution) as in Georgia or Ukraine. A "democratic" government has been re-defined simply as one supporting the Washington Consensus, NATO and the IMF. It is a government that shifts policy-making out of the hands of elected representatives to an "independent" central bank, whose policies are dictated by the oligarchy centered in Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt.

    Given this American re-definition of the political vocabulary, when President Obama says that such countries will not suffer coups, violent revolution or terrorism, he means that countries safely within the U.S. diplomatic orbit will be free of destabilization sponsored by the U.S. State Department, Defense Department and Treasury. Countries whose voters democratically elect a government or regime that acts independently (or even that simply seeks the power to act independently of U.S. directives) will be destabilized, Syria style, Ukraine style or Chile style under General Pinochet. As Henry Kissinger said, just because a country votes in communists doesn't mean that we have to accept it. It is the style of "color revolutions" sponsored by the National Endowment for Democracy.

    In his United Nations reply, Russian President Putin warned against the "export of democratic revolution," meaning by the United States in support of its local factotums. ISIL is armed with U.S. weapons and its soldiers were trained by U.S. armed forces. In case there was any doubt, President Obama reiterated before the United Nations that until Syrian President Assad was removed in favor of one more submissive to U.S. oil and military policy, Assad was the major enemy, not ISIL.

    "It is impossible to tolerate the present situation any longer," President Putin responded. Likewise in Ukraine. "What I believe is absolutely unacceptable," he said in his CBS interview on 60 Minutes, "is the resolution of internal political issues in the former USSR Republics, through "color revolutions," through coup d'états, through unconstitutional removal of power. That is totally unacceptable. Our partners in the United States have supported those who ousted Yanukovych. … We know who and where, when, who exactly met with someone and worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything."

    Where does this leave U.S.-Russian relations? I hoped for a moment that perhaps Obama's harsh anti-Russian talk was to provide protective coloration for an agreement with Putin in their 5 o'clock meeting. Speak one way so as to enable oneself to act in another has always been his modus operandi, as it is for many politicians. But Obama remains in the hands of the neocons.

    Where will this lead? There are many ways to think outside the box. What if Putin proposes to air-lift or ship Syrian refugees – up to a third of the population – to Europe, landing them in Holland and England, obliged under the Shengen rules to accept them?

    Or what if he brings the best computer specialists and other skilled labor for which Syria is renowned to Russia, supplementing the flood of immigration from "democratic" Ukraine?

    What if the joint plans announced on Sunday between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Russia to jointly fight ISIS – a coalition that US/NATO has refrained from joining – comes up against U.S. troops or even the main funder of ISIL, Saudi Arabia?

    The game is out of America's hands now. All it is able to do is wield the threat of "democracy" as a weapon of coups to turn recalcitrant countries into Libyas, Iraqs and Syrias.

    By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is "KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy."

    nippersdad, September 29, 2015 at 10:22 am

    "We know who and where, when, who exactly met with someone and worked with those who ousted Yanukovich, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which countries, and who those instructors were. We know everything."

    That sounds like a pretty clear threat to the Democratic front runner for the Presidency to come to terms, or else. While it is good to see someone threatening accountability, it would be nice if it didn't have to come from Russia.

    ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

    September 29, 2015 at 11:49 am

    Accountability will not come from an Administration that made Victoria Nuland an Assistant Secretary of State in the first place.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

    nippersdad, September 29, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    No doubt, but I was kind of hoping that the progressive caucuses might make more of a fuss than they did over our "the king is dead, long live the king", foreign policy. That is, after all, what got many of them elected. It never ceases to amaze me how fast candidates become coopted by the establishment once elected.

    Synoia, September 29, 2015 at 2:03 pm

    The establishment has files on them. Hudson's piece reads as a prelude to war.

    Nick, September 29, 2015 at 10:38 am

    This post is nothing but tinfoil-hattery. I can assure you, the US is shedding no tears for the pain Russia is about to inflict on itself by putting Russian boots on the ground in Damascus.

    OIFVet, September 29, 2015 at 11:10 am

    Did a latter-day Charlie Wilson tell you that? I have no doubt that the stuck-in-the-past meatheads in DC have a wet dream over just such a scenario. I also have no doubt that Russia (as well as China and Iran) have no intention of falling into such a trap. The ongoing peeling-off of Euro/NATO lemmings is as clear indication as any that the US will end up either backing off or try to go it alone. The latter is a recipe for disaster, as even Obama realizes. So right now it's all posturing for domestic consumption, behind the scenes things are a bit different as certain recent incidents would seem to indicate. But hey, we can dream the Russophobic/Slavophobic dreams, amiright?


    lylo, September 29, 2015 at 12:05 pm

    Yeah, my reading too.

    I also have to point out how ironic it is that a country stuck in several unresolved conflicts that continue to drain resources and produce instability years later is hoping that, somehow, their opponents get suckered into a quagmire in a country they are already stuck in.

    So, sure, I guess that's what they're hoping for. Makes about as much sense as anything else they've come up with recently (including direct confrontation with Russia just to enrich a few ME and corporate pals.)

    And "tinfoil hattery" is generally used as things not accepted and proven. Which part of this isn't proven? US toppling democracies and installing dictators who we then call democratic? That we have less pull on the international stage than anytime in our lives? That the other bloc has a serious advantage in this conflict, and going forward? These are all facts…


    washunate, September 30, 2015 at 12:10 pm

    Give Nick a little credit now; there is a shred of cleverness to the comment(!). He's trying to plant a big lie inside of the framing – namely, that the rise of IS is a legitimate rebellion within Syria.

    When of course the truth is the opposite. It's IS that is the foreign invader; Russian boots on the ground would be working with the recognized government, not against it. Indeed, the comparison might inadvertently be quite apt. Syria looks more and more like a marker on the road from Pax Americana to a multipolar world. Just like the Soviet-Afghan war was a marker on the road from the Cold War to Pax Americana.

    Perhaps another incident is a better comparison. Maybe Syria is our Suez moment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

    Thure Meyer, September 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Nick,

    Tinfoil-hattery, interesting choice of words. So who's conspiracy are you talking about?

    As to your assurance; well it would be a bit more convincing if you were to unveil your identity so that I know who speaks for all of us (US)...

    readerOfTeaLeaves, September 29, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    Oh, crikey Nick.
    What codswaddle!

    As near as I can tell, the US Foreign Policy establishment is driven by think tanks that are funded by oil companies, Saudis, Israelis, and others for whom 'putting America first' means covering their own asses and letting the US military (and well-compensated military contractors) do all the heavy lifting.

    As if that weren't bad enough, we also have the R2Pers ("responsibility to protect"), whose hypocrisy could gag a maggot - the R2Pers seem to think it is urgent to solve every other nation's (and corporations) problems - indeed, so very urgent that kids from Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Idaho, etc should all be sent into harm's way in distant lands, whose languages the R2Pers don't happen to speak, whose histories the R2Pers are ignorant about, and whose cultural nuances are unknown to the R2Pers.

    IOW, Washington DC appears to be awash in egoism and careerism.

    I think that Russians have managed to figure that out.

    washunate, September 30, 2015 at 11:54 am

    I find it rather amusing that this is the best the Democratic establishment can throw at posts pointing out the idiocy of imperialism. How the Obots have fallen.

    steelhead23, September 29, 2015 at 10:56 am

    It isn't just the lies and abject stupidity that keeps the U.S. constantly at war, it is our alliances with repressive dictators, like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that is leading the U.S. toward confrontation with civilization, and Russia. Not so much a leader, the U.S. has become the militant vassal of KSA. The undying irony is that it was wealthy Saudis who started the most recent mess on 9/11/01. This will not end until the U.S. turns its back on the KSA.

    Sufferin' Succotash, September 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Or KSA self-destructs.

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/collapse-saudi-arabia-inevitable-1895380679

    Ranger Rick, September 29, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Russia has always maintained that the Ukrainian revolution was CIA-backed if not -instigated. It's a shrewd move given the US's track record with regime change. No one will ever be sure if the new Ukrainian government is entirely legitimate or not.

    What really gets terrifying is when you take a step back and realize that the 1800s imperialist regime never really changed. When you start talking about "superpower" or "regional power" you are no longer talking about power in the military or economic sense. These countries regularly meddle in, if not directly control, the politics in other countries. It honestly does not matter to the United States or Russia or any other country what your government chooses to do as long as it does what the other country wants.

    NotTimothyGeithner, September 29, 2015 at 11:48 am

    The Kiev rump failed to meet constitutional standards for impeachment even with the threats of the mob, and with elections just three or four months away in September following the Maidan event, there was no practical reason for a forceful removal of the government. Third party or not, the Kiev rump government has the same legality as the Confederacy. The "separatists" and the Crimeans saw their country dissolved by a mob, not an election with a regularly scheduled one on the horizon. The Ukraine was not a case where they would be waiting four years under a tyrant. If they had made it to September with electioneering issues, then the situation would be different, but as the current cabal didn't do that, they are akin to Jefferson Davis just with a better hand.

    Americans as celebrators of the Declaration of Independence should note it is not legitimate to change established governing customs because your side might lose there has to be a litany of grievances with no possibility of redress. By Mr. Jefferson's standards, this country should have nothing to do with the Kiev government until the concerns of the separatists have been addressed. Unfortunately the use of law doesn't exist in this country.

    Eureka Springs, September 29, 2015 at 11:11 am

    Obamacrats rhetoric and behavior (policy) are both reminiscent and escalation of Bushco in so many ways.

    Wasn't it Bush Jr. who said something along the line of "Democracies don't attack each other"?

    NotTimothyGeithner, September 29, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    It's just the old Democratic peace theory. It's utter garbage. I'm sure 43 said it because he repeated the last thing he heard anyway. World War I is pitched as a battle between old world tyrannical such as Germany (with universal male suffrage for its power base) versus shining beacons of democracy such as the UK and France which weren't quite democracies yet. Hitler sort of won a national election. Churchill was selected in a secret meeting when Chamberlain had to step down. So where is the democratic line? It's always been subjective test.

    Of course, all governments rule by the consent of the governed.

    JerseyJeffersonian, September 29, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    Actually, Leander, the vaunted "independence" of the central banks of the US, Great Britain, and Deutschland is largely a fiction. And this very fiction has the effect of hyper-empowering both the financial sector and the oligarchs with whom the financial sector exists in a symbiotic relationship; in point of fact, these "independent" central banks are largely mere creatures of the financial sector and the symbiont oligarchs. The carefully cultivated appearance of independence is a sham under whose cover the truth about how central bank policies cater slavishly to the interests of the financial sector and oligarchs remains unrecognized.

    Careerist movement back and forth between the central banks and the financial sector (along with the academic and think tank communities in which neo-liberalism reigns supreme as the only accepted school of economics) facilitates the group-think that culminates in the intellectual capture of the "independent" central banks. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Welcome to Naked Capitalism; our hosts provide us with a rich spread of knowledge and analysis, rather as Col. Lang does at his blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis, at which I have also read your posts.

    MaroonBulldog, September 29, 2015 at 11:13 pm

    In United States administrative law, the word "independent" has an interesting meaning: it refers to an executive regulatory agency that is "independent of the president," in the sense that the president cannot easily remove the head of the agency. The Fed is independent in this sense: the president cannot easily fire Chair Yellen or any other member of the Fed's board of governors.

    An agency can be "independent" in this sense and still completely captured by the industry it purports to regulate.

    Yves Smith, September 30, 2015 at 3:42 am

    *Sigh*

    The Fed is NOT owned by banks.

    Banks hold shares of non-voting preferred stock in regional Feds. The Board of Governors, which approves the hiring of all regional Fed presidents, is most assuredly part of the Federal government. The regional Feds are more like a nasty public-private partnership with a bad governance structure (as in the regional Fed boards on which banks have some, and I stress some, director seats, cannot hire or fire ANYONE at a regional Fed, they do not approve budgets or other policy actions. Their role is strictly advisory, although the regional Feds, being more than a little captured cognitively, give that advice a fair bit of weight.

    To give an idea how much power those banks you incorrectly deem to be owners have: Congress is looking at passing a bill to cut the dividends of the all but small banks how hold shares in the Fed by 75%. Pray tell, can Congress tell a private company to cut its dividends?

    TedWa, September 30, 2015 at 10:21 am

    Hi Yves : I don't see any Fed "independence" in action and haven't for quite some time.


    Max, September 29, 2015 at 11:40 am

    Ah yes, the notoriously secular and definitely legitimate PDPA government of Afghanistan 'overthrown' by the US. Is that a joke? Has Michael Hudson ever read a book about the Afghan civil war, a highly complex, decade-plus asymmetrical conflict with constantly shifting actors and allegiances? Reducing it to a narrative about US imperialism is intellectually dishonest on its own (there is no evidence that the US ever provided material support to the Taliban – everything from HRW to internal US documents to the academic consensus to journalistic accounts such as Ahmed Rashid's Taliban (2001?) contradicts that claim), nevermind that the Khalqi-Parcham government was a Soviet puppet government and an imperial construct in its own right. Check out any works by Barnett Rubin (U Nebraska?) or Thomas Barfield (B.U.)

    The Mujahideen debacle (Which is both a separable and conjoined issue to the rise of the Taliban depending on time frame) was a result of poor US oversight of Pakistan, an internal US policy failure (no accountability or human intelligence on the ground) and of course intimately tied to the USSR's campaign of genocide in Afghanistan. Yes, the CIA gave the ISI $2-3bil in loose change to funnel into the Mujahideen (which were not united in any meaningful sense at any point in time, and frequently factionalized over pork-barrel / ethnic / tribal issues), however, the US policy at the time was hands-off with regard to how that money was spent, and if you read Peter Tomsen's book about his time as HW's special envoy it becomes quite clear that the blinders were on in Washington with regard to what was actually happening there on the ground.

    Here's a quick and outdated overview for anyone who would like to educate themselves about this conflict: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/afghan2/Afghan0701-02.htm

    I understand that the Russophilia on this blog runs strongly but the inhumane destruction visited upon the Afghan people by the USSR's geopolitics is and was sickening, imperialistic and functionally a genocide. How am I supposed to take any of this polemic seriously when the author can't even be bothered to read about a conflict? This is a prime example of ideology driving discourse. There are plenty of fair-game examples to call out the US's short-sighted and globally destructive foreign policy. I do not see the point in allowing ideology to cover for misinformation and misrepresentation of historical facts – that's the playbook of neoliberal hustlers.

    Faroukh Bulsara, September 29, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    "…the notoriously secular and definitely legitimate PDPA government of Afghanistan 'overthrown' by the US. Is that a joke?"

    Umm, Max buddy, where in this article did Hudson say such a thing? Right, he didn't. But thanks for the Afghan history lesson anyway.

    Max, September 29, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    "Democracy is the overthrow of Afghanistan's secular government by the Taliban against Russia."

    It's right there in the opening paragraph, and the accusation is rather explicit.

    juliania, September 29, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    That's an awkward sentence to be sure, Max – I puzzled over that one myself. I'm more in favor of this extract from Putin's speech at the UN:

    ". . .We should all remember the lessons of the past. For example, we remember examples from our Soviet past, when the Soviet Union exported social experiments, pushing for changes in other countries for ideological reasons, and this often led to tragic consequences and caused degradation instead of progress. . ."

    Sort of 'puts paid' to trying to equate the Russian Federation with the Soviet Union, doesn't it?

    OIFVet, September 29, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    Is that the same HRW that can't find evidence of Kiev purposefully targeting and killing civilians? The same HRW that has never said a thing about the US support for murderous regimes in Latin America? Or about US war crimes? Yeah OK, I will take their word on how Afghanistan went down, over the US' proven track record of destroying any and all left-leaning Third World governments from 1950 onward.

    Max, September 29, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Attack one of my sources, fine – the others still exist in far greater numbers. Barnett Rubin is my favorite, his book "Blood on the Doorstep" is excellent.

    Is everything part of the US capitalist plot or is there some verifiable source that you will accept without dismissing out of hand? You didn't even attempt to read the source.

    The Afghan government was left leaning in the sense that it was more socially progressive than the population living outside of Kabul, all 80% of the country that the government did not control in fact; and their authoritarian approach to instituting gender equality and abolishing Islam had a disastrous effect on the government's popularity and tribal credit, which was and is necessary to gain the support of the rural population. Other than that it was your typical post-Stalinist tankie failed experiment in land redistribution and Party education apparatus that only served to create a new class of insular elites & alienating/disenfranchising the majority of the population while hamstringing developmental progress made by actual Afghans in the decades before the Soviets (and eventually Pakistan and the US) got their hands in the pot.

    OIFVet, September 29, 2015 at 3:55 pm

    IOW, the Soviets and the US were like peas in a pod. Funny that the "accomplishments" cited by Empire apologists also used to include gender equality and the creation of insular elites. So what's your point, that the Soviets tried to prop-up their flunkies by force? Pot calling the kettle black, much like 0bama's speech yesterday. And HRW has often acted in concert with the US to cover up its crimes while hypocritically calling out those who weren't "our sonzofbiatches."

    likbez, September 30, 2015 at 9:23 pm

    The Afghan government was left leaning in the sense that it was more socially progressive than the population living outside of Kabul, all 80% of the country that the government did not control in fact; and their authoritarian approach to instituting gender equality and abolishing Islam had a disastrous effect on the government's popularity and tribal credit, which was and is necessary to gain the support of the rural population. Other than that it was your typical post-Stalinist tankie failed experiment in land redistribution and Party education apparatus that only served to create a new class of insular elites & alienating/disenfranchising the majority of the population while hamstringing developmental progress made by actual Afghans in the decades before the Soviets (and eventually Pakistan and the US) got their hands in the pot.

    That's plain vanilla propaganda. Or more charitably you are oversimplifying the issue and try to embellish the USA behavior. Which was a horrible crime. Soviets were not that simplistic and attempts to abolish Islam were not supported by Soviets. They tried to create a secular country that's right but with Islam as a dominant religion.

    See http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_soviet_occupation_of_afghanistan=afghanwar_tmln_us_aid_to_islamist_mujaheddin

    And how many years Afghan government survived after the USSR dissolved and financial and technical aid disappeared. You need to shred your post and eat it with borsch. It's a shame.


    fajensen, September 30, 2015 at 5:35 am

    Ah, but: "A man is known by the company he keeps".

    Whatever Putin is besides, he is *not* a friend, ally and global protector of Saudi Arabic Wahhabism!

    With friends like that, it is clear o everyone else that you people are circling pretty close to the drain already and we non-USA-nian un-people prefer to not be sucked into your decline via TTIP et cetera.

    Michael Hudson, September 29, 2015 at 11:17 pm

    Max, your comment does not make sense.

    All I can say is that this blog is NOT Russiaphilia. That's name calling. It is not Russiaphilia to note the effect of U.S. foreign policy on bolstering the most right-wing fundamentalist Islamic groups, Latin American right-wing kleptocracies or other dictatorships.

    Whatever Soviet oppression was in Afghanistan, it did not back religious extremism. Just the opposite.

    OIFVet, September 29, 2015 at 11:38 pm

    Nick was probably one of those who screamed about cheese-eating surrender monkeys while stuffing themselves with supersized freedom fries orders.

    September 29, 2015 at 3:47 pm


    Ahem. Egypt. Egypt had a brief democracy.

    Iran had a very real and true democracy (1955) but it was wiped out by the US.

    Lot's of countries actually have democratic elections but when the people elect someone the US disapproves of, that democracy has to go and is ALWAYS replaced by a dictatorship.

    Obama's a corrupt idiot. Syria is a mess only because the US made it that way, NOT because Assad is a meanie.

    Reply ↓

    cwaltz

    September 30, 2015 at 2:50 am


    It's possible that Assad is a meanie AND that Syria is a mess because as usual we half assed support people who are just as horrible as him. It isn't like Saddam wasn't our great friend before we declared him horrible, terrible awful leader.

    Reply ↓

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, September 29, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    The words in their respective UN speeches were very clear. Obomba: "I believe that what is true for America is true for virtually all mature democracies". Putin: "No one is obliged to conform to a single development model that is considered by someone else as the right one".
    Ask yourself which statement the Founding Fathers of the U.S. would agree with. Yankee go home.

    bh2, September 29, 2015 at 10:40 pm

    "Hope and change", baby! The long arc of history bends toward despotism.

    Knute Rife, September 29, 2015 at 11:25 pm

    This has been a favorite US tactic since the Marines hit Tripoli (anti-piracy myths notwithstanding), took off with the Spanish-American War, went through the roof when the Latin American interventions started in earnest in the 20s, and became our peculiar and cherished institution with the Cold War. Obama is just continuing the tradition.

    cwaltz , September 30, 2015 at 2:37 am

    I'll give him this- it's as close to being transparent on our foreign policy as I've seen any of his predecessors come.

    At least, he's admitting that our end game has always been first and foremost about our own interests. Now if he'll only admit that THIS is why the world really hates us. Being selfish and protecting only your own interests at the cost of others is never going to be a winning plan to encourage people to like you or trust you(particularly when you collude behind closed doors to carry out those interests.)

    *Sigh* We're America. We set the bar low when it comes to caring about how others wish to govern themselves, our only criteria is that your leader always consider US interests first(nevermind that they aren't actually a US leader and should be putting their own inhabitants first.)


    [Sep 30, 2015] Obama, Putin need steady nerves & stout hearts in Syria by M.K. Bhadrakumar

    September 30, 2015 | Asia Times

    The best thing about the ninety-minute meeting between the US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in New York on Monday was that they agreed there was not going to be any recourse to rhetoric. Putin, accordingly, handled the media himself and the White House refrained from releasing the customary readout.

    A senior US official said the talks were "productive" and he calmed down the American media, explaining "this was not a situation where either one of them [Obama or Putin] was seeking to score points". Putin's interaction with the Russian media conveyed the impression that he too was satisfied with the outcome of the meeting.

    The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had previously met US Secretary of State John Kerry and handed over to him a 'flow chart' on the implementation of the Minsk agreements on Ukraine. Indeed, Putin also used an interview with Charlie Rose at CBS to speak without diplomatese on the Kremlin thinking regarding Syria and Ukraine.

    In remarks to Russian media, Putin described his talks with Obama as "very useful and what is particularly pleasant, it was very sincere". He struck a positive tone, saying the American side explained their position "quite clearly" and "indeed, surprising as it may seem, we have many coinciding points and opinions".

    Putin acknowledged the differences, but refused to be drawn into them – except on the central issue that the air strikes in Syria by the US-led coalition are incompatible with international law.

    ... ... ...

    Obama could not have agreed with the line of Russian thinking on strengthening "al-Assad's army" – at least, not yet openly. But an increasingly wider audience in the West has learnt to live with that thought. Putin simply drew satisfaction for the moment that despite differences, "we have agreed to work together".

    However, a senior US official maintained separately that the two sides fundamentally disagreed on the role that President Bashar al-Assad will play in resolving the civil conflict in Syria. The official explained that while Moscow sees Assad as a bulwark against the extremists, the Americans see him as continuing to fan the flames of a sectarian conflict in Syria.

    Of course, Putin insists that the future of al-Assad is not for outsiders to propose but is the exclusive business of Syrian citizens. The principle is unquestionable. The US faces an acute dilemma here insofar as in a democratic election, Assad's re-election as president still remains a strong possibility, since secular-minded Syrians cutting across religious sects or ethnic divides would still see him as the best bet against an extremist takeover.

    ... ... ...


    The discussions relating to Syria and the Islamic State apparently marginalized the Ukraine crisis, but tensions are not so acute on that front lately. Putin hinted that the US is now putting its weight behind the Normandy Format (comprising the leaderships of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine), allowing it to spearhead the conflict resolution in Ukraine. A Normandy Format summit meeting is due to take place Friday in Paris.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 30, 2015] Obama Snubbed as Xi, Putin Stay at Chinese Owned Waldorf

    Sep 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    J Mahoney

    Nothing too significant about this...just a minor bitch slap cause the US started the fiasco concerning the Waldorff. After the Chinese bought it last year, the STATE DEPT announced they would no longer have meetings there or house guests there because of the fear of eavesdropping. How ironic the STATE DEPT didn't show the same level of precaution about Hillbillies private email server.

    Flying Wombat

    Great read:

    "Chinese-Russian Relations and the Empire: Analysis w/ The Saker"

    http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=513952


    luna_man

    "Snubbed"?...This is known as self preservation!

    bad enough being in the U.S.A. for these two...especially after J.F.K. and 911!

    CRIMINALS TURF

    Able Ape

    I wouldn't step in the Whitehouse even if it was pressure-washed with high-pressure steam hoses, then copiously sprayed with hydrogen peroxide, and finally liberally doused with concentrated bleach and they then offered me a Level 4 biohazard suit. Some places you just need to stay OUT of!...

    NoWayJose

    The Chinese owned Waldorf is probably the only place they can stay without having to worry about the NSA listening in. You can bet that there are special floors and rooms that are constructed to isolate any electronic leakage, and are swept several times each day.

    BarkingCat

    Unless the hotel has floors that are never rented, any spy agency can get surveillance equipment planted.

    ebear

    "1 year ago they bought the Waldorf for two billion US dollars."

    Yeah, but do they know how to make a Waldorf salad?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDE3mVLNdRA


    [Sep 30, 2015] Becoming China From Shale Malinvestment Boom To We Are Overbuilt Bust

    "... As Bloomberg reports ..."
    "... The frenzied drilling that made it No. 1 in personal-income growth and job creation for five consecutive years hasn't lasted long enough to support the oil-fueled building explosion ..."
    Sep 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    many previous oil-boomtowns across Texas and North Dakota are facing a real-estate crisis. As Bloomberg reports, the former bustling "man-camps" of towns like Williston, ND are now desolate with hundreds of skeletons or wood & cement as predictions that fracking would sustain production and a robust tax base for decades have failed completely.

    ... ... ...

    Chain saws and staple guns echo across a $40 million residential complex under construction in Williston, North Dakota, a few miles from almost-empty camps once filled with oil workers. As Bloomberg reports, after struggling to house thousands of migrant roughnecks during the boom, the state faces a new real-estate crisis: The frenzied drilling that made it No. 1 in personal-income growth and job creation for five consecutive years hasn't lasted long enough to support the oil-fueled building explosion.

    Civic leaders and developers say many new units were already in the pipeline, and they anticipate another influx of workers when oil prices rise again. But for now, hundreds of dwellings approved during the heady days are rising, skeletons of wood and cement surrounded by rolling grasslands, with too few residents who can afford them.

    "We are overbuilt," said Dan Kalil, a commissioner in Williams County in the heart of the Bakken, a 360-million-year-old shale bed, during a break from cutting flax on his farm. "I am concerned about having hundreds of $200-a-month apartments in the future."

    The surge began in 2006, when rising oil prices made widespread hydraulic fracturing economically feasible. The process forces water, sand and chemicals down a well to crack rock and release the crude. Predictions were that fracking would sustain production and a robust tax base for decades.

    Laborers descended on the state, many landing in temporary settlements of recreational vehicles, shacks and even chicken coops. Energy companies put up some workers in so-called man camps. In 2011, Williams County commissioners approved 12,000 beds, says Michael Sizemore, the county building official.

    Everyone levered up on this "no-brainer"...

    The camps were supposed to be an interim solution until subdivision and apartment complexes could be built.

    Civic leaders across the Bakken charged into overdrive, processing hundreds of permits and borrowing tens of millions of dollars to pay for new water and sewer systems. Williston has issued $226 million of debt since January 2011; about $144 million is outstanding. Watford City issued $2.34 million of debt; about $2.1 million is outstanding.

    and many remain delusional...

    "We didn't build temporary housing on purpose because we viewed North Dakota as a long-term play," said Israel Weinberger, a principal at Coltown Properties, which invests in multi-family real-estate developments.

    "We think the local production of oil is here to stay. Yes, prices have dropped, but it's a commodity and commodities fluctuate. There is always a risk."

    Fracking's success has created another glut...

    As the migrant workers leave, their castoffs pile up in scrap yards such as TJ's Autobody & Salvage outside Alexander, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Williston. More than 400 discarded vehicles crowd its lot, including souped-up pickup trucks and an RV with rotting potatoes and a dead mouse in the sink.

    "I wake up and RVs are in my driveway," said owner Tom Novak. "It's insane; there are empty campers everywhere."

    HedgeAccordingly

    welp.. was only matter of time..
    IMF raises red flag about Canada's 'overheated' housing market

    bluskyes

    It's a golden age for the repo game

    bluskyes

    Oil has been boom/bust forever...

    Unfortunately most are no longer from agrarian roots, and have no concept of living within one's means, and storing away excess in times of feast - for the times of famine that inevitably follow.

    [Sep 28, 2015] Violence instead of democracy: Putin slams policies of exceptionalism and impunity in UN speech

    "Do you realize what you've done?" -- Putin about recent US sponsored color revolutions.
    Notable quotes:
    "... instead of reforms and the triumph of democracy and progress "we've got violence, poverty and social disaster, and human rights, including the right to life, to which no weight is given." ..."
    "... "Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself," ..."
    "... "Therefore they do not have to reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing, legitimizing the necessary decisions often creates obstacles or in other words 'stands in the way'." ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | RT News

    The export of so-called 'democratic' revolutions has continued, but has unleashed poverty and violence instead of the triumph of democracy, Russian President Vladimir Putin said addressing the UN General Assembly.

    Attempts to push for changes in other countries based on ideological preferences have led to "tragic consequences and degradation rather than progress," said Putin in his speech to world leaders and policy makers gathered at the UN General Assembly's anniversary 70th session in New York on Monday.

    "We should all remember what our past has taught us," Putin said. "We, for instance, remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union."

    It seems however that some are not learning from others' mistakes, but keep repeating them, he said, adding that "the export of so-called 'democratic' revolutions continues."

    "I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done?" he asked. "But I am afraid the question will hang in the air, because policies based on self-confidence and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned."

    He cited the example of revolutions in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where people have wished for change. However, instead of reforms and the triumph of democracy and progress "we've got violence, poverty and social disaster, and human rights, including the right to life, to which no weight is given."

    "Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself," he said.

    ... ... ...

    A single center of domination emerged in the world after the Cold War era ended, Putin stated. Those who were at the "top of this pyramid" were tempted to think that "if they were so strong and exceptional, they knew what to do better than others."

    "Therefore they do not have to reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing, legitimizing the necessary decisions often creates obstacles or in other words 'stands in the way'."

    [Sep 28, 2015] Obama America Has Few4 Economic Interests In Ukraine... And This Very Big One

    Sep 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    As part of his UN speech seeking to restore a crumbling Pax Americana, president Obama, eager to cover up US involvement in the Ukraine presidential coup of early 2014 (who can forget Victoria Nuland "strategy" interception in which she laid out the post-coup lay of the land, while saying to "fuck the EU"), just said that "America has few economic interest in Ukraine."

    Herdee

    Where and what did they do with Ukraine's gold bullion reserves and who is in possession of them right now and why is it such a big secret to everyone that overthrew the Government there?

    directaction

    Who cares? The Ukraine gold and all the rest of their resources are legitimate wartime plunder, booty, if you will. If the Ukrainians are stupid enough to happily allow the USA to barge in and take everything of value from them why should we weep?

    viator

    "George Soros has long called for the West to pump billions into Ukraine. Now he says he's ready to walk the talk.
    The veteran hedge fund investor told an Austrian newspaper he was prepared to invest $1 billion in the collapsing war-ravaged economy under certain circumstances.

    "There are concrete investment ideas, for example in agriculture and infrastructure projects. I would put in $1 billion," he told Der Standard. "This must generate a profit. My foundation would benefit from this, not me personally."

    The Hungarian-born billionaire said Europe and the U.S. must show strong political leadership over Ukraine -- that would make it more attractive to private investors. The West could provide finance at European interest rates close to zero, for example.

    A spokesman for Soros said his investment would depend on the West doing "whatever it takes" to rescue Ukraine."

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/30/investing/ukraine-soros-billion-russia/

    The Indelicate ...

    What do you figure, LL - is the "New Khazaria" theory in any way legit, or is it bullshit?

    Israel's Secret Plan for a "Second Israel" in Ukraine
    http://m.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/12/03/israel-secret-plan-for-se...

    Notwithstanding the heavy presence of dual citizens yadda yadda, I kinda think the "secret report" was tongue-in-cheek and that this is basically bullshit. But in this messed up crazy world... stranger things....

    I don't see Crimea going back to Ukraine though.

    Latina Lover

    Since the discussion is now academic (Crimea is not leaving Russia unless Russia itself is destroyed), I will be brief.

    Kolomoysky is the president of a European Jewish Group, and active in Chabad. He was promoting Crimea as an alternate Jewish homeland until Crimea rejoined Russia. Kolomoysky then lost his real estate holdings, and Chabad the ability to dominate the Crimea.

    If you are interested in further background, check out the following link:

    http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/The%20Jewish.pdf

    [Sep 28, 2015] Kunstler Rages Perhaps America Has Gotten What It Deserves

    Sep 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Did Charlie Rose look like a fucking idiot last night on 60-Minutes, or what, asking Vladimir Putin how he could know for sure that the US was behind the 2014 Ukraine coup against President Viktor Yanukovych? Maybe the idiots are the 60-Minutes producers and fluffers who are supposed to prep Charlie's questions. Putin seemed startled and amused by this one on Ukraine: how could he know for sure?

    Well, gosh, because Ukraine was virtually a province of Russia in one form or another for hundreds of years, and Russia has a potent intelligence service (formerly called the KGB) that had assets and connections threaded through Ukrainian society like the rhizomorphs of the fungus Armillaria solidipes through a conifer forest. Gosh, Charlie, it's like asking Obama whether the NSA might know what's going on in Texas.

    And so there is Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer, having to spell it out for the American clodhopper super-journalist. "We have thousands of contacts with them. We know who and where, and when they met with someone, and who worked with those who ousted Yanukovych, how they were supported, how much they were paid, how they were trained, where, in which country, and who those instructors were. We know everything."

    The only thing Vlad left out of course was the now-world-famous panicked yelp by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland crying, "Fuck the EU," when events in Kiev started getting out of hand for US stage-managers. But he probably heard about that, too.

    Charlie then voice-overed the following statement: "For the record, the US has denied any involvement in the removal of the Ukrainian leader." Right. And your call is important us. And your check is in the mail. And they hate us for our freedom.

    This bit on Ukraine was only a little more appalling than Charlie's earlier segment on Syria. Was Putin trying to rescue the Assad government? Charlie asked, in the context of President Obama's statement years ago that "Assad has to go."

    Putin answered as if he were explaining something that should have been self-evident to a not-very-bright high school freshman: "To remove the legitimate government would create a situation which you can witness in other countries of the region, for instance Libya, where all the state institutions have disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq. There's no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the government structure."

    I guess Charlie and the 60-Minutes production crew hadn't noticed what had gone on around the Middle East the past fifteen years with America's program of toppling dictators into the maw of anarchy. Not such great outcomes.

    Charlie persisted though, following his script: Was Putin trying to rescue Assad? Vlad had to lay it out for him as if he were introducing Charlie to the game of Animal Lotto: "What do you think about those who support the terrorist organizations only to oust Assad without thinking about what happens to the country after all the state institutions have been demolished…? Look at those who are in control of 60 percent of the territory of Syria."

    Meaning ISIS. Al Nusra (formerly al Qaeda in Syria), i.e., groups internationally recognized as terrorist organizations.

    Charlie Rose, 60-Minutes - and perhaps by extension US government agencies with an interest in propagandizing - seem to want to put over the story that Russia has involved itself in Syria only to aggrandize its role on in world affairs.

    Forgive me for being so blunt, but what sort of stupid fucking idea is this? And are there any non-lobotomized adults left in the USA who can't see straight through it? The truth is that American policy in Syria (plus Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Somalia, Afghanistan) is an impressive record of failure in terms of the one basic aim that most rational people might agree upon: stabilizing the region in a way that does not leave Islamic jihadi maniacs in charge.

    Okay, so now the Russians will do what they can to try to stabilize Syria. They've had their failures, too (famously, Afghanistan). But Russian territory adjoins the Islamic lands and they clearly have stake in containing the virus of Islamic extremism near their borders. Is that not obvious?

    Charlie made one other extremely dumb statement - he seems to prefer making assertions to asking straight-up questions - to the effect that Russia was misbehaving by deploying troops on its border with Ukraine.

    Putin again seemed astonished by this credulous idiocy. The US had troops and nuclear weapons all over Europe, he answered. Did Charlie think that meant the US was attempting to occupy the nations of Europe now? Was it "a crime" for Russia to defend its own border with a neighboring state (formerly a province) that, he implied, the US had deliberately destabilized?

    The Putin segment was followed by an sickening session with Donald Trump, a man who now - after a month or so of public exposure - proves incapable of uttering a coherent idea. I wonder what Vladimir Putin makes of this incomparable buffoon. Perhaps that America has gotten what it deserves.

    [Sep 28, 2015] United Nations: Putin says he can work with Obama despite trading barbs on Syria and Isis

    Looks like a new set of NATObots was in action today (for example, Valois1588, Member since 13 Sep 2015 ) . Only few of the "old guard" were participating in the discussion (metronome, Alderbaran, sasha19, a coupe of others)
    "... At last, people are beginning to come out of the brainwashing conditioning of the West, and are realizing who the real enemy is here. ..."
    "... If the US want to get a good bang for their buck they should attack and bomb IS military formations when they are attacking Assad positions. IS are grouped together at this point in large numbers - a good target. Robert Fisk and several journalists scratch their heads in consternation why the USA doesn't employ this logical and cost effective strategy. ..."
    "... Russia & Syria signed a treaty on the 2nd February 1946...& that treaty stands to this day... ..."
    "... It takes a Herculean effort at strangled logic to reconcile the US demands, only regarding itself of course, that it has unrestricted sovereignty over what it wishes to do, either at home or anywhere around the world, and it's willingness on a daily basis to breach the national sovereignty of any other nation it chooses. ..."
    "... It is however ably assisted in this process by the Western Media, who regularly refer to the US demands for regime change in other countries without reference to the fact that such is a direct and serious breach of international law and the sovereignty of nations. They just assume that it is OK if it is the US making these demands and taking these actions, whereas if others choose to do so it raises wails of righteous indignation, not only from the US, but from the Western Press. ..."
    "... That is a mark of the overwhelming success of the propaganda system that it has become so internalised amongst our supposedly free press that it never raises even an eyebrow. ..."
    "... I don't think US or West in general give a damn about their war victims. The only thing which matters to them is their own geopolitical interests. ..."
    "... Putin has a very long way to go to match the destruction and deaths caused by the glorious heroic US/UK duo who have been beyond any doubt BY FAR the most dangerous world 'power' in recent decades. ..."
    "... It is interesting to note that the doctrinal system is functioning well in Washington. That system requires that all actions "we" take are clothed in righteousness and all comparable actions taken by "others" are clothed in ignominy and infamy. So to take Obama seriously we would need to have the UN condemn the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the illegal bombing of Syria, Libya, the Sudan, Yugoslavia and several lesser countries (in very recent times) and a litany of other countries over the last seventy years. But the doctrinal system requires us to plunge these manifold instances of the 'might makes right' approach down the memory hole to enable us to take the high moral ground at the UN, which we in effect control through our ability, and willingness, to withhold funding unless it does what we say. ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

    Scipio1 28 Sep 2015 19:01

    Obama condemns 'might is right' - Words fail me!

    Karina_Broadfoot 28 Sep 2015 18:59

    At last, people are beginning to come out of the brainwashing conditioning of the West, and are realizing who the real enemy is here.

    I applaud you Russia. Europe would prefer to transfer 27 million Syrian refugees and other Middle Eastern refugees across Europe, anything to avoid upsetting the bleeding hearts who will be hysterical if troops go on the ground. They complained about a British ISIS terrorist being killed in a bombing. We need to change. Please.


    catalinataragudo 28 Sep 2015 18:58

    The Russian analysis is right and always has been. Great that they've taken steps to end this madness. What a bunch of eedjits! Cameron and what do you call that other weird guy from north Yorkshire?


    irgun777 ArundelXVI 28 Sep 2015 18:58

    " A posterboy (or "poster boy," also "postergirl/poster girl" as appropriate) is a usually famous person who is heavily associated with and/or generally found to represent a given movement, subculture, religious group, fandom, etc. to people who do not belong to said group. "
    Urban Dictionary.

    Assad is associated with the opposition to ISIS and definitely does not belong to the rest of the countries in the region who support this group .


    hungrycocky creel 28 Sep 2015 18:57

    Crap!

    The route of the problem is the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and the stupid games France and England payed at the conclusion of WW1.

    Blaming the Israelis for this is just silly mate.

    Pietro Salvatori 28 Sep 2015 17:19

    US has trained thousands of intended-fighters against ISIS and just after ending the boot camp they threw hats on the air and flood within ISIS ranks. Only 4-5 remained to fight ISIS (US Gen. Austin said): maybe the dumbest ones or the not tuned in. I feel you don't need to be Putin in order to find this point suspect...

    laticsfanfromeurope -> RobertNeville 28 Sep 2015 17:18

    Making illegal wars, support dictatorships, invading countries under the pretext of democracy and worsening the situation (Iraq, Afghanistan), support islamist terrorists during the "arab spring" in Libya, Egypt and Syria.

    Meanwhile you are good friend of Isis supporters in the region, like Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia...

    I told you, man!

    irgun777 -> seaspan 28 Sep 2015 18:48

    " En masse desertion to Al Nusra " is reported by Guardian and many others.

    Just google : deserters to Al Nusra

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/142377-report-entire-free-syrian-army-unites-defecting-to-al-nusra-front-because-of-its-islamic-doctrine-and-advanced-weapons/

    Try to focus on the substance and facts . If you have any links that there is no desertion in the so called moderates or we are against a regime change please , provide some .

    Niall_Bradley -> MTavernier 28 Sep 2015 18:47

    That 'barrel bombs' claim is totally unfounded: http://www.sott.net/article/302827-Syrian-death-toll-exaggerated-to-generate-Western-public-support-for-airstrikes-and-regime-change.

    Bosula -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:47

    Kurds not support by Turkey and would not be acceptable as legitimate leaders of Syria. lead to more troubles.

    Unfortunately, the US is working with range of moderate IS groups to replace Assad.

    If the majority of US people knew this they would be mortified.

    If the US want to get a good bang for their buck they should attack and bomb IS military formations when they are attacking Assad positions. IS are grouped together at this point in large numbers - a good target. Robert Fisk and several journalists scratch their heads in consternation why the USA doesn't employ this logical and cost effective strategy.

    Niall_Bradley -> JudeUSA 28 Sep 2015 18:44

    The US 'saving the world'! Don't you get it yet? What the US is doing now, it has always done. How else would it have become Number 1?

    Niall_Bradley -> getuuuuumpher 28 Sep 2015 18:42

    Don't forget the mercenaries who moonlight as 'ISIS' and 'rebels' and 'anti-ISIS'.

    Bosula WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:28

    That has got to be better than the US supporting 'moderate' IS groups take over Syria - what the US called regime change.

    How the US link democracy with supporting 'moderate' IS groups is beyond logic.

    Dave Lawton 28 Sep 2015 18:28

    The US was plotting to overthrow Assad in 2006 you just need to read the leaked diplomatic cables from those early years.It`s a no-brainer. The West is now collecting a lot of Karma for their policy of regime change. Also as I write this I hear this has occurred.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34377565

    normankirk -> Alderbaran 28 Sep 2015 18:25

    So Alderaban, if there is such a force as these "moderate rebels" you refer to, who have the backing of the majority of Syrians, I would have expected them to have nominated a leader by now. Some democrat with huge appeal?

    But to date , no one has come forward or been nominated. And it seems the genuine protest movement has been overwhelmed and subsumed by sectarian extremists, who get US training and weapons then promptly get killed or defect. So who do you see, which group (Moderate rebels is too vague, get specific) would have the backing of the Syrian people to be a credible alternative to Assad?

    Please name the secular opposition members

    Dinkylou -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:24

    Russia & Syria signed a treaty on the 2nd February 1946...& that treaty stands to this day...

    "Russian speaking populace" they are Ukrainians...that's like pointing out the difference between American English & English English...The Russians have nothing to do with the genocide as you call it...It's the Ukraine government killing their own Ukrainian people...the only part the Russians have played in it... is that they are leveling the playing field a little bit by giving them weapons.

    Aguia -> JudeUSA 28 Sep 2015 18:18

    It was the Soviet Union who saved Europe. The US waited as long as they could before going in.

    Davo3333 -> peterpierce24 28 Sep 2015 18:12

    Such turnarounds have happened many times in the past and will happen again in the future. However Russia and China just have to stick together and that combination is too powerful for the US and will prevent the US from attacking more countries in the near future.

    vr13vr -> beanosparty 28 Sep 2015 18:12

    Why would this reduce the possibility of ISIS taking over Syria? Did ISIS agree to this plan? If anything, who do you think will lead the fight against ISIS if Assad steps down? No other figure from his government will be able to get enough of army support. And only 4 people in the "moderate rebels" camp are willing to fight ISIS.

    But frankly, what exactly problem do we have with Assad? Why do we insist on his removal instead of fighting ISIS all together?

    Willyvandamme -> sasha19 28 Sep 2015 18:10

    As a Sufi and business man in Damascus told me earlier this month in the town Syria has around 30 religions, 60 or so sects and many minorities. It is this which saved Syria from the mightiest force ever assembled against one relative small country. This is the heart of the Arab world and the Middle East and the cradle of our civilization. Making the destruction of this by the West the biggest crime seen since WWII.

    finnja -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 18:09

    Well, you are the one who started that game, now you complain I played it? How very American. Fact is, the US is responsible for more wars and related deaths post WWII than any other country world wide, and the logic of the US empire's interventions is 'those who do not submit to US supremacy must fall'. Given those facts, the US's invoking of international law and democracy whenever suitable, while itself flaunting those same values anytime it wants is highly hypocritical.
    Why not have the balls to simply say 'We're the hegemon, submit worms! There are no rules but my wishes'. That would at least be honest. I don't even say Russia, China or whoever would act differently if one of them was the hegemon. But as it is the US is Empire, hegemon, prime bully and owner of military bases around the whole world. And the US's moral justifications for policies that are simply designed to further US geopolicical interests are a source of world wide amusement.

    Particularly, because - except for Cheney, maybe - the US politicians actually seem to believe themselves. (Samantha Power's twitter account is particularly funny in this respect).

    IanCPurdie 28 Sep 2015 18:09

    I find stark differences between the Obama and Putin's speeches - read them and make up your own minds.

    Hypocrisy screamed at me when making comparisons.

    justanonlooker 28 Sep 2015 18:08

    Hypocritical of Obama to criticise others for adopting a "might makes right" philosophy.

    Shady Noaman -> RightWingNuts 28 Sep 2015 18:08

    It's a shame. The people of America are hated because of the American Administration actions. I feel sorry for the American people.

    robertthebruce2014 28 Sep 2015 18:06

    Vladimir Putin, the Russian Jack Kennedy.

    RunsWithBread 28 Sep 2015 18:11

    Democracy. Not. Guardian heavily limits comments on its big articles. Instead it inserts 'Blair like' Spin

    MaryMagdalane -> Johnnyw1 28 Sep 2015 17:59

    Yes, it really makes me wonder why US and allies are so much focused on persons. They wanted to get rid of Iraqi and Libyan leaders and now insist on Assad's removal from power. They succeeded in first two cases and we witness the results of those glorious victories, but they never learn and now they are dead determined to topple Assad. It is good that this time someone says "enough is enough".

    Lesm 28 Sep 2015 17:58

    It takes a Herculean effort at strangled logic to reconcile the US demands, only regarding itself of course, that it has unrestricted sovereignty over what it wishes to do, either at home or anywhere around the world, and it's willingness on a daily basis to breach the national sovereignty of any other nation it chooses.

    It is however ably assisted in this process by the Western Media, who regularly refer to the US demands for regime change in other countries without reference to the fact that such is a direct and serious breach of international law and the sovereignty of nations. They just assume that it is OK if it is the US making these demands and taking these actions, whereas if others choose to do so it raises wails of righteous indignation, not only from the US, but from the Western Press.

    That is a mark of the overwhelming success of the propaganda system that it has become so internalised amongst our supposedly free press that it never raises even an eyebrow.

    MTavernier -> Aguia 28 Sep 2015 17:58

    Putin's wars!? Which ones are those?

    Since Russia invaded Afghanistan (1979-1989), it has been in a never-ending series of wars, both foreign and internal:

    Transnistria (1992), Ossetia (1992), Tajikistan (1992-1997), Georgia (1993), Chechnya (1994-1996), Dagestan (1999), Chechnya again (1999-2009), Georgia again (2008), North Caucasus (2009- ), and now Ukraine (2014- ).

    Whatever Russia is, it isn't the sparkling-eyed innocent.

    Roman Bolshakov -> MauditFrancais1979 28 Sep 2015 17:53

    Who has given you permission to speak on behalf of Russian citizens? There're no good alternatives to Putin right now. Also majority of senior people (40+) voted for him, including my parents and grand parents.

    If you want to change a regime do it in your country please.

    Abiesalba Popeyes 28 Sep 2015 17:57

    We all know that the US with its obedient poodle the UK has been in recent decades BY FAR the most dangerous state in the world.


    desconocido -> phconnell 28 Sep 2015 17:55

    The weapons of these rebels are all Russian, not western

    I think the US has acknowledged that it provides Russian made weapons in Syria (easier to maintain etc) and that a lot have been picked up by ISIS.

    Abiesalba -> lostinpa 28 Sep 2015 17:53

    I'll say no more

    Really you should also say about 500,000 dead Iraqi civilians as a consequence. And their totally demolished homeland where people do not even have electicity and running water anymore.

    Since the UK has twice as many inhabitants as Iraq, this is equivalent to Iraq occupying the UK just like that, for fun, causing ONE MILLION dead Brits along they way.

    Now, I wonder what those Brits sneering at Putin would think about Iraq or Russia causing 1 million dead Brits just like that, for no reason whatsoever.

    peterpierce24 -> laticsfanfromeurope 28 Sep 2015 17:52

    Indeed. Putin basically proposes to defeat extremists of all sorts on ground, and in parallel start a political process where people of Syria would decide on their political leadership. I suppose that if Isis will be defeated by coalition where Assad is one of key figures then he will be seen by Syrian people as a true leader. It's something like was done in Chechnya.

    impartial12 -> NoSense 28 Sep 2015 17:52

    The people who protested against Assad during the Arab Spring were the Sunni majority who simply wanted the freedoms people like us take for granted. What is wrong to take their side and see that this madman is properly removed? What I don't understand is how Russia can assist such a man in slaughtering the people of his own country. ISIS was able to grow because this oppression of the Sunnis by a minority was ignored for such a long time.


    MaryMagdalane -> budgie2356 28 Sep 2015 17:51

    I don't think US or West in general give a damn about their war victims. The only thing which matters to them is their own geopolitical interests.

    Popeyes 28 Sep 2015 17:51

    It seems that Putin has called time out on the U.S and its allies for the jihadist terrorism in Syria. It seems they were more intent on regime change than defeating IS and were complicit in arms and money transfers to the jihadists. The problem we have is that we all know what happens when the U.S. embarks on regime chase, you just have to look at Iraq and Libya. Total chaos.

    originalcommie 28 Sep 2015 17:49

    We support the military dictatorship in Egypt, so I don't see why we cannot keep Assad. The devil you know.

    vr13vr -> Alderbaran 28 Sep 2015 17:49

    I'm worried. But from the most current dynamic, it looks like Russia is the one that calls for cooperated action against ISIS while the US just stuck with the "remove Assad" condition and refuses to look at any other solutions, which makes it the party that is most concern about the cold war rivalry rather than achieving any common progress.

    Quetzalcoatl14 -> Patlogan34 28 Sep 2015 17:46

    The problem is most Americans, especially liberals, still support Obama no matter what. Many liberals abroad too.

    WarlockScott -> laticsfanfromeurope 28 Sep 2015 17:46

    Well yeah I guess if you consider kill 'em all and let their god sort 'em out to be a strategy

    NoSense 28 Sep 2015 17:46

    There may be an endless debate about the facts, who did what, but as a matter of principle the positions of the sides are as follows:

    • OBAMA: we, and our allies, are the good guys. Although imperfect, we are democratic, free and, overall, rightness nations. We will be fighting the bad guys and those who stand on our way. If the UN disagrees, we'll go on nevertheless.
    • PUTIN: no one is exceptional, the UN and international law must be observed even if this means compromises with people you don't like. Sovereignty must be respected, therefore, no one but the people of this country must decide their own destiny.

    Frankly, if the US keep moving the way they do, this generation will see the fall of this great nation.

    Abiesalba -> Ernekid 28 Sep 2015 17:45

    "How can I be a gangster if I worked for the KGB?"
    The Russian for Irony is Ирония

    Putin has a very long way to go to match the destruction and deaths caused by the glorious heroic US/UK duo who have been beyond any doubt BY FAR the most dangerous world 'power' in recent decades.

    Eh, only some 500,000 dead Iraqi civilians on the US/UK watch after they ILLEGALLY occupied Iraq. And the reason that we do not even know how many Iraqi deaths there were is because the heroic US/UK duo did not even care enough about those inferior Iraqis to COUNT their dead bodies. While they were absolutely hysterical about each and every US/UK soldier who died in Iraq!!!

    desconocido -> Jiri 28 Sep 2015 17:44

    The US can destroy both Assad and ISIS as was done successfully in Libya.

    I've just realized this was irony.

    HollyOldDog -> Omniscience 28 Sep 2015 17:44

    Poor Vietnam they beat the USA into submission then descended into raping their valuable land to produce cheap coffee beans for Nescafé. The production is so unregulated that vast swathes of virgin forest are being ripped asunder and many unique varieties of fauna and flora are being destroyed.

    Que the headline on Tuesday February 07 2012 in Commondeams.org

    Monsanto, the Agent a Orange creator returns to Vietnam.

    Ready to sell its crops and weed-killing chemicals to Vietnam: many outraged.

    The article explains more and here is enough info for others to discover it.


    Sin_Signalling -> MTavernier 28 Sep 2015 17:44

    "If the West failed in Iraq, certainly Russia will fail in Iraq and Syria."

    Let's see - they have far more at stake than they did in Afghanistan and they certainly have all the weapons they need to do the job.


    foolisholdman -> WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 17:43

    WarlockScott > Joan Grogan

    So what is Putin creating in Ukraine then? What did he create in Chechnya, wasn't the Boston marathon guy Chechen...yes, yes he was.

    Why blame Putin for either situation? The Chechen war was against Islamic fundamentalists allied to Al Qaida, and we all know who set that up. You can criticise his tactics but you can't blame the war on him.

    Likewise, in Ukraine it was an NED/CIA operation from the start.

    As someone above pointed out the Russians warned the US authorities about the Boston bombers but were ignored. I wonder why? Could it be that the Security Industry LIKES terrorists? Nobody else does, they do no good to anyone except the Security Industry and the SI seems to be rather butter-fingered when it comes to stopping them.

    lostinpa 28 Sep 2015 17:42

    remember Weapons of mass destruction!
    I'll say no more


    MiniMo -> Eddy Ridgeway 28 Sep 2015 17:40

    The West's lack of morality is not limited to the ME, and its lack of morality is people's problems across every continent, directly and indirect!y.


    Quaestio -> JudeUSA 28 Sep 2015 17:39

    Boston bombing was a false flag operation. You know, like "terrorist attack" that CIA later admitted were part of their Operation Gladio. At the time we didn't know. One called it "special war" or "mass manipulation. It's all over the internet these days.

    Serge Tankian 28 Sep 2015 17:39

    Can Putin form an anti-terrorist coalition with a country that has been financing, arming and inspiring ISIS the last few years? I doubt it. A series of fuckups has led the U.S. ME policy to the grinding halt Obama is now facing.


    europeangrayling -> MonotonousLanguor 28 Sep 2015 17:39

    Yup and Saudi Arabia is killing Yemeni mostly Shia civilians from the air every day with billions of US bombs and weaponry, and also literally and directly helping and fighting on the side of Al Qaida in Yemen, yet not a word from Obama and the US government, and if they say something it is 100% support for our 'ally' Saudi Arabia.
    And then there is all the some 2-3,000 innocent civilians that Obama's drone strikes killed as well in Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan, and he will say it was all accidental but I don't think the 3,000 dead women, men and kids and families really care. And then there's Iraq and Libya of course like you said.
    I don't know how some of these US government officials and media people can keep a straight face when they say this stuff man.


    Sin_Signalling -> Arthur_Strongthatch 28 Sep 2015 17:40

    Russia - this is a battle of survival and in terms of our self-interest then Russia is clearly the lesser of the 2 evils.


    laticsfanfromeurope 28 Sep 2015 17:39

    Obama: Words, words, empty words but no strategy to defeta ISIS.

    Putin: A clear strategy to defeat ISIS

    RightWingNuts 28 Sep 2015 17:39

    The hypocrisy of the US, what have they been doing since the end of WWII but using their might across the world and mainly Middle East, promised so much Obama and delivered so little. No wonder the US is hated so much.

    Joseph Rozen -> SonnyTuckson 28 Sep 2015 17:37

    Where on earth do you get your facts and figures from?? Are you at all aware of the carnage perpetrated by Western trained armed and supplied fundamentalist forces., IS etc? Your views and opinions are a matter for you of course, but your ignorance is absolutely embarrassing.

    Lunora -> NeuLabour 28 Sep 2015 17:37

    The obvious problem with that is it has proven extremely difficult to locate moderate rebels in Syria.

    Lesm 28 Sep 2015 17:31

    It is interesting to note that the doctrinal system is functioning well in Washington. That system requires that all actions "we" take are clothed in righteousness and all comparable actions taken by "others" are clothed in ignominy and infamy. So to take Obama seriously we would need to have the UN condemn the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the illegal bombing of Syria, Libya, the Sudan, Yugoslavia and several lesser countries (in very recent times) and a litany of other countries over the last seventy years. But the doctrinal system requires us to plunge these manifold instances of the 'might makes right' approach down the memory hole to enable us to take the high moral ground at the UN, which we in effect control through our ability, and willingness, to withhold funding unless it does what we say.

    It must be only with supreme effort that the rest of the world gathered there can hold a straight face whilst the greatest practitioner in history of the "might makes right" doctrine lectures the rest of us about the unacceptability of this doctrine, when practiced by anyone other than the righteous and exceptional US of A..


    foolisholdman -> TruthCounts 28 Sep 2015 17:26

    TruthCounts

    "Putin showed no sign of willingness to compromise on Assad's fate."

    Eh? I don't hear any willingness to compromise from the west either.

    I don't imagine he or any head of state with his brains intact, is likely to compromise on that sort of proposition!
    Once allow that Obama and Cameron are entitled to say who runs Syria and "Who is next?", becomes the burning question.

    The whole idea is outrageous.


    Belj14 -> MauditFrancais1979 28 Sep 2015 17:24

    Not at all

    The US has tried to provoke Russia but Russia consistently says a good relationship with the US ans West is better for the world

    Russia has said they will respond if attacked and will not make a preemptive strike


    TheSouthernDandy -> TruthCounts 28 Sep 2015 17:24

    Did you read the whole article?

    "Obama's address was also an ode to the twin virtues of democracy and diplomacy, interwoven with admissions of when the US had fallen short of those ideals, in the invasion of Iraq, and the xenophobia that has risen to the surface in the nation's current political discourse."

    Sin_Signalling 28 Sep 2015 17:23

    If Russia destroys Islamic State then good for him and for the West.

    The US are pathetically craven to the Saudis for far too long and their pathetic dependence on Oil has prevented them from doing what they should have done a long time ago.


    Johnny -> Kent Pannalu 28 Sep 2015 17:23

    Anybody agree how arrogant and devoid of logic Obamas's speech was? he is well past sell-by date as president.

    jboy606 -> sasha19 28 Sep 2015 17:22

    The root of all this mess goes back to when the first civilisations formed. Man is a greedy, nasty, violent, lazy species. War is part of who we are. We won't be here for ever though, so maybe the next creature to evolve is a little bit more.... Civilised.


    peterpierce24 28 Sep 2015 17:22


    Putin is very consistent throughout the years on Syria and his position stays the same in spite on sanctions. I can see no changes in his stance at all. Meanwhile his today speech is a continuation of his spech in Munich in 2007. Also, no changes, as far as I can see. Putin is still anti-american and now he turns to the Far East and, also returns to Middle east. These pro-Eastern developments seem the only significant change in Putin's politics so far.

    finnja -> Valois1588 28 Sep 2015 17:22

    Funny that pretty much nobody fled Assad prior to ISIS.


    Sam Ahmed -> racole 28 Sep 2015 17:21

    YOUR US IS FIXING OUR PROBLEMS?? It is your country that has backed these ISIS fiends willingly. At least here in the GB we've slowed down much of the attack initiative proposed by our government. Yes our country's government has a lap dog mentality towards the US,but we as the people here have helped by demanding more peaceful resolutions. Hell our country is also the number 1 financer for the support for the refugees, while the US HAS FINANCED ISIS. Don't tell us that you are fixing our problems, because the US is the nation that has poked every bear in the ME, wilfully I might add.

    Koenig_Dominik -> Valois1588 28 Sep 2015 17:21

    The same America that shot down Iran Air Flight 655 and never bothered to appologise? Yeah, they get to be picky towards Russia.

    Joseph Rozen -> Valois1588 28 Sep 2015 17:20

    What Infantile nonsense! you people posting this crap have no dignity or self respect do you? What were the 'allies' dropping on Iraqi and Libyan cities and towns? What are the Saudis dropping on Yemenis? Do you remember the cluster bombs? phosphorous munitions, DU ordnance? Surly, there must be some limit to such hypocrisy!

    finnja -> Alderbaran 28 Sep 2015 17:32

    How much Syrian territory does the non-ISIS, non Al-Nusra, non Al-Quaeda, non-jihadist moderate opposition hold currently?

    dalan66 28 Sep 2015 17:32

    Might is right ... Is the basis for American "exeptionalism" and the pathological need to own the world. Anyone who stands against this unprecedented act of imperial aggression deserves our support.
    Go putin!

    Peter Sembol -> Doug_Niedermeyer 28 Sep 2015 17:15

    You can rest assured that Russians are very proud of their president right now. They can not imagine to have someone more shrewd and experienced them him at the helm, and I believe they are right. Nobody fights for Russia's wellbeing better than Putin, and the West knows it. And for that reason West hates him. Notice I say 'West' not the 'world' as the West and their propaganda pushers would like you to believe.

    Belj14 28 Sep 2015 17:14

    Obama overlooks the terrible harm done to Syria resulting from US backing 'rebels' against the wishes of a very large number of Syrians.

    Also ironic the way he talks about democracy, while dictating about Government in Syria and after the horrendous damage caused by illegal US intervention in Iraq,Libya, Ukraine and Syria - all of which subjected to US self-interested regime change agenda.

    BrainDrain59 -> racole 28 Sep 2015 17:09

    I agree with most of your post except "Syria's civil war was not sponsored by the US." That is less a civil war than an invasion by Islamist extremists, backed mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Two allies of the US who would not do so w/o US permission. Belligerent US language re Syria for years now, how can you miss this?

    Solongmariane 28 Sep 2015 17:06

    13 years ago, the NATO coalition led by Washington repelled the Talibans from Kunduz (Afghanistan). After years of NATO & US occupation, 4 or 5.000 deaths, many Bln $ spent...today, the Talibans retaked Kunduz. Like Irak, like Lybia, Washington made the wrong decisions. Why should we listen to the US solution for Syria. They have no solutions, just many bombs. Their credit is down.


    PotholeKid -> stevekeenan1 28 Sep 2015 17:05

    Lavrov has in the past stated that Russia does not want to see Syria turned into another Lybia... Which I suppose means total destruction by the west.

    Willyvandamme 28 Sep 2015 16:58

    Syria has been facing the biggest force trying to destroy another country in history. It included the whole of NATO with Turkey, the UK, the US and France, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Jordan and Qatar. They did send to this country, the cradle of our civilization, tens of thousands of the worst criminals on earth. Still after 4,5 years of continuing war Syria is still not defeated. Proven the people of Syria and its government are strong, stronger that these colonial powers ever could imagine.

    finnja WarlockScott 28 Sep 2015 16:56

    9/11 does not excuse anything. Particularly not that the Pentagon now supports Al Quaeda in Syria. The US acknoledged a regime in Ukraine that was swept into power via a coup - because the head of government had fled. Ironically when the same happened in Yemen, the US fell over themselves stressing that the head of government who had fled was still legitimate. Oh the hypocrisy.


    [Sep 28, 2015] What Oil Investors 4Can Learn From Gold By Michael McDonald

    I think the oil is not gold. And the mechanism of over-producing oil despite low prices is based on the fact that most companies and oil producing countries are in debt, sometimes crushing debt like in case of shale companies, Venezuela, etc. Gold is used in industry but mainly serves as the store of wealth. Oil is lifeblood of the modern civilization. If we assume that 'oli glut" is the problem most new projects are being suspended or cancelled while assets are also sold off. Capital spending is shrinking. Debt is rising. International oil companies are now are under threat in countries were they operate. Business climate could be darkening. Casino capitalism can't manipulate price of resources such as oil for long.
    OilPrice.com

    The worldwide printing of virtual money through quantitative easing was supposed to keep inflating gold's price. Even after the commodity collapsed in value, numerous commentators and groups predicted that it was temporary, and many said that, with the fall in price, demand would surge leading to a sharp rebound within a few months. There was even talk about various industry organizations failing to properly report supply and demand numbers thus keeping the markets misinformed and prices low. Now though, more than two years on from that drop, nothing close to those predictions has materialized, and investors are still licking their wounds.

    This is not a story about gold though. It's a story about oil. The truth of the matter is that gold is largely an irrelevant commodity compared with oil. Oil is the basis for dozens of countries' economies around the world and for thousands of major companies' existence. None of that matters though. The other truth, and the less pleasant one, is that there are stark parallels between what happened to gold a few years ago and what is happening to oil today.

    ... ... ...

    In the cases of both gold and oil, frothy price levels led to large increases in production over the course of a decade and unorthodox sources of supply started to be exploited. Despite the rising supply and only slow growth in demand, prices continued to rise. After a while, both gold and oil stabilized and spent time consolidating and then, just as gold fell, oil too collapsed in price.

    Now roughly a year after the first big shocks started to hit the oil market, suppliers have responded in earnest. But just as with gold, simply cutting supplies a bit and having a few weak producers go bankrupt will not lead to a rapid price rebound. Instead it is increasingly beginning to look like oil prices will remain subdued at well less than a $100 a barrel for years to come.

    Perhaps oil prices will come back and the parallels with gold will end here, but that's probably too optimistic. Most of the same basic economic forces that impact gold are equally valid with oil. Investors need to be prepared for the reality that it may take a decade or more for oil to return to $100 a barrel. That does not mean that oil companies will all go out of business or that investing in energy stocks cannot be profitable.

    [Sep 28, 2015] Exuberance and Disappoin4tment at Shell's About-Face in the Arctic

    Looks like Shell wants to wait out the period of low oil prices, cutting investments to bare minimum.
    "... More than half of the state's $5.2 billion this year could not be collected, forcing budget cuts and a deep dive into a state savings account. ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | The New York Times

    In Alaska, Shell's announcement that it would suspend drilling in the Chukchi Sea after a test well showed less promise than hoped for was one more blow to a state where energy-tax revenues - which pay for most of the budget - are drying up as prices and production have fallen. More than half of the state's $5.2 billion this year could not be collected, forcing budget cuts and a deep dive into a state savings account. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline that made the state rich after its completion in the 1970s is pumping only a quarter of its oil capacity.

    "It's tough times," said Kara Moriarty, the president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, who said that rumors of layoffs in the next few weeks or months, in both the corporate offices of oil companies in Anchorage and in the drilling fields, were flying everywhere. "It's an incredibly sobering day," she added.

    [Sep 28, 2015] Shell Exits Arctic as Oil Slump Forces Industry to Retrench

    Sep 28, 2015 | The New York Times

    As oil prices have continued their steady decline this year, rig after rig has been shut down, costing thousands of jobs in the United States. Yet major oil producers have been loath to pull the plug on their most ambitious projects - the multibillion-dollar investments that form the backbone of their operations.

    Until now. On Monday, Royal Dutch Shell ended its expensive and fruitless nine-year effort to explore for oil in the Alaskan Arctic - a $7 billion investment - in another sign that the entire industry is trimming its ambitions in the wake of collapsing oil prices.

    ... ... ...

    The industry has cut its investments by 20 percent this year and laid off at least 200,000 workers worldwide, roughly 5 percent of the total work force. Companies also have retreated from less profitable fields in places like the North Sea, West Africa, and some shale prospects in Louisiana and North Dakota.

    American oil companies have decommissioned more than half of their drilling rigs over the last year, and production is beginning to drop in the United States...

    ... ... ...

    With demand dwindling, the current market of 94 million barrels a day has roughly two million barrels in surplus supply.

    Steve Projan

    This decision was not based on the test results of a single well but the current glut of oil and its depressed price and renders the expensive to get arctic oil a poor investment, for now. But I'll bet that Shell isn't giving back its lease. The (short term) losers are the Alaskan citizens who are addicted to oil money that is rapidly running out (heavens these takers might actually have to pay taxes rather than getting a check from the government).

    At least for today a modest, although probably short term, win for the environment.

    rexl, phoenix, az. 1 hour ago

    Just think what is going to happen when the price of oil goes back above one hundred dollars per barrel.


    [Sep 28, 2015] Economic impo4rtance of China

    "... China's import volumes of crude oil were up 9.8% y-o-y in 8m15, so the effect you're describing hasn't happened yet. ..."
    "... I think the US oil production decline is mostly a domestic cycle, following earlier overinvestment, ..."
    "... Debt now drives the globe – downward! The effects of decades of Keynesian deficit spending and central banking run amok are coming home to roost. ..."
    "... US QEs went into the stock market and via the carry trade into EM debt. ..."
    "... For example, gasoline and jet fuel demand in China were both up more than 20% in August year on year–absolutely a blow-out month. Oil demand was up an impressive 6.6%. Similarly, Nike saw fabulous results in China in the three months ended August, with sales there up more than 30%. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34355627 All of these indicators directly contradict any notion of recession. ..."
    "... India imports 100% of oil consumption. China imports 55-60% (?) of oil consumption. World oil supply per capita is no higher than in 2004-05 and where US oil production per capita was in the late 1970s, the onset of deindustrialization and financialization of the US economy. The world is where the US was in the late 1970s ..."
    "... Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time. ..."
    "... Here are China's commercial inventories, just for you. They are a solid 19 mb below normal for oil, and 27 mb below for all crude and product inventories taken together. ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | Econbrowser
    U.S. exports of goods and services to China in 2014 were $167 billion, only about 1% of U.S. GDP. But U.S. investment in mining structures (explorations, shafts, and wells) amounted to $146B at an annual rate in 2014:Q4. By the second quarter of this year that number was down to $89B, largely a result of cutbacks in the U.S. oil patch. This means that in the absence of offsetting gains elsewhere, this development alone has already subtracted about 0.3% from U.S. GDP.

    Of course, lower commodity prices will force layoffs for oil companies and miners but leave more money in the hands of consumers. However, additional spending from that channel has been more modest than many of us were anticipating.


    Tom Warner, September 27, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    China's import volumes of crude oil were up 9.8% y-o-y in 8m15, so the effect you're describing hasn't happened yet.

    I think the US oil production decline is mostly a domestic cycle, following earlier overinvestment, which was to some extent driven by wrong hopes that the Saudis would accommodate higher US output by cutting theirs. The global knock-on effects are mainly among oil producers, many of which didn't pass on the oil price drop to their domestic consumers, and many of which have reacted to falling oil prices by increasing their net energy exports.

    But the general tone of caution about China I agree with. The main effect from China globally has been to reduce prices of building materials and metals, especially iron ore.

    BC, September 27, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Tom, WRT to China's oil imports, take a look at China's oil production, consumption, imports as a share of consumption, net imports of oil, the extent to which China is storing/hoarding oil as a share of consumption, and electricity consumption, and the aggregate suggests that the Chinese economy is growing at a fraction of the reported 7% real rate.

    JBH, September 28, 2015 at 9:03 am

    Tom: The main effect from China has been to wreak havoc on EM economies. Simultaneous with the reversal of the US dollar carry trade, this has caused an increasing number of EMs to tilt toward recession. EMs (ex China) have the largest ppt contribution to global growth this recovery.

    When the locomotive slows, the train slows. EM currencies are plunging. To support them, monetary policies are being tightened. Much EM corporate and sovereign debt is denominated in dollars. Hence the need to support currencies to service debt and stave off default.

    Debt now drives the globe – downward! The effects of decades of Keynesian deficit spending and central banking run amok are coming home to roost. Since 2014:Q1, the net export contribution to real GDP has been minus 0.6%. Another leg down coming. The daisy-chain from EMs to the US is multi-stemmed real and financial. Growing fissures in the financial system are the worry. US QEs went into the stock market and via the carry trade into EM debt. All this is unwinding, as it was always going to. Promises to become known the Great Unwind.

    BC, September 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    What must be understood is that China's "miracle" was not an organic process but one "made in the USA" (and in part Japan), in that US supranational firms have invested (via offshoring in search of labor arbitrage) trillions of dollars since the 1980s-90s, resulting in a scale and rate of growth per capita in China that otherwise would not have occurred.

    US and Japanese FDI peaked in 2011-13 and began contracting in the past year or so, not coincidentally when China's "exports" (largely from US and Japanese firms' production of components, intermediate goods, and finished goods) and goods-producing sectors began to contract.

    Since 2013, China's labor force has been contracting. Along with reported wage growth, contracting production, M1 and M2 growing 9-13%, and money supply at ~195-200% of GDP, China's productivity is growing no faster than ~1%. Then, at a population growth rate of 0.5%, in aggregate, China's real potential GDP per capita hereafter is effectively 0%, which is the post-2007 average trend rate (new normal of secular stagnation) for the US, EZ, and Japan.

    This outcome was never in doubt, as it was implied by the precedent of the middle-income trap, excessive debt to GDP, and the demographic drag effects China is now experiencing, as is occurring for the countries that make up 70-75% of world GDP.

    Moreover, under these conditions, it should be no surprise that growth of trade has peaked and begun contracting, as the US-China "trade" flows made up the largest share of global "trade" for what I refer to as the Anglo-American imperial trade regime, which is not unlike that of Britain from the 1870s-80s to WW I.

    Now with the onset of the cumulative, self-reinforcing effects of Peak Oil, record debt to GDP coinciding with unprecedented asset bubbles to GDP, hyper-financialization of the economy (net flows to the financial sector absorbing all output), population overshoot, climate change, low labor share, decelerating productivity, extreme wealth and income inequality, decelerating money velocity, and fiscal constraints, the world faces the new normal/neutral of global secular stagnation, which is likely to be further entrained by another global deflationary recession and bear market possibly underway.

    Tweaking tax, fiscal, and monetary policies under the foregoing conditions will make little difference. The assumptions and policies that were deemed appropriate during the inflationary and reflationary regimes of the Long Wave will be rendered ineffective or irrelevant during the current debt-deflationary regime. The primary causes of the malaise are demographics, low labor share, too much debt, overvalued assets hoarded by the top 1-10% at zero velocity, and extreme inequality exacerbating the effects on capital formation and productivity (and growth of profits) from low labor share and excessive debt.

    Until debt is forgiven sufficiently and labor share/purchasing power increases (by higher wages or lower or no regressive taxation on earned income) for the bottom 80-90%, the secular stagnation will persist and its effects worsen until a crisis that risks the collapse of the mass-consumer economy and of the institutions that depend on growth of the economy per capita.

    It's "different this time", but apparently most eCONomists don't know it, don't know why it's different and the implications, or they aren't paid to tell us.

    Steven Kopits, September 27, 2015 at 3:06 pm

    For those interested, please find the first edition of my China Tracker here: http://www.prienga.com/blog/2015/9/27/china-tracker-sept-2015

    The evidence suggests that China most likely has been suffering the side-effects of an over-valued yuan since Q3 2014. Such a situation would benefit importers and consumers and hurt exporters and producers. And it has.

    For example, gasoline and jet fuel demand in China were both up more than 20% in August year on year–absolutely a blow-out month. Oil demand was up an impressive 6.6%. Similarly, Nike saw fabulous results in China in the three months ended August, with sales there up more than 30%. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34355627 All of these indicators directly contradict any notion of recession.

    On the other hand, the Chinese have resisted devaluing the yuan in line with the won, yen or Euro, and so China's competitiveness has substantially eroded, and that's clearly visible in capital flows, exports, and industrial production. In principle, if China devalues, the demand for Nikes and oil should ease off a bit, and exporters should be revitalized.

    I would add that China's private debt-to-GDP ratio is very high, indeed, at levels associated with financial crisis in many other countries historically. However, the proximate issue in China is the exchange rate. We would get a better sense of the state of the underlying economy once that issue is addressed.

    Find more in the Tracker.

    BC, September 28, 2015 at 6:49 am

    Jeffrey, I suspect that the "Limits to Growth" (LTG) to global real GDP per capita from Peak Oil, falling GNE, population overshoot, etc., will force a decline in demand for oil imports in China and India as trade slumps and real GDP per capita decelerates to 0%.

    India imports 100% of oil consumption. China imports 55-60% (?) of oil consumption. World oil supply per capita is no higher than in 2004-05 and where US oil production per capita was in the late 1970s, the onset of deindustrialization and financialization of the US economy. The world is where the US was in the late 1970s, i.e., peak industrialization. India is 40-45 to 80+ years too late to industrialization, and China's growth has peaked and will decelerate to ~0% real per capita.

    The oil/commodities cycle is contracting, implying $20-$30 oil in the years ahead.

    That fits with the ongoing decline per capita for US oil production (now at the level of the late 1940s) as the log-linear US oil depletion regime inexorably continues. Despite the fastest 5- and 9-year rates of US oil production since 1927-30, the shale boom/bubble is but a blip for the long-term US oil depletion regime per capita.

    At the long-term trend rate of US oil depletion, US oil production per capita will have declined by 50% since 1970 by no later than the early 2020s; however, the 50% threshold could occur sooner were another global deflationary recession to occur, which appears increasingly likely. In fact, as little as a decline in US oil production to 8-8.2Mbd in the next 3-5 years will achieve the 50% decline per capita. I suspect that we will see the 50% per-capita threshold exceeded before 2020.

    And we know what the implications are for when the US reaches and sustains 50% oil depletion per capita. The structural effects have already begun to occur with real GDP per capita since 2007-08 averaging barely faster than ~0% for the US, EZ, and Japan, and now for China's real potential GDP. No amount of QE, ZIRP in perpetuity, and unprecedented asset bubbles can reverse the inexorable US depletion regime and its effects of real GDP per capita.

    Neither will wind and solar (renewable energy or RE) make much of a difference during the remaining oil depletion regime's descent. In fact, growth of wind and solar has likely peaked with the price of oil and will follow the oil cycle into negative growth in the years ahead. In effect, given Peak Oil and LTG, we cannot afford to grow real GDP per capita AND build out RE to necessary scale AND maintain the fossil fuel infrastructure indefinitely hereafter. Something has to give and it will be growth of real GDP per capita and the RE build-out.

    As a result, we are likely to experience a last-man-standing contest between the West and China for the world's remaining vital resources of finite planet Earth.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 28, 2015 at 4:15 am

    Through 2013 we have seen a post-2005 decline in what I define as Global Net Exports of oil (GNE, the combined net exports from the Top 33 net exporters in 2005), which is a pattern that appears to have continued in 2014 (complete data not yet available from EIA). GNE fell from 46 MMBPD (million barrels per day) in 2005 to 43 MMBPD in 2013 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids). The volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013.

    Here are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    Jeffrey J. Brown September 28, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    Minor correction: In 2013, India's total petroleum liquids production + other liquids production was 25% of total liquids consumption, China's was 42%.

    Jeffrey J. Brown September 28, 2015 at 6:57 am

    Interesting article on Saudi Arabia:

    The collapse of Saudi Arabia is inevitable

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/collapse-saudi-arabia-inevitable-1895380679

    Steven Kopits September 28, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    Here's a bit I wrote on oil prices and Arab unrest. Interestingly, unrest seems more correlated with high oil prices, rather than low prices.

    Keep in mind, the Saudi fiscal model went to hell after 1983, and particularly after the big oil price drop from Feb. 1986–and this at a time when they were pumping only 3 mbpd. And yet the monarchy survived.

    It's not entirely clear that low oil prices lead to revolution.

    http://www.prienga.com/blog/2014/12/1/arab-unrest-linked-to-oil-price-spikes-not-price-collapses

    And by the way (speaking of being quoted), I should be on NPR's Marketplace again tonight.

    Steven Kopits September 28, 2015 at 7:32 am

    Do you ever have a cheery day, BC?

    Here are China's commercial inventories, just for you. They are a solid 19 mb below normal for oil, and 27 mb below for all crude and product inventories taken together.

    BC September 28, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Thanks, Steven, but what's "normal" WRT inventories going forward? Do your data account for tanker oil storage?

    China's demand growth is set to slow to an annual rate of 2.3 percent by the fourth quarter compared with 5.6 percent in the second quarter, a reflection of "weak car sales data, declines in industrial activity, plummeting property prices and fragile electricity output," the IEA said in a report on Sept. 11.

    What if "normal" for 2011-14 is well above the trend rate of growth of demand hereafter?

    What is the source of your data? Thanks.

    Cheers!

    Ricardo September 28, 2015 at 4:56 am

    The Professor wrote:

    "I've long believed that to understand business cycles we need to consider not just net flows but also gross interdependencies. A downturn in China will affect some businesses much more than others. If specialized labor and capital do not easily move to other sectors, that can end up having significant multiplier effects.

    Professor,

    Thank you once again for a bit of reason in your analysis. Krugman as the leaders of the far-left Progressive economists leads so many astray with his ultra-aggregate economics.

    Excellent article!

    Steven Kopits September 28, 2015 at 8:36 am

    "Demand out of China [for Apple iPhone 6s] looks white-hot," Ives said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/apple-reports-record-sales-iphone-6-6s-plus-124914752–finance.html

    Doesn't really scream recession, does it. It sure screams over-valued currency, though.

    [Sep 27, 2015] US On The Ropes China To Join Russian Military In Syria While Iraq Strikes Intel Deal With Moscow, Tehran

    Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests are protected going forward.

    Thanks to the awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.

    In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and ultimately, to the Russian army.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Yay for Irredentism! Victoria Nuland Promises Yaltas Return to Ukraine

    Sep 27, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    Speaking at the Yalta European Strategy forum in Kiev on Saturday, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland raised quite a stir among Ukraine's irredentist politicians, saying that the city of Yalta would one day return to Kiev's control.

    ... ... ...

    Nuland's remarks featured rhetoric on stopping Russian aggression, praise for the Ukrainian leadership's great successes in reforming Ukraine's economy and tackling corruption, and promises that the US would continue to assist Ukraine, including its armed forces.

    "You have stopped the Novorossiya project in its tracks, stabilized the financial system and created a new police force…Many challenges remain ahead. There will be losses in the fight against corruption. But there should be no tolerance for the oligarchs," Nuland noted, cited by Ukrainian newspaper LB.ua. "We are providing Ukraine with continuous assistance. The United States, more than any other country, has supported the Ukrainian army. This is part of the reason why Ukraine has been able to stop the offensive in the east."

    But the remarks which caused the most excitement among Ukrainian officials and foreign hawks alike was a statement Nuland made at the beginning of her speech about the Yalta European Strategy forum one day returning to its home city of Yalta, Russia.

    The forum's official Twitter account proudly tweeted the statement, reading "#victorianuland one day you will return to that great #Ukrainian city #Yalta" and "#victorianuland happy you didn't change name of this conference – it is the Yalta European Strategy conference."

    ... ... ...

    Nuland's commentary kept up with the vaguely belligerent and occasionally downright absurd tone of the conference, with speakers bragging about the important successes of Ukraine has seen in its programs of economic and anti-corruption reforms, ramping up the rhetoric about Russian aggression, calling on Moscow to free suspected murderer Nadiya Savchenko, etc.

    ... ... ...

    Founded by Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk in 2004, the Yalta European Strategy forum has served to promote Ukraine's membership in the European Union, featuring high-level talks between Ukrainian and EU officials.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Analysis – EU 'ring of friends' turns into ring of fire

    "... The European Union's dream of building "a ring of friends" from the Caucasus to the Sahara has turned into a nightmare as conflicts beyond its borders send refugees teeming into Europe. ..."
    "... Ian Bond, a former British ambassador now at the Centre for European Reform, called the current policy a "mess of inconsistency and wishful thinking". .. ..."
    "... "In contrast to the success of its eastward enlargement drive that transformed former communist countries into thriving market democracies, the European Neighbourhood Policy launched in 2003 has been a spectacular flop…" ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al, September 27, 2015 at 2:41 am

    Neuters: Analysis – EU 'ring of friends' turns into ring of fire
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/27/uk-europe-migrants-neighbourhood-analysi-idUKKCN0RR09820150927?

    The European Union's dream of building "a ring of friends" from the Caucasus to the Sahara has turned into a nightmare as conflicts beyond its borders send refugees teeming into Europe.

    In contrast to the success of its eastward enlargement drive that transformed former communist countries into thriving market democracies, the European Neighbourhood Policy launched in 2003 has been a spectacular flop…

    …The failure to stabilise or democratise the EU's surroundings was partly due to forces beyond Brussels' control: Russian resentment over the collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as political and sectarian strife in the Middle East.

    Five of the six Eastern Partnership countries – Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan – are weakened by unresolved "frozen conflicts" in which Moscow has a hand. The sixth, Belarus, is so authoritarian that it is subject to EU sanctions and has eschewed the offer of a free trade deal.

    EU officials now acknowledge that the framework designed to engage and transform the bloc's neighbours was flawed from the outset due to a mixture of arrogance and naivety.

    "The idea was to have a ring of friends who would integrate with us but not become EU members. That was rather patronizing, with the European Union telling everyone what to do because we believed they wanted to be like us," said Christian Danielsson, head of the European Commission department for neighborhood policy and enlargement.

    …Now the EU neighborhood policy is undergoing a fundamental rethink, with a more modest, flexible and differentiated approach due to be unveiled on Nov. 17.

    Whether it will prove more effective remains to be seen.

    Ian Bond, a former British ambassador now at the Centre for European Reform, called the current policy a "mess of inconsistency and wishful thinking". ..

    …EU officials talk of the need for a new realism, putting the pursuit of common interests with partners ahead of lecturing them on human rights and democracy.

    But the European Parliament and member states such as Germany and the Nordic countries will be loath to soft-pedal promoting such values….

    …Michael Leigh, a senior adviser at the German Marshall Fund think-tank and former head of the EU's enlargement department, said Brussels had responded to the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings by offering a "top-heavy, long, cumbersome, demanding" DCFTA process rather than swift but limited market access. …

    ####

    Wise after the fact as usual. Too late mofos. For Stollenberg, its not the clever clever strategy being wrong, its always Russia. F/wit. I'm still waiting for van Rompuy to admit he has blood on his hands for the Ukraine.

    What they allude to but don't make a point of is that they wholly dismissed Russia from their calculations as if it was just going to become the EU's cuddly toy, a larger version of Serbia. No mention either that Russia is 'part of the solution' and cooperation with Russia is essential.

    It looks like some have got past anger and denial and have moved on to bargaining & depression.

    marknesop, September 27, 2015 at 9:45 am
    "In contrast to the success of its eastward enlargement drive that transformed former communist countries into thriving market democracies, the European Neighbourhood Policy launched in 2003 has been a spectacular flop…"

    Umm…say what?? I thought we had already looked at the Baltics as examples, and determined their populations peaked just before the dissolution of the Soviet Union and their subsequent snatching by NATO, at which point they commenced a slide which was the mirror image of their ascent. Why are citizens fleeing a thriving market democracy?

    I agree with your analysis – too late. However, the recent article linked which revealed Europe was just covering itself when it pretended to oppose the Gulf War has added another layer of cynicism to my hide, and I don't interpret this as the scales falling from anyone's eyes at all. They're not wiser, simply acknowledging that a ploy to get their own way did not work out as planned. There's no remorse, at all. They'll just try something else.

    I particularly loved the line,

    "The failure to stabilise or democratise the EU's surroundings was partly due to forces beyond Brussels' control: Russian resentment over the collapse of the Soviet Union, as well as political and sectarian strife in the Middle East."

    I see. So the angst of Russians missing Stalin wafted in the air over the borders of Europe's neighbors, and caused them to make irrational decisions and, against all common sense, to bite the soft pink European hand extended to them? Let me ask another – is there to be no limit of silliness and self-pity beyond which Europe will not go?

    [Sep 27, 2015] Is it too late to get the civil engineers in to change the plate on Yatsenyuk's door to "Saakashvili"?

    "... "Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, President Petro Poroshenko's chief of staff Borys Lozhkin and an ally of Interior Minister Arsen Avakov have been targeted by investigators and whistleblowers in Ukraine and abroad this week." ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    marknesop, September 26, 2015 at 10:30 pm

    Oh, oh!! Is it too late to get the civil engineers in to change the plate on Yatsenyuk's door to "Saakashvili"?

    http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv-post-plus/yatsenyuk-allies-of-poroshenko-avakov-targeted-by-corruption-investigations-398743.html

    Yeah, we're going to need a stronger Barcalounger. One with more width between the arms, too.

    "Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, President Petro Poroshenko's chief of staff Borys Lozhkin and an ally of Interior Minister Arsen Avakov have been targeted by investigators and whistleblowers in Ukraine and abroad this week."

    yalensis, September 27, 2015 at 4:58 am
    I like that boy, Oleg Sukhov. I don't agree with his political views, but I have to say, of all the "journalists" on KyivPost staff, he is maybe the only one who looks and smells like an actual journalist. He is a good muck-raker, and I think he has a future, even after Ukraine goes down the tubes.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Putin's deceptive pause What are Russia's n4ext steps in Ukraine

    "... Imperial Gamble: Putin, Ukraine and the New Cold War ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | www.brookings.edu

    Sep 1, 2015 | Brookings Institution4

    Ukraine is no longer the top priority for American diplomats. They are understandably absorbed with selling the Iran nuclear deal to a reluctant Congress. But, if Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is to be believed, there are a number of senior officials who have also been sending signals to Russia suggesting that President Obama wants to turn a page and improve his frosty relations with President Vladimir Putin. "We are already getting such signals from the Americans," Lavrov said, "though for now not very clear." Would Russia be open to better relations? Russia, responded the foreign minister, would "consider constructively" any such possibility.

    ... ... ...

    Though Russia is not the Soviet Union, it still remains the boss of Eastern Europe. When it sneezes, as we have learned, Ukraine can catch a bad cold. These days, everything in and around Ukraine seems to be in what one journalist called "managed instability." Putin can bring the crisis closer to a possible solution or he can widen the war. Or, more simply, he can "freeze" it. The key question is: What does Putin have in mind? What are his plans, assuming that he has plans, and is not winging the crisis day by day?

    ... ... ...

    With respect to Ukraine, Putin's position is hardly ideal, but it is still manageable. He now owns Crimea and controls two rebellious provinces in the southeast Donbas region. He knows Ukraine faces the possibility of economic collapse, even though it has made some progress. The more it slips toward the abyss, the better his chances, he thinks, of keeping Ukraine out of the Western orbit, which has always been one of his principal goals. Putin has the assets to throw Ukraine into further chaos at any time.

    Marvin Kalb is a nonresident senior fellow with the Foreign Policy program at Brookings, and senior advisor at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. He focuses on the impact of media on public policy and politics, and is also an expert in national security, with a focus on U.S. relations with Russia, Europe and the Middle East. His new book, scheduled for September 2015 publication, is Imperial Gamble: Putin, Ukraine and the New Cold War (Brookings Institution Press, 2015).

    [Sep 27, 2015] Meet The Man Who Prevented World War III

    Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Erico Matias Tavares via Sinclair & Co.,

    You may have never heard of Vasili Arkhipov. And yet life as we know it on this planet could have ended if it were not for his crucial intervention during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    Born in 1926, Arkhipov saw action as a minesweeper during the Soviet-Japanese war in August 1945. Two years later he graduated from the Caspian Higher Naval School, serving in the Black Sea and Baltic submarine fleets – just in time for the start of the Cold War, which would stay with him for the rest of his service.

    ... ... ...

    Arkhipov was second-in-command in the nuclear-armed Foxtrot-class submarine B-59, part of a flotilla of four submarines protecting Soviet ships on their way to Cuba. On October 27, as they approached the US imposed quarantine line, US Navy ships in pursuit started dropping depth charges to force the B-59 to surface for identification – completely unaware that it was carrying nuclear weapons.

    The explosions rocked the submarine which went dark except for emergency lights. With the air-conditioning down, temperature and carbon dioxide levels rose sharply. The crew was hardly able to breathe.

    Unable to contact Moscow and under pressure from the Americans for several hours, Captain Valentin Savitsky finally lost his nerve. He assumed that war had broken out between the two countries and decided to launch a nuclear torpedo. He would not go down without a fight.

    However, unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, the three officers onboard the B-59 had to agree unanimously to launch the nuclear torpedo. As the other officer sided with Savitsky, only Arkhipov stood in the way of launching World War III.

    An argument broke out between the three, but Arkhipov was able to convince the Captain not to launch the torpedo. How was he able to prevail under such stressful conditions? He was actually in charge of the entire flotilla and as such was equal in rank to Savitsky. But the reputation he had gained during the K-19 incident may have been the decisive factor in convincing the other officers to abort the launch. That detail may have made all the difference.

    The submarine eventually surfaced and awaited orders from Moscow, averting what would have been a nuclear holocaust. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended a few days later.

    This crucial episode of the Cold War only became known to the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union many years later.

    Arkhipov continued to serve in the Soviet Navy, commanding submarines and later submarine squadrons. He was promoted to rear admiral in 1975 and became head of the Kirov Naval Academy. In 1981, he was promoted to vice admiral, retiring a few years later. The radiation he was exposed to in the K-19 incident contributed to his death in 1998, at age 72.

    It is frightening to ponder how closely the civilized world came to the brink of extinction. It was only a click away, with two out of three in favor.

    It may not have been the only time either. Who knows how many more Soviet and American personnel played a decisive role in averting nuclear annihilation? One person can indeed change the fate of the world.

    We should never let their stories be forgotten.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Damage inflicted on the Soviet Union by delay of the invasion of France

    A delay characterized by General Eisenhower as an act of betrayal
    "... Most Americans have the delusion that the US is pure benevolence, an honorable country that is a moral example to the world. Gag me with a spoon. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Patient Observer, September 26, 2015 at 5:02 pm
    Many would argue that active planning began for the Cold War by the West after a Soviet victory was certain (circa early 1943). The initial phase may have been to maximize damage to the Soviet Union by delay of the invasion of France (a delay characterized by General Eisenhower as an act of betrayal) among other things. Another major indicator that the Cold War was in full bloom prior to the end of hostilities was the nuclear attack on Japan which was intended to evaluate the effects of nuclear explosions on civilian cities for a future attacks (i.e. Soviet cities) and a warning to the Soviet Union that the US will commit mass murder against defenseless civilians.

    The denial of reparations was yet another example that the West had nothing but hostility for the Soviets. Speaking of denials and breaking of promises, Vietnam was apparently promised reparations by the US but later reneged. Per Wikipedia:

    "Following the war, Hanoi pursued the establishment of diplomatic relations with the United States, initially in order to obtain US$3.3 billion in reconstruction aid, which President Richard M. Nixon had secretly promised after the Paris Agreement was signed in 1973. … Barely two months after Hanoi's victory in 1975, Premier Pham Van Dong, speaking to the National Assembly, invited the United States to normalize relations with Vietnam and to honor its commitment to provide reconstruction funds. Representatives of two American banks-the Bank of America and First National City Bank-were invited to discuss trade possibilities, and American oil companies were informed that they were welcome to apply for concessions to search for oil in offshore Vietnamese waters.

    Washington neglected Dong's call for normal relations, however, because it was predicated on reparations, and the Washington political climate in the wake of the war precluded the pursuit of such an outcome."

    Most Americans have the delusion that the US is pure benevolence, an honorable country that is a moral example to the world. Gag me with a spoon.

    [Sep 27, 2015] BBC anti-russian propaganda -- WWII German women rape story

    "... During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities. A guy who was a head honchos one of these PR firms was asked what aspects of the media campaigns he was most proud of and he replied that it was getting the influential Jewish lobby onside in the demonisation of the Serbs. ..."
    "... I see the constant identification of Soviet soldiers with rape and other atrocities as part of this perception management culture. ..."
    "... The reality is that rape, like other lawlessness, is an inevitable consequence of war and that all soldiers, Americans, British, French, German, Russians, committed these crimes. ..."
    "... That is quite right. It is all about smear. But the claim of 2 million rapes is a gross exaggeration that has not a shred of evidence to back it up. The true figure is not even 10 time less, it is likely to be around 100 times less and in the same range as the western allies. ..."
    "... Given the mass murder of civilians perpetrated by the Nazis, not collateral damage but actual rounding up and shooting or burning villagers in their own homes, why were the Soviet soldiers only worried about rape? If they were seeking revenge they would have been burning Germans alive. I have not heard of a single such instance. So the rape story is utter BS. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren, September 25, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    http://www.rt.com/news/316518-bbc-wwii-rapist-monument/

    Pavlo Svolochenko, September 25, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    The BBC really should be treated as a terrorist organisation – or at least accorded the legal status of a paedophile ring.

    Warren, September 25, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    The BBC serves the British state, its mission is to disseminate propaganda that serves interests of the British state – it is a state broadcaster after all!

    kirill, September 25, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    So we are back to the tired rape trope. Where are the German abortion and murder records to prove that there 2 million rapes? I can claim the moon is made of green cheese but without any actual evidence it means nothing.

    Fern, September 25, 2015 at 7:22 pm

    During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities. A guy who was a head honchos one of these PR firms was asked what aspects of the media campaigns he was most proud of and he replied that it was getting the influential Jewish lobby onside in the demonisation of the Serbs.

    Things have moved on a little since then and there are now three important lobbies any public perception manager needs to get onboard. Firstly, there's still the Jewish lobby attested to by the great effort undertaken to pin a gas attack on Bashar al-Assad. Any such attack, of course, is Auschwitz redux and guarantees a compulsion to act by the 'international community'. Secondly, there's the women's movement hence the enormous effort that been put into establishing that Public Enemies (Serbs, Gaddafi etc) use rape systemically, as a weapon of war. And thirdly, there's the LGBT lobby which is a comparatively new kid on the block but did sterling service in Sochi.

    I see the constant identification of Soviet soldiers with rape and other atrocities as part of this perception management culture. It reinforces a meme that is becoming increasingly common – the conflation of Nazism and Communism – the Nazi war machine and those who destroyed it are as bad as one another. And if the Soviets are exclusively identified with rape, they become uniquely bad in modern eyes. And if the Soviets are bad, well, the Russians are too.

    The reality is that rape, like other lawlessness, is an inevitable consequence of war and that all soldiers, Americans, British, French, German, Russians, committed these crimes. It's why the Nuremburg judgements call the waging of aggressive war the supreme international crime that contains within it all the other lesser crimes – like rape – that invariably follow. Angelina Jolie is probably a sincere woman but if she wants to stop rape in war, she needs to stop war.

    kirill, September 25, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    That is quite right. It is all about smear. But the claim of 2 million rapes is a gross exaggeration that has not a shred of evidence to back it up. The true figure is not even 10 time less, it is likely to be around 100 times less and in the same range as the western allies.

    Given the mass murder of civilians perpetrated by the Nazis, not collateral damage but actual rounding up and shooting or burning villagers in their own homes, why were the Soviet soldiers only worried about rape? If they were seeking revenge they would have been burning Germans alive. I have not heard of a single such instance. So the rape story is utter BS.

    Patient Observer, September 25, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    That is a good point that I have not heard before.

    et Al, September 26, 2015 at 3:58 am
    During the Balkan wars of the 1990's both the Croatians and the Bosnian muslims, but not the Serbs, hired US public relations firms to 'manage' public perceptions of their activities.
    ####

    The Serbs did hire a PR firm, but it was squeezed and ultimately forced to drop the account. The name of the firm escapes me…

    For bosnia, look up James Harff and Ruder-Finn & Knowlton bosnia or look here:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_Harff

    The UK peer Dame Anne Warburton (Warburton II report)* lead an 'investigation' in to Bosnian war rapes in 1992 that had to speculate the actual number of war rapes to date but found very little evidence to back up the numbers claimed by the media.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/09/world/european-inquiry-says-serbs-forces-have-raped-20000.html

    This letter to the editor is quite succinct (goes straight to pdf):
    http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1813&context=ree

    http://www.womenaid.org/press/info/humanrights/warburtonfull.htm
    * "…However, on the basis of its investigations, the Mission accepts that it is possible to speak in terms of many thousands. Estimates vary widely, ranging from 10,000 to as many as 60,000. The most reasoned estimates suggested to the Mission place the number of victims at around 20,000."

    marknesop, September 26, 2015 at 9:41 am
    Hill & Knowlton is also the PR Firm that managed the Iraq War for Kuwait, and coached the fake "Kuwaiti nurse" (actually the Kuwaiti Ambassador's daughter) in her "Saddam's animals ripped babies out of incubators" story. Worked like a charm. No truth to it at all, though. To me, that stands exemplary of the modern western spin-management technique – sit down as a team and figure out what it would take to get the public on your side. Then invent a situation where that happened.

    [Sep 27, 2015] On the curious bigotry and racism of #Russias pro-Western liberals

    Sep 27, 2015 | www.facebook.com

    Sep 24, 2015

    Mark Sleboda

    On the curious bigotry and racism of #Russia's pro-Western "liberals":

    Scratch a Russian "liberal" who fetishes the West and below the surface nearly every time you will find bigoted ethnic nationalism & racism.

    Russian liberals as a rule have nothing but contempt & loathing for Russia's 188+ ethnic minorities and other Eurasian peoples....

    Russia's liberals see the Eurasian minorities & immigrants as a weight holding Russia, and themselves personally, back from their longed-for Western aspirations & assimilation. They despise them for this. Russia's inner-Orient provoking a self-loathing Orientalism. They see the West as "Civilization" (singular, capital "C" ) and Russia's Eurasian peoples as the barbarian "Other".

    Ex. The near universal reaction of Russia's liberals I personally know to the building of the Cathedral Mosque in Moscow was a very visceral horror & outrage - directed against Putin.

    This curious phenomenon is at its most obvious in the liberals adoration of the neoliberal-ultranationalist Alexei Navalny and their seething hatred of Ramzan Kadyrov.

    See More

    Petri Krohn
    The driving force of all forms of "Euro integration" and Color Revolution is a racist belief in the racial superiority of West European whites. "Liberals" believe that by "democratization" and "integration" they can make themselves more European, more white. What they most yearn for is acceptance as "equals" by White Anglo-Saxons and their ecclesiastical class in Hollywood.

    Aaron Thomas
    Its only going to get worse as the world cup approaches. There actually is a problem with racism in russian soccer. But you know they'll use it to describe russia as a whole.

    Mark Sleboda
    Find me a European country without racism among football fans. Completely turned me off from the soccer I grew up playing

    Constantine Goh Curious.
    The situation is similar with Chinese liberals.

    Michal Mazur
    Russia's liberals - sounds like beginning of a joke smile emoticon But bear in mind that somewhere in between Russia and West, things are little bit different. For instance, Poland & Lithuania (actually Lithuania / Belarus) were able to successfully integrate their Tatar muslim minorities even before 17th century. Russia is still 'work in progress' since Caucasus region tends to be a little bit more troublesome sometimes, and this progress has to be appreciated.
    Зоран Радишић
    Similar with Serbian "liberals" too. I think that these are not necessarily "ideological liberals", as much as they are often simply suffering from an inferiority complex and consider all things Western as superior not only to central Asians or Middle Easterners, but to their own culture and race as well. In the 1930s & '40s the likes of these were nazi and fascist sympathizers and enthusiastic collaborators when the opportunity rose, because it was the Western crap of the day. Now they are "liberals", tomorrow they will follow the next political monstrosity, etc.

    [Sep 27, 2015] ClubOrlov Americas Latest Foreign Policy Fiascos, Part I

    "... It caused Russia's "nonsystemic opposition" - so called because it can never garner enough votes to win any election anywhere - which has been financed by American NGOs and transnational oligarchs like Soros, Khodorkovsky and others, to pretty much fade from the Russian political scene altogether ..."
    "... It has increased the popularity of Russia's government, and Vladimir Putin personally while making the average Russian greatly dislike the US in particular, and mistrust the West in general ..."
    "... It has provided Russia with a bonanza in the form of 1.5 million additional Russians, in the form of refugees from the economically collapsed, war-torn Ukraine. ..."
    "... America has no foreign policy; it just has a military with the sole intent of using it... As the old saw goes; when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail ..."
    "... One advantage the West has derived from this fiasco is that the Ukraine is now another debt slave nation a la Greece without the benefit(?) of being a member of the EU or the Eurozone. ..."
    "... In any case, Roberts makes it clear the the neo-conservatives (Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, etc.) are still dictating much of Washington's foreign policy, and it doesn't seem to matter that the neo-conservatives have done nothing but ruin everything they've touched. They stay in power anyway. Maybe that's their goal, to destroy foreign nations whose resources they (and their clients, certain large corporations) covet, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even the Ukraine. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | cluborlov.blogspot.ca

    Some 15 months ago I published a piece on American Foreign Policy Fiascos, in which I summarized the significant negative progress that has been achieved through American involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Georgia, among others, and then went on to boldly predict that the Ukraine is likewise going to turn out to be another American foreign policy fiasco. Since then it certainly has turned into one.

    US meddling in the Ukraine has produced none of the results it was intended to produce:

    • It didn't isolate Russia internationally
    • It didn't destroy Russia's economy
    • It didn't pull Russia into a futile, unpopular, bloody conflict
    • It didn't produce regime change within Russia

    Just the opposite:

    • It prompted Russia, China and several other countries to opt for closer economic and security ties
    • It motivated Russia to think seriously about import replacement, giving its domestic economy a big boost
    • It made the US and NATO part to a bloody conflict in Eastern Ukraine while Russia has steadfastly stood on the sidelines providing humanitarian aid
    • It caused Russia's "nonsystemic opposition" - so called because it can never garner enough votes to win any election anywhere - which has been financed by American NGOs and transnational oligarchs like Soros, Khodorkovsky and others, to pretty much fade from the Russian political scene altogether, all the while complaining bitterly about the horrible Russian people who don't understand them and the lack of imported French cheeses, not to mention the pâtés; please, don't get them started on the pâtés-that would be simply too cruel.

    And then here are some bonus points:

    • It has increased the popularity of Russia's government, and Vladimir Putin personally while making the average Russian greatly dislike the US in particular, and mistrust the West in general
    • It has driven a political wedge between the US and the EU, with EU member-states now starting to dimly discern for the first time that US policies are undermining rather than enhancing their security
    • It has provided Russia with a bonanza in the form of 1.5 million additional Russians, in the form of refugees from the economically collapsed, war-torn Ukraine.
    • It has put Russia in a position where it can just sit back and let the US, NATO and their puppets in the Ukraine twist in the wind, or soak in a cesspool of their own creation, or sit back and watch as a dunce's cap is lowered onto their collective head while circus music plays-or your own hyperbolic metaphor-but their level of embarrassment is already high and getting higher.

    The last two points warrant some further discussion.

    V. Arnold said...

    I would say that's a fair assessment of the "situation" in Ukraine. President Putin has played the hand dealt to him masterfully.

    Syria? Once again Pres. Putin has shown his resolve and tactical expertise.

    America has no foreign policy; it just has a military with the sole intent of using it... As the old saw goes; when all one has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

    B. Green said...

    One advantage the West has derived from this fiasco is that the Ukraine is now another debt slave nation a la Greece without the benefit(?) of being a member of the EU or the Eurozone. They are becoming another Troika puppet selling off assets at fire sale prices, cutting pensions, etc., etc. And let us not forget the Disaster Capitalists who will swoop in to profit from any war damage or infrastructure collapse.

    Marc L Bernstein said...

    Some articles by Paul Craig Roberts and Steve Lendman:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/09/23/russias-false-hopes-paul-craig-roberts/

    http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2015/09/us-cooperation-with-russia-on-syria.html

    Roberts says:

    "Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia."

    It can't be quite as simple as Roberts portrays. Maybe this will eventually happen but only after Ukraine is on the verge of collapse as a sovereign nation.

    In any case, Roberts makes it clear the the neo-conservatives (Nuland and her husband Robert Kagan, etc.) are still dictating much of Washington's foreign policy, and it doesn't seem to matter that the neo-conservatives have done nothing but ruin everything they've touched. They stay in power anyway. Maybe that's their goal, to destroy foreign nations whose resources they (and their clients, certain large corporations) covet, particularly in North Africa, the Middle East and maybe even the Ukraine.

    It's a lot easier to destroy things than it is to repair them.

    [Sep 27, 2015] If Putin wants to dest4ruct Ukraine he got a lot of competition from the EU, US and NATO

    Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Oddlots, September 25, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    This is kind of interesting as Mearshimer comes to conclusions I'm sure most here would agree with but also some opinions that would seem ludicrous. According to him Putin's strategy is to wreck Ukraine… If that's the case he's got a lot of competition from the EU, U.S. and NATO and would be wasting his efforts as the former seem entirely capable of achieving the goal without any further assistance:

    http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2014/08/21/082114-john-j-mearsheimer/

    [Sep 27, 2015] How Russia and Iran Plan to Push Oil Prices Back above $100

    Notable quotes:
    "... And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East ..."
    "... The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC ..."
    "... This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact on Western economies and enough to help the Wests Middle East petro partners. ..."
    "... The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. ..."
    "... Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a peace keeping role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region. ..."
    "... The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning. Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely than Russias, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative peace. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | johngaltfla.com
    September 27, 2015 | Shenandoah

    And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East

    On post super blood moon Monday, Vladimir Putin will be meeting with President Obama to discuss the ISIS crisis in the Middle East. There are many within the U.S. media who are promoting this meeting as some strange idea that the Russians are about to ask the Americans for help against ISIS. While there might be a small gnat's hair bit of truth to this, in reality, Putin is about to dictate terms and the United States is ill prepared to deal with the consequences.

    In 2014, I penned a piece reflecting the true reason ISIS was created so that the Arabian sheikdoms could establish pipelines through Iraq and Syri a to permanently shift Europe's dependency on Russian oil and natural gas over to their own private market where they can re-assert control over the world market price. The problem is that Russia failed to see the US, British, and Arab point of view and offered what they thought was enough support to block ISIS from overthrowing Bashir Al-Assad and keep this dream from becoming reality.

    ... ... ...

    The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC as of Friday, 9/25 ):

    This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact on Western economies and enough to help the West's Middle East petro partners.

    ... ... ...

    The Middle East is aflame right now and the economic situation along with terrorist Islamist ideologues have exported their problems into Europe with a massive migration of millions of refugees from Syria, Jordan, Libya, and Iraq. Mixed within these people are numerous terrorist operatives as was promised by ISIS and Al Qaeda years ago but ignored by the naive European Union. The future problems this will create are another story but the question has been promoted by some in the United States asking why the Arab nations of the Arabian Peninsula have not taken any of the refugees. That answer is obvious; their economies and domestic political situations are so tentative and fragile that an influx of millions of new residents would probably tip nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia closer to full blown civil war within their own borders.

    ... ... ...

    The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. By later on this year and early next year their should be sufficient forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq to push the ISIS militants into a meat grinder, eventually cutting them off from their northern forces somewhere in north central Iraq. Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed.

    Meanwhile in the southern part of Iraq, ISIS will be left unchecked for a short duration and eventually pushed into Saudi Arabia and the GCC states, to let the sponsors of this terrorist army deal with the problems they funded and created. The brilliance of this strategy by the new alliance of Egypt, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (which may soon include Jordan) is obvious; the return of the malcontents who will feel betrayed by the House of Saud and other various sheikdoms of the region will create domestic instability and as a result the destruction wrought on Iraq's oil infrastructure will now become a GCC problem.

    Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a "peace keeping" role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region.

    The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning. Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely than Russia's, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative peace.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Putin reaffirms support for Assad as he decries propaganda against Syria

    "... The whole area is a shitstorm anyway, surely an Assad victory is the best option - warts & all. He is a bastard, he has as much blood on his hands as anyone. Yet the alternative is worse. The alternative is Mogudishu on steroids. ..."
    "... Plan B of the US, since its Syria overthrow effort has failed, is to subdivide Syria into several unstable, warring little mini-states, including ISIS and Al Qaeda mini-states. Syria and its allies should be able to destroy that dream too. ..."
    "... Liberal interventionism isn't morally justifiable as there are today more human rights abuses in Libya or at least the same number as under Gaddaffi, the same is true of Iraq and Syria. Far worse human rights abuses have happened since the militarization of protests than before. If the goal is human development, which of course it isn't , the goal is a casus belli for our strategic goals, then slow reform with no violence is best. ..."
    "... Cameron's present stance seems to be anti-both-sides in Syria: bomb ISIS, but refuse to support Assad's stand against them. Two years ago Dave wanted to effectively help the ISIS side. Given a choice between Assad or the religious fanatics behind the "ISIS" entity, Assad is surely the only sane choice. ..."
    "... The White House is talking bollox. Only three weeks ago US was trying to block Russian flights to Syria by lobbying NATO countries to prevent use of their airspace by Russian aircraft. Also in the last three weeks the US response to Russian military build-up in Syria was first to warn Moscow against military deployment, then that it would exasperate the situation, and would be like "pouring oil on the fire", as Ash Carter put it. Putin has brushed their warnings aside and now they're adjusting their words to suit the situation Putin has forced on them. ..."
    "... Now America along with its Western allies (and the Gulf States) are no longer able to call the shots and equip the rebels with impunity. Obama's inaction in the region has shown Western influence to be dimming while Russia is assisting Iran in combating America's creation both in Iraq and Syria while the US did its usual cut and run routine. ..."
    "... Al Qeada and Al Nusra and again leaving another power vacuum for ISIS to overrun Syria then moving on to Jordan and The Lebanon, thus controlling vast swathes of land and compounding the already appalling refugee crisis. ..."
    "... It is incomprehensible that American foreign policy is again working alongside one particular country which would be delighted to see its neighbor fall into chaos while working towards a war against Iran. ..."
    "... Atrocities have been committed on both sides in the Syrian conflict with the rebel groups using chemical weapons on the civilian population and yet if Assad were to go there is no one group that could hold the country together. ..."
    "... Remarkably, this article did not even mention Putin's highly newsworthy comments pointing out that the US promotion of a mercenary rebel force in Syria is both illegal and a failure. ..."
    "... Such exquisite journalistic tact makes perfect sense once you remember that, for Western official opinionators, arming rebels in another country is an outrage against international law when Putin supposedly does it in Ukraine but must not even be noticed when Obama does it in Syria. ..."
    "... are either one paid to believe it, or (in your case more likely judging by the goofy tie) you might have simple comprehension issues. Yeah, "West is incapable of lying".... ..."
    "... If it wasn't for Putin, ISIS would have taken over Syria by now. All these rebels we armed in Syria are now part of ISIS. Assad kept the peace for years and Christians and other religions could live safely in Syria. The west should have supported Assad from the start and there would be no ISIS stronghold in Syria. ..."
    "... Western colonialism (western corporations) 2.0 in execution by empire and its western vassals taking many lives in Iraq, Libya and Syria to have natural resources under colonial control, Western Saudi stooges/be headers keep Middle East and South Africa under western colonial control. Everybody who opposes western colonialism 2.0 is ending up dead (Husain, Kaddafi, soon Assad - like good old days). In their hypocrisy, west pretends that they have so called human values (it is so funny that is bringing big smile on my face). All these western corporations plundering Middle East and Africa big time now. And I cannot stop laughing when west is talking about human right and having Kings and princes Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis be headers as their allays ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

    In a wide-ranging interview with the CBS programme 60 Minutes, the Russian president offered some conciliatory language, praising America for its "creativity and open-mindedness". He shrugged off descriptions of him as a gangster, asking "How can I be a gangster if I worked for the KGB?"

    But it was Putin's remarks on Syria that carried the most significance: he will be meeting Barack Obama for critical talks on Monday about the international response to the Syrian war and the global humanitarian crisis it has triggered. His remarks come weeks after he deployed warplanes and an estimated 1,700 troops to western Syria to help prop up the Assad regime in the name of fighting of Islamic State and other terrorism groups.

    The White House has said it would welcome a Russian role in the fight against Isis but insists that Assad's departure from power has to be part of the solution. His regime's atrocities against civilians, through daily barrel bombing of residential areas and other means, mean that his continued presence serves as a recruitment tool for extremists, it says.

    In the interview aired on Sunday, however, Putin flatly rejected the evidence of war crimes by the Assad regime. The former KGB officer said: "Speaking in a professional language of intelligence services, I can tell you that this kind of assessment is an 'active measure' by enemies of Assad. It is anti-Syrian propaganda.

    ... ... ...

    In other remarks in his 60 Minutes interview, Putin offered some rare praise for Americans and in particular for their creativity: "Creativity when it comes to tackling your problems. Their openness, openness and open-mindedness. Because it allows them to unleash the inner potential of their people. And thanks to that, America has attained such amazing results in developing their country."

    ... ... ...

    zchabj -> seaspan 27 Sep 2015 22:16

    You represent everything that is detestable about western politics, inflexible, totally unaware of the hypocrisy and blind to death you sow and I come from London. There are always two sides to a stroy and warfare must be eneded and negotiated power deals brokered.

    Killinf gets people no where. Anarchy destroys Syrian people's lives and futures, but you don't care, and that is why I have nothing but contempt for you and your views. You could care less if every Syrian died as long as your western ego is the "winner".

    So utterly pathetic.

    ID8246338 27 Sep 2015 22:13

    Commenters who think there hasn't been a massive propaganda campaign against Assad, and that Assad is responsible for every atrocity under the sun need to do their homework. A good start might be finding out what Syrian people think, both in Syria and ex-pats.

    Another may be to look into the propaganda which Ca-The-Moron has promoted - which originated from the CIA - and was wholly unacceptable according to Ban Ki-moon.

    Alternatively, remain ignorant and accept everything you are spoon fed. At least you won't have to think too hard about anything, and your opinions will reflect your laziness and ignorance.

    Then there is the western campaign which, started in the 1950s and has continued ever since - with a special boost from psycho Thatcher during the early 1970s. And so on and on.

    HollyOldDog -> smiley08 27 Sep 2015 22:12

    On the BBC there were interviews with some Syrian Migrants who said ' we aere coming to Europe because schools are closed, we cannot go out, universities are closed - this was from teenagers. It's not comprehensive but it does suggest that the schools system and universities were good before the current waring fractions attacked the Syranian state.

    centerline 27 Sep 2015 22:12

    The exceptional US?
    Swaggering along, pumped up on hubris and self esteem, setting the "rules" for the world.
    Putin stuck his foot out in Syria and tripped them up. Now, quite dazed they are trying to get back to their feet wondering what the fuck just happened.
    The MSM is working mightily to help the groggy US back onto its wobbly feet.

    Elusiv 27 Sep 2015 22:11

    President Putin feels extraordinary passion for his country and its history and everything she's been through, she meaning Russia. Loved the interview tonight. Hoping for a passionate Presidential candidate in America to dig deep into our hearts here.

    jvillain -> b1ngobob 27 Sep 2015 22:06

    Except that Assad has the post support of any party is Syria. Mean while the two parties that the Syrians want to F' oof the most are ISIS closly followed by NATO. So try again.

    http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/syriadata.pdf

    Egypts Sisi has re-established relations with Assad and has said that Syria should remain intact. That is important becuase Egypt has the largest population in the Near East by quite a bit.

    creel 27 Sep 2015 22:05

    That Russia and Iran are having to lecture the US today ..about lessons Lincoln and the US so painfully realized in the period of the US Civil War; is astonishing.

    Unity. The accountability of the citizen (each and every citizen) to the law. National framework for law that respects the tradition of different community in an inclusive society. Respect for and security of property title. These are all quite fundamental responsibilities that the US appear to believe Assad and his Administration must disavow. For what? To advance a Saudi-Turkic agenda that is acutely tribal, sectarian and narrowly faith-driven?

    nellieknox -> exliebour 27 Sep 2015 22:03

    Sad but true

    Surely anything is better than an ISIS caliphate

    The only issue is what was reported before, that Assad isnt directly fighting ISIS at present, as on the front lines around govt occupied zones are Al Nusra & other factions. ISIS are mainly fighting other Jihadi groups, Iraqi militias & of course the Kurds.

    The whole area is a shitstorm anyway, surely an Assad victory is the best option - warts & all. He is a bastard, he has as much blood on his hands as anyone. Yet the alternative is worse. The alternative is Mogudishu on steroids.

    Bart Fargo -> irgun777 27 Sep 2015 22:03

    The rationale is to keep the conflict going for as long as possible, and to keep Assad from winning at any cost, so as to permanently undermine Iranian and Russian influence in the region.

    Bart Fargo -> Chris Straley 27 Sep 2015 22:00

    Of course Americans don't want to sponsor terrorism. But the average American would be surprised to learn where our "aid" ends up...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34368073

    zchabj b1ngobob 27 Sep 2015 21:55

    With all due respect it is none of your or my business being a Londoner who rules Syria, it is down to the Ssyrian people, our views and the views of our leaders are irrelevant and frankly given the amount of killing directly by our armed forces from a position of exterme hypocrisy.

    We have no moral, financial or military authority left after invading Iraq, Libya and Syria by proxy.

    irgun777 -> jezzam 27 Sep 2015 21:47

    Bush Sr was a CIA Director . He was not a gangster applying CIA methods .
    He said once " Sadam is an asshole but he is our asshole " and was right.
    There was no ISIS. , no refugees before the interventions in Iraq and Syria .

    zchabj -> seaspan 27 Sep 2015 21:44

    I hope one day your family is killed beacuse of the religion they follow and some idiot on the other side of the world says that a eace deal to end the fighting is wrong because despite both sides killing alarming numbers of civilians (300 according to reuters from July to Decemebr were killed by rebel hellcannon barrel bombs in 2014) that the war should continue so that groups that are thoroughly against democracy can bring democracy to the nation rather than negotiate a peace deal to end the war.

    I really hope that happens to teach you emathy, because that is what you are arguing totally sick.

    Media Propaganda 27 Sep 2015 21:43

    The US doesn't want ISIS to go away.
    They are being used to isolate Assad.
    The US is sponsoring terror, not fighting it...

    zchabj -> b1ngobob 27 Sep 2015 21:41

    That's a good idea for Russia, one part of the Soviet Union the main part to pay reparations if other countries think they are owed, however since the break up of trh Soviet Union, the economies of post Soviet states have performed worse in some ways and are thankfully for ordinary folk recovering after rampant privatization and gangsterism.

    Also the British could pay Bangladesh for the 10 million it helped starve in 1770 and the US could pay reparations to the Vietnamese today born with birth defects due to Agent Orange and on and on and on...

    I would love to live in that world.

    The idea we are the good guys just isn't true. We aren't, have never been and bever wil be and nor are the Russians or any other group.

    irgun777 27 Sep 2015 21:38

    We know that the so called "'moderates " are joining en masse ISIS and Al Nusra- reported in Guardian.
    What is the rationale to continue to support them with arms. , tactically and logistically ?
    Shedding crocodile tears for the Syrian refugees is disingenuous at least if we add their enemies.

    Assad is a poster boy compared with the Gulf regimes with worse women, minority
    and Christian rights records . We know who really fights ISIS and who supports it behind the curtains .
    What motivates McCaine and the neocons to conduct photoshops with Al Nusra and dream of a regime change ?

    JiminNH 27 Sep 2015 21:30

    Costly efforts to support moderate rebel groups have resulted in only four or five US-backed armed guerrillas on Syrian territory.

    This piece of "reporting", which is nothing but more western propaganda, furthers a recent concerted effort to focus on just the most recent debacle of our investing HALF A BILLION DOLLARS in "Division 30", when the reality is that the US has been undertaking such efforts to train, arm and fund the mythical "moderate Syrian rebels" since 2012. Each and every time we do so, the "moderates" enter Syria and promptly pledge allegiance to al Qaeda or its affiliate al Nusra Front, or a number of the other alphabet soup of western and GCC proxy armies in Syria. And that doesn't even include the massive support for the jihadist rebels from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and our other allies.

    http://fair.org/home/down-the-memory-hole-nyt-erases-cias-efforts-to-overthrow-syrias-government/

    "Fool me once, shame on me..fool me twice shame on you"...... after at least 5 such "failures" you're not fooling anyone that is even remotely paying attention to this intentional chaos.

    At what point will it become obvious even to the willfully ignorant - this repeated "failure" is actually the policy for the US and it NATO & GCC allies to conduct the regime change in Syria, one of the 7 regime change operations or ruling elites planned under the pretext of the "war on terror" since 9/11, attacks conducted not by Syrians, nor Libyans, nor Iraqi, but by an organization that was birthed in Afghanistan circa 1979-1985 by the US CIA, British Mi6 and Saudi Arabia, from which 15 of its alleged "participants" came.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    fairleft 27 Sep 2015 21:22

    Plan B of the US, since its Syria overthrow effort has failed, is to subdivide Syria into several unstable, warring little mini-states, including ISIS and Al Qaeda mini-states. Syria and its allies should be able to destroy that dream too.

    fairleft 27 Sep 2015 21:09

    Russia is serious about the fight against Wahabbist terrorism. The condition set by the US shows it is serious about overthrowing Assad. I side with Russia on this one.


    zchabj 27 Sep 2015 20:46

    It is amazing to see how quickly things change.

    Liberal interventionism isn't morally justifiable as there are today more human rights abuses in Libya or at least the same number as under Gaddaffi, the same is true of Iraq and Syria. Far worse human rights abuses have happened since the militarization of protests than before. If the goal is human development, which of course it isn't , the goal is a casus belli for our strategic goals, then slow reform with no violence is best.

    Iif we cannot improve a situation, why make it worse? If we do not have the military and financial means to improve lives, do not do anything.


    stevekeenan1 27 Sep 2015 20:39

    Cameron's present stance seems to be anti-both-sides in Syria: bomb ISIS, but refuse to support Assad's stand against them. Two years ago Dave wanted to effectively help the ISIS side. Given a choice between Assad or the religious fanatics behind the "ISIS" entity, Assad is surely the only sane choice.

    BMWAlbert 27 Sep 2015 20:39

    What propaganda? The 60 or 70 so "moderate rebels" seem most moderate in their behaviour (no organ gorgings this year, as yet). And this 0.5 Billion USD Footloose and fancy Free Syrian Army so much so, that they surrender their weapons to the extremists (usually found in photo-ops alongside John McCain) at the first possible opportunity.

    Strangely, the Iraq Army seems much the same-here the main victories against ISIS were by the militias backed by Iran (maybe why this is why the RU-Syria command centre is actually being located in Bagdad. There seems be be a motivation deficit among among proxy armies (also seen south of Donetsk last year).

    whythelies 27 Sep 2015 20:36

    Ita all about Qatari GAS through Syria....FFS!

    America desperately trying to decouple Europe from Russian gas......only way is from Qatar/Saudi/Syria/Turkey pipeline.

    Syria (and Russia) say no.......result is American inspired civil war.

    Russia waits (timing is everything) then puts the game changing hardware on the ground....REALPOLITIK.

    North America will resemble the Martian landscape before Russia gives up the European gas franchise.

    Its why all the previous protagonists want to talk with Russia.......suddenly?

    Its business as usual.......Assad keeps loyal Syrians....Europe get all the terrorists

    I'm looking for a beach house in Latakia before the prices rise......

    After the American/Israeli/NATO sponsored and Sunni (Saudi,Qatari,UAE muslim desert gerbil terrorists are smashed for good.

    Jahovason 27 Sep 2015 20:29

    I think Joining Assad in the fight against ISIS is not a bad idea. The greatest danger will be to leave a vacuum in Syria which we do not know the sort of characters that will step in to occupy. Iraq Libya are testament to the folly of thinking that once a government that enjoys some legitimacy is rid of because of a flaw, suddenly everything becomes ok. The threats and dangers lurking in the shadows in the form of extreme islamists in countries such as Syria demands that Assad's government be stabilised with international monitors ensuring any help is not used in the violation of His peoples Human rights, ISIS is crushed and a transition spanning a couple of years is agreed upon. The Arm of Justice is long and if Assad is guilty of Human Rights abuses, his day will come but for now too many people are suffering in our quest to get one man. The the blood craving ISIS is taking advantage of the choas caused by a lack of International collective effort. The US and the UK need to stop dictating, face reality and assemble a coalation capable of taking out the most urgent problem in Syria which is ISIS.

    unlywnted 27 Sep 2015 20:28

    Yes it makes good sense to work with the Russians to re-establish stability in Syria even if initially that means supporting Assad - the country was fairly stable and reasonably governed under Assad prior to the rebels uprising encouraged by the West - it is right to make amends now and enable that regime to re-established order for however temporary a period until some long term solution can be found.

    greatapedescendant 27 Sep 2015 20:25

    "Putin reaffirms support for Assad as he decries 'propaganda' against Syria"

    Yes. I agree with Putin. And here's why ..........

    Palestinians are supporting Assad + Putin.

    Israelis are represented as usual by the US + allies.

    And as usual this is a case of dealing with a contingent problem in the Middle East, in this case ISIS, not with a view to efficient accomplishment, but with a view to the constant, underlying and real problem of consolidating Israel and protecting its boundaries. And this to the point of overthrowing Assad and having him replaced by a non-Palestinian sympathiser or supporter.

    For the record, I generally attach more probability of truth to the words of Putin than to those of Obama + allies.

    whyohwhy1 27 Sep 2015 20:22

    Silly Putin, you are not supposed to call it "propaganda" when it comes from the US and their poodles. Saddam killed babies in incubators and was building nukes, Iran is also trying to get nukes, Russia invaded Crimea, Gaddafi was about to commit a genocide and so on: it is news!

    geedeesee 27 Sep 2015 20:20

    "The White House has said it would welcome a Russian role in the fight against Isis"

    The White House is talking bollox. Only three weeks ago US was trying to block Russian flights to Syria by lobbying NATO countries to prevent use of their airspace by Russian aircraft. Also in the last three weeks the US response to Russian military build-up in Syria was first to warn Moscow against military deployment, then that it would exasperate the situation, and would be like "pouring oil on the fire", as Ash Carter put it. Putin has brushed their warnings aside and now they're adjusting their words to suit the situation Putin has forced on them.

    Johnnyw1 27 Sep 2015 20:16

    Western leaders removed Saddam from Iraq , Gaddafi from Libya and the result world chaos. Now they want to remove Assad from Syria , could the result in even more world chaos ? ...Not according to David Cameron , but I`m afraid , as of yet his track record does little to inspire me . Would have thought helping Assad to destroy Isis would be the favoured option .


    centerline 27 Sep 2015 20:04

    Costly efforts to support moderate rebel groups have resulted in only four or five US-backed armed guerrillas on Syrian territory. A former top aide to Obama on Middle East argued on Sunday that in the absence of realistic means to oust Assad, it was better to enter negotiations without demanding Assad's departure as a precondition.

    These two sentences say it all. there are no moderate rebels. Only extremists.

    The moderate extremists (al Qaeda) want Syria turned into a medieval kingdom similar to Saudi Arabia or Taliban Pakistan.
    And then there's ISIS.

    The CIA have been funding the different al Qaeda/ISIS groups to the tune of one billion dollars a year, not to mention the pentagon money to remove Assad purely for US geo-political and financial goals.

    At the start of 2014, the US Department of state put out a sheet - The Syrian Crisis: U.S. Assistance and Support for the Transition.

    In it they were prematurely advertising for US citizens to invest in oil, agriculture, and communications in "rebel" held areas of Syria. The US commercial takeover of oil, agriculture, and communications in Syria as government forces were pushed out.

    budgie2356 27 Sep 2015 19:57

    An interesting scenario is developing with Putin adding his support to Assad along with Iran and China playing a quieter role in the background. While America created the war in Iraq and left the country in utter chaos by dismantling the army, the police and the Ba'arth Party and leaving the vacuum for ISIS to flourish during the sectarian violence that ensued, the uprising in Syria wasn't even on the cards until the Arab Spring.

    Now America along with its Western allies (and the Gulf States) are no longer able to call the shots and equip the rebels with impunity. Obama's inaction in the region has shown Western influence to be dimming while Russia is assisting Iran in combating America's creation both in Iraq and Syria while the US did its usual cut and run routine.

    Obama will have to face facts that he is dealing with a major power. If left to their own devices, the West will be creating another Iraq by supplying weapons to rebel groups who are apparently America's sworn enemies, Al Qeada and Al Nusra and again leaving another power vacuum for ISIS to overrun Syria then moving on to Jordan and The Lebanon, thus controlling vast swathes of land and compounding the already appalling refugee crisis.

    It is incomprehensible that American foreign policy is again working alongside one particular country which would be delighted to see its neighbor fall into chaos while working towards a war against Iran.

    Atrocities have been committed on both sides in the Syrian conflict with the rebel groups using chemical weapons on the civilian population and yet if Assad were to go there is no one group that could hold the country together.

    America and the West must wake up to the fact that it's intervention policies have caused the deaths and displacement of millions to what end?

    VengefulRevenant 27 Sep 2015 19:54

    Remarkably, this article did not even mention Putin's highly newsworthy comments pointing out that the US promotion of a mercenary rebel force in Syria is both illegal and a failure.

    Such exquisite journalistic tact makes perfect sense once you remember that, for Western official opinionators, arming rebels in another country is an outrage against international law when Putin supposedly does it in Ukraine but must not even be noticed when Obama does it in Syria.

    AngeloFrank 27 Sep 2015 19:46

    Make up your minds world. What's worse, Isis or Assad?

    idance 27 Sep 2015 19:48

    Putin on CBS 10 years ago:
    "Democracy cannot be exported to some other place. This must be a product of internal domestic development in a society."
    Still topical.

    idance 27 Sep 2015 19:48

    Putin on CBS 10 years ago:
    "Democracy cannot be exported to some other place. This must be a product of internal domestic development in a society."
    Still topical.

    zchabj 27 Sep 2015 19:41

    120,000 Syrian soldiers, mostly conscripts from ordinary Syrians have been killed or there abouts by the "FSA", allied Al Nusra and ISIL and the hundreds of other smaller groups, Ahrar Al Sham, Jaish Al Islam.

    Thousands of improvised "barrel like" propane hell cannon missiles have been fired randomly into civilian areas by Syrian rebels.

    And we never hear about this.

    Beckow -> Jonathan Stromberg 27 Sep 2015 19:40

    Is West in your mind capable of propaganda? Or do you think only others - the evil others - do propaganda?

    If you really believe that West is never spreading propaganda than you are either one paid to believe it, or (in your case more likely judging by the goofy tie) you might have simple comprehension issues. Yeah, "West is incapable of lying"....

    OneTop 27 Sep 2015 19:38

    Project for the New American Century
    Putin is one of the very few International leaders undeterred from speaking the truth.

    No wonder Washington hates him so much.

    SystemD -> stevekeenan1 27 Sep 2015 19:31

    Indeed. Assad may not be a 'nice guy', but he is infinitely preferable to ISIS. I cannot understand why the UK and USA wish to get rid of him, unless it is to please Netanyahu. Which raises the question, why would Israel wish to to see a repressive but stable regime (with whom it might be possible to negotiate) replaced by a gang of religious nut jobs, one of whose tenets is the destruction of their state?

    Johnnyw1 27 Sep 2015 19:31

    If it wasn't for Putin, ISIS would have taken over Syria by now. All these rebels we armed in Syria are now part of ISIS. Assad kept the peace for years and Christians and other religions could live safely in Syria. The west should have supported Assad from the start and there would be no ISIS stronghold in Syria.

    nikdyzma55 27 Sep 2015 19:29

    Western colonialism (western corporations) 2.0 in execution by empire and its western vassals taking many lives in Iraq, Libya and Syria to have natural resources under colonial control, Western Saudi stooges/be headers keep Middle East and South Africa under western colonial control. Everybody who opposes western colonialism 2.0 is ending up dead (Husain, Kaddafi, soon Assad - like good old days). In their hypocrisy, west pretends that they have so called human values (it is so funny that is bringing big smile on my face). All these western corporations plundering Middle East and Africa big time now. And I cannot stop laughing when west is talking about human right and having Kings and princes Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis be headers as their allays

    exliebour 27 Sep 2015 19:16

    Asssad is the only hope for something bordering on sanity in Syria.
    The west should stop giving Jihadists TOW missiles and let Russia impose the orderly iron fist of a dictator. Nothing short of a ruthless dictator can govern ME countries. Left to their own devices the general population will get down to their age old business of chopping each other up. Its not exactly the first time we have seen this is it?


    zchabj 27 Sep 2015 19:16

    Iis there any truth to the rumours that Chinese troops have landed at Tartus? It is rumour, has the guardian got any info on that.

    Also what about Russia, Iran, Ssyria and Iraq setting up a joint intel centre against ISIL at Baghdad.

    And what of Russian troops actually fighting against rebel and ISIL forces around Aleppo and other areas already?

    [Sep 27, 2015] 60 Minutes of Putin Quotes From Charlie Rose Interview

    Brilliant instant reply on provocative question: "Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them," Charlie Rose said. "Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that," laughed the president.
    I do not see full interview on YouTube. Large chunk can be found at Vladimir Putin 60 Minutes interview FULL 9-27-15 Vladimir Putin 60 minutes Interview Charlie Rose - YouTube
    "... Reprinted in accordance with Sputnik reprint policy. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | www.sputniknews.com

    His love and pride for Russia, his pain over what is going on in Ukraine, his past as an intelligence officer and his attitude towards being called a czar – these are some of the issues brought up in Russian President Vladimir Putin's interview with American talk show host and journalist Charlie Rose.

    Ahead of his much anticipated address at the 70th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, Russian President Vladimir Putin sat down with American talk show host and journalist Charlie Rose to share his opinion on the today's hottest news topics.putin 60 minutes - 2

    Putin on Ukraine:

    'It is absolutely unacceptable to address issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called color revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government'.

    Of course, Russia's closest neighbor, Ukraine, is part of the daily news agenda.

    President Putin cast some light on why the Ukraine issue is such a huge problem for Russia.

    "Ukraine is the closest country to us. We have always said that Ukraine is our sister country and it is true. It is not just a Slavic people, it is the closest people to Russia: we have similar languages, culture, common history, religion etc."

    He also revealed what he believes is completely unacceptable for Russia.

    "Addressing issues, including controversial ones, as well as domestic issues of the former Soviet Republics through the so-called colored revolutions, through coups and unconstitutional means of toppling the current government. That is absolutely unacceptable. Our partners in the United States are not trying to hide the fact that they supported those opposed to President Yanukovych."

    Asked whether he believed the United States had something to do with the ousting of Yanukovych, causing him to flee to Russia, the president replied that he, in fact, knew this for sure, at the same time describing his sources.

    "It is very simple. We have thousands of contacts and thousands of connections with people who live in Ukraine. And we know who had meetings and worked with people who overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, as well as when and where they did it."

    "We know the ways the assistance was provided, we know how much they paid them, we know which territories and countries hosted training and how it was done, we know who the instructors were."

    "We know everything. Well, actually, our US partners are not keeping it a secret."

    Putin on the sovereignty of Ukraine: 'At no time in the past, now or in the future has or will Russia take any part in actions aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government.'

    The Russian leader also stressed that Russia respects the sovereignty of Ukraine and Russia had not and would not take any part in any activities aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government of any country. He added that Russia would never resort to the use of the military force in such a case.

    However, the president called on other countries to respect the sovereignty of other states, including Ukraine.

    "Respecting the sovereignty means preventing coups, unconstitutional actions and illegitimate overthrowing of the legitimate government."

    Putin on Russia's military presence in Ukraine: 'If we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, it is not a crime.'

    The issue of Russia's military presence in Ukraine has long had the Western media in a flurry. But the Russian president explained it using the example of the US' military presence in Europe.

    "US tactical nuclear weapons are in Europe, let us not forget this. Does it mean that the US has occupied Germany or that the US never stopped the occupation after World War II and only transformed the occupation troops into NATO forces?"

    "And if we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, you see it is a crime?"

    Putin on his rating and popularity: 'There is something that unites me and other citizens of Russia. It is love for our Motherland.'

    The sufferings and hardships of the Second World War remain the unifying factor of the Russian nation.

    "Yes, my family and my relatives as a whole suffered heavy losses during the Second World War. That is true. In my father's family there were five brothers and four of them were killed, I believe. On my mother's side the situation is much the same."

    "In general, Russia suffered heavily. No doubt, we cannot forget that and we must not forget, not to accuse anyone but to ensure that nothing of the kind ever happens again."

    Putin on democracy: 'There can be no democracy without observing the law and everyone must observe it – that is the most basic and important thing that we all should remember.'

    The president explained that the most important thing in the country's domestic policy is to continue improving the political system so that every citizen feels that they can influence the life of the state and society, they can influence the authorities, and so that the authorities will be aware of their responsibility before those people who gave their confidence to the representatives of the authorities in the elections.

    As for those tragic incidents where lives are lost, including those of journalists, unfortunately, it happens in all countries around the world, he said.

    But if it occurs in Russia, the president stressed, the authorities take every step possible to ensure that the perpetrators are found, identified and punished.

    There were a number of questions that made the president smile and answer light-heartedly.

    Putin on the disintegration of the Soviet Union and recreation of the Soviet empire: 'The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays.

    The host's question on the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the possible recreation of a sphere of influence, which President Putin might think Russia deserves, made him smile.

    "Your questions make me happy," he responded. "Somebody is always suspecting Russia of having some ambitions, there are always those who are trying to misinterpret us or keep something back."

    "I did say that I see the collapse of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy of the 20th century. Do you know why? First of all, because 25 million Russian people suddenly turned out to be outside the borders of the Russian Federation."

    "They used to live in one state; the Soviet Union has traditionally been called Russia, the Soviet Russia, and it was the great Russia. They used to live in one country and suddenly found themselves abroad. Can you imagine how many problems came about?"

    "First, there were everyday issues, the separation of families, economic and social problems. The list is endless."

    "Do you think it is normal that 25 million people, Russian people, suddenly found themselves abroad?"

    "The Russians have turned out to be the largest divided nation in the world nowadays. Is that not a problem? It is not a problem for you as it is for me."

    And then there were some personal questions, such as how he feels being called a czar.

    The president light-heartedly answered that the title does not fit him, though he is used to being called many different things. In fact, it does not matter to him what people call him.

    He also talked about his past as an intelligence officer, admitting that every stage of one's life has an impact on the person.

    "Whatever we do, all the knowledge, the experience, it stays with us, we carry it, use it in one way or another. In this sense, yes, you are right - there is no such thing as a former KGB man. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man."

    But then laughed while answering the host's question:

    "Once, somebody from the CIA told me that the training you have is important, that you learn to be liked as well. Because you have to charm people, you have to seduce them," Charlie Rose said.

    "Well, if the CIA told you so, then it must be true. They are experts on that," laughed the president.

    President Putin refused to assess the President of the United States, saying he is not entitled to do that. This is up to the American people.

    Finally he revealed what is most important to him.

    "What is important is what you think you must do in the interests of the country, which put you in such position, such a position as the Head of the Russian State."

    See also:

    Reprinted in accordance with Sputnik reprint policy.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Putin Russia Supports Legitimate Governments, Unlike US

    Sep 27, 2015 | www.newsmax.com

    Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a "60 Minutes" interview aired Sunday that his country supports legitimately elected governments and accused the United States of doing the opposite in places such as Ukraine and Syria.

    Correspondent Charlie Rose asked Putin specifically about his support for Syrian President Bashar Assad, whom the United States opposes.

    "It's my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya where all the state institutions are disintegrated," Putin said. "We see a similar situation in Iraq."

    Rose said that the United States sees Assad as someone who kills his own people, but Putin argued that the United States backs terrorists in the battled because they want to overthrow Assad. The United States backs the Free Syrian Army in the three-way war between the Assad regime, the Islamic State (ISIS) and the FSA.

    Putin also accused the United States of backing the overthrow of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was friendly to Moscow.

    Putin will address the United Nations on Monday, and denied he wants Russia to play a larger role in the world as a goal in itself.

    "But you are in part a major power because of the nuclear weapons you have. You are a force to be reckoned with," Rose said.

    "I hope so. I definitely hope so," Putin replied, laughing. "Otherwise why do we have nuclear weapons at all?"

    Putin denied the belief in America that he is a czar-type figure or evil autocrat. He said he simply wants to see Russians who were split from their families be able to see each other again. Those bonds were split overnight when the old Soviet Union collapsed in the 1980s, he said.

    Putin said he and President Barack Obama listen to each other after a fashion, "especially when it comes to something that doesn't go counter to our own ideas about what we should and should not do."

    Rose noted that GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio has described Putin as a gangster.

    "How can I be a gangster if I worked for the KGB?" Putin asked. "Come on. That does not correspond to reality."

    [Sep 27, 2015] Kiev professes itself "satisfied" with the gas price deal

    Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    marknesop, September 25, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Kiev professes itself "satisfied" with the gas price negotiated in the deal, in which the fact that Ukraine's gas supply will be entirely paid for by Europe is spun as a victory for Naftogaz and Demchysin personally, after he wrestled Russia into submission and made them drop their prices.

    "As customers, we're interested in a lower price". Dear God, you could laugh until you died. As customers who have to beg our boss for money because we're broke, we're interested in at least the appearance of being in control of something. Anything.

    marknesop, September 25, 2015 at 3:22 pm
    Ha, ha, ha!! If you were thinking "Nord Stream II in Ukrainian Perspective" could be summarized as "Wahhhh!!! I Went Crazy And Now Russia Won't Talk To Me!" crackpottery, you would be right.

    Standout points are (1) Raising transit fees is normal procedure when transit volumes drop, and (2) Ukraine's transit system will register a net loss if transit drops below 40 BCm a year. The volume in 2015, while Ukraine is still being used as a transit country, is expected to top out at 51 BCm.

    I would say the writing is on the wall there, and the message does not…ummm…look positive for Ukraine. You pissed in the pickles one time too often. Notably, however, although some of the reduced transit volume is due to Europe taking less gas, a stronger limiting factor is more gas being sent through Nord Stream. You can see why Europe was desperate to stop South Stream, and why it is now trying out a tough-guy approach as if it can force Russia to continue using Ukraine as a transit country, to a background of despairing wails from Ukraine.

    [Sep 26, 2015] Wild card Trevor Noah ready to revamp the Daily Show with an outsider twist

    Sep 26, 2015 | www.theguardian.com

    Speaking at a press breakfast to launch the new Daily Show, which starts on Monday 28 September, the South African comedian said he would use his position as an outsider in the US to look at some of the more bizarre elements of the country's political system without preconceptions.

    ... ... ...

    Jon Stewart's final year in charge at the Daily Show saw the programme win three Emmys for outstanding variety talk series, outstanding writing for a variety series and outstanding directing for a variety series.

    [Sep 26, 2015] The City Of London Has Turned Britain Into A Civilized Mafia State

    "... Property in this country is a haven for the proceeds of international crime. The head of the National Crime Agency, Donald Toon, notes that "the London property market has been skewed by laundered money. Prices are being artificially driven up by overseas criminals who want to sequester their assets here in the UK." ..."
    "... The City is a semi-offshore state, a bit like the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories, tax havens legitimised by the Privy Council. Britain's financial secrecy undermines the tax base while providing a conduit into the legal economy for gangsters, kleptocrats and drug barons. ..."
    "... Yep. Socialism for us. Feudalism for the people. Because.....we're too big to fail. "They gotcha by the balls -- " - George Carlin ..."
    "... London is an independent city-state, with mafia owners going back 1000+ years. Website admits it's a corporation http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx ..."
    "... assassination politics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassinat... ..."
    "... I'm not sure that author actually knows what he is talking about. "The City" has nothing do with domestic UK money laundering in real estate, because no one with money actually lives in "the City." They generally live in the West End or on country estates- that's the real estate that is being used to launder money. And the City is hardly the UK's only tax haven for corporations -- Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man are all short puddle jumper flights from LCY, and if you want to use long haul flights out of Heathrow- the list of Crown dependencies and overseas territories serving as tax havens is almost endless... the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and the Bermuda Triangle being the most familiar to Americans trying to lose fiat in boating accidents. ..."
    "... "What Do You Think of Western Civilization?" "I Think It Would Be a Good Idea" -- Gandhi
    "...London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert ..."
    "... It's a big club and we ain't in it...... R.I.P. George Carlin ..."
    "... "The City" = croupier and enforcer of the global casino. ..."
    "... The lesson - a financial sector without a commensurate sized industrial base will rapidly evolve into organised crime. ..."
    Sep 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    While an earlier post related to the likely bursting of the London real estate bubble, this one highlights a blistering critique of the role the City of London has played in transforming Great Britain into what George Monbiot calls a "civilized mafia state." But that's just an appetizer. This extremely well written and information article is a must read for anyone still in the dark regarding London's central role within the global financial crime syndicate.

    Here are a few excerpts from the Guardian:

    To an extent unknown since before the first world war, economic relations in this country are becoming set in stone. It is not just that the very rich no longer fall while the very poor no longer rise. It's that the system itself is protected from risk. Through bailouts, quantitative easing and delays in interest-rate rises, speculative investment has been so well cushioned that – as the Guardian economics editor, Larry Elliott, puts it – financial markets are "one of the last bastions of socialism left on Earth".

    Public services, infrastructure, the very fabric of the nation: these too are being converted into risk-free investments. Social cleansing is transforming central London into an exclusive economic zone for property speculation. From a dozen directions, government policy converges on this objective.

    Property in this country is a haven for the proceeds of international crime. The head of the National Crime Agency, Donald Toon, notes that "the London property market has been skewed by laundered money. Prices are being artificially driven up by overseas criminals who want to sequester their assets here in the UK."

    It's hardly surprising, given the degree of oversight. Private Eye has produced a map of British land owned by companies registered in offshore tax havens. The holdings amount to 1.2m acres, including much of the country's prime real estate. Among those it names as beneficiaries are a cast of Russian oligarchs, oil sheikhs, British aristocrats and newspaper proprietors. These are the people for whom government policy works – and the less regulated the system that enriches them, the happier they are.

    The speculative property market is just one current in the great flow of cash that sluices through Britain while scarcely touching the sides. The financial sector exploits an astonishing political privilege: the City of London is the only jurisdiction in the UK not fully subject to the authority of parliament. In fact, the relationship seems to work the other way. Behind the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons sits the Remembrancer, whose job is to ensure that the interests of the City of London are recognised by the elected members. (A campaign to rescind this privilege – Don't Forget the Remembrancer – will be launched very soon.)

    The City is a semi-offshore state, a bit like the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories, tax havens legitimised by the Privy Council. Britain's financial secrecy undermines the tax base while providing a conduit into the legal economy for gangsters, kleptocrats and drug barons.

    Even the more orthodox financial institutions deploy a succession of scandalous practices: pension mis-selling, endowment mortgage fraud, the payment protection insurance con, Libor rigging. A former minister in the last government, Lord Green, ran HSBC while it engaged in money laundering for drug gangs, systematic tax evasion and the provision of services to Saudi and Bangladeshi banks linked to the financing of terrorists. Sometimes the UK looks to me like an ever so civilised mafia state.

    The government also insists that there is no link between political donations and seats in the House of Lords. But a study by researchersat Oxford University found that the probability of so many major donors arriving there by chance is 1.36 x 10-38: roughly "equivalent to entering the National Lottery and winning the jackpot 5 times in a row". Why does the Lords remain unreformed? Because it permits plutocratic power to override democracy. Both rich and poor are kept in their place.

    Governed either by or on behalf of the people who fleece us, we cannot be surprised to discover that all public services are being re-engineered for the benefit of private capital. Nor should we be surprised when governments help to negotiate, without public consent, treaties such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, which undermine the sovereignty of both parliament and the law. Aesop's observation, that "we hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office", remains true in spirit, though hanging has been replaced by community payback.

    Wherever you sniff in British public life, something stinks: I could fill this site with examples. But, while every pore oozes corruption, our task, we are told, is merely to trim the nails of the body politic.

    To fail to confront this system is to collaborate with it.

    Most people don't want to face this, but it's undeniably true.

    umbotron

    Yep. Socialism for us. Feudalism for the people. Because.....we're too big to fail. "They gotcha by the balls -- " - George Carlin

    JoeSexPack

    London is an independent city-state, with mafia owners going back 1000+ years. Website admits it's a corporation http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx

    Short vid explains.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrObZ_HZZUc

    Why matters? The square mile is home to Bank of England (private corp), HQ of Freemasons & branch offices of all major banks on Earth. It is center of world finance, & has been for centuries. Privately-owned Bank of E was model later replicated with FED, ECB, WB, IMF & most others.

    US revolutionary War was fought to fee US from having to use Bank of E's debt notes. Sound familiar? We're back there now. Same struggle against same institutions.

    KnuckleDragger-X

    If you read about the history of London, you'll notice it has always been a very bizarre and screwed up place. They are now reaching their Nirvana of fucked uppedness.....

    two hoots

    What they can no longer do with their Dutch East India Company and with the by-gone reach of the Empire they do in the M A Rothschild tradition with their global financial tenacles

    Chuck Knoblauch

    Civilized assassins needed.

    sleigher

    assassination politics: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassinat...

    lawyer4anarchists

    Of course the author is right. And of course this has always been the case, it is not new. The problem we have in this country is that the people have the laughable notion that there is some magical time to "go back to" where the "constitution and it's rights" were the law. lol. The people are so lost. The constitution is not what people think. It is there to enslave you. It was never a source of freedom. Until they wake up and realize this fact, well... they will keep getting what they are getting. http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/the-peoples-case-for-what-happened-at...

    Urban Redneck

    I'm not sure that author actually knows what he is talking about. "The City" has nothing do with domestic UK money laundering in real estate, because no one with money actually lives in "the City." They generally live in the West End or on country estates -- that's the real estate that is being used to launder money. And the City is hardly the UK's only tax haven for corporations -- Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man are all short puddle jumper flights from LCY, and if you want to use long haul flights out of Heathrow -- the list of Crown dependencies and overseas territories serving as tax havens is almost endless... the Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands and the Bermuda Triangle being the most familiar to Americans trying to lose fiat in boating accidents.

    Peribanu

    Unlike the Yanks, we Brits don't have a constitution written down from first principles. Our "constitution" is the body of laws of the country, but it goes back so far that any contemporary changes are minor, superficial, and irrelevant. Many of the formal institutional powers in the country are the unfortunate but necessary result of a compromise between landowning aristocrats of old and the bourgeoisie who wanted a slice of the cake. The workers are merely tolerated. The internal mafia are the oh-so-very-refined aristocracy, whose heads were never cut off unlike in France, together with the rather uncouth capitalists and self-made money men, who are also tolerated, since someone has to provide one with an income, ideally by devising ways to get the workers to pay 90%-100% of their income back to us as rent. The other mafia are the rich foreigners -- Russian oligarchs, and the "persecuted" rich of the world, who are allowed to reside in Britain on condition that: a) they bring in lots of lovely "investments"; and b) don't get involved, at least publicly, in any of that unnecessary "politics" that goes on overseas. In Britain we long ago abolished politics. The commoners come and go with their naive belief that they can actually change things, while the core institutions of the country are unchanging and eternal: Eton, Oxford, Cambridge, the Civil Service, MI5, MI6, the BBC, and, of course, the Monarchy. God Save the Queen! (Or should I call her the Godmother?)

    q99x2

    The scum of the world all located in one place. How convenient is that. Won't be long before they start going after one another. Then poof.

    JustObserving

    Re: The City Of London Has Turned Britain Into A "Civilized Mafia State"

    Civilized?

    "What Do You Think of Western Civilization?" "I Think It Would Be a Good Idea" -- Gandhi

    London is now the global money-laundering centre for the drug trade, says crime expert

    The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world's drug trade, according to an internationally acclaimed crime expert.

    UK banks and financial services have ignored so-called "know your customer" rules designed to curb criminals' abilities to launder the proceeds of crime, Roberto Saviano warned. Mr Saviano, author of the international bestseller Gomorrah, which exposed the workings of the Neapolitan crime organisation Camorra, said: "The British treat it as not their problem because there aren't corpses on the street."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-is-now-the-global-mone...

    London: A giant washing machine for the filthy cash of a corrupt elite: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/london-giant-washing-machine-filthy-cash-corrup...
    Calculus99

    London: The money laundering capital of the world.

    Fear not though because Prime Minister Cameron has said he's going to stamp down on it especially the offshore companies that are buying up all the property. BWHAHAHAHAHA.

    ThroxxOfVron

    ...& Obama's new Affirmative Action figurehead at the DOJ has agreed with her underlings that since it is now well past the Statute Of Limitations for prosecuting anything even vaguely related to the fraud-induced economic disaster which culminated in the interbank and equities markets implosions that it is time 'to get touch on White Collar Crime.'

    Dr. Engali

    It's a big club and we ain't in it...... R.I.P. George Carlin

    Salah

    Been that way since their founders escaped from the Pope & the King of France, 10/13/1307

    https://lordmayorsshow.london/history/gog-and-magog

    Jonathan Living...

    I'm fascinated by The City - so much of British law seems so weird ~ even just the status of Wales, which is in some ways its own country within the UK, some ways just part of England, but they have their own Parliament.

    Anyway there's always google, but if anyone has come across any particularly good articles or books on the subject of the City's history and status, please share the wealth.

    I wonder if, like our Electoral college, most people would agree it should be abolished but most people simply dont know about it.

    22winmag

    Let's dismantle Miami and sell it off in order to fund the criminal prosecution and incarceration of the CIA scum and drug runners who built that city thanks to decades of drug smuggling and money laundering. Then we move on to D.C.

    Salah

    No, make NYC & Long Island a US "City-State", but with no US Congressional representation, or taxation, or US financial insurance guarantees or citizenship.

    1 crash later, they'll clean-up mightily and be a little Dubai.

    jcdenton

    We do have $100 BILLION for that on the way ..

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/11/another-thwarted-attempt-to-hija...

    Another major disbursement scheduled is 100 Billion USD to set up an ongoing special Task Force to investigate and prosecute organized crime and government and corporate corruption at any level.

    ... Funds were disbursed on December 15, 2014 ...

    https://app.box.com/s/hfgvcqg7gqh7i27at6sv53ywu87lwarp (see file with interview dated Dec. 3, 2014)

    youngman

    Well they still have a Royal Family...go figure......and remember any news or numbers that come out of London are probably wrong... Faked...or just fixed....they cheat well there

    rufus66

    Meanwhile in the news today, Revenue Canada uncovers something fishy regarding between kpmg's Great Britain connection and rich clients ......

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/kpmg-offshore-sham-deceived-tax-authorit...

    Solio

    "So it just means that more of the tax burden is borne by the middle class."

    What middle class?!!

    Calculus99

    The difference between Miami and London is Miami knows it's bent. London likes to hide/forget and think/preach it's honest.

    homebody

    This will be fixed by adding 800,000 economic refugees from Syria and Africa

    XRAYD

    London has always been thus ... from the age of Dickens, and the Colonial Empire Head Office - now masquerading as the "Commonwealth"!

    NotApplicable

    Indeed.

    It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

    Salah

    "The City" = croupier and enforcer of the global casino.

    1. Look for things to "break apart", i.e. Ottoman Empire, Hapsburg Empire, Russian Empire, Spanish Empire, USSR, et al

    2. Look for things to "put together", i.e. USA, Chile (sans Bolivia on the Pacific), South Africa, Rhodesia, Oz, NZ, Hong Kong, Singapore, et al

    They've been working this biz-model since the North Sea Knights Templars escaped the big deception in 1307

    JessieSharpton

    Ah the knights templar, the prototypical pre Rothschild banking mafia incarnation.

    SillySalesmanQu...

    Just my own personal observation here, but what do these three things have in common, why and who created them in the first place?

    Most bad shit that happens to average people seem to emanate from:

    1. Vatican City

    2. City of London

    3. Washington D.C.

    Chosenpeople

    Britain has become a classic dystopian state. They have cameras everywhere, and I mean everywhere. The state runs and controls everything. The place is swarming with foreigners, it is difficult to find a white Englishman in London. Britain is dead.

    ajax

    London became the mega-city in "Blade Runner" instead of L.A.

    umblemore

    Before the banking mafia looted Britain's industrial base and shipped it offshore industry was the dominant power and although the City was part crooked it was also kept part functional as a utility for industry.

    Over the last 30 years or so since they offshored all the industry the financial power has become completely dominant and completely criminal. To a certain extent the London branches of the Wall St banks are where they do their dirtiest deeds because it's easier to get away with in London.

    The lesson - a financial sector without a commensurate sized industrial base will rapidly evolve into organised crime.

    MSimon

    For several Centuries Brit banks have been running the dope racket.

    You might recall "Opium Wars" or if you want to be modern - NATO in Afghanistan.

    jcdenton

    Next, we will have the courage to write about Dachau?

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/04/neo-so-much-more-than-nukes/

    MSimon

    Since 1840 - at least

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-07/bed-despotic-house-saud#comment...

    MSimon

    The Brits have been at it for a long time: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-09-07/bed-despotic-house-saud#comment...

    [Sep 26, 2015] British Think Tank Complains Russia Might Harm al-Qaeda in Syria

    Sep 26, 2015 | news.antiwar.com
    September 25, 2015 | Antiwar.com

    Says Harm to al-Qaeda Means They'd Be 'Helping ISIS'

    A new report from British think tank the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) is warning that Russia's involvement in the Syrian civil war could "help ISIS" in the long run, ironically using the same arguments used against the US when it first started bombing Syria.

    Russia's current operations in Syria are centered around the Latakia coast, and while they have made it clear they intend to help Syria fight against ISIS and other extremist groups, the group closest to Latakia is not ISIS, but rather al-Qaeda. That means, according to RUSI, Russia is liable to harm al-Qaeda, which is now a "bad thing."

    When the US launched its war in Syria late last year, they went after al-Qaeda with some of their airstrikes, which sparked condemnation for rebel factions who argued that al-Qaeda is part of the side the US is supposed to be helping. The US seems to be increasingly on board with that, with former Gen. David Petraeus openly endorsing al-Qaeda as the US ally of choice. Turkey has already been backing al-Qaeda against Syria for some time.

    Indeed, it seems that much of the aversion to Russia's plan to fight ISIS by getting Syria's government and secular rebels together really centers on keeping the Islamist rebel factions, suddenly anointed as the good guys, on the outside looking in.

    [Sep 26, 2015] Fascism and Neoconservative Rep4ublicans

    March 25th, 2010 | Populist Daily

    The word "Fascist" as with the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" are thrown around a lot by people who have no idea what they mean. If you want to know what those terms really mean, find someone who was in some branch of military counterintelligence, the CIA, the security section of the State Department, Defense Intelligence, or in the FBI.

    In all those areas, the first day of basic training involves comparative forms of government. You can't spot a Communist if you don't know what a Communist is. You can't tell the difference between a Communist and a Fascist unless you know the difference in the two systems. It is Intelligence, and more specifically, Counterintelligence 101.

    So, let's go right to Fascism. A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In other words, it is a political philosophy embodying very strong central government, with the authority to move in decisive steps to accomplish goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with more or less all the levels of the hierarchy in unison, starting at the top and working down. It is a top-down government involving an alliance of industry, military, media and a political party.

    Because Fascism has been associated with the 1930s German Nazis, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini and the Falangists, under the Spanish Dictator, Francisco Franco, the term "Fascist" has taken on a sinister meaning. Not fewer than 10 million direct deaths resulting from the rule of these three may have something to do with it. On the other hand, philosophies don't kill people; people kill people.

    It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist and morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency. It is also interesting to note that all three were not only intimately connected to the largest industrial corporations, but as soon as possible with the military leadership. While Fascism as a political philosophy is not innately evil, given the results, it is worth noting how things turned out.

    Both the German and the Italian Fascist parties were also both revolutionary and conservative at the same time. Both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were aggressive, anarchic leaders. Both served time in jail. Both served in the enlisted ranks with the military in war. Both used that experience to organize mobs of thugs to agitate against an established government, not for a more democratic regime, but for a more authoritarian one. You can begin to see some similarities with contemporary political activities.

    As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation and demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup-they allied themselves with the biggest corporations and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they began to wrest control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own propaganda.

    Once they had control of the radio and newspapers, which were then the prominent sources of information, they could begin to broadcast their messages. Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other nations and the presumed taking over of German lands (which they themselves had only won through aggressive wars.)

    But let's for a minute assume that we know nothing about Fascism except that it exists. We have a group, here in America that believes in a corporatist political philosophy. What would that look like? If it were a true Fascist organization, they would ally themselves with big corporations, like the health care industry, oil and mining, pharmaceuticals, media corporations and the military-industrial complex.

    They would try to control the message, particularly in radio and television. They would become as closely allied with the top military brass as possible, offering them a seat at the table in the running of the economy. Retired Generals would be assured of positions involved with military hardware and strategic planning.

    And what about the people? In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method of getting things done. If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister to get started. You control everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good of all the people, so no one will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say, about efficiency, getting things done for the people.

    Defense is about protecting the people. You attack other countries so that they cannot attack you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military efficiency in a Fascist state means that if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely certain that no other country is superior, he can build up the military industry and the military at any pace or at any cost.

    In a Fascist state the idea is to have one set of rules, coming from the top down. No one votes as an individual, only as a part of the group that is assigned a task. It is corporate, total-totalitarian. So, if you decide that a national health care program is not right for the country, you all vote against it in a totally militaristic way. Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top down. The only problem is when you do not have a strong leader.

    The Democrats, for example, want to farm decisions out to others, let the opposition have their input. It slows the process. A Fascist health care program would be one decided upon by the President, discussed and worked out with the corporations, mandated to his staffs and enacted without any discussion or public debate in a matter of a few months.

    In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the industries involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic process involved with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government. Whatever the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because, let's say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with no question or appeal.

    So, if you want efficiency, you not only should you look to the Republicans, but you may have no choice. The Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television Network, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around the country, plus somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations on which literally 9 out of 10 commentators are paid by those network owners to be Conservative (Neoconservative Republican.) They have expanded to very large numbers of web site bases, delivering whatever type of information they want, truth, lies, anything in between… accusations without proof…Socialist, Communist, government takeover of this or that…no need to be truthful. It is all propaganda.

    Just as Herr Goebbels and Mussolini did in the 1930s-and except in the Communist counties and a few Latin American dictatorships there hasn't been anything to speak of similar to this in the Western advanced societies since then-the unchallenged message of the Right Wing goes out. The radio commentators today get their message from the top, from the Republican Party. Fox News Channel internal memos have shown that they literally decide what policies the Republican Party wished to champion, and then they attack rather than merely delivering the news.

    So do we need to be civil about it-about these lies? Is it important to challenge people, like these Right Wing commentators who tell you that your current health care is sufficient? It is good for corporations, for health care insurance companies. But is it good for you not to be sure you can get health insurance? So if they tell you that something is a government takeover and it is not, so you vote against health care or you respond to a poll in a way that is against your own best interests…do you need to be civil about being lied to? You shouldn't be lied to by media. You need the truth, the facts, to make decisions.

    It is a pretty simple answer. Should you be civil to people who lie to you and urge you to buy something that turns out to hurt you, or your family, or cause you to lose your job, or kill your sister, brother, neighbor? If I lie to you and say it is safe to swim across the channel and you are attacked by sharks that I knew were there…should you not care? This is what is happening, right now…today. In the consumer products market, we call that fraud and companies can be criminally liable.

    So let's describe what a Fascist government or a political party attempting to introduce a Fascist government would look like and see if either or any of our political parties fits that description:

    Allies with big corporations, planning strategy together, interchangeable.

    Works to have control of the political process at all levels, starting with the top down.

    Does not cooperate with and actually tries to undermine other political parties.

    Uses mobs and demonstrations, and attempts to make individuals working in other parties afraid of violent reactions.

    Advocates ownership of weapons as a fear factor to intimidate others. (Wayne La Pierre…"the people with the guns make the rules.")

    Decides what is best for all citizens based on what corporations want.

    Uses "big lie" propaganda technique, of top-down distributed propaganda message for each issue.

    Allies with military on most issues, with ultra-aggressive military posture.

    Total control of the political process is the ultimate goal.

    If any of this seems familiar to you, then you see something "Fascist" in the current political process. Of course, one thing that wasn't mentioned. Fascists always need someone to stigmatize. In Germany, it was the Jews. In Italy it was the Socialists. In Spain it was the Communists. It seems clear that, in this country it is the Democrats.

    The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with lunatic commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate speech…yet we tolerate it.

    We even allow asininely preposterous lies from a possibly psychotic television commentator…to be used to stoke the race-hatred of many tea party members, and thugs against a distinguished African-American President who won 54% of the vote, the largest since Ronald Reagan and who also won the Nobel Peace Prize.

    The case is pretty clear. The Neoconservative Republicans are headed for Fascism if they are not there already. The latest round of insults, threats, lies, window breakings all contribute to the evidence. Sooner or later this totalitarian attitude will either be denounced or will have serious responses. One thing is sure, with the problems facing our country, we cannot afford the kind of anarchist attacks as were exhibited in the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City or the flying of an aircraft into a building housing an IRS office.

    This radical, violent, arrogant Fascist attitude has to stop. The first step in preventing this kind of political outcome is to identify and react to Fascism when it appears. Neoconservative Republicanism is Fascism. Republicans must return to sanity or be treated as a very dangerous and radical political party.

    what is the difference between neocons and neofascists Yahoo Answers

    Best Answer:

    Not much. Neocons don't dress up in silly uniforms, neo fascists probably do and practice funny salutes when they think no-one is looking.

    Joaquin B · 8 years ago

    neocons are the new conservatives of the Cheney/Bush/Karl Rove school. These people bleeds the country of its resources in corporate welfare. In other words, they would give all sorts of money and incentives to corporations such as Halliburton and big oil companies at our expenses. They would like to impose a fascist system like thee ones of the early 20th century in Italy and Germany and it is been tried at this time in China..

    Neofascists are those who would like the early 20th century geopolitical model. I would think that the Chinese government edges on this type of model. The Chinese call themselves communist yet they have a pseudo-free enterprise system with no democracy and total repression.

    Lucky for the American people, we have waken up just in time to undo the damage done to our country from our once prestigious Republican Party.

    Paranormal I · 8 years ago

    The difference is that neoconservatism uses the language of democracy and freedom while neofascism openly admit they want the opposite. Otherwise they are quite similar. Including the fact that originally, they came from the Left from which they converted to rightwing politics.

    [Sep 26, 2015] Tony Benns Ten Minute History of Neoliberalism

    People in debt are slaves to their employees. That's how neoliberalism works.
    "... Regarding Thatcher's scheme of encouraging people to take on too much debt to buy houses even as her govt undermined wages; Reagan and co did the same in the US. 20-30-year-olds were encouraged to spend more for housing, and banks encouraged to lend more for housing than the traditional lending formula allowed, because (they were told) incomes for the young would only keep rising, just as their parents incomes had kept rising. The young were told they could pre-pay for their inevitable future prosperity by taking on too much debt. At the same time Reagan and co were undermining wages for most workers.
    Sep 26, 2015 | naked capitalism

    And not only is Benn's speech refreshingly direct, it's inspiring to see how energetic he was at the age of 83. And I agree with him on the importance of anger and hope. Anger is depicted as a very bad emotion to have, at least here in America, and the resulting self-censorship stifles dissent.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=158&v=qX-P4mx1FLU

    Published on Aug 6, 2012

    Tony Benn - 10 min History Lesson for Neoliberals

    See more Tony Benn videos and other great speeches at http://www.counterfire.org

    Counterfire is a revolutionary socialist organisation dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism by the working class.

    "Tony Benn | People Before Profit | the Budget | Nov 24 2008" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPREZ... Adrian Counsins https://www.youtube.com/user/adycousins

    Great stuff man genuine feeling in it!

    Homage to Tony Benn rap by Dan Bull: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y76us...

    Eulogy Galloway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYPea...

    "An MP is the only job where you have 70,000 employers, and only one employee."

    "It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you."

    "The Marxist analysis has got nothing to do with what happened in Stalin's Russia: it's like blaming Jesus Christ for the Inquisition in Spain."

    "I'm not frightened about death. I don't know why, but I just feel that at a certain moment your switch is switched off, and that's it. And you can't do anything about it."

    "Making mistakes is part of life. The only things I would feel ashamed of would be if I had said things I hadn't believed in order to get on. Some politicians do do that."

    "I've got four lovely children, ten lovely grandchildren, and I left parliament to devote more time to politics, and I think that what is really going on in Britain is a growing sense of alienation. People don't feel anyone listens to them."

    "If one meets a powerful person - Rupert Murdoch, perhaps, or Joe Stalin or Hitler - one can ask five questions: what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system."

    Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

    Mark P. September 26, 2015 at 5:04 am

    Aneurin Bevan, primary founder of the NHS, during speech at the Manchester Labour rally 4 July 1948 –

    '…no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party …. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation.

    'Now the Tories are pouring out money into propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through. But, I warn you, young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying now … I warn you they have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse than they were.'

    TheCatSaid, September 26, 2015 at 7:59 am

    Amazing talk–clear, powerful, direct, and well-grounded in Benn's many years of personal experience. His perspective on Thatcher's policies is eye-opening, and his perspective on British politics in general.

    Does anyone know what event he spoke at, and when? The link doesn't say.

    Brooklin Bridge, September 26, 2015 at 8:42 am

    Well, hew was born in 1925 and he talked about 80 years ago when he was 3 so he probably gave this talk sometime around 2008.

    Brooklin Bridge, September 26, 2015 at 9:06 am

    People Before Profit Alternative Economic summit , Nov 24, 2008

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPREZNbITH8&list=PL2227023797EAE9CF

    ben, September 26, 2015 at 8:00 am

    I call the self-censorship "American positivism" which is a great play by the elite. The poor, in the face of overwhelming evidence, somehow try to "be positive". They also censor others who complain.

    It's an amazing system.

    Synoia, September 26, 2015 at 9:58 am

    Your so called "self-censorship" is driven by the press, in their role of propaganda distribution.

    As in: The lying liars, lied again.

    Synoia, September 26, 2015 at 9:55 am

    What Benn does not address was the tremendous amount of Labor (Worker) strife in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and the cause of the strife.

    I will quote a socialist song, the Red Flag:

    The Working Class can kiss my arse
    I've got the foreman's job at last

    Enterprises get the Unions they deserve. If the management is toxic, so is the worker sentiment.

    My experience in graduating and going to work for a major Bank in the UK, was such a revelation I never again worked for British management.

    No only do the working people need unions, the working people need to believe the management care about both the customers and the workers in an enterprise. Contempt for both customers and workers become a cancer on society, and is, in my opinion a hallmark of our large enterprise who serve citizens.

    Management needs to be answerable to its employees, because employees have more invested, their lives, that shareholders. Money is liquid, livelihood, employment, is not.

    Examples: Walmart, large Banks, BP, Volkswagen, Centralized Government….

    As a side note, Benn's comments on spending are completely in harmony with the monetary part of MMT, but not with its treatment of trade, tariffs and local production, which are complete nonsense.

    flora, September 26, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    "Every single generation has to fight the same battles again and again and again. There's no final victory and no final defeat. And therefore, a little bit of history may help." -Benn

    Thanks for this post.

    flora, September 26, 2015 at 2:12 pm

    Regarding Thatcher's scheme of encouraging people to take on too much debt to buy houses even as her govt undermined wages; Reagan and co did the same in the US. 20-30-year-olds were encouraged to spend more for housing, and banks encouraged to lend more for housing than the traditional lending formula allowed, because (they were told) incomes for the young would only keep rising, just as their parents incomes had kept rising. The young were told they could pre-pay for their inevitable future prosperity by taking on too much debt. At the same time Reagan and co were undermining wages for most workers.

    Now 20-30-year-olds are being told that they can pre-pay for their inevitable future prosperity by taking on too much debt for college educations. It's the same con.

    skippy, September 26, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    Did someone say Thatcher and Reagan – ???????????

    Liberation Theologies, Postmodernity and the Americas

    By David Batstone, Eduardo Mendieta, Lois Ann Lorentzen, Dwight N. Hopkins

    "In 1985 David Stockman. who came from a fundamentalist back-ground, resigned from his position as chief of budget for Regan's government and he published a book entitled "the Triumph of Politics. He reproached Reagan for having been a traitor to the clean model of neoliberalism and for having favored populism. Stockmans.s book develops a neoliberally positioned academic theology, that does not denounce utopias, but presents neoliberalism as the only efficient and realistic means to realized them. It attacks the socialist "utopias" in order to reclaim them in favor of the attempted neoliberal realism. according to Stockman, it is not the utopia that threatens, but the false utopia against which he contrasts his "realist utopia of neoliberalism."

    Michel Camdessus, Secretary General of the IMF, echoes the transformed theology of the empire grounding it in certain key theses of liberation theology. In a conference on March 27, 1992 he directed the National Congress of French Christian Impresarios in Lille Mid discussion he summaries his central theological theses:

    Surely the Kingdom is a place: these new Heavens and this new earth of which we are called to enter one day, a sublime promise; but the Kingdom is in some way geographical, the Reign is History, a history in which we are the actors, one which is in process and that is close to us since Jesus came into human history. The Reign is what happens when God is King and we recognize Him as such, and we make possible the extension, spreading of this reign, like a spot of oil, impregnating, renewing and unifying human realities. Let Thy Kingdom come…." – read on

    Page – 38, 39, 40

    Skippy…. this is why some stare at walls…. better option…

    Paul Tioxon, September 26, 2015 at 1:42 pm

    Benn said that just as in war, we should in peace time do whatever is necessary for our economic well being. This is an echo of the great public intellectual William James, whose famously pronounced that we need the moral equivalent of war in politics to serve the public interest to eradicate social problems and create widespread prosperity. Jimmy Carter repeated this phrase, the moral equivalent of war, in trying to marshal the energy of society to snap out of the 1970s stagflation and national malaise.

    From The Moral Equivalent of War:

    "I spoke of the "moral equivalent" of war. So far, war has been the only force that can discipline a whole community, and until and equivalent discipline is organized, I believe that war must have its way. But I have no serious doubt that the ordinary prides and shames of social man, once developed to a certain intensity, are capable of organizing such a moral equivalent as I have sketched, or some other just as effective for preserving manliness of type. It is but a question of time, of skillful propogandism, and of opinion-making men seizing historic opportunities."

    http://www.constitution.org/wj/meow.htm

    Masonboro, September 26, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Every generation must fight it's own battles. Another politician held the same view:

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.

    The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. …

    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    It is its natural manure."

    Thomas Jefferson

    [Sep 26, 2015] Putin and Xi rock da house4

    Sep 26, 2015 | Asia Times

    Pope Francis may be the rock star. But once again, the real heart of the action is all about Russia and China - those prime "threats" to Exceptionalistan, according to the Pentagon.

    ... ... ...

    So this is what Putin accomplished even before Obama saw the light and decided to talk:

    1) Forget about a Libya-remixed NATO war on Syria. 2) Forget about a Sultan Erdogan-driven no-fly zone over areas controlled by Damascus. 3) Out with the old world order. This is how the emerging new world order should work, and Russia is also driving it.

    Putin's speech on Monday at the UN General Assembly will be about "the joint struggle against terrorism" (as branded by TASS). One should expect abundant apoplexy, much more than perplexity, all across the Washington/New York axis.

    Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, last Sunday on Russian TV, already clarified the themes at the heart of the speech; the unipolar world order, and the absolute necessity of the "joint struggle against terrorism," which" must be waged without double standards."

    Lavrov was very sharp when referring to" unilateral coercive measures" - and not only as far as Russia is concerned. In his own words:

    "Nowadays, you know, our Western partners, primarily, under the influence, perhaps, of American mentality, are losing in general the culture of a dialogue and the culture of achieving diplomatic solutions. The Iranian nuclear program was a bright – and even very bright – exception. In most other cases – in conflicts that continue to flare up in the Middle East, in North Africa – they try to resort to measures of military intervention, as was the case in Iraq and Libya, in violation of UN Security Council decisions, or to resort to sanctions."

    Expect Putin to talk about all of it in detail. But the showstopper will be, predictably, Putin on Syria. In Lavrov's words:

    "We have declared that we will be helping the Syrian leaders, as we help the Iraqi leaders, or the leaders of other countries who are facing the threat of terrorism. And our military-technical cooperation pursues exactly these objectives. Of course, the supplies of arms [by Russia], they have been going on, they are going on [now] and they will continue. Their [supplies] are inevitably accompanied by our specialists that help put the according equipment up, help to train Syrian [military] personnel to handle these weapons and there are absolutely no mysteries and no secrets [in all of this]."

    And yes, Putin will call the usual suspects - from Turkey to the GCC petrodollar gang - to help Assad "without indoctrinations or double standards" in the fight against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. And he will demonstrate how the refugee crisis was not created by Assad, but by the fake "Caliphate." As far as these refugees from the Sykes-Picot-smashed Middle East are concerned, it's up to the EU to deal with them. In Lavrov's words:

    "Russia has been fulfilling all her obligations under the international conventions. All those who fall under the category of refugees, we take in, and we will take into the Russian Federation, sometimes even going beyond the criteria that is applied. I refer to the refugees from Ukraine, there are about one million [in Russia]. We sympathize with our European neighbors with regard to the problem that they have been facing, and I believe that they will solve it [on their own]."

    Last but not least, Putin will make it very clear Russia never again will be fooled into signing dodgy documents such as UNSC Resolution 1973, which legitimized R2P in 2011 via that legendary "no-fly" zone over Libya, with the corollary of NATO bombing the country into a wasteland run by militias. No wonder deranged R2P groupie Samantha Power wants to kick Russia out of the Security Council. Who needs a shoe-banging Khrushchev? Black (Apoplexy) Monday will definitely be a riot.

    [Sep 26, 2015] Is the shale gas revolution over

    "... natural gas production is also declining. The EIA reports that in October, several of the largest shale gas regions will post their fourth month in a row of production declines. With a loss of around 208 million cubic feet per day expected in October, the four-month drop off will be the longest streak of losses in about eight years. ..."
    "... While U.S. shale gas remained resilient through several years of low natural gas prices, the collapse in oil prices are finally putting an end to the boom. ..."
    Sep 20, 2015 | www.usatoday.com

    While everyone is watching the oil bust, there is another bust going on - one for natural gas.

    Before there was a boom in oil production in the United States, there was the "shale gas revolution." That is where we all became familiar with terms like "fracking." And the Marcellus, Haynesville, and Barnett Shales were famous long before the Bakken or Permian.

    The surge in natural gas production crashed prices, fueling a huge increase in activity in petrochemicals and causing a major switch from coal to natural gas in the electric power industry. Aside from a few brief moments (such as the winter of 2014), natural gas has mostly traded around $4 per million Btu (MMBtu) or lower since the financial crisis of 2008.

    But unlike oil, the boom in shale gas did not stop with plummeting prices. U.S. natural gas production continued to climb. For example, production from the prolific Marcellus Shale – which spans Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio – skyrocketed from less than 2 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) in 2009, to a record-high of over 16.5 bcf/d this year. And the dramatic ramp up in production occurred over several years when prices were extremely low.

    Much of that has to do with the huge innovations in drilling techniques, including fracking and horizontal drilling, which allowed for production to remain profitable despite the downturn in prices. But some of the credit also goes to drillers searching for more lucrative natural gas liquids and crude oil. Dry natural gas is produced in association with oil. With oil prices extremely high, especially in the period between 2010 and 2014, drillers continued to produce natural gas even if they were looking for oil.

    So only after oil prices busted did natural gas production start to slow down. In fact, while the markets are eagerly watching for declines in oil production, few are noticing that natural gas production is also declining. The EIA reports that in October, several of the largest shale gas regions will post their fourth month in a row of production declines. With a loss of around 208 million cubic feet per day expected in October, the four-month drop off will be the longest streak of losses in about eight years.

    It is no surprise that the Eagle Ford will represent the largest losses, with a decline of 117 million cubic feet per day expected in October. That is because oil is a much more prized commodity in South Texas, so the decline is largely attributable to disappearing crude oil rigs.

    While U.S. shale gas remained resilient through several years of low natural gas prices, the collapse in oil prices are finally putting an end to the boom.

    MORE:

    [Sep 25, 2015] Upstream oil execs agree Low, long and living within means

    "...If prices throughout the budget development season … are consistent with the current 2016 forward price of around $50/b for WTI, capital spending could be down 25%-30% for the large-cap producers" in North America"
    Sep 25, 2015 | The Barrel Blog

    •Capital spending for 2016 will be lower than in 2015 - which itself has been 35%-40% below last year and could actually come in steeper in relative cuts than that, given that some operators have further slashed 2015 outlays and may still do so.

    ... .,. ...

    Said Barclays in a report on conference takeaways: "If prices throughout the budget development season … are consistent with the current 2016 forward price of around $50/b for WTI, capital spending could be down 25%-30% for the large-cap producers" in North America.

    [Sep 24, 2015] Corbyn Says ISIS Partly Created by Western Interven4tion

    September 23, 2015 | theantimedia.org
    Michaela Whitton

    (ANTIMEDIA) United Kingdom - Jeremy Corbyn delivered his uncompromising stance on Western warmongering from the back of a London taxi last week. As the cab raced through the streets of the capital, the new Labour leader revealed his vision for an ethical foreign policy in his 17-minute interview with Middle East Eye.

    Asked how he would deal with ISIS, the anti-war campaigner was uncompromising. "ISIS didn't come from nowhere, they've got a lot of money that's come from somewhere. They have a huge supply of arms that have come from somewhere and they are, not in total but in part, a creation of western interventions in the region," he said.

    According to Corbyn, he would deal with the terror group by economically isolating its members. He says he would attempt to unite other groups in the region and stressed the importance of supporting autonomy for Kurdish groups. On the rise of ISIS, he pointed to the vast amount of arms that Britain sells, particularly to Saudi Arabia, declaring they must have ended up somewhere and are now being used.

    Corbyn was vehemently opposed to the 2013 Parliamentary vote on military intervention in Syria and remains adamant that bombing the country now would create more mayhem. He told Middle East Eye it would be very unclear who the alliances would be with.

    On the region in general, he referred to Israel and Palestine as a massive issue. Unlike his British counterparts, he expressed grave concern at the illegal Israeli settlements, military occupation of the West Bank, and lack of reconstruction in Gaza.

    Praising the recent agreement with Iran, he said he wished it had included the issue of human rights, and when asked if he would have invited Egyptian leader Abdel al-Sisi to the U.K., he was clear:

    "No, I would not, because of my concerns over the use of the death penalty in Egypt, the treatment of people who were part of the former government, and the continued imprisonment of President Morsi." He went on to clarify that his statement wasn't passing judgement on different parties, but on the meaning of democracy.

    On Britain's relationship with Saudi Arabia, Corbyn expressed concern on what he referred to as a "huge number of issues," naming the treatment of women, the frequent use of the death penalty - including public beheadings - and the treatment of migrant workers.

    At a recent Parliamentary debate, Corbyn raised the question of whether British arms sales to Saudi Arabia are more important than genuine concerns about human rights. Most of us already know the answer to this question.

    "We need to be a constant irritant on human rights," he said.

    Asked how Britain can make itself safer, both at home and abroad, Corbyn was frank:

    "We make ourselves safer by not being part of U.S. foreign policy at every single turn. And we become a force for human rights rather than military intervention."

    Asked why he has such good judgement compared with other MPs, Corbyn admitted that he reads a lot, travels a lot, and learns from people wherever he goes. "The issue is the ability to listen to people," he said.

    Describing what an ethical foreign policy under a Corbyn-lead British government would look like, he said, "My basis would be that I want to see the protection and preservation of human rights around the world, deal with issues of global hunger and global inequality, and the environmental disaster that is facing this planet."

    He added, "I think that should be the basis rather than what it is at the moment which seems to be to see what the White House wants, and how we can deliver it for them."


    This article (Corbyn Says ISIS Partly Created by Western Intervention) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Michaela Whitton and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email [email protected].

    [Sep 24, 2015] Peak Oil Notes - 24 Sep

    Sep 24, 2015 | www.resilience.org

    The EIA also had US domestic oil production up by 19,000 b/d last week to 9.14 million and output in the lower 48 states flat at 8.65 million b/d. Analysts are not sure what these numbers mean. Some say they could indicate that the decline in production is slowing from what the EIA has been forecasting. However, some note that if there is any indication of production actually increasing, we would quickly see oil prices down in the $30s.

    ... ... ...

    The financial press continues to highlight the woes of the global oil industry as it tries to contend with falling oil prices. Waterford International, one of the world's largest drilling contractors, failed in an attempt to borrow $1 billion from Wall Street because of its sagging stock price. ConocoPhillips is trying to sell off its Canadian assets. Total SA sold a 10 percent share in a $15 billion oil sands mine for $234 million and Wood Mackenzie says the world's oil companies have now cut $220 billion in planned investments. Wood Mackenzie also says that if oil prices stay below $50 a barrel, some $1.5 trillion worth of investments will be curtailed over the next few years. If these predictions come to pass it is difficult to foresee how world oil production can stay anywhere near current levels.

    ... ... ...

    In the Middle East, the Libyan peace talks look like they are going to collapse. The Russian military buildup in Syria continues with more tanks, attack helicopters and aircraft arriving daily. While Moscow says it is in Syria to fight ISIL, the insurgents threatening Assad's power base in northwest Syria are made up of groups backed by Turkey, the US and the Gulf Arabs, with most of ISIL's forces hunkered down in the northeast to avoid the continuing US arterial bombardment.

    Another cholera epidemic has broken out in Iraq where the sanitation and water systems continue to deteriorate. Temperatures in Iraq reached 122o F. in July and August which did not help the situation. The flow of middle class Iraqis to Europe is increasing. It becomes increasingly difficult to see how Iraq can continue to increase or even maintain its oil production given the numerous problems it is facing.

    [Sep 24, 2015] Drilling Deeper

    Sep 24, 2015 | Post Carbon Institute

    Drilling Deeper reviews the twelve shale plays that account for 82% of the tight oil production and 88% of the shale gas production in the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) reference case forecasts through 2040. It utilizes all available production data for the plays analyzed, and assesses historical production, well- and field-decline rates, available drilling locations, and well-quality trends for each play, as well as counties within plays. Projections of future production rates are then made based on forecast drilling rates (and, by implication, capital expenditures). Tight oil (shale oil) and shale gas production is found to be unsustainable in the medium- and longer-term at the rates forecast by the EIA, which are extremely optimistic.

    This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA's forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA's reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.

    [Sep 24, 2015] U.S. and Its Coalition of Mid-East Dictators Kill 13 Times More Yemeni Civilians than Al Qaeda

    Sep 24, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com
    Sep 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    I-am-not-one-of-them

    Al Qaeda only ever exists in a country where the US decides on a regime change because that country in not under their control

    so the old Al Qaeda wag the dog mercenaries for propaganda show up (they brutally kill civilians don't they, the more barbaric the better, we'll hate them more and then have justification to bomb even more)

    Zarqawi in Iraq was such horse manure propaganda, and the CIA continue to use that boogeyman strategy because:

    "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." George W. Bush

    fooled again, fooled continuously, just plainly fools

    Bay Area Guy

    George, they're only brown people. It's black lives that matter. The brown people? Not so much.

    Besides, we're killing them for their own good.

    [Sep 24, 2015] Tight Oil Reality Check

    "... The EIAs 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. ..."
    "... The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices. ..."
    "... As it has acknowledged, the EIAs track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. ..."
    "... How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period? ..."
    "... Americas energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy cant be overstated. Its for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIAs rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper. ..."
    Sep 24, 2015 | www.resilience.org
    In Drilling Deeper, PCI Fellow David Hughes took a hard look at the EIA's AEO2014 and found that its projections for future production and prices suffered from a worrisome level of optimism.

    Recently, the EIA released its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 and so we asked David Hughes to see how the EIA's projections and assumptions have changed over the last year, and to assess the AEO2015 against both Drilling Deeper and up-to-date production data from key shale gas and tight oil plays.

    Key Conclusions

    • The EIA's 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. The AEO2015 reference case projection of total tight oil production through 2040 has increased by 6.5 billion barrels, or 15%, compared to AEO2014.
    • The EIA assumes West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices will remain low and not exceed $100/barrel until 2031.
    • At the same time, the EIA assumes that overall U.S. oil production will experience a very gradual decline following a peak in 2020.
    • These assumptions-low prices, continued growth through this decade, and a gradual decline in production thereafter - are belied by the geological and economic realities of shale plays. The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices.
    • Perhaps the most striking change from AEO2014 to AEO2015 is the EIA's optimism about the Bakken, the projected recovery of which was raised by a whopping 85%.
    • As it has acknowledged, the EIA's track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. Admittedly, forecasting such things is very challenging, especially as it relates to shifting economic and technological realities. But the below ground fundamentals- the geology of these plays and how well they are understood-don't change wildly from year to year. And yet the AEO2015 and AEO2014 reference cases have major differences between them. As Figure 13 shows, with the exception of the Eagle Ford, the EIA's projections for the major tight oil plays have shifted up or down significantly.
    After closely reviewing the Annual Energy Outlook 2015, David Hughes raises some important, substantive questions:
    • Why is there so much difference at the play level between AEO2014 and AEO2015?
    • Why does Bakken production rise 40% from current levels, recover more than twice as much oil by 2040 as the latest USGS mean estimate of technically recoverable resources, and exit 2040 at production levels considerably above current levels?
    • How can the Niobrara recover twice as much oil in AEO2015 as was assumed just a year ago in AEO 2014?
    • What was the thinking behind the wildly optimistic forecast for the Austin Chalk in AEO2014 that required a 78% reduction in estimated cumulative recovery in AEO2015?
    • How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period?

    America's energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy can't be overstated. It's for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIA's rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper.

    [Sep 21, 2015] Russian Oil Industry Braces For Tax Hike

    Looks like Russian government take measures to cut oil production...
    Sep 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    The Russian government is moving to plug a whole in its budget by raising more revenue from its oil and gas industry.

    According to Reuters , the Russian finance ministry will tweak the Mineral Extraction Tax on oil companies, slapping on a "rouble deduction," which could raise 1.6 trillion roubles ($24.1 billion) through 2018. In effect, oil companies pay a tax that is largely calculated based on the strength of the country's currency, leading to a decline in revenues as the rouble has lost a significant amount of its value over the past year.

    Instead of using a previous formula that used an exchange rate based on when the tax was paid, the government will instead use a rate close to what the rouble traded for in late 2014. That means, instead of a projected 63.5 roubles per dollar that the government expects for 2016, the tax will instead by based on 43.8 roubles per dollar.

    The effect will be much more tax paid by oil companies, since the rouble was dramatically stronger in 2014 compared to where the rouble has gone since then.

    [Sep 21, 2015] After Creating Migration Flood Merkel Throws Up Emergency Dikes

    "... The German chancellor Merkel tried to gain some points with her neoliberal friends and with big companies and donors by suddenly opening the border for "refugees" of all kinds, even for those who come from safe countries. These migrants would help to further depress German wages which, after years of zero growth, slowly started to increase again. ..."
    "... While Merkel was lauded by all kinds of Anglo-american neoliberal outlets, from the Economist over FT and Newsweek to the Washington Post the backlash in Germany was brewing. ..."
    "... Despite a major campaign of pro-migrant propaganda in Merkel friendly media the German population in general is furious with her stunt. ..."
    "... So the brave new world is coming to you also? The brave new world of depressed wages and benefits for the working classes. ..."
    "... Poor Mr. Schäuble must give "earth and water" to the German oligarchs. He must organize a new Treuhand for the whole Europe to sell-off public property, he must completely dissolve labor rights, bring down pensions and wages, destroy the social state. ..."
    "... These refugees mean workers and jobs. Or how do you think their houses will be built, or where will the doctors come from to treat them and the teachers to teach them, the shops that will feed them. ..."
    "... Would be the planed PR con of ' aren't we nice to the most needy refugees', that being used as a duel use purpose with that appeal to her real constituency in the elite and corporates with refugees as wage slaves depressing wages. ..."
    "... And when times are bad enough. the far-right actually gains and keeps power till they run a bloody muck. Nazis and Fascism is what these freaks are risking again. ..."
    "... Of course, this is all made possible because the US isn't a country anymore, it is now a corporation. The same is true for the EU. The EU isn't a union of nations anymore, it is now a collection of corporations. ..."
    "... Yes, The brave new CORPORATE world is coming to us all. Humanity be damned, profits uber alles. Workers of the globe, lube up, and bend over. ..."
    "... This migrants crisis should be seen as a fantastic opportunity to all corporatists and neolibs. Companies need cheap labor. This is an open bar to them! ..."
    "... This is really another unmasking of the EU. It is run by Germany. ..."
    "... I think German industry is angry at the Russia sanctions and has been pressuring for 'new workers', in the sense of being able to set conditions, choose candidates from a larger pool, and almost certainly, pay less, have more control over workers. ..."
    "... The makers of Western policy and the media are one and the same. Mass media now so consolidated, it's a corporate/state entity. ..."
    "... The origin of totalitarianism : Part two, Imperialism : Chapter 9, Decline of the nation-state; end of the rights of man, p. 269 ..."
    "... Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression ..."
    "... I have real sympathy for the Syrian refugees coming from the concentration camps in Turkey. These are mostly younger, middle-class, educated Syrians with small children who either lost their homes or couldn't tolerate the risk of violence to them and their families. ..."
    "... it's better lavrov speaks openly on what everyone with half a brain is thinking here.. that isis is a mercenary group paid to be where it is ought to come as no surprise.. that the usa hopes to use them to overthrow assad - they have openly stated this. ..."
    "... When refugees still managed to get into Europe in large numbers heading for Germany where they had relatives and knew that there were jobs there was not much German politicians could legally do except stop Schengen that makes it easy to go anywhere once you have crossed the European borders - which is happening now getting refugees stranded in the fields. ..."
    "... with the influx of probably millions of cheap labour, the big cats may bring back the industries from china , yes now the western Europe may be able to compete with them. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The German chancellor Merkel tried to gain some points with her neoliberal friends and with big companies and donors by suddenly opening the border for "refugees" of all kinds, even for those who come from safe countries. These migrants would help to further depress German wages which, after years of zero growth, slowly started to increase again.

    But neither she nor her allies ever prepared the German public for a sudden influx of several hundred thousand foreigners. Changes in immigration policy were sneaked in without any public discussion. Suddenly 800,000 foreign people are expected to arrive this years and many more over the next years. People who neither speak German nor readily fit into the national cultural and social-economic environment. Most of these do not come out of immediate dangers but from safe countries.

    While Merkel was lauded by all kinds of Anglo-American neoliberal outlets, from the Economist over FT and Newsweek to the Washington Post the backlash in Germany was brewing. In Who Runs The Migrant Media Campaign And What Is Its Purpose? I predicted:

    There will be over time a huge backlash against European politicians who, like Merkel, practically invite more migrants. Wages are stagnant or falling in Europe and unemployment is still much too high. The last thing people in Europe want right now is more competition in the labor market. Parties on the extreme right will profit from this while the center right will lose support.

    Despite a major campaign of pro-migrant propaganda in Merkel friendly media the German population in general is furious with her stunt. The backlash comes from all sides but especially from her own conservative party. Additionally many European leaders point out that Merkel, who insistent on sticking to the letter of law in the case of Greece, is now openly breaking European laws and agreements.

    ... ... ...

    ben | Sep 13, 2015 12:39:05 PM | 3

    So the brave new world is coming to you also? The brave new world of depressed wages and benefits for the working classes. Corporate Germany is drooling at the prospect of that happening. Good luck b.

    nmb | Sep 13, 2015 12:57:08 PM | 4

    ... poor Mr. Schäuble, who recently surpassed Mrs. Merkel in popularity in Germany, is under extreme pressure, mostly by the German capital, to "restructure" the eurozone through the Greek experiment. The German oligarchy is now in a cruel competition mostly with the US companies to hyper-automate production. It sends continuous signals that human labor will be unnecessary for its big companies and presses the German leadership to finish the experiment in Greece.

    Poor Mr. Schäuble must give "earth and water" to the German oligarchs. He must organize a new Treuhand for the whole Europe to sell-off public property, he must completely dissolve labor rights, bring down pensions and wages, destroy the social state. He must end quickly with Greece and pass all the "Greek achievements" to the whole eurozone.

    http://bit.ly/1fTpHhy

    Peter B. | Sep 13, 2015 4:12:54 PM | 11

    I live in Germany in a village near the Austria border. Our village is broke: too much debt. The people in Germany are taxed to death with over a 50 percent tax rate. In addition, the Euro took a lot of buying power away from us. And Germans are fleeing many areas to get away from the Ghettos of migrants that have come before.

    The propaganda machine in running 24/7 about how great these migrants are for Germany. Unfortunately in this case, the propaganda is not working. For example, my son's school teacher tried to set an example by being nice to a local black migrant by saying a few kind words only to be told – F*ck you lady. In any case, if you have eyes you can see migrants are a burden.

    It is a fact that Migrants get everything for free. They are not allowed to work for the first year and are given free health care, dental, accommodations, etc. In addition, the police do not like to bother them, so unless it is really bad, they just get away with it.

    So, how do you expect to pay for all of this? Where is the money going to come from? And did I mention that no one in our village supports the idea of have more migrants. In my opinion, this is a case of going too far. The politicians have now lost the population and they are back-tracking.

    Susan Sunflower | Sep 13, 2015 4:23:23 PM | 12

    In These Times: Zizek: We Can't Address the EU Refugee Crisis Without Confronting Global Capitalism

    The refugees won't all make it to Norway. Nor does the Norway they seek exist.

    somebody | Sep 13, 2015 5:05:13 PM | 15

    b. you are an economic analphabet. These refugees mean workers and jobs. Or how do you think their houses will be built, or where will the doctors come from to treat them and the teachers to teach them, the shops that will feed them. And how do you think German industry will survive with a shrinking aging work force, or old age pensioners homes and hospitals keep functioning.

    It happened before. Germany had some 2.6 million "guest workers" in the 1950's and 60's. Most of them aren't counted as immigration nowadays as they have become European - Greek, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. But recruitment was done in Turkey and North Africa, too.

    RE: Peter B. | Sep 13, 2015 4:12:54 PM | 11

    You have to be very rich to pay 50 per cent tax. I cannot say I sympathize. German countryside is quite empty, lots of room for refugees. They don't seem to want to go there though but to the cities. Like Germans, really.

    Bavaria has experience with refugees since World War II. To quote a Bavarian from one of the - formerly incestuous - valleys: We did not like them but they were good for us.

    But yes, it is beginning to feel like the end of Shengen and the end of Europe as we knew it. And yes, stupid German politicians seem to be surprised by the global effect of twitter and facebook.

    tom | Sep 13, 2015 5:40:50 PM | 16

    I thought the back up plan by Merkel and her despicable likes like mentioned by b and above;

    Would be the planed PR con of ' aren't we nice to the most needy refugees', that being used as a duel use purpose with that appeal to her real constituency in the elite and corporates with refugees as wage slaves depressing wages. Then with the final back up plan would be targeting those refugees she invited in - for hate speech against, demonisation and scape-goating those innocent refugees, for economic problems caused by her and the right-wingers in their economic class war.

    like b mentioned; that runs the risk of the far-right racists gaining more popularity and power.

    But haven't we seen that before. Political centrists planning to scapegoat innocence, but then being out hate-mongered by the far-right.

    And when times are bad enough. the far-right actually gains and keeps power till they run a bloody muck. Nazis and Fascism is what these freaks are risking again. Or does Merkel think she will fit in nicely with the possible future for Germany ?

    Cynthia | Sep 13, 2015 6:09:50 PM | 17

    The migrant crisis would be worrisome if it did not benefit corporate elites in the Western countries. It is exactly the same reason as why the same countries are outsourcing all work to the third-world countries: short term gain for a long term pain. The pain from the migrant crisis is felt by ordinary people and the state in the long term.

    This is why racism is rising in Western countries – those who lose jobs or have to compete for a home with a 12-member immigrant family hate immigrants the most. The elites, corporate or otherwise, are quite comfortable with immigration, they never go to the economically challenged and immigrant areas anyway, such crime does not reach them. Also, most Western countries have many a lawyer working on behalf of the illegal immigrants and against the society because it is so lucrative.

    The flip side is, of course, that it is often the policies of the Western governments and pillaging by Western companies which causes disasters in the places where illegal immigrants come from. How high the anti-immigration Wall needs to be when you push a country such as Libya or Syria into a 30-year civil war?

    Of course, this is all made possible because the US isn't a country anymore, it is now a corporation. The same is true for the EU. The EU isn't a union of nations anymore, it is now a collection of corporations.

    ben | Sep 13, 2015 8:10:01 PM | 21

    Cynthia @ 17: "Of course, this is all made possible because the US isn't a country anymore, it is now a corporation. The same is true for the EU. The EU isn't a union of nations anymore, it is now a collection of corporations."

    Yes, The brave new CORPORATE world is coming to us all. Humanity be damned, profits uber alles. Workers of the globe, lube up, and bend over.

    Cynthia | Sep 13, 2015 8:55:27 PM | 23

    Ben@21,

    This migrants crisis should be seen as a fantastic opportunity to all corporatists and neolibs. Companies need cheap labor. This is an open bar to them! What a great way to force Europe into the New World Order? Putting people in front of the fait accompli has always been the best recipe to success. Who cares about culture and civilization? We are consumers before anything, aren't we?

    Noirette | Sep 14, 2015 7:44:48 AM | 33

    This is really another unmasking of the EU. It is run by Germany. Merkel on her own bat decides the Dublin accords don't apply. Just like that! Then a week or more later Juncker stands in front of the EU Parliament and makes some proposal about quotas or what not and nobody says anything (except I suppose Farage and those who don't want the migrants.) Schengen is by-passed or overridden or transformed on her say so. (The part that seems to be holding is that non-signatories can't be forced to participate.) I strongly disaproved of both those accords (and the whole mismanagement of the migrant issue from day one) but just having Merkel run amok like that is utterly scandalous, and very disquieting. The whole media-hype (pro and soon contra) with the usual doctored pictures and crowd scenes etc. was totally disgusting. This is not going to end well. Incompetence, extend and pretend, shove the problem away leading to a 'crisis' which is handled with appeals to emotion and so on…bad news.

    I don't believe this was some US or Anglo-Zionist or whatever plot to harm Europe. (Unintended / uncared about consequences perhaps.) This is a purely internal EU affair. I think German industry is angry at the Russia sanctions and has been pressuring for 'new workers', in the sense of being able to set conditions, choose candidates from a larger pool, and almost certainly, pay less, have more control over workers. That may happen in part. But that is just one angle. (see tom above and somebody as well.)

    gemini33 | Sep 14, 2015 8:04:13 AM | 34

    I hate to even go here but there's a lot of public money to be made by contractors in this refugee crisis. With the media blitz, countries, corps and individuals will be pouring money into refugee funds. Look at these two articles w/ US coming onto refugee scene just as Europe shuts the gates:

    http://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-welcome-10-000-syrian-refugees-053252486.html
    http://news.yahoo.com/us-plans-welcome-10-000-syrian-refugees-053252486.html

    Never let a good crisis go to waste.

    MoonofA calls Merkel's actions a "stunt" above. I sadly agree. In the headlines here in the US, I noticed the alliteration "Generous Germany" in more than a handful of articles. Google confirms it has been used thousands of times. It conveniently counters the immense damage to Germany and Merkel's image that occurred after they fricasseed Greece on the world stage which while it may have made some northern Europeans happy, the rest of the world felt a very different emotion, despite the propaganda.

    virgile | Sep 14, 2015 9:58:02 AM | 36

    The migrant crisis is part of the amateurism of the international community in collaboration with a scoop and drama oriented media.

    The migrants move out of Turkey was long predictable. If anyone had read the Turkish law on 'refugees', they would know that Turkey does not recognize people coming from a middle eastern country as a "refugee". Therefore these people DO NOT get a UNHCR refugee card. Countries that welcome refugees request that card. Therefore people stuck in Turkey have no other way than to move to a country where they will be recognized as a valid 'refugee'.

    So it was obvious that after realizing the war in Syria was endless, masses of wannabe refugees rushed out of Turkey to Europe.

    It was obvious right from the start that Syria was no Libya, no Tunisia and no Egypt. Yet the amateur Western politicians rushed in prediction and the media went wild with youtubes, analysis, dramas..

    4 years later, both the western politicians and the media turned out to be wrong. Yet, they are so arrogant that they would never admit and continue and obsolete discourse to perpetuate their stupid predictions.

    The media have become the drivers of the Western policy. They are not elected, have no legitimacy, no accountability and yet they leade for the good and the bad.

    Only one thing, good news don't make a scoop!

    gemini33 | Sep 14, 2015 11:19:45 AM | 38

    @36 "The media have become the drivers of the Western policy"

    The makers of Western policy and the media are one and the same. Mass media now so consolidated, it's a corporate/state entity.

    TG | Sep 14, 2015 3:15:35 PM | 45

    "It may appear to be the interest of the rulers, and the rich of a state, to force population [ed. note: force = rapidly increase, as via an excessive rate of immigration], and thereby lower the price of labour, and consequently the expense of fleets and armies, and the cost of manufactures for foreign sale; but every attempt of the kind should be carefully watched and strenuously resisted by the friends of the poor, particularly when it comes under the deceitful guise of benevolence…"

    T.R. Malthus, "An Essay on the Principle of Population", 1798

    Virgile | Sep 14, 2015 7:05:37 PM | 58

    ONLY the countries that called themselves "The Friends of Syria" should be obliged to take a quota of refugees!

    That is the time to pay the fee for membership! Why the hell Slovakia or Serbia are supposed to take the refugees that the Friends of Syria created

    Here are the countries that should be OBLIGED to take Syrian refugees:

    Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United States

    http://www.dw.com/en/friends-of-syria-group-promises-more-rebel-aid-aid-workers-freed/a-17639889

    jfl | Sep 14, 2015 10:58:02 PM | 61

    Syrian Girl :

    #RefugeeCrisis: What The Media Is Hiding, Help #SyrianRefugees Go Home ~08:37 - 08:58

    ... There are forces that want to estrange people from their homeland, and to dissolve national identities altogether. Obama and other criminals are trying to make Syrians a people without a nation. A people without a nation suffer the worst humiliation. Look at what happened to the Palestinian people. One day, it could happen to you. ...

    Hannah Arendt :

    The origin of totalitarianism : Part two, Imperialism : Chapter 9, Decline of the nation-state; end of the rights of man, p. 269

    With the emergence of the minorities in Eastern and Southern Europe and with the stateless people driven into Central and Western Europe, a completely new element of disintegration was introduced into postwar Europe. Denationalization became a powerful weapon of totalitarian politics, and the constitutional inability of European nation-states to guarantee human rights to those who had lost nationally guaranteed rights, made it possible for the persecuting governments to impose their standard of values even upon their opponents. Those whom the persecutor had singled out as scum of the earth - Jews, Trotskyites, etc. - actually were received as scum of the earth everywhere; those whom persecution had called undesirable became the indésirables of Europe. The official SS newspaper, the Schwarze Korps, stated explicitly in 1938 that if the world was not yet convinced that the Jews were the scum of the earth, it soon would be when unidentifiable beggars, without nationality, without money, and without passports crossed their frontiers.[2] And it is true that this kind of factual propaganda worked better than Goebbels' rhetoric, not only because it established the Jews as scum of the earth, but also because the incredible plight of an ever-growing group of innocent people was like a practical demonstration of the totalitarian movements' cynical claims that no such thing as inalienable human rights existed and that the affirmations of the democracies to the contrary were mere prejudice, hypocrisy, and cowardice in the face of the cruel majesty of a new world. The very phrase "human rights" became for all concerned - victims, persecutors, and onlookers alike - the evidence of hopeless idealism or fumbling feeble-minded hypocrisy.

    [2] The early persecution of German Jews by the Nazis must be considered as an attempt to spread antisemitism among

    "those peoples who are friendlily disposed to Jews, above all the Western democracies"
    rather than as an effort to get rid of the Jews. A circular letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to all German authorities abroad shortly after the November pogroms of 1938, stated:
    "The emigration movement of only about 100,000 Jews has already sufficed to awaken the interest of many countries in the Jewish danger ... Germany is very interested in maintaining the dispersal of Jewry ... the influx of Jews in all parts of the world invokes the opposition of the native population and thereby forms the best propaganda for the German Jewish policy ... The poorer and therefore more burdensome the immigrating Jew is to the country absorbing him, the stronger the country will react."
    See Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Washington, 1946, published by the U. S. Government, VI, 87 ff.

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose ... This time it's Obama's handlers copying the NAZIs, last time it was the NAZIs copying the US' genocide of North American indigenes.

    PavewayIV | Sep 15, 2015 12:11:43 AM | 63
    I have real sympathy for the Syrian refugees coming from the concentration camps in Turkey. These are mostly younger, middle-class, educated Syrians with small children who either lost their homes or couldn't tolerate the risk of violence to them and their families.

    That image stands in stark contrast to some of the odd footage coming out of Hungary about refugees refusing food and water, trashing camps and threatening Hungarian aid workers. These were obviously refugees and presumably muslim, but didn't seem like the Syrians leaving Turkish camps. Who were these people?

    Fort Russ just published an article entitled, Afghan-Kosovo Mafia Migrant Smuggling Ring and More Refugee Chaos in Macedonia. A highly recommended read for anyone like me confused about the supposed 'Syrian Refugee' problem. It's much more complex than it appears and explains Europeans reports of the general demeanor of some of the refugee groups. This will not end well for anybody.

    Noirette | Sep 15, 2015 6:21:10 AM | 67

    It seems that the refugee 'crisis' in the EU is playing right into Putin's hands. (It is not a US plot!). The Putin coalition is gingerly taking shape. On Syria.

    Germany is ready to ally with Putin. Russia Insider.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/germany-may-be-leaving-us-anti-syria-coalition/ri9704

    Hollande has changed his mind. (From a newspaper yest.) Now he is sugggesting that he won't bomb there will only be reconnaissance flights. Or some such. After being seemingly keen to bomb Syria to smithereens.

    Cameron announced before Corbyn was elected that he would then (when it happened) be cautious or 'withholding' (I forget the precise words and posted the link before) about bombing Syria (Corbyn is against.) But see here, RT:

    https://www.rt.com/uk/315277-cameron-seeks-syria-consensus/

    In fact Cameron's communicated position is not clear. It is imprecise.

    Lavrov has come right out and said that the US knows ISIS positions but refuses to bomb. Which is extremely pointed of him. For a man who carefully measures his words. Fort Russ.

    http://fortruss.blogspot.ch/2015/09/lavrov-us-knows-isis-positions-refuses.html

    Kiwicris | Sep 15, 2015 7:29:02 AM | 69

    Noirette @ # 67 Yes I was a bit Swift intake of breath when I read that on Fort Russ. No, it's definitely not like him to be so, well, blunt is it? With this, we also have the arguments in the Iraqi Parliament about US & UK planes dropping arms & supplies to ISIS as in landing and unloading,(Totally separate from the parachute drops to the Kurds or Shite Militias or Iraqi Army that seem to end up in ISIS hands most of the time), Israel treating wounded militants and being al Qaeda's Air Force, with all this there should be enough now for a big exposee of it in the MSM. . . . . . . . and waiting . . . . . . . still waiting ( ͝° ͜ʖ͡°)
    james | Sep 15, 2015 4:21:57 PM | 82

    @74 noirette.. as always, thanks for your input and reasoned thoughts on these topics.. thanks for the data @66 as well..

    it's better lavrov speaks openly on what everyone with half a brain is thinking here.. that isis is a mercenary group paid to be where it is ought to come as no surprise.. that the usa hopes to use them to overthrow assad - they have openly stated this.. the only thing the usa hasn't done is said they're contributing to the funding of isis, or turning a blind eye when there cohorts saudi arabia and etc. are... it's just another mercenary group called isis getting approval to help along the western agenda here - much like blackwater, but they could state that openly with iraq - not so here..

    if anyone thinks isis are the one's the usa or their western buddies are going after here - if you believe that - make as well make a constant diet of wow posts then...

    somebody | Sep 15, 2015 8:59:25 PM | 86

    Re: dh | Sep 15, 2015 5:27:50 PM | 83

    You got my argument the wrong way round.

    Altruistic behaviour in primates relies on reciprocity

    It has got nothing to do with German guilt. Nowadays you can't be seen letting children drown in the Mediterranean or getting starved in Hungary without people disliking you.
    So European politicians first tried to throw up their hands with tears in their eyes whilst making sure the ships in the Mediterranean are military and not humanitarian.

    When refugees still managed to get into Europe in large numbers heading for Germany where they had relatives and knew that there were jobs there was not much German politicians could legally do except stop Schengen that makes it easy to go anywhere once you have crossed the European borders - which is happening now getting refugees stranded in the fields. They cannot legally send the refugees back to Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan. Neither can they send refugees back to Turkey. They might be able to do that after a lengthy legal process, but not now. In this situation European politicians have no choice - they cannot revert to racism as their populations are pretty mixed already, it would tear the whole European fabric apart, and, in the case of export driven Germany, it would destroy their global brand.

    The truth is that Turkey has a land bridge to Europe and there is a perfectly safe ferry from Turkey to the Greek islands which is closed for refugees. The other truth is that Germany has been pressuring countries on the periphery to close their borders and keep the refugees who still made it. There is no reason for countries on the periphery to agree to something as disadvantageous to them as the Dublin regulation but that their negotiation position was very week.

    It could be that Germany overdid the pressure and forgot about the reciprocity. As I understand the situation now German politicians threaten more or less openly to "stop paying" for Europe which is hilarious as the "paying" is based on an export surplus other European countries pay for with a deficit.

    duth | Sep 18, 2015 2:14:53 PM | 89

    yes indeed very soon, with the influx of probably millions of cheap labour, the big cats may bring back the industries from china , yes now the western Europe may be able to compete with them. I think this must all be part of their big plan and i think it wont work though due to the people demanding higher standards of living.

    [Sep 21, 2015] The Pope the Market

    "... Gosar is a cafeteria catholic, who ignores the thing about "loving thy neighbor", and "tossing the first stone". ..."
    "... Carbon pricing is not "market based"; it is a regulatory intervention to correct "market distortions," which originate from... wait for it... HOW MARKETS FUNCTION! Nordhaus appears to mistake an imaginary image of an "ideal" competitive market in which all externalities are internalized for actual markets in which the ideal could never, never materialize. In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes. ..."
    "... MARKETS 'R' US! ..."
    "...In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes..."
    "... The SUV and Saudi Arabia are not worth the pain of American soldiers suffered defending the past 70 years. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Gosar was educated by the "Jesuits" (they are a minority of Jesuits today) who brought you the Inquisition. Gosar is a cafeteria catholic, who ignores the thing about "loving thy neighbor", and "tossing the first stone".

    Religious freedom is not the practice of bigotry and intolerance.

    Gosar would be best served listening to the Pope. He needs the truth.

    ... ... ...

    Sandwichman said...

    "...market-based environmental policies such as carbon pricing..."

    "...the fact that environmental problems are caused by market distortions rather than by markets per se..."

    Who will teach the economists?

    Carbon pricing is not "market based"; it is a regulatory intervention to correct "market distortions," which originate from... wait for it... HOW MARKETS FUNCTION! Nordhaus appears to mistake an imaginary image of an "ideal" competitive market in which all externalities are internalized for actual markets in which the ideal could never, never materialize. In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes.

    And this is not Catholic theology -- it is economics as practiced by some of the most perceptive economists of the 20th century who must be ignored because... MARKETS 'R' US! Too bad, because I get the sense that Nordhaus's heart is in the right place even if his economic theory is in the wrong century.

    Sandwichman...

    "...In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes..."

    [Priceless!]

    Sandwichman -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Credit to Joan Martinez-Alier, paraphrasing Karl William Kapp, "Externalities are not so much market failures as cost-shifting 'successes'."

    Kapp, Karl William (1971) Social costs, neo-classical economics and environmental planning. The Social Costs of Business Enterprise, 3rd edition. K. W. Kapp. Nottingham, Spokesman: 305-318

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    K.W. Kapp:

    "Environmental problems are being forced today into the conceptual box of externalities first developed by Alfred Marshall. In my estimation this concept was not designed for and is not adequate to deal with the full range and pervasive character of the environmental and social repercussions set in motion by economic activities of producers or the goods produced and sold by them to consumers. I agree with those who have criticized the use of the concept of externalities as empty and incompatible with the logical structure of the static equilibrium theory."

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    From "Social Costs of Business Enterprise" by K. W. Kapp. pp. 69-70:

    http://www.kwilliam-kapp.de/documents/SCOBE_000.pdf

    How the principles of business enterprise favor the emergence of the social costs of air pollution

    "The initial concentration of industrial production in a few centers, as indeed the location of industries in general under conditions of unlimited competition, will take place in accordance with private cost-benefit calculations. Once established, the industry widens the market for a host of other industries; it offers employment and income opportunities to labor and capital; it provides a broader tax base for the emerging urban communities and the necessary public services. The locality becomes generally more attractive for additional investments, enterprise and labor and urban settlement. It is this expansionary momentum which serves to 'polarize' industrial development in certain 'nodal' centers, which soon gives rise to secondary and tertiary spread effects in the form of increasing outlets for agricultural products and consumers' industries in general. In the light of traditional economic theory the process seems to proceed in harmony with the principle of social efficiency. For, after all, internal economies combine with external economies (in the narrow Marshallian sense) to make it appear rational to concentrate production in centers which are already established and offer some guarantee that the necessary social overhead investments (in roads, schools, communication) can be shared by a larger community. What is overlooked is that the concentration of industrial production may give rise to social costs which may call for entirely new and disproportionate overhead outlays for which nobody may be prepared to pay. Thus by concentrating on the analysis of internal and external economies, and by stopping short of the introduction of the concept of social costs of unrestrained industrial concentration, traditional theory lends tacit support to the overall rationality of cumulative growth processes, no matter what their socially harmful effects may be. After all, what could be more 'rational' than to exploit to the fullest extent the availability of internal and external economies? As long as social costs remain unrecognized and as long as we concentrate on costs that are internal to the firm or to the industry we shall fail to arrive at socially relevant criteria.

    "It may be argued that, while the neglect of social costs may contribute to the cumulative growth process it still would not explain the incomplete and inefficient process of combustion which gives rise to the emanation of pollutants into the atmosphere. For obviously, if air pollution is a sign of inefficient and incomplete combustion of coal or oil the question arises why would business enterprise permit such waste to continue? The answer is simply that what may be technologically wasteful might still be economical considering the fact that not only social costs can be shifted with impunity but, above all, that discounted private returns (or savings) obtainable from the prevention of the technological inefficiency and social costs may not be high enough to compensate for the private costs of the necessary abatement measures. The fact that the resulting pollution of the atmosphere may cause social costs far in excess of the costs of their abatement is not, and indeed cannot, be normally expected to be considered in the traditional cost-benefit calculations of private enterprise."

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    More K. W. Kapp:

    "My central thesis was and has remained that the maximization of net income by micro-economic units is likely to reduce the income (or utility) of other economic units and of society at large and that the conventional measurements of the performance of the economy are unsatisfactory and indeed misleading. To my mind, traditional theoretical inquiry was neither guided nor supported by empirical observations and available data. I tried to show that micro-economic analysis ignored important relationships between the economy (wrongly viewed as a closed system) and the physical and social environment and that these intrinsic relationships gave rise to negative consequences of the economic process. It was and is my contention that the nature and scope of economic theory is too narrow. This restriction has affected economic theory at its foundation: i.e., at the stage of concept formation (e.g., costs and returns), in the choice of criteria of valuation and aggregation (in terms of money and exchange values) and hence in the delimitation of the scope of the inquiry. Not only the dynamic interconnection of the economy with the physical and social environment and the impact which the disruption of the environment has upon the producer (worker) and consumer but also the relationship between human wants and needs and their actual satisfaction have remained outside the scope and preoccupation of economic theory. Human wants and preferences (all subjective concepts), are treated as "given" and the analytical apparatus is designed to develop an instrumental logic of choice and allocation under these given conditions within a closed system.

    "This traditional restriction of economic analysis is not only contrary to the empirical facts of the interdependence of the economy with the environment but also protects the analysis and its conclusions against its critics who present evidence of the negative impact of economic activities on human health and human development. In fact, the whole procedure "alienates" economic analysis from what I consider to be one of its most important objectives, namely the appraisal of the substantive rationality (Max Weber) of the use of society's scarce resources. Critics of the traditional approach from Marx and Veblen to Myrdal and more recently H. Albert and W.A. Weisskopf have pointed out that the restriction of the analysis is the result of specific analytical preconceptions as well as hidden value premises. In short, the critics have argued that the restriction of economic analysis reflects a subtle dogmatism on the part of its practitioners."


    GeorgeK -> Sandwichman...

    WSJ
    Updated April 19, 2013 6:27 p.m. ET

    "One of the great policy bubbles of our times has been cap and trade for carbon emissions, and on Tuesday it may have popped for good. The European Parliament refused to save the EU's failing program, which is the true-believer equivalent of the pope renouncing celibacy.

    The Parliament in Strasbourg voted 334-315 (with 63 abstentions) against propping up the price of carbon credits in the EU Emissions Trading System. The failed proposal would have delayed the scheduled sale of 900 million ETS permits over the next seven years, thereby suppressing supply. After carbon traders realized they weren't getting more artificial scarcity, they drove the price of emissions permits down by 40% at one point on Tuesday."....

    Maybe Mr Nordhaus miss this little gem when he was "researching" his article

    anne -> GeorgeK...

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324030704578426520736614486

    April 19, 2013

    Cap and Trade Collapses
    Even the European Parliament rejects carbon price-fixing

    ilsm -> Sandwichman...

    The author does not think greed and failed distribution are market distortions.


    Sandwichman -> ilsm...

    No. Nordhaus appears to believe that general equilibrium describes a tendency of economies rather than a feature of abstract mathematical models. After all, didn't Arrow and Debreau "prove" its existence (given certain implausible assumptions)?

    The mathiness fetish began long before Lucas and his bogus "critique." Only a profession that was desperately eager to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" could have fallen for such a blatant display of OzWizardry.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    I repeat:

    "Human wants and preferences (all subjective concepts), are treated as "given" and the analytical apparatus is designed to develop an instrumental logic of choice and allocation under these given conditions within a closed system.

    "This traditional restriction of economic analysis is not only contrary to the empirical facts of the interdependence of the economy with the environment but also protects the analysis and its conclusions against its critics who present evidence of the negative impact of economic activities on human health and human development."

    david -> Sandwichman...

    I always find it very hard to get over this fundamental objection. And wonder why I think I should.

    DrDick -> ilsm...

    Why would he? They are the very heart and soul of capitalist markets.


    anne said...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pope-franciss-fact-free-flamboyance/2015/09/18/7d711750-5d6a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

    September 18, 2015

    Pope Francis' fact-free flamboyance
    By George F. Will - Washington Post

    Pope Francis embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony. With a convert's indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary. They would devastate the poor on whose behalf he purports to speak - if his policy prescriptions were not as implausible as his social diagnoses are shrill.

    Supporters of Francis have bought newspaper and broadcast advertisements to disseminate some of his woolly sentiments that have the intellectual tone of fortune cookies. One example: "People occasionally forgive, but nature never does." The Vatican's majesty does not disguise the vacuity of this. Is Francis intimating that environmental damage is irreversible?

    [ A wildly offensive essay from a typically offensive writer, but so much so as to be deserving of reading at least for the idea that environmental damage, damage to life as such, is inevitably and necessarily reversible. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne...

    Yuck. There is a reason I don't read George Will. He is a political pornographer whose intended audience is composed of post-adolescent crypto-fascists.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    "[William F.] Buckley is survived by his hip satirical novelist son Christopher, his pale imitation of its former self magazine, and George Will's wardrobe and middle initial."

    http://gawker.com/361402/william-f-buckley-crypto-fascist-is-correcting-usage-in-heaven


    cm -> Sandwichman...

    But in reference to your first comment in this post, there is a market for his writing, so ...

    DrDick -> cm...

    There is a market for underage prostitutes as well. That does not mean that we should encourage it.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    Wikipedia: "A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization."

    Ben Groves said...

    Follow the actual policy and reject the dialect. There has been almost no move against what is called "Climate Change". The "deniers" try to mutter dialectical nonsense there has been this great move, but they are lying. Look at the Rockefeller fortune split. While Jay has moved David's fortune to supporting moves to combat climate change, the Rockefeller Foundation has consistently financed denier bullshit globally and they own most of the money. Thus, the climate denier is a globalist. Why? Because global capitalism can't run without oil and specifically, cheap oil in the developed world for them to make profit.

    If you want to enmass a battle against "climate change" (a word the deniers existed), you must use fear and nationalism. This is the weakness in the current response. When you don't use fear and nationalism, it creates a emasculated response and people don't drift to Beta's. Alpha response in politics cannot be underestimated. It is how the neocons suck in the fools and what they learned watching 100 years of anti-capitalism in action (especially the Cuban revolution, with mega alpha males Fidel and Che).

    ilsm said...

    From the start the carbon cabal has created immense externalities which governments have responded with coddling them with subsidies and defending their foreign "assets".

    From wars (US since WW II), to support of corrupt royals and ruthless dictators, to cadmium in the livers of ungulates, to blighted cities and to massive degradation of the public health.

    While the right wing is defending the soccer Mom's SUV!

    The SUV and Saudi Arabia are not worth the pain of American soldiers suffered defending the past 70 years.

    The Pope is being Jeremiah!

    [Sep 21, 2015] Peak Oil Review - Sep 21

    "... The EIA released a report pointing out the impact the massive debt service US oil producers have accumulated in recent years is having on their cash flow. Last week Samson Resources joined a list of oil producers filing for bankruptcy in an effort to get out from under $4 billion it owes to 10,000 creditors. ..."
    "... According to Bloomberg, more than half the companies on its list of oil producers have debts totaling 40 percent or more of their value. Bloomberg also says that 400,000 b/d of oil produced by companies in financial trouble is in risk of being shut down. ..."
    "... US natural gas production has started to fall. Some of this is due to the drop in natural gas production that comes along with falling oil production, but some is due to the the extremely low price of natural gas ..."
    "... the Iranians are looking forward to increasing their oil production next year and regaining their former share of the international oil market. ..."
    "... The Saudis still have about $660 billion in foreign assets, enough to get them through five years of low oil prices. ..."
    "... In the first half, the Saudis exported an average of 4.4 million b/d to seven Asian nations, about the same as they did before the price slump. ..."
    "... the government is studying an increased oil extraction tax that could increase the tax burden on oil producers by $9 billion. Given the shape of the Russian economy, there is little left to tax other than oil production ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | www.resilience.org
    The EIA released a report pointing out the impact the massive debt service US oil producers have accumulated in recent years is having on their cash flow. Last week Samson Resources joined a list of oil producers filing for bankruptcy in an effort to get out from under $4 billion it owes to 10,000 creditors. Only four years ago KKR & Co. and a group of other investors spent $7.2 billion in buying Samson. According to Bloomberg, more than half the companies on its list of oil producers have debts totaling 40 percent or more of their value. Bloomberg also says that 400,000 b/d of oil produced by companies in financial trouble is in risk of being shut down.

    Moody's and Goldman's were out last week with pessimistic forecasts about the outlook for the oil industry over the next two years. Moody's says that earnings from the global oil and gas industry will decline by 20 percent this year and only recover modestly in 2016. Goldman's says the the current crude surplus may keep prices low for the next 15 years and reiterated that it could take prices as low as $20 a barrel to clear the oil glut which is threatening to overrun storage capacity.

    The US Secretary of Commerce noted last week that interest in acquiring new drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico is dropping due to low oil prices. This year the auction of drilling rights in the Western Gulf of Mexico yielded only $22.7 million as compared with $110 million last year. High-cost off shore drilling is in a lot of trouble with participants scrambling to mothball drilling rigs and fleets of support ships and to defer new equipment that was ordered during the boom years.

    ... ... ...

    Lost in all the furor over oil prices and declining production is that US natural gas production has started to fall. Some of this is due to the drop in natural gas production that comes along with falling oil production, but some is due to the the extremely low price of natural gas which fell on Friday to $2.60 per million BTU's in NY. These prices have led to an increase in demand for gas by the power companies and the ongoing construction of several export terminals for LNG.

    ... ... ...

    In the meantime, the Iranians are looking forward to increasing their oil production next year and regaining their former share of the international oil market. Tehran has announced that new types of oil contracts aimed at attracting foreign investment to the country's oil industry will be announced soon. Trade delegations from France and the UK are scheduled to visit Tehran soon.

    ... ... ...

    Down in Iraq, the government is trying to cope with lower oil prices by increasing exports. The latest plan calls for shipments of Basra crude to increase by 26 percent next month. In the meantime, Baghdad has warned the foreign oil companies working in the country that it will not have much money to pay them for their drilling efforts in the coming year so they should cut back on capital expenditures.

    ... ... ...

    There is unlikely to be much change in the oil situation unless there is some type of foreign intervention to contain the Islamic State or stop the refugee flow into the Mediterranean.

    ... ... ...

    The Saudis are starting to feel the impact of lower oil prices as the kingdom faces the biggest financial deficit in decades. Steps to cut spending are underway and the privatization of state-owned companies and elimination of fuel subsidies are likely. The Saudis still have about $660 billion in foreign assets, enough to get them through five years of low oil prices.

    Recent data shows that the Saudis are holding their own in efforts to maintain market share. In the first half, the Saudis exported an average of 4.4 million b/d to seven Asian nations, about the same as they did before the price slump.

    ... ... ...

    Russia's economy continues to deteriorate. Moscow's labor minister said that real incomes in Russia are expected to contract by 5 percent this year. Efforts to ramp up domestic substitutes for food and goods previously imported from the West are going slowly and it may be years before they are implemented. To offset growing budget deficits, the government is studying an increased oil extraction tax that could increase the tax burden on oil producers by $9 billion. Given the shape of the Russian economy, there is little left to tax other than oil production which is still doing well thanks to the greatly devalued ruble and large export sales which have combined to leave oil export revenues largely unchanged when measured in rubles.

    Work on the "Turkish Stream" pipeline which Moscow is planning to build to move natural gas to the EU while bypassing Ukraine has not begun. Delays have moved completion of the project into 2017.

    ... ... ...

    China's diesel exports may surge to a record in the coming months as refinery output increases while domestic demand growth for the fuel slows. The nation's diesel shipments might have risen to a record last month, topping the previous high in June of 670,000 tons, and may climb to 1 million tons a month in the fourth quarter. (9/14)

    ... ... ...

    Uganda/Kenya: Low crude prices have thrown the future of East African oil projects into doubt. With oil prices languishing below $50 a barrel, there's little incentive for companies such as Tullow Oil Plc, Africa Oil Corp., China's CNOOC Ltd. and France's Total SA to keep investing. (9/16)

    ... ... ...

    Gasoline consumption: U.S. motor gasoline use has been rising after reaching an 11-year low in 2012. Although lower gasoline prices have been an important factor in the increase in gasoline use so far in 2015, changes in the labor market and in the vehicle sales mix over the past few years also have contributed to the rise in gasoline use. (9/16)

    [Sep 21, 2015] Economic Outlook, Indicators, Forecasts - Your Business

    "... More ups and downs are assured. But we look for WTI to trade between $40 and $45 per barrel by December. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | Kiplinger

    Then the Federal Reserve announced its decision to keep its benchmark interest rate at rock-bottom levels, citing concerns about the health of the global economy. Those worries promptly sent oil prices sliding, with WTI trading near $45 per barrel.

    More ups and downs are assured. But we look for WTI to trade between $40 and $45 per barrel by December. Any sort of sustained price rally looks unlikely until global supply is dialed back from its current high level. Even though U.S. production is slipping a bit, output remains strong in the Middle East and Russia.

    [Sep 21, 2015] Oil Prices Gain On Higher Investor Confidence In Tightening Markets

    "... hedge funds have cut their gross short position by almost a third in recent weeks to 111 million barrels. This is down from a peak of 163 million in mid-August, but still almost double the 56 million barrels seen in mid-June: ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The crude complex is ripping higher after Friday's lambasting, encouraged higher by signs of a tightening market and further closing of short positions in the latest CFTC data. As the below chart illustrates, hedge funds have cut their gross short position by almost a third in recent weeks to 111 million barrels. This is down from a peak of 163 million in mid-August, but still almost double the 56 million barrels seen in mid-June:

    [Sep 21, 2015] Blame America ? No, Blame Neocons!

    "... If aggressive US policy in the Middle East – for example in Iraq – results in the creation of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, is pointing out the unintended consequences of bad policy blaming America? Is it "blaming America" to point out that blowback – like we saw on 9/11 – can be the result of unwise US foreign policy actions like stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia? ..."
    "... the current refugee crisis is largely caused by bad US foreign policy actions. The US government decides on regime change for a particular country – in this case, Syria – destabilizes the government, causes social chaos, and destroys the economy, and we are supposed to be surprised that so many people are desperate to leave? Is pointing this out blaming America, or is it blaming that part of the US government that makes such foolish policies? ..."
    "... they never explain why the troops were removed from Iraq: the US demanded complete immunity for troops and contractors and the Iraqi government refused. ..."
    "... As soon as the US stopped paying the Sunnis not to attack the Iraqi government, they started attacking the Iraqi government. Why? Because the US attack on Iraq led to a government that was closely allied to Iran and the Sunnis could not live with that! ..."
    "... The same is true with US regime change policy toward Syria. How many Syrians were streaming out of Syria before US support for Islamist rebels there made the country unlivable? ..."
    "... I don't blame America. I am America, you are America. I don't blame you. I blame bad policy. I blame the interventionists. I blame the neoconservatives who preach this stuff, who believe in it like a religion - that they have to promote American goodness even if you have to bomb and kill people. ..."
    "... In short, I don't blame America; I blame neocons. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | www.ronpaulinstitute.org
    Sep 20, 2015 | Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    Is the current refugee crisis gripping the European Union "all America's fault"? That is how my critique of US foreign policy was characterized in a recent interview on the Fox Business Channel. I do not blame the host for making this claim, but I think it is important to clarify the point.

    It has become common to discount any criticism of US foreign policy as "blaming America first." It is a convenient way of avoiding a real discussion. If aggressive US policy in the Middle East – for example in Iraq – results in the creation of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda in Iraq, is pointing out the unintended consequences of bad policy blaming America? Is it "blaming America" to point out that blowback – like we saw on 9/11 – can be the result of unwise US foreign policy actions like stationing US troops in Saudi Arabia?

    In the Fox interview I pointed out that the current refugee crisis is largely caused by bad US foreign policy actions. The US government decides on regime change for a particular country – in this case, Syria – destabilizes the government, causes social chaos, and destroys the economy, and we are supposed to be surprised that so many people are desperate to leave? Is pointing this out blaming America, or is it blaming that part of the US government that makes such foolish policies?

    Accusing those who criticize US foreign policy of "blaming America" is pretty selective, however. Such accusations are never leveled at those who criticize a US pullback. For example, most neocons argue that the current crisis in Iraq is all Obama's fault for pulling US troops out of the country. Are they "blaming America first" for the mess? No one ever says that. Just like they never explain why the troops were removed from Iraq: the US demanded complete immunity for troops and contractors and the Iraqi government refused.

    Iraq was not a stable country when the US withdrew its troops anyway. As soon as the US stopped paying the Sunnis not to attack the Iraqi government, they started attacking the Iraqi government. Why? Because the US attack on Iraq led to a government that was closely allied to Iran and the Sunnis could not live with that! It was not the US withdrawal from Iraq that created the current instability but the invasion. The same is true with US regime change policy toward Syria. How many Syrians were streaming out of Syria before US support for Islamist rebels there made the country unlivable? Is pointing out this consequence of bad US policy also blaming America first?

    Last year I was asked by another Fox program whether I was not "blaming America" when I criticized the increasingly confrontational US stand toward Russia. Here's how I put it then:

    I don't blame America. I am America, you are America. I don't blame you. I blame bad policy. I blame the interventionists. I blame the neoconservatives who preach this stuff, who believe in it like a religion - that they have to promote American goodness even if you have to bomb and kill people.

    In short, I don't blame America; I blame neocons.

    Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

    The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity

    [Sep 21, 2015] Is This The Bottom For Oil Prices

    "... Around the world, an estimated $1.5 trillion worth of oil and gas investment may not be viable, at least at today's prices, according to a new report from Wood Mackenzie. The report concludes that $220 billion worth of investment has already been scrapped, and another $20 billion could be cancelled as well. The number of new oil and gas projects to be approved in 2016 could be around one-fifth of the annual average. ..."
    "... The low oil prices are taking their toll, the main shale oil producing regions in particular likely to suffer lasting damage ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    Global oil demand also continues to rise. The IEA again revised its demand projection for 2015 upwards, with consumption expected to grow by 1.7 mb/d, a five-year high. "The market's not as oversupplied as we think it is," David Pursell, managing director at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co., told Bloomberg in an interview.

    The long-term picture shows even stronger signs of bullishness. For example, it is unlikely that Iraq will be able to reach its ambitious production targets for the future, and because energy forecasters like the IEA are counting on Iraq to make up a large share of global production growth in the coming decades, the failure to reach those targets could leave the world short of supply. The same can be said for Brazil. In June, Petrobras acknowledged it will be unable to meet its production goals as well. The several million barrels per day lost between just these two countries alone mean that the long-term supply picture looks a lot tighter than we once thought.

    But it goes beyond Iraq and Brazil. Around the world, an estimated $1.5 trillion worth of oil and gas investment may not be viable, at least at today's prices, according to a new report from Wood Mackenzie. The report concludes that $220 billion worth of investment has already been scrapped, and another $20 billion could be cancelled as well. The number of new oil and gas projects to be approved in 2016 could be around one-fifth of the annual average.

    Other market watchers concur. "The low oil prices are taking their toll, the main shale oil producing regions in particular likely to suffer lasting damage," Commerzbank concluded in another report. Lower production over the longer-term could send oil prices up.

    However, it is short-term market conditions that dictate the huge gyrations in crude oil prices. And for now, based on the positions of oil speculators, prices may have bottomed out.

    By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

    Related: Iran Deal May Redefine The Middle East

    [Sep 21, 2015] HUGE part of the problem is we have a energy illiterate general public

    "... markets are less and less supportive of deja vu innovation. ..."
    "... However, a HUGE part of the problem is we have a (mostly) energy illiterate general public, AND a scientific community that often does not speak in a language that the general public can comprehend; there is A HUGE disconnect here. ..."
    "... US electricity consumption per capita is at the levels of the late 1990s to early 2000s. Efficiency, demographics reducing the growth of household formations, and a halving of the growth of real GDP per capita since 2000 and a further deceleration to near 0% since 2007-08 are the primary factors reducing consumption per capita. ..."
    "... It ..."
    "... would be nice if our only problem were with oil. We have a problem with electricity too, and with keeping the roads paved. Electric cars don't solve those problems. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | ourfiniteworld.com
    September 15, 2015

    Thomas Simon, September 15, 2015 at 7:19 am

    @CalifornuiaLiving you are right about the California economy booming. Record tourism, agriculture, fossil fuels, high tech, etc. all have been strong. Problem is drought , wild fires, and climate change have significant impact on the future. Also wage stagnation in non-elite worker sector is a deepening problem. And high tech sector is starting to feel the pinch as markets are less and less supportive of deja vu innovation.

    The reality of ocean acidification, coastal marine life die off due to heat caused algae bloom and potential sea rise from Arctic ice melting are no longer deniable. This is is not doom and gloom – this is as you I am sure can recognize required input for planning how to adjust oir at the east manage the risk.

    What I appreciate from Gail is her careful analytical models that provide data points to monitor as part of the risk assessment and adjustments that any pragmatist must consider.

    kimgerly, September 14, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    @CaliforniaLiving. Here you go. RE's only at 20% in California. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

    Massive EV rollout is only good in tandem with a MASSIVE increase in installed renewable energy systems technologies. It will take decades to do this based on today's generation mix. And based on the escalation of the 'undesirables' and 'indifference' of Mother Nature, I'm predicting there will be A LOT more pain in the near future.

    Better if the leadership trains and educates the populous to conserve, leave these bad habits of hyper-consumption in the past, and to PREPARE. to RESPOND. and ADAPT., because Mother Nature is not going to wait.

    BTW: I'm a renewable energy engineer.

    kimgerly, September 14, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    The way I see it is hyper-consumerism will be the bane of (wo)mans' and other species' existence.

    However, a HUGE part of the problem is we have a (mostly) energy illiterate general public, AND a scientific community that often does not speak in a language that the general public can comprehend; there is A HUGE disconnect here. And so, why would those of us in the scientific/engineering realm expect the lay person to get onboard when we, although I try my best not to, spew in language that goes over most peoples' heads. More storytelling is needed…

    On top of the fact that we have leaders who don't understand thermodynamics, so they make BAD policy. Right, I blame a great deal on leadership who is failing to plan and not the sheeple.

    But it's happened before and it is quite likely happening again. And so it goes…

    CL, September 15, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    @Kimgerly

    I agree with you that "illiterate general public" is a major problem in setting the world on a correct course and Gail with this blog is part of that problem. There is one simple proven way to get the public to learn what is needed to point them in the right direction. It is though the tax code. The government needs to taxes the public on the actions that are damaging our environment and give credits to behavior that improves our environment. The one thing the public understands is money. I'm sure the fools will come after me. When they read this post. Telling me I'm obstructing their freedom that is destroying mother earth.

    I also don't buy your statement that " leaders who don't understand". There is one party that gets it and another that refuses to at knowledge the situation protecting it's special interest ( oil companies for one ). This site lead by Gail is part of that special interest infrastructure. I have yet to see since she fell out of favor at TheOilDrum. A solution to anything. It's always Fear, Collapse, Fear and more Collapse.

    Obama gets it – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C23e_-5BdZM

    PleaseExplain, September 15, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Please Gail, let us know the last time you offered a solution ? You've been calling for collapse for five years and it hasn't happened. When do you admit your wrong ?

    PleaseExplain, September 15, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    I'm sick of reading your negative doomsday scenario and disinformation that this site pushes on the public for special interest. That's who I am.

    BC, September 15, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    US electricity consumption per capita is at the levels of the late 1990s to early 2000s. Efficiency, demographics reducing the growth of household formations, and a halving of the growth of real GDP per capita since 2000 and a further deceleration to near 0% since 2007-08 are the primary factors reducing consumption per capita.

    EV sales are plunging with the crash in the price of gasoline and coincident with a global recession that likely began in late 2014 to earlier this year.

    Growth of wind and solar energy production overall and as a share of total energy production has likely peaked for the cycle and will decelerate to 0% or negative in the years ahead, as occurred in the 1990s.

    Gail Tverberg, September 15, 2015 at 6:54 am

    Yes, we do have a population problem.

    Gail Tverberg, September 15, 2015 at 6:45 am

    It would be nice if our only problem were with oil. We have a problem with electricity too, and with keeping the roads paved. Electric cars don't solve those problems.

    [Sep 21, 2015] Iran Deal May Redefine The Middle East

    "... A Real Politik assessment that only can come from someone who covers the global oil producing nations as a whole industry. ..."
    "... The breakup of the Soviet Union was not just the fall of a single nation, but the fall of one of 2 Post WWII Global Hegemons. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, the overwhelming jargon of business from the last 4 decades of unrelenting Neo-liberalism likes to refer to ¨deals¨ and Western values, as if we clip money saving coupons to be redeemed at the bargaining table with Iran. ..."
    "... The US still owes the Iranians much more than "regret" for overthrowing the first true and democratically elected SECULAR government ever in the ME (Mossedegh). ..."
    "... They COULD have been a true, natural ally of the West (except for the "privatize everything" schtick the West has been stuck in for the last 30 years). Such a waste. All we've left behind us is chaos, jihadis, instability, death. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | naked capitalism
    This has led to a new emerging relationship between the Saudis and Russia, where negotiations between Russia and OPEC emerged over the possibility of coordination of oil production levels. OPEC hinted that it was open to coordinated production cuts with non-OPEC members in its latest bulletin report, saying that "if there is a willingness to face the oil industry's challenges together" then the future would "be a lot better." Russian officials held meetings with their counterparts from OPEC, fueling speculation of some sort of accommodation.

    Despite positive language from the negotiators, the talks so far have not amounted to much. Rosneft's Igor Sechin seemed to rule out such a scenario on September 7 in comments to the press, in which he said that Rosneft can't operate the way OPEC can. It would be difficult for Russia to cut back on its production, even if that meant some chance of higher prices. Russia's economy is hurting, and it needs to sell every barrel that it can.

    Although there won't be a deal on oil output, Saudi Arabia and Russia made more progress on discussions regarding the purchase of Russian nuclear power plants and military equipment, a likely wake-up call to the U.S. and UK, the Saudis' longtime military suppliers. Still to be determined is whether this is a new alliance or merely a show of Saudi independence.

    ... ... ...

    The EIA reports that in the last five years, the U.S. 'shale oil revolution' has enabled the U.S. to more than halve its oil imports, making it far less dependent on imports from OPEC, and significantly changing the terms of the relationship.

    There is a lively ongoing argument in the world press about the possibility of the nuke deal leading to an entente between the U.S. and Iran, or even the possibility of an actual alliance.

    Hardcore opponents of the deal claim that Iran is already in a quasi-alliance with the U.S. in the fight against ISIS in Iraq. And, although both countries hotly deny any intent to form an alliance, there are many in the region who believe that perhaps 'the ladies doth protest too much'.

    ... ... ...

    As reported by Nick Cunningham, on these pages, the recently announced agreement with European oil companies to extend Gazprom's Nordstream gas pipeline into Germany was a clear sign that the EU is willing to do business with Russia again; this despite the Ukraine crisis, which in the face of Middle Eastern conflicts, seems to be fading into the background.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Vince in MN, September 21, 2015 at 6:39 am

    39 paragraphs of cliche ridden breathless rumor mongering. The heart veritably races waiting for the next shoe dropping.

    EoinW, September 21, 2015 at 8:58 am

    In my lifetime, the Middle East has had two problems: Wahabbism and Zionism. We've been on the wrong side of both. One can count on western leaders to always be on the wrong side.

    If Putin appears the voice of reason, what does that make Obama? He often seems like a housewife reacting to the dramatic conclusion of his favourite soap opera…with a new episode to follow tomorrow. Almost want to write – same Bat time, same Bat channel – it's so cartoonish.

    The refugee crisis has made Merkle seem almost like a compassionate human being. But we know she only cares about keeping the EU going on her watch and she can see what a threat the refugee crisis is to EU unity. How worse will that threat be when Ukrainian refugees start coming? Better make nice with Russia!

    Bill Smith September 21, 2015 at 10:17 am

    "Saudis offer to Israel to allow flyovers of Saudi territory in case an attack on Iran" This has been reported on and off for several years.

    The "sudden military alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia" seems overblown. There have been very scattered reports of intelligence cooperation in the past but that is it.

    Of course FARS reports stuff like this:

    "20 Israeli officers and 63 Saudi military men and officials were killed"

    likbez September 21, 2015 at 11:22 am

    "39 paragraphs of cliche ridden breathless rumor mongering. The heart veritably races waiting for the next shoe dropping."

    I would agree. It is clear for me that the quality of reporting about Russia is on the level of presstitutes from WashPost.

    Also it is unclear that is the USA game plan as for Iran and what this article tries to communicate does not look plausible. It might well be that the USA wants to spread their bets by including Iran into the cycle of vassals (the USA does not need allies, only vassal states) but I think Iran elite still remembers years of crippling sanctions pretty well to jump into Uncle Sam embraces. The deal is needed mainly to put additional pressure on oil prices and if it achieves its goals and Russia crumbles, Iran will be thrown under the bus by US neocons very soon and without any hesitation.

    It also looks like SA leadership wants some kind of rebalancing of relations with Russia as after Egypt to rely on US neocons is simply stupid. They proved to be pretty treacherous folks and promises given are not worth the paper they were printed on.

    But if we assume that neocons dominate the USA foreign policy in foreseeable future, then the key policy in Middle East will be usual "divide and conquer" policy like we saw in Iraq, Libya and Syria. And bloodshed financed from usual sources (is not ISIS the USA and friends creation ?) will continue.

    What is interesting is that SA never managed considerably increase their oil exports as their internal consumption grows more rapidly then extraction. They just refused to drop the volume of their exports. Probably with tacit approval of the USA. So it looks like drastic oil price drop is mainly financial markets play (derivative and futures games) - and that means that one plausible scenario is that this is another attempt to hurt Russia and depose Putin, even by taking a hit for own shale industry and decimating Canadian oil sands. Lifting sanctions from Iran is just the second step of the same plan.

    EoinW -> likbez, September 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    If Vietnam can forget over 2 million murdered by Americans and cozy up to Washington then it must be possible to find elites in any society(even Iran) who will sell out for the right price.
    Paul Tioxon September 21, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    A Real Politik assessment that only can come from someone who covers the global oil producing nations as a whole industry. Not completely unsurprising, but unusual in that the only constant in the social order is change and the people making sense out of the change have to look ahead to consequences real and unintended from political decisions that impact global energy production, particularly oil. The breakup of the Soviet Union was not just the fall of a single nation, but the fall of one of 2 Post WWII Global Hegemons.

    The failure of the Project for A New American Century as a bid for a unipolar, unilateral Militaristic American Hegemony has resulted in a shift back to the International as opposed to Global relations. The institutions of the Post WWII world, The United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank, with the emphasis on diplomacy as opposed to nation to nation warfare is being resurrected in the Iranian Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What has been nearly completely absent is the naming of the UN Security Councils permanent members, the victors of WWII were united in staring down Iran until they produced the desired results, namely, giving up on pushing its way into the nuclear power club. The re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations with Cuba is a corroborating development. Russia has worked with the US in Syria to eliminate the chemical warfare stockpiles of Syria as well as patiently worked to conclude a successful Iran re-approachment.

    Unfortunately, the overwhelming jargon of business from the last 4 decades of unrelenting Neo-liberalism likes to refer to ¨deals¨ and Western values, as if we clip money saving coupons to be redeemed at the bargaining table with Iran. And the war party demanded that a better deal could be had, what, they could get it for us WHOLESALE! Nuclear Non Proliferation was what was at stake and the UN Permanent Security Council Members were all present to negotiate the re-integration of Iran into the United Nations.

    Presidents Obama and Putin are more allied than not and the structure of an inclusive international social order are being worked out without the lies of the Bush family´s war party plans. The USA is not falling apart at the seams because other nations are finally enriching themselves, thus putting them beyond the simple command and control of Neo-con warlords. The USA is relatively weaker not due to being hood winked or conquered but because other nations have risen in their own capacity to direct self determination. Iran is welcomed to do so, just not with nuclear weapons. That is a good thing, in the eyes of the Iranians and the rest of world.

    mark September 21, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Interesting article about the people that worked on this over the years.

    "Who made the Iran deal happen? Here are some of the people behind the scenes.
    PRI's The World"

    http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-14/who-made-iran-deal-happen-here-are-some-people-behind-scenes

    Praedor September 21, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    I DO so hope it leads to a completely new alignment in the ME. I am sick to death of "Iran the great evil" bullcrap.

    It has always struck me as purely a childish temper tantrum on the part of the USA because the Iranian people had the GALL to toss out OUR murderous dictator and actually run their own country for their own people. Who do they think they are?

    How DARE they use THEIR oil for THEIR country rather than to serve Western oil company bottom lines and provide the US with oil that, by rights, belongs to it. Because America! That and the fact that the Iranians held some US neocolonials/neoliberals hostage for a year-ish. That's unacceptable! Americans can do anything they want to whomever they want, damnit!

    The US still owes the Iranians much more than "regret" for overthrowing the first true and democratically elected SECULAR government ever in the ME (Mossedegh). Imagine what Iran and even the ME could have been by now if Mossedegh had been allowed to stay in rightful power? Iran would be a true beacon of liberty and freedom and modernity in the heart of the ME. Israel doesn't even come close. They COULD have been a true, natural ally of the West (except for the "privatize everything" schtick the West has been stuck in for the last 30 years). Such a waste. All we've left behind us is chaos, jihadis, instability, death.

    [Sep 20, 2015] Which Shale Firms Will Cut Production

    "... while existant production is profitable, new production may not be worthwhile. ..."
    "... Fiscally that is certainly a sound move, but if many firms follow CLR's footsteps, then it could set the stage for the long awaited turn in production growth. And that would be good news for oil prices indeed. ..."
    Sep 20, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    ...if production in the U.S. really is going to fall, it may come from firms like Whiting Petroleum and Continental Resources. Whiting announced at the end of July that it was cutting its capital spending budget and that it would run 8 drilling rigs for the year instead of the previous 11 it had planned to run. WLL's production in July was up 2 percent quarter over quarter, and production growth next year stands a good chance of turning negative for the firm.

    Whiting's per barrel costs look like they may be a bit under $20 each excluding production taxes and Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization (DD&A). As a result, while existant production is profitable, new production may not be worthwhile.

    Continental is taking similar steps and announced earlier in September that is was cutting its capital spending to align with its cash flow.

    Fiscally that is certainly a sound move, but if many firms follow CLR's footsteps, then it could set the stage for the long awaited turn in production growth. And that would be good news for oil prices indeed.

    [Sep 19, 2015] Russia Says It May Send Troops Into Combat In Syria As A d Netanyahu Heads To Moscow

    "...What really pisses off Israel about the Pantsirs is that they are crewed by Russians. That means even if an Israeli jet or missile COULD get close enough to take one out without being destroyed themselves (which I doubt), they would end up killing the Russians crewing the unit. On the same token, Israel can't send their al Nusra head-choppers to do the job because Russia knows exactly who gives them orders. Russian-crewed Pantsirs take all the options away from Israel. Meaning they can't attack a point air-defense weapon and take it out so they can THEN attack the SAM sites or interceptor aircraft it was protecting."
    Sep 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    philipat

    Clever. Russia says, "We agree with The US" that ISIL is a problem and we want to help Syria, in coalition with Allies, to form a united front against ISIL. Back to you US.....Lavrov is a class act.

    BuddyEffed

    Just an observation from an engineer, now if any NATO forces take out an antiaircraft site then there are likely to be Russian casualties. Suspect airspace is going to get more respect than it has been getting as a result.

    Can anyone intelligently provide comment on how this now affects issues of international law?

    Herd Redirectio...

    Here's my question, what part of the North Atlantic is Syria on? (North Atlantic Treaty Organization = NATO)

    Unless NATO is just the word for the ZIO-Empire?

    The Greek horse
    Putin knows what ISIS stands for = IsraeliSecretIntelligentService

    Sorry Bibi go blow your Zionist master NOW..

    Normalcy Bias

    It's REAL now and the Pentagon knows it. Fucking with Russians is a very BAD bet.

    They aren't just mouth-breathing neanderthals with AK-47's.

    I love my country, but my money is on the Russians.

    Mostly Harmless

    I believe International Law requires that the U.N. Security Council has to O.K. any Nation/State agression on another Nation/State. It doesn't matter who's manning the weapons. They are still considered the property of a sovereign nation/state. Attacking another Nation/State's property INSIDE that Nation/States JURISDICTION is considered an Act of War.

    Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. all required a certain number of votes before the UN/NATO could bomb the snot out of them. If memory serves; Russia, China, or both vetoed military intervention against Syria - so the countries itching to bomb Syria's legitimate government had to seek other means of regime change. Anyone paying attention, already knows what those "other means" were and are.

    To better clarify, Turkey sent an RF-4 into Syrian air space a few years back and the Syrians promptly shot it down. Yes, there was a lot of hand wringing at the time by Turkey and NATO allies, but there was nothing they could do. A military reconnaissance air-craft crossed an international border. The Syrian's had every right to shoot it down because it was in their airspace and Syria had not given Turkey permission to spy on it :-)

    The Russians are in Syria at Syria's request. Now bombing Syrian targets get trickier. It would be an ACT OF WAR against Russia if any of it's personnel or equipment are attacked by US, NATO, Turkey, etc. because Russia owns the equipment/personnel and have PERMISSION to be there by the Syrian government.

    BuddyEffed

    This is why I love ZH

    The Indelicate ...

    And when has the US or UK or Israel at all respected "international law"?

    Israel holds the world record for violations of UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions.

    In fact, it continues to violate the terms imposed on it for admission to the UN.

    Doesn't matter.

    They're Juice.

    They're *special*

    Its in a book!

    Son of Loki

    The UN? Countries honor UN resolutions when they agree with their plans; if the resolution does not pass, the country will simply ignore the UN or propagandize some other method of circumventing the UN citing some such vague claims of "national security" and so on.

    The UN serves one interesting purpose; it gives politicians to come to NYC to party like crazy away from their homelands. Hookers, booze, dope, and more hookers all on their countries' tab. It must be very Booooyaaah.

    Mostly Harmless

    I believe International Law requires that the U.N. Security Council has to O.K. any Nation/State agression on another Nation/State. It doesn't matter who's manning the weapons. They are still considered the property of a sovereign nation/state. Attacking another Nation/State's property INSIDE that Nation/States JURISDICTION is considered an Act of War.

    Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. all required a certain number of votes before the UN/NATO could bomb the snot out of them. If memory serves; Russia, China, or both vetoed military intervention against Syria - so the countries itching to bomb Syria's legitimate government had to seek other means of regime change. Anyone paying attention, already knows what those "other means" were and are.

    To better clarify, Turkey sent an RF-4 into Syrian air space a few years back and the Syrians promptly shot it down. Yes, there was a lot of hand wringing at the time by Turkey and NATO allies, but there was nothing they could do. A military reconnaissance air-craft crossed an international border. The Syrian's had every right to shoot it down because it was in their airspace and Syria had not given Turkey permission to spy on it :-)

    The Russians are in Syria at Syria's request. Now bombing Syrian targets get trickier. It would be an ACT OF WAR against Russia if any of it's personnel or equipment are attacked by US, NATO, Turkey, etc. because Russia owns the equipment/personnel and have PERMISSION to be there by the Syrian government.

    researchfix

    "And when has the US or UK or Israel at all respected "international law"?"

    Doesn´t matter when they hit Russians.

    Then natural law gets going.

    The Indelicate ...

    When has the US, or Israel, all kidding aside, abided by "international law" which, arguably, doesn't even really exists except the Laws of the Sea are pretty solid and if you used to hand out towels in the German Army, you may be prosecuted, at 93 years old, for some absurd litany of crimes you didn't commit.

    That's about it.

    Other than that, it is might makes right.

    ZippyDooDah

    @BuddyEffed

    To the US, international law doesn't count; international force matters, however. The Russians are probably inserting themselves as a buffer for Assad, knowing that the Western pow(d)ers will back off, not wanting to start some shit with a true world power, ie Russia. But international law, pffftt, what's that? Invade Iraq, pffftt, why not?

    Paveway IV

    A good Weekend Tyler article in that Weekend Tyler kind of way. I did find the last sentence so astonishing that it rated a comment.

    "...At the end of the day, one is certainly left to believe that Israel's "worries about accidentally coming to blows with Russian reinforcements in Syria" will quickly evaporate should Netanyahu get confirmation that the Quds are indeed on the ground as some reports have recently suggested and if it becomes clear that weapons are being funneled to Hezbollah, well, then all bets will officially be off..."

    I had to re-read that a couple of times. Israel's worries about killing Russians would evaporate if something happened? Really? So the implication is that Israel could get SO excited about something that they could or would blow away Russian soldiers without hesitation... kind of like if they were Palestinians or something?

    So what would this horror of horror be that would push Israel over the edge? Tyler: 1) Iranian Quds in Syria and 2) weapons being funneled to Hezbollah.

    OK, we KNOW Quds are on the ground in Syria right now helping Syrian troops. In a very limited fashion and Iran isn't making noise about it, but for FUCKS SAKE, Iran is Syria's ally. Iran can put 100,000 Iranian troops in Syria if they want. Israel doesn't have a God damn thing to say about it. It's ISRAEL that has no right to send aircraft, missiles, chemical weapons, al Nusra mercenaries or anyone or anything else into Syria. Israel is openly supporting terrorist groups and providing them aid and air cover. It was Israel that paid al Nusra to take out the SAM and radar sites in the hills near the Golan border.

    And Israel is going to be pissed if Iranian troops show up in Syria to fight terrorists? Arrogant pricks... I think they're afraid that Iranian troops will prevent Israel from their plan of stealing more Syrian and Lebanese land.

    The second part I understand - Israel goes insane if they think Hezbollah is getting any weapons because those weapons will be used to prevent further Israeli aggression. Israeli aggression that involves violating Lebanese airspace to blow away Hezbollah followed by land theft. But Syria doesn't have 'spare' weapons to be handing out to Hezbollah - they need the SAMs themselves to protect SYRIA from Israeli aircraft. There's no way Assad is giving away weapons he's waited years to get. I'm sure he gives stuff to Hezbollah, but not a Pantsir S-1, for Christ's sake.

    It's interesting how the rhetoric exploded recently about the Russian invasion after Russia (supposedly) delivered six MiG-31 Foxhound long-range interceptors to Mezze Air Base and also delivered another Pantsir S-1 system to Syria. Both are defensive weapons in practice - they have no offensive role.

    Foxhounds would provide beyond-visual-range defense against attacking Israeli aircraft or cruise missiles. The Pantsir S-1, aka SA-22 SAM, is a point defense weapon. You use it close to high-value targets to defend them from missiles and aircraft. Now if there are six shiney new MiG-31s at Mezze, Syria would presumable want to protect them.

    I linked Haaretz for the Pantsir to illustrate a point - Israel has bent over backwards to emphasize 'missile' and 'SA-22' in a pathetic attempt to associate this with (supposed) Hezbollah rocket attacks against Israeli positions. In fact, the Pantsir can do nothing of the sort and is a dedicated air defense weapon, nothing else. Israel is not afraid of a Hezbollah attack - Israel is afraid of not being able to violate Lebanese and Syrian airspace with impunity for whatever attacks they self-justify.

    What really pisses off Israel about the Pantsirs is that they are crewed by Russians. That means even if an Israeli jet or missile COULD get close enough to take one out without being destroyed themselves (which I doubt), they would end up killing the Russians crewing the unit. On the same token, Israel can't send their al Nusra head-choppers to do the job because Russia knows exactly who gives them orders. Russian-crewed Pantsirs take all the options away from Israel. Meaning they can't attack a point air-defense weapon and take it out so they can THEN attack the SAM sites or interceptor aircraft it was protecting.

    So despite Weekend Tyler's assertion in the last line, there will be no such thing as 'all bets are off' when it comes to Syrian SAMs, not matter what the justification. Israel would have no problem at all smoking a few U.S. soldiers and apologizing to Obama later (maybe), but I will never believe they are so stupid as to poke the bear. There's a reason Putin is widely popular in Russia, and it's not because he's a pussy that wears helmets and mom genes. Israel could expect swift and overwhelming retribution from Russia with no apologies from Putin if they were stupid enough to kill Russian soldiers.

    This must frustrate Bibi to no end. He probably spends his entire day ranting about Putin while pacing his office and waving his hands in the air. He probably has to be sedated so he doesn't stroke out. I'll bet Putin will be packing during their meeting - no telling when that psycho Nettanyahu will go ballistic and 'tard out on Putin.

    Freddie

    ZH should get you to write their articles. They should fire "weekend Tyler."

    Jack Burton

    Latina, Russia announced that it has proof. via military intelligence, that the USA knows many of ISIS postions, and troop movements in Iraq and Syria, but refused to bomb them, as these ISIS forces are attacking in aid of US foreign policy. Long convoys of Toyat trucks carrying thousands of ISIS have been allowed free access to Iraq and Syrian roads in broad daylight, with no attacks made at all. The Iraq parliament members have also told the press of US airdrops of military supplies to ISIS right in the area of Iraqi army and ISIS combat operations! How much evidence do we need that the USA is only pushing ISIS to the areas it wants ISIS to fight. Beating ISIS is not at all on Washington's agends. How can I say that? Because real hard evidence on the ground PROVES the US does not attack ISIS when it could do so with ease.

    Russia wants to step in and attack ISIS where the USA refuses to!

    The biggest joke of the week? Australia has sent war planes to support the US war on ISIS in Syria. Australia is a buzz with stories of their hero pilots about to cheat death in the deadly battle on ISIS. My friends. This is the biggest fucking joke of the week! Who in their right mond buys that, except the FOX brainwashed 30%.

    Latina Lover

    Jack Burton, ISiS is an obvious western creation, likely #3 after the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda. Can anyone explain how a supposed rag tag group of Muslims can somehow acquire billions of dollars in weapons, vehicles, and hire thousands without help? Heck I cannot send a wire from Guatemala to Texas for $1000 without getting bounce-backs and/or harassment by banksters.

    Putin is to address the UN general assembly on or around the 25th of Sept. 2015. I predict this speech will be historic, because Putin will likely comment on the Ukraine and Syria situations. For the first time in decades, the USSA will be exposed to a global audience.

    Lastly, the following brilliant comment by Paveway IV explains why the USSA is so pissed over Russia helping Assad:

    I'm not sure you guys recognize what just happened here. They didn't risk aircraft to blow up a random few ISIS lairs.

    The fake ISIS central bank (ZATO al Raqqah branch) and everything in it just got smoked.

    The al Raqqah satcom links have been destroyed - that's how fake ISIS/CIA/ZATO SF guys get their marching orders and avoid being blown up by fellow ZATOers.

    There will be no more U.S. resupply of cash, equipment or oil to al Raqqah, and the ammo/replacement headchopper pipeline is in peril.

    Fake al Nusra still has their U.S. command bunker and logistics hub in Aleppo, but fake ISIS just lost the ability to pay their mercenaries or exchange any money, fake ISIS can no longer communicate with their ZATO masters via scrambled satlinks to Jordan and Turkey for instructions. Blind and broke, and Assad already took out their oil supply last week.

    After he turns the water off (the Tabqua dam) upstream of al Raqqah, fake ISIS and the U.S. will go ballistic. A humanitarian crisis tit-for-tat. Fake ISIS in al Raqqah were the ones using mustard gas mortar shells a couple of months ago. They have a stash somewhere (that probably says 'Made in the USA'). I wouldn't put it past them to blow the dam before the Syrian Army can take it.

    This forces Obama to act, and he has no idea what to do. His chickenhawk Israeli-firster generals want WAR, but Obama will never agree to that. If Obama wants to pull out, the DoD (and their Xe/Academi for-profit arm) will refuse.

    Things just got to a very dangerous tipping point. Putin has missile cruisers and a Typhoon-class nuke sub off the coast of Syria, and 100,000 Russian soldiers on the southern border participating in Center-2015. I doubt Putin will ever do anything, but this further limits the clownfuckery the Pentagram can get away with.

    Whenever the Pentagram has their backs to the wall, bad, bad things happen. They will go full retard barring some miracle - or the obliteration of earth on the 24th - whichever comes first.

    Jack Burton

    Brilliant indeed! Latina! That's new information to me. I knew Russia would only act if it really counted! Unlike fake US air attacks on ISIS, Russia is ruthlessly efficient with it's attacks. I wonder if Assads forces used new Russian precision guided weapons to take out the ISIS bank and telecom links. Probably.

    Anyways ,Thanks for that post latina, it's why I always read you!

    Gilnut

    Russia will still only push this so far. Desert Storm I and II were proxy wars between Russia and the USA, where the Russian supplied Iraqi's stood their ground, they lasted 1 minute, where they ran they lasted 2 minutes. Russia remembers this. Not opinion, just fact. If this turns "hot" Russia knows it has no other option than nuclear to win. Putin has balls, but he's smart too.

    Huh Reeeally

    Russia will still only push this so far.

    In general I agree with you, they usually don't take it to the nth degree, however with regards to the Syrian armed forces, they've done surprisingly well considering the number of countries and terrorists they're fighting.

    Iraq was largely left to survive on its own with little outside help to speak of. Syria is different. It's Russia's Port in the Med, and it is vital to Russian gas interests = Gazprom, just as it is vital to European/US gas interests = Qatar. Syria will not fold unless Russian interests can be preserved as part of the solution. With both the US and Russia coming closer to deploying troops, and all sorts of missiles and fighter jets flying around a small airspace this could get interesting in a hurry. This won't go nuclear until all the proxies are used up, remember Iran is on General Wes Clark's list of seven countries scheduled for regime change.

    The US is tired of paying for all those refugees to be housed and fed in Turkey so they're shipping them off to europe, notice two things here. ALL the countries neighbouring Syria refuse to take any syrian refugees/migrants/opportunists, and the EU, with its laughably so-called rich countries with BENEFITS are getting all of them. Even Canada can't wait to be destabilized, I mean take in a boatload - we're in the middle of a federal election so giving away a few thousand passports is a big vote getter here. How come these people, and I have every sympathy for their plight, have the 10K USD to pay for passage but are impoverished when they arrive in the promised land welfare state? If they do have 10K and a passport then why don't they fly? Just who is paying that bill?

    At least Russia is calling the US terrorist bluff. I wonder if Vegas has odds on this...

    angel_of_joy

    ...Iraq was largely left to survive on its own with little outside

    Wrong! Iraq is under the full control of Iran, and it has been ever since the American withdrawal.

    Huh Reeeally

    Well yes, ...since the american withdrawal but how much help and support did they receive in the first war over Kuwait? And then the WMD excuse, do you recall anyone lining up to help them out? Remember that Iraq and Iran fought a rather long and bloody war that barely ended before Kuwait 'happened'. My point was to illustrate that Russia has serious interests in Syria, unlike in Iraq back then. The Syrians have done well so far, and I expect they'll have the fortitude to persevere since they are not only fighting FOR their homes but big brother definitely has their back in this one.

    If you're saying it's a sordid mess with fluid alliances based on geopolitics, oil, proxies, religion and various religous sects then I absolutely agree with you :-)

    Herd Redirectio...

    Yes, lets just ignore Vietnam... Didn't happen. LALALA

    Also, the M16 (esp. back in 1969) is perfect for dragging in the mud, much better than that super reliable AK47. Yep, take my word for it.

    Oh, I forgot, the Vietnamese weren't fighting fair. Those bastards! They killed that guy in the movie Green Berets with a booby trap! Cowards! Dropping bombs from 12000 feet, now that is bravery.

    Latina Lover

    I have memories in SE asia, of tough motherfuckers who could live on rat meat and a cup of rice. Unless we are defending our homeland, I doubt that most american soldiers are as motivated as the forces we usually oppose.

    FIAT CON

    Well which wars did the amreicans win?

    Vietnam ... ah no winner!

    Korean again ah no win there

    Iraq Ah I dont think so

    Afgahnastan too soon to tell

    how big and powerful were these opponents... not very

    Lets just see how well the Amuricans do against the extremly strong willed Chinese and or Russians... if you are an Amurican are are not afraid of these two Countries Warriors you better go learn some history.

    Freddie

    The Banksters win in every war.

    flapdoodle

    If you want a better comparison, try the *very* well equipped forces in Georgia and how they fared against the relatively poorly equipped Russian forces in 2008.

    Even though the Georgians picked up some experience in Afghanistan and were sporting the latest US Humvees and US soldier kit, the relatively rag-tag Russians made short work of the Georgians.

    Another comparison - Ukraine didn't fare so hot against the breakaway Donbass rebels, rag tag as well but this time equipped a bit better with Russian kit...

    Using the Iraqi Army (which after all was lead up by the US puppet Saddam Hussein) as an example of how the Russians would fare against the US Army is laughable - as in stupid laughable.

    Perhaps the Hezbullah success with Kornets against Merkvas and the IDF in 2006 is closer to the truth?

    Latina Lover

    Hamas blowing up a Merkava Tank likely using a SA29 Vampir:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bemnaJmikXQ

    Recently the Russians developed the SA30, nicknamed the Merciless, able to destroy any tank, including the Merkava, Abrams, Challenger, Leopard etc, by countering its reactive armour via a dual staged shaped charge.

    Reichstag Fire Dept.

    The US Government is attempting to sucking Russia into starting WWIII, Putin is not taking the bait at any cost. He can now come into Syria and directly fight ISIS to help Syria because the US Government has used the "head fake" of wanting to fight ISIS...the US Government cannot back off this position now so Putin can now "run the table" in Syria.

    Seriously, Putin's moves are genius. He's making the US Military leadership and it's executive look like amateurs.

    the phantom

    It's the difference between chess and checkers. Better yet, go rent the movie "Rounders", and fast forward to the last 15 minutes... and tell me what lesson you learned.

    Cynicles

    It's the strangest thing:

    ISIS threatens everyone except Israel.

    Peak Oil Notes - 17 Sep

    While it is clear that US shale oil production is declinong, the pace of the decline is rather murky. The EIA told us on Monday that production from the major shale-oil fields is likely to fall by 80,000 b/d between September, and October, but when the state data, which is six weeks behind but has been more accurate, comes in production does not look so bad. On Monday North Dakota reported that its shale oil production was down by only 5,400 b/d in July. The EIA says that last week US oil production was down by 17,000 b/d or 0.2 percent. In a world that produces some 93 million b/d, this should not have much of an impact. It seems clear that we have a way to go before the shale oil production picture is completely clear.

    There has been much discussion in the press recently concerning the "financial reckoning" that is about to fall on the oil patch. For the last year US energy companies have borrowed billions of dollars to stay in operation with oil selling well below costs of production. Many expect that credit lines will be cut substantially in the near future and that many companies will have to merge or declare bankruptcy.

    [Sep 19, 2015] Syria peak oil weakened government's finances ahead of Arab Spring in 2011

    In May 2013 the Guardian had an article "Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syrian conflict"http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1

    In March 2015, a group of researchers led by climatologist Colin Kelley (University of California) published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with the title "Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought"

    "Between 2006 and 2009, the people of Syria suffered during the most severe drought that country has experienced since the beginning of its instrumental record. As water became scarce, crops failed and cattle died on a huge scale. As many as 1.5 million Syrians, out of a population of just over 20 million, moved from the countryside to the outskirts of already overflowing cities"

    http://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/is-climate-change-behind-the-syrian-civil-war

    [Fig 2: Image of sandstorm, not shown here for licensing reasons.]

    In this article we analyse to which extent peak oil contributed to a fiscal deterioration so that the Syrian government was forced to introduce unpopular policies (tax increases, removal of fuel subsidies, increasing cost of cement etc) which contributed to the unrest.

    Oil production, exports and consumption

    Fig 3: Syria oil production, exports and consumption

    We see several tipping points

    • 1996: peak production
    • 2001: Crude oil exports start to drop sharply, albeit cushioned by rising oil prices
    • 2006: Petroleum imports begin to increase at higher rate
    • 2008: Increasing petroleum consumption approaches level of declining oil production
    • 2011 Arab spring reaches Syria in March
    • 2011 International oil companies suspend operations
    • oil embargo http://www.sanctionswiki.org/Syria
    • 2012: Oil production falls precipitously as government loses control over Eastern oil fields.
    • 2014: Oil production has completely collapsed

    Fig 4: Map of oil & gas fields and IS control as of July 2015. [See original at full size.]

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/map-of-syria-shows-what-isis-is-truly-fighting-for-2015-6

    Oil reserves

    Fig 5: Syria's remaining oil reserves from different sources

    Fig 6: Syrian Cumulative discovery, actual production and remaining reserves

    Jean Laherrere's website: http://www.aspofrance.org/

    So cumulative production plus remaining 2P (proved and probable) reserves is 7.5 Gb. Jean Laherrere's production projection on the basis of 8 Gb of ultimate recovery is depicted in the following graph:

    Fig 7: Jean Laherrere's 2009 production profile for Syria

    Of course Fig 7 is now very theoretical. No one can predict the future in Syria

    IMF Reports

    This article mainly uses IMF data. The last IMF Article IV consultation staff report 2009

    http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn1042.htm

    was published in March 2010. Since then no IMF assessment was made due to the political/security situation. As a result of a 2 year long lag of preparing national accounts, lack of data and other discrepancies many calculations are estimates or projections. The earliest IMF report available on the internet is from October 2005 with data going back to 2000.

    Revenue

    Government revenue was 21 % of GDP in 2010. The following graph shows oil revenue compared to other revenue and total expenditure.

    Fig 8: Syrian government revenue by source

    Oil related revenue is in decline or stagnating since 2001. Its share of total revenue dropped from 45% in 2000 to 25% in 2010. Despite this, total revenue grew on average by 9.4% pa. This was achieved by increasing income tax and other indirect taxes, definitely not popular policies. Transfers from public enterprises (PE) also contributed to revenue growth. These PEs dominate the energy and financial sectors, play a privileged role in supply chains such as in cotton and cereals and hold monopolies in all utilities, oil and sugar refining, production of cement, fertilizers and mineral water. However, the PE surplus is not net of capital expenditure which comes under the big item "development expenditure" (Fig 10). Most PEs are loss making except those in the telecommunication sector.

    However, expenditure grew faster at 10.8%. This difference resulted in a budget deficit of 17% of expenditure in 2010.

    Fig 9: Composition of oil revenue

    The largest contribution is the tax revenue from the Syria Petroleum Companyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Petroleum_Company.

    Expenditure

    Government expenditure was 25.9% of GDP in 2010.

    Fig 10: Syria's government expenditure

    Expenditure grew by an average of 10.8% pa, salaries by 16% pa.

    Fig 11: Defense expenditure consumed all oil related revenue in 2007

    Oil balance

    The oil balance is defined as: oil exports – oil imports – repatriation of oil company profits.

    Fig 12: Syria's oil balance

    The graph shows that the value of net oil exports after 2007 was practically zero. Due to transfers of international oil company profits the zero point of the oil balance was passed 1 year earlier, in 2006, after which it was negative between 1 and 1.5 US$ bn pa.

    Current account balance

    Fig 13: Current account and oil balances

    In the above graph, we start with the oil balance calculated in Fig 12 (blue line) and add the (positive) export balance from services, income and transfers. The trade balance of goods is negative and has to be deducted (hatched area) to arrive at the current account balance (red line). We see that the declining shape of the oil balance results in a similarly declining current account curve.

    Inflation

    Fig 14: Syria's average CPI

    Inflation largely moved with oil prices up to 2008. The cumulative inflation over the period 2000-2010 was 54%.

    Population

    Fig 15: Syria's population development (age structure in background)

    http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DVD/

    Per capita oil production peaked in 1993 at 15.2 barrels and had dropped to half of that by 2007.

    Fuel Subsidies

    The IMF praised the reduction of fuel subsidies as a reform, but this was certainly not popular.

    Fig 16 : Increase in fuel prices 2008-09

    In 2008, fuel prices were lifted, saving around 7% of GDP. In order to offset these higher prices, public wages were increased and coupons introduced which allowed each household to buy 1,000 litres of diesel at a lower price. This costed 4.5% of GDP. In 2009, the diesel coupons were replaced by targeted cash transfers based on income, asset ownership and utility bills.

    Fig 17 : Energy subsidies as percent of GDP

    The fuel subsidy reform in 2009 meant that the population had to save 8% of GDP.

    Summary

    There are many reasons for the disintegration of Syria and the tragic exodus of refugees. This article showed how Syria's declining oil production and increasing oil consumption impacted negatively on the budget, lead to tax increases and reduction of subsidies. These factors contributed to the population's dissatisfaction which sparked the Arab Spring in Syria.

    It is absolutely necessary that the world wakes up to the problem of peaking oil production in geo- strategically important areas otherwise there will be more surprises. If countries with a high per-capita oil consumption could finally embark on a transition away from oil this would reduce future conflicts and wars.

    But don't count on Australia where Federal and State governments have embarked on a new, huge program of road tunnels, tollways and airport expansions. The current Prime Minister Abbott even thinks that peak oil has no value for policy making.

    Addendum

    Australia has a new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull
    14/9/2015 21:45
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-14/malcolm-turnbull-wins-liberal-leadership-ballot-over-tony-abbott/6775464

    Further Reading

    SYRIA'S ECONOMY AND THE TRANSITION PARADIGM Samer Abboud, Ferdinand Arslanian 2009

    http://ojs.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.php/syria/article/view/713

    https://ojs.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.php/syria/article/download/713/617

    Related posts:

    4/7/2013 2/3 of Egypt's oil is gone 20 years after its peak
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/23-of-egypt%e2%80%99s-oil-is-gone-20-years-after-its-peak

    16/3/2013 Iraq war and its aftermath failed to stop the beginning of peak oil in 2005
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/iraq-war-and-its-aftermath-failed-to-stop-the-beginning-of-peak-oil-in-2005

    24/6/2011 War overshadows peak oil in Libya
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/war-overshadows-peak-oil-in-libya

    31/5/2011 Sudan's Nile blend in decline – why we should be concerned
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/sudan-nile-blend-in-decline-why-we-should-be-concerned

    http://crudeoilpeak.info/yemen

    [Sep 19, 2015] John Helmer MH17 – The Lie to End All Truths, and New Evidence

    An interesting new idea: if this was BUK rocket then bodies of passengers should be infested with holes and location of passengers allow fully decipher from which side fragments came from. Each seat is essentially a marker of the warhead positioning and direction of the rods. As seat occupies by passengers are known and most bodies were recovered this excludes BUK as the source. In other words absence of multiple holes in passengers and relatively well preserved bodies (some almost intact) this is powerful argument in favor of air to air missile hypothesis.
    .
    "...The AFP was headed by Tony Negus (above, left) at the time of the MH17 crash. He was replaced by his deputy, Andrew Colvin (right), on October 1, 2014. The evidence release is irreversible, however. The Dutch and Australian records make the Buk story impossible as cause of death. "
    .
    "...In retrospect today, the Dutch and Australian evidence corroborates what Obama heard from Putin that the ATC evidence (radio and radar) was showing an air-to-air attack against MH17."
    .
    "...What the US, Ukrainian and Malaysian communication records show is that in his calls to Poroshenko and Najib, there was a discussion of how to respond to Putin's claim of cause, liability, responsibility. Their media releases of what was said report "the United States has offered immediate assistance to support a prompt international investigation.""
    .
    "...CT scans, X-rays, autopsy sections, and spectroscopic testing of metals, which have now been conducted in The Netherlands and verified in Australia, make the Buk story impossible. This evidence cannot go further to identify the sources of the fatal damage to aircraft and passengers. To do that requires a return to the evidence of the Putin-Obama tapes, and the reinterpretation of what was said then in light of what is known now."
    .
    "...The photos show that that projectiles exited the fuselage. This is not consistent with the impact of BUK shrapnel."
    .
    "...Perhaps you've seen the size of a BUK missile warhead; or not. If you have followed Helmer's thesis you would understand that thousands of pieces of shrapnel are embedded in a BUK warhead, and that this proximity explosion would have riddled the MH17 fuselage and likely the passengers seated on the port (explosion) side of the aircraft. The idea that no metalurgical examination of recovered plane parts points to a BUK missile attack is as disconcerting as the lack of shrapnel in recovered bodies (and body parts)."
    .
    "...The situation in Ukraine reveals the nexus between neo-liberal economic policy, and neocon foreign policy. How craven are the 'leaders' of the 'western' powers, controlled by the insane, psychopathic, financial interests centered in New York and the City of London? They are craven enough to engulf the world in war and ever deepening misery for personal profit."
    Sep 19, 2015 | naked capitalism
    Posted on September 19, 2015 by Yves Smith Yves here Helmer concludes his series on the evidence in MH17 crash, and argues that it is inconsistent with a Buk missile having downed the plane.

    By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

    Presidents Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have on file three pieces of evidence showing both of them knew what had caused the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17, and of the deaths of all 298 souls on board. They knew it little more than two hours after the crash had occurred in eastern Ukraine. They also knew each other knew it, because they discussed what had happened in a telephone call which took place before 19:45 Moscow time, 11:45 Washington time, on Thursday, July 17. MH17 was downed that day at 16:20 Ukraine time, 17:20 Moscow time, 09:20 Washington time.

    The first piece of evidence is the agenda paper for the telephone call. This had been negotiated and formalized by the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Russian Embassy in Washington, the State Department and the White House before July 17. The second piece of evidence is the tape of the Putin-Obama conversation, as recorded by the Kremlin. The third piece of evidence is the tape of the Obama-Putin conversation, as recorded by the White House.

    This evidence establishes that Putin believed, and Obama believed Putin would announce, not that a ground-to-air missile had brought MH17 down, but that other weapons had done so. The story that a Russian-made Buk missile had caused the disaster began after Obama had spoken to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko at about 19:00 Kiev time, 20:00 Moscow time, 12 noon Washington time.
    Take away that story, because Obama knew it to be false when he had spoken earlier to Putin, and what do you have? A war crime by two governments. How to prove innocence and guilt? The tapes at the Kremlin and the White House.

    According to the Kremlin statement dated July 17, 2014 at 20:30 hours: "In line with a previous agreement, Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with President of the United States Barack Obama. The parties had a detailed discussion of the crisis in Ukraine… The Russia leader informed the US President of the report received from air traffic controllers immediately prior to their conversation about the crash of a Malaysian airplane over the Ukrainian territory."

    Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, was asked yesterday to clarify what the time stamp on the release meant. He was also asked to explain the phrase in the opening line, "a previous agreement." He has responded, identifying 20:30 as the time when the release was posted; the telephone call of the presidents had already taken place. The agreement for the call, Peskov confirmed, including the agenda and the issues for discussion, had been negotiated through diplomatic channels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and formalized in writing before July 17.

    Until now, the precise timing and sequence of telephone calls which Obama made on the morning and afternoon of the fateful day have not been understood as evidence for the cause of the MH17 disaster. Precise timing is possible because of this record of Obama's flight from Washington to Delaware, his time of landing at Delaware, and his time of takeoff from Delaware to New York. The White House press secretary Josh Earnest also made a public record at the time that Obama and Putin had completed their call at the White House, before 12:30 local time.

    Two additional pieces of evidence on what Putin and Obama said have taken a year to surface. One comes from the Dutch police officer and state prosecutor leading the MH17 case investigation, Fred Westerbeke.

    A year ago, on September 12, 2014, Westerbeke announced publicly that 25 pieces of metal had been recovered. This count hasn't improved In the 14-month long investigation of the crash, of the aircraft debris, and of the remains of those killed. For Westerbeke's statements to Dutch, British and German press, read this.

    Westerbeke's testimony is, he admits himself, ambiguous. He acknowledges that he doesn't (didn't) know, or isn't (wasn't) certain, what the origin of the metal had been.

    The second piece of evidence, which reveals what Westerbeke meant by his disclosure, came weeks later from the Coroners Court of Victoria, an active participant in the multinational post-mortem investigation of the MH17 victims.

    Three Australians – pathology professor David Ranson; deputy Victorian state coroner Iain West, and Victorian state coroner Ian Gray – released the evidence they had gathered and verified with the Dutch and the five-state Joint Investigation Team at the Hilversum military base, near Amsterdam. This evidence became public in November and December of last year. It was classified secret last week. For the detailed documentation which has been preserved of this evidence, click to read here. A Coroners Court spokesman refuses to say when the evidence was officially classified, or on whose order.

    According to the Australian coronial evidence, there was almost no metal in the bodies or body parts of the MH17 victims. According to Westerbeke, just 25 particles had been found. Before the Australian coroners had seen the metal assay evidence, they ruled that "causes of death from explosive decompression – similar to the pressure wave from a bomb – included hypothermia, hypoxia, massive internal organ injury, embolism and heart attack. Exposure to very low temperatures, airflow buffeting and low oxygen at 30,000 feet would also result in death in seconds." Detonation, lethal explosion, and breakup of aircraft had occurred, the Australians have reported - but with insufficient traces of shrapnel to confirm that a Buk missile warhead had been cause.

    Coroner Gray is responsible for the blackout of evidence he and his subordinates had painstakingly made public last year, for the benefit and comfort, they said at the time, of the families of the victims. Ranson, the most talkative of the Australian official investigators, has been obliged this week, not only to keep silent on what he has already published, but to contradict what he has already said. The Australian Federal Police (AFP), Westerbeke's counterparts in the joint international investigation process, are withholding all evidence papers compiled by the pathologists, and the evidence summary file they continue to discuss with the investigators.

    The AFP was headed by Tony Negus (above, left) at the time of the MH17 crash. He was replaced by his deputy, Andrew Colvin (right), on October 1, 2014. The evidence release is irreversible, however. The Dutch and Australian records make the Buk story impossible as cause of death.

    The Kremlin statement, following the presidents' conversation of July 17, 2014, ends with this disclosure. "The Russia leader informed the US President of the report received from air traffic controllers immediately prior to their conversation about the crash of a Malaysian airplane over the Ukrainian territory." The Kremlin summary expressly identifies "air traffic controllers" (ATC). It doesn't say whether they were civilian or military. Since both were at work monitoring Ukrainian airspace, using different equipment in parallel, the identification is a pointer whose significance hasn't been appreciated before; that is, until in retrospect the Dutch and Australian evidence is understood as ruling out a Buk ground-to-air missile attack on MH17.

    Putin made his sources of evidence explicit to Obama. Why was the ATC reference made public? Answer: because Putin told Obama the lethal explosion which killed MH17 and everything in it originated from the air, not from the ground.

    In retrospect today, the Dutch and Australian evidence corroborates what Obama heard from Putin that the ATC evidence (radio and radar) was showing an air-to-air attack against MH17. Obama, and his advisors listening in to the call or to the tape afterwards, had their own reasons to believe what the Kremlin announced curtly but publicly not long after. The Russian explanation for cause of crash and for cause of death was an aerial cause, not a terrestrial one. Obama and the US Government were bound to anticipate that after the telephone conversation more details of the Russian evidence would follow.

    That was high noon for the White House. While Obama was on the presidential jet flying between Andrews airbase and New Castle airport, Delaware – a half-hour interval between 11:45 local time and 12:17 local time – he telephoned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak. This is the White House version, released more than six hours after the event.

    What the US, Ukrainian and Malaysian communication records show is that in his calls to Poroshenko and Najib, there was a discussion of how to respond to Putin's claim of cause, liability, responsibility. Their media releases of what was said report "the United States has offered immediate assistance to support a prompt international investigation."

    The US media records also indicate that between 15:30 and 16:00 local time (23:30 and midnight in Moscow) Obama followed from a ground location in New York with conference calls, first with Secretary of State John Kerry, and then with "with senior members of his national security team".

    Kerry's spokesman at the State Department briefed the press, starting at 13:27, while Obama was still in Delaware and before Obama spoke with Kerry from New York. "At this point," according to Jen Psaki, "we do not have any confirmed information about casualties, the cause, or additional details." Her briefing, lasting 58 minutes, can be followed here. The transcript records she concluded at 14:25.

    A press question early in the State Department session reveals the Buk story as the official position of the Foreign Ministry in Kiev:

    QUESTION: …the Ukrainians' foreign ministry is saying that they have reason to believe this – not just a guess, but based on their assessment – that this was a Russian-made Buk missile that is in the hands of the Russian separatists. You also have kind of chatter on Twitter about some of the separatists saying that they did shoot down a plane. Has your team on the ground spoken to the Ukrainians? Have they told you that this is your assessment – that this is their assessment and you just want to get your own confirmation? I mean, where are you at this point?
    MS. PSAKI: As I mentioned, we're in touch with Ukrainian authorities on this incident.
    QUESTION: So they've obviously shared this assessment with you?
    MS. PSAKI: I'm not – I don't have further readouts, but I think it's a safe assumption that we're discussing reports and, obviously, a range of comments that have been out there. We don't have our own confirmation of details. I can't predict for you if and when we will.

    The first record of the Ukrainian Government's claims for cause of death can be read here.

    In Kuala Lumpur Najib's public response to the Obama telephone call indicated no acceptance by the Malaysian government of an American or a Ukrainian analysis of cause of death.

    We will find out what happened to the plane. If it was indeed shot down, we will press for the culprit to be brought to book. The Ukraine government believes the plane was shot down. However, at this stage, Malaysia has yet to identify the cause of the tragedy. If it transpires that the plane was indeed shot down, we insist that the perpetrators must swiftly be brought to justice. Emergency operations centres have been established. In the last few hours, Malaysian officials have been in constant contact with their counterparts in Ukraine and elsewhere. Obama and I agreed that the investigation will not be hidden and the international teams have to be given access to the crash scene.

    Najib was intent on not becoming a hostage himself to the Ukrainian conflict, and draw voter blame for the loss of the Malaysian lives and aircraft, as he and his ministers had suffered four months earlier, in March, after the loss of Malaysian Airlines MH370 in the Indian Ocean. For more on the domestic politics influencing Najib at the time, read this.

    The deaths of the 43 Malaysians on board MH17 were also personal for the prime minister. His step-grandmother Puan Sri Siti Amirah, 83, was killed in seat 21A.

    CT scans, X-rays, autopsy sections, and spectroscopic testing of metals, which have now been conducted in The Netherlands and verified in Australia, make the Buk story impossible. This evidence cannot go further to identify the sources of the fatal damage to aircraft and passengers. To do that requires a return to the evidence of the Putin-Obama tapes, and the reinterpretation of what was said then in light of what is known now.

    Initially, Obama's public statements after he had spoken to Putin did not suggest a cause for the downing of MH17. That came from other officials, led by Vice President Joe Biden.

    During the conference calls which took place from New York in the afternoon of July 17, did they decide that if the evidence Putin gave Obama that morning were to be published and then believed, the responsibility for what had happened would be clear around the world – the Ukrainian Government had committed a war crime. That afternoon in New York, did the US Government decide it should defend and save the Ukrainian Government? Did Obama, Biden, Kerry, and the others decide that if holding their nose was what they had to do in the circumstances, pre-empting Putin's evidence with evidence of their own was required. And quickly.

    The official responsible for presenting the Buk story as the official US Government "assessment" was the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. Here she is doing it, at the emergency session of the UN Security Council called the next day, July 18:

    The Buk story has now failed because of the Dutch and Australian evidence. All that is required to corroborate this is the tape recording of what Putin and Obama said to each other. It doesn't matter whether the tape comes from the Kremlin, or from the White House. So long as they are the same.


    Si, September 19, 2015 at 2:49 am

    "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"

    Adolf Hitler

    rkka, September 19, 2015 at 4:10 am

    One wonders why Ukrainian air traffic controllers directed the flight over an area of known combat operations between the Ukrainian Air Force and DLR air defenses. At the time, the Ukrainian Air Force had been conducting air to ground strikes, and the DLR air defenses had been firing back, shooting down numerous Ukrainian combat aircraft.

    Eliot Higgins at Bellingcat does not deal with that question.

    Ben, September 19, 2015 at 4:48 am

    Helmer's key argument is that there were few metal fragments in the bodies of the victims, therefore they couldn't have been killed by a Buk missile, and therefore there must have been some sort of coverup.

    What makes him think that it's impossible for the plane to be shot down leaving few fragments in the bodies? The Buk has a proximity fuse so it could have exploded *near* the airliner, not right next to it. So perhaps most of the shrapnel hit a wing, or the tail, causing enough damage for the plane to become uncontrollable and break up due to aerodynamic forces, killing the passengers by decompression, hypoxia & buffeting as the coroners describe.

    Helmer doesn't quote any experts on the possibility of that missile bringing down that plane without leaving shrapnel in the bodies. The coroners didn't flag up the lack of shrapnel as a discrepancy- so to Helmer this is evidence that they're involved in the conspiracy too, but isn't the likelier explanation that lack of shrapnel in the bodies doesn't necessarily prove it wasn't a Buk shoot-down?

    And if it wasn't a Buk, what was it? Helmer just suggests an explosion originating "in the air". What would have happened that both Putin and Obama would want to cover up? Helmer doesn't even suggest an alternative theory or theories; we can't weigh up the Buk theory against some other explanation.

    This is classic conspiracy theory thinking: seize on a supposed anomaly in the official account based on non-expert understanding, without clearly stating your alternative explanation which better explains the anomaly (so nobody can point out the discrepancies with your theory).

    Please bear in mind I'm not a Buk expert either. There may be some reason why a Buk exploding nearby couldn't damage the airliner enough to crash it without leaving shrapnel in the bodies, but Helmer doesn't say, or quote any experts.

    craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 2:44 pm

    There was holes of some sort in recovered fuselage, up front near the pilots cabin. A BUK cannot explode close by and far away at the same time. I believe the war head is what they call "shaped charge". It's designed to blow packaged shrapnel in a wide cone to maximize hit probability.

    guest , September 19, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    An ex-colonel of the anti-aircraft defense forces from the East-German Nationale Volksarmee, and who was well-versed in operating BUK systems, disputed the claim that MH17 had been downed by a ground-to-air missile.

    Here are two links (in German):

    His main arguments:

    a) Based on the photos of the wreck, the impact of projectiles are concentrated on a limited part of the fuselage. However, BUK missiles are designed to explode and send a whole cloud of thousands of small projectiles in order to guarantee a hit against a fast-moving military aircraft, and to strike as large a surface of the airplane as possible to ensure its destruction.

    b) The photos show that that projectiles exited the fuselage. This is not consistent with the impact of BUK shrapnel.

    c) Based on a purported video of the last few seconds of the crashing MH17, the airplane only caught fire after explosion upon impact. However, BUK shrapnel exhibits such kinetic energy that it would light fire to fuel, flammable materials and even some metallic parts upon entering the fuselage. This is something he observed every time he practiced with live BUK systems during NVA/Warsaw Pact exercises. The video should have shown the hulk of the aircraft ablaze rushing towards the ground.

    All this was completely obliterated by the MSM. In truth, it was in German, so it did not help in the English-speaking world.

    Gio Bruno, September 19, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    Perhaps you've seen the size of a BUK missile warhead; or not. If you have followed Helmer's thesis you would understand that thousands of pieces of shrapnel are embedded in a BUK warhead, and that this proximity explosion would have riddled the MH17 fuselage and likely the passengers seated on the port (explosion) side of the aircraft. The idea that no metalurgical examination of recovered plane parts points to a BUK missile attack is as disconcerting as the lack of shrapnel in recovered bodies (and body parts).

    The alternative explanation that you seek from Helmer has been made long ago (when the crash/attack occurred): a Ukrainian (Kiev directed) fighter jet is the likely culprit.

    Julia Versau, September 19, 2015 at 5:15 am

    Am I dense, or what? I'd like one simple concluding statement about the cause of the crash and who the likely culprit is. Is this article suggesting Obama and Putin colluded? I glean that the Buk missile story is hokum. Seriously, sometimes I despair at why today's stories never have an opening or concluding paragraph stating in plain freakin' English what the upshot is.

    pretzelattack, September 19, 2015 at 7:22 am

    somewhere in there he said it was the Ukrainian government.

    Chris Williams, September 19, 2015 at 8:43 am

    The air pilots blogs are full of this. Have been for ages, particularly when pics of the damage were inconsistent with a buk detonation.

    Ukraine Govt? I reckon a lot people know exactly what happened.

    It will all come out – the truth can't be stopped

    rusti, September 19, 2015 at 10:55 am

    It will all come out – the truth can't be stopped

    This is an awfully optimistic view. I'm still scratching my head about JFK, Olof Palme, the bin Laden killing and just about everything else where I'm offered multiple contradictory viewpoints by people who are absolutely certain that they know what happened.

    I wonder about how productive it is to obsess about the details of MH17 for myself as a layman, though I'm glad that the author had this forum to make his case at least and it was an interesting read.

    The involvement of the major actors in the Ukraine does not, in my view, hinge particularly on whether or not the plane was downed by a Buk missile, even if that was a spark that risked escalating the stakes in a manner similar to the USS Maine. It seems more meaningful and concrete to me to focus on actors like Natalie Jaresko and Hunter Biden.

    steelhead23, September 19, 2015 at 12:09 pm

    Qui bono? Who benefits? And what is the benefit? Why would anyone shoot down a civilian airliner – on purpose? This incident is much easier to understand as an accident – that the separatists, tired of being bombed mercilessly, made a "fog of war" mistake. The fog of war kind of loses its value as a fig leaf if the aircraft was shot down by another plane. 'Accident' becomes far less likely. Then it's back to my initial query – who benefited from this incident.

    The only benefit possible is the global indignation toward those "trigger happy" separatists and the beneficiary would be the Ukrainian gov't and its puppet master, the United States.

    craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    True, but we are living in the Age of False Flags – and the beneficiary of it is the Uki guv gaining (more) western support. Taking that a level deeper – given the fractious nature of the Uki Guv, and Ukraine in general, it may be a stunt pulled off by "loyalists" without prior top guv knowledge.

    Tho it would probably be discovered after the fact, and then the necessity of coverup is viewed as the lesser of all evils by top government.

    susan the other, September 19, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    It is doubtful it was an accident because MH17 was encouraged to take a shortcut over Ukraine when no other flights would have considered such a thing. Now Helmer raises all sorts of questions like Why Malasia? And what the hell were Putin and Obama arranging a phone agenda for before the crash? What timeliness.

    That is some very unnerving cooperation. Then if it is a rogue player, Who? And Why? Leaving aside the hapless Poroshenko or the Uki Nazi lunatics, we have a large roster left to contemplate – but without any evidence.

    Was it George Soros trying to make his investment pay off? Was it MI6 trying to make Soros' investment pay off? When we backed off the whole Uki revolution who went charging in with guns blazing and then got very quiet? Why did Netanyahu scurry off to Moscow yesterday? And etc, etc.

    craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    Uki air control is a biggie in my mind too – and they've buried all evidence there as well, as Helmer pointed out in the previous posts.

    I was thinking a scenario worth consideration is Uki Nazi lunatics, giving Poroshenko the benefit of the doubt he is not nuts too. But they couldn't keep something secret like launching a real UKI Air Force fighter quiet after the fact – so Poroshenko would panic and cover it up.

    Netanyahu is now begging Putin not to support Assad – because this strengthens Hezbollah – Isreal's scariest enemy.

    So that's an issue happening in the other Russian Invasion Front.

    susan the other, September 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    And also too. Just thinking @ this last week, Do the refugees know something we don't? Like all-out war using nuclear weapons? I'm just searching for answers. Clearly NeoCapitalism failed to keep globalism going. And/or global warming is calling the shots (my favorite reason). We are, as George Bush said, "going in." For several reasons. And we want Russia by our side (my take). Scary.

    craazyboy, September 19, 2015 at 2:25 pm

    I think the commies will launch a nuke at my missile plant here, long before they waste one Syria.

    Lambert Strether, September 19, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    Unless - and this is pure and uninformed speculation - what the Ukrainian government intended to happen was what almost did happen: A casus belli for war with Russia.

    Rhondda, September 19, 2015 at 3:04 pm

    A purposeful casus belli for war with Russia is what I think, too. As to who actually initiated it (presuming it was not a mistake)…lots of suspicious actors. None of 'em Russian. Not even helpful to think in term of govts in my view. Factions are where the action is.

    I'll remind, although it may just be coinkydink, Putin's plane was reported to have passed through the area not half an hour before.

    Lambert Strether, September 19, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    I don't think that. The question was "cui bono." I presented a possibility. Certainly the Ukrainian government was corrupt, crazy, and desperate enough - and in that, a very good match for some factions in our national security establishment *** cough **** Victoria Nuland *** cough *** - but that doesn't add up to anything like proof (and there is also the fog of war, accident, and sheer incompetence to content with).

    FedUpPleb September 19, 2015 at 6:08 am

    I'm not a believer in the standard Ukraine narratives myself, but is this really NC material?

    Tinky September 19, 2015 at 6:51 am

    Given that the "standard Ukraine narratives" are American narratives, it is an extremely important issue, and very much "NC material".

    Yves should be applauded for providing space to serious and independent journalists such as Helmer.

    Barry Fay September 19, 2015 at 7:57 am

    Hear, hear! I still hear people on NPR calling in and saying Putin shot down that plane and nobody takes notice! Yves should definitely be applauded! The whole incident was a textbook example of the propaganda abilities of America and its corporate owned media.

    Gio Bruno September 19, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    …stop listening to National Propaganda Radio. It's become nothing more than heart-tugging stories, and bromides for the Homeland. They should all be ashamed of themselves. As I once said to an office colleague, "You'll die here."

    Alex morfesis September 19, 2015 at 8:06 am

    There is more to economic planning and analysis then a 200 day moving average…and a random sampling of restaurant and art gallery openings in 20 cities by Robert Shiller

    Pat September 19, 2015 at 8:26 am

    The Ukrainian version is full of crap. American support for it is not based on goodwill towards the Ukrainian people, any more then their support for a coup of the Ukrainians previous President was. It is about positioning in a political situation that is as much based on retaining economic superiority as it is about remaining the dominant Super Power.

    Add to it that this propaganda issue is part and parcel of the justification for the significant amount of money the US government is sending (bribing) the Ukrainian government and its officials. That influx of capital alone is reason enough for Naked Capitalism to cover it, the significant strategic positioning of economic interests aside.

    Veri1138 September 19, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    Pan Am 103, blamed on The Libyans with evidence to show it was The PFLP operating on behalf of The Iranians in response to Iran Air Flight 655 being shot down by USS Vincennes. People tend to forget the past.

    Watt4Bob September 19, 2015 at 9:13 am

    The situation in Ukraine reveals the nexus between neo-liberal economic policy, and neocon foreign policy. How craven are the 'leaders' of the 'western' powers, controlled by the insane, psychopathic, financial interests centered in New York and the City of London? They are craven enough to engulf the world in war and ever deepening misery for personal profit.

    What this article attempts, to reveal is the depths of deprivation which our governments have sunk in their slavish support of the neo-liberal economic agenda as enforced by the strictures of neocon foreign policy.

    In short, capitalism laid bare, naked capitalism.

    What could possibly be more appropriate 'material' for this site

    NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 9:39 am

    Guns and butter.

    -Joe Biden's son is player in planned fracking in the war zone.
    -Russian scares are being pushed before defense appropriation votes
    -Russian companies are competing on the world market. If an S-400 provides air defense, why do I need an F-35 (the promise not the reality) if I'm not interested in conquest.
    -gee, proposed Russian pipelines are being blocked while McCain and friends are promising to ship gas across the pond in under 2 years.

    "War is a racket."

    Lambert Strether September 19, 2015 at 1:26 pm

    As an exercise in politics and power, most certainly.

    It's also good to get this material on the record as Biden's star ascends in the 2016 primary, since he keeps popping up at crucial moments.

    Yves Smith Post author, September 19, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    First, if you read our About section, the most important mission of this site is to promote critical thinking.

    Second, we've treated Ukraine as peripheral (links material), generally speaking, save for the IMF funding. But the whole Cold War II effort has major economic implications, and the matter of MH17 "investigation" serves to illustrate how keen the US is to foment conflict.

    Look, even if the rebels did bring down the plane with a Buk, they didn't intend to. There's nothing to be gained and plenty to lose in taking down passenger planes. And how many innocent civilians does the US murder by drone, where American citizens are told, "Well, they don't count" or "They were guilty too because they were obviously connected to people we are sure were bad guys"?

    rkka September 19, 2015 at 6:49 am

    One wonders why the Ukrainian air traffic controllers directed the flight over an active conflict zone, where the Ukrainian Air Force had been conducting aerial strikes on the DLR, and the DLR air defense system had been shooting down Ukrainian combat aircraft during the course of active hostilities.

    LifelongLib September 19, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    IIRC there was a restricted zone at a lower altitude but not at the altitude the MH17 flight was at. Presumably nobody thought any of the (ground) combatants had weapons that could hit an aircraft flying that high.

    ltr September 19, 2015 at 8:01 am

    A superb series of posts for which I am especially grateful. Really important investigative journalism and essential reading for us.

    timbers September 19, 2015 at 9:29 am

    MH17 is Obama's WMD in Iraq moment.

    Don't know why but found this Helmer article much easier to read than the previous ones. If Putin or someone released those recordings of Obama/Putin it would probably show Obama (and Hillary) to the liars they are. On the other hand the corporate owned and U.S. media is so agenda driven they might deliberately ignore it and tell us to move along, Putin did it.

    On related topic, Putin giving more aid to Assad in Syria is looking like another smart game changing move as it appears it will limit the area Obama can bomb, specifically the areas that would most weaken Assad. And since Obama is funding/training/supportiing ISIS and Al-Qeada to further regime change in Syria by pretending to bomb ISIS when he really wants to bomb Assad, this could make all the waves if refugees, bombed civilians and infrastructure of nations that Obama is responsible for, wasted effort should this Putin move stymie Obama regime change and.

    Obama's cold blooded bombing regime change calculations reminds of the ferris wheel scene in The Third Man, when Orson Welles asks Joseph Cotton how many of the little ant like specs moving below them he can live without to make some nice profit diluting antibiotics in post WWII Vienna black market.

    Watt4Bob September 19, 2015 at 9:30 am

    Was it something I said? Immoderate, I think making war in support of financial interests is immoderate.

    david September 19, 2015 at 10:29 am

    The forward cabin near the pilots have been shown with inside and outside tear marks / perforations with roughly round holes on web site photos on opposite sides of the skin of the plane – are these recovered pieces actually recovered from the crash site ?

    craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 10:52 am

    I guess if someone found a 50mm cannon projectile lodged between the pilots eyeballs, the investigation would have gone quicker. But no. You wouldn't find any at the crash site either, or even shell casings, because the event happened in the air many miles away and they would have eventually fallen to ground who knows where.

    craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 10:43 am

    Well, if the Ministry of Truth classified lack of BUK metal evidence a week ago, the open investigation is proceeding swimmingly in my view. Besides, the Separatist's Air Force may have fighter aircraft, for all we know – and Big Bro may soon disclose that fact to us as well.

    NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 11:47 am

    Didn't one of Obama's public statements blame Putin for "creating conditions" for MH17 to crash? If the truth comes out, I expect to see a similar statement. Of course, the White House flunkies seem to be blaming Hillary and the Pentagon for urging aggressive stances.

    craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    Twitter verifies their users, so no spooks there!

    Steve in Flyover September 19, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    Boy, the Rooskies are pulling out all the stops to avoid taking the blame for this one. I'd have a little more sympathy, if they didn't have a long anbfd bloody history of "accidentally" shooting airliners down. Too bad they didnthave these propaganda/media experts Iin place in 1981……… they could have blamed KAL 007 on the Japanese.

    Lack of BUK shrapnel does not mean that it wasnt shot down by a BUK. And besides, how long did they have control of the bodies before they were released?

    So by saying it wasnt a BUK, the only alternative is that it was caused by a heat seeking missile from a Ukranian SU 24………..which is an even bigger pile of BS.

    Funny……for months before this incident, the separatists were claiming to have been zapping Ukranian Air Force airplanes with SAMs all over eastern Ukraine. Until someone effed up. Then, they all just happened to take the day off.

    No matter. The Russian got their version out there first. So, as anyone who has ever taken issue with Republican BS knows, it takes 5 times the bandwidth worth of facts to debunk the original BS.

    craazyboy September 19, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Well, well. Were shall we start.

    The BUK. It has a proximity fuse which detonates some distance in front of it's target, and then explodes like a big bomb with 8000 pieces of packaged shrapnel bursting out in a wide conical path.

    I think not finding any in at least the front of airplane passengers is very weird.

    The first step is in determining whether the attack came from the ground or the air.

    On to your "SAMs". The Separatists have shoulder fired missiles, which can be effective against low altitude attack aircraft which are swopping down doing a bombing/strafing run. They can't hit anything above 10,000 ft., and MH-17 was at around 30,000 ft.

    So, a ground attack is looking unlikely, then an air attack from something would become the focus of any impartial investigation.

    Actually, the Russians quickly put forth the SU-24 scenario – but that one seems tough to believe as well. I'm thinking what if a real fighter plane did it?

    cirsium September 19, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Is it not the Canadians or OSCE who got their version out first including a picture of part of the aircraft fuselage damaged by machine gun bullets? See from 6.23 minutes into the interview with the OSCE representative in this clip http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh17-michael-bociurkiw-talks-about-being-first-at-the-crash-site-1.2721007?cmp=rss&partner=sky

    The following post also links back to the interview
    http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shocking-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/

    Chris Williams September 19, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    thank you for that link. Yes, he clearly says the holes look like the plane was strafed by a fighter jet using its cannon. And, he qualifies and says he is not an expert.

    The 'experts' have looked at the physical evidence and I think their conclusions are at odds with Putin did it. He armed the separatists etc… Takes time to get the right narrative, particularly when so many aviation investigators want to tell the truth, but can't

    Lambert Strether September 19, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    "How long did they control the bodies"?

    Huh? What are you saying? There were shrapnel wounds after all, but they magically got sewed up or healed? Or a new set of bodies was swapped in, but nobody noticed, including the Australian coroners?

    Fun with IHL September 19, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Highest compliments on this forensic-quality exposition. Any court in the world could try this crime, and 194 are obligated to do so if they find any suspects in their jurisdiction. What would they make of it?

    The Ukrainian command structure is implicated in intentional attacks against the civilian population, presuming that the hostilities are an armed conflict not of an international character. On the other hand, the US command structure is implicated in the inchoate Nuremberg crimes (criminalized in paragraphs 500 and 501 of U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10) of incitement, conspiracy and complicity. US war propaganda regarding MH-17 was incidental to US aggression in Ukraine: sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries. Joint responsibility for satisfaction up to and including prosecution, would be invoked differently depending on the extent to which the US is found to direct and control the successor state in Ukraine.

    So how to get to Obama and his Clandestine Service superiors? Go after Power. The Big Lie originates with her. Power's diplomatic immunity does not hold for such serious crimes, and she wouldn't hesitate to rat her bosses out in a pinch. FIDH can pull a Pinochet (That's how they shooed Bush out of Switzerland in 2011.)

    Not saying we should string the scumbag up. The death penalty is an atavism. Brennan's got it coming, but maybe we won't even lock Obama up. Obama can retire in Jeddah at Idi Amin's old place.

    Lambert Strether September 19, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    Ah yes, Samanatha Power of "responsibility to protect" (R2P). I don't know why the rot sets in so fast with liberal interventionists, as opposed to, say, Kissinger or Brezinski. Perhaps it's because they're rotten already, so we never notice a change.

    NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    It's just old fashioned imperial rot and moving the Overton Window. Kissinger has been allowed to play an elder statesman, and anyone who isn't as loathsome as he was revealed to be seems great. Kissinger in a vacuum seems not terrible, but we are judging him from the end of his career. R2P sounds nice, but it's nothing more than an updated version of the white man's burden. We even rescue and parade around the civilized victims. After Cheney, the bar was set low. Look at Team Blue, they are treating a Biden candidacy as a serious threat.

    Chauncey Gardiner September 19, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    If accurate, Helmer's summary raises some very serious questions. Among them:

    • Why the attempted cover-up?
    • Was the act both intentional and committed with full knowledge of the nature of the target?

    If the Malaysian Air jet was a case of mistaken identity, who was the real intended target and why? If this tragic incident was attributable to an error, why did the mistake occur? Was it simply negligence, was it attributable to an intel failure, a communication failure, fighter pilot error, or did intentional diversion play a role?

    Did U.S. military or other U.S. officials have foreknowledge of or involvement in the decision to target a specific aircraft that led to the tragic loss of those 298 innocent souls on MH017, including many children?

    If Hellmer's account is correct, how long are we going to extend credibility, mainstream media access, and official podiums to serial liars that enable them to represent their values and views as being the official USG position?

    A war crime?… certainly appears to fit the definition. But as much as it pains me to say it in light of the related loss of life and what is presently occurring elsewhere, perhaps Obama and Putin jointly deserve some credit for quietly neutering those who sought to use this tragic incident as a casus belli to engineer a broader conflict.

    NotTimothyGeithner September 19, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    "Who was the real target?"

    There may not have been a real target, just fog of war. Short of a concerted plan to down the airliner, the direct fault lies with air traffic control.

    I could easily envision a scenario where a Kiev jet or BUK outfit from either side saw an unknown jet enter the war zone and assumed it was reinforcements from the other side. The combatants aren't regulars with full functioning command and control.

    Obama quietly neutering? The guy has been foaming at the mouth. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2697595/Hurry-wait-Obama-blames-separatists-Putins-control-plane-crash-wants-hold-sanctions-outrage-unspeakable-proportions-investigated.html

    Neutering wouldn't involve new bases and major military exercises in Eastern Europe. Perhaps, he has finally learned Hillary and her ilk are clowns, but let's give credit where it's due. Obama forced the issue with support for a coup, keeping neocons in the government, pushing in Syria, over stepping the no fly zone in Libya, making a public shift to our new enemy China, and so forth. The buck stops with the President when the criminals are appointees.

    [Sep 19, 2015] Clock Ticks On US Syria Strategy As Assad Pounds ISIS Targets, Russia Sends Fighter Jets

    Suddenly the hypocrite-fiends of Western Europe wanted the conflict in Syria over.
    "...Putin had literally called Washington's bluff, forcing The White House to either admit that this isn't about ISIS at all, or else join Russia in fighting them. "
    "... Economic destruction followed by political stability exploited for regime change. The most damaging of those sanctions (and the easiest for the U.S. financial bully to enforce) are banking sanctions. Those are also easiest to ram through the tratiorous little bitches in congress with the least amount of hand-wringing and public outcry. No bad PR from Twitter pictures of dead babies or mutilated kids and destroyed homes, but destruction of the 'target' just the same."
    "...Yet another neocon fiasco. Uncounted billions gone, Syriah shattered forever, oh, and our dearest allies in Europe overrun with filthy penniless refugees. Way to go Team America!"
    Sep 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Note that this is a bitter defeat for Washington. Moscow, realizing that instead of undertaking an earnest effort to fight terror in Syria, the US had simply adopted a containment strategy for ISIS while holding the group up to the public as the boogeyman par excellence, publicly invited Washington to join Russia in a once-and-for-all push to wipe Islamic State from the face of the earth. Of course The Kremlin knew the US wanted no such thing until Assad was gone, but by extending the invitation, Putin had literally called Washington's bluff, forcing The White House to either admit that this isn't about ISIS at all, or else join Russia in fighting them.

    ... ... ...

    Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the man some suspect of masterminding the entire effort to restore the Assad regime, Quds commander Major General Qassem Soleimani, seems to understand the US strategy all too well - we close with the following from Iran's PressTV:

    Commander of the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Major General Qassem Soleimani said Wednesday that the policy of the US with regards to Daesh and other Takfiri groups operating in the region is to only have them under control and not eliminate them.

    nnnnnn

    don't forget who's creating this so called "terrorists"?

    Motasaurus

    It's entirely possible to forget though, since there's so many.

    There's Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, London, the USA, France, Australia, and NATO. I'm probably still missing some.

    Stackers

    Assad is still stuck with the same big problem. He does not have the infantry numbers to defeat ISIS.

    You can see prime example of this on YouTube clips of Syrian T-72 tanks doing close quarters street fighting and getting taken out by RPG's because they have no supporting infantry to sweep out the enemy infantry. Heavy tactical equipment like artillary, tanks and fighter aircraft is fine, but at the end of the day you have to be able to sweep through with enough boots to control the area.

    At best Assad can wage a holding stalemate until the Russians actually deploy 10's of thousands of ground troops.

    Latina Lover

    Not true. Cut off the supply lines and cash funnel, and ISIS will fall apart. When the USSA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia figure out the game is over, they will cut off money.

    Money Counterfeiter

    Someone needs to tell Putin Israel is right next door to the south. Why let a crisis go o waste?

    Manthong

    Now that the Rooskies have changed the battlescape from US State's obsession to displace secular Assad with some Muslim Arab terrorist pipeline puppet to solving the US/Saudi/NATO/ISIS chaos problem, maybe the ISIS terror mercenaries will finally get a taste of their own medicine.

    Everyday Europeans should be rooting for Russia and Assad if they want to solve the root cause of their Islamic invasion problem.

    Manthong

    Those ISIS shills really had it made for a while.. like, where else could you get money, training, military bases, unused armor and weapons parachute delivered to your doorstep?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NzFJxX8yoY

    sun tzu

    Yes, against that vaunted American ISIS mercenary fighting force that is known for its military prowess LOL. Your fearsome ISIS with full US military training, weapons, and air support can't even defeat Assad's little military force with 40 year old tanks.

    They're good at chopping off heads of unarmed people and that's about it. Most are foreign jihadist idiots born and raised in Western nations under rap and hiphop MTV music. Unlike the Taliban and in Iraq, they are not fighting for their homeland. The western mercs leading the ISIS forces are also a bunch of cowards. Once they face death from air attacks, the paycheck no longer means anything. Those mercs are good at overthrowing third world countries. They didn't sign up to be attacked by cruise missiles.

    847328_3527

    I remember when George Bush said, "God talked to him."

    wtf?!

    You would a thought Americans would have wised up at least after THAT!

    The Indelicate Genius

    ISIS Leader Admits to Being Funded by the US
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-leader-admits-to-being-funded-by-the-u...

    Now, who knows how reliable that site it - but who still thinks that whatever makes it into the NY Times is reliable?

    two hoots

    News:

    Kerry in UK to push for end to Syrian conflict:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34298826

    nope-1004

    Kerry in UK to push for end to Syrian embarrassment:

    fify

    Clearly the US could wipe ISIS if they wanted to, but since ISIS is a USA asset, used to destabilize the region so "democracy" can be forced once "humanitarian problems arise", it will be kept until no longer useful.

    The origins of ISIS are quite interesting. The flow of supplies are rather obvious. .GOV is the worlds largest terrorist if you follow the dots.

    After being caught red-handed shipping USA vehicles for ISIS militants, .gov has come out saying that the image was doctored. LMFAO!!!! The propaganda is mind blowing.

    This photo, taken from a propaganda video, shows a near identical scene featuring a different truck, raising questions as to the authenticity of the photo featuring Mr Oberholtzer's truck

    "Raising questions....". From whom?

    Fascism. It's obvious.

    shovelhead

    Wait until ISIS has some Truly Nolan trucks...

    http://www.trulynolen.com/images/locations/service-tabs/commercial-pc-ba...

    trulz4lulz's picture

    How anyone could down vote that is beyond me, but one thing is for certain, Murikistan still wouldnt be able to find them with their hundreds of billions of dollars worth of satelites raoming the lower atmosphere of Earth.

    Fractal Parasite

    Kerry in UK to push for end to Syrian calamity.

    Oh, now that the State Dept's takfiris are getting their asses whipped, suddenly Horse Face wants a negotiated peace.

    Mr al-Assad has been offering talks for four years.

    Freddie

    Just like the Ukraine. The NovoRussians (DPR and LPR) get the Ukie Army in a cauldron (surrounded) and we have Minsk 1 then they get surrounded again and Minsk 2. There were probably mercs and Spec Ops in those cauldrons. they sue for peace when they are losing.

    Kudos to the Ukie soldiers who quit and surrendered knowing they were being used by Kiev and kudos for the NovoRussians for treating the Ukies humanely when they surrendered.

    PM Zakarchenko of DPR has said there will be no Minsk 3.

    johngaltfla

    BigK spot on. And once they are bottled up there, it becomes a Saudi problem again. Because what is left of the "rebels" in Syria will be ashes and incinerated bodies. The Syrian AF is doing this without the Russian AF; wait until the Russians start dropping their bombs at altitude and square blocks of terrorists begin to get vaporized.

    Zero Point

    A bit like how they pushed the Mujahadeen out of Afghanistan? Wait... what?

    NeedtoSecede

    "We are only going to arm the moderate rebels."

    From the second that phrase came out of .gov's piehole I know this was going to turn into a cluster fuck of epic proportions. What a fucking joke...

    Kayman

    "moderate rebels"

    But first we are going to round up some Unicorns for transportation.

    "Christmas Greetings to the Fatherland from your brave and successful army in Stalingrad."

    The Indelicate ...

    The Jesuits are about 2500 old men. Apart from a few colleges and on campus mansions with well-stocked bars - they don't control dick.

    I see this notion all over CNN and youtube comments, like it is an organized effort.

    Lots of valid criticisms to offer about the RCC - but controlling the world smacks of obvious gatekeeping for the usual suspects

    ... ... ...

    PacOps

    Good interview: al-Assad and Russian media.

    http://sana.sy/en/?p=54857

    President al-Assad to Russian media outlets.. We cannot implement anything unless we defeat the terrorism.. The army is the most important symbol for any society.

    Carpenter1

    Here's Putin paying homage to the Pope and Vatican.

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/26/article-2513236-19A3B6AA000005...

    When will you stupid fucks figure this out??

    misnomer

    No. He chose to kiss the book and NOT the Pope's ring because Orthodox Christian's do not believe the Pope should be venerated or exalted as Christ. It is very telling that he chose to kiss the Bible instead.

    Fractal Parasite

    Here it is on youtube. All in English (mostly dubbed).

    40-minute RT interview with Bashar al-Assad by a Russian delegation in Damascus.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wELCDCPsw6M

    Blankone

    Re comment by Publicus:

    "Russia is showing the world the correct way to deal with terrorists. EXTERMINATION."

    BUT Russia is not doing any fighting. None. Putin still has not fired a shot.

    What has happened is that Syria now has some accurate weapons. Finally! Which begs the question.

    Why was Syria not supplied accurate weapons before now. They have been fighting and losing and dieing for several years. Much of Syria is destroyed, cities destroyed and the people killed or refugees in other countries. And it appears Putin was not suppling Russia's better quality weapons. I am not even talking about suppling the S-300, as was contracted for in 2007, but rocket launchers, decent air to ground missiles for air strikes and accurate artillery. What kind of support is it when you refuse to sell those types of weapons to an "allie' who is under attack?

    Putin/Russia has not fired a shot, flown a mission or put people in the field. Russia has finally supplied some weapons that might help Assad punish the insurgents who hold much of northern Syria. If the west ups the stakes in their support will Russia finally take a direct role in flying missions or launching real missiles?

    And why is Putin trying to negotiate a political agreement that includes the removal of Assad? How is that being supportive or is that just being opportunistic to do regime change using a new Russian puppet?

    Fractal Parasite

    Reasonable questions. Re-read the article for the answers. It explains how Emperor Washington & co have been exposed as without clothes after a year of off-target "air strikes against ISIS in Syria" while Russia steps in and gets the job done in a week.

    Pity ¼ millions Syrians got killed before then, but who did that?

    The claim that Putin is negotiating Assad's removal is bullcrap.

    Blankone

    You need to re read the article. Russia did not fly any missions or fire a single shot. Nothing.

    Also, read who got killed. Seems most were civilians. But those here seem to think it is ok when their side kills the innocent.

    Putin held negotiations with the leaders of the insurgents and even hosted them as his guests recently in Russia. Why do you think he flew them to Russia, to drink vodka? It was reported that Putin wanted some figure head role for Assad and the insurgents want him dead.

    Lurk Skywatcher

    Where does that BBC article say "civilians"?

    You have as much evidence for them being civilians as I do for them being US/UK handlers and "trainers".

    Why hasn't he supported Assad until now? Why did he fly insurgent leaders to Russia for talks? Why are you confused and critical of everything he has done?

    Because constantly you try to squeeze Putins opaque actions into your own flawed concept of statesmanship, and assume to understand completely what is happening. Constantly you read things into events that suit your own bias.

    He knows what he is doing - twice in as many years he has deftly avoided a trap set to mire Russia in war.

    If he had acted as you critisize him for not acting, he would have been long caught in the first one.

    And that shows exactly how worthless and wrong your opinion is.

    Crash Overide

    There are a lot of people that should be in jail... start 1, 2, 3 wars! no problem, get promoted.

    Being a veteran that fought in so called wars and smokes pot for PTSD, you will be shot in your own home and arrested.

    Amerika!

    General Wesley Clark:

    Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

    So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" - meaning the Secretary of Defense's office - "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    indygo55

    I know the puppet masters are very good but sorry, I think Putin is the real deal. I think the puppet masters are NOT in total control of the world and Russia and China are really not going for the murder criminal cabal that does control the West.

    I-am-not-one-of-them

    "Russia and the US serve the same master"

    Boris Yeltsin ain't President anymore

    Motasaurus

    It's a proxy war. For at least the last three years Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting each other tooth and nail all over the Middle East. Sauid Arabia through their Islamist irregulars and Iran through their regular army (though in the case of Yemen the roles are reversed), brough in by Iraq and Syria to fight them off.

    But now that the U.S. and her allies have openly entered the proxy war (remember, the U.S. has been bombing Syria for a couple of weeks now) it released Russia to do the same.

    The proxy is a whole lot more direct now, and it looks like the U.S. will blink first. She doesn't like being met by capable oponents that she has to confront directly - despite all the military spending.

    Carpenter1

    Look at all the fools here, thinking Russia is actually against the US.

    Russia has a central bank, therefore it attends the BIS meetings in Switzerland and is a major part of the globalist agenda.

    indygo55

    There is a break in the force. Putin may break away this year from The London based Rothschild central bank system. He needs and now has a reason (need) to do so:

    http://yournewswire.com/putin-to-nationalise-rothschild-central-bank/

    Fractal Parasite

    Russia's central bank was established under Yeltsin, the drunkard puppet who 'invited' advisors from Washington to write Russia's laws after the USSR was surrendered dismembered to the victorious hegemon in 1991.

    As soon as the pathetic legislating cretins in the Duma grow a pair and take some action to reform the Central Bank Law and undo the subordination to BIS, then the people can have their country back.

    Paveway IV

    "...It's a proxy war. For at least the last three years Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting each other tooth and nail all over the Middle East...."

    I agree in part, Motasaurus. This is a huge part of what's happening that's often relegated to a footnote of 'causes'. But the situation is far more complex. Years of European and American empire-building, Oil interests, ZATO's Russian 'containment' attempt, religious extremism, Israel land-grabbing and Turkish criminal clownfuckery are all rolled into one here. Every one is needed to trace the path that ended us up here.

    "...Sauid Arabia through their Islamist irregulars and Iran through their regular army (though in the case of Yemen the roles are reversed), brough in by Iraq and Syria to fight them off."

    That's a part of it, but I will offer an alternative: this is a banker war between Saudi Arabia/Qatar and Iran/Iraq/Syria, with the U.S. squarely backing the Saudi Arabia/Qatar side, cheered on by Israel and ZATO.

    The neocon/Kagan/ISW noise about armed intervention is kind of the after-show for Syria. How did all their wars start? Iraq started with sanctions. Iran started with sanctions. Syria started with sanctions. Economic destruction followed by political stability exploited for regime change. The most damaging of those sanctions (and the easiest for the U.S. financial bully to enforce) are banking sanctions. Those are also easiest to ram through the tratiorous little bitches in congress with the least amount of hand-wringing and public outcry. No bad PR from Twitter pictures of dead babies or mutilated kids and destroyed homes, but destruction of the 'target' just the same.

    Case in point [from Kenneth Rijock's Financial Crime Blog]:

    Adam Szubin, formerly the Director of OFAC, and now the Acting Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Crimes, at his confirmation hearing, asserted that, should any Iranian bank, released from sanctions, due to the comprehensive nuclear agreement, re-offend, meaning conducting any transactions with Hezbollah or the IRGC Quds Force, American sanctions will be reimposed forthwith.

    So if this guy is going to be the Terrorism and Financial Crimes guy, why was he silent about the same sanction threat for Saudi Arabia and Qatar? They regularly use the banking system to move massive amounts of money to finance their terrorist war in both Syria and Iraq. Where's the outrage there? How many Americans have already died (and will die) because dual-citizen israeli-firster Szubin (his two predecessors in the job were the same) pees his pants about any Iranian funds going to 'enemies of Israel' but he - just like his predecessors - will completely ignore ANY of the widely-known money transfer mechanisms the Saudis and Qatar use to fund terrorists?

    The joke in all this is that the U.S. is the first to employ sanctions when it suits Israel's whims, but refuses to even acknowledge the river of money flowing to ISIS, al Nusra and the dozens of other head-chopper clans that the Saudis and Qatar fund. Why? Because to Israel (and their little bitches in the U.S. congress) any dime spent on terrorists that oppose Iran or any of their allies is not terrorist funding - it's democracy building. Ever heard of a Saudi or Qatar bank sanctioned? Ever hear of a U.S. or European bank sanctioned for moving terrorist payrolls every week to ISIS? ISIS steals and extorts a lot of money from it's imprisoned populations, but they hardly have the financial wherewithal to fund a damn global war. ISIS isn't running a cash war with suitcases of fiat - they have to use banks like everyone else for the big stuff.

    Russia knows this. It wasn't going to feed it's soldiers into a meatgrinder again (like Afghanistan) funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.. Putin supports Assad, but would not take Russia down merely to defend Syria. All Putin had to do was wait until enough corruption and theft corroded the terrorism financing pipeline. Now it doesn't matter how much money goes in - very little gets to the terrorists on the front lines. The head-choppers are starving. Let's just say Putin has some experience on both sides of the fence dealing with corrupt psychopaths and their criminal regimes' amazing ability to self-destruct from rot.

    Turkey got greedy and took too much skim from the terrorist logistics network. The jihadis themselves have been robbing ISIS and al Nusra blind of everything - weapons, radios, cash. Mostly to support their two biggest habits: food and ampehtamines. Although they continue to fund the terrorists, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have to be convinced by now that it's like storing water in a sieve (but maybe I give them too much credit here).

    ISIS and al Nusra are on their financial death-bed from corruption. Good at head-chopping, not so good handling money. Putin merely has to get Assad to kick a few pegs out from under them to hasten the collapse. There will be no mass influx of Russian troops because it's unnecessary. Russia is not trying to annihilate ISIS in a war of attrition - they're letting it rot on the hoof, and giving it an occasional well-placed kick. Back-door Turkish-ISIS deals for oil? Bomb the f'king oil wells - no more oil sales. U.S.-ZATO intelligence via scrambled SATCOM links? Take out the ground stations - six months to get the new crap there which Russia will direct Assad to take out again. Takfiri payday? Smoke the al Raqqa branch of the ISIS/ZATO central bank. Next up: main branch in Mosul.

    Russia has no desire, and Putin just has enough common sense not to fight ZATO terrorists on their (or the Kagan's) terms: rivers of blood and money. Russia has neither to waste and has demonstrated over and over again that they won't fall for ZATO's usual tricks. They let the ZATO terrorists in Syria bleed out by self-inflicted cuts, and will merely direct Assad where to inflict the final set of wounds to finish them off.

    In the mean time, ISW and the Kagans are still trying to decide if there's some other way they can get the sieve to hold water. As of late, the strategy seems to be to send Kerry to negotiate something based on the premise that the sieve is still holding water. It's kind of pathetic when you think about it.

    chunga

    I'd like to see a stinging rebuke that causes the Murikans to reel in their policy of maliciously fucking with everybody's shit all over the world. The trouble is, in order to preserve the petro dollar and reserve status the military must maintain it's aura of invincibility because everything else is coming into question.

    Therefore it seems likely they'll do something very stupid to antagonize nuclear armed Russia. Unlike China or other countries, Russian nukes are not in the experimental phase of development and every ICBM they launch is likely to perform flawlessly.

    sandhillexit

    U.S. leadership abdicated and let Bibi and Nuland take the Syria fight to Russia's door, using the cousins...nearly everyone in Israel still has a cousin in Ukraine. Russia was not supposed to respond like this was a existential threat, but they did. First he locked down the Crimea. Despite hardship, the country is rallying behind Putin. You won't starve on red beets and chicken, in fact you'll be pretty healthy...that is, the Russians can outlast the French and Italian farmers who have lost their market. And the Russians understand that the same Chechen mercs who blow up their trains and schools....and are on the Saudi payroll.....are running training camps now in Syria.

    There might be a deeper "game." It is highly plausible that the City of London looked around twenty years ago for someone competent, not a klepto and backed the Putin horse to protect their investments in Russia. Not a bad choice. The British foreign service is so much more competent than ours. And they have just reopened their embassy in Teheran, having turned Basra over to the Iranians before they pulled troops out. USA is so badly served.

    The definitive book on Russian & Jewish relations was written by Solzynitzin. It's called "200 Years Together" and it has not been translated/published in English. You can't buy it at Amazon. THINK about that.

    But that isn't so important right now. At the level of families living or dying, 2000-year old Christian treasures being obliterated by ISIS Bolsheviks, he is the only thing that stands up to Bibi's lunacy. The Germans seem to be making the same calculus. They think the US has lost the plot.

    Remember Bibi is expendable. All it takes is a vote of no-confidence by the military. Livni could step up. BHO isn't going to reach out ot help a 'friend' because...well...

    AmericanFUPAcabra

    The people of Crimea voted on a referendum to join Russia and 95+% voted in favor of doing so. Other than that nice post @@

    My Days Are Getting Fewer

    Excellent summary here:

    http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Strauss342-351.html

    Read the last sentence...

    godiva chocolate

    The US is neither free nor a democracy itself. How dare it spread its oligarchy onto other countries.

    FireBrander

    The USA in 2015 is the end result of a "Free Market"...it is what happens when the concentration of wealth/power goes unchecked...even ecouraged....Corporate Crony Capitalism...where the bulk of the "profits" fall into the hands of th e few...That is America today.

    Show me someone that thinks "Socialism" has brought us to this point, and I'll show you a complete fucken Rightwing moron.

    max2205

    The killing fields. Putin helping EU to stop the mass exodus as well

    researchfix

    But they will blame him nonetheless.

    Usurious

    They always doooooooo............

    world map of US military installations........

    http://empire.is/

    Spiritof42

    It's Russian payback time for Afghanistan.

    It's not that I'm rooting for the Russians and Syrians. I don't give a shit who stuffs the USSA, NATO and Israel, as long as it's done.

    withglee

    may have turned the tide in the country's four-year civil war.

    This is a propaganda marker. Syria is not having a "civil" war. They are under attack by the USA CIA and Israel Mossad.

    NoWayJose

    I have always wondered how ISIS continues to operate tanks and Humvees across open desert without any coalition air strikes. They have training camps and barracks and offices without worrying about air strikes. They have parades and convoys of vehicles without fear. They operate oilfields and refineries at will, and transport and sell the output. The U.S. is allowing this. Putin will not.

    The U.S. wants to track my $10,000 withdrawal, freeze Iranian money, seize Russian billionaire's funds, peek into Swiss bank accounts -- yet cannot track ISIS oil revenues and huge financial transactions?

    But at least we will have an openly gay Secretary of the Army!

    NeoRandian

    Also seems a little strange that ISIS can openly recruit people through Twitter and Facebook. Would anything remotely similar ever be permitted on any other site?

    Keep an eye on the Joshua Goldberg story; I bet the CIA offers him a job after he is debriefed by the FBI.

    bthunder

    You, ZeroHedgers, never seem to learn from history: "checkmate, courtesy of The Kremlin. " - SERIOUSLY?

    35 years ago the CIA lured USSR into Afghanistan, and when the oil prices dropped in the mid-1980s, the USSR was no more.

    Oil prices are already down (son to go down even more thanks to Iran.) The Chinese already refuse to pay prices they agreed to just 8 months ago, and Gazprom is offering Ukraine 50% discounts!), Russia is already is involved in Ukraine, and now it's getting itself stuck in the sandbox in Syria.

    How is it different from Afghanistan in 1980s? And while the USSR could hide the dead in 60000 zinc coffins, do you think in the age of Twitter and Facebook they'll be able to do that? You think that Russian people are sheepple just like the americans?

    Seems to me it's checkmate to Putin, courtesy of the CIA and the Saudis.

    P.S. When evryone keeps telling a dictator how great and brilliant he is, he starts believing that shit. Even as state revenues drop by 50%, even as his newest missiles explode at launch and the only target they hit are passenger jets. His pride takes over and he sends his best forces into the "sandbox" to defend his ally, a palce where every great army has been defeated. Checkmate, indeed.

    P.P.S. Since the reports of Russians in Syria has surfaced, there's unusual "quietness" in Eastern Ukraine. Could it be that Russia cannot conduct war on 2 fronts? I can't wait until the CIA tests that theory, gives Ukes some of the new weaponry to "probe" russkies closer to thir homeland.

    BendGuyhere

    Jaw-dropping inanity.

    "35 years ago the CIA lured USSR into Afghanistan, and when the oil prices dropped in the mid-1980s, the USSR was no more."

    Yes, the brilliant CIA created the TALIBAN, which WE just spent 12 years fighting with 4 TRILLION$ and thousands DEAD, maimed. WAY TO FUCKING GO USA! OH, and now our home-grown USA SHALE OIL 'MIRACLE' has been destroyed by said engineered low oil prices. DUH. Blowback's a bitch.

    bthunder

    USA is still here, where's USSR?

    USA (or USSA) is in deep sh*t, but Russia is waaaayyyy deeper.

    Indeed, CIA was brilliant in using the Taliban to defeat USSR. It was Dick 'the Dick" Cheney who caused 12 years of fighting and spent $4T.

    Just let the CIA do their thing and in no time China and USA will be dividing siberian oil amoung themselves, with Putin looking through jail window.

    rejected

    "How is it different from Afghanistan in 1980s? "

    In 1980 the usa debt was 980 billion. Today the ussa debt is 18 trillion dollars (what they admit to) and growing exponentially.

    In 1980 the usa was a manufacturing giant of quality merchandise. Now all the ussa produces is fiat and the tools of war.

    In 1980 the usa had robust economy with much opportunity. Today the ussa has no work, no economy and no opportunity unless you call playing in the stock casino's opportunity.

    In 1980 the usa had individual privacy and still could depend on the constitution. Today the ussa spies on everyone, and has totally eviscerated the constitution.

    In 1980 the usa was at war with no one, for a change. Today the ussa is at war with half the world.

    In 1980 the usa had a space program. Today the ussa depends on China and Russia to get people into space.

    In 1980 the usa had a president. Today the ussa has a dictatorial executive.

    In 1980 Afghanistan was eradicating the opium crop. Today the ussa armed forces guards and ships the bumper crops.

    Comparing 1980 to now is like comparing Day to Night. On September 11, 2001 a darkness descended on the usa which gave birth to the ussa

    MeBizarro

    This has nothing to due with Afghanistan. As for the US economy in '80, it was pretty crappy and the only reason we weren't officially at war was because of Carter in the White House. Plenty on the Hill and in the DOD were pushing for a fight in Central America, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.

    I would agree though on several point and since 9-11 we have been a scared, scitterish, anxiety-ridden mess on the whole.

    Anunnaki

    Terrific article. Superb narrative. Essentially Obama can no longer bleed Assad through ISIS. And he will have to coordinate with Putin or it looks mightily suspicious to Europe overwhelmed by refugees

    And this aggressive Syrian air force display makes a No Fly Zone moot

    Obama and Kerry come off as sore losers. Give Hezbollah all the small arms they need and tell Netanyahoo to gack to murdering Gazan children which is all he is good at

    Admittedly, I am a Putin supprter, but he just caught Obama with his pants down.

    Wait till Putin's speech before the UN General Assembly. America will go apoplectic over being on the brunt end of a scolding

    I had been impatient with Putin over Syria. I should have had faith that he would not fold

    Obama by telling Carter to callShoigu means he lost his nerve

    BendGuyhere

    Yet another neocon fiasco. Uncounted billions gone, Syriah shattered forever, oh, and our dearest allies in Europe overrun with filthy penniless refugees. Way to go Team America!

    falak pema

    the russian axis now in place.

    Obama cedes Syria to Putin and thus allows an Iranian initiative also which will have repercussions in Lebanon (Hezbollah), in Yemen (Houthi) and Palestine (Hamas).

    A major shift in the ME power structure now seems in the making as the Lausanne Deal between US/IRan has changed the game.

    What will Saud do now?

    And watch the French and Germans try and win some contracts both in Iran and in Saud...when alliances fold new ambitions are born.

    Pax Americana...wither now?

    litemine

    Like the Americans in control say.........."American Interests" are what the Military fight for....Right or wrong, Obama said.....We have No Friends, only Opportunities".

    That being said, and the dumbed down General American Population with an Army pumped on Roids think thier shit doesn't stink. Wrap the stars and stripes around you and die for your freedom......Well now, How did that work out?

    The Congress is bought, the army is Mercinary and the financial system controls. The Biggest lobby group is Israel...who profits from this? Not mainsteet. They own you. If you don't have a problem with that.....Carry On .


    Putin Accuses World Of Using Terrorist Groups To Destabilize Governments

    "...If you've followed the incessant back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow over the course of the proxy wars raging in Ukraine and Syria, you know that the Kremlin is without equal when it comes to describing US foreign policy in a way that is both succinct and accurate. "
    "...The first thing to note there is that Putin has essentially called the US out for using terrorists to destabilize Assad. So for anyone just looking for the punchline, that was it. Everyone else, read on. "
    "...As clear as that is, the US must stick to the absurd notion that the Pentagon just can't seem to get to the bottom of what Russia is doing and to the still more absurd idea that Russia - who seems to be the only outside party that's actually interested in fighting ISIS as evidenced by the fact that there are Russian boots on the ground - is somehow hurting the very serious effort by the US and its allies to defeat Islamic radicals in Syria. "
    Sep 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    If you've followed the incessant back-and-forth between Washington and Moscow over the course of the proxy wars raging in Ukraine and Syria, you know that the Kremlin is without equal when it comes to describing US foreign policy in a way that is both succinct and accurate.

    This was on full display earlier this year when Vladimir Putin's Security Council released a document that carried the subtle title "About The US National Security Strategy." We've also seen it on a number of occasions over the past several weeks in the wake of Russia's stepped up military role in support of the Assad regime at Latakia. For instance, last week, Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova delivered the following hilariously veracious assessment of how Washington has sought to characterize Moscow's relationship with Damascus:

    "First we were accused of providing arms to the so-called 'bloody regime that was persecuting democratic activists, now it's a new edition - we are supposedly harming the fight against terrorism. That is complete rubbish."

    Yes, it probably is, but let's not forget that Russia hasn't exactly been forthcoming when it comes to acknowledging that, like Washington, Moscow's interest in Syria is only related to terrorism to the extent that terrorism serves as a Western tool to destabilize the Assad regime which, you're reminded, must remain in place if Putin intends to protect Gazprom's iron grip over Europe's supply of natural gas.

    Of course what that suggests is that even as Russia uses ISIS as a smokescreen to justify sending troops to Syria, the Kremlin is by definition being more honest about its motives than The White House. That is, ISIS has destabilized Assad and because Russia has an interest in keeping the regime in power, Moscow actually does have a reason to eradicate Islamic State. The US, on the other hand, facilitated the destabilization of the country in the first place by playing a role in training and arming all manner of Syrian rebels, and to say that some of them might well have gone on to fight for ISIS would be a very generous assessment when it comes to describing the CIA's involvement (a less generous assessment would be to call ISIS a "strategic CIA asset"). That means that the US will only really care about wiping out ISIS once Assad is gone and it's time to install a puppet government that's friendly to both Washington and Riyadh and at that point - assuming there are no other regimes in the area that the Pentagon feels like might need destabilizing - the US military will swiftly "liberate" Syria from the ISIS "scourge."

    To be sure, Russia is well aware of the game being played here and if there's anything Vladimir Putin is not, it's shy about calling the US out, which is precisely what he did on Tuesday at a security summit of ex-Soviet countries in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. Bloomberg has more:

    Russian President Vladimir Putin said the fight against Islamic State should be the global community's top priority in Syria, rather than changing the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

    "It's necessary to think about the political transition in that country" and Assad is willing to "involve healthy opposition forces in the administration of the state," Putin said. "But the focus today is definitely on the need to combine forces in the fight against terrorism."

    Countries need to "put aside geopolitical ambitions" as well as "direct or indirect use of terrorist groups to achieve" goals that include regime change, in order to counter the threat of Islamic State, Putin said. "Elementary common sense responsibility for global and regional security demands the collective effort of the international community."

    The first thing to note there is that Putin has essentially called the US out for using terrorists to destabilize Assad. So for anyone just looking for the punchline, that was it. Everyone else, read on.

    At this point what should be obvious is that Vladimir Putin's intentions in Syria are anything but unclear. Russia is openly supplying the Assad regime with military aid in an effort to prevent terrorists and extremists (some of which were trained by the US and received aid from Qatar) from facilitating the strongman's ouster. It's that simple and frankly, the only two things Russia hasn't made explicitly and publicly clear (because this is international diplomacy after all, which means everyone is always lying about something) are i) the role that natural gas plays in all of this, and ii) that the Kremlin will seek to prevent anyone from overthrowing Assad, so to the extent that there are any real, well-meaning "freedom fighters" in Syria, they'll find themselves on the wrong end of Russian tank fire just the same as ISIS.

    As clear as that is, the US must stick to the absurd notion that the Pentagon just can't seem to get to the bottom of what Russia is doing and to the still more absurd idea that Russia - who seems to be the only outside party that's actually interested in fighting ISIS as evidenced by the fact that there are Russian boots on the ground - is somehow hurting the very serious effort by the US and its allies to defeat Islamic radicals in Syria. Here's Bloomberg again:

    Russia's intentions in Syria are unclear and it's important for U.S. diplomats to understand them, Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters in Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday. While Putin's said it wants to prevent Islamic State's expansion, "explaining the purpose and seeing how it actually evolves on the ground are two very different things and we will be working on that," Dempsey said.

    Right, "explaining" that your "purpose" is to take your very powerful military and defeat what amounts to a large militia that's woefully under-armed and under-trained by comparison "and seeing how it actually evolves are two very different things." If you buy that argument, then you are buying into the patently ridiculous idea that if the US and Russia were to bring their combined military might to bear on ISIS in Syria, that somehow the outcome of that battle would be in doubt.

    The Pentagon knows that notion is silly, but what it also knows is that once American troops are on the ground, there's no not routing the other militants while you're there, so what would happen in relatively short order, is that the opposition would be all gone and then, well, what do you do with Assad?

    The much more straightforward way to go about this (unless of course you have a 9/11 and a story about WMDs buried in the desert as a cover that makes an outright, unilateral invasion possible), is to allow for the entire country to descend into chaos until one or more rebel/extremist groups finally manages to take Damascus, at which point you simply walk in with the Marines and remove them, then install any government you see fit. In the meantime, you just fly over and bomb stuff (hopefully with a coalition that includes Europe) in order to ensure that the situation remains sufficiently unstable. But now this plan won't work, because unless we see a replay of the Soviet-Afghan war, none of Syria's rebel groups are going to be able to rout the Russian army which means the US is stuck doing exactly what it's doing now: trying to explain why it won't join Russia in a coalition to eradicate ISIS while working to figure out what's next now that the Russians are officially on the ground.

    We'll close with the following from Alexander Golts, a military analyst and deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal who spoke to WSJ:

    "The idea of this is…to show Russia as part of the alliance of civilized nations that are standing against barbarism. But that idea won't have much of a chance, because the U.S. and the Saudis and others consider Assad the source of the problem."

    COSMOS

    http://www.rt.com/news/315465-bmw-ceo-faints-stage/

    Symbolic of what is happening in Germany right now. And very Prophetic.

    Germany is on its way down, the ROT starts from the TOP (at least with fish it does). Merkel is about the most rotten one there is. Seems like the disease is spreading.

    They all should of stayed away from Nulands SWEETS

    http://www.collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=12031

    Scroll down and see that life is Sweet for the ones on the Winning Team.

    Save_America1st

    Putin: "Putin Accuses World Of "Using Terrorist Groups" To Destabilize Governments"

    Yeah, well: The Truth Is Treason In An NWO-Bankster's Empire Of Lies

    TeamDepends

    "Welcome to Europe, invaders!" - Soros
    It is hard to believe the POS that is Soros could get any stinkier, but he will stop at nothing.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Tk74-O-so

    Latina Lover

    But now this plan won't work, because unless we see a replay of the Soviet-Afghan war, none of Syria's rebel groups are going to be able to rout the Russian army which means the US is stuck doing exactly what it's doing now: trying to explain why it won't join Russia in a coalition to eradicate ISIS while working to figure out what's next now that the Russians are officially on the ground.

    Putin is calling out the USSA on its BS, and showing to the world that Amerika is the greatest sponsor of Islamic Terrorism. Putin will offer proof that the USSA is behind the creation of ISIS, and the best way to eradicate terrorism is to stop supporting it to overthrow governments Amerika does not like. This is the real story.

    johngaltfla

    "Terrorist group" = CIA

    Nuff said.

    Raging Debate

    Latina - While all of this is correct subtle but dangerous signals are not being heard by the American public at large and some that is like WSJ readers isnt being absorbed as to just how dangerous all this is.

    Check out Karl Denningers site. He has commentators discussing going over there and "kicking muzzies asses" on a thread about following money. i don't see Karl's magic ban-hammer coming out or even scolding these people. But oh oh hoh! Bring up how the BIS and CFR relations run this world and watch how fast that hammer comes out.

    While I admire the man for educating on some issues he is is fucktarded willfully ignorant on what really counts in how systems work. That is wierd considerin he touts himself as a master systems engineer.

    This situation wit Russia is analagous to cornering a grizzly in his cave and you have a .22. Sure you'll kill it but not before it knocks your head off. And even though Putin may be attempting to be more moderate (out ot necessity) he would not hesitate to kill every living person on earth and even accept 50% Russian casualties than have Russia become owned again by Jmafia. And tye Russian people would be right behind him all the way.

    As a double agent training of course will play a game within a game. Shit though even Kissinger knows this is taking a really bad turn.

    Enough said about this subject. Some things going forward may hurt rather than help the global populace and my American countrymen. But I really wished some leaders understood we are 40-50 years from ending classical death and onto other places even potentially outside our very universe. One big giant waste of time and the death toll will get God awful.

    Urban Redneck

    The UN would not lay off desk jockeys if Hell froze over. Anyone can address the UN in whatever language they please, and the UN is always happy to hire moar desk jockeys to accommodate them.

    Lavrov can, in English, articulate the long and inevitably backfiring history of US arming terrorists and draw the parallel to current situation with ISIS in Syria. Over 80% of the leaders assembled comprehend English, and 100% of their press corps and thought police do, as well as a huge chuck of their respective plebes back home, which eliminates a massive and critical tool of the establishment to control the public narrative. It wouldn't be politically (or socially) correct for Putin to so, even if could speak fluent English, but that's what Foreign Ministers are for.

    indygo55

    I saw the sarcasm. The US is such a fucking amatuer here. That they got caught like this is really the playing out of the story where Putin is playing chess and Obama (or whomever is steering him) is playing checkers. The table might get thrown over by the fools.

    trulz4lulz

    Our "government has been doing this for 50 fucking years, at least. Central America, South Ameria, various Asian nations, the middle east, north Africa,, central Africa....I wont even bother naming all the countries its fucked over. Time for them to pay the god damned piper if you ask me.

    Bay Area Guy

    50 years? Hell, it's been screwing over MENA for at least 70 years. Central and South America have gotten hosed since before the Civil War.

    FIAT CON

    Free book on the subject by John Perkins

    http://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Money_and_Economics/confessions_of_a...

    Freddie

    The Founding Fathers would never have approved of Israeli Rita Katz and her green screen videos of fake ISIS beheadings and other nonsense. I hope Spielberg works with her soon so ISIS can feed hostages tio a Great White shark and to dinosaurs.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d14_1412697367

    ThroxxOfVron

    Chuck Schumer's primary concerns in order of importance:

    1. Chuck Schumer

    2. Chuck Schumer

    3. Chuck Schumer

    4. AIPAC $$$$

    5. Chuck Schumer's Committee assignments:

    .... Schumer currently serves on the following Senate Committees in the 114th United States Congress:

    .... Committee on Finance;

    .... Subcommittee on Health Care;

    .... Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight;

    .... Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy;

    .... Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs;

    .... Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development;

    .... Subcommittee on Financial Institutions;

    .... Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment;

    .... Committee on the Judiciary;

    .... Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts;

    .... Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights;

    .... Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs;

    .... Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security (Ranking Member);

    .... Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security;

    .... Committee on Rules and Administration (Ranking Member);

    .... Joint Committee on the Library (Vice Chair);

    .... Joint Committee on Printing ..."Get to work Mr. Chairman.." (Chairman);

    .... Joint Economic Committee ;

    .... International Narcotics Control Caucus;

    .... Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (Chair).

    6. Israel

    7. The Democratic National Committee

    8. Campaign donations and bribes paid to Chuck Schumer

    9. 'Jews'

    10. Chuck Schumer's hair

    Raging Debate

    11b40 - Good point. Consider this. Empires seem to last less than 400 years. This banking one where it buys governments has just about run its course.

    It was no wonder Jefferson was freaking out about a private central bank to run the currency. Because once that happens it is only a matter of time before the government sells out.

    By the late eighties the Rothschild model pretty much conquered the globe. When that happens and empire attempts to use an iron fist to retain all power is when it all goes south pretty quickly. Shame that playing King of the Hill this time will get 1/3 of the global population dead. As for specifics, lets just say evolution. As mentioned not going to inflame passions on by offering up certain speculations any more.

    God bless people of all nations. May we forgive one another after this cycle ends. All of our shit kinda reeks a bit if one really has the stones to look in a mirror.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Syria: The (Russian Air) Cavalry Is Coming

    In light of the catastrophic outcome of the "western" war on Libya the Russian government declared to oppose any further such "regime change" in the Middle East. But the U.S. continues to train, arm and finance insurgents against the Syrian Arab Republic and, under the disguise of fighting the Islamic State, prepares to take down the Syrian government. Eliminating the Syrian government would likely create a radical jihadist state in Damascus and lead to massacres and mass refugee movements.

    But Russia means what it says and will now use its military capabilities to confront the U.S. plans:

    Elijah J. Magnier
    #Russia is providing #Syria with precision military and destructive equipment. #Russia will start soon operating n #Syria sky to hit rebels+

    The participation of the #Russian Air Force in #Syria worries #Israel that won';t be able to have a free sky to hit Syrian troops.+

    This is THE major change in #Russia approach and support to #Damascus regime, to prevent game change on the ground in #Syria +

    The decision of #Russia comes mainly from regional support 2rebels, not satisfy w/ d north f #Syria (#Idlib) and aiming to #Hama & #Damascus

    Russian air-support for Syria against the various forces attacking the state will allow for additional air attacks against those forces. The Syrian air force is today already flying more than 100 sorties per day against it enemies. The Russian forces will add to that but not necessarily in a decisive amount.

    The main support for Syria by Russian air assets will come by keeping away those foreign air forces forces that threaten the Syrian government under disguise of "fighting terror". With Russian fighters in Syrian skies Israel will no longer be able to use its air force in support of Jabhat al-Nusra (and for its oil stealing endeavors in the Syrian Golan heights).

    The U.S., Britain, France and others announced to enter Syrian skies to "fight the terror" of the Islamic State. Russia will use just the same claim to justify its presence and its air operations flying from Latakia. Simply by being there it will make sure that others will not be able to use their capabilities for more nefarious means. Additional intelligence from Russian air assets will also be helpful for Syrian ground operations.

    The Russian air capabilities will be supplemented with air defense cover from Russian naval assets on the Syrian coast. Russia announced several air defense drills with live missile launches off the Syrian coast near Tartus. New land based air defense assets are said to be on their way. I would not be surprised to see, over time, some Chinese naval assets joining the Russian presence.

    Secretary of State Kerry whined to Russia that its intervention in Syria might intervene with the U.S. intervention in Syria. Well, yes sir, that is the sole purpose:

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday coordination was needed between Russia's military and the Pentagon to avoid "unintended incidents" around Syria, where both countries have a military presence.

    Lavrov said Russia would continue to supply weapons to Syrian President Bashar Assad to help the Syrian armed forces fight against ISIS militants.

    He told a news conference Russia was conducting military exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, that it had been for some time, and that they were in line with international law.

    The neoconned State Department childishly pressured Greece and Bulgaria to disallow Russian military air transport over their countries. But Russian planes can just as well fly via Iran and Iraq and both countries are very unlikely to ever block such flights. As Russian ground forces will not be involved in any fighting the supply needs can be kept limited.

    Any attempt by Turkey, pressured by State Department lunatics, to block the Bosporus sea route between Russia and Syria would be in breach of the Montreux Convention and could be interpreted as hostile act against Russia on which Turkey depends for a large amount of its energy supplies. After losing control over the predominantly Kurdish south-eastern city Cizre Turkey also has to take care of its own civil war which Erdogan foolishly ignited to regain a parliamentarian majority. That internal war will hinder resupplies for the Islamic State through Turkey.

    The U.S. plan to use the fight against the Islamic State as cover to remove the Syrian government is now in tatters. The months long U.S. supported "Southern Front" attack in south Syria failed to make any gains against the government. The Islamic State attack against Syrian government forces in Deir ez-Zor was repelled and further moves against Syria in the north will have to defy Russian air power.

    Washington will now have to decide to risk war against Russia or to shelf the Syria regime change project.

    Posted by b at 09:32 AM | Comments (109)

    Posted by: Kim Sky | Sep 11, 2015 12:39:03 PM | 10

    Wishful thinking, I'm afaid...

    as far as I can tell, the war plans are too advanced for the U.S. to pull out now. seems i remember options to not begin the bombing campaign against Iraq and Afghanistan, and they did it anyway.

    Posted by: james | Sep 11, 2015 12:50:41 PM | 11

    b - ditto @9 post..

    @10 kim - it certainly looks that way.. more war is all i can see in all of this.. the usa and it's western alliance seem to have their foot stuck permanently on the gas pedal and don't have any braking features anymore.. crash and burn has come to define it, but there is a lot to crash..

    Posted by: aaaaa | Sep 11, 2015 12:58:04 PM | 12

    @Kim Sky - if the resistors can make some gains it will help them immensely in a political sense.. ultimately it's crunch time right now; I'm sure the puppeteers are going to press their terrorist brigades to assault heavily over the next few days/weeks, so the SAA + allies will need to survive and advance. I've never considered the SAA to be very good, so a complete overhaul of their forces should be in order.


    Ultimately I think Russia wants a political solution above all else, and isn't committing much to this enterprise.. but who knows

    Posted by: Pat Bateman | Sep 11, 2015 1:09:51 PM | 15

    Am I the only one that's getting the feeling that everybody is now actually in on this?

    The first reports that I heard about Russia doubling down in Syria came from Ynet news, which quoted "unnamed Western officials". If what they claimed is true, as now appears to be the case, it doesn't make sense that Kerry, another Western official, would contact Lavrov to confirm whether the reports from "unnamed Western officials" were true. Surely Kerry would already know? So is it a ruse? Feigning indignation to be seen to be sticking to your principles, when in reality a compromise was reached as part of some grand deal during the nuclear negotiations?

    When a temporary truce was reached between the rebels in Idlib besieging the villages of al-Foua and Kefraya, and Government forces in Zabadani besieging the rebels, it was mooted that a transfer of the civilians from these two Shiite villages would be made for the evacuation of the Zabadani rebels - ethnic cleansing lite. It was in fact Iran and Turkey that brokered the truce between the two sides, and Iran and Turkey were negotiating the exchange. Is Syria being divided; to be cut up and controlled by different sides? Is Russia now asserting control over the Government designated zones?

    After two years, Abu al-Duhur airbase was the final Government position to fall in Idlib province yesterday, leaving al-Foua and Kefraya isolated. Did Iran and Turkey agree that Idlib is to be surrendered to Turkey's Islamists to mark a line between pro and anti Government control?

    It is generally accepted that neither side has the capacity to defeat the other, and neither will Iran or Turkey tolerate defeat. So better to draw a line around what you have, to hold it, and to claim some small victory.

    I suspect that Erdogan would now quite like things to go back to the way they were - to facilitate regaining a majority in Parliament and become President - and that the Saudis are more interested in Yemen. Did Russia throw Yemen under a bus at the UNSC and support the Saudi war in exchange for concessions on Syria? Has the Daraa "Southern Front" offensive failed because the support has subsequently dried up?

    Much will be answered when the Russian bombers begin their sorties. We will see the extent of their operations and whether a line in the sand has been drawn between Government and Turkish Islamist control, and if the rest of the IS mess is to be handled by the US coalition..

    (sorry, couldn't be bothered with links)

    Posted by: Grieved | Sep 11, 2015 1:25:08 PM | 16

    @virgile #2 - the element of theater is truly a substantial piece in this I believe. US foreign policy is obliged to maintain an ethical narrative with the US domestic population. Theater is important, and personally, apart from its still huge global financial heft, theater is about the only weapon I can see left to the US.

    Against the US is Russia. Russia's actions are almost invisible in this world, but extremely effective. It may be as some say that the US war plans are too advanced to halt, but I'm sure they're also pretty transparent to the Russians. By finally sharing satellite intel with Syria, what Russia has done is notch the no-fly possibilities one degree higher, as a matching move to the US/Israel covert activities, as a warning to the hot heads to cool down, and as a preparation for further escalation if required. One degree at a time.

    To me it is unthinkable that Russia will allow US to control the skies over Syria. This presumably is where the showdowns will occur - IF they even need to. There will be tactical casualties and apparent losses, but strategically I believe the US is finding itself forestalled at every turn.

    Posted by: fairleft | Sep 11, 2015 1:46:16 PM | 18

    Kim Sky @10: No, I disagree, and think Lavrov/Putin have played Kerry/Obama well. Fearful, uninformed, PR-centered, distrusting their idiot generals, they'll hesitate and then hesitate some more, and the warmongers' reality-defying plans won't happen. The US won't escalate and directly intervene. But unfortunately the war and terror in Syria will go on. Russia is not committing to destroy unofficial US ally Islamic State, just to prevent regime change.

    Posted by: fairleft | Sep 11, 2015 1:58:14 PM | 19

    Angry warmonger:

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday he would try to impose sanctions on Russia from the congressional side if the administration doesn't move in that direction. He said that Russia's military involvement in Syria will only make the terrorism threat and the refugee problems emanating from there worse.

    "This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."

    Posted by: plantman | Sep 11, 2015 3:54:49 PM | 28

    Unfortunately, this post is mostly wishful thinking...

    The US has no "Off" switch anymore.
    The confrontation between Russia and the US is probably unavoidable now, although Moscow has been very clear in its actions to avoid a miscalculation.
    Even so, now that Washington nabbed Incirlik, they feel obligated to press on. That means Putin will have to deploy the Migs to prevent a no-fly zone from being put into place.

    Erdogan will provide the footsoldiers after another false flag helps him win the Nov 1 election.
    Erdogan is a man to watch. He's going for all the marbles. He expects to get Aleppo at least for his efforts.

    Washington despises him, but they figure they can take care of him after they get rid of assad. Assad comes first, then Erdogan

    Putin will have to fight to stop the regime change crazies.
    He doesn't want a war, but he'll be ready.

    The US hasn't gotten a bloody nose in a while. I can't think of a better time than now.

    Posted by: Oui | Sep 11, 2015 4:17:42 PM | 29

    Hopeful sign, Germany's change of heart ...

    Germany says would welcome Russian role in fighting ISIS | Reuters |

    BERLIN - Germany would welcome more Russian engagement in the fight against ISIS, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Friday. "I think we would welcome the Russian Federation and the Russian president ... getting actively involved in the fight against ISIS given the dangers arising from Islamist terrrorism," spokesman Martin Schaefer said at a regular government news conference in Berlin.

    German Espionage Ship Off the Syrian Coast Is a War Act | August 2012 |

    Posted by: Oui | Sep 11, 2015 4:45:42 PM | 30

    More hopeful signs ...

    Poll finds Nato's Europeans wary of Russia confrontation

    The report by the Pew Research Center - a non-partisan US think-tank based in Washington DC - surveyed attitudes in North America and across Europe as well as Ukraine and Russia to assess public attitudes towards the current Ukraine crisis.

    On average in Europe, only 48% of those polled - less than half - backed the idea of their country using force to come to the aid of another Nato country attacked by Russia.

    Among the countries surveyed Germany is the most reluctant: 58% of those polled said they did not think their country should use military force to defend a Nato ally against Russia. [A rise of 18 percentage points in 12 months]

    France too was unenthusiastic - 53% of those polled were opposed. Even in Britain - often seen as a staunch Nato member - less than 50% supported the idea of using force to help another member of the alliance under attack.

    Overview opinions by nation

    Posted by: spinworthy | Sep 11, 2015 7:25:52 PM | 39

    By this point in time, the majority of rational individuals in the world can clearly see that the Syrian war is, and always has been, a proxy war. The Syrian war more than any of the other recent (planned) conflicts in the ME (also including Afghanistan) was intended to be the ultimate Jackpot!

    On one side (pro-Syria) we have Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
    On the other side (anti-Syria) we have USA/NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel.

    Defeating Assad and destroying an independent Syria primarily implies (among many other things) the following:

    1. Removing Russian forces from the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
    2. Cleaving and isolating Hezbollah from it's base of support.
    3. Securing territory for an energy corridor from the Gulf to Turkey.

    Number 1. - Benefits all of the anti-Syria players tactically (mostly USA/NATO), and strategically undermines Russia.
    Number 2. - Strategically benefits Israel with minor benefits to Gulf players, while tactically undermining Iran, and strategically undermining Hezbollah.
    Number 3. - Strategic benefits for Turkey and Gulf players, with perks for USA/NATO and Israel, while strategically damaging Russia and Iran.

    The Syrian war is a very, very loaded situation and will not go away until something breaks.
    For Russia and Hezbollah the stakes are huge (not to mention Syria!). For Iran they're not as bad. Perhaps this is why completing the Iran nuclear deal was suddenly so important for the USA a few months ago (against all the screaming out of Israel and Saudia).
    For the anti-Syria group the stakes are not so huge at all. Whatever they stand to gain comes at the expense of their efforts and risks little else. Their determination, opportunism and budgetary restrictions are the main determining factors. As long as there are willing mercenaries and money, they risk little in continuing their efforts.

    But...Things aren't going so well for the anti-Syria group after 4 yrs of proxy fighting they have tried several schemes to accelerate their efforts. Methods include: False flag chemical weapons attacks c/w controlled media narratives; destabilzation of Iraq in conjunction with the introduction of ever more radicalized 'islamist' proxies c/w controlled media narratives; crashing the price of oil; opening up another front against Russia and introducing sanctions. All of these were intended to shake Russia's grip and confidence, whilst hurrying up Assad's fall.
    All efforts seem to be having serious blow-back issues.

    Why all the sudden hysteria and hyperbole over a Russian presence in a proxy war? Perhaps as noted, to counter the blow-back and failures?

    Posted by: ToivoS | Sep 11, 2015 8:34:33 PM | 41

    Both Kerry and Obama have, in recent days, argued that Russia's support for Assad is responsible for the refugee crisis. I think they are getting very worried that Europe will begin to realize that the civil war supported by the US and its closest allies is causing the crisis. Today I noticed that the foreign ministers of Germany, Austria and Spain have suggested that Russia, Iran and, yes, Assad's forces could play a positive role in defeating ISIS. This is a major departure from the Assad must go policy that they supported at the urging of the US. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a major split between Europe and US over foreign policy. Not just Ukraine but the ME as well.

    Posted by: Willy2 | Sep 11, 2015 9:00:55 PM | 42

    - ISIS is a good excuse for Russia to increase their military support for Assad.

    - ISIS has been demonized in the US media and it was meant to drum up support for more military action against ISIS. And when one is bombing ISIS then one can easily start bombing Assad & Co. as well, right ? No, US military action against ISIS is simply a smoke screen for action against Assad. And Russia knows it IMO.

    - More over: British troops (SAS ??) are disguised as ISIS fighters in Syria. The UK & US have delayed actions against Syria because of the trouble brewing in the Ukraine. But now "Syria" has been put on the "front burner" again.

    Source: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/

    - I see a more devious reason why Russia increases support for Assad. This will lead to more "unrest" in Syria and will increase the amount of Syrians fleeing to Turkey. Combined with other economic problems (credit bubble, decreased tourism, collapse of turkish textile exports to Russia) it will be only a matter of time before Turkey's economy will receive a (giant) blow.

    And a collapse of Turkey is the last thing the US & NATO want. A military coup in Turkey is coming and will depose Erdogan. But a military coup WILL not solve the economic crisis in Turkey.

    So, Russia's actions in Syria could accelerate the end of a solid, stable & reliable Turkey for the US & NATO.

    Even if Russia wouldn't support Syria then increased US attacks on Syria will also lead to more syrian refugees.

    There're A LOT OF "moving parts". That makes a prediction of what's going to happen very difficult. But I do think the story above gives us a good clue what is likely to happen.

    Posted by: fast freddy | Sep 11, 2015 9:41:49 PM | 43

    Historically, the US has only attacked defenseless countries/people. A betting man would bet that the US will back off. The same pretense - attacking ISIS - provides a face-saving out for the US and a reason for Russia to participate.

    Posted by: Piotr Berman | Sep 11, 2015 10:49:10 PM | 47

    S-300 and S-400 are decent anti-aircraft weapons, Turkey tested it and lost a plane. But they require a bunch of radars which can be disabled by rebels, I think, and Israel bombed a number of times with impunity. Therefore the logistic chain for SAA would enormously benefit from restoring air defenses, and that would also put rest to any ideas, mooted in American and British press, to declare "no fly zone" over Syria and make short work of Syrian regime.

    So how one should go about it? I guess we see step one: radars and missiles on ship instantly bolster the air defense on the coast. I think that they operate with more than 100 mile radius, but against aircraft with countermeasures, multiple missiles are needed. So several land-based system will restore defenses from Latakia to Damascus and Jordanian border, and perhaps over Golan foothills.

    Concerning troops on the ground, I doubt if Russian would like to engage the rebels, but they may have guarding duties to secure radar facilities. That cannot be purely defensive to be effective, but there could be a mission creep. Similarly, it is better for Russia if Syrian pilots are engaged against the rebels, but they can improve their aircraft and weapon supplies. After all, barrel bombs were use surely because of the shortage of more effective bombs and missiles.

    The news from Germany are almost amazing. From concern at September 9 to support at September 11? Are both dispatches correct? Are the Germans so desperate that they would actually resort to a reasonable policy? After all, end of civil war in Syria, even with some lingering terrorism like in Algeria, could allow to deport/repatriate the refugees Germany suddenly volunteered to accept. Contrary to some interpretations, Germany does not have a shortage of workers given the surplus of workers (i.e. high unemployment) in Poland, Baltics and Balkans, including Greece I presume. Possible (but speculative) scenario: Merkel got a phone call from Israel that was so annoying that she decided to drop niceties and instructed her Foreign Ministry to be frank.

    Interesting image from Syria: Poster, Syria, 2015 The inscription reads: "These people kneel only before God"

    Great post, b, great comments, everyone.

    I think this move by Russia was totally foreseeable seeing as we did their very serious and meaningful actions following the Ghouta attacks. Now, with the usual suspects laying the groundwork for a similar plan, the Russians are again obliged to repeat the actions they took then - protecting the Syrian Government from those who seek to make it fall, and protecting the Syrian people from the bloody, chaotic consequences that would surely follow. To say he is "finally stepping up to the plate", IMHO, ignores the important actions Russia has taken not just to defend major parts of Syria, but to keep the West from bombing, the results of which would be far worse than even what has come to be in Libya. And that's an important point: there is far more at stake than just the chaos of Libya. In the case of Syria, there is the probability that sectarian genocide - run by the Takfiri forces funded by the Gulf States - would occur. Russia simply cannot allow that to take place.

    Syria means a great deal to Russia, and on so many more levels than people in the West understand. Syria is far more to Russia than just a base in the Mediterranean. If policy makers in the West are basing their calculus for Russian action on that relatively small issue, they are making grave miscalculations. There are real human and historical links that bind Russia and Syria. There are long standing political links that go deep back into the Soviet Era. A look at http://vk.com (you need to sign up to do searches) shows much concern over the war in Syria. There are Russians, like their counterparts in the West, who feel concerned because of the Christian link - though in Russia's case, this has an interesting historical link going back to the Czar claimed to be the defender of Christians in the Ottoman Empire. I imagine (and see evidence on VK) that Russians must also feel for the Syrian people because of the experience of the Second World War, presumably hearing the stories of their parents and grandparents of people facing conditions of total war. Finally, and this seems to make up the majority, there are those people there who clearly link all of Russia's battles - from Syria to Novorossiya - as all the same contest being directed against them from the United States. After all, the Russians know better than anyone the US links with radical Islam, and having witness the continued enmity of the US even following the dismantling of the USSR, the Russians may truthfully say (compared to the lie of George W. Bush saying it) that "we fight them in the Middle East, or we fight them at home".

    The point is that there are links between Russia and Syria at all levels. And it is from these links that comes three things: the willingness of the Russian Government to take risks in the situation, the ability of the Russian Government to formulate and honest and clear policy, and finally and most importantly, the public support which allows for taking those risks without facing backlash at home. Compare the domestic political strength of the Russian position with the general weakness of the Western policy, a weakness which was exposed during the last crisis where the anti-war voice was heard loudly enough that it had to be a part of the calculations of policy makers. Surely this comes from the convoluted policy of the West which falls apart with simple attempts to even describe it, a policy which has no internal consistency that can be explained to the public at all. There are no political links between Syria and the US, evident in the fact that the US could find only exiles to populate its "revolutionary government". The Christian link is certainly there... except that the US is on the wrong side of it. Then there is the idea of an alliance with Al Qaeda - an idea which could hardly be more repugnant to the American people (to be clearly separated from their leaders). So while the Russian Government can count on domestic support, the Western governments have to rely on media gimmicks which have definite shelf life and which are, at their core, untrue and so subject to controversy in the public discussion. The refugee story is an excellent example of this - the issue is real and its emotional appeal is undeniable, but using refugees as a case for more war? This is the same as trying to square the circle. It cannot be done. The same with goes for the promotion (and I do use the word advisedly) of ISIS as a threat ultimately works against the real US policy by opening the way for Russia to call of an anti-terrorist alliance.

    That said, there is the "honest" version of US policy, given in Senator Graham's statement posted by fairleft: "This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."

    That's as honest as you can get from a policy maker, of course. Syria is, for the US, another chance to smack Russia. The war is about achieving US aims, and war will continue until the US achieves them. Peace for the sake of peace figures no where in the equation. Those who don't follow the warlike policy are weaklings who are allowing themselves to be "slapped in the face". So it is honest, but bring that to the American people as an excuse for another war in the Middle East and you'll get laughed out of the room, forget about finding some kind of majority. As Grieved noted: "US foreign policy is obliged to maintain an ethical narrative with the US domestic population" and when there is absolutely zero behind the US narrative, then the majority of US citizens will not back it. The only question left, then, is wether the US elite is confident enough (read: anti-democratic enough and disconnected enough) to completely ignore public opinion.

    This only covers Russia's position, but the same goes for Iran. Though someone said the stakes for Iran in Syria are not so high, I disagree. I think the very clear threat to Hezbollah makes it a clear threat to Iran. Without Hezbollah, Iran will lose its main connection with Palestine and the struggle there, and this connection is a key to the Islamic Revolution's raison d'être as any. But the stakes for Iran are evident in the huge amount they've invested in fighting ISIS and al Qaeda in both Iraq and Syria. The Iranian's are no strangers to facing war by carried out by US puppets, and certainly they know very well that allowing a radical Takfiri state (allied with KSA and ultimately with the US) to form in the ashes of Iraq and Syria means war on Iran anyway so why not risk all to kill this viper in its nest?

    ==============

    Posted by: guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 12:45:25 AM | 48

    Posted by: fairleft | Sep 12, 2015 1:20:31 AM | 49

    Great post by b, great posts by everyone in the comments, especially:

    Pat Bateman | Sep 11, 2015 1:09:51 PM | 15

    Grieved | Sep 11, 2015 1:25:08 PM | 16

    b | Sep 11, 2015 3:09:47 PM | 24

    plantman | Sep 11, 2015 3:54:49 PM | 28 (Though I disagree generally, this is great: "The US has no "Off" switch anymore." Yes! There's an automatic quality to US military/economic aggression these days, unguided but PR-ed by people like Kerry/Obama. But the beast does have at least a reptile brain, and recoils for a period in the face of real danger. But the US proxies will keep on fighting, funding will likely be boosted, "let's have a war to save the refugees" will keep on being uncritically blasted from the 'respectable' media. More generally, the US will keep on coming, with one scheme after another for unipolar world power preservation. Each new one will be a bit less reality-based until the game is lost, I hope.)

    guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 12:45:25 AM | 47

    Posted by: jfl | Sep 12, 2015 2:27:11 AM | 52

    BREAKING: US drones strike Syrian Army, blame ISIS

    Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) of the US Air Force struck Syrian government forces [at Camac near Hamah] on September 10. This was stated by the senior representative of the Syrian military. He pointed out that this attack was disguised as an air strike by militants of the Islamic State, allegedly using a captured MiG-21.

    According to a Syrian air force colonel, militants of the Islamic State successfully managed to capture the military air field [Abu al-Duhur]. However, no current equipment had been there by the time, as everything was previously transferred to other air fields so as to avoid seizure by the terrorists ... militants of the Islamic State physically could not carry out air strikes on the positions of the Syrian military. ... Citing anonymous US officials, the newspaper [Washington Post] writes that the CIA and Joint Command of Special Operations are implementing a joint program of drone flights over Syria. The secret program means a significant strengthening of CIA intervention in the war in Syria.

    According to the statements of high-ranking military in Syria, it was drones, and not "terrorist MiG's" which attacked the Syrian army. This is not the first time that US forces have struck the Syrian army, hiding behind the Islamic State.

    It would be nice to see open season on US drones in Syria ... and not only in Syria. In Yemen as well. Someone above, Okie Farmer, calls attention to the fact that ...
    Nils Muiznieks of the Council of Europe called the developments [Residents in the mainly Kurdish town [Cizre] say they have been unable to buy food or medical supplies since the military imposed a curfew eight days ago.] "distressing".

    ... how long has it been since all the Yemenis in Yemen have been unable to buy food or medical supplies? Anyone heard anything from the Council of Europe on that one? Not so much, aye.

    The report I read of the fall of Abu al-Duhur yesterday emphasized Al CIA-da's subsequent straight line of attack against Latakia in consequence. Interesting to see them attack the Russians ensconced there. No doubt they'd have US drone support?

    Posted by: jfl | Sep 12, 2015 3:02:53 AM | 53

    A Russian-Egyptian alliance?


    Rapidly expanding instability in the Middle East, coupled with the inconsistency of Washington's foreign policy, is driving Arab leaders to seek partners and allies on the side.

    Several high-ranking politicians from a number of Muslim countries, such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Deputy Supreme Commander of the UA, Mohammed al-Nahyan, Vice-President of Iran Surna Sattari, Syrian Minister for National Reconciliation Ali Haidar, and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah, all visited Moscow on business trips. It is this last meeting which is of greater interest ...

    The problem of combatting the spread of radical islam and expanding the geography of a "Green International" occupies a special place in Russian-Egyptian relations. In particular, the President of Egypt expressed his support for the Russian program for resolving the Syrian conflict, whose main point is the necessity of forming a broad anti-terrorist coalition led by Syrian government forces.

    The solidarity of the Egyptian side with Putin's proposed plan of settling the Syrian conflict means exactly one thing: Egypt not only recognizes the legitimacy of Bashar al-Assad, but also believes that "the tyrant doesn't have to leave at all." This is a very significant statement, as the main sponsor of Egypt is Saudi Arabia, for whom the overthrow of Assad is a cornerstone of regional policy.


    It's still difficult to see who will step up to the plate and dispatch the CIA/Daesh, but it does seem clear that Syria has more supporters now than a few weks ago, and is gaining more, or firmer support daily. Putin would not stick his neck out if he thought it might get chopped off. And if the Russian presence in Syria restrains the Israelis ... that alone is worthwhile. May it restrain European knee-jerk support for the USA, too.

    The 'leadership' in the USA is divided, just as b points out. Things are happening 'to' the US and they are reacting. They've done the 'best' they can, conjured up the worst demons whose names they knew, and it still hasn't 'worked out'. Worse, their vassals have noticed that it hasn't, noticed that the US is reacting rather than acting, noticed that things have slipped beyond the US' control.

    Multiple-centers of power may well now emerge, beginning in Europe and MENA. The US may well have foolishly, though successfully divided its own power base, and conquered itself.

    irgile | Sep 12, 2015 11:06:05 AM | 63

    Kerry's surprise appears totally theatrical and destined mainly to the Saudis and to the supporters of the Syrian opposition

    The decision of Turkey to join the coalition has triggered an expected reaction from Russia.
    Turkey has been long committed to a regime change in Syria. While Saudi and Qatar's would obey the USA in refraining from bombing the Syrian army, Turkey may find it the best opportunity to weaken the Syrian government, boost Erdogan's credibility and protect the Islamist militias they have been funding and supporting in Syria. The USA has little leverage on Turkey from the moment it uses the Incirlik base.
    That's the reason why Russia decided to show its teeth. No way would it accept that the US coalition threatens the Syrian army. It has been expecting this to happen and has been prepared for a long time.
    Iran is also preparing for the same and will act in defense of the Alawites and Hezbollah in case Damascus or the coast is seriously threatened.

    In view of the tougher attitude of Russia and Iran, the Turks have tried to reassure them that they are too busy repressing Kurds and dealing with their doomed "snap election" that they have no intentions of attacking anybody in Syria. The Russians and the Iranians just do not trust the Turks and took their precautions. I trust that we will not see a single Turkish plane bombing Syria !

    The official entrance of Russia in Syria is a game changer and the USA is discreetly playing its part

    john | Sep 12, 2015 12:47:35 PM | 74

    Virgile @ 63 says:

    The USA has little leverage on Turkey from the moment it uses the Incirlik base

    WTF does that mean? the USA has used the Incirlik air base uninterruptedly since they built it in 1951. it has always been central to wars both cold and hot in the region and plenty of other imperial subterfuge as well(spawning ground for 'ISIS'?). it sports state-of-the-art surveillance equipment, a 10,000 ft runway and 50 or so hardened aircraft shelters. it's home to the 39th air base wing and about 5,000 airmen and repository for something like 90 b61 nuclear warheads.

    i don't think they need no stinkin' leverage.

    GoraDiva | Sep 12, 2015 3:36:48 PM | 78

    An excellent explanation from a Syrian commentator at the Saker
    http://thesaker.is/war-on-syria-not-quite-according-to-plan-part-1-the-islamist-american-love-hate-quagmire-facts-and-myths/
    (Too bad Juan Cole does not really understand (never has) what is going on in Syria and the wider ME.)
    This post gives a lot of background - some known, some less so, and an explanation of where ISIS is coming from.

    guest77 | Sep 12, 2015 3:54:50 PM | 79

    Russia's deepening military involvement in Syria will make it harder to dislodge Bashar al-Assad from power and find a political solution to the war raging there, President Barack Obama said....

    "The strategy they're pursuing now, doubling down on Assad, I think is a big mistake," Obama said Friday in remarks to military personnel at Fort Meade, Maryland.

    tom | Sep 12, 2015 4:09:19 PM | 80

    These Obama comments posted by rufus say it all. To paraphrase Our Dear Peace Prize Winner - "The US wants a political solution! (only after we've achieved all our military aim of removing the government)". How gracious.

    After this logical blunder, he goes on to give us his analysis of Putin's latest moves as "a big mistake". From the man who never passed up a foul compromised deal, be it on taxes or healthcare, he ought to know a big mistake. But I imagine he is safe from that knowledge safe in his little Presidential cocoon. Obama goes from mistake to mistake, he hardly needs to be giving others lessons in that regard.

    America's "HOPE" President, now on track to have initiated more overthrows of governments than Eisenhower and Nixon combined.

    Just on adding to the comment on Turkish leverage with the U.S. By allowing them to use the Incirlik airbase.

    No matter what conditions the Turks think they can force onto the US, it will be completely delusional if they believe it. The endlessly duplicitous US Empire couldn't give a fuck about what fake promises they made as they have forever shown.

    Imagine during the US bombing campaign in Syria using the Incirlik airbase ( or any over Turkish military facility ) In a way works against Turkeys wishes, hegemony or its interests, what are they gonna do, demand the US stop using our base in the middle of a US war ? The Turks might as well declare war on the US itself if they tried that.

    US could arm Turkish Kurds to make life difficult for the Turkish military, and an endless array of other threats.
    There's only one current military empire and it's like not like the US doesn't know it.
    The Turks know it and the US knows it - in other words, nearly no leverage whatsoever.

    rufus magister | Sep 12, 2015 4:25:07 PM | 81

    g77 at 78 --

    I esp. like the way it elides the fact that we created, along with the French, this whole mess in Syria to begin with.

    Haven't we learned any lessons about implementing fantasies of transformative regime change? Especially when using fundamentalist proxies supplied by our theocratic Saudi friends.

    jfl | Sep 12, 2015 4:39:45 PM | 82

    @69 harry law, @77 goradiva

    I think Juan Cole understands completely. He's an army brat, a born and bred American imperialist of the kinder, gentler variety.

    @67

    The Iranians have a better take on the Saudi crane.

    @46 virgile, @66 james

    Yes ... that article to the 'insiders' indicates that Kerry/the US expects Saudi Arabia and the Gulfies to finish off their war games in Yemen and swing up to help Daesh/ISIS give Assad/Syria the Gaddalfi/Libya treatment.

    There seems to be no limit to the depths to which the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate will sink, and the velocity of my country's implosion continues to accelerate. Like a black hole it is sucking "Western Civilization" into its vortex. Nothing, not even light - if there were any, can escape.

    john | Sep 13, 2015 6:38:59 AM | 85

    john @ 73 says:

    i don't think they need no stinkin' leverage

    the Turkey/US deal regarding the use of the Incirlik base was a real big talking point in the nooze a while back. a perfect example of parsable fodder fit for the hoi polloi. any suggestion that the US hegemon asks permission for anything from anyone is risible.

    Sibel Edmonds cuts to the chase.

    Jackrabbit | Sep 13, 2015 1:00:46 PM | 87

    Interesting discussion. Especially liked "no off switch".

    fairleft @60
    Don't you think Russia would probably prefer not to send planes over ISIS-controlled territory?

    jfl | Sep 13, 2015 8:32:43 PM | 93

    The Saker has an interesting analysis of the Russians - Iranians, Hezbolla - in Syria.

    brian | Sep 13, 2015 10:59:34 PM | 96

    amazing! US media war dance:

    '"This is a chance for us to slap Russia hard, because what they are doing is making America less safe," he said. "The Russians are just slapping President Obama and Secretary Kerry in the face. This is a complete insult to their efforts to try to find a solution to Syria. They've made Assad's survivability more likely, which means the war in Syria never ends."'

    does the writer believe what he writes?
    a war in syria makes insecure america less safe how? Doesnt the US backed war in Yemen make america less safe?

    Obama and Kerry have never sought a solution that didnt involve more chaos and more jihadis.

    Americans whether in the backwoods of Oregon or the towers of NY live in ignorance and hopes the rest of us are

    brian | Sep 13, 2015 11:36:35 PM | 97

    US and its media continnue to act as agents of ISIS and alnusra as we see in Josh Rogins article... while doing his best to twist reality into a pretzel http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/russias_syrian_air_base_has_us.html

    Piotr Berman | Sep 15, 2015 7:27:07 PM | 108

    Re: Louis Proyect, "So funny that ..."

    I prefer fun not based on thousands lives lost and millions lives wrecked. A more thoughtful analysis would start from examining cases of similar terrible conflicts in the past and present. Mexican revolution lasted ten years of "war of all against all", and so did La Violencia in Colombia. Violence is still present in those societies even if governments are quite stable -- and sketchily democratic. Algeria had a conflict of similar duration, now the regime seems to be stable again.

    Americans ("American-led coalition") did not lack resources in Afghanistan and Iraq, and results were woeful. The prognosis of GCC + USA + mercenary allies in Yemen is not good at all, even with "reasonable goal of restoring to power the legitimate President who won elections with 99.8% votes cast and 65% turnout" and all weapons that oil money can buy (although those monies were stashed in better years than 2015).

    The positive stories are Algeria and various regimes that survived ethnic and other rebellions, usually (not always) with Western aid. Three ingredients may be crucial: domestic force with a sufficiently wide base and military competence, supplies of war material, and restricting those supplies to the opponents. Iraq has widely based government of mediocre competence, Syrian government seems to have narrower base (but not an isolated small elite group) but it demonstrated much higher level of competence.

    Given that Syrian government had modest resources and yet survived and brought the insurgency more-or-less to stalemate, in spite of copious supplies that it got, it is reasonable to expect that with somewhat larger external resources it can actually win. By the way of contrast, if we eliminate "the regime", the governability of Syria is very questionable, given the record of atrocities AND infighting among the opposition. Mad Max movies give an almost prophetic depiction of what can be expected.

    Of course, the West can easily increase the supplies to the opposition forces, But the sober question asked here if this is a good idea: fomenting a number of atrocious wars for some vague and contradictory goals. It is worth to observe that we do not have any Iron Curtain any more, so atrocious problems created "on the other side" trickle to "our side". Also, if simply doing nothing is more humane and decent than the current course of action, one should expeditiously stop funding and otherwise facilitating the supply of weapons and recruits to rebels in Syria and Iraq, and drop embargoes affecting the government of Syria, and we can get Algerian solution, perhaps more democratic, perhaps less, hopefully much better governance than in Egypt. If the Islamists of Turkey would loose face and power in the process, it could be a huge bonus.

    Turkey shows Western dilemma starkly: we start from "exporting freedom" and we end up importing police state.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Oil prices weak on economic concerns, OPEC target on market share

    finance.yahoo.com

    U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were trading at $46.74 per barrel at 0535 GMT, down 16 cents from their last settlement. Brent prices were at $49.12 per barrel, up 4 cents.

    Kuwait, a key producer of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), said on Thursday the oil market would balance itself but that this would take time, indicating support for the group's policy of defending market share despite falling prices.

    ... ... ...

    Analysts had suggested a weaker greenback - a usual result of low interest rates - would support oil, as it makes dollar-traded crude cheaper for countries using other currencies.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Popular Russian pranksters claim responsibility for calling Elton John

    "...Sir Elton John believed that he had been talking to Russian president. "Thank-you to President Vladimir Putin for reaching out and speaking via telephone with me today. I look to forward to meeting with you face-to-face to discuss LGBT equality in Russia," he wrote in his Instagram post. "
    "...Why Obama and Cameron are silent? Why all those who (once again) fell to this kind of "real Russian reporting" are silent too? Tsk! "

    Lyttenburgh, September 16, 2015 at 9:50 pm
    Russian Pranksters Take Responsibility for Elton John Putin Call

    Popular Russian pranksters known as Vovan (Vladimir Krasnov) and Lexus (Alexei Stolyarov) claim responsibility for calling Elton John and talking to him on behalf of Vladimir Putin and Dmitriy Peskov respectably. Part of the 11-minutes phone call will be aired during "Vecherniy Urgant" TV show.

    Sir Elton John believed that he had been talking to Russian president. "Thank-you to President Vladimir Putin for reaching out and speaking via telephone with me today. I look to forward to meeting with you face-to-face to discuss LGBT equality in Russia," he wrote in his Instagram post.

    Shortly after that, Vladimir Putin's press secretary denied that the call took place. Kremlin representative also supposed that Elton John's account could be a fake.
    ________________________________________________________________________

    Why Obama and Cameron are silent? Why all those who (once again) fell to this kind of "real Russian reporting" are silent too? Tsk!

    Fern, September 17, 2015 at 5:29 pm
    I did find this prank pretty funny – Elton John has an ego the size of Montana. Anyone else would have thought 'gee, on a balance of probabilities, how likely is it that the President of Russia would find the time in his day to contact an ageing British pop star to discuss something of peripheral interest to him?"
    Patient Observer, September 17, 2015 at 5:32 pm
    Sir Elton was cringe-worthy.
    marknesop, September 17, 2015 at 6:04 pm
    I'm afraid I laughed at it, too. Although I did love "Saturday Night's All Right For Fighting" and "I Guess That's why they Call it the Blues". Sorry, Sir John. At least it did not end in tragedy, as in the case of that nurse in Australia who hanged herself after being tricked by a similar prank.

    Sir John might have been suspicious as well, but being gay has gone to his head and he has let that define him more than anything else. If "Putin" had asked him to sing "Rocket Man" over the phone to him, he would have suspected a trick immediately. But the opportunity to be a spokesman for the homosexual agenda made him throw caution to the winds.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Russian Insider article concerning the ever truthful and impartial BBC

    "...You Tube clip BBC Propaganda, Lies, Bias & Cover-Ups posted by a commenter to this Russian Insider article concerning the ever truthful and impartial BBC (which is not state unded, of course) announcement that it is starting a special Russian language service to counter "Kremlin funded" RT "propaganda"
    Moscow Exile, September 16, 2015 at 1:42 am
    You Tube clip BBC Propaganda, Lies, Bias & Cover-Ups posted by a commenter to this Russian Insider article concerning the ever truthful and impartial BBC (which is not state funded, of course) announcement that it is starting a special Russian language service to counter "Kremlin funded" RT "propaganda:
    marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 7:58 am
    There was a very good clip in a comment to one of the Russia Insider articles yesterday, too, featuring that Russo-Spanish chap that Yalensis once posted here doing a report from Crimea, in which he mostly just walked around and pointed out the signs of normality and prosperity which were at odds with official reporting.

    His new piece was called Mosaic of Facts; it was quite good. Miguel-Frances Santiago, yeah, that's it.

    I believe he mentions his family is part-Russian, although he does not appear to speak it.

    [Sep 18, 2015] The Russians are Coming! by Graham E. Fuller

    "...A remarkably sound analysis by Graham Fuller on Russia and Syria: http://grahamefuller.com/the-russians-are-coming/
    Despite his CIA pedigree and the Tsarnaev connection, Fuller has moments of lucidity occasionally – he published a book in the 1990s arguing that Iran under the ayatollahs was nowhere near as totalitarian as the Western groupthink suggested, and in some ways outpaced Israel, 'the-only-democracy-in-the-midlle-east', in terms of societal openness."
    "...The overthrow of Asad seemed a simple task in 2011 as the Arab Spring sparked early uprisings against him. The US readily supported that goal, as did Turkey along with Saudi Arabia and others. As the Asad regime began to demonstrate serious signs of resilience, however, the US and Turkey stepped up support to nominally moderate and secular armed opposition against Damascus, thereby extending the brutal civil war."
    "...For similar reasons Iran's long-time open challenge against American ability act with impunity in the Middle East has always constituted a deep source of American strategic anger-viscerally surpassing the more Israel-driven nuclear issue."
    "...In my view, the fall of Asad will not bring peace but will instead guarantee deadly massive long-term civil conflict in Syria among contending successors in which radical jihadi forces are likely to predominate-unless the west commits major ground forces to impose and supervise a peace. We've been there once before in the Iraq scenario. A replay of Iraq surely is not what the West wants."
    "...What Russia will not accept in the Middle East is another unilateral US (or "NATO") fait accompli in "regime change" that does not carry full UN support. (China's interests are identical to Russia's in most respects here.)"
    "...It is essential that the US not extend its new Cold War with Russia into the Middle East where shared interests are fairly broad - unless one rejects that very supposition on ideological grounds. The same goes for Iran."
    September 14, 2015 | grahamefuller.com

    Washington has been wrapped in confusion and indecision for years now in trying to sort out just what its real objectives are in Syria. Its obsessive, and ultimately failed goal of denying Iran influence in the Middle East has notably receded with Obama's admirable success in reaching a deal with Iran on the nuclear issue and gradual normalization of Iran's place in the world.

    But while the Israel lobby and its Republican allies failed to block Obama's painstaking work in reaching that agreement, they now seem determined to hobble its implementation in any way possible. This is utterly self-defeating: unable to block Iran's re-emergence they seem determined to deny themselves any of the key payoffs of the agreement-the chance to work with Iran selectively on several important common strategic goals: the isolation and defeat of ISIS, a settlement in Syria that denies a jihadi takeover, the rollback of sectarianism as a driving force in the region, a peaceful settlement in Iran's neighbor Afghanistan, and the freeing up of energy/pipeline options across Asia.

    But let's address this Syrian issue. There's a new development here-stepped up Russian involvement-that poses new challenge to the American neocon strategic vision. So here is where Washington needs to sort out what it really wants in Syria. Is the main goal still to erode Iranian influence in the region by taking out Iran's ally in Damascus? Or does it want to check Russian influence in the Middle East wherever possible in order to maintain America's (fast becoming illusory) dominant influence? These two goals had seemed to weigh more heavily in Washington's calculus than Syrian domestic considerations. In other words, Asad is a proxy target.

    There are two major countries in the world at this point capable of exerting serious influence over Damascus-Russia and Iran. Not surprisingly, they possess that influence precisely because they both enjoy long-time good ties with Damascus; Asad obviously is far more likely to listen to tested allies than heed the plans of enemies dedicated to his overthrow.

    The overthrow of Asad seemed a simple task in 2011 as the Arab Spring sparked early uprisings against him. The US readily supported that goal, as did Turkey along with Saudi Arabia and others. As the Asad regime began to demonstrate serious signs of resilience, however, the US and Turkey stepped up support to nominally moderate and secular armed opposition against Damascus, thereby extending the brutal civil war.

    That calculus began to change when radical jihadi groups linked either to al-Qaeda or to ISIS (the "Islamic State") began to overshadow moderate opposition forces. As ruthless as Asad had been in crushing domestic opposition, it became clear that any likely successor government would almost surely be dominated by such radical jihadi forces-who simply fight more effectively than the West's preferred moderate and secular groups who never got their act together.

    Enter Russia. Moscow had already intervened swiftly and effectively in 2013 to head off a planned US airstrike on Damascus to take out chemical weapons by convincing Damascus to freely yield up its chemical weapons; the plan actually succeeded. This event helped overcome at least Obama's earlier reluctance to recognize the potential benefits of Russian influence in the Middle East to positively serve broader western interests in the region as well.

    Russia is of course no late-comer to the region: Russian tsars long acted as the protector of Eastern Orthodox Christians in the Middle East in the nineteenth century; the Russians had been diplomatic players in the geopolitical game in the region long before the creation of the Soviet Union. During the West's Cold War with the Soviet Union the two camps often strategically supported opposite sides of regional conflicts: Moscow supported revolutionary Arab dictators while the West supported pro-western dictators. Russia has had dominant military influence in Syria for over five decades through weapons sales, diplomatic support, and its naval base in Tartus.

    With the collapse of the USSR in 1991 Russian influence in the area sharply declined for the first time as the new Russia sorted itself out. America then began declaring itself the "world's sole superpower," allegedly now free to shape the world strategically as it saw fit. And the significant neoconservative and liberal interventionist factions in Washington still nourish the same mentality today-predicated on the belief that the US can continue to maintain primacy around the world-economic, military, and diplomatic. In this sense, any acknowledgment of Russian influence in the Middle East (or elsewhere) represents an affront, even "a threat" to US dominance and prestige.

    For similar reasons Iran's long-time open challenge against American ability act with impunity in the Middle East has always constituted a deep source of American strategic anger-viscerally surpassing the more Israel-driven nuclear issue.

    Today the combination of Russia and Iran (whose interests do not fully coincide either) exert major influence over the weakening Asad regime.

    If we are truly concerned about ISIS we must recognize that restoration of a modicum of peace in Syria and Iraq are essential prerequisites to the ultimate elimination of ISIS that feeds off of the chaos.

    Russia appears now to be unilaterally introducing new military forces, stepped up weapons deliveries, and possibly including limited troop numbers into Syria specifically to back the Asad regime's staying power. Washington appears dismayed at this turn of events, and has yet to make up its mind whether it would rather get rid of Asad, or get rid of ISIS. It is folly to think that both goals can be achieved militarily.

    In my view, the fall of Asad will not bring peace but will instead guarantee deadly massive long-term civil conflict in Syria among contending successors in which radical jihadi forces are likely to predominate-unless the west commits major ground forces to impose and supervise a peace. We've been there once before in the Iraq scenario. A replay of Iraq surely is not what the West wants.

    So just how much of a "threat" is an enhanced Russian military presence in Syria? It is simplistic to view this as some zero-sum game in which any Russian gain is an American loss. The West lived with a Soviet naval base in Syria for many decades; meanwhile the US itself has dozens of military bases in the Middle East. (To many observers, these may indeed represent part of the problem.)

    Even were Syria to become completely subservient to Russia, US general interests in the region would not seriously suffer (unless one considers maintenance of unchallenged unilateral power to be the main US interest there. I don't.) The West has lived with such a Syrian regime before. Russia, with its large and restive Muslim population and especially Chechens, is more fearful of jihadi Islam than is even the US. If Russia were to end up putting combat troops on the ground against ISIS (unlikely) it would represent a net gain for the West. Russia is far less hated by populations in the Middle East than is the US (although Moscow is quite hated by many Muslims of the former Soviet Union.) Russia is likely to be able to undertake military operations against jihadis from bases within Syria. Indeed, it will certainly shore up Damascus militarily-rather than allowing Syria to collapse into warring jihadi factions.

    What Russia will not accept in the Middle East is another unilateral US (or "NATO") fait accompli in "regime change" that does not carry full UN support. (China's interests are identical to Russia's in most respects here.)

    We are entering a new era in which the US is increasingly no longer able to call the shots in shaping the international order. Surely it is in the (enlightened) self-interest of the US to see an end to the conflict in Syria with all its cross-border sectarian viciousness in Iraq. Russia is probably better positioned than any other world player to exert influence over Asad. The US should be able to comfortably live even with a Russian-dominated Syria if it can bring an end to the conflict-especially when Washington meanwhile is allied with virtually every one of Syria's neighbors. (How long Asad himself stays would be subject to negotiation; his personal presence is not essential to 'Alawi power in Syria.)

    What can Russia do to the West from its long-term dominant position in Syria? Take Syria's (virtually non-existent) oil? Draw on the wealth of this impoverished country? Increase arms sales to the region (no match for US arms sales)? Threaten Israel? Russia already has close ties with Israel and probably up to a quarter of Israel's population are Russian Jews.

    Bottom line: Washington does not have the luxury of playing dog in the manger in "managing" the Middle East, especially after two decades or more of massive and destructive policy failure on virtually all fronts.

    It is essential that the US not extend its new Cold War with Russia into the Middle East where shared interests are fairly broad-unless one rejects that very supposition on ideological grounds. The same goes for Iran.

    We have to start someplace.

    Graham E. Fuller is a former senior CIA official, author of numerous books on the Muslim World; his latest book is "Breaking Faith: A novel of espionage and an American's crisis of conscience in Pakistan." (Amazon, Kindle) grahamefuller.com

    [Sep 18, 2015] Poroshenko is deliberately overpricing the company so it won't sell

    marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 12:49 pm
    Well, actually, he did, if I remember correctly. Roshen was indeed placed in a trust, so that Poroshenko cannot fiddle with the day-to-day running of it, which he would hardly have time to do anyway. Yeah…here's a mention of it; Rothschild's (surprise!!) is holding on to it for him, and it was Nestle who offered "no more than a Billion dollars" for the company. According to the article, it is just the owners' judgment that says it is worth three times that amount, and it seems odd an American company would try to rip off America's good friend by low-balling him. I wonder if he has not deliberately priced it so it won't sell.

    According to Sputnik, the company is worth $1.5 Billion, although they don't say how that figure was arrived upon, either. I know you will be surprised to learn that Poroshenko blames….Russia for his failure to sell the company. Uh huh, he said "at the moment, Russian authorities – and it would be better to ask [the management of] Roshen about this, are preventing the sale…In any case, it must be carried through to the end."

    Hmmm….I'm kind of editing this as I go along, as I find more information. Here's what is to me the most informative site so far; Kapital says the company was assessed at $1.6 Billion by Eavex Capital Investment company. Eavex is the former Sincome Capital, relaunched as Eavex following the acquisition of a 10% minority shareholding by Accuro Group (Zurich). Eavex reports that two factories have been shut down; Lipetsk, in Russia, and Mariupol. Perhaps that has something to do with the zeal with which the state military is defending Mariupol; if that factory could be restored to stable production, the company's worth could go up to $2.1 Billion. The current assessed value is based on "a multiplier calculated on financial performance of the corporation in previous periods", to which a discount is applied for reduced volume of business. But you have to hand it to Roshen – even without Poroshenko's steady hand on the tiller, they have increased their stores in Kiev to 18, a 38.4% increase over 2013. Roshen chocolates and candies are also sold in supermarkets and retail chain stores, and new supermarkets increased by more than 20% in Ukraine in 2013.

    Anyway, it does look like Poroshenko is deliberately overpricing the company so it won't sell. Nestle offered $1 Billion even, the company as it currently stands is worth $1.6 Billion, if it could restore the Mariupol factory to stable production and perhaps dispose of the Lipetsk factory it might be worth as much as $2.1 Billion, and Poroshenko is asking almost $1 Billion more than that.

    et Al, September 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm
    I sit corrected (the cat has f/k'd off). Then it makes eminent sense to not sell now, especially to Nestlé who are as brutal as you would expect from an American company. They bought Cadbury in the UK a few years back, the Conservative government receiving 'ass-urances' that they won't butcher Cadbury. Of course, Nestlé did. It was another case of a US company off-shoring its taxes to the UK (big pharma has done this too with the UK), which is weird. We are told that the US is great for companies because it has low tax blah blah blah blah.

    So, why do US globocorps need to shift their tax address to countries like the UK to avoid paying tax. I say follow Italy's model. Massively support SMEs and make sure they co-operate with each other as the sum of parts so that they are global competitors. This is what German companies do. They band together and go global. The Frogs, not so much.

    I 'know' a French engineer who want to take his 3D printing patent big time. His boss won't fund it as it is 'high risk', no other French company is interested because of IP and who gets the cash. In the EU, if you can pony up half the development money from private sources, the EU will pitch in the other half, particularly for ground-breaking and innnovative products. I asked him if he'd looked abroad. No. I even suggested Japan as this is what James Dyson of bagless hoover fame did. Not one single European white goods manufacturer gave him any time. A big Japanese company did which meant he could set up his laboratory and factory in the UK. When Euro-companies started copying his designs, he had the full weight of a massive Japanese corporation's legal department to shit on them from a great height.

    The crux being, if the U S A is so great for business, WTF are they doing tax dodging in expensive, crappy Europe (mofos)? /rant

    Jen, September 16, 2015 at 6:03 pm
    I believe the Cameron govt keeps cutting corporation tax, precisely to attract more money, and Ireland, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and Switzerland also have very low corporate tax rates. Jersey and the Isle of Man (both part of the UK) are also attractive places for US investment.
    https://home.kpmg.com/xx/en/home/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/tax-rates-online/corporate-tax-rates-table.html
    marknesop , September 16, 2015 at 12:37 pm
    It is worth mentioning also that Poroshenko was a co-drafter of the European Association Agreement, before he ran for office. It has been suggested that he wrote a number of amendments into it which would have been extremely beneficial – not to mention lucrative – for Roshen had the transition been the great and thunderous success Europe plainly expected it to be. Little bit of a conflict of interest there, but it might help to explain why he is holding on to his business. After all, if nobody's buying but you genuinely want to sell, you drop your price a little, sort of feel around to see where the floor is. Poroshenko has never dropped his price to the very best of my knowledge, and some Candy News site reported a large company – Cadbury, or somebody in their league, I forget now – made an offer but it was much too low for Poroshenko. This further imples he is not really interested in selling and may even have deliberately priced it too high, because he expects to return to life as a wealthy…ahem…"tycoon" once he has served his penance as Ukraininan leader.
    Moscow Exile, September 16, 2015 at 9:41 pm
    The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine purchased 4 tons of chocolate from LLC "Kyiv Confectionery Company" on September 2, also known as the official distributor of the Roshen Corporation. The total transaction amounted to 995 520 UAH [$45,923].

    See Fort Russ: Ukrainian MOD bought 4 tons of Roshen chocolate for the Ukrainian army

    September 15, 2015 at 9:45 am

    Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/13/whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin/

    Exclusive: Official Washington's new "group think" is to blame Russia's President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted "regime change," says Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

    Graham's grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren't eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out…

    …Privately, I'm told, Obama agreed to - and may have even encouraged - Putin's increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it's the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can't endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times' editorial page…
    ####

    Yes.

    marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 11:49 am
    There was a fascinating comment to that article, which seemed to me very informed and was a genuine eye-opener. For instance, the western media regularly raves on ad infinitum about Assad's "Allawite power structure". It was a complete surprise to me to learn "In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister."

    I'll repeat the entire comment here; it comes from Wolf Mato, and contains an excellent and informative link which proves the U.S. military community at least is well aware of the inclusive nature of the Syrian government. There seems little doubt that the United States government is aware of it as well.

    This is the first article about Syria here, with which I nearly fully agree, and so I try it again to make a comment, after two earlier attempts to comment on other articles failed.

    Putin can indeed be blamed partly for the Syrian mess, because a more decisive support of the Government in the early stages of the uprising or bombing campaigns against Jabhat al-Nusra and IS in 2013 would have quelled the insurgency. Russia also should have moved against Turkey, but Putin didn't want to jeopardize trade with Turkey. He proposed even a "Turkish Stream" natural gas pipeline, but negotiation about this project fortunately have collapsed, so Russia doesn't have to take care about Turkish sensibilities.

    I don't agree with the sentence: "So, although it's surely true that Syrian security forces struck back fiercely at times in the brutal civil war…" This appears to be a concession to the popular presumption, established via million times repeated catchphrases (butcher Assad), that Syria is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, where the Sunni majority is suppressed by an Alawite clique.

    The classification of the Syrian war as a "civil war" is debatable, it could as well be seen as an undeclared war of aggression by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, the USA).

    I also object to the sentence: "The obvious solution would be a power-sharing arrangement that gives Sunnis more of a say."

    Sunni are represented sufficiently and pols in 2012 and 2013 showed, that the majority of Sunnis support Bashar al-Assad. Sunnis are represented in the government as well as in the security apparatus and account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army. Many high ranking officers are Sunni.

    Even a West Point analysis had to acknowledge that https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/syrias-sunnis-and-the-regimes-resilience.

    In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister.

    Beside that, who should take part in a power sharing transitional government? Who of the external opposition figures has enough support of the Syrian population to justify an inclusion is a power sharing government?

    Please name the people in the external opposition who could be entrusted with reconciling the war-torn nation?

    In my opinion, this guy's comment kicks the stool out from under nearly every western commentator on the subject. Well done, Mr. Mato – well done.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!

    et Al, September 15, 2015 at 9:45 am
    Robert Parry: Who's to Blame for Syria Mess? Putin!
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/13/whos-to-blame-for-syria-mess-putin/

    Exclusive: Official Washington's new "group think" is to blame Russia's President Putin for the Syrian crisis, although it was the neocons and President George W. Bush who started the current Mideast mess by invading Iraq, the Saudis who funded Al Qaeda, and the Israelis who plotted "regime change," says Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    Sen. Lindsey Graham may have been wrong about pretty much everything related to the Middle East, but at least he has the honesty to tell Americans that the current trajectory of the wars in Syria and Iraq will require a U.S. re-invasion of the region and an open-ended military occupation of Syria, draining American wealth, killing countless Syrians and Iraqis, and dooming thousands, if not tens of thousands, of U.S. troops.

    Graham's grim prognostication of endless war may be a factor in his poll numbers below one percent, a sign that even tough-talking Republicans aren't eager to relive the disastrous Iraq War. Regarding the mess in Syria, there are, of course, other options, such as cooperation with Russia and Iran to resist the gains of the Islamic State and Al Qaeda and a negotiated power-sharing arrangement in Damascus. But those practical ideas are still being ruled out…

    …Privately, I'm told, Obama agreed to - and may have even encouraged - Putin's increased support for the Assad regime, realizing it's the only real hope of averting a Sunni-extremist victory. But publicly Obama senses that he can't endorse this rational move. Thus, Obama, who has become practiced at speaking out of multiple sides of his mouth, joined in bashing Russia – sharing that stage with the usual suspects, including The New York Times' editorial page…
    ####

    Yes.

    marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 11:49 am
    There was a fascinating comment to that article, which seemed to me very informed and was a genuine eye-opener. For instance, the western media regularly raves on ad infinitum about Assad's "Allawite power structure". It was a complete surprise to me to learn "In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister."

    I'll repeat the entire comment here; it comes from Wolf Mato, and contains an excellent and informative link which proves the U.S. military community at least is well aware of the inclusive nature of the Syrian government. There seems little doubt that the United States government is aware of it as well.

    This is the first article about Syria here, with which I nearly fully agree, and so I try it again to make a comment, after two earlier attempts to comment on other articles failed.

    Putin can indeed be blamed partly for the Syrian mess, because a more decisive support of the Government in the early stages of the uprising or bombing campaigns against Jabhat al-Nusra and IS in 2013 would have quelled the insurgency. Russia also should have moved against Turkey, but Putin didn't want to jeopardize trade with Turkey. He proposed even a "Turkish Stream" natural gas pipeline, but negotiation about this project fortunately have collapsed, so Russia doesn't have to take care about Turkish sensibilities.

    I don't agree with the sentence: "So, although it's surely true that Syrian security forces struck back fiercely at times in the brutal civil war…" This appears to be a concession to the popular presumption, established via million times repeated catchphrases (butcher Assad), that Syria is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, where the Sunni majority is suppressed by an Alawite clique.

    The classification of the Syrian war as a "civil war" is debatable, it could as well be seen as an undeclared war of aggression by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, the USA).

    I also object to the sentence: "The obvious solution would be a power-sharing arrangement that gives Sunnis more of a say."

    Sunni are represented sufficiently and pols in 2012 and 2013 showed, that the majority of Sunnis support Bashar al-Assad. Sunnis are represented in the government as well as in the security apparatus and account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army. Many high ranking officers are Sunni.

    Even a West Point analysis had to acknowledge that https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/syrias-sunnis-and-the-regimes-resilience.

    In Syria's 30-strong cabinet only two ministers are Alawite. The prime minister is Sunni, as are the interior minister, the justice minister, the foreign minister, even the defense minister.

    Beside that, who should take part in a power sharing transitional government? Who of the external opposition figures has enough support of the Syrian population to justify an inclusion is a power sharing government?

    Please name the people in the external opposition who could be entrusted with reconciling the war-torn nation?

    In my opinion, this guy's comment kicks the stool out from under nearly every western commentator on the subject. Well done, Mr. Mato – well done.

    Jen, September 15, 2015 at 4:04 pm
    A power-sharing arrangement along religious lines, as exists in Lebanon and (since 2003) in Iraq, will weaken Syrian society in forcing people to live in parallel sub-cultures (Alawite, Christian, Druze, Shi'ite Muslim, Sunni Muslim) with competing interests. Plus sectarianism in Lebanese politics and society did not help Shi'ites much at all and they practically had to create their own society and institutions outside mainstream Lebanese society in Hezbollah since the 1980s.
    Oddlots, September 15, 2015 at 8:41 pm
    From what I read years back the "power sharing" constitution of Lebanon was like a demographic time bomb. Can't remember what situation it developed from but it fixed the power balance on an arbitrary point in time (and then set off the timer.)

    Naive probably but if you can't come up with a national project that overwhelms this crap (much less enshrines it) then you don't really have a country do you?

    Strange that the countries that have actually achieved that are the primary targets of Western interests (and their allies): Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan. And our allies are exactly the Islamofascists that US / NATO bobble heads suggest are being countered.

    Pull the other one fuckers.

    Pavlo Svolochenko, September 15, 2015 at 6:48 pm
    What exactly is Washington's case on this point anyway? That a religious minority should not have representation and influence in the government far out of proportion to its numbers as a proportion of the general population?

    Have they ever stopped to consider how that principle might be applied closer to home?

    Special_sauce, September 15, 2015 at 8:03 pm
    There are pics of Assad addressing Parliament at the start of this crisis. Among his audience are men in business suits, men in arab dress, women with hair uncovered, women with hair covered, those with dark skins, those with light, those with kinky hair, those with straight. Precisely the sort of secular multivarious conclave the West never ceases to hold forth as the ideal. The swine.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Putin did not speak to Elton John

    Erika, September 15, 2015 at 11:18 am
    Putin did not speak to Elton John
    http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150915/1027041069.html

    I was at first a bit bemused by this, thinking we were being trolled, but now I wonder if it is something more sinister.

    A. this announcement and fanfare is being done days before Putin goes to New York
    B. It is meant to force a meeting
    C. It is meant to embarrass Russia
    D. Reminds me of the Sochi Olympics were everyone "Western Media" will be talking about Gay Rights instead of Putin's speech.

    marknesop, September 15, 2015 at 12:11 pm
    That's interesting – I saw that report, too; "Putin calls Elton John after speech" or something like that, and it never occurred to me to question it. You might be right, and they might be fuelling up the Gay Bandwagon again. But I'm pretty sure Putin could handle Elton John in any kind of meeting he asked for. Putin is pretty good as speaking in verifiable facts, while Elton John's arguments are mostly emotional and probably rely on the garbage he reads in the papers.

    It's the assessment that it is a ploy to make Putin's whole conversation at the UN about gay rights that might well be on the mark. Good catch.

    Oddlots, September 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm
    Garbage in, garbage out.

    Judging by a straw poll of acquaintances it works very well indeed.

    Patient Observer, September 15, 2015 at 2:39 pm
    I was thinking similarly but not as elaborated as your thoughts. My thoughts was more as a publicity stunt to elevate his perceived influence and importance and to create the impressions that Russia is deeply concerned by the West's views of gay rights in Russia.
    Jen, September 15, 2015 at 4:16 pm
    If Pamela Anderson couldn't get an audience with Putin – she wrote an open letter to him – and the most she could get was an audience in Vladivostok with Sergei Donskoy (the cabinet minister responsible for natural resources and environmental issues) due to the nature of her request, there's no way Elton John would have been able to speak to Putin. He would have been directed instead to talk to the relevant minister in charge of cultural issues or issues involving discrimination against minority groups, or to someone whom minister delegates John's request to. Elton John can expect no more and no less because exactly the same thing would be done in the UK.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting

    "...Enormous pressure will now be brought to bear on Putin to try and dissuade him from a military committment in Syria. If he were not an honourable man, he would already have won, because it appears he would be able to name reasonable terms – such as the lifting of sanctions against Russia – in exchange for simply staying out of the way and letting Washington complete its destruction of the sovereign state of Syria."
    "...Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting. While a direct clash between coalition and Russian aircraft is highly unlikely, an active Russian air presence in the region would only muddle the battlefield in Syria's airspace more. Subsequently, it is unsurprising that reports from the rebel Shamiya Front, though currently unconfirmed, suggest that Turkey has abandoned its efforts to persuade the United States to participate in a no-fly zone over northern Aleppo."

    et Al, September 16, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    ABC Nudes: Kerry: US Weighs Russia Offer of Military Talks on Syria
    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/russian-moves-syria-flummox-us-33790614

    … Kerry said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had proposed the consultation in a phone call on Tuesday and that the White House, Pentagon and State Department were considering it. Kerry suggested that he favored such an idea, noting that the United States wants a clear picture of what Russia's intentions are in Syria following a recent military buildup there.

    Lavrov proposed a "military-to-military conversation and meeting in order to discuss the issue of precisely what will be done to deconflict with respect to any potential risks that might be run and have a complete and clear understanding as to the road ahead and what the intentions are," Kerry told reporters at a joint State Department news conference with South Africa's foreign minister.

    "You have a conversation in order to do that," Kerry said. "It is vital to avoid misunderstandings, miscalculations (and) not to put ourselves in a predicament where we are supposing something and the supposition is wrong."

    Kerry said Lavrov had told him that Russia was only interested in confronting the threat posed by the Islamic State group in Syria. But Kerry stressed it remained unclear if that position would change and Russia would mount a defense of Syrian President Bashar Assad who the U.S. believes must leave power.

    "Obviously, there a questions about that," he said. "I am not taking that at face value."

    However, he added that if Russia is only focused on the Islamic State group then it remains a potential partner in pushing for a political transition in Syria. "If Russia is only focused only on ISIL and if there is a capacity for cooperation … there still is a way to get a political negotiation and outcome," he said.

    Kerry also said he had spoken on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who office announced earlier that he would visit Moscow next week to discuss Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    His comment come as Russia's military buildup in Syria has perplexed the Obama administration and left it in a quandary as to how to respond.

    In his call with Lavrov on Tuesday, his third in 10 days, Kerry said he sought clarity about Moscow's moves and warned that Russian support for Assad "risks exacerbating and extending the conflict."…
    ####

    That's right kids, it is the White House and Kerry calling the shots. It was their idea after all!

    marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 1:53 pm
    The mention of the word "deconfliction" is curious, in the context that Russia is only sending a few advisers to Syria and does not intend to go much beyond that. "Deconfliction" implies a policy to reduce or eliminate the possibility of blue-on-blue (friendly against friendly) engagements, and customarily includes recognition signals, designated operating areas, bla, bla. The military forces of the western coalition currently in Syria are exclusively air power. There should be little requirement for deconfliction unless Russia plans to introduce an air power element of its own, serious air-defense assets, or both.

    Kerry has made it as clear as it needs to be that the western effort in Syria is focused on toppling Assad, and the method of it is despicably cynical, since the ISIL/ISIS rebels are also a Washington creation, employed with corresponding enormous property damage and loss of life, not to mention serious depopulation due to fleeing refugees – all a pretext to get the US Air Force in there so they could contribute to forcing Assad from power. It would be nothing short of criminal if such an effort succeeded, since it would reward the behaviour and the stratagem.

    Enormous pressure will now be brought to bear on Putin to try and dissuade him from a military committment in Syria. If he were not an honourable man, he would already have won, because it appears he would be able to name reasonable terms – such as the lifting of sanctions against Russia – in exchange for simply staying out of the way and letting Washington complete its destruction of the sovereign state of Syria. I believe he will not do that; perhaps because he is an honourable man, perhaps out of practical considerations of the harm it will do Russia to have another warlord Islamic state not so very far away from its borders, and the likelihood a successful US creation of chaos there will result in it shifting target to the Caucasus on completion.

    Washington has to be faced down here and now, and there is nothing to be gained by delay.

    Northern Star, September 16, 2015 at 2:45 pm
    " perhaps out of practical considerations of the harm it will do Russia to have another warlord Islamic state not so very far away from its borders,"
    Exactly.. The Russians very much have a dog in this fight…yet another ME abattoir created by USA neocon psychos and their PC protégées in the State Department ,the UN etc.,

    Someone last night remarked that the continuing deluge of ME refugees into Europe could provoke a fulminating, savage rise of ultra right nationalistic parties who are also virulently anti NATO...

    One can only hope for the best…

    marknesop, September 16, 2015 at 3:10 pm
    For what it's worth, STRATFOR agrees with me that the term "deconfliction" suggests Russia intends to introduce an air component. "U.S. Officials" through their conduits, Reuters and Bloomberg, report that Russia intends to deploy MiG 31 and SU-25 aircraft – the latter would be especially effective as they are designed for ground attack. The report says that ISIS-linked forces have already started to back away from Latakia – but for me, the money shot in the report was this:

    Coalition aircraft may find themselves providing close air support to New Syrian Forces embedded with a Free Syrian Army unit that Russian aircraft are targeting. While a direct clash between coalition and Russian aircraft is highly unlikely, an active Russian air presence in the region would only muddle the battlefield in Syria's airspace more. Subsequently, it is unsurprising that reports from the rebel Shamiya Front, though currently unconfirmed, suggest that Turkey has abandoned its efforts to persuade the United States to participate in a no-fly zone over northern Aleppo.

    I don't know how much clearer it needs to be. Western governments are angling for a Libya scenario, in which NATO air forces act as the de facto air force of the rebels, assisting them to take Damascus.

    PaulR, September 16, 2015 at 5:17 pm
    So far this appears to be a lot of fuss about not very much. I remain unconvinced that this is a major escalation by the Russians.

    [Sep 18, 2015] The least Russia has held of American securities in the last two years was in April this year, when it held only $66.5 Billion

    Sep 17, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile, September 17, 2015 at 2:00 am

    Russia has invested another $10 billion in the US national debt

    In July Russia increased its investment in US Treasury bonds by $9.7 billion of dollars, according to information given by the United States Treasury and Federal Reserve.

    Moscow Exile, September 17, 2015 at 2:03 am
    Source of the above: lenta.ru, Kommersant etc.
    et Al, September 17, 2015 at 5:54 am
    Curious. Just as China has been deleveraging itself from its US bonds/debt, Russia is taking some on. There must be something more to this.
    marknesop, September 17, 2015 at 10:40 am
    It's odd, but $10 Billion doesn't really represent much of an adventure. The least Russia has held of American securities in the last two years was in April this year, when it held only $66.5 Billion. The most during the period shown was in August last year, when Russia held nearly twice that, $118.1 Billion. And China, while media mythology has them shoveling dollars out the windows, held $1.24 Trillion at the end of July this year, up slightly from January. Nobody seemed to notice that Belgium sold of $20 Billion more than China did.

    https://smaulgld.com/foreign-holdings-u-s-treasuries/

    However, look at the vulnerability the USA itself has taken on through QE, and government buying of its own securities, just in 2014.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Assad Must Go No, American Arrogance Must Go! by Andrew Korybko

    "...What the US had wanted to do is overthrow all of the Mideast's republics (even those allied with the US such a Egypt) in order to bring a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique to power in each of them that would thus make it a lot easier to control the entire region. "
    "...Think of it as the neocons' version of a 21st-century communist party, but directed towards control of the Mideast and not Europe (which has the EU for that). "
    Sep 18, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    The US' obsessive insistence that "Assad must go" is the most dangerous expression of American arrogance in years.

    White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest channeled President Obama's famous chant that "Assad must go" when he claimed during a regular press briefing that:

    "The international community has decided that it's time for Assad to go. He clearly has lost legitimacy to lead. He has lost the confidence of those citizens of his country - at least the ones that - or I guess I should say particularly the ones that he is using the resources of the military to attack."

    The arrogance on display is both stupefying and dangerous. The problem in Syria isn't, nor ever has been, President Assad – it's always been the US' arrogance in dictating demands and then militarily enforcing them after they've been rejected.

    American Arrogance

    Syria's ills are directly traceable to the failure of American foreign policy in the Mideast. The US rabidly went on a regime change streak that began during the Bush years, with former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe for NATO General Wesley Clark revealing in his 2007 memoirs that a senior general showed him a memo and said:

    "'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran."

    Earlier that year, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote an expose in The New Yorker in which he detailed, among other proposed regional regime change specifics, that the Bush Administration was planning to use the Muslim Brotherhood to launch a Gulf-funded sectarian war against the Syrian government.

    At the time, the reason was supposedly because of Damascus' closeness to Tehran, but later information as reported by The Guardian reveals that the decision to build a Friendship Pipeline between Iran, Iraq, and Syria in 2010, and Damascus' rejection of a similar one from Qatar, likely had a lot to do with why the anti-government terrorist plan was pushed forward for activation the year after.

    Beginning in 2011, the Mideast was rocked by the so-called "Arab Spring", which Russian General Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov would in hindsight categorize as a theater-wide Color Revolution during an official conference on the topic last year in Moscow.

    What the US had wanted to do is overthrow all of the Mideast's republics (even those allied with the US such a Egypt) in order to bring a transnational Muslim Brotherhood clique to power in each of them that would thus make it a lot easier to control the entire region.

    Think of it as the neocons' version of a 21st-century communist party, but directed towards control of the Mideast and not Europe (which has the EU for that).

    The Gulf Monarchies were not targeted because of their staunch pro-American allegiance and the potential that any domestic disruption would have in upsetting the US' economic interests there.

    Between the pro-American Gulf Monarchies and the pro-American EU thus lay a handful of republics that weren't so firmly under the US' sway (or not at all influenced by it like Syria), so in order for the US to securely control the broad swatch of Afro-Eurasia stretching from Iceland to Yemen, it needed to overthrow those governments, ergo the "Arab Spring" Color Revolutions.

    The People's Will

    But something went wrong as it always does with the US' plans, and it was that the Syrian people wholeheartedly rejected the Muslim Brotherhood's ploy at regime change, instead favoring to preserve the secular and multicultural society that Syrian civilization is historically known for.

    For this simple reason, the Color Revolution attempt was a dismal failure from the very beginning, hence why the US and its allies (notably Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) sought to transform it into an Unconventional War by arming their proxies and ordering them to escalate their soft coup attempt into a hard one.

    The resultant Hybrid War that's been raging for the past four and a half years is thus a manifestation of the US' geopolitical obsession for regime change. Far from realizing that the people had resoundingly rejected such an approach from the very beginning, the US and its allies dug in by reinforcing their proxy elements inside the country and allowing foreign fighters to flood into Syria via the Turkish border.

    Amidst this external onslaught being launched against them, the Syrian people continued to bravely soldier on and democratically show the rest of the world that they supported their government.

    A constitutional referendum in 2012 passed by an 89% margin and with the participation of 57% of the population, while President Assad was reelected in 2014 with 88.7% of the vote in which 73% of the electorate took part.

    Both sets of numbers trump the civil society participation and political legitimacy of Western countries and their leaders, and as President Assad once said, there is no way he could remain in office during this war if he didn't truly have the support of the vast majority of the population.

    It's also telling that most of the country's refugees haven't fled the country, but have instead decided to stay in their homeland and seek safety under the protection of the Syrian Arab Army, which currently provides security to around 80% of Syria's citizens.

    Be that as it is, the US and its allies stubbornly ignored the people's will, and instead continued to blindly pump weapons and fighters into the country in clear confirmation of the adage that insanity is "repeating the same thing over again but expecting different results".

    Ground Zero In The War On Terror

    All of those fighters and weapons that the US and its allies were shipping into Syria were bound to lead to some major problems, chief among them the rise of ISIL, but this was actually predicted and supported by the US government a couple years ago. Judicial Watch published a declassified report that it received in May from a Freedom Of Information Act request that proves that the Pentagon's Defense Information Agency thought that:

    "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).

    This bombshell dovetails with what Syrian Ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad recently said in an interview where he accused the US of using terrorism to promote regime change in his country. President Putin followed up at the CSTO summit by warning countries of the risks inherent in employing double-standards towards terrorists and directly or indirectly using them to further certain tactical objectives.

    In order to stem the tide of terror that the US unleashed in the Mideast, Russia is rapidly moving forward with assembling an inclusive anti-ISIL coalition, and President Putin is expected to use his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly later this month to make his case that the situation is far too pressing to care about regime change, and that the world must unite in supporting Syria as it fights on its behalf on the frontlines against terror.

    American arrogance got the world into this mess, but if you ask Russia, it'll be Syrian humility that gets it out in one piece.

    See also

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Grapes of wrath: fury in Crimea as Putin and Berlusconi drink 240-year-old wine Alec Luhn in Moscow

    What a despicable presstitute is this Alex Luhn. Hopefully he was drunk when he was writing that, because for a sober person to write such a crap is too much of humiliation.
    "...Click bait."
    "...Crikey! The Guardian's really scraping the barrel in its relentless efforts to diss Putin."
    Sep 17, 2015 | The Guardian


    CanadaChuck 18 Sep 2015 20:22

    Amusing that anyone would care what is said by a 'prosecutor in exile'. The Crimea now belongs to Russia and it will remain Russian. If I was just a little more cynical, I would suggest that this is only Guardian anti-Russia propaganda.


    someoneionceknew 18 Sep 2015 19:21

    Click bait.


    nnedjo 18 Sep 2015 18:43

    But the prosecutor general of the former Crimean government, which has been operating in exile since Russia annexed the peninsula in 2014, didn't find the VIP degustation amusing.

    He opened a criminal case for large scale theft over the incident, estimating the loss at two million hryvnia, or about £60,000, the Centre of Journalistic Investigations reported.

    In the footage, Berlusconi is seen picking up a 1891 vintage and asking "Can we drink them?"

    Well, it seems that the former Crimean prosecutor decided to rob Berlusconi, for about thirty years older wines from the same winery costs only about £7000.:-)

    Fine and Rare Wines are worldwide distributors of these wines, and have just put a new collection up for sale. Unfortunately I have not tasted the wines, but the list is fascinating, from a single bottle of 1865 Yquem bottled for the Tsar at a cool £7,000, to a 1948 Massandra Tokay for £165, and rated at 96 points by Robert Parker.

    Shiku101 18 Sep 2015 18:34

    I never seen such a badly peice of propaganda in my life. "Two leaders" One of them is an xleader. Whom has a long standing relationship with Putin. Berlusconi is obly there for the wine and the bunga bunga

    Dmitry Koreshkov 18 Sep 2015 17:53

    "fury in crimea"? another spoon of hogwash, guardian?

    PeteSaman Be Gold 18 Sep 2015 17:26

    Yes it would be far more productive if Putin and Berlusconi spent their time pretending that a country had WMD. They could plan an illegal invasion to liberate the population ( and oil) while taking the moral high ground. Then, and only then should they be allowed to drink wine.


    nnamesiw 18 Sep 2015 16:52

    Once drank from a bottle of "fortified wine" from 1845. Still 'drinkable'...but, in truth, not a great flavour at all. Chances are that B & P also would have been far better with much fresher content.


    mrcleano 18 Sep 2015 16:22

    Crikey! The Guardian's really scraping the barrel in its relentless efforts to diss Putin.


    WalterCronkiteBot 18 Sep 2015 16:08

    What does Elton John think about all this?


    Canajin 18 Sep 2015 16:02

    So it was the Italian guy that asked the director for a taste, and the director obliged. Making it a court case is like being charged for accepting a sample slice of ham from the store deli. By the way, did anyone ask them how it tasted?

    The Guardian should be ashamed for making a fuss about this silly situation. But then, we do know the G has to follow the government's agenda.


    vr13vr 18 Sep 2015 15:34

    And as it has become usual, the Kiev's reaction is to ban Silvio from entering Ukraine and to declare him a national security threat. Oh, boy. It would have been so funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


    Sam Hayes 18 Sep 2015 15:27

    Luhns really scraping the barrel. Does he really get paid [twice] for this?

    [Sep 18, 2015]U.S. Begins Military Talks With Russia on Syria

    Sep 18, 2015 | The New York Times

    The diplomatic initiative amounted to a pivot for the Obama administration, which just two weeks ago delivered a stern warning to the Kremlin that its military buildup in Syria risked an escalation of the civil war there or even an inadvertent confrontation with the United States. Last week, President Obama condemned Russia's move as a "strategy that's doomed to failure."

    But the White House seemed to acknowledge that the Kremlin had effectively changed the calculus in Syria in a way that would not be soon reversed despite vigorous American objections. The decision to start talks also reflected a hope that Russia might yet be drawn into a more constructive role in resolving the four-year-old civil war.


    The Pentagon announced that Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter had spoken by telephone on Friday with Sergei K. Shoigu, the Russian minister of defense. It was Mr. Carter's first discussion with his Russian counterpart since he took office seven months ago. The two men agreed to continue discussions on "mechanisms for deconfliction" in Syria, Peter Cook, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a statement.

    [Sep 18, 2015] The Weaponization of Ignorance: the West's Go-To Experts

    Northern Star, September 17, 2015 at 7:54 am
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-mideast-crisis-syria-arms-idUSKCN0RB1Q020150911
    It appears as if the Russians are moving with calculated deliberation.
    Whereas for the Empire…Operation ClusterF continues with increasing frenzy:
    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/09/16/general-only-handful-syrian-fighters-remain-battle.html

    http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-un-diplomat-supports-idea-russian-airstrikes-163754294.html
    ….stay tuned

    et Al, September 17, 2015 at 8:06 am
    It's fairly obvious, except for Neuters who refuse to entertain common sense, let alone go there. There will be no repeat of Libya et al (not me!) where the West has set up a 'No Fly Zone' and then proceeded to use their military aircraft as an air force for the rebels/whomever.

    Those air defenses sent to Syria mean that they will be the first target (according to Western military doctrine) of any such attempt by the West to intervene directly and that will lead to the death of Russian soldiers and citizens.

    There is no way the West could claim to kill Russian soldiers 'accidentally' and get away with it as those systems are expressly defensive. It would not just be the political and military consequences to be faced from such an 'event', but it would be a massive PR disaster for the West too.

    As others have commented multiple times here, Obama publicly proclaims his red lines, Putin doesn't, but sets them up pragmatically.

    I'm still waiting for those Yak-130s to turn up, though I would now guess that some pilots would be Syrian and some Russian – just to make it even more risky for the West to do anything stupid.

    Northern Star, September 17, 2015 at 8:17 am

    "just to make it even more risky for the West to do anything stupid."

    The Western fascist PTB are obviously not risk averse to serial acts of jaw dropping stupidity….

    Cortes, September 17, 2015 at 10:10 am

    Peter Lee's take on recent western media reports on how Syria campaign has progressed (his view is now Plan C – Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube is underway):

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/09/17/hidden-history-of-syria-regime-collapse-strategy-begins-to-emerge/

    [Sep 18, 2015] Peak Oil Review - Sep 14

    When the IEA's monthly Oil Market Report came out last week, it seconded the gloomy outlook by forecasting that non-OPEC oil production will fall by 500,000 b/d in 2016, which would be the largest drop in 20 years. The IEA also has US production falling by 400,000 b/d next year.

    ... ... ...

    The US House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal the oil export ban last week. Some in Congress are so enthusiastic about the prospects for exporting US crude, despite the circa 7.5 million b/d of US imports, that they are talking about "containing Iran" with US oil. The prospects for the bill in the Senate are still uncertain.

    ... ... ...

    Before the sanctions can be lifted, Tehran has to ship 12 tons of partially-enriched uranium out of the country, dismantle and store more than 13,000 centrifuges and convert its underground nuclear enrichment facility into a research station. The Iranians must also dismantle the core of their heavy water reactor which is capable of making plutonium for atom bombs, make arrangements for IAEA inspections, and answer questions about past efforts to build nuclear weapons. Western experts expect that it will take six to nine months to accomplish these steps. Tehran, anxious to get its economy moving again, say they can be completed much quicker.

    On October 19th, the US and EU are to lift many of the sanctions on doing business with Tehran and grant access to some $125 billion in frozen Iranian assets, only some $60 billion of which are liquid enough to be of much use...

    Iran was producing some 3.6 million b/d before the sanctions and exporting to 21 countries. After the sanctions, Iran's customers were down to six countries and production fell to 2. 5 million b/d and is now thought to be about 2.9 million...

    ... ... ....

    Wall Street analysts now are seriously contemplating the likelihood that a further slowdown in China's economy will lead to a global recession starting in countries that are dependent on exports to China. Trade data out last week showed a 14 percent drop in the value of China's imports in August. This was the 10th consecutive fall in Beijing's imports.

    The Shanghai International Energy Exchange is about to establish a crude derivatives contract to rival that of New York's West Texas Intermediate and London's Brent. As the world's biggest oil importer, China is likely to play a major role in the oil markets in coming years. Beijing will likely move to have its futures contracts denominated in yuan as a means of undercutting the dollar in the global oil markets.

    ... ... ...


    Investment in U.K. North Sea oil and gas projects could drop as much as 80 percent by 2017 as the collapse in oil prices forces the industry to cut back. Capital investment across the industry of 14.8 billion pounds ($22.8 billion) last year will probably decline by 2 billion to 4 billion pounds annually to 2017. (9/9)

    Norway said total revenues for the oil-rich economy were down by nearly 5 percent for the second quarter of 2015. Its oil-driven economy has been pressured by lower crude oil prices, with overall investments expected to decline by 12 percent this year. (9/9)

    Norway's Statoil said development of the giant Johan Sverdrup field is moving swiftly. The field is expected to be operational during 2019. At peak Norway's 5th largest field is expected to produce up to 650,000 b/d. (9/12)

    Italian energy company Eni said the republic of Cyprus could serve as a strategic energy hub and a possible conduit for future Egyptian natural gas supplies. (9/11)

    In Russia, at a time when the collapse in crude prices pushes the economy into a recession, the nation's oil producers are managing to beat their western counterparts. On measures including cash flow, profit margins and share prices, Rosneft, Lukoil – Russia's two largest oil producers - and Gazprom are performing better than Royal Dutch Shell, BP or Exxon Mobil. (9/8)

    ... .... ....

    The US oil-rig count fell by 10 to 652 in the latest reporting week, the second straight decline after six consecutive weeks of increases, according to Baker Hughes. There are still about 59 percent fewer oil rigs working since a peak of 1,609 in October 2014. The number of gas rigs declined by six to 196. For all rigs, including natural gas, the week's total was down 16 to 848. (9/12

    US imports: The EIA reports Saudi Arabian oil accounts for roughly 17 percent of all crude oil imported into the US, putting it at the No. 2 spot behind Canada. Total imports of Saudi crude for the week ending Sept. 4 were 1.06 million barrels per day, down 15.2 percent from the same week in 2014. (9/12)

    Thousands of stripper-well operators in the US are losing money and some are shutting in their wells. This step could turn out to be a key element in ending the oil-price rout, rather than the difference being made by a large producing country like Saudi Arabia or a big public company. (9/8)

    US shale producers lost more than $30 billion during the first half of 2015, as the prolonged slump in oil prices takes its toll. Bankruptcies and restructuring are on the rise as independent oil and gas companies do what they can to survive. Data company Factset reports that capital spending exceeded cash from operations by about $32 billion in the first six months of the year and is quickly approaching the deficit of $37.7 billion reported for the whole of 2014. (9/10)


    [Sep 18, 2015] Oil Prices Could Surge As This Country Fails To Meet Production Targets By Nick Cunningham,

    Sep 17, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    For years, Iraq has been central to the IEA's rosy scenarios for long-term sources of new oil supply. A few years ago, the IEA predicted that Iraq would more than double its output to 6.1 million barrels per day (mb/d) by 2020, and 8.3 mb/d by 2035 – nearly triple what Iraq was producing at the time the IEA published its report.

    Any projection should be taken with a large degree of skepticism, but the IEA's prediction that the world would be well-supplied for the next several decades was largely predicated on Iraq coming through with a huge ramp up in production. The increase of 5 mb/d from Iraq over the next twenty years would account for about 45 percent of the total increase in global oil supply.

    ... ... ...

    Against the odds, Iraq has thus far succeeded in achieving impressive gains in oil production, exceeding 4 million barrels per day in recent months, a record high. It is the second largest OPEC producer behind only Saudi Arabia.

    ... ... ...

    Wood Mackenzie expects production to be essentially flat through the end of the decade, rising to just 4.4 mb/d.

    Moreover, a large portion of the more than 3 mb/d in production gains by the end of the decade was expected to come from the south near Basra, where Iraq's super-giant oil fields are located. But the Wall Street Journal recently profiled one major project that is behind schedule, highlighting the precarious circumstances that Iraq's ambitious production targets are based upon.

    ... ... ...

    The project near Basra involved injecting saltwater from the Persian Gulf into oil fields in order to increase reservoir pressure and thereby boost production. But the project won't be completed until at least 2020, seven years later than expected. Without the so-called Common Seawater Supply Facility, production from Iraq's southern oil fields, which account for about three-quarters of the country's output, could fall by 10 percent per year.

    ... ... ...

    The evidence then points to Iraq not living up to the expectations of it making up such a large portion of global supply growth in the coming years. Taking away several million barrels per day of production capacity by 2020 that we had previously expected to come online suggests that the oil markets will tighten significantly in the not so distant future.

    Michael Moran on September 18 2015 said:

    I think more immediate question is 2016 and 2017. Can Iraq maintain 4+ million b/d given current situation. Or does production start to drop off in 2016 and 2017? One note in WSJ article was number of rigs working in Iraq had dropped in half from first of year. Could it be oil companies moved rigs because they were not being paid? Oil well decline in production, without rigs to drill new ones Iraq production may decline far sooner than expected.


    [Sep 18, 2015] $50 Oil For 15 Years – Can Anyone Take Goldman Seriously Anymore By Evan Kelly

    Sep 18, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Goldman gets a lot of attention with these types of headline-grabbing figures, but they seem to be off base on this one. The EIA has confirmed that U.S. oil production is declining, already down 500,000 barrels per day since peaking earlier this spring at 9.6 million barrels per day. At the same time, demand is rising. Throw in some other major sources of expected growth in oil production that won't pan out – a few million barrels per day of capacity that were expected from both Iraq and Brazil can probably be ruled out – and there is a recipe for a rather strong rebound in oil prices in the coming years. Obviously, the big question is when that will happen. The glut could persist through this year and next, but calling for oil to remain near $50 per barrel for 15 years seems like a stretch.

    ... ... ...

    Statoil (NYSE: STO) brought the first subsea compression plant in the world online this week. The subsea facility, located at Asgard in the Norwegian Sea, will increase production by around 306 million barrels of oil equivalent, boosting output from the aging field. "This is one of the most demanding technology projects aimed at improving oil recovery. We are very proud today that we together with our partners and suppliers have realised this project that we started ten years ago," Margareth Øvrum, Statoil's executive vice president for Technology, Drilling and Projects, said in a statement. The subsea system will increase the ultimate recovery of the Midgard reservoir from 67 to 87 percent, and the Mikkel reservoir from 59 to 84 percent. Fields lose reservoir pressure over time, and compression boosts that pressure. But the closer you can get to the well, the more oil and gas can be recovered. Usually, compression is done at the sea surface on a platform. This is the first gas compression facility at the sea floor. It is illustrative of an important emerging trend in the offshore oil industry.

    [Sep 18, 2015] China Is Hoarding the World's Oil by Grant Smith

    "...China's demand growth is set to slow to an annual rate of 2.3 percent by the fourth quarter compared with 5.6 percent in the second quarter, a reflection of "weak car sales data, declines in industrial activity, plummeting property prices and fragile electricity output," the IEA said in a report on Sept. 11."
    September 17, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Goldman Sachs says Chinese hoarding may avert $20 oil scenario

    ....In the first seven months of the year, China purchased about half a million barrels of crude in excess of its daily needs, the most for the period since 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. As the country gathers bargain barrels for its strategic petroleum reserve, the demand is cushioning an oversupplied market from a further crash, according to Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.

    "It throws a lifeline to the market" that safeguards against the risk of crude touching $20 a barrel, Jeff Currie, head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in New York, said by phone. "That lifeline lasts through late 2016."

    Over the next 18 month, the EIA estamates that China will put 132 million barrel of crude into storage. Another 149 million barrels of capacity is planned by 2020. 218.9 are filled.

    ...the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been stable at about 700 million barrels for years

    ... ... ...

    China's demand growth is set to slow to an annual rate of 2.3 percent by the fourth quarter compared with 5.6 percent in the second quarter, a reflection of "weak car sales data, declines in industrial activity, plummeting property prices and fragile electricity output," the IEA said in a report on Sept. 11.

    ... ... ...

    When amassing inventories, China's import demand can swing by as much as 1 million barrels a day

    ... ... ...

    "The surplus in the market at the moment is close to 2 million barrels a day," said Miswin Mahesh, an analyst at Barclays in London. "China's support for the SPR would only be able to take a fraction out of that.

    ... ... ...

    By mopping up some of the surplus, China encourages a gentler scenario in which the "financial stress" of $40 oil gradually causes highly indebted shale producers to curb production, Currie said. "You reduce the likelihood of a scenario where the market only balances when prices collapse below production costs, at about $20 a barrel," he said.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Big oil's broken model By Michael T Klare

    If we assume that at each price point only a finite amount of oil can be profitably extracted from Earth (which is a small planet, that is now well researched for oil) , the current slump in oil prices looks extremely suspicious. It means robbing of future generations, as conservation efforts are now derailed.
    The problem with the view expressed is that cost of production can't be changed dramatically. That should slow the rate of increase of consumption but such dramatic drop in prices requires special engendering and some backstage agreement between the USA and Saudi Arabia.
    "...Demand will continue to rise -- that's undeniable, given expected growth in world income and population -- but not at the pace to which Big Oil has become accustomed. Consider this: in 2005, when many of the major investments in unconventional oil were getting under way, the EIA projected that global oil demand would reach 103.2 million barrels per day in 2015; now, it's lowered that figure for this year to only 93.1 million barrels. Those 10 million "lost" barrels per day in expected consumption may not seem like a lot, given the total figure, but keep in mind that Big Oil's multibillion-dollar investments in tough energy were predicated on all that added demand materializing, thereby generating the kind of high prices needed to offset the increasing costs of extraction. With so much anticipated demand vanishing, however, prices were bound to collapse."

    "...the IEA believes that oil prices will only average about $55 per barrel in 2015 and not reach $73 again until 2020. "

    Sep 18, 2015 | atimes.com/atimes

    Many reasons have been provided for the dramatic plunge in the price of oil to about US$60 per barrel (nearly half of what it was a year ago): slowing demand due to global economic stagnation; overproduction at shale fields in the United States; the decision of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern OPEC producers to maintain output at current levels (presumably to punish higher-cost producers in the US and elsewhere); and the increased value of
    Big oil's broken model
    By Michael T Klare

    Many reasons have been provided for the dramatic plunge in the price of oil to about US$60 per barrel (nearly half of what it was a year ago): slowing demand due to global economic stagnation; overproduction at shale fields in the United States; the decision of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern OPEC producers to maintain output at current levels (presumably to punish higher-cost producers in the US and elsewhere); and the increased value of the dollar relative to other currencies.

    There is, however, one reason that's not being discussed, and yet it could be the most important of all: the complete collapse of Big Oil's production-maximizing business model.

    Until last fall, when the price decline gathered momentum, the oil giants were operating at full throttle, pumping out more petroleum every day. They did so, of course, in part to profit from the high prices. For most of the previous six years, Brent crude, the international benchmark for crude oil, had been selling at $100 or higher. But Big Oil was also operating according to a business model that assumed an ever-increasing demand for its products, however costly they might be to produce and refine.

    This meant that no fossil fuel reserves, no potential source of supply - no matter how remote or hard to reach, how far offshore or deeply buried, how encased in rock - was deemed untouchable in the mad scramble to increase output and profits.

    In recent years, this output-maximizing strategy had, in turn, generated historic wealth for the giant oil companies. Exxon, the largest US-based oil firm, earned an eye-popping $32.6 billion in 2013 alone, more than any other American company except for Apple. Chevron, the second biggest oil firm, posted earnings of $21.4 billion that same year. State-owned companies like Saudi Aramco and Russia's Rosneft also reaped mammoth profits.

    How things have changed in a matter of mere months.

    ... ... ...

    According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, world oil production rose from 85.1 million barrels per day in 2005 to 92.9 million in 2014, despite the continuing decline of many legacy fields in North America and the Middle East. Claiming that industry investments in new drilling technologies had vanquished the specter of oil scarcity, BP's latest CEO, Bob Dudley, assured the world only a year ago that Big Oil was going places and the only thing that had "peaked" was "the theory of peak oil."

    That, of course, was just before oil prices took their leap off the cliff, bringing instantly into question the wisdom of continuing to pump out record levels of petroleum. The production-maximizing strategy crafted by O'Reilly and his fellow CEOs rested on three fundamental assumptions:

    1. that, year after year, demand would keep climbing;
    2. that such rising demand would ensure prices high enough to justify costly investments in unconventional oil;
    3. and that concern over climate change would in no significant way alter the equation.

    Today, none of these assumptions holds true.

    Demand will continue to rise -- that's undeniable, given expected growth in world income and population -- but not at the pace to which Big Oil has become accustomed. Consider this: in 2005, when many of the major investments in unconventional oil were getting under way, the EIA projected that global oil demand would reach 103.2 million barrels per day in 2015; now, it's lowered that figure for this year to only 93.1 million barrels. Those 10 million "lost" barrels per day in expected consumption may not seem like a lot, given the total figure, but keep in mind that Big Oil's multibillion-dollar investments in tough energy were predicated on all that added demand materializing, thereby generating the kind of high prices needed to offset the increasing costs of extraction. With so much anticipated demand vanishing, however, prices were bound to collapse.

    Current indications suggest that consumption will continue to fall short of expectations in the years to come. In an assessment of future trends released last month, the EIA reported that, thanks to deteriorating global economic conditions, many countries will experience either a slower rate of growth or an actual reduction in consumption. While still inching up, Chinese consumption, for instance, is expected to grow by only 0.3 million barrels per day this year and next -- a far cry from the 0.5 million barrel increase it posted in 2011 and 2012 and its one million barrel increase in 2010. In Europe and Japan, meanwhile, consumption is actually expected to fall over the next two years.

    And this slowdown in demand is likely to persist well beyond 2016, suggests the International Energy Agency (IEA), an arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the club of rich industrialized nations). While lower gasoline prices may spur increased consumption in the United States and a few other nations, it predicted, most countries will experience no such lift and so "the recent price decline is expected to have only a marginal impact on global demand growth for the remainder of the decade."

    This being the case, the IEA believes that oil prices will only average about $55 per barrel in 2015 and not reach $73 again until 2020. Such figures fall far below what would be needed to justify continued investment in and exploitation of tough-oil options like Canadian tar sands, Arctic oil, and many shale projects. Indeed, the financial press is now full of reports on stalled or cancelled mega-energy projects. Shell, for example, announced in January that it had abandoned plans for a $6.5 billion petrochemical plant in Qatar, citing "the current economic climate prevailing in the energy industry." At the same time, Chevron shelved its plan to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea, while Norway's Statoil turned its back on drilling in Greenland.

    There is, as well, another factor that threatens the wellbeing of Big Oil: climate change can no longer be discounted in any future energy business model. The pressures to deal with a phenomenon that could quite literally destroy human civilization are growing. Although Big Oil has spent massive amounts of money over the years in a campaign to raise doubts about the science of climate change, more and more people globally are starting to worry about its effects -- extreme weather patterns, extreme storms, extreme drought, rising sea levels, and the like -- and demanding that governments take action to reduce the magnitude of the threat.

    Europe has already adopted plans to lower carbon emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 and to achieve even greater reductions in the following decades. China, while still increasing its reliance on fossil fuels, has at least finally pledged to cap the growth of its carbon emissions by 2030 and to increase renewable energy sources to 20% of total energy use by then. In the United States, increasingly stringent automobile fuel-efficiency standards will require that cars sold in 2025 achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon, reducing U.S. oil demand by 2.2 million barrels per day. (Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress -- heavily subsidized by Big Oil -- will do everything it can to eradicate curbs on fossil fuel consumption.)

    Still, however inadequate the response to the dangers of climate change thus far, the issue is on the energy map and its influence on policy globally can only increase. Whether Big Oil is ready to admit it or not, alternative energy is now on the planetary agenda and there's no turning back from that. "It is a different world than it was the last time we saw an oil-price plunge," said IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven in February, referring to the 2008 economic meltdown. "Emerging economies, notably China, have entered less oil-intensive stages of development… On top of this, concerns about climate change are influencing energy policies [and so] renewables are increasingly pervasive."

    The oil industry is, of course, hoping that the current price plunge will soon reverse itself and that its now-crumbling maximizing-output model will make a comeback along with $100-per-barrel price levels. But these hopes for the return of "normality" are likely energy pipe dreams. As van der Hoeven suggests, the world has changed in significant ways, in the process obliterating the very foundations on which Big Oil's production-maximizing strategy rested. The oil giants will either have to adapt to new circumstances, while scaling back their operations, or face takeover challenges from more nimble and aggressive firms.

    Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

    Copyright 2015 Michael T. Klare


    Michael T Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

    (Copyright 2015 Michael T Klare)

    [Sep 16, 2015] Oil, Iraq War, & Neoliberalism

    "... Now with his war under attack, even President George W. Bush has gone public, telling reporters last August, "[a] failed Iraq … would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales." Of course, Bush not only wants to keep oil out of his enemies' hands, he also wants to put it into the hands of his friends. "
    "...Guaranteeing access to Iraq's oil, however isn't the whole story. Despite the lives lost and the utter ruin that the war has brought, the overarching economic agenda that the administration is successfully pursuing in the Middle East might be the most enduring legacy of the war-and the most ignored. Just two months after declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq, Bush announced his plans for a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area to spread the economic invasion well-underway in Iraq to the rest of the region by 2013. Negotiations have progressed rapidly as countries seek to prove that they are with the United States, not against it."
    "...In 2004, Michael Scheuer-the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with the Bush administration-wrote, "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was … an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." How right he was. For it is an absolute fallacy that the Bush administration had no post-invasion plan for Iraq. The administration had a very clear economic plan that has contributed significantly to the disastrous results of the war. The plan was prepared at least two months prior to the war by the U.S. consultancy firm, Bearing Point, Inc., which then received a $250 million contract to remake Iraq's economic infrastructure.
    "...Halliburton received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies received contracts worth more than $1.5 billion each. The seven largest reconstruction contracts went to the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion). These companies are responsible for virtually all reconstruction in Iraq, including water, bridges, roads, hospitals, and sewers and, most significantly, electricity."
    "...Put simply, U.S. oil companies want access to as much of Iraq's oil as they can get and on the best possible terms. The fact that Iraq is a war-ravaged and occupied nation works to the companies' benefit. As a result, the companies and the Bush administration are holding U.S. troops hostage in Iraq until they get what they want. Once the companies get their lucrative contracts, they will still need protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 144,000 American troops? {Following this pattern, we can know understand why the U.S. has not completed medical clinics, re-establish electric service, etc. They are holding the country hostage, with a promise of approve the sale of the oil fields and then these projects will be completed--jk.}"
    January 15, 2007 | skeptically.org

    Both parties support neoliberalism, and this is sufficient to explain the course of events leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq. Biparticism and media support of neoliberalism has left a gap in debate and reporting. The article below fills that gap-jk.

    From In These Times @ www.inthesetimes.com

    Features > January 15, 2007

    Spoils of War: Oil, the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area and the Bush Agenda

    By Antonia Juhasz, Antonia Juhasz, a visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, is the author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time, on which part of this article is based. She is working on a new book that will make the case for the break-up of the largest American oil companies. Learn more at www.TheBushAgenda.net.

    Remember oil? That thing we didn't go to war in Iraq for? Now with his war under attack, even President George W. Bush has gone public, telling reporters last August, "[a] failed Iraq … would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales." Of course, Bush not only wants to keep oil out of his enemies' hands, he also wants to put it into the hands of his friends.

    The President's concern over Iraq's oil is shared by the Iraq Study Group, which on December 6 released its much-anticipated report. While the mainstream press focused on the report's criticism of Bush's handling of the war and the report's call for (potential) removal of (most) U.S. troops (maybe) by 2008, ignored was the report's focus on Iraq's oil. Page 1, chapter 1 laid out in no uncertain terms Iraq's importance to the Middle East, the United States and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what should be done to secure those reserves.

    Guaranteeing access to Iraq's oil, however isn't the whole story. Despite the lives lost and the utter ruin that the war has brought, the overarching economic agenda that the administration is successfully pursuing in the Middle East might be the most enduring legacy of the war-and the most ignored. Just two months after declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq, Bush announced his plans for a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area to spread the economic invasion well-underway in Iraq to the rest of the region by 2013. Negotiations have progressed rapidly as countries seek to prove that they are with the United States, not against it.

    The Bush Agenda

    Within days of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced that the Bush administration would be "countering terror with trade." Bush reiterated that pledge four years later when he told the United Nations, "By expanding trade, we spread hope and opportunity to the corners of the world, and we strike a blow against the terrorists. Our agenda for freer trade is part of our agenda for a freer world." In the case of the March 2003 invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq, these "free trade"-or corporate globalization-policies have been applied in tandem with America's military forces.

    The Bush administration used the military invasion of Iraq to oust its leader, replace its government, implement new economic and political laws, and write a new constitution. The new economic laws have transformed Iraq's economy, applying some of the most radical-and sought-after-corporate globalization policies in the world and locking in sweeping advantages to U.S. corporations. Through the ongoing occupation, the Bush administration seeks to ensure that both Iraq's new government and this new economic structure stay firmly in place. The ultimate goal-opening Iraq to U.S. oil companies-is reaching fruition.

    In 2004, Michael Scheuer-the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with the Bush administration-wrote, "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was … an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." How right he was. For it is an absolute fallacy that the Bush administration had no post-invasion plan for Iraq. The administration had a very clear economic plan that has contributed significantly to the disastrous results of the war. The plan was prepared at least two months prior to the war by the U.S. consultancy firm, Bearing Point, Inc., which then received a $250 million contract to remake Iraq's economic infrastructure.

    L. Paul Bremer III-the head of the U.S. occupation government of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)-followed Bearing Point's plan to the letter. From May 6, 2003 until June 28, 2004, Bremer implemented his "100 Orders" with the force of law, all but a handful of which remain in place today. As the preamble to many of the orders state, they are intended to "transition [Iraq] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Bremer's orders included firing the entire Iraqi military-some half a million men-in the first weeks of the occupation. Suddenly jobless, many of these men took their guns with them and joined the violent insurgency. Bremer also fired 120,000 of Iraq's senior bureaucrats from every government ministry, hospital and school. {By removing the Sumi bureaucracy, they removed opposition to globalization. The U.S. could now shop for support from what would soon be a newly elected factionalized parliament-jk.} His laws allowed for the privatization of Iraq's state-owned enterprises (excluding oil) and for American companies to receive preferential treatment over Iraqis in the awarding of reconstruction contracts. The laws reduced taxes on all corporations by 25 percent and opened every sector of the Iraqi economy to private foreign investment. The laws allowed foreign firms to own 100 percent of Iraqi businesses (as opposed to partnering with Iraqi firms) and to send their profits home without having to invest a cent in the struggling Iraqi economy. Iraqi laws governing banking, foreign investment, patents, copyrights, business ownership, taxes, the media, agriculture and trade were all changed to conform to U.S. goals.

    After the U.S. corporate invasion of Iraq

    More than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts for post-war work totaling more than $50 billion. The American companies were hired, even though Iraqi companies had successfully rebuilt the country after the previous U.S. invasion. And, because the American companies did not have to hire Iraqis, many imported foreign workers instead. The Iraqis were, of course, well aware that American firms had received billions of dollars for reconstruction, that Iraqi companies and workers had been rejected and that the country was still without basic services. The result: increasing hostility, acts of sabotage targeted directly at foreign contractors and their work, and a rising insurgency.

    Halliburton received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies received contracts worth more than $1.5 billion each. The seven largest reconstruction contracts went to the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion). These companies are responsible for virtually all reconstruction in Iraq, including water, bridges, roads, hospitals, and sewers and, most significantly, electricity.

    U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, author of a 2002 U.S. government study on the likely effect that U.S. bombardment would have on Iraq's power system, said, "frankly, if we had just given the Iraqis some baling wire and a little bit of space to keep things running, it would have been better. But instead we've let big U.S. companies go in with plans for major overhauls."

    Many companies had their sights set on years-long privatization in Iraq, which helps explain their interest in "major overhauls" rather than getting the systems up and running. Cliff Mumm, head of Bechtel's Iraq operation, put it this way: "[Iraq] has two rivers, it's fertile, it's sitting on an ocean of oil. Iraq ought to be a major player in the world. And we want to be working for them long term."

    And, since many U.S. contracts guaranteed that all of the companies' costs would be covered, plus a set rate of profit (known as cost-plus contracts), they took their time, building expensive new facilities that showcased their skills and would serve their own needs should they be runing the systems one day.

    Mismanagement, waste, abuse and criminality have also characterized U.S. corporations in Iraq-leading to a series of U.S. contract cancellations. For example, a $243 million contract held by the Parsons Corporation for the construction of 150 health care centers was cancelled after more than two years of work and $186 million yielded just six centers, only two of which are serving patients. Parsons was also dropped from two different contracts to build prisons, one in Mosul and the other in Nasiriyah. The Bechtel Corporation was dropped from a $50 million contract for the construction of a children's hospital in Basra after it went $90 million over budget and a year-and-a-half behind schedule. These contracts have since been turned over to Iraqi companies.

    Halliburton's subsidiary KBR is currently being investigated by government agencies and facing dozens of charges for waste, fraud and abuse. Most significantly, in 2006, the U.S. Army cancelled Halliburton's largest government contract, the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), which was for worldwide logistical support to U.S. troops. Halliburton will continue its current Iraq contract, but this year the LOGCAP will be broken into smaller parts and competitively bid out to other companies.

    The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), a congressionally-mandated independent auditing and oversight body, has opened 256 investigations into criminal fraud, four of which have resulted in convictions. SIGIR has provided critical oversight of the U.S. reconstruction, but this fall it nearly fell prey to a GOP attempt to shut down its activities well ahead of schedule. Fortunately, it survived.

    SIGIR's October 2006 report to Congress reveals the failure of U.S. corporations in Iraq. In the electricity sector, less than half of all planned projects in Iraq have been completed, while 21 percent have yet to even begin. Even the term "complete" can be misleading as, for example, SIGIR has found that contractors have failed to build transmission and distribution lines to connect new generators to homes and businesses. Thus, nationally, Iraqis have on average just 11 hours of electricity a day, and in Baghdad, the heart of instability in Iraq, there are between four and eight hours on average per day. Before the war, Baghdad averaged 24 hours per day of electricity.

    While there has been greater success in finishing water and sewage projects, the fact that 80 percent of potable water projects are reported complete does little good if there is no electricity to pump the water into homes, hospitals or businesses. Meanwhile, the health care sector is truly a tragedy. Just 36 percent of planned projects are reported as complete. Of 20 planned hospitals, 12 are finished and only six of 150 planned public health centers are serving patients today.

    Overall, the economy is languishing, with high inflation, low growth, and unemployment rates estimated at 30 to 50 percent {being part of a militia is providing employment} for the nation and as high as 70 percent in some areas. The International Monetary Fund has enforced a structural adjustment program on Iraq that mirrors much of Bush's corporate globalization agenda, and the administration continues to push for Iraq's admission into the World Trade Organization.

    Iraq has not, therefore, emerged as the wealthy free market haven that Bush & Co. had hoped for. Several U.S. companies are now preparing to pack up, head home and take their billions of dollars with them, their work in Iraq left undone. The Bush administration is likely to follow a dual strategy: continuing to pursue a corporate free-trade haven in Iraq, while helping U.S. corporations extricate themselves without consequence. The administration will also focus on the big prize: Iraq's oil.

    Winning Iraq's oil prize:

    The Bush Agenda does have supporters, especially those corporate allies that have both shaped and benefited from the administration's economic and military policies. In the 2000 election cycle, the oil and gas industry donated 13 times more money to Bush's campaign than to Al Gore's. The Bush administration is the first in history in which the president, vice president and secretary of state are all former energy company officials. In fact, the only other U.S. president to come from the oil and gas industry was Bush's father. Moreover, both George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice have more experience running oil companies than they do working for the government.

    Planning to secure Iraq's oil for U.S. companies began on the tenth day of the Bush presidency, when Vice President Dick Cheney established the National Energy Policy Development Group-widely referred to as "Cheney's Energy Task Force." It produced two lists, titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts as of 5 March 2001," which named more than 60 companies from some 30 countries with contracts for oil and gas projects across Iraq-none of which were with American firms. However, because sanctions were imposed on Iraq at this time, none of the contracts could come into force. If the sanctions were removed-which was becoming increasingly likely as public opinion turned against the sanctions and Hussein remained in power-the contracts would go to all of those foreign oil companies and the U.S. oil industry would be shut out.

    As the Bush administration stepped up its war planning, the State Department began preparations for post-invasion Iraq. Meeting four times between December 2002 and April 2003, members of the State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group mapped out Iraq's oil future. They agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war" and that the best method for doing so was through Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs).

    PSAs are considered "privatization lite" in the oil business and, as such, are the favorite of international oil companies and the worst-case scenario for oil-rich states. With PSAs, oil ownership ultimately rests with the government, but the most profitable aspects of the industry-exploration and production-are contracted to the private companies under highly favorable terms. None of the top oil producers in the Middle East use PSAs, because they favor private companies at the expense of the exporting governments. In fact, PSAs are only used in respect to about 12 percent of world oil reserves {such as Nigeria}.

    After the invasion

    Two months after the invasion of Iraq, in May 2003, the U.S.-appointed senior adviser to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, Thamer al-Ghadban, announced that the new Iraqi government would honor few, if any, of the dozens of contracts signed with foreign oil companies under the Hussein regime.

    At the same time, Bremer was laying the economic groundwork for a "U.S. corporate friendly" Iraq. When Bremer left Iraq in June 2004, he bequeathed the Bush economic agenda to two men, Ayad Allawi and Adel Abdul Mahdi, who Bremer appointed interim Prime Minister and Finance Minister, respectively {viz., two sell the oil lackeys to head the Iraq government}. Two months later, Allawi (a former CIA asset) submitted guidelines for a new petroleum law to Iraq's Supreme Council for Oil Policy. The guidelines declared "an end to the centrally planned and state dominated Iraqi economy" and advised the "Iraqi government to disengage from running the oil sector, including management of the planned Iraq National Oil Company (INOC), and that the INOC be partly privatized in the future."

    Allawi's guidelines also turned all undeveloped oil and gas fields over to private international oil companies. Because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed, Allawi's proposal would put 64 percent of Iraq's oil into the hands of foreign firms. However, if a further 100 billion barrels are discovered, as is widely predicted, foreign companies could control 81 percent of Iraq's oil-or 87 percent if, as the Oil Ministry predicts, 200 billion barrels are found.

    On December 21, 2004, Mahdi joined U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at the National Press Club and announced Iraq's plans for a new petroleum law that would open the oil sector to private foreign investment. "I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies," said Mahdi. He described how, under the proposed law, foreign companies would gain access both to "downstream" and "maybe even upstream" oil investment in Iraq. ("Downstream" refers to refining, distribution, and marketing of oil. "Upstream" refers to exploration and production.)

    The draft petroleum law adopted Allawi's recommendation that currently producing oil fields are to be developed by Iraq's National Oil Company, while all new fields are opened to private companies using PSAs.

    The Bush administration and U.S. oil companies have maintained constant pressure on Iraq to pass the petroleum law. The administration appointed an advisor to the Iraqi government from Bearing Point to support completion of the law. And in July 2006, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq.

    The Iraq Study Group, recognizing as it did the primacy of oil in its Iraq calculations, recommended that the U.S. "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies."

    Put simply, U.S. oil companies want access to as much of Iraq's oil as they can get and on the best possible terms. The fact that Iraq is a war-ravaged and occupied nation works to the companies' benefit. As a result, the companies and the Bush administration are holding U.S. troops hostage in Iraq until they get what they want. Once the companies get their lucrative contracts, they will still need protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 144,000 American troops? {Following this pattern, we can know understand why the U.S. has not completed medical clinics, re-establish electric service, etc. They are holding the country hostage, with a promise of approve the sale of the oil fields and then these projects will be completed--jk.}

    Three days after the release of the Iraq Study Group Report, the al-Maliki government announced that Iraq's oil law was near completion. The law adopts PSAs and not only opens Iraq to private foreign companies, but permits "for the first time-local and international companies to carry out oil exploration in Iraq."

    To ensure that this model prevails, the Iraq Study Group recommends that Iraq's constitution be rewritten to give the central government of Iraq-as opposed to individual regions-the ultimate decision-making authority over all of Iraq's developed and undeveloped oil fields.

    Standard Oil Company's John D. Rockefeller famously said, "Own nothing, control everything." He would be proud of the U.S. oil companies and the Bush administration, as they seem poised to get exactly the control they want over Iraq's oil.

    Beyond Iraq: the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area

    But the Bush agenda has never been limited to Iraq. As the Wall Street Journal reported in May 2003, "For many conservatives, Iraq is now the test case for whether the U.S. can engender American-style free-market capitalism {neoliberalism} within the Arab world." To this end, the administration has used the "stick" of the Iraq war to convince nations across the Middle East to adopt its free trade agenda. The mechanism for doing so is the president's U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA).

    The corporate lobbying group behind the MEFTA, the aptly named U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition, includes among its 120 members Chevron, ExxonMobil, Bechtel and Halliburton-companies intimately connected to the Bush administration that have already been big winners in Iraq.

    Insulated by oil revenue, the Middle East has largely avoided succumbing to the sacrifices required under free trade agreements. But since the war began, negotiations for the MEFTA have progressed rapidly.

    The Bush administration devised a unique negotiating strategy for the MEFTA. Rather than negotiate with all of the nations as a bloc, the United States negotiates one-on-one with each country. This means that every nation-some half the size of one state in the United States-must try to make a deal that serves its own interests with the most economically and militarily dominant nation in the world. The reality is that there can be no "negotiation" between such thoroughly unequal pairings.

    These individual free trade agreements are then united under the MEFTA. If successful, the MEFTA would be concluded by 2013 and include 20 countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia and Yemen.

    To date, the Bush administration has signed 13 Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs), which demonstrate a country's commitment to the MEFTA, and are considered the key step towards passage of a full Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Things have moved briskly since the invasion of Iraq. Algeria and Bahrain signed before the war, while agreements with Lebanon (the most recent, signed in December), Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco, Oman and Iraq all followed the war. The United States has signed FTAs with five Middle Eastern countries: Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman. The last three were signed after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Negotiations with the United Arab Emirates are underway and near completion.

    The winners, of course, are U.S. corporations. On January 19, 2006, for example, then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert Portman sent a letter to Oman's minister of commerce and industry affirming that, when it signs contracts, the Omani government may not give preference to the government's state-controlled oil companies. As for Oman's apparel industry, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the U.S.-Oman agreement will lead to a 66 percent increase in U.S. imports of apparel manufactured in Oman. What are the likely effects? In May, a report by the National Labor Committee detailed the cost of the first Middle East trade agreement signed by Bush in December 2001-the U.S.-Jordan FTA. After that agreement was implemented, new factories arrived in Jordan to service American companies, primarily apparel firms such as Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Target and Jones New York. These factories have engaged in the worst kinds of rights violations, including 48-hour shifts without sleep, physical and psychological abuse, and, in the case of imported foreign workers, employers who hold passports and refuse to pay. (Wal-Mart also is a member of the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition. The Bush administration will spend the next two years aggressively pushing the MEFTA as it seeks to expand the economic invasion of Iraq to the entire region.

    What's next?

    Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has claimed that we will live in a safer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world if the United States remains at war and if countries throughout the world change their laws and adopt economic policies that benefit America's largest multinational corporations. The Bush Agenda has proven to have the opposite effect: increasing deadly acts of terrorism and economic insecurity, reducing freedom, and engendering more war. To replace the Bush Agenda, we must address each of its key pillars individually-war, imperialism and corporate globalization.

    The most urgent first step is ending the war in Iraq by ending both the military and corporate occupations. We in the peace movement have already made tremendous progress in reaching these ends. Most Americans now oppose the war. The peace movement has welcomed with open arms U.S. soldiers and their families who share this opposition and unity has made us all stronger. Counter-recruitment efforts are blossoming across the country. The U.S. labor movement has joined forces with its counterpart in Iraq. Protests at corporate headquarters and shareholder meetings have led to U.S. war profiteers being called to account for their abuses in Iraq. Our success was made concrete with the dismissal of the president's party from power in both the House and the Senate.

    According to "Election 2006: No to Staying the course on Trade," by Public Citizen, 18 House races saw "fair traders" replace "free traders" in the midterm election, and not a single "free trader" beat a fair trade candidate. {Staying the course translates into holding the Iraq nation hostage until they pass PSA-jk.} In every Senate seat that changed hands, a fair trader beat a free trader. One of their most important tasks this year will be to deny Bush the renewal of Fast Track negotiating authority when it expires in July. Fast Track allows the president to move trade bills through Congress quickly by overriding core aspects of the democratic process, such as committee deliberations, full congressional debate and the ability to offer amendments. In addition to the newcomers, several existing allies have been elevated to new positions of power. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) is now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He has pledged to resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations. Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) will use his chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee to exercise greater oversight of Bush's war spending. The most important ally, however, will likely be Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the new chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. Waxman has been one of the most effective and aggressive critics of Halliburton's work in Iraq, greatly contributing to Halliburton's loss of its LOGCAP contract.

    Our allies in the new Congress should put forward two key demands:

    First, all remaining and future U.S. reconstruction funds must be turned over to Iraqi companies and Iraqi workers. SIGIR found that when Iraqi companies receive contracts (rather than subcontracts from U.S. companies), their work is faster, less expensive and less prone to insurgent attack. There are literally hundreds of both private and public Iraqi companies-and millions of Iraqi workers-ready, able and willing to do this work. U.S. military commanders and soldiers in Iraq have repeatedly made this demand as they have learned firsthand that a person with a clipboard or a shovel in his or her hands is far less likely to carry a gun.

    Second, U.S. corporations must not be allowed to "cut and run." Every U.S. corporation with reconstruction contracts in Iraq must be individually audited and each project investigated by SIGIR. Misspent funds must be returned and made available to Iraqis for reconstruction. SIGIR has begun this process with plans for a full audit of Bechtel's work due out early this year. SIGIR needs more staff, greater oversight authority and more money to complete this work in a timely manner.

    The Democrats must abandon the Bush administration's plan to remake Iraq into an economic wonderland for U.S. corporations. Iraq must belong to the Iraqis to remake as they see fit. Nowhere is this demand more critical than in the case of Iraq's oil. It is clear that Iraq needs to develop its oil sector to survive and that it needs to retain as much of the proceeds from its oil as possible. It is also clear that it should be the Iraqi public-freed of the external pressure of a foreign occupation, the Bush administration and U.S. corporations-that decides how its oil is developed. U.S. oil corporations cannot be permitted to "win" the war in Iraq while we-Iraqis and Americans-pay the price for their victory.

    IMF policy is to sell of the assets of each nation-which was consistent with the Whitehouse plan. From the point of view of Muslim zealots, this Americanization of the Arab world is the greatest immediate threat to their faith. Our presence on their turf and our plans for free trade turns these zealots into freedom fighters--jk.

    Read about how neoliberalism brought about the war in Iraq, and the plans to sell off the oil field through our puppet government there.

    What we all thought about the cause of the war, oil. However this article ties in international corporations and their wanting to upon up markets with the war. The politicians are not about informing through debate what is going on, but rather about selling their product and making their opponents look bad.

    [Sep 16, 2015] U.S. Rejected Offers by Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to Surrender … and Proceeded to Wage War

    "...There's no money in PEACE.."
    Sep 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Submitted by George Washington on 09/16/2015 00:42 -0400

    The Daily Mail reported last year:

    A self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that [Gaddafi offered to abdicate as leader of Libya.]

    'Gaddafi wasn't a good guy, but he was being marginalized,' [Retired Rear Admiral Chuck ] Kubic recalled. 'Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate' shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.

    'But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,' the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.

    Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.

    'We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,' Kubic said, 'but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.'

    The Washington Times wrote in January:

    "I have been contacted by an intermediary in Libya who has indicated that President Muammar Gadhafi is willing to negotiate an end to the conflict under conditions which would seem to favor Administration policy," [former U.S. Congressman Dennis] Kucinich wrote on Aug. 24.

    ***

    Mrs. Clinton ordered a general within the Pentagon to refuse to take a call with Gadhafi's son Seif and other high-level members within the regime, to help negotiate a resolution, the secret recordings reveal.

    A day later, on March 18, Gadhafi called for a cease-fire, another action the administration dismissed.

    ***

    "Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this. Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all," the Pentagon intelligence asset told Seif Gadhafi and his adviser on the recordings.

    Communication was so torn between the Libyan regime and the State Department that they had no point of contact within the department to even communicate whether they were willing to accept the U.N.'s mandates, former Libyan officials said.

    ***

    "The decision to invade [Libya] had already been made, so everything coming out of the State Department at that time was to reinforce that decision," the official explained, speaking only on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution.

    ***

    "The Libyans would stop all combat operations and withdraw all military forces to the outskirts of the cities and assume a defensive posture. Then to insure the credibility with the international community, the Libyans would accept recipients from the African Union to make sure the truce was honored," Mr. Kubic said, describing the offers.

    "[Gadhafi] came back and said he was willing to step down and permit a transition government, but he had two conditions," Mr. Kubic said. "First was to insure there was a military force left over after he left Libya capable to go after al Qaeda. Secondly, he wanted to have the sanctions against him and his family and those loyal to him lifted and free passage. At that point in time, everybody thought that was reasonable."

    But not the State Department.

    Gen. Ham was ordered to stand down two days after the negotiation began, Mr. Kubic said. The orders were given at the behest of the State Department, according to those familiar with the plan in the Pentagon. Gen. Ham declined to comment when questioned by The Times.

    "If their goal was to get Gadhafi out of power, then why not give a 72-hour truce a try?" Mr. Kubic asked. "It wasn't enough to get him out of power; they wanted him dead."

    Similarly, Saddam Hussein allegedly offered to let weapons inspectors in the country and to hold new elections. As the Guardian reported in 2003:

    In the few weeks before its fall, Iraq's Ba'athist regime made a series of increasingly desperate peace offers to Washington, promising to hold elections and even to allow US troops to search for banned weapons. But the advances were all rejected by the Bush administration, according to intermediaries involved in the talks.

    Moreover, Saddam allegedly offered to leave Iraq:

    "Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion)".

    "The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch."

    "The White House refused to comment on the report last night. But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted."

    According to the tapes, Bush told Aznar that whether Saddam was still in Iraq or not, "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March." See also this and this.

    Susan Lindauer (after reading an earlier version of this essay by Washington's Blog) wrote:

    That's absolutely true about Saddam's frantic officers to retire to a Villa in Tikrit before the invasion. Except he never demanded $1 BILLION (or $500 MILLION). He only asked for a private brigade of the Iraqi National Guard, which he compared to President Clinton's Secret Service detail for life throughout retirement. I know that for a fact, because I myself was the back channel to the Iraqi Embassy at the U.N. in New York, who carried the message to Washington AND the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. Kofi Annan was very much aware of it. So was Spain's President Asnar. Those historical details were redacted from the history books when George Bush ordered my arrest on the Patriot Act as an "Iraqi Agent"– a political farce with no supporting evidence, except my passionate anti-war activism and urgent warnings that War in Iraq would uncover no WMDs, would fire up a violent and bloody counter-insurgency, and would result in Iran's rise as a regional power. In 2007, the Senate Intelligence Committee hailed my warnings in Jan. 2003 (as the Chief Human Intelligence covering Iraq at the U.N.) to be one of the only bright spots in Pre-War Intelligence. Nevertheless, in 2005 and again in 2008, I was declared "incompetent to stand trial," and threatened with "indefinite detention up to 10 years" on Carswell Air Force Base, in order to protect the cover up of Iraqi Pre-War Intelligence.

    (The New York Times has covered Lindauer at least 5 times, including here and here.)

    On October 14, 2001, the Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted bombing if the Taliban were given evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.

    Specifically, the Guardian noted in 2001:

    Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty" …

    Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

    "If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

    However, as the Guardian subsequently pointed out:

    A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night.

    For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

    And the Guardian reports today:

    Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time.

    Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world's gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.

    Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.

    But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.

    ***

    "There was no question because I went back and asked him a second time," he said, noting that Churkin had just returned from a trip to Moscow and there seemed little doubt he was raising the proposal on behalf of the Kremlin.

    Ahtisaari said he passed on the message to the American, British and French missions at the UN, but he said: "Nothing happened because I think all these, and many others, were convinced that Assad would be thrown out of office in a few weeks so there was no need to do anything."

    Similarly, Bloomberg reported in 2012:

    As Syria slides toward civil war, Russia is signaling that it no longer views President Bashar al-Assad's position as tenable and is working with the U.S. to seek an orderly transition.

    ***

    After meeting with French President Francois Hollande, among the most adamant of Western leaders demanding Assad's departure, Putin said Russia was not invested in Assad staying.

    ***

    "We aren't for Assad or for his opponents," Putin told reporters in Paris on June 1. "We want to achieve a situation in which violence ends and a full-scale civil war is avoided."

    And yet, as with Gaddaffi, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden, the U.S. turned down the offer and has instead prosecuted war. See this and this.

    Postscript: An offer by Russia for Assad to leave is not the same as an offer by Assad himself. However, because the Syrian government would have long ago fallen without Russia's help, the distinction is not really that meaningful.

    demur

    What the USSA is doing is pure evil. At least Germany had a logical reason for aggressions. The treaty of Versailles unfairly took German lands. Germany wanted them back. It wasn't till Poland resisted that Germany let loose.

    The USSA destroys leaders seeking a truce and does so in the name of peace. Then it rams its immoral, family destroying sterilizing geo-political socio economic system down traditional pious soverigns throats.

    sidiji

    so this make us what? the evil emipire? officially the bad guys?

    honestann

    I don't call them the predators-that-be for nothing.

    Sudden Debt

    Why did we go to war in the first place?

    War industry, they run shit.

    And sure they did it so they could steal all the money in the world.

    That's why we're broke and half the world is at war.

    That can never be ended.

    tstraus

    This is far from a new phenomena, we did the same against Spain until we took the Philippines, Wilson and House were against a settlement of the then still European War until the US had shed its blood on European soil, which clearly would have resulted in a pre-hostilities border settlement and maintained political structures instead of unconditional surrender.

    All the blood, misery and human carnage that could have been subsequently avoided had we just stuck to the principles of the nations founders.

    But capital requires war, war for profits, war to cull excess supply of capital, war to rebuild and war to dominate.

    Power and money forged with American myth has been a potent mixture that directly and indirectly has murdered 100's of millions of innocent lives. And we are to destroy the cultural heritage of nations because one boy died on the beaches escaping a war that we initiated and fostered?

    yellowsub

    "War is Peace", why do you think they didn't negotiate?

    Turdy Brown

    Admiral Kubic is a good friend of mine. I was in Libya and Afghanistan with him. He is one of the smartest, bravest men that I have ever met.

    In fact a quick story about him. We were both working on a project at the US Embassy in Kabul in 2011. I had just landed in the morning and as soon as I got to the Embassy, a group of Taliban started lobbing rocket towards the Embassy. Anyhow, it was a 24 hour ordeal but Kubic was the only person that I saw that grabbed an AK from a Ghurka guard (btw Ghurkas are cowards!), and rushed towards the attackers! Most people, including security personell were running away from the fire. Not Kubic: he was charging the Taliban! Never seen anything like it in my life!

    I also have personal knowledge of what he has said in this article. ALL TRUE!

    pFXTim

    wouldn't be the first time...

    Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

    The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. (See p. 329, Chapter 26) . . . [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."]

    http://www.doug-long.com/guide1.htm

    somewhat different than the widely accepted official narrative.

    SUNKNIGHT2010

    Saddam Hussein switched from using the US dollar to the euro in selling Iraqi oil. The same with Libya, they were friends with the USA until plans were established to set up a currency (Dinar) backed by gold .for the USA's economy to survive, it MUST maintain world currency reserve status --

    ANYTHING that threatens this position WILL be neutralized, irregardless of what it takes -- When Iraq started selling oil using the euro, Saddam Hussein signed his death warrant, as did Libya -- The true reason for all this conflict is to maintain & support the US dollar & economy, namely all the wealthy of Wall Street & Washington DC .

    But for some weird reason ALOT of people here seem to think Israel is responsible for everything bad that has or will ever happen !

    Sad how in 2015 , people are still so racist -- How far humanity has advanced in technology but how primitive an foolish the human race still is in MANY ways !

    Reaper

    There is glory in military victories. Exceptional trained sheeple die for that glory. Does the sheeple's god reward them for their stupidity? Do the gods praise as exceptional those whom they'll destroy?

    11b40

    Wall Street controls Washington.

    Who controls Wall Street?

    (if you don't know, I'm sure someone here could help you find out)

    Motasaurus

    London controls Wall Street. And Riyadh. And Tel-Aviv. Not England, London. And the Bankers who control that city, control the world.

    RagnarRedux

    Yep, sounds just like ethno-oligarch subverted Western nations, nothing has changed.

    What the World Rejected

    Hitler's Peace Offers, 1933- 1939

    http://ihr.org/other/what-the-world-rejected.html

    http://www.tomatobubble.com/id570.html

    BullyBearish

    There's no money in PEACE..

    Max Steel

    Why is the West reporting this NOW? It is a negotiating ploy. They know they have lost. Now they are trying to see if this old offer could still be put on the table.

    silverer

    No, the US leadership is a bunch of sore losers. That's what US voters wanted, prayed for, hoped for, and then mandated with an election. US leaders can't admit defeat, so next is probably a nuclear escalation, because they've convinced themselves that they have dug their protection deep enough into a number of mountains at taxpayer expense so that they will win and then survive.

    In Russia, they built billions of dollars worth of fallout shelters over the last 20 years for the ordinary Russian. Every citizen in Moscow is within three minutes of a fallout shelter. The Russian leadership knows the US leadership better than the US voters do. In the US, they haven't built anything at all to protect the general population, and apparently consider everyone expendable.

    This way, if the US calls it all wrong and totally screws it up, they won't have to answer to anyone who voted for them when they walk out of their fallout shelters a year after it's all over.


    OpTwoMistic

    Do not confuse America with its leadership.

    Motasaurus

    So long as the leadership remains in power and not dangling by their necks from the White House balcony, America and the leadership are the same.

    SmittyinLA

    The US didn't want an election, Kaddaffi would have won, he was loved by his people, Libyans wouldn't vote for their own liquidation, Libya had the highest living standards in Africa, Libyan citizenship was a valuable commodity -- like US citizenship.

    Libya was looted in an international war crime.

    To Hell In A Handbasket

    Looted is the understatement of the year.

    The narrative by the MSM was Gaddaffi is a dictator and the people need freedom and democracy. What the MSM ommitted was a background history of the country, Libya's achievments under Gaddaffi vs the total plunder of Libya under our puppet leader King Idris(who was overthrown by Gaddaffi), who were the Libyian National Transitional Council (NTC), what was the price of French(NATO) intervention for the treasonous (NTC)? (Mining rights to 35% of Libya's hydro carbons)

    On 3 April a letter was sent by Libya's National Transitional Council (NTC) to a coalition partner, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, which mentioned that France would take "35 percent of crude oil...in exchange for its total and permanent support" of the NTC. France's Liberation daily reported on Thursday that it had a copy of the letter, which stated that the NTC's Information Minister Mahmoud Shammam, would negotiate the deal with France. In 2010 France was the second purchaser of Libyan oil after Italy, with over 15 percent of its "oil" imported from Tripoli.

    But that's not all as we must apply logic. Who was the first country to recognise the NTC? Which was the only country Gaddaffi broke off diplomatic ties? Which country was the first to bomb? The answer is France, to all 3 of those questions, but there is more the MSM avoided talking about and the biggest mystery is WHERE IS LIBYA'S 148 METRIC TONNS OF GOLD? Western leaders are not interested in peace, but in conquest and plunder for their paymasters.. Even the doubters who believed in freedom and humanitarian intervention, had to sit up, pause and think, when the NTC before they had even reached Trippoli and was losing the ground offensive, created their own central bank that was recognised by the NATO coalition inside of 2 days.. Case closed.

    OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

    Gaddafi had loaned Unicredito multiple billions in 2009 and they didn't feel like paying it back. Follow the money.

    Bankster Kibble

    We don't trust elections in our client states. When the Iraqis had their first election after the fall of Saddam, they elected some mullah we didn't like so we made them hold another election. "Do it again until you do it right!"

    rsnoble

    There's no profit in peace. Or not nearly as much I should say. A little dribble just won't cut it, steal the whole fucking enchilada at once. Get to test weapons. Get to play with cool toys like drones. See people get blown to pieces for the sick-minded. Move closer to world domination, etc. All ideas of crazy people. The only problem is, since this is human nature, if the US wasn't doing it or preventing others, would others step in with the same crazy ass plan? I would venture to guess yes.

    GRDguy

    Whatever is of benefit to peaceful citizens is not profitable to the financial sociopaths. Hence, fighting increases. Your real enemy hides in financial institutions, surrounded by minions and voracious lawyers.

    BurnUnit

    Do you think the white collar crime of Wall Steet and the Federal Reserve is bad ?

    For more crimes against humanity go to www.firecrusade.com and see Free Document page and click link A Crime Against Humanity

    The very gov agencies that are supposed to be protecting the public from dangers of fire and hazardous products, CPSC and NFPA as well as the non gov testing facility UL which often tests products on the governments behalf, have been covering up a deadly conspiracy to commit fraud that has resulted in the deaths of 10's of 1000's and horrible, often times, disfiguring injuries of 100's of 1000's of unsuspecting consumers over last 5 decades.

    These agencies have all been in the back pocket of ionized alarm manufactures for over 50 years , which was exposed back in 1976 by a Fire Protection Engineer, Richard Patton. Mr. Patton revealed that the government funded Dunes Test which tested smoke alarms, was not only rigged so ionized alarms would pass the smoldering smoke stage of test but the data was falsified so that ionized detectors could keep the UL stamp of approval, while the superior, safer and more reliable heat detector technologies were deliberately set up to fail the tests.

    With each day that passes and the CSPC fails to make a mandatory recall of ion alarms , many more victims will either be killed and or suffer serious injuries as the ionized alarm manufactures flooded the market with ion alarms and it is estimated that over 90% of all homes and habitable structures have these deadly devices, providing the public with a false sense of security.

    Buyer beware -- These deaths and injuries have been and are preventable, as the safer more reliable photoelectric / heat smoke alarms have been available for over 40 years. The ion manufactures are fully aware of the problem and have been sued multiple times and paid $10's of millions in damages and the UL has been sued as well. Manufactures, in one lawsuit back in 2001 were ordered to provide disclosure on ion alarm packaging which ended up being a watered down disclosure / recommendation to use both photoelectric and ionized alarms. Being ion alarms are less expensive and majority of consumers do not read fine print on packaging which omits the actual dangers / death / injury factors, consumers assume a smoke detector is a smoke detector, and most people still opt to buy the less expensive and dangerous ion alarms.

    Most everyone you know is at risk and should be made aware of these deadly devices as the government agencies will continue to cover up the fraud from the public until such a time a civil lawsuit and verdict is reached to force CPSC to execute a mandatory recall which could take several years. Please post this message on your facebook and twitter sites and forward to as many others as possible. More information and 60 minutes segment / news videos that have covered this issue can be found on www.smokealarmwarning.org

    rwe2late

    and in Ukraine,

    Poroshenko (the elected guy who didn't want the IMF-NATO offer for Ukraine),

    had agreed in a EU brokered deal to hold early elections and step down.

    Guess who said "Fuck the EU" and instead backed a coup by jackbooted jingoists?

    rwe2late

    nor should we forget the US-led attack on Yugoslavia, in complete violation of the UN charter, a devastating bombing campaign destroying the civilian infrastructure, done with the hypocritical alleged motive to prevent "human rights violations".

    In that case, Yugoslavia's refusal to accept a non-negotiable ultimatum to surrender sovereignty of its territory (Kosovo) to the Mafia-run KLA was falsely depicted as Yugoslavia's refusal to negotiate.

    http://www.iacenter.org/warcrime/22_rambo.htm

    http://iacenter.org/warcrime/2_kla.htm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Kosovo

    Sandmann

    Now Turkey destabilises Western Europe by funnelling refugees into the EU in an invasion force. Germany takes in 1,000,000 in 2015 which exceeds its own birth rate. Won't be long before Europe disintegrates into civil war and regional conflicts like so much of its history. Soon the US will have created global chaos and it will not be able to restore order anywhere because it dare not put "boots on the ground" and it will need 4-5 million soldiers to restore order the way things are going.

    When the Ukrainian refugees start towards Western Europe it should be clear the EU has destroyed peace in Europe for generations

    SgtShaftoe

    It seems that the US "leaders" have made it a game to violate every law of the Geneva conventions.

    A. Bean-Counter

    All those kids who were taking, like, loads of drugs in the '70's, those kids are now running US foreign policy - and still taking the drugs.

    SixIsNinE

    the "kids" who Turned On went into music, computing, design, family, travel, and more ...

    but yeah, those alcoholic kids did go on to run foreign policy, i give you that ...

    mc225

    ...coke heads too, but less likely the potheads...

    Usurious

    Global Geopolitical Chessboard:
    Psychopathic Players and Cynical Moves
    Guarantee a Future of Perpetual War "From the Black Sea to the Baltic"

    Explosive Presentation Hosted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Reveals

    What No Government Official, No Political Representative, No NGO Executive

    and No Think Tank Director Has Ever Said Before in Public

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=22223

    rita

    When will the American people demand that Cheney, Bush Hillary and Obama face justice for war crimes committed against humanity. Hopefully in 2016 Americans remember the crimes these people have committed and vote for somehing with not such a past.

    Pancho de Villa

    Are you Dreaming Amigo? Los Gringos will Never admit what they Refuse to Believe! Bush and Cheney will go to their graves as Heroes in their eyes! Otherwise Intelligent Peoples Refuse to Entertain what They Consider to be "Treasonous" Notions. I have Three Brother-in-Laws that work in Govt Related Fields. I get along with them all just fine now that I have learned what Topics to Avoid in Conversation!

    Buen Suenos, Amigo

    aleph0

    http://libyasos.blogspot.de/p/gaddafi.html

    With the discovery of oil in Libya in 1959, a very poor desert country became a very rich little western protectorate. US and European companies had huge stakes in the extremely lucrative petroleum and banking sectors, but these were soon nationalized by Gaddafi. Thus Libya overnightjoined the list of US 'enemy' or 'rogue' states that sought autonomy and self-determination outside the expanding sphere of western Empire. Further cementing western hatred of the new regime, Libya played a leading role of the 1973 oil embargo against the US and maintained cooperative relations with the Soviet Union. Gaddafi also reportedly channeled early oil wealth into national free health care and education.

    Life in Libya with Leader Gaddafi:

    1. Electricity for household use is free,

    2. interest-free loans

    3. during the study, government give to every student 2 300 dolars/month

    4. receives the average salary for this profession if you do not find a job after graduation,

    5. the state has paid for to work in the profession,

    6. every unemployed person receives social assistance 15,000 $/year,

    7. for marriage state pays first apartment or house (150m2),

    8. buying cars at factory prices,

    9. LIBYA not owe anyone a cent,

    10. free higher education abroad,

    11. 25% of highly educated,

    12. 40 loaves of bread costs $ 0.15,

    13. water in the middle of the desert, drinking water,

    14. 8 dinars per liter of oil (0.08 EUR),

    15. 6% poor people,

    16. for each infant, the couple received $ 5,000 for their needs.

    etc.
    etc.

    sleigher

    "9. LIBYA not owe anyone a cent,"

    That's the problem right there...

    SixIsNinE

    and i didn't see any mention of the golden Squid in the article, so more obfuscation still ....

    HamRove

    Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, and Condoleeza Rice among many others all need to spend a better portion of their earthly existence in an 8x8 cell watching the rest of us enjoying their sudden departure.

    steelhead23

    That's a rather incomplete list, but it's a start.

    f16hoser

    Don't forget Blair...

    Motasaurus

    What's that? The UK and their US and NATO puppets weren't at all interested in peaceful solutions to the middle-east conflicts? It's almost exactly like the way Israel targetted assasinations against the moderate Palistinian politicians for the express purpose of making the radicals powerful, meaning that no peace would be possible.

    One would think that the aim has been to kill as many people as possible, and not regime change at all.

    TheRideNeverEnds

    Yes that and in many of these countries in the end its all about the physical gold they hold, a new leader doesn't matter we need to go there kill whoever and take their shit.

    Saddam had lots and lots of gold, I think Ghadaffi had more.

    Many of these places we end up going had loads of gold all of which now belongs to us aka the west aka the bankers aka the tribe. So in the end maybe we are all doing gods work just by being part of that system.

    HowdyDoody

    We also had to get the results of the effects of nukes on undamaged cities and their inhabitants - a magnificently evil medical experiment.

    [Sep 15, 2015] After winning his prize, Malcolm Turnbull must learn from Abbott's mistakes by Gabrielle Chan

    Sep 15, 2015 | The Guardian


    NewmanOldjoke darthseditious1969 14 Sep 2015 20:53

    Abbott loaded up Turnbull with a poisoned chalice. Seriously, infrastructure of the NBN's scale was never going to be straightforward, with Telstra's hard ass obstructionism thrown in..Still, the pollies wanted to politicise it, and Rupert's self-interested media style never gave them any choice.

    When you step back, political vanity, fear of Rupert, and individualist ambition ruined the Libs on two really important issues in the ETS and the NBN. If they'd had the wit to be bipartisan both would be non-issues that would have fed a lot of positives back into their own interests and the community. But they chose to see short-termist wedge opportunity and failed to see Rupert's and his mates self-interest was whipping them. Outfoxed by Fox, so to speak.

    I doubt whether they will have the self-awareness to rue their binding to the IPA and Murdoch, but they ought to. Maybe in a decade. The malignant interest of old men's corporate internal power struggles has screwed the Libs out of so many options.


    Cdaler77 14 Sep 2015 20:35

    Turnbull just needs to be "not Abbott".

    Be consultative with his colleagues AND the Australian people.
    Abbott was constantly at war with both. That's no way to be a Prime Minister.

    Stop being under the thumb of Murdoch and Stokes, and simply refuse to go on any shock jock's TV or radio shows. Tell Bolt, Hadley, Jones and all the others to just get stuffed.
    The way Scott Morrison sucks up to Ray Hadley is simply sickening and unbecoming of a Minister of the Government. He should stop it now.

    Just never, ever, treat the Australian people with the contempt that Abbott has shown us over the years. That he (Abbott) has gone is one of the best things that has happened. Now hopefully we can all settle down and put the toxic era of Rudd/Gillard/Rudd/Abbott behind us.

    I say this as a Labor supporter. I know it may mean Labor doesn't win the next election, but I'm so relieved Abbott is gone. He was a very dangerous man for our country in these troubled times. Hopefully now cooler heads will prevail on both sides.


    ukchange68 14 Sep 2015 20:14

    Abbott gone - tick
    Cameron - work in progress
    Obama - work in progress
    Getting there...............

    JemFinch1 BSchwartz 14 Sep 2015 20:11

    He is a truculent, spoiled, entitled child. Yes, his speech will have to be written for him, but he is the goose who has to deliver it, and no doubt he will stuff that up too.

    Good riddance to bad rubbish.

    I know the Libs are still in power, but maybe now we can actually have some intelligent debate, some thought out policies, and Labor will have to lift their game - Tones won't be kicking any more home goals.


    darthseditious1969 -> smudge10 14 Sep 2015 20:06

    I get a distinct impression that Turnbull holds Murdoch in contempt. Which might be a good thing.


    BSchwartz 14 Sep 2015 19:49

    No one likes losing. But it is expected that you rock up, thank your supporters, reflect on your achievements, and either which the victor all the best or to rot in hell.
    Abbott's failure to appear after losing the ballot reminds us of why his leadership failed.

    He was an adrenaline junky, always aggressive, never reflective, never gracious.

    He also was a hopeless thinker, unable to react to changing circumstance, never able to speak in more than soundbites.

    Someone will have written a speech for him overnight. He is incapable. History will not be kind.


    long_memory 14 Sep 2015 19:11

    Great that Australia's experiment of having a Abbott fascist government has come to an end.

    "Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
    4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
    5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
    6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
    7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
    10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
    14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."
    http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

    thegarlicfarmer 14 Sep 2015 19:02

    There will be short-lived honeymoon - then this elitist self interested man will be shown to what he is - same as Abbott in that he will serve his masters - the wealthy, multi-nationals et al. He has no regard to the common man/woman as he does not understand them. He has no moral compass - as long as he has power then all is ok. Supposedly a knowledgeable man on the NBN - look what has happened to that under his watch! Remember his foray as leader before? How we forget so quickly! He allowed a lowly public servant to hoodwink him - so that is the type of Prime Minister we have. HE HAS NO INTEREST BUT IN HIMSELF. Where oh where are the leaders who will take this great country forward - there is none in any of the political elite that play in Canberra these day? It will not happen in my lifetime but I live in hope that the generation y etc. will take the baton and run with it.


    Abel Adamski Friarbird 14 Sep 2015 18:45

    A cartoon that is a epitaph
    https://broelman.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/broelman-sept-11.jpg
    Note the wording on the shirt
    However we as a Nation and It's government score a substantial mention in an article that raises many very important issues
    http://robertscribbler.com/2015/09/10/new-study-risk-of-significant-methane-release-from-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-still-growing/

    Can Malcolm get some reality into the Global Warming issue before it becomes an absolute disaster, positive feedbacks are kicking in


    Philip Emery 14 Sep 2015 18:42

    Turnbull is to be commended on flushing the toilet and getting rid of the big turd wallowing in the bottom of the bowl. Now it is to be hoped he scrapes the encrusted shit of the sides and actually has a go at governing. And Malcolm remember you're there to govern, not rule.


    Warren Peece 14 Sep 2015 18:28

    I hereby christen Abbott: Two Turd (as in 2/3) Tony, he did manage 2 of a possible 3 years, after all.


    Friarbird 14 Sep 2015 18:18

    Abbott was a museum exhibit, a blundering politician from an earlier age and narrow culture. He would have been quite at home in the clerical fascist regimes of Europe in the 1920's-40's, in which obedience to authority was counted the primary virtue.

    Sitting at the knee of the prominent Catholic reactionary, BA Santamaria, he absorbed the 'values' of these regimes. They never left him. Consequently, he had real difficulty adapting to the democratic Westminster System and appeared baffled when it raised obstacles in his path. Government, it seemed, should act as a Prime Minister directs. He seemed to have little patience or understanding of the separation of powers doctrine and often sought to circumvent it, sometimes by ignoring it altogether, or by ludicrous 'captain's picks' which exhibited his often risible rash judgement. He had little imagination and lacked even the trademark fancy footwork associated with politicians--picking up and using the ideas of others. Significantly, his most striking 'success' was the dismantling of Labor's work. No politician of 'calibre' would wish to be thus remembered. Australia is well shot of him.


    RalphFilthy 14 Sep 2015 18:16


    F**k you Abbott.

    Goodbye.

    Some departing amusement (safe for work - not safe for conservatives)

    Tony Abbott vs Tony Abbott


    Saltyandthepretz Talwyn224 14 Sep 2015 18:14

    "The worst prime minister in Australian political history"
    That is how he will be remembered. This is a very harsh, damning label (he is human and this course of events is enough to rock anyone) but his policies, his lies and his actions have led him to the inevitable.


    Saltyandthepretz markdeux 14 Sep 2015 17:55

    This last act of hiding seals Abbott's fate as the worst Prime Minister in the history of Australian politics. He wanted to be known as the "infrastructure Prime Minister" but words and actions can be two completely different things, thus he will be remembered as the "incompetent Prime Minister".


    Bearmuchly OnceWasAus 14 Sep 2015 17:55

    "not Americas bitches which the LNP have become"...............

    Not disagreeing with the sentiment, however...........

    a. The ALP seem no less beholden to US foreign policy

    b. We've moved beyond National boundaries/nation states

    ........Murdoch represents global corporatisation, they know no boundaries, the world is their play pen and sovereign Govt's. , when not in their pockets, just get in the way.


    dipole 14 Sep 2015 17:43

    I'm conflicted.

    Tony Abbott is, without doubt, the worst Australian PM in living memory.
    Being as thick as two bricks, he was completely out of his depth.
    So showing this anti-science climate change denier the door is a good thing.

    But I was also looking forward to the complete trouncing the LNP were going to get at the next election. With Abbott as PM, he would have become the first one term PM in a very long time.

    Now Labor have to fight for the next election.
    Which is also a very good thing.

    Turnbull needs to state publically that climate change is real, and we have an obligation to combat it. He needs to state that he is pro-science, and pro-alternative energy. He needs to remove the priests from the nations schools. And he needs to fix the NBN, so we have something worth using.

    That will prove he is nothing like Abbott.


    Simon Thompson Penfisher 14 Sep 2015 17:42

    I am sure that someone will be able to point out the flaws in this suggestion, but here we go. The problem I see with representational government is that we elect the people whose lies we believe the most (or whose lies we'd like to believe the most).

    Whilst ever we delegate responsibility for decision-making to professional liars we will forever be complaining that we elected A, promised to do B, only to end up with legislation C. The Swiss have a form of government which includes a plebiscite where the public vote directly on the issues.

    I can see the first problem (in California) which is when the public votes for BOTH no increase in revenue / no increase in taxes AND an increase in expenditure. Maybe any expenditure has to include in the bill where the revenue is raised from? Meantime, our representational system of democracy which I consider CORPOCRACY (the best government that money can buy) will continue to plague us with paid-off pollies whose main job, as I said elsewhere is to get re-elected. Job #1 get elected. Job #2 get re-elected. Job #3 get to form government .. rinse and repeat. We can all see how the piper calls the tune and the biggest campaign donors and lobbyists get the government policy they want. Would plebiscites be able to be made to work in Australia? Would it deliver a better form of government?


    Raymond Hall 14 Sep 2015 17:42

    The miserable coward that Abbott has always been was on show last night. No show. From the most divisive, bullying and mean man ever to grace the position of PM, Abbott has thankfully been shown the door. Turnbull will be an improvement. How much an improvement only time will tell. But the real essence is that the LNP are damaged beyond repair, and only when the far right neo-cons fade away, will they ever be a real force again.

    Anthony Forsyth 14 Sep 2015 17:38

    Bye bye, Tone. A gutless ideologue who bullied his way to a job that was far beyond his ability. You won't be missed.

    Mr Turbull no doubt believes this signals the end of the neo-cons and ushers in a glorious era for neoliberalism again. Can't imagine how he will govern his conservative apparatchiks from the centre.

    The world is moving toward a new era with a new kind of socialism at the forefront. Corbyn elected as leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Sanders gaining traction in the U.S.

    Expect Australia to be 5 steps behind yet again.


    WitlessNall 14 Sep 2015 17:09

    Can someone please tell Rupert Murdoch Australia isn't his little kingdom anymore?

    Yeah you better remember that ScoMo next time you want to remind us what a puppet you are ...


    markdeux 14 Sep 2015 17:08

    Where was Abbott last night. A gutless mean spirited low life who did not have the courage to face the cameras after being dumped by some of his party. How long before the neo's are out to destroy Mal?

    Rudd's actions after being dumped will look like a kiddies party compared to what is going to happen. Bets are on that Cory the enlightened one will be the first thug to attack. This is going to be fun.


    Falcopilot Marleyman 14 Sep 2015 16:54

    I always TRY to look on peoples best sides, but unfortunately the facts back you up all the way, so I reluctantly concur with your assessment!
    Abbott was a truly sad excuse for a humane being, and I always think of his party as the "mean and nasty party"!
    Abbott's legacy is not going to look in the history books at all, he is/was a dismal failure, not unlike Bush V2.0 and that real weirdo Blair!
    What is it that enables all the sociopaths/weirdo's/damaged people to get into power?
    The politician's job description seems to attract a lot of the "wrong type of people", not unlike flies and maggots to a bad smell.
    I am very hopeful that Malcolm CAN successfully polish that turd, because the political "system" does not work very with only one viable party/choice!
    I think both parties need regular major shake ups to smarten them up and make them hungry, and to top them becoming ever more disfunctional.


    GiveMyCountryBack 14 Sep 2015 16:38

    Will Dumb-Dumb even go to work today? It might all be a bit too much for the petal.

    Looking forward to when the Labor address a question to the PM, Malcontent, that reference Ten Flags. Good times.


    GiveMyCountryBack BobRafto 14 Sep 2015 16:36

    Yep. They need to start hammering him on this stuff. He came out and said 'you can vote for me, I'm not Dumb-Dumb', but hasn't demonstrated any desire for different policies.

    He's fucked. The party hate him. Heaps of their rabid voter base hate him. People generally dislike 'wankers' and there's no doubt that the slick delivery of Malcontent will leave people with the impression that he is just that.

    Just another smug merchant banker. Treat him accordingly.


    dga1948 14 Sep 2015 16:32

    He may be a Turd rolled in glitter but remember comrade, you can't polish a Turd and this Turd has demonstrated on more occasions then I can remember that he is prepared to abandon any principle in pursuit of power.


    Marleyman 14 Sep 2015 16:23

    Good riddance to Abbott a true turd amongst a big steaming pile. He was a nasty vile ideological religious zealot driven by fear prejudice and backward dark aged thinking. Can Turnbull polish this turd ? I doubt it..the grassroots fascists remain behind the scenes spreading their stupid philosophy


    blarneybanana scott_skelton 14 Sep 2015 16:09

    I'm NOT a Labor supporter, and he exceeded our wildest imaginings.

    Picking a fight with CHina, Russia and Indonesia SIMULTANEOUSLY?! That's the kind of things that books are plotted around.
    Attacking a wheelchair bound war hero? (well, tried to)


    blarneybanana gudzwabofer 14 Sep 2015 16:04

    Yes, and no. Putin is judo, and I know thru personal and rather brutal experience they don't hand those things out in cornflakes packets. I'm pretty sure Tony might have started things by a bit of wall punching and wheelchair kicking, but it would have ended with Vlad making a suppository out of the red togs.
    The suppository of all Tony's wisdom?


    blarneybanana 14 Sep 2015 15:19

    Somehow, I doubt he will physically threaten a major world leader (who could perfectly well defend himself by strangling TA with his own budgie smugglers), pick an unwinnable series of fights with our major trading partners, or TRY TO ATTACK A WAR HERO IN A WHEEL CHAIR


    OldTrombone 14 Sep 2015 14:26

    It wasn't Abbott who made the mistakes - it was the Australian voters who made the massive mistake.

    Everyone but everyone KNEW Abbott was like this, and they knew he was going to do what he did. They didn't "hold their nose" to vote for him, they held their testes! WRONG!


    Mike Scrafton RJHanley 14 Sep 2015 13:53

    Well that's politics. Did you expect anything better?

    There are no politicians who can lie straight in bed and who get into Cabinet.

    Hypocrisy and compromised principles , deceit and deception, are the qualities that get you into the Ministry - undeserved self regard, hubris and a messiah complex are what gets you into the PM's job. They are all the same. I hope you're not disappointed!

    Abbott lied about a great many things. Sadly Abbott wasn't a psycho but just ill equipped for a job he didn't understand. Also he wasn't an outlier on the bell curve of politicians.

    However from this point on it is what Turnbull does as PM that's important. I don't really care what he believes only the policies he enacts or if he's sincere when he fixes the country. I just hope he does!

    I await the result.


    TheCorporateClass PeterOfPlumpton 14 Sep 2015 13:44

    relentlessly promoted by Murdoch, which shows how little he actually knows about politics and government.

    = NOTHING the man is a deluded psycho in every way.

    My feelings on R. Murdoch and his involvement in Australian politics and his Twittering garbage are summarized here fwiw :
    http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/sep/13/tony-abbott-expected-to-face-liberal-leadership-challenge-within-months#comment-59399171

    BilltheDill -> RJHanley 14 Sep 2015 13:44

    In politics, FUCKIN' HYPOCRITE = politician.

    They all lie about where there loyalties lie, and I think most of the electorate expect that, and accept it.

    What the electorate will not accept is a leader who tells you what he will absolutely not do, and then announce within a matter of weeks that circumstances have changed, and he now will do it.

    Not to mention all the other broken promises, and lies.

    To pledge allegiance to a party leader is just politics. To make pledges to the electorate only to backpedal on most of them, falls into another category altogether, and it creates within the electorate a mistrust and anger that cannot be satiated by anything other than failure and humiliation. Mr Abbot reaped what he sewed.

    TheCorporateClass -> Letschat 14 Sep 2015 13:39

    Like most bullies, Abbott is a coward. Yes, and in spades!

    I hope his party is grateful.

    They bloody well better be, or they will burn to ashes within a year.
    Any chance that ALL those 100 Liberals could put ALL OF Australia's people first, for just a year?


    BilltheDill SENTINEL48 14 Sep 2015 13:36

    Indeed, he has been Tony Abbott, but he has also made many mistakes, most of which stem from not holding his word and being a man of truth.

    To put it bluntly, he lied to the Australian people on too many occasions, and about too many important matters. That was his political mistake. The rest of it is just his personality.

    SENTINEL48 14 Sep 2015 13:14

    Tony Abbott didn't make mistakes . He was just Tony Abbott .


    scott_skelton BaldwinP 14 Sep 2015 13:12

    We all knew that Abbott was a wingnut, but TBH I've been surprised by the depth of his incompetence, and I'm a Labor supporter.


    Letschat 14 Sep 2015 12:13

    Like most bullies, Abbott is a coward. Of course he hasn't fronted the media. He is absolutely no loss to politics in this country. We can only hope that they take the Abbott game book and flush it down the toilet where it belongs. He can take his destructive fascist tactics with him as he walks out the door and we slam it shut behind him.

    There is no question that Malcolm Turnbull understands what the electorate is so bloody angry about. Now the party has to deliver. Whether they can or will remains to be seen. Their is more wrong with the current government that the incompetent leadership. They have a problem of culture with shameless rorting lying and corrupt practice.Turnbull has certainly set himself a challenge. I hope his party is grateful.


    Talwyn224 14 Sep 2015 11:04

    The worst prime minister in Australian political history thus far has been shown the door and not a moment too soon.

    An epitaph:
    Tony Abbott - Promoted beyond the level of his incompetence

    [Sep 15, 2015] Corbyn The Day After

    "I am delighted to see the Blairites and Brownites routed so comprehensively"

    Sep 12, 2015 | naked capitalism

    It will be interesting to see if Corbyn's leadership victory in the UK presages a Sanders victory in our own 2016 Presidential primary. Despite projecting American politics onto British politics throughout this piece, I have no idea! Working in favor of this view: Political structures where tiny oligarchies rule, and voters matter only when they want what oligarchs want, seems almost universal world-wide. So, if you want a majority of the votes, run against the oligarchy, and if you want to split or tame the oligarchy, make that majority a super-majority, with cadres ready to do more than vote. Sanders seems to take this view, as does Corbyn. How that will play out globally, nation by nation, state by state, and precinct by precinct, I have no idea, and a Trump can tap into class resentment just as well as a Sanders.[3] We live in interesting times.

    ambrit September 13, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    Where's the similar juxtaposition for Sanders? Sanders needs to ramp up the class conflict meme right now. This kind of 'counter culture' identity politics takes time to be established. Sanders might not realize yet how powerful a message he has available to him. I do hope Sanders has some campaign aparatchiks over in England learning Corbyns' methods.

    m-ga September 13, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    For those who aren't aware, a central plank of Corbyn's campaign is economic. He wants to set up a an investment bank, funded by quantitative easing. This policy is being referred to as "people's quantitative easing".

    It's been developed in part by a UK accountant called Richard Murphy, whose weblog you can read here:

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/

    As far as I can tell, this would be have a very similar effect to Keynesian stimulus.

    The way it's being sold is that QE was used to bail out the British banks following 2008. Of course, the 2008 QE was OK with the Conservatives, and with old New Labour. So, why not use the same mechanism again, but instead of giving the cash to the banks, use it to set up an Investment Bank which will fund infrastructure.

    Uahsenaa September 13, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    [I]t's very unlikely to fly with either the parliamentary Labour party, the wider Labour party membership, or the UK public

    Then the real question is what happens at the constituency party level. Refuseniks may go on and on about how the sky is falling and they'll never be in power again, but if Corbyn supporters, who seem to represent a real ground swell, can exercise their voice at the constituency level to make clear that if the Blairites stick to their neoliberal [non]principles then they will likely face deselection (just like with primary challenges here in the US), then the mostly careerists among the "modernizers" will see that at least appearing to support Corbyn's platform will be in their own best interests. After all, wouldn't that be, I dunno, democratic?

    m-ga September 13, 2015 at 6:27 pm

    The strategy so far has been to be to avoid any talk of deselection, and bring as many former Blairites into the fold as possible:

    http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/unity
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/01/jeremy-corbyn-call-party-unity-after-warning-rival-andy-burnham

    But there is already speculation on what happens if that doesn't work:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/05/corbyn-supporters-mps-party-members-labour-election

    However, it's likely that everyone involved will want to avoid a repeat of the damaging Labour party split which happened in the 1980s.

    The analogy to the 1980s is flawed though. During the 1980s, the UK Labour party was already very left wing, and was facing an unexpected and highly effective attack from the Thatcher government. For example, no-one thought that Thatcher would shut down UK industry and fritter away North Sea oil income in order to silence her opponents, but that's exactly what she did. It's about this time that the Labour party splintered, and would eventually be taken over by Tony Blair.

    Fast forward to 2015, and the UK Labour party is controlled by neoliberals. But the grassroots support has remained to the left of the leadership. Until now, there hasn't been a chance for the grassroots to do anything about the way the party is run. Due to hubris, or complacency, Corbyn was added to the ballot. Yesterday he took leadership of the party.

    As a result, a lot of Labour MPs seem confused. They're basically squeezed between the party leadership, and the party membership. For example, 15,500 people have joined the Labour party since yesterday. Normally, you'd expect MPs to be delighted to have a very popular new leader, and grassroots membership increasing rapidly. But, for some reason, several MPs are viewing it as a disaster.

    What might count in Corbyn's favour is that he was a Labour MP in the 1980s. He thus saw first hand what happened when the party split then. Furthermore, the tactics likely to be employed by the Cameron government are now very well understood (they're basically a continuation of the Thatcher policies). So, it seems unlikely that events will rerun in the same way they did 30 years ago.

    m-ga, September 13, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    The Conservatives are in power until 2020. So, assuming Corbyn can hold the Labour party together, he has five years to make his case. There may be finance-led attacks on the UK following 2020 if Corbyn actually gets elected.

    Two things might happen before then, though. Firstly, Corbyn might not stick around. In one scenario, he is thrown out in a coup by another faction of the Labour party. In another, he leaves voluntarily, on the basis that another party member would be better than him going into the election campaign. This second scenario isn't too unlikely in my opinion – Corbyn seems more interested in the success of his policies than the success of himself personally. He is also 66, and would be 70 by the 2020 campaign.

    I suppose it depends if there's anyone who would carry the policies forward. The group of Labour MPs who fully support him is very small – maybe 15 or less. That's could change, though, if there is appetite among the wider public for Corbyn's policies. Unfortunately, MPs exploiting such opportunities are likely to be more interested in power than anything else. So, a chosen successor would most likely come from the handful who already support him.

    The other thing which might happen is another major financial shock – be it for the UK, Europe, or a global event similar to those in 2008 or 2000. The Conservatives have a wafer-thin UK majority. If they recommend bailing out the financial system again, or if their (unjustified) reputation for economic competence collapses, the public outcry could mean the Conservatives don't survive.

    If that happened, and if Corbynomics (i.e. the green quantitative easing) had been established as an alternative in the minds of the UK public, then Corbynomics might become the preferred route. There would be a lot of screaming from the banks.

    [Sep 15, 2015]A Fiscal Policy Rule for Oil Exporters

    "...On the high side, oil spend equaling 5% of GDP implies 'stagflation', 'secular stagnation' or outright recession in the advanced oil importing countries....Today, 5% of GDP equals about $110 / barrel"
    .
    "... Indeed, surplus capacity is probably not more than 1-2% (1-2 mbpd) of oil consumption, a level which would ordinarily be considered critically low."
    .
    "...At current prices, many shale operators are facing bankruptcy, the oil majors are liquidating themselves, and OPEC governments are suffering for a lack of revenues. The situation looks untenable for producers."
    .
    "... For now, let it suffice to say that maintaining current oil prices depends intrinsically on weakness in China, not on the ability of oil producers to flood the market at $50 / barrel Brent."
    Princeton Energy Advisors

    ... ... ...

    Oil is the life-blood of the global economy, and therefore GDP and oil prices tend to be related. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use a model is based on global spend on crude oil as a percent of world GDP. If oil prices are too low, supply will falter, the global economy will sooner or later become starved of oil, and prices will rise. On the other hand, if prices are too high, then the consumer economies will stagnate, new oil production will come on line, and oil prices will decline.

    On the high side, oil spend equaling 5% of GDP implies 'stagflation', 'secular stagnation' or outright recession in the advanced oil importing countries. Oil prices are not sustainable at that level without ascribing to some variation of peak oil. Today, 5% of GDP equals about $110 / barrel. That's a very high price historically, and not suitable for fiscal planning purposes given current realities.

    ... ... ...

    I would add that our expectations depend heavily on the experience after 1986, when oil prices last collapsed in such great magnitude. At the time, a period of extended low prices was readily foreseeable. High oil prices had been maintained by progressive OPEC production cuts, which in turn created global spare capacity equaling 13 mbpd, or 25% of global consumption. This enormous surplus required almost 20 years to clear-two decades known as The Great Moderation. However, there is no such surplus today. Indeed, surplus capacity is probably not more than 1-2% (1-2 mbpd) of oil consumption, a level which would ordinarily be considered critically low.

    ... ... ...

    If one allows the 1986 precedent, then fiscal policy should be set assuming oil prices will equate to 2.3% of GDP, as they did from 1986 to 1990. In dollar terms, that would imply a spot Brent oil price of $50 / barrel today, rising to $60 / barrel in 2020. As Brent currently hovers around $48 / barrel, the sustainable price would appear to be above the current price.

    On the supply side, maintaining such low prices looks quite a challenge. At current prices, many shale operators are facing bankruptcy, the oil majors are liquidating themselves, and OPEC governments are suffering for a lack of revenues. The situation looks untenable for producers.

    To maintain low prices, China would have to suffer a recession--GDP growth of 2% or less -- thereby pushing its neighbors into outright recession. The script would follow the Asian financial crisis of 1998. At the time, oil spend fell to 1.1% of global GDP, equal to $25 / barrel into today's terms. Of course, assessing China's outlook is a complicated matter. For now, let it suffice to say that maintaining current oil prices depends intrinsically on weakness in China, not on the ability of oil producers to flood the market at $50 / barrel Brent.

    Those oil exporters who believe that oil is not a shortage commodity should plan for sustainable prices over the next five years at 2.3% of GDP, approximately $50-60 / barrel on a Brent basis. For those who believe that China still has a future, and that oil is still hard to find, well, your analysis will be more complicated.

    [Sep 15, 2015] Common factors in commodity and asset markets

    "...OECD oil demand is up 800 kbpd over last year, and I am still trying to find another 300-400 kbpd of refined products in the OECD which have disappeared, statistically speaking. So OECD demand growth could be up as much as 1.1-1.2 mbpd, depending on where those missing barrels end up. No visible weakness in the demand in the OECD. "
    Sep 15, 2015 | Econbrowser
    Ricardo September 14, 2015 at 5:08 am

    Menzie wrote:

    "Increases in oil production in the United States and the Middle East were certainly key factors in the huge drop in oil prices over the last year."

    Don't you have this backward? Actually, huge drops in oil prices have reduced production. Reductions in production would tend to lower supply and tend to creare higher prices than if the supply did not change.

    Understanding this gives us the answer to your second sentence.

    "Nevertheless, one can't help but be struck by the fact that the weekly changes in oil prices correlate with dramatic moves in other commodity and financial markets."

    We would expect overall commodity prices to drop – especially oil – with an appreciating currency.

    Steven Kopits September 14, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Scott Sumner might point out that we are reasoning from price changes.

    As I recall, shale oil production has moved the trade deficit by 2% of GDP since 2012. I believe this is not a small adjustment.

    The OECD seems to be doing fine. OECD oil demand is up 800 kbpd over last year, and I am still trying to find another 300-400 kbpd of refined products in the OECD which have disappeared, statistically speaking. So OECD demand growth could be up as much as 1.1-1.2 mbpd, depending on where those missing barrels end up. No visible weakness in the demand in the OECD.

    The global economy, ex-China and China-derived demand (eg, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Norway, and some other commodity exporters) is doing fine. So if we're talking weakness in the global economy, we're talking about weakness in China. And if we're talking weakness in China, we're talking first and foremost an over-valued yuan. See the second graph ("Rush to Exit") in the article below, and tell me the yuan doesn't need a write-down. And note flight of capital from China corresponds to the collapse of the oil price, the devaluation of other currencies against the dollar (excluding China), and that in turn corresponds to the acceleration of shale oil production in Q3 2014.

    One could argue that China collapsed just as shale oil production was accelerating, but that seems a bit too coincidental.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-11/these-four-charts-show-how-obama-s-leverage-over-xi-is-increasing

    Steven Kopits, September 15, 2015 at 8:51 am

    I have written an analysis of the impact of shale oil production on the US trade deficit, and by implication, the dollar exchange rate.

    Find it here: http://www.prienga.com/blog/2015/9/15/impact-of-shales-on-the-us-trade-deficit

    [Sep 14, 2015] US War Theories Target Dissenters

    Information Clearing House - ICH
    ... ... ...

    Dissent as Treason

    Since the Vietnam War, the belief that the media and other critics of government policies act as fifth columnists has become commonplace in military-oriented journals and with the American authoritarian-oriented political class, expressed in articles such as William Bradford's attack on "treasonous professors."

    To the question "how a scholar pushing these ideas" did not raise a red flag, that might best be asked of the National Security Law Journal's previous editorial board. It is worth noting however that the editors who chose to publish Bradford's article are not neophytes in national security issues or strangers to the military or government.

    As described on the NSLJ website, the Editor-in-Chief from 2014-2015 has broad experience in homeland and national security programs from work at both the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security and currently serves (at the time of publication of Bradford's article) as the Deputy Director for the Office of Preparedness Integration and Coordination at FEMA. A U.S. government official in other words.

    The "Articles Selection Editor" is described as "a family physician with thirty years of experience in the foreign affairs and intelligence communities." Websites online suggest his experience may have been acquired as a CIA employee. The executive editor appears to be a serving Marine Corps officer who attended law school as a military-funded student.

    Significantly; Bradford was articulating precepts of the "U.S. common law of war" promoted by Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins because nothing Bradford advocated was inconsistent with William Whiting's guidance to Union Generals. Except Whiting went even further and advised that judges in the Union states who "impeded" the military in any way by challenging their detentions were even greater "public enemies" than Confederate soldiers were.

    This "U.S. common law of war" is a prosecution fabrication created by legal expediency in the absence of legitimate legal precedent for what the United States was doing with prisoners captured globally after 9/11. This legal invention came about when military commission prosecutors failed to prove that the offense of Material Support for Terrorism was an international law of war crime. So prosecutors dreamed up a "domestic common law of war." This in fact is simply following the pattern of totalitarian states of the Twentieth Century.

    Government-Media-Academic-Complex

    The logic of Bradford's argument is the same as that of the Defense Department in declaring that journalists may be deemed "unprivileged belligerents." As quoted above, George H. Aldrich had observed that in Vietnam, both sides had as their goal "the destruction of the will to continue the struggle."

    Bradford argued that Islamists must overcome Americans' support for the current war to prevail, and "it is the 'informational dimension' which is their main combat effort because it is U.S. political will which must be destroyed for them to win." But he says Islamists lack skill "to navigate the information battlespace, employ PSYOPs, and beguile Americans into hostile judgments regarding the legitimacy of their cause."

    Therefore, according to Bradford, Islamists have identified "force multipliers with cultural knowledge of, social proximity to, and institutional capacity to attrit American political will. These critical nodes form an interconnected 'government-media-academic complex' ('GMAC') of public officials, media, and academics who mould mass opinion on legal and security issues . . . ."

    Consequently, Bradford argues, within this triumvirate, "it is the wielders of combat power within these nodes - journalists, officials, and law professors - who possess the ideological power to defend or destroy American political will."

    While Bradford reserves special vituperation for his one-time fellow law professors, he states the "most transparent example of this power to shape popular opinion as to the legitimacy of U.S. participation in wars is the media."

    As proof, Bradford explained how this "disloyalty" of the media worked during the Vietnam War. He wrote: "During the Vietnam War, despite an unbroken series of U.S. battlefield victories, the media first surrendered itself over to a foreign enemy for use as a psychological weapon against Americans, not only expressing criticism of U.S. purpose and conduct but adopting an 'antagonistic attitude toward everything America was and represented' and 'spinning' U.S. military success to convince Americans that they were losing, and should quit, the war. Journalistic alchemists converted victory into defeat simply by pronouncing it."

    Space does not permit showing in how many ways this "stab in the back" myth is false. But this belief in the disloyalty of the media in Bradford's view remains today. He wrote: "Defeatism, instinctive antipathy to war, and empathy for American adversaries persist within media."

    Targeting Journalists

    The right-wing militarist Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), with mostly retired U.S. military officers serving as advisers, has advocated targeting journalists with military attacks. Writing in The Journal of International Security Affairs in 2009, retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters wrote:

    "Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight, but one which we not only refrain from attacking but are hesitant to annoy: the media . . . . Future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media." (Emphasis in original.)

    The rationale for that deranged thinking was first propounded by Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp and other authoritarian-minded officers after the Vietnam War. Sharp explained, our "will" was eroded because "we were subjected to a skillfully waged subversive propaganda campaign, aided and abetted by the media's bombardment of sensationalism, rumors and half-truths about the Vietnam affair - a campaign that destroyed our national unity." William C. Bradford apparently adopted and internalized this belief, as have many other military officers.

    That "stab in the back" myth was propagated by a number of U.S. military officers as well as President Richard Nixon (as explained here). It was more comfortable to believe that than that the military architects of the war did not understand what they were doing. So they shifted blame onto members of the media who were astute enough to recognize and report on the military's failure and war crimes, such as My Lai.

    But those "critical" journalists, along with critics at home, were only recognizing what smarter Generals such as General Frederick Weyand recognized from the beginning. That is, the war was unwinnable by the U.S. because it was maintaining in power its despotic corrupt ally, the South Vietnamese government, against its own people. Whether or not what came later was worse for the Vietnamese people was unforeseeable by the majority of the people. What was in front of their eyes was the military oppression of American and South Vietnamese forces and secret police.

    Information Warfare Today

    In 1999, the Rand Corporation published a collection of articles in Strategic Appraisal: The Changing Role of Information in Warfare. The volume was edited by Zalmay Khalilzad, the alleged author of the Defense Department's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which was drafted when Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary and Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of Defense – and promulgated a theory of permanent U.S. global dominance.

    One chapter of Rand's Strategic Appraisal was written by Jeremy Shapiro, now a special adviser at the U.S. State Department, according to Wikipedia. Shapiro wrote that the inability to control information flows was widely cited as playing an essential role in the downfall of the communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

    He stated that perception management was "the vogue term for psychological operations or propaganda directed at the public." As he expressed it, many observers worried that potential foes could use techniques of perception management with asymmetric strategies with their effect on public opinion to "destroy the will of the United States to wage war."

    Consequently, "Warfare in this new political environment consists largely of the battle to shape the political context of the war and the meaning of victory."

    Another chapter on Ethics and Information Warfare by John Arquilla makes clear that information warfare must be understood as "a true form of war." The range of information warfare operations, according to Arquilla, extends "from the battlefield to the enemy home front." Information warfare is designed "to strike directly at the will and logistical support of an opponent."

    This notion of information warfare, that it can be pursued without a need to defeat an adversary's armed forces, is an area of particular interest, according to Arquilla. What he means is that it necessitates counter measures when it is seen as directed at the U.S. as now provided for in the new LOW Manual.

    Important to note, according to Arquilla, is that there is an inherent blurriness with defining "combatants" and "acts of war." Equating information warfare to guerrilla warfare in which civilians often engage in the fighting, Arquilla states "in information warfare, almost anyone can engage in the fighting."

    Consequently, the ability to engage in this form of conflict is now in the hands of small groups and individuals, offering up "the prospect of potentially quite large numbers of information warfare-capable combatants emerging, often pursuing their own, as opposed to some state's policies," Arquilla wrote.

    Therefore, a "concern" for information warfare at the time of the Rand study in 1999 was the problem of maintaining "noncombatant immunity." That's because the "civilian-oriented target set is huge and likely to be more vulnerable than the related set of military infrastructures . . . . Since a significant aspect of information warfare is aimed at civilian and civilian-oriented targets, despite its negligible lethality, it nonetheless violates the principle of noncombatant immunity, given that civilian economic or other assets are deliberately targeted."

    What Arquillo is saying is that civilians who are alleged to engage in information warfare, such as professors and journalists, lose their "noncombatant immunity" and can be attacked. The "blurriness" of defining "combatants" and "acts of war" was removed after 9/11 with the invention of the "unlawful combatant" designation, later renamed "unprivileged belligerent" to mimic language in the Geneva Conventions.

    Then it was just a matter of adding the similarly invented "U.S. domestic common law of war" with its martial law precedents and a framework has been built for seeing critical journalists and law professors as "unprivileged belligerents," as Bradford indiscreetly wrote.

    Arquilla claims that information warfare operations extend to the "home front" and are designed "to strike directly at the will and logistical support of an opponent." That is to equate what is deemed information warfare to sabotage of the population's psychological will to fight a war, and dissidents to saboteurs.

    Perpetual War

    But this is a perpetual war driven by U.S. operations, according to a chapter written by Stephen T. Hosmer on psychological effects of information warfare. Here, it is stated that "the expanding options for reaching audiences in countries and groups that could become future U.S. adversaries make it important that the United States begin its psychological conditioning in peacetime." Thus, it is necessary "to begin to soften the fighting will of the potential adversary's armed forces in the event conflict does occur."

    As information warfare is held to be "true war," this means that the U.S. is perpetually committing acts of war against those deemed "potential" adversaries. Little wonder that Vladimir Putin sees Russia as under assault by the United States and attempts to counter U.S. information warfare.

    This same logic is applied to counter-insurgency. The 2014 COIN Manual, FM 3-24, defines "Information Operations" as information-related capabilities "to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decisionmaking of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own."

    Those we "protect ourselves from" can logically be seen as the internal enemy, as William Bradford saw it, such as critical law professors and journalists, just as Augusto Pinochet did in Chile with dissidents.

    With the totalitarian logic of information-warfare theorists, internalized now throughout much of the U.S. government counter-terrorism community, it should be apparent to all but the most obtuse why the DOD deems a journalist who writes critically of U.S. government war policy an "unprivileged belligerent," an enemy, as in the Law of War manual. William C. Bradford obviously absorbed this doctrine but was indiscreet enough to articulate it fully.

    It Has Happened Here!

    That's the only conclusion one can draw from reading the transcript of the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit. In that lawsuit, plaintiffs, including journalists and political activists, challenged the authority provided under Sec. 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization for removal out from under the protection of the Constitution of those deemed unprivileged belligerents. That is, civilians suspected of lending any "support" to anyone whom the U.S. government might deem as having something to do with terrorism.

    "Support" can be as William Whiting described it in 1862 and as what is seen as "information warfare" by the U.S. military today: a sentiment of hostility to the government "to undermine confidence in its capacity or its integrity, to diminish, demoralize . . . its armies, to break down confidence in those who are intrusted with its military operations in the field."

    Reminiscent of the Sinclair Lewis novel It Can't Happen Here where those accused of crimes against the government are tried by military judges as in the U.S. Military Commissions, a Justice Department attorney arguing on behalf of the United States epitomized the legal reasoning that one would see in a totalitarian state in arguing why the draconian "Law of War" is a substitute for the Constitution.

    The Court asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Torrance if he would agree, "as a principled matter, that the President can't, in the name of the national security of the United States, just decide to detain whomever he believes it is important to detain or necessary to detain to prevent a terrorist act within the United States?"

    Rather than giving a straight affirmative answer to a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution, Torrance dissembled, only agreeing that that description would seem "quite broad," especially if citizens. But he added disingenuously that it was the practice of the government "not to keep people apprehended in the U.S."

    Which is true, it is known that people detained by the U.S. military and CIA have been placed everywhere but in the U.S. so that Constitutional rights could not attach. Under Section 1021, that "inconvenience" to the government would not be necessary.

    When asked by the Court if he, the Justice Department attorney, would agree that a different administration could change its mind with respect to whether or not Sec. 1021 would be applied in any way to American citizens, he dissembled again, answering: "Is that possible? Yes, but it is speculative and conjecture and that cannot be the basis for an injury in fact."

    So U.S. citizens or anyone else are left to understand that they have no rights remaining under the Constitution. If a supposed "right" is contingent upon who is President, it is not a right and the U.S. is no longer under the rule of law.

    In discussing whether activist and journalist Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a citizen of Iceland, could be subject to U.S. military detention or trial by military commission, Assistant U.S. Attorney Torrance would only disingenuously answer that "her activities as she alleges them, do not implicate this." Disingenuous because he knew based upon the answer he previously gave that the law of war is arbitrary and its interpretation contingent upon a military commander, whoever that may be, at present or in the future.

    What could happen to Ms. Jónsdóttir would be completely out of her control should the U.S. government decide to deem her an "unprivileged belligerent," regardless of whether her expressive activities changed positively or negatively, or remained the same. Her risk of detention per the Justice Department is entirely at the sufferance of whatever administration may be in place at any given moment.

    Any doubt that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, along with Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, is believed by the U.S. Executive Branch to give it the untrammeled power that Article 48 of the Weimar Germany constitution gave to the German President in 1933 was settled by the arguments made by the Justice Department attorney in Hedges v. Obama.

    Setting First Amendment Aside

    One does not need to speculate that the U.S. government no longer sees First Amendment activities as protected. Government arguments, which were made in the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit, revealed that the Justice Department, speaking for the Executive Branch, considers protection of the Bill of Rights subordinate to the claim of "war powers" by the Executive. One can only be willfully blind to fail to see this.

    By the Justice Department's court arguments and filings, the protections afforded by the U.S. Bill of Rights are no more secure today than they were to Japanese-Americans when Western District military commander General DeWitt decided to remove them from their homes on the West Coast and intern them in what were initially called, "concentration camps."

    The American Bar Association Journal reported in 2014 that Justice Antonin Scalia told students in Hawaii that "the Supreme Court's Korematsu decision upholding the internment of Japanese Americans was wrong, but it could happen again in war time." But contrary to Scalia stating that Korematsu had been repudiated, Korematsu has never been overruled.

    The court could get a chance to do so, the ABA article stated, in the Hedges v. Obama case "involving the military detention without trial of people accused of aiding terrorism." But that opportunity has passed.

    A U.S. District Court issued a permanent injunction blocking the law's indefinite detention powers but that ruling was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition to the U.S. Supreme Court asked the justices to overturn Sec. 1021, the federal law authorizing such detentions and stated the justices should consider overruling Korematsu. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2014, leaving the Appeals Court's ruling intact.

    The Supreme Court's decision to not overturn Korematsu allows General DeWitt's World War II decision to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps to stand as a shining example of what Brig. General Marks Martins proudly holds up to the world as the "U.S. domestic common law of war."

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. In the course of that assignment, he researched and reviewed the complete records of military commissions held during the Civil War and stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

    [Sep 14, 2015] The Guardian view on the bloodshed in Syria: Russia has a lot to answer for Editorial

    Sep 11, 2015 | The Guardian

    wombat123 , 14 Sep 2015 01:48

    Russia does not have as much to answer for as the foreign powers arming the insurgents including ISIS. The UK and US have far more Syrian blood on their hands than Russia. Arming insurgents in another member of the UN is a grave violation of international law. The loss of life is far higher because of the countries supplying the insurgents. All insurgencies burn out fairly quickly in the absence of support from outside powers. The US and its allies have kept the carnage going for years for their own political ends as irrational as those may be.

    Sisyphus2 -> jezzam , 13 Sep 2015 22:21

    It is an entire modus operandi. Before Open Societies there were other foundations funded by other people, some of which still continue to operate. It is neo-colonialism to serve corporate interests. Wearing false masks of altruism and good intent to stir up trouble in other countries in order to change their structure to fit your ends. George is just particularly active at this time because he has his hand up the butt of a number of incumbents in pivotal positions of power.

    Makes me laugh when I see articles going on about how George seems to be prescient about what to invest in. Prescient my ass! You don't need prescience when you are orchestrating events into existence. But, you know, most of us are too dumb to see what is going on, or too self interested if we do.

    Chillskier -> madsttdk , 13 Sep 2015 19:58

    No other country comes even close to Russia in expansionist wars in the last two decades.

    You sure not very well informed about last two decades, the destruction of any stability in the middle east have certainly happened in this time frame and absolutely dwarfs anything that Putin has done in terms of bloodshed and international instability.

    And before you get started on whataboutism: While the neocon warmongers in USA are a quite despicable breed, they have not been in power for eigth years,.

    You are so wrong about neocons, they are very much in power, since US policy in the middle east and Ukraine for that matter have not change one bit, it is just became limited by the public waking up to the disaster that it was / is (you clearly do not belong to the informed part of the electorate).

    But more importantly: the "My neighbour kills people, so it's ok for me to it too to kill people is a morally indefensible position. Mr. Putin is helping a butcher slaughter innocent civilians on a massive scale.

    Again you view civil war in Syria out of context of the neocon plan for destruction of the number of secular Muslim states, and this is simply intellectually dishonest.

    I know the nationalistic propaganda and endless lies you're being fed in Russia,

    Your assumption that I'm somehow exposed to Russian propaganda is silly, since my exposure to it is limited to my Ukrainian wife (from very west of Ukraine by the way) , and my Ukrainian dentist who is from Kiev, and they all tired of blaming Putin for the complete clasterfuck that euromaidan turned out to be, most people my wife talked to on her latest visit disgusted with the current regime of Poroshenko.

    Robert Gaudet , 13 Sep 2015 19:16

    Remember when Russia destroyed Iraq, igniting all manner of sectarian conflict in the region, and armed the people they claim to be fighting now in Syria some sadly perpetual motion like cycle of violence?

    That sounds really bad, if you put the word "Russia" there, doesn't it? Good thing it was done by Western powers with good intentions.

    Chillskier -> Anthony Clifton , 13 Sep 2015 18:47

    No Putinbot. I'm right on target. As I said, Russian forces are not hindered by the same Rules of Engagement as NATO forces would be as recently demonstrated by the complete destruction of the Eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk by Russian troops and their separatist proxy forces

    You are welcome to visit and find for yourself who is responsible for destruction of Ukrainian city of Donetsk.
    You will find that you was lied to, and used like an idiot by your favorite news sources. (Faux news I'm sure).

    Chillskier , 13 Sep 2015 17:38

    This is why, as Mr Putin heads for the UN general assembly in New York later this month, efforts to adopt a resolution banning the use of barrel bombs must stay focused. Russia will undoubtedly veto such a text, but that would at least expose its complicity.

    Why limit itself to just barrel bombs, why leave cluster bombs out of it?

    What? Too soon?

    Chillskier -> airman23 , 13 Sep 2015 17:28
    You are clearly flying ahead of your own shit airman.

    Russians are not bombing anything yet, presence of Russian air force and especially anti-aircraft units will most likely there to force NATO to open lines of communications to avoid direct clashes.

    And we all know about your " Rules of Engagement" since pacification of Fallujah and beyond.
    The *shock and awe* alone was an indiscriminate bombing of the city of 4 million with not a single designated military target in it, exactly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the way.

    Chillskier -> Alan Smith , 13 Sep 2015 15:28

    Pretty much.
    Editorials are to tell us what opinion we must have.

    Alan Smith , 13 Sep 2015 15:12

    "Russia has a lot to answer for" And America doesn't?

    Laurence Johnson , 13 Sep 2015 14:48

    Had Russia not defended Assad the rulers of Syria today would be ISIS.

    Now there are conspiracy theorists that would tell us ISIS was funded by the US to fight Assad. Irrespective of the truth, clearly Russia is the good guy in all of this and should be supported by the West.

    Probandi , 13 Sep 2015 14:37

    I would've though that we have a lot to answer for. Assad, Saddam etc are very clearly a much better option in that region than any of the alternatives. It's been a major mistake of western foreign policy to proselytize liberal democracy and human rights to a people whom see these values as completely alien to them, as much as medieval Europeans would have. Middle east is yet to go through Renaissance, not to mention enlightenment and scientific revolution. They are simply 800 years behind us in terms of social development, and therefore same rules do not apply.

    Whitebeam , 13 Sep 2015 14:16

    There is a pragmatic argument that the bloodshed will only end when one side wins - and nobody civilised wants ISIS or the other Islamists to win, and the secular opposition are simply too weak and divided to ever win and and enforce the rule of law. Assad may not be a democrat (he is an autocratic secular Arab republican) but before the war the regime was broadly tolerant of all religious and ethnic groups, as long as they did not challenge state authority. The threatened Christian population of Syria now say that they are only safe where the regime is in control. Just as the West formed an unsavoury alliance with the brutal Soviet regime to defeat Naziism, perhaps it is time for such realpolitik with Syria. The alternative is to attack or undermine Assad, and let ISIS win, and accept there will be a genocide or cleansing of Syrian Christians and Shia/Alawites and other non-Sunnis, with another wave of refugees, leaving Syria as a de-facto 'pure' Islamist state.

    Chillskier -> airman23 , 13 Sep 2015 14:15

    How about preventing it from turning in to oasis of democracy such as Libya?

    Artusov -> beggarsbelief , 13 Sep 2015 14:14

    I have stated the same fact repeatedly. Churchill loathed Communism and the Soviet regime but decided to back Stalin as much as he could against Hitler. Assad is a sort of Stalin but he's better than ISIS.

    Assad doesn't round up Christians and just chop their heads off for no reason . The West encouraged the Arab spring - just leave the Arabs alone to kill themselves which they have done very successfully for centuries.

    Some sort of deal will be and will have to be done some day with Putin .

    The Guardian needs to get a mature and informed policy.

    mikehowleydcu -> Giants1925 , 13 Sep 2015 14:13

    When you make comments about other countries getting their ambassadors out of the US it corresponds to the wishes of many nations that the US gets its CIA, and military out of their countries.

    As well as getting creative with your history you are now inventing things that I have said and positions that I have taken... I am not a "leftie" I have not said anything in support of North Korea but ll you this; you haven't provided any counterargument for the list of countries that was bombed by the US since 1945.

    You argue from the heart. I know that you 'believe' the US to be the 'exceptional' nation just as the Germans in the 30's were told that they were above all others... but your arguments are coming from the heart and not the head. This is why you are arguing with almost everybody on this forum. You want us to agree with you but you can offer no counter arguments so you revert to the distant past and then to calling us commies, lefties or whatever.

    Truth is that since 1945 the US has bombed over 50 countries, executed leaders throughout the world, particularly in latin america and it has killed over 4 million in Vietnam in Cambodia and a million in Iraq. Oh... and where were those weapons of mass destruction? or the link between Saddam and 9/11?
    Even you know that they were invented fantasies. Maybe your 9/11 story is a fairy tale? If you want to wake up you can.. but turn off Sean Hannity.

    beggarsbelief , 13 Sep 2015 13:36

    Unless we actually want ISIS to extend their vile and terrifying rule to the Mediterranean, the only way to end this bloodbath is for the West to form an alliance with Russia and Assad.

    Attacking Assad would be the moral and strategic equivalent of the allies bombing the Soviet Union during the Second World War.

    It is the kind of thinking reflected in this editorial that has caused the deaths of two hundred thousand Syrians and created a nation of refugees. The Guardian has a lot to answer for.

    davidncldl , 13 Sep 2015 13:33

    The Guardian falls over itself to do the bidding of the emergent US/EU superpower. The Guardian will rewrite successful Russian peace-keeping and life-saving actions out of existence when this meets the superpower's global aims. Readers may have forgotten that smug big-mouth John Kerry said that al-Assad, the democratically elected and legitimate leader of Syria, could avoid a US military strike by ridding Syria of its chemical weapons.

    Mr Kerry reckoned without the Russians being fully awake and alert and ready to save innocent lives. After Kerry's slip-of-the-tongue Mr Putin was quick to help arrange the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons. End result - the Russians save countless thousands of lives, of Syrian civilians and regular soldiers.

    Sadly, like dogs to their own vomit, we can expect the US to return to its aim of destroying al-Assad and allowing the beheaders free rein in his country, no matter what the government says or does. And the Guardian defends this.

    ATC2348 -> YorenOfTheNorth , 13 Sep 2015 12:32

    Why do Kosovans still have asylum status in many European countries? why is it not recognized by many countries including Greece and Spain? What was the religion of the majority of that "country" at the turn of the last century and what is it now? who is one of the biggest employers? see below;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Bondsteel

    [Sep 14, 2015] Corbyn victory energises the alienated and alienates the establishment by Gary Younge

    "...Here is the thing, it has always suited the Tories and the right for millions of people to not bother voting because the two parties look and sound 'just the same'... Now that Corbyn actually is the leader of the opposition to the Tories, millions of young and other people who never bother to vote because ''they're all the same'', will start to realise that isn't true anymore. "
    "...It is wrong to say that Corbyn's victory alienates the establishment. The establishment had alientaed themselves from a large number of people who felt themselves disenfranchised and cheated. The establishment were so alientaed they did not realise they were alientaed. Corbyn's victory has only highlighted it. I hope they have enough humility to realise it."
    "...The triangulating managerialism of the Blair/Clinton era (Thatcherism/Reaganism with a human face?) relied on the seeming stability of neoliberalism to discourage any deviation of its voting base from what was defined by the socioeconomic elite as the center. Voters were considered passive molecules whose sole purpose was to be heated up sufficiently during elections so that they would reach the polls and make the inevitably correct selection. The core principles of neoliberalism would not be touched, however the plebs were allowed to fight over the crumbs."
    "...For a counter analysis, it helps to recap recent history under our neolib, rapidly devolving to paleolib regime: we now live in a country where elected governments surrendered an entire industrial base so that it could become a dodgy offshore banking center; who, in a 'privatization' frenzy, inadvertently sold its power grid to the French state; engaged in a murderous and illegitimate war that propelled unbounded worldwide terrorism; let its criminal finance centre off the hook after it helped cripple the global economy; then we re-elected David Cameron, unleashed George Osborne and now some fancy Boris Johnson with Nigel Farrage still hanging around. We have become, in effect, Bullingdonia. It is our present reality and it is scarier than anything Corbyn has proposed. And I haven't even mentioned Brooks, Coulson or Murdoch.

    Many of the blighted citizenry of this country have had enough and have set their sights very sharply on the long con of which the Tories, Blairites and the Paleolib British media including the Guardian are leading proponents. The key operative factors being, of course, debt, debt slavery, and bondage to the bank.

    Labour had been colonized and neutralized by the regime. As the 'nicer tories' they bought a one way ticket to oblivion with a short ascent at the beginning. And talking about 'aspiration': people are finally getting that there is no hope at all in voting for the landlord or his pussy, so they're not voting. Time to give 'em something exciting, some hope for the great well of non-voters among Generation Screwed, who have been conned into accepting debt slavery and submission. This view holds particularly among poleaxed interns stewing in their hovels without the n"

    "...If we are lucky this may be the beginning of the end for TINA -- "There is No Alternative". This mantra, the core slogan of the Thatcher era, was intended to inculcate in the electorate that neoconservatism was the only viable economic and social strategy. Its been astoundingly successful -- despite it being based on tenuous, unproven, theory (Hayek) and having been shown to cause economic disaster wherever it was implemented (South America, for example) the notion of TINA was constantly pushed because it made people money -- economies could die, people would live in misery but the elites coined it big time.

    Its been obvious to anyone with even a vaguely functioning brain that something's wrong. Unfortunately daring to even think of alternatives gets a gut reaction from many born of being fed propaganda from birth -- witness the snide remarks about Trots or commissars, the hints of 'security risks' and so on. This won't stop; prepare for a full on assault (although "Red Jeremy" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well as "Red Ken" so I'll wait to see how the tabloids handle him)."

    "... There is a desperate need for an alternative voice to the neo-liberal consensus (ie. Capitalism Unchained) "
    "...The neoliberals are as wily as Stalin and incredibly cunning. "
    "...And here we have the nub of the matter, the way that the NeoLiberals who infiltrated the Labour party just assumed that the core vote would continue supporting them as they had nowhere else to go... wrong, wrong, wrong!"

    Sep 13, 2015 | The Guardian

    But then little of this is really about Corbyn. He is less the product of a movement than the conduit for a moment that has parallels across the western world. After almost a decade and a half of war, crisis and austerity, leftwing social democrats in all their various national guises are enjoying a revival as they seek to challenge the neo-liberal consensus. In the US, the self-described "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders is outpolling Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination in key states. Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and Die Linke in Germany are all posing significant challenges to mainstream centre-left parties.

    ... ... ...

    From the moment it was clear that assumption was flawed, the political and media class shifted from disbelief to derision to panic, apparently unaware that his growing support was as much a repudiation of them as an embrace of him. Former Labour leaders and mainstream commentators belittled his supporters as immature, deluded, self-indulgent and unrealistic, only to express surprise when they could not win them over. As such this reckoning was a long time coming. For the past couple of decades the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt. They saw its participants, many of whom were or had been committed Labour voters, not as potential allies but constant irritants.

    The slew of resignations from the party's frontbench after the result was announced and apocalyptic warnings from former ministers about the fate of the party under a Corbyn leadership illustrate that this attitude hasn't changed. The party has spoken; its old leaders would do well to listen but for now seem intent on covering their ears. They won't win it back with snark and petulance. But they can make their claims about unelectability a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to accept Corbyn's legitimacy as party leader.

    Not only is Corbyn not being granted a honeymoon, relatives are determined to have a brawl at the wedding.

    Nonetheless, the question of whether Corbyn is electable is a crucial one to which there are many views but no definitive answers. We are in uncharted waters and it's unlikely to be plain sailing. May revealed that the British electoral landscape is both fractured and wildly volatile. What works in London and Scotland may not work in middle England and the south-east. To some extent Corbyn's success depends on how he performs as leader and the degree to which his supporters can make their enthusiasm contagious.

    It is a big risk. In the early 80s when Tony Benn made his bid for the deputy leadership, there was a huge trade union movement and peace movement to buttress him if he won. Corbyn inherits a parliamentary party in revolt and a determined but as yet unorganised band of followers. Clearly many believed it was a risk worth taking. In the words of the American socialist Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."


    SqueakEMouse -> darylrevok 14 Sep 2015 02:45

    ' right-wing rodents ' That says all that one needs to know of your attitude and beliefs. Your contempt for real people with real concerns and real aspirations. Well it's a democracy sonny and you wont get the votes by abusing everybody who objects to your dictatorial fantasy world being put into practice. If you cannot even SEEK to persuade then you have no hope at all. Wake up and smell the coffee of reality.

    bob1648 14 Sep 2015 02:42

    Absolutely agree.
    Scotland voted for the same ideals as JC and whilst the Blairites are busy throwing their toys out the pram he can count on 56 very savvy MPs more than willing to back him in Westminster.


    UncertainTrumpet 14 Sep 2015 02:42

    Here is the thing, it has always suited the Tories and the right for millions of people to not bother voting because the two parties look and sound 'just the same'.

    We've all heard people say that politicians are all the same and only in it for themselves, some of us have probably thought that ourselves.

    So, the Tories and the right confidently started out sneering and making jokes about how Corbyn was a dreamer.

    That isn't true anymore now, though.

    Now that Corbyn actually is the leader of the opposition to the Tories, millions of young and other people who never bother to vote because ''they're all the same'', will start to realise that isn't true anymore.

    They'll see the difference between the two main parties is real now.

    The Tories are for the rich, despite their 'party of working people' rhetoric; they've always had the back of privilege, they've always framed their politics to appeal to personal selfishness. And New Labour sounded just the same.

    The Tories aren't scared of Corbyn, but they're more than a little concerned the rest of us voters / non-voters will start listening to him.

    They don't like that thought, because they know they only got into power on a slender majority.

    Corbyn as leader and more people listening to him could well nudge them out of their complacent comfort zone.


    Tiranoaguirre 14 Sep 2015 02:36

    Some people just want someone to represent their social frustration and inadequacy, their pent-up envy at not being gifted a piece of the pie they don't deserve, and their inferiority complex that's grinding the axe. And they don't care if they have to destroy the UK to do it. The left is just another version of Salomon's disputed baby and the robber mother who, having snuffed out her own, wants somebody else's.


    Giuliano Marcangelo -> Sal2011 14 Sep 2015 02:33

    Corbin offers hope, hope of a better future for the youth of this country. Corbin offers hope, hope of a future where we are led by politicians with integrity, rather than politicians who formulate policy for their multi national company paymaster so. Corbin offers hope of DEMOCRACY, where our elected parliament act according to the wishes of the populace and not to those of press barons and big businesses.

    Wake up and smell the coffee....the rules are being re-written and a peaceful revolution is evolving...the establishment are worried, hence the mud slinging against Jeremy Corbyn by the British Press, the establishment and the Tories, mud slinging against a man who cannot win a General Election .....why bother if he is so unelectable?


    SqueakEMouse -> murielbelcher 14 Sep 2015 02:32

    But the majority are after MORE freedom not less in case you hadn't noticed. Blair's mantra of 'Education, education, education' spoke to a broad range of people who wanted better education and opportunites for their families. He largely failed to deliver on the promise but the yearning is still there in case you hadn't noticed.

    People want a health service that serves THEM, not the people who run it. That is the reform that people wanted. The old system is a black hole for finance and failing to deliver. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la' wont change it.

    Going back to an era when it could be pretended that there were no problems and everything was peachy is not going to attract the votes of people who can see for themselves that the old system failed them. You are putting ideology over practicality and results.


    JonathanLamb -> trp981 14 Sep 2015 02:29

    "The configuration of socioeconomic forces at present warrants the metaphoric borrowing of such natural science concepts as criticality, bifurcation, and nonlinearity to describe the situation. A cascading series of cracks are beginning to appear in the illusion of the steady-state equilibrium of the world, fracturing the end-of-history narrative that the neoliberal order had been energetically maintaining for the past three decades."

    Is that you Russell?


    bevrev 14 Sep 2015 02:24

    Clearly, you can't win a General Election until you win the leadership one. The poor percentages of the other three candidates show clearly it is they, not Corbyn, who can't win a General Election. The fact that Corbyn has overwhelming grassroot support, but weak parliamentary support shows how out of touch the political class really is. For too long, the nation has endured their vulgar sense of entitlement and arrogance. The people are responding because at long last, they have someone who is speaking for them. The volume of voices ranged against him shows how many establishment figures are lined up against the people. They are truly worried. They should be.


    Jeffrey Cox 14 Sep 2015 02:21

    This from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" captures the parliamentary Labour Party and Guardian/Independent establishment response to Corbyn's victory

    King Arthur played by We the People. Black Knight played by the Labour establishment:

    King Arthur: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
    Black Knight: 'Tis but a scratch.
    King Arthur: A scratch? Your arm's off.
    Black Knight: No it isn't.
    King Arthur: What's that, then?
    Black Knight: I've had worse.
    King Arthur: You liar.


    londonzak -> HenryC 14 Sep 2015 02:21

    Just like Thatcher welcomed Pinochet for dinner and had tea with apartheid South African leaders. Guilt by association is such a lightweight argument.


    ID3945937 14 Sep 2015 02:12

    My wife and I contradict this idea that it is only the young, inexperienced and naive who are joining the Labour Party. We are both 67 and have both just joined the Labour Party for the very first time, on the strength of Jeremy Corbyn's victory. We figure that his leadership is going to be made very difficult by the Blairite rump and our appalling right-wing press and he needs all the support he can get. We hope that Jeremy will offer the opportunity for socialists to re-capture the intellectual and moral high ground on taxation, the role of the state, equality, health, justice and so on, against this rapaciously destructive and ideological Tory government, who would like to take Britain back to the 19th century. Yes, he is a risk, yes, he needs to sharpen up some of his policies, yes, his leadership qualities are untested -- but he is the best political hope that radicals and socialists of all colours and persuasions have at the present time.


    Socialistoldfashion 14 Sep 2015 02:10

    It is wrong to say that Corbyn's victory alienates the establishment.

    The establishment had alientaed themselves from a large number of people who felt themselves disenfranchised and cheated. The establishment were so alientaed they did not realise they were alientaed. Corbyn's victory has only highlighted it. I hope they have enough humility to realise it.


    trp981 14 Sep 2015 02:04

    "But then little of this is really about Corbyn. He is less the product of a movement than the conduit for a moment that has parallels across the western world."

    The configuration of socioeconomic forces at present warrants the metaphoric borrowing of such natural science concepts as criticality, bifurcation, and nonlinearity to describe the situation. A cascading series of cracks are beginning to appear in the illusion of the steady-state equilibrium of the world, fracturing the end-of-history narrative that the neoliberal order had been energetically maintaining for the past three decades. The this-can't-go-on-but-this-will-go-on state of affairs seems to be sputtering and not going on as smoothly as before. Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, Syriza, etc., are the fissures through which the pent-up and inchoate frustrations of various social forces are finding an outlet to the surface.
    Whether or not Corbyn succeeds in addressing the concerns of those who voted for him, his victory is another milestone in a correlated sequence of occurrences. Beginning with the financial crash of 2008, we see an increasing frequency of events that challenge the unstable neoliberal order. The Occupy movement, Syriza, Podemos, etc., are a chain of events that form a portion of a possible trajectory of the future. There is no guarantee that this trajectory will come to pass, leading to some sort of structural change, although the more these events occur, the greater the probability of the latter.

    "In this and many other respects, his strengths were accentuated by the weakness of his leadership opponents. With their varying degrees of milquetoast managerialism, they were not only barely distinguishable from each other but had platforms that were forgettable even when they were decipherable."

    The triangulating managerialism of the Blair/Clinton era (Thatcherism/Reaganism with a human face?) relied on the seeming stability of neoliberalism to discourage any deviation of its voting base from what was defined by the socioeconomic elite as the center. Voters were considered passive molecules whose sole purpose was to be heated up sufficiently during elections so that they would reach the polls and make the inevitably correct selection. The core principles of neoliberalism would not be touched, however the plebs were allowed to fight over the crumbs.

    To use a quantitative scale, the choice offered to the voters was between a zero-to-slightly-positive socially liberal neoliberalism, and a negative socially conservative neoliberalism. Put another way, economically the choice was between nothing and worse-than-nothing. The previous predictability of the voting patterns, however, is dissipating as the stability of the equilibrium state decreases, resulting in the amplification of the smallest disturbances. The expression of shock at the election of Corbyn is a manifestation of the increasing nonlinearity/volatility of the balance of forces. Voter dissatisfactions that could easily be contained and damped out in the past are becoming more pronounced and harder to contain and manage.

    The increasing instability of the neoliberal order implies the shifting of the ground beneath it. The previous givenness of the passive citizenry is becoming less so, and critical junctures might approach fast and unforeseeably. There are multiple possible trajectories of the future derived from various combinations of social forces, some entailing dramatic changes in unpredictable ways.


    Greatbearlake 14 Sep 2015 01:59

    For a counter analysis, it helps to recap recent history under our neolib, rapidly devolving to paleolib regime: we now live in a country where elected governments surrendered an entire industrial base so that it could become a dodgy offshore banking center; who, in a 'privatization' frenzy, inadvertently sold its power grid to the French state; engaged in a murderous and illegitimate war that propelled unbounded worldwide terrorism; let its criminal finance centre off the hook after it helped cripple the global economy; then we re-elected David Cameron, unleashed George Osborne and now some fancy Boris Johnson with Nigel Farrage still hanging around. We have become, in effect, Bullingdonia. It is our present reality and it is scarier than anything Corbyn has proposed. And I haven't even mentioned Brooks, Coulson or Murdoch.

    Many of the blighted citizenry of this country have had enough and have set their sights very sharply on the long con of which the Tories, Blairites and the Paleolib British media including the Guardian are leading proponents. The key operative factors being, of course, debt, debt slavery, and bondage to the bank.

    Labour had been colonized and neutralized by the regime. As the 'nicer tories' they bought a one way ticket to oblivion with a short ascent at the beginning. And talking about 'aspiration': people are finally getting that there is no hope at all in voting for the landlord or his pussy, so they're not voting. Time to give 'em something exciting, some hope for the great well of non-voters among Generation Screwed, who have been conned into accepting debt slavery and submission. This view holds particularly among poleaxed interns stewing in their hovels without the necessary school connections, drowning in education debt and thinking about emigrating, the tried and true solution for Brits, as well as other huddled masses.

    They will represent the battleground for hearts and minds in the next election. Forget about the mythical labourites who went Tory; they're long gone and best forgotten. Labour must now cut a path that counters the three big lies that have led to debt slavery for most of the population, the long con that has delivered us into the thorny hands of the City and the Tory: that 'emancipation' is achieved through consumption; 'freedom' through individual 'free agency' of work; that there is 'heroism' in entrepreneurial risk. It is time to counter these cons with a platform of energy and identity based on national productivity not servitude. Framed well and executed effectively, the message is about getting off your knees and sticking their self serving austerity.

    There is a large, emergent audience for this. They are Corbyn people. The upside of inequality is that it offers numerical advantage.

    Clerkenwellman 14 Sep 2015 01:49

    We have a new situation. A Tory government with a thin majority, an economy likely to have peaked by the end of the parliament, a programme of continuing enhanced poverty for the poor and EU uncertainty for the rich and a moral and economic challenge as Syria empties of its people - along with other places. These are challenges that a new Opposition, perhaps with overt support from the SNP, can bring the government to the court of public opinion. On the Defence front, Trident will still solve none of our problems, other than by being scrapped. The UK projection of military force into the mid-east or elsewhere will continue to cost money and lives and will continue to make little difference to our security. Israel will continue to bomb children in Gaza in the name of defence but now will be called out on this. No doubt Corbyn and Benn will aim to talk to our enemies as well as our friends - a wise move.

    this is all going to be interesting and should challenge the oily and complacent Cameron and his smug friend Osborne.


    martinusher 14 Sep 2015 01:26

    If we are lucky this may be the beginning of the end for TINA -- "There is No Alternative". This mantra, the core slogan of the Thatcher era, was intended to inculcate in the electorate that neoconservatism was the only viable economic and social strategy. Its been astoundingly successful -- despite it being based on tenuous, unproven, theory (Hayek) and having been shown to cause economic disaster wherever it was implemented (South America, for example) the notion of TINA was constantly pushed because it made people money -- economies could die, people would live in misery but the elites coined it big time.

    Its been obvious to anyone with even a vaguely functioning brain that something's wrong. Unfortunately daring to even think of alternatives gets a gut reaction from many born of being fed propaganda from birth -- witness the snide remarks about Trots or commissars, the hints of 'security risks' and so on. This won't stop; prepare for a full on assault (although "Red Jeremy" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well as "Red Ken" so I'll wait to see how the tabloids handle him).

    ... cpp4ever 14 Sep 2015 01:07
    The old Blairite leadership of the Labour party lost spectacularly and to my mind one of the biggest reasons was the choice to abstain from voting against Tory cuts. That was surely the last straw for many, and must count as a classic example of how to spectacularly shoot yourself in the foot, if not actually blow it clean off, and to mix the metaphors stuff it into your mouth! It's not a certainity, but the dominance of the neoliberal concensus, austerity, and trickle up economics is beginning to find real and growing opposition across Europe and in many ways that has reinvorigorated what was becoming dull, same old, say mould, politics! Now I find that refreshing and in many ways it's been long overdue.

    Thanks Gary Younge for an enjoyable article that may well have caught on to a larger zeitgeist taking hold in many parts of the world.

    Jessica Roth 14 Sep 2015 00:51
    Former Labour leaders and mainstream commentators belittled his supporters as immature, deluded, self-indulgent and unrealistic, only to express surprise when they could not win them over.
    So true. Between the "heart transplant" lecture and the "alternate reality" one, it's a miracle Tony Blair didn't pump Corbyn's total up to 70%, never mind the actual 59.5.

    Thanks for all the help, Tony! Now go rest up in Qatar; you've got a trip to the Hague coming in a few years' time, and a nice suntan may impress the judges. You never know.


    R. Ben Madison BlackAntAssociates 14 Sep 2015 00:41

    > The laissez faire looked to Hitler's economic model with wonder prior to the war, break the unions, suppress wages, a shared political and corporate hierarchy milking the profits and socialising debt

    Until the war, things were actually pretty good for the German working class under Hitler (as much as it pains me to say so). Their economic policy was more about buying worker loyalty by giving them health care, paid vacations and cheap private cars -- not machine-gunning them all against the wall.


    Wayfarer2 14 Sep 2015 00:14

    The establishment has worked extremely hard on marginalising itself. It has been pretty successful at it.


    Sparingpartner 14 Sep 2015 00:06

    'the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt. They saw its participants, many of whom were or had been committed Labour voters, not as potential allies but constant irritants.'

    There must be a sense that there is something equivalent happening in Australia.

    Abbott's Neo-cons have tried to perpetrate the same old swindle and have their shit tails caught in the machinery. The ambulance transporting the patient has broken down on the way to the hospital. Sirens are wailing and frantic paramedics are giving CPR but no one can seem to get a pulse - radical surgery is the only prognosis but as yet no one has invent the operational procedure.

    At last there appears to be a recognition that the scam of corralling the centre of politics (5%-6%) and marginalising the rest so that the machine can work it's 'magic' on those few that decide elections has found expression in some Western Democracies.

    In the words of the American socialist Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

    Love that line...


    Michael Cameron 13 Sep 2015 23:42

    Zoe is spot on. Though Yvette Cooper belatedly showed some green shoots, it was thralldom to an imaginary centre and faith in 'preference accomodation', that ultimately did for the other candidates. Sure, they had the odd interesting idea, but nothing like the all-enveloping narrative of Blair.

    Strip the good from Blairism and you're left with the totalizing power and its slippery essence, which is to say, Cameronism; what Blair achieved with a charismatic, zeitgiesty response to propitious circumstance, Cameron has emulated by augmenting Blair's mastery of spin and message. But as we saw from the outpouring of pent-up Conservative glee which greeted Osborne's cuts prospectus, the Tories never forget what they stand for. A moment like Labour's welfare bill disaster for them is unimaginable. Encroaching on our territory with their 'living wage', far from being a badly managed misstep, was a deft political masterstroke of re-branding.

    Without Corbyn Labour had an uninspiring reheat of the 'third way' - already battered into submission by Cameronism - and a party with a limp oven-gloved grasp of their own fundamentals. In other words, the very worst of both worlds. At least Corbyn can authentically propound those parts of Labour's vision which are non-optional (opposed to taking money out of the pockets of cleaners and checkout workers to give to the already mega rich) and without which they have sunk into absurdity and farce.

    Take the lens of the welfare bill fiasco. Imagine Liz Kendall had become leader, had for 5 years gone along with the Tories on many similar issues, and somehow conjured a Labour victory in 2015. After years of Labour-endorsed Tory butchery, think of the entropic change in what counts as 'centre' and what passes for realistic. Think of the long road back in convincing the electorate that 'acceptable' is really 'extreme' - exactly the problem Labour faces now. Having spent barely 6 months of the last 5 years arguing with any conviction, they're hollowed-out and entirely void of confidence.

    Yet no universal law exists which states the public must buy the Conservative axioms i.e. the drain of downright fecklessness, the necessary evil of all-knowing free markets, the benevolence of exponential rewards. But when was the last time Tory fundamental values were under focus?

    Corbyn won't concede ground on these issues. Yet all things considered - and despite the Blairite view - staunch opposition to the most scything ideological cuts stands a better chance of tempering the Tories than meekly tracking their every move. Remarkably, the Tories are already rumoured to be making plans to recapitulate those old arguments about markets and privatisation and ready win them anew. But the idea of attempting to shape the political narrative with your own values is as as instructive as it is antithetical to New Labour 2.0. On the backfoot, out in the open, debating policy, is exactly where we want the Conservatives. Engaging them on the big questions such as how much market freedom is a good thing, arguments which we know are there to be won.

    On austerity, the economy, the NHS and much more, Corbyn will not only represent Labour but credible progressive policy. At the same time, we can continue to work out collaboratively the problems and deficiencies in his manifesto. 1)Let's face it, immigration must be debated with an open mind. If vast numbers of people are opposed to its rate, we need to find creative ways of telling our story while keeping the option of leaving Europe on the table. 2)Despite the cynicism of the recent co-ordinated Tory attacks on Corbyn's 'threat' to international security - many in the Labour party feel Corbyn is wrong on nuclear disarmment and NATO. 3)Acknowledging his bid was initially conceived as a catalyst, I don't think he even JC pretends to have all the fresh ideas we need for the future - hence his desire for a more democratic running of the party.

    Personally these aren't showstoppers because like Zoe, I also couldn't care less if Jeremy can win a general election. Lacking a vision within the party that embraces the future, remembers the past and addresses the huge structural reshaping of society, a Labour victory in its current state is as likely as Corbyn winning an election if it were held tomorrow. For one thing, Ed Miliband was arguably a more convincing leader than all four candidates yet couldn't get through to the electorate. Absent a ready-made improvement, it makes sense to go back to basics.

    My own ideal scenario would be for Corbyn to continue to inspire a grassroots movement, re-establish much of what we're about, withstand the inevitable smears with a winning dignity, and hand over to a more realistic successor on defence and brimming with the innovative solutions of the future. But this first stage of renewal is vital. Five years is aeons in politics. This is a reality which seems to have escaped those monopolisers of the stuff, New Labour.


    BlackIncal 13 Sep 2015 23:22

    People are waking up to the fact that the corporate parties only work for the very rich and the corporations. Austerity is only in the interest of the very rich and the corporations. The main stream media pundits work for and on behalf of the very rich and the corporations and thus are all in a huff that the public had the temerity to choose somebody they do not approve of. It is good to read at least on article were the author shows an understanding of the anger which is growing.
    I am as one with the late great George Carlin, it is to late to really do anything to save us from the disaster which is fast approaching. But, it is gratifying that people are slowly waking up to the total mess which our system has turned into. The great gift that humanity was handed and the unfettered greed which is destroying us is at last being fought by a leader of a mainstream party. I hope Jeremy Corbyn understands that the system is no longer fixable but must be torn down and replaced.


    Jeremy Smith 13 Sep 2015 23:19

    The political class is still in denial about the fact that we stand at the turn of the tide.

    We have Corbyn in the UK and Sanders in the US; we have a Pope thats progressive on both economic and social issues; we have the Greens out-polling Labor, our alleged Opposition, in many seats across Australia, and the whole of Tasmania.

    Neoliberalism is increasingly called out as incoherent swill that only exists because it financially benefits those with the power to replace it.


    historyonix 13 Sep 2015 23:02

    A couple of things here I guess…
    1) The MPs who have deserted Labour, and the people who did actually vote for them, because they think this will make them unelectable in the next GE have to realise they made Labour unelectable in the last two elections… unless of course you want to highlight the political powerhouse that is Scottish Labour… oh, hang on… ripped to pieces in their own heartlands you say?

    2) They have to realise that many people are now at absolute saturation point with the established Political 'class', staggering from petty finger-pointing shambles, to snide meaningless PMQTs, to have tripped face long into narcissistic self-parody. If it wasn't for the total and systemic deconstruction of the UK, they would hardly serve a purpose at all.


    Jerome Fryer BlackAntAssociates 13 Sep 2015 22:39

    the mainstream is either centre-right or right, wherever you look. The shift in global politics since the mid 70's has been right all the way.

    Only because the political systems have been captured by narrow right-wing interests. If there is no 'left' alternative to vote for then people don't vote -- voter turnout in the UK and USA has been pretty dismal since the 1950s when this process of moving all available choices constantly to the political right began.
    It will be interesting to see if a genuine Labour party -- rather than 'Tory light' -- can draw out the people abstaining from the present system because they know it is a mockery of democracy.


    lulubells nick kelly 13 Sep 2015 22:03

    Your arguments are valid. There were excesses by unions who wanted to transform an England which still held on to its class system and thereby enforced the poverty of the working class. But it's a different world now and there is a middle ground where unions ensure their members are paid decently, etc., without holding the economy to ransom. Union power is a pendulum reflecting the inequality of society. BTW the income divide all over the Western world is greater than ever since Thatcherism was adopted by other democracies. The privatisation of public assets and stripping of union power are the most obvious consequences. This has facilitated the rise of the multinationals which have adopted the strategy of establishing (and moving) their factories in the disadvantaged country which will accept the lowest wages and living conditions. Read the book on this topic by the last British governor of Hong Kong. Now employees are more and more hired for a fixed term contract, can't get a mortgage to buy a house or plan their lives. It is a huge social disaster, eg wage 'slaves' in Japanese corporations. And contributes in no small way to young peoples' decisions worldwide not to have children when they have no security, with a flow-on effect being the ageing of the nation.


    murielbelcher axehoO 13 Sep 2015 22:01

    It is reflective of the toxic Tories' aim to "frame" and "fix" Corbyn and get the mud to stick so they can keep throwing it at him, just as they did with Ed M

    We need to frame the Tories as inimical to national economic security and duty of care with their asset stripping and bargain basement fire sales of the nation's resources and commonwealth, all to the benefit of their plutocratic billionaire mates

    Amazing the similarity of language used in the Tories' "tweets" and statements - it was so blatantly deliberate and sinister in its insistence and drum beat

    Unfortunately Corbyn needs to set up an Alistair Campbell style rebuttal unit and fast. Use Blairite political tactics; as you eschew Blairite policies.


    centerline 13 Sep 2015 22:00

    Worth reading the Pilger article on Whitlam to see what the future may hold for Corbyn

    http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-forgotten-coup-how-america-and-britain-crushed-the-government-of-their-ally-australia


    firozem 13 Sep 2015 22:20

    At last a non-hysterical analysis from someone who distinguishes himself from the right-wing sycophants that call themselves Guardian journalists.


    Lesm 13 Sep 2015 22:14

    It is interesting to note that the Labour and Tory parties have made a very significant, but stupid assumption. They believe that Neo-Liberalism is an order of God and not just another economic fad. Their idea is that it will go on forever as the natural order of things. Young people have a different idea and they are taking control of Labour and re-shaping it for the Twenty-First Century. I say terrific!!!!!.


    toomanycyrils shedexile 13 Sep 2015 21:38

    The poster is suggesting you're not working class, probably because you can afford to pay higher taxes.

    I actually kind of agree with you, but many in your position won't. And the working class can't afford higher taxes. So the only solution is to tax the very rich. George Harrison had something to say about that back in 1966. It seems the only recourse really is to force corporations to pay their tax, which I believe is a lovely idea fraught with serious problems.

    There has to be willing from within the elite for things to change. Any chance of that has been made more remote by the election of Corbyn, not because of his ideas but because of his character. It really is a great shame that he didn't face somebody a bit more potent than either Burnham, Cooper or Kendall.


    Peter M murielbelcher 13 Sep 2015 21:38

    Whilst I agree that the neo-liberal agenda was in it's fledgling stages, I do think capitalism was a more popular ideology in the early 80s than socialism, obviously not everywhere but on the whole. You've mentioned a few there, such as the 1980 Housing Act, but let's not forget things such as the loss of nearly 2m manufacturing jobs before 1983. Don't get me wrong, Thatcherism got much worse post-1983. I think it was Thatcher's decision to sacrifice the jobs of millions for the sake of reducing inflation, as well as the Falklands factor, that made people, to some extent, more open to capitalism.


    axehoO murielbelcher 13 Sep 2015 21:36

    I agree, there are a whole number of ways that Conservative policy can be seen as a threat to the safety and well-being of the UK population.

    The strategy concocted by the government was to immediately hit Corbyn after the Labour leadership election with a coordinated series of slurs by ministers, aided and abetted by the BBC and the right-wing press, that he is effectively an enemy to the nation. This is precisely the kind of hyperbolic rhetoric used the world over by dictatorships to imprison and usually kill their political enemies. Chile under pinochet is a prime example. Here's a quote echoing Cameron's choice of words:

    Still, no woman was safe during the Pinochet era. If she were suspected of anti-regime activities on her own or if she were the relative or lover of a man suspected of such activities, she was branded by officials as a threat to national security and thus a potential object of rape torture.

    Cynthia Enloe 2000

    This is the language now endorsed by the Conservative government to describe its political opponents.


    marxmarv thingtwo 13 Sep 2015 21:26

    The media have to play their role of aspiring professionals worried about their precious fyootchers. There need to be more working-class voices -- real ones, not the neoliberal lapdogs the Western press and every other corporate institution can't help but manufacture.


    easye Golub2 13 Sep 2015 20:59

    This attitude is exactly why there is a burgeoning grassroots movement of which Corbyn is but one of its most important leaders. New Labour treated its heartland with contempt, a bit like if Sunderland decided it was no longer interested in its traditional fanbase and would seek to get supporters from Newcastle United. Things are about to be shaken up. If Corbyn exposes Cameron's alleged funding of ISIS, the Tories mismanagement of the economy £1.56 trillion in debt, as the UK is, that Trident is useless except for lining the pockets of the arms industry, exposes the lies that led us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and defends the poor and vulnerable from the naked hatred of this government towards them, then your illusions about Cameron will be shattered. For Cameron, it will be like the emperor's new clothes and you'll see his bollocks


    Peter M danubemonster 13 Sep 2015 20:26

    I think context also comes into play when you consider the 1983 election. Socialism was simply a message, on the back of a growing globalisation and embracing of neo-liberalism, that people were not listening to. Instead, privatisation and capitalism were the ideologies that garnered widespread support. I think it's taken us until the recession and current period of austerity, as a society, to realise the flaws of capitalism and the need for socialist, anti-austerity measures. For Corbyn, it'll be a much easier fight than Foot had when trying to convince a nation of people, wrongly embracing the New Right following the Winter of Discontent, to vote for socialism.


    axehoO 13 Sep 2015 19:46

    For the past couple of decades the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt.

    Great observation. Since the miner's strike, Labour has tended to distance itself from grassroots movements in the UK, but since the rise and fall of Blair, it's been much closer to disdain. John Hariss's video yesterday captured one of the party delegates leaving the building after the vote and remarking contemptuously about the 'distance from reality' of the Labour supporters celebrating Corbyn's win. Invert that comment and you explain why Labour has been drifting into irrelevance.


    Vespasianite 13 Sep 2015 19:40

    This is just an incredible turn of events, just when you loose faith in the ability of the people of the UK to show interest and put up a fight against the hijacking of their political parties they manage to do something that is truly good for democracy. I voted UKIP last time just to annoy the establishment. I really don't agree with much of Corbyn's convictions but without doubt this is going to be good for the politics of this country. However before you can distribute prosperity you have to generate it, that has always been Socialism's biggest flaw. If he manages to convince he can be trusted to deliver that then his chances of really being in a position of power will be within his grasp.


    foryousure 13 Sep 2015 19:08

    Good article. Politics had become the property of the 'sound bite' media professional with a set of rules, learned doing that politics degree, that define everything and without which governance impossible. Think we have all had enough as Corbyn's landslide shows.

    bemusedbyitall ImaNoyed 13 Sep 2015 19:06

    The sad part in Australia is that, like BLiarism in the UK, the current ALP, with its devout neoliberal acolytes running the show, now stands as the Alternative Liberal Party. There is absolutely no difference betwixt them and the Nat-Libs.
    Who will bring the ALP back to being social democrats - No need - The Greens will rise up and take over fortunately


    ID8729015 13 Sep 2015 18:07

    "milquetoast managerialism, they were not only barely distinguishable from each other but had platforms that were forgettable even when they were decipherable."
    Gary, you are brilliant


    Drewv TheSpaceBetween 13 Sep 2015 17:17

    You are using the term exclusively in its most narrow sense, as in, the people alienated from all of society, who are on the margins of life as such, who are outcasts in the most literal and tangible sense.

    But it is eminently possible to be 'alienated' in many other and different senses, and therefore, for alienation to be present on many different levels. It is possible for people to be alienated from the political class which rules them; for workers to be alienated from the economic system; for voters to be alienated from those whom they elect; for the lower classes to be alienated from the upper ones; and so on.


    Ikonoclast 13 Sep 2015 16:51

    Cameron, what a fukcin embarrassment you are...

    The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family's security.

    CDNBobOrr 13 Sep 2015 16:42

    "" In the words of the American socialist Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."""

    ... ... ...

    mickconley -> jonnyoyster 13 Sep 2015 16:12

    Even though I suspect we might come from different ends of the political spectrum, I think some of what you're saying here is true and it's refreshing to see it expressed without the usual smug post-election needling of many rightwingers on this site! You've definitely identified some of the problems that Corbyn's going to have to solve. I totally agree that the reaction of New Labour movement is going to be key. But I would challenge two main things about your post.

    Firstly, I think your characterisation of people on the Left is a bit patronising and based on stereotype. I could equally hold forth on the type of voter the Right attracts (don't tempt me!) based on my own prejudices, but I don't think that would be particularly helpful. There may be some truth in the stereotypes on both sides among the dyed-in-the-wool, but I also think that the last election showed us that there is a huge number of voters in play who aren't particularly wedded to either concept of Left or Right.

    That brings me on to my second point - what makes you so confident that Labour won't win back UKIP voters? Again, my sense is that although there is a hard core of extreme rightwingers who strongly support the ideas, there are a lot of people at the last election who felt angry and disenfranchised, and saw Farage as a 'plain dealer' - who liked the way he spoke rather than necessarily what he said. I think Corbyn could capitalise on this and win back a significant number, despite the fact that what he's actually saying is the polar opposite to UKIP.

    Remember, Cameron's majority is tiny. The press have been peddling the myth of a wonderful Tory success story, but the truth is it's smaller than Major's was in '92, and look how that ended. Interesting times ahead, certainly!


    foralltime 13 Sep 2015 16:09

    An insightful article, Gary. This is a flowing movement rejecting the neoliberal consensus.


    socialistnotnulabour xlocus 13 Sep 2015 16:03

    Corbyn supporters were given the name Corbynistas by those who opposed him and it was to try and paint Corbyn and his supporters as far left who want to overthrow the government.

    They throw abuse and lie about Corbyn and his supporters and then try to play the victim when they get a bit of abuse back at them.


    Legionary13 13 Sep 2015 15:50

    A yes for Corbyn was effectively a yes for "austerity is a needlessly harmful fraud" so I am very happy to see that this simple fact is recognised. Our current government is unusually destructive and the more voices explaining that this is by choice (rather than forced on us) the better.

    Can Corbyn succeed? He will be opposed by Murdoch/Mail/Telegraph, all organisations that have been practising their lying.

    Humans for Corbyn!


    beadmaker MrHee 13 Sep 2015 15:47

    This is where I am torn. There is a desperate need for an alternative voice to the neo-liberal consensus (ie. Capitalism Unchained) but Mass Immigration is a main plank of unchaining capitalism and at least the right is allowed to verbalise this (even though nothing is allowed to hinder it) whereas the left seems to be hidebound to support it, with any contention deemed racist. To quote another CIF poster: Please understand that many many people understand that immigration is a symptom of the bigger problem of out of control global corporate capitalism. But immigration just makes it worse.

    (ie. they don't blame immigrants /or refuges personally for making understandable choices to try to make a better life for themselves and their family but en masse they are major weapon in the Right's armoury to make the minimum wage the de facto wage rate for lower skilled employment, and as long as the costs can be socialised onto PAYE and SME taxpayers all is well for business. The Left, in useful idiot mode seems to want to help business keep stockpiling bullets and can't see they are shooting themselves in the foot with this.


    BeTrueForAll SteB1 13 Sep 2015 15:28

    "....what the establishment really fears is the public getting behind the mood."

    Well said!

    A great many people are now beginning to see behind the mask and recognise that lying behind Hayekian and Friedmanite Neoliberalism is an age old reality of sociopathic or narcissistic alpha apes seeking domination irrespective of the damage they cause to others.

    Jeremy Corbyn has helped give voice to that recognition. Even if he fails others will take his place and seek to reverse this now obvious and grotesque domination.


    NotYetGivenUp dowland 13 Sep 2015 15:23

    I've seen that interview, and his answer was as straight as a die. When asked to condemn IRA atrocities, he refused to distinguish between IRA atrocities (bad) and British Army atrocities (good?), rather he condemned all atrocities, and thus did answer the question, more fully than a simple, and simplistic, yes or no. By contextualising, Corbyn refused to be pinned by a false dichotomy. His frustration was with the interviewer for framing his question with bias, namely demanding condemnation of IRA actions without conceding there were two guilty parties in this violence. The media's refusal to engage with criticism of the British Army is increasingly disturbing. Jeremy Corbyn is not party to this charade.

    That bears no comparison with Howard's refusal to answer whether he had interfered directly in the prison service, outside his remit.


    happytolive 13 Sep 2015 15:13

    The fight against the Tories has just started, especially now the Tories are on their own mourning their loss of their brother New Labour. The Tories however will continue to fight back not only directly but also through their "agents" in the party. The future is uncertain, how can it be when even the first serious clash has not yet happened? The trade union bill is a test for Corbyn and his supporters and a defining factor for all those who are not happy with the turn Labour has made. I strongly believe that Corbyn's strong point is not in Parliament but outside in the street and in united action with the unions. Without that nothing for the good is achievable.


    sallyo57 MorrisOx 13 Sep 2015 15:05

    The UK is the sixth-biggest economy in the world and for all its iniquities is still growing.

    This economy is built on sand. Private, and public, debt is spiralling out of control with interest rates about to rise. Hold on to your hat...


    LegLeg LondonLungs 13 Sep 2015 15:04

    Spitting venom? The Tories have barely started work on doing Corbyn over. Have you any idea how much shit the Tories are going to be able to dig up over Corbyn's 32 year career? How many terrorists/anti-semites/gay-bashers he's probably sat next to (unawares) over the decades? The Tories are not daft enough to play all their cards at the outset. It is already clear that the Tories won't treat Corbyn as a joke and ignore him. They intend to treat him and his proposals with deadly seriousness, so that come 2020, the choice between the Tories and JC is a real one.

    CynicalSOB 13 Sep 2015 15:03

    Smug closet Tories really are out in force on here tonight. They sound like the other 3 candidates looked on Saturday - bemused and really not sure what to say apart from the same old Torygraph/Daily Heil soundbites...


    SteB1 13 Sep 2015 14:57

    I think this is some of the best analysis and description of the situation I've seen.

    It has energised the alienated and alienated the establishment. The rebels are now the leaders; those who once urged loyalty are now in rebellion. Four months after losing an election, a significant section of Labour's base is excited about politics for the first time in almost a generation while another is in despair.

    This is not only very accurate but a great bit of succinct prose.

    But then little of this is really about Corbyn. He is less the product of a movement than the conduit for a moment that has parallels across the western world.

    This is the point many are missing. Especially the Blairites and self-styled "moderates". They mistakenly think that if they could just defeat Corbyn with some cheap trick, or undermine him once his leadership is underway, that somehow they will re-seize control of the Labour Party. They won't because of the consensus demanding change, who would want an equally radical replacement, and not a Blairite.

    From the moment it was clear that assumption was flawed, the political and media class shifted from disbelief to derision to panic, apparently unaware that his growing support was as much a repudiation of them as an embrace of him. Former Labour leaders and mainstream commentators belittled his supporters as immature, deluded, self-indulgent and unrealistic, only to express surprise when they could not win them over.

    This is it. The establishment media commentariat who like to believe they know best were left looking clueless, and with feet of clay. Suddenly they look very feeble and fallible, and their knowingness is revealed as hollow bluster.

    Nonetheless, the question of whether Corbyn is electable is a crucial one to which there are many views but no definitive answers. We are in uncharted waters and it's unlikely to be plain sailing.

    This is it, we really are in uncharted waters. There are so many points where it could go in different directions, and those making predictions are kidding themselves. There's no doubt that the establishment is going to fight back tooth and nail. They really fear losing control. Jeremy Corbyn himself has proven himself to be incorruptible, and not an establishment man. The old tricks to make someone compromise their principles will be predictable. However, what the establishment really fears is the public getting behind the mood.

    It may be that far from being unelectable, that there could be a bandwagon of support for Jeremy Corbyn. Remember, in a very astute way, Jeremy Corbyn says he wants to appeal to those who don't vote. These are the people who feel politicians don't represent them, and it is not a homeground for many potential Tories. If anyone was to tap into this body that doesn't vote, it could mean there is no need to win over potential Tories.

    But then we don't know what power the establishment will have with their dirty tricks, as they have a stranglehold on the media.

    To me this is the key point about successful change. It depends on the ability to reach the public whilst bypassing the media. It depends on how much traction smearing Jeremy Corbyn has. It could backfire on the media and the establishment if they just preach to the converted as they have been doing in the last couple of months, and their play becomes too transparent to the public. Of course the media and establishment may succeed with their smears and character assassination. Although I think they will find it harder with Jeremy Corbyn, because he is so open and honest about what he stands for. It will be hard to imply he has a hidden agenda.


    CommieWealth 13 Sep 2015 14:53

    They won't win it back with snark and petulance. But they can make their claims about unelectability a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to accept Corbyn's legitimacy as party leader.

    This writeup has a similar perfume to Zoe WIlliams's contribution, criticism out of the wood work, and emulating btl insight of the last few months. Belated catchup, but still welcome, and of course, expressed with far greater eloquence. I haven't followed Gary Younge's articles very closely over the past year, so correct me if I am wrong, but I just wish you CIF were less craven and more courageous when it counts. It feels all too often, as readers, "we told you so".


    teaandchocolate CyrusA 13 Sep 2015 14:41

    I don't want to be hard on the guardian or the observer. I think they have to present lots of different points of view but I think even they held their breath. Monbiot wrote a very powerful piece last week. Everyone is cautious. We've been let down so many times over the last 30+ years.

    The neoliberals are as wily as Stalin and incredibly cunning.

    I have faith in the guardian to vex and thrill me in equal measure. I'd rather that than the dribbling preachings to the converted that is the telegraph and the daily mail.


    johnhump 13 Sep 2015 14:23

    Tory light or Blairism were never right. That is for those who want to conserve and protect status quos. Nor is this about Corbyn, it is about opposition to elitism and unfettered neo con economics. Now what is important is that the thinking has started and has legitimacy.


    McNairoplane 13 Sep 2015 14:21

    This was a heroic move by Labour Party members, and they have returned to their more liberal roots and hopefully will squash the comfortable Westminster Bubble!
    I find it disgusting that knowing their party members have voted for him, so many of the elected Westminster MPs want to turn their back on him, rather than support him.
    It is this very reason that they lost the election.
    They have locally lost contact with the electorate.


    CyrusA teaandchocolate 13 Sep 2015 14:19

    So the question remains... why did the Gruan not give Gary a platform earlier?
    Backing the horse after it has crossed the finishing line is really pathetic.
    Groan editorial team need to reconnect with the 500,000 people who cared enough and hoped enough to bother registering.


    simbasdad Brobat 13 Sep 2015 14:17

    I think the Labour Grandees are worried that their gravy train has just hit the buffers, they were probably looking forward to at least a nice post ministerial income( Hewitt, Reid etc) a stop pretending I was ever a Socialist seat in the Lords (Prescott, Primorolo etc) or the Jackpot riches of Blair, Mandelson or the Kinnocks. Of course, they're upset, their pension plans are disappearing.


    haakonsen1975 13 Sep 2015 14:14

    This is the first article that I have read and in general agree with and don't find condescending in term
    But (there always is a but) I will like to point out that I am not my father nor am I anything but a product of my parents, but what happened in the 80s is not the same as in 2015s it is going to be different so hence the reason for change. If we were to transport the 2015 experience of politics' into the 1980s what would have happened - 3rd world war perhaps??
    The electorate is not what it was then, now is it. We are not the American's although our government would love us to be - we would be so easy to manage.
    Why not let us be let us form our own opinion, we are fully informed as to what we want to happen in the future. When you tell us about the 80s - many of the electorate was not born then - but do remember history is written by the victor of that time so - history lessons should be directed to the history classes in school or Universities - not to drive a Political debate nor to tell people that they are mistaken in their views - views are created through experience - not the other way around.
    The people of the UK have experienced a bad time and has had enough already and they want hope as part of the future - not the usual garbage served up on a TORY blue plate.


    KriticalThinkingUK Barbara Saunders 13 Sep 2015 14:07

    Good points Barbara. Europe would not be facing a refugee crisis if the neo-cons hadn't unilaterally unleashed their bombs on all those countries in the middle east...it has to stop...jaw jaw ...not war war...


    SeenItAlready 13 Sep 2015 13:57

    Short of perhaps a speeding ticket, they didn't appear to have a single conviction between them

    That's pretty funny, and also rather accurate

    Finally we have an article in The Guardian that expresses the situation as it actually is

    For the past couple of decades the Labour leadership has looked upon the various nascent social movements that have emerged – against war, austerity, tuition fees, racism and inequality – with at best indifference and at times contempt. They saw its participants, many of whom were or had been committed Labour voters, not as potential allies but constant irritants

    And here we have the nub of the matter, the way that the NeoLiberals who infiltrated the Labour party just assumed that the core vote would continue supporting them as they had nowhere else to go... wrong, wrong, wrong!


    thewash 13 Sep 2015 13:42

    It beggars belief that so many politicians and commentators still do not recognise the magnitude of what has happened in this Labour leader election.

    Corbyn a a result of his inclusion and the opportunity it has given him to voice his political views is the touchstone for this movement for change, which has been building up since 2003, (when Blair went to war), when the real nature of Labour's shift towards neo-liberalism emerged and voices opposed began to speak and slowly to be heard.

    Politics in the UK will never be the same again. Corbyn and Labour have a little over 4 years to establish a new and better way of confronting national issues and to devise better ways of dealing with them than have been offered by any of the parties including Labour itself.


    francoisP 13 Sep 2015 13:40

    The real issue is whether he can energise those who voted for him and the non voting young into getting into active politics .There is obviously an appetite there.
    The nu labour grandees fail to grasp this and having a hissy fit makes them look even more out of touch.

    Blunkett whinging about protest in the Mail of all places.. As one of their columnists is wont to say " you couldn't make it up"


    snickid 13 Sep 2015 13:39

    What no New Labour / Blairite seems able to admit is the simple truth. New Labour - in the shape of Burnham, Cooper, Kendall - lost the Labour leadership election because New Labour was crap:

    * Afghanistan war
    * Iraq war (and if Blair had had his way, a few more wars besides)
    * Financial scandals, from ads for fags (Bernie Ecclestone) to cash for honours (Michael Levy) - and load more in between
    * PFI
    * Bankerised economics
    * 2008 crash (and Britain with its bloated deregulated banking sector was central to this)
    * Ever-rising wealth gap between rich and poor (minimum wage notwithstanding)

    - and much, much more besides.


    Brobat 13 Sep 2015 13:37

    Gary's 9 words speak volumes - they perfectly summarise the entire British political history of the past eighteen years

    Corbyn victory energises the alienated and alienates the establishment

    the Righties of the Labour Party say Corbyn will make Labour unelectable; gosh that is one hell of a trip they're trying to lay on us 'cos what they offer is a kind cheapo supermarket version of the Tory credo, who in their right mind is gonna vote for such a cheapo piece of crap? Righty Labour is unelectable.

    Unless the Labour Righties can come up with any fresh alternatives, they should join the Tories


    Treflesg 13 Sep 2015 13:31

    There are three things I welcome about Corbyn winning:

    • -he is not a spin master, so, as he will be saying what he actually thinks, he will make it possible for Cameron to do the same, Cameron already does at times but under the until recent heavy spin attack culture from Labour always had to master that side of himself. I welcome that we will have a PM and Opposition Leader who both let each other say what they actually think, rather than what a focus group and pre-determined script said.
    • -he went to private school so hopefully the whole Tory Toff thing will now fade as it wont really work for Labour if their own leader went to private school and grew up in a manor house as well.
    • -by being from the Labour left he will counteract some of the attraction of the SNP in Scotland, and most of the attraction of Leanne Wood in the Welsh valleys.

    That having been said, I absolutely don't welcome:

    • -having a leader of the opposition who is on record siding with Argentina and Spain and the republicans against the UK about the Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland.
    • -having a Labour party that wont now threaten the Tories at the next election. Whilst I like Cameron, I certainly don't want an easy Tory win, they need to work hard to keep the centre ground.

    Sydsnot 13 Sep 2015 13:25

    Corbyn is already achieving what he was elected to do. The party was never going to change just drifting along, it now has to now re invent itself, Corbyn is the catalyst, he won't last long but Labour will never be the same again.

    NietzscheanCat 13 Sep 2015 13:23

    The Labour party is ours, now. We saw that it belonged to you, and we took it. We took what was yours. We took it from your trembling, clutching hands. And now it's ours.

    Tories, we've got you in sight now. Are you afraid? You should be. You are about to witness the Left on attack mode. Our vengeance will hit you like a freight train, and you will be powerless against the onslaught of the left.

    You're damned right we're a threat to your security.

    [Sep 14, 2015] Putin shifts fronts in Syria and Ukraine

    Neocon Diehl has the audacity to use WashPost editorial page to attacks Secretary of State John Kerry. Promoting what is essentially Nuland's jingoistic policies... so despite blunder after blunder neocons are not yet done.
    .
    "...Diehl seems to think that the US has or should have a free hand to do what it wants wherever and whenever it wants, and gets all twitchy when he discovers that the 'end of history' hasn't arrived just yet. He forgets that Russia was in Crimea and Syria long before the US showed up with its solutions in hand."
    .
    "...Or best idea yet -- Send these WaPo neocons (Diehl and Hiatt) packing. "
    Sep 14, 2015 | The Washington Post

    Over the summer, while Washington was preoccupied with the Iran nuclear deal, U.S. and European diplomats quietly leaned on the democratically elected, pro-Western Ukrainian government of Petro Poroshenko. In Sochi, Kerry had offered full-throated U.S. support for the implementation of an accord known as Minsk 2 - a deal hastily brokered by Germany and France in February, at a moment when regular Russian troops were cutting the Ukrainian army to ribbons. The bargain is a terrible one for Kiev: It stipulates that Ukraine must adopt a constitutional reform granting extraordinary powers to the Russian-occupied regions, and that the reforms must satisfy Moscow's proxies. That gives Putin a de facto veto over Ukraine's governing structure.

    Dryly 41

    First, the instability in the Middle East is a direct result of the disaster caused the Bush II-Cheney administration's war against Iraq to fine Weapons of Mass Destruction. There were none. Any normal person would conclude that it would have been much cheaper and saner to have let the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Inspection Commission inspectors continue their inspections and find there were no WMD than to start a Pre-emptive War. Jackson is not a normal person as he supported the Bush II-Cheney war.

    Second, Bush II-Cheney administration's war against Iraq at a time Iraq posed no military threat to the U.S. or any other nation did enormous damage to the standing, stature and prestige of the United States of America. How can the United States argue that it is fine for the us to invade the sovereign nation of Iraq if we want to but Russia cannot invade Ukraine?

    Stranger9

    Putin is extremely articulate on the subject of international ethics and law. Sure, he's corrupt as the day is long, but he seems to believe in certain basic Judeo-Christian-based tenets of international conduct. The West seems tied to Islamic jihad tenets, so the United States and its allies don't believe in the most basic rules. Thus, the moral high ground goes to Putin.

    Whizdom

    Diehl wants us to tie up our military assets trying to take down Hezbollah and Iran, while China is free to consolidate in the South China Sea

    Whizdom

    Iran is unlikely to be a Russian client, but strategic cooperation is likely.
    Diehl and the Neocons over reached in trying to pry Ukraine out of Russians orbit before the time was right, and also massive fail in Syria A naive and stupid strategy.

    Luke W

    Putin has a right to conduct a foreign policy without the permission of the United States.

    American statecraft and military performance in the region as been abysmal and is the font for much of the chaos now evident in Iraq and Syria thus, its credibility is in tatters.

    Russia can certainly do no worse than what we have accomplish.

    Livin_in_MD

    Please, let us do all we can to entangle Russia into Syria's civil war. Let them bleed slowly their national treasure and the blood of their soliders. Let it become their NEXT Afghanistan. And while they're at it, please allow them to incite Muslims across the Middle East because they are helping the Butcher Assad.

    You don't think they're Muslims in Russia who would like to strike back at Putin for this?

    Obama, playing the long game, is going to give just enough rope to let the Russians hang themselves.

    Whizdom

    Let Russia be the magnet for Islamic terror instead of us? That's a concept.

    Whizdom

    Russia just wants its naval base and its hand on the valves of new Friendship pipeline that will cross Syria from Iran's Pars fields. Putin doesn't care if it Is Assad or some other stooge.

    mike-sey

    Who is in whose face depends on which side of the border one sits. Diehl seems to think that the US has or should have a free hand to do what it wants wherever and whenever it wants, and gets all twitchy when he discovers that the 'end of history' hasn't arrived just yet. He forgets that Russia was in Crimea and Syria long before the US showed up with its solutions in hand.

    Stranger9

    "Putin is meddling in the Middle East out of desperation because his bid for Ukraine has failed."

    Putin's "bid for Ukraine"? His bid is not for all of Ukraine, as this statement implies; it is to keep Crimea within the orbit of Russia, since the great majority of its denizens are Russian by choice, history and culture. The word "Crimea" is not once mentioned.

    Then there's this: "Putin has an agenda as clear as it is noxious. He wants to block any attempt by the West and its allies to engineer the removal of Bashar al-Assad ..."

    Noxious? What's noxious is the West's and Israel's unfounded claim on Assad's regime.

    danram

    It take a real Putin boot-licker to defend Bashir Assad. Congratulations.

    And if Putin is only concerned with Crimea, then why are his forces in southeastern Ukraine?

    Oh yeah, that's right ... They really aren't. Got it.

    Stranger9

    An international code of conduct must be maintained. It cannot be broken by engineering coups and installing unelected leaders, as was done in Ukraine. The same applies In Syria. You simply cannot take over a sovereign country simply because you can. There are rules that even the U.S. -- "exceptional" though it claims to be -- must abide by.

    MyCountry2

    Syria will [be] Russia's second Afghanistan.

    Whizdom

    Do we get to arm the Islamists again?

    IWH_rus

    Why? did you stop it already? When?

    jack406

    Where's Reagan when we need him?
    Didn't he build Al Quaida?

    Michael DeStefano

    We can dress Yatsenyuk up like Osama. His days in Ukraine are numbered anyway and he's about the right height. Not quite as handsome but the beard will cover most of that.

    -shiloh-

    The flood of refugees into Europe will continue until somebody stops the source of the flood. Does anybody really care who's fingers are in the dike? The only way to end the refugee crisis is to end the civil war(s) and insurgencies in the region. A cooperative effort among Europe, Russia, and Iran with the assistance of the US is preferable to the status quo. Ports, pipelines, and political ideologies are incidental issues.

    Whizdom

    So Russia and Iran are moving to crush ISIS and restore stability in Syria, which will ease the refugee crisis. And Diehl is unhappy? Syria has been a client of Russia's for a half century. Ending that relationship is a neocon goal, but does it even make sense now? Worth the price?

    Forest Webb

    What's the big deal? the editor makes this sound if this is some brilliant strategy on the part of Putin. If the Russians want to throw away their sons in the Mid-east quagmire let them.

    It's a complicated stew and Putin has easier choices in the arena than the U.S. For Putin he simply supports Assad.

    For the U.S. we want Assad out, so we cannot support him. We cannot support ISIL, half or the other opposition is supported by al Qaeda, the Kurds would just as soon fight the Turks our erstwhile Nato ally rather than fight the Assad regime. A complicated messy stew, we should try to keep our spoons out of.

    Let Putin send his Russian boys to Syria, and let's count how many weeks pass before the terrorists take the war to Russian soil.

    Michael Cook

    Putin won in Ukraine. He has the Crimea back and has secured an overland gas pipeline corridor from Mother Russia to the peninsula, which was his objective. All it really cost him was dozens of scoldings from Obama.

    Obama already scolds and threatens Vladimir Putin about Syria. The problem is that Moscow is absolutely right---if someone does not step in and rescue Syria RIGHT NOW the country will fall to ISIS before the end of the year. Assad's forces are exhausted.

    Iran, of course, besides Russia is Bashar al Assad's other ally. The interesting point about that is that neither Russia nor Iran had much money available to make war.

    Until last week. Now that Obama is freeing up frozen Iranian funds ($50-150 Billion!) suddenly the militant mullahs in Tehran have plenty of money for war making.

    Can anyone smell a win-win for Putin? He gets to be the only leader of a major nation around to have the guts and intelligence to realize that allowing Syria to fall to ISIS would be a global catastrophe of the first magnitude. Better yet, Putin gets to sell lots and lots of Russian weapons, which helps his own struggling economy! Has Putin studied "The Art of the Deal?"

    SELL weapons for cash money! Courtesy of Obama! Now that is worth putting up with more of these tiresome tongue-lashings that POTUS likes to dole out when he is clueless about what is going on. Since Obama is clueless all the time, Putin just has to put up with the noise.

    Michael DeStefano

    Putin's objective was to secure a gas pipeline corridor across the Kerch Strait?

    So he could what, erect one of those ancient Greek fire breathing dragon flame throwers on the Crimean coast?

    Not everything's about gas, Mr. Cook.

    Ethernum

    Russian airstrike in Syria won't perform better than the US (with a more advanced technology) against the Islamic state.

    Can Putin engage a ground assault in Syria with regular/irregular troops the way he did in Ukraine ?

    He can try but the result won't be the same, there's some wealthy countries supporting the Islamic State and they will provide them a lot of money, weapons and soldiers coming from everywhere to beat the Russian army, Putin will be unable to veto this support to the Islamic state, and it will restart what the US army experienced in Iraq, with permanent IED and kamikazes, while there will be no target for planes and drones....

    IWH_rus

    How many countries should be invaded and ravaged before USA became appeased?

    simon7382

    Nice try, no cigar....The US invasion of Iraq was a grave mistake, BUT it does not justify Putin's naked aggression in Georgia, in Ukraine or now in Syria in any way.

    IWH_rus

    Iraq is all you know about? Right now you involved in seven wars. And you never stop to invade all the last century. With all your history USA have only 21 year of peace, all the time invading, conquering, overthrowing legal governments to replace it with puppets. As it YOU made in Georgia, and Ukraine, and try to in Syria.

    r2rnot

    Putin is like a shark in the water, detecting blood around him. With the appeasers in our current administration, he has nothing to be worried about. He knows that Obama will do nothing but fire more drones and try to find some targets for bombs, as long is no non-combat person is in the area.

    Michael DeStefano

    If Putin's like a shark in water, McCain and Nudelman were like hyenas going after Ukraine's carcass,

    SG2118

    Refugees from Syria are a welcome relief to the Assad regime. It's hundreds of thousands of people who they need no longer worry about. Good riddance is Assad's feeling on the matter. Same holds for those from Iraq and Afghanistan. Rebels and those opposed to the government are leaving in droves and the regime couldn't be happier.

    Russian troops in Syria? Russian warplanes and drones? They're going to be busom-buddies with the Iranian Quds Force which has been there for years, alongside Hezbollah fighters who are there to ensure the supply lines from Teheran remain open and aid, money and weapons continue to flow into the Bekaa Valley.

    The Fall of Assad would be a cataclysm to Iranian hopes and dreams for the Middle East. They will not give up without a serious fight. Russia is there now, like in Vietnam 50 years ago, to "advise" and "train" local "militias" to "resist aggression".

    choppy1

    And if Putin's plan is to make himself look significant by "confronting" the U.S., he has succeeded, at least with Jackson Diehl. The question isn't whether Russia is pushing the U.S. around, it's whether U.S. national interests are involved. The U.S. has lived with the Assad regime for 45 years. Is it really so crucial that we get rid of it now? Ukraine is hardly a linchpin of Europe. Sure, it would be nice if it were free and western. But it has historic ties to Russia, is more important to Russia than to us, and has not shown laser-like focus on becoming a serious western democracy. Meanwhile Putin presides over an economy that's shrinking 5% a year, with a population that's also shrinking. And he made the choice to keep power for himself and his cronies rather than modernize. No matter what he does abroad, Russia itself is on a decline that he will only exacerbate. He's dangerous, not because he's strong, but because he's weak. We should not let his actions fool us into losing sight of where our core interests lie.

    IWH_rus

    While world sleeps, Putin moves stars with his finger, to disrupt NATO's operations and disturb dreams.

    Greyhounds

    Right. Because NATO is operating in Syria?

    IWH_rus

    NATO is a theatre of one actor. And this multifaced actor is operating in Syria, arming terrorists.

    RealChoices

    If anything, Russian aid to Assad should be encouraged. We may find Assad too repulsive to aid, but given a choice between Assad and ISIS, he is definitely the lesser of two evils. It's time to dispense with a notion of a "moderate pro-Western rebel force", it was always wishful thinking.

    Greyhounds

    There's this little thing called "human rights" and another little thing called "the Leahy Ammendment" that prevent us from providing aid to terrorists like Assad or even giving a nod to Putin to do so.

    Michael DeStefano

    But you seem to be all hunky dory with Poroshenko and our Saudi and Israeli allies bombing civilians into oblivion. Funny how that 'human rights' business pops up and down on demand.

    Slava Besser

    So Assad is a terrorist, but Poroshenko is allowed to bomb Donetsk at willSmile Saudi Arabia is allowed to bomb Yemen with cluster munitions we provide because they don't like the revolution there, but Russia should not provide aid to Donetsk despite the fact that people that came to power in Ukraine illegally and are blatantly anti-Russian are using air-force, tanks and artillery against civilian population that happens to have pro-Russian views?

    Michael Cook

    Spot On! Assad's forces are exhausted and extremely weak. If Russia doesn't come in and save the day, Syria will fall to ISIS with all the slaughter of minorities and hate crimes against archeology that entails.

    I can't believe that the Obama administration is playing this like it is more important to uphold fictional political straw men than to actually stop ISIS from scoring their most important strategic victory ever!

    SG2118

    Iran is deeply involved in propping up Assad. It is through Syria that Iranian supplies reach their proxy lap-dog Hezbollah. Without that vital lifeline open, Hezbollah is cut off from their patron, and cannot be used against Iranian enemies (i.e. Israel). The Iranian Quds Force is in Syria now doing front-line fighting. Hezbollah too is deeply engaged. Without that level of aid, Assad's control would shrink dramatically, if not topple over altogether.

    SG2118

    News of the day. Iranian special forces moved into Syria to help Russians. Source - Israeli intelligence.

    Slava Besser

    I'm a Jew, are you implying that it is better for Israel if ISIS comes to power in Syria?

    nativeson7

    I would respectfully suggest that Russia's participation in the Ukrainian and Syrian conflicts are different means to accomplish the identical objective, the undermining, if not outright dismemberment, of the EU and NATO.

    While the Ukrainian gambit failed, taking the Russian economy with it, the "Syrian play" shows far more promise in its early stages and at the very least is likely to erode the unanimous support required for an extension of the EU's economic sanctions against Russia.

    Merkel's misguided response to the initial flood of Syrian refugees has transformed the matter into an existential crisis in the minds of many Europeans and "right wing" parties throughout the continent.

    There has been a notably unified and pronounced response from the Slavic Eastern European states in particular. Slovakia has declared it will accept only Christian refugees, Hungary has erected a fence along its southern border with Serbia and Bulgaria has done the same along its border with Turkey. Poland has agreed to take only 2000 Christian refugees rather than the 12,000 requested by the EU and in the Baltics protests have arisen over projected Syrian resettlement figures numbered in the hundreds.
    Russia's military support will not only breathe new life into the Assad regime it will assure a continuing flood of migrants from Syria, into Europe, which will serve as a catalyst to create a "Pan-Slavic Europe" with a political, religious and cultural unity that could well transcend Eastern Europeans view of themselves as "European".

    Michael DeStefano

    Jeez, what a nefarious plot. Flood Europe with immigrants until it bursts at the seams. I knew that Putin was no good. What a Svengali-Machiavelli hybrid.

    Why just today I heard on Meet the Press that they're all running from Assad and really upset that he's just being really mean with ISIS and not letting them distribute food and chocolates to the masses.

    IWH_rus

    Look at the map of "Arab spring". These lands make a belt from Atlantica to Indian Ocean, blocking Eurasia from Africa. It is clearly the geopolitical project of the power, which wins situation, while EU, Russia, China loose. Who is greatest and faithfull supporter of chaos in Middle East? USA.

    Assad is unimportant. No matter who rule there, Syria is the target. If you destroy Syria - lots of military staff and arms will be left abandoned, and go to search new destiny. How ISIS was created? Jobless soldiers, cheap weapons. That's the target. Putin, Assad, just a decorations. You are blind, if unable to see it, or you do it consciously, as the autor of article. He is not as stupid, as try hard to look.

    Michael DeStefano

    Well it looks like, if Russia is 'pivoting' to Syria, then Germany has just decided to pivot with them. They didn't exactly call our approach feckless and wrongheaded but I suspect they may have had something along those lines in mind.

    Syrien Deutschland bricht aus US-Allianz gegen Russland aus Nachrichten – DEUTSCHE WIRTSCHAFTS NACHRICHTEN

    Germany surprisingly left the alliance formed together with the United States which intended to block Russia's entry into the Syrian conflict.

    Minister of Defence Ursula von der Leyen told Der Spiegel that she welcomed president Putin's intentions of joining the fight against the extremist organization "Islamic State". It would be a matter of mutual interests, she said.

    A speaker of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs added, Germany would welcome additional efforts of Russia in the fight against IS. Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even announced the starting of a joint venture between him, Russian foreign minister Lavrov and their French colleague Laurent Fabius with the aim of bringing the Syrian civil war to an end. Lavrov and Fabius are expected to arrive in Berlin this Saturday.

    moore_te

    BIll Maher said it this weekend: There are five million troops in the Gulf States vs some 30,000 ISIS fighters... Where are they? Why don't the ME nations take in any refugees? (Of course, who would want to live in any of them given a choice?)

    Taking out Saddam and Gaddafi worked so well, so of course we need to repeat the procedure in Syria!

    Forget about the assurances we gave Russia that the West would leave a buffer between it and Russia. So what if we renege on our agreements, it's all for a good cause, right? After all, look how Bush stood up to them in Georgia. (He didn't.)

    Or best idea yet -- Send these WaPo neocons (Diehl and Hiatt) packing.

    Whizdom

    There is a Syria peace deal in the works. naturally, NeoCons are gonna hate it. I wonder if Syria will get the Golan Heights back.

    Chortling_Heel

    It is always a pleasure to receive the NeanderCon musings and misdirection of Jackson Diehl.

    Rootin' Tootin' Putin and his hand puppet, Bashar al-Assad, are trying to run out the clock before their nations implode even further --- taking each down with them.

    [Sep 14, 2015] Jeffrey Brown To Understand The Oil Story, You Need To Understand Exports

    It's amazing that several trillion dollar was spend in exploration and oil recovery for the last several years. That suggests low EROEI.. Earth does not contain unlimited amount of cheaply extractable oil. Opposite is true ("peak cheap oil"). "Real oil" became more and more scars, but production of oil substitutes greatly increased as side effect of national gas exploration.
    The closer you follow MSM on oil, the more you are misled. Not all oil is created equal. condensate that account for most production increase (as a byproduct of national gas extraction).
    "Real" crude oil extraction did not increased since 2005. Shift to other oil substitutes by-and-large accounts for increase in oil production in stars reports.
    In you production if flat or falling or your internal consumption is rising them you export less and less. Net export for several current oil exporting countries can go zero in just nine years. Saudi Arabia probably already shipped 50% of oil they can ever export. And their internal consumption is increasing rapidly due to population growth. Unless they cut their internal consumption they can export less and less.
    Sep 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

    Despite the attention-grabbing economic volatility that is dominating headlines, it's important to keep our eye on the energy story firmly in focus. This is especially true as the headlines we regularly read about Peak Oil being dead " are "manifestly false" according to this week's podcast guest, petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown.

    As concerning as the fact that global oil production has plateaued over the past decade, despite trillions invested in trying to goose it higher, are Brown's forecasting model for oil exports. His Export Land Model shows how rising internal consumption can swing (and has swung) countries from major exporters to permanent importers within a dizzyingly short period of time:

    The crucial issue to understand about what has happened after 2005 is that we've had a very large increase in global gas production and natural gas liquids, but a much slower increase in crude plus condensate.

    So, what I think has happened is the actual crude oil production has basically flatlined while the liquids associated with natural gas production, condensate and natural gas liquids, have continued to increase. So, we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of Brent or WTI; but when you ask for the volume of oil, you get some combination of crude, condensate, natural gas liquids, biofuels. So, the fact is that substitution has worked and is working in that they're bringing on alternative substitutes, but they're only partial substitutes. The actual, physical volume of crude oil production has probably been flat to down since 2005. Over the past ten years, it has taken us trillions of dollars, basically, to keep us on an undulating plateau in actual crude oil production. What happens going forward?

    So, basically, the conventional wisdom is the fact that we've seen an increase in liquids production, seems there's no evidence of the peak in sight. And, I think in regard to crude oil production, that argument is manifestly false. I think that we've probably seen a peak in actual crude oil production, 45 and lower API gravities, despite trillions of dollars of upstream capex expenditures.

    I started wondering in late 2005 what happens to oil exports from an exporting country, given a production decline and rising consumption. And, so I just started, I just constructed a simple little model. I assumed a production of about two million barrels a day or so at peak, consumption of one, and assumed production falls about 5% per year, basically what the North Sea did, and assumed consumption increases to 2.5% per year. What the model showed was that exports, net exports would go to zero in only nine years, even though a roughly modest production decline. So, the easy way to state it is giving an ongoing, inevitable decline in production, unless an exporting country cuts their domestic oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production, or at a faster rate, it's a mathematical certainty that the net export decline rate, what they actually ship out to consumers will exceed the rate of decline in production. And, furthermore, it accelerates.

    Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Jeffrey Brown (43m:48s)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2evwXpejl_M

    buzzsaw99

    ...despite trillions of dollars of upstream capex expenditures.

    Trillions?

    SHRAGS

    See this talk by Stephen Kopits, yes, trillions
    http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/events-calendar/global-oil-market-forec...

    Uncletommy

    Export what you can make money on Great examination of the variables in the oil business. Funny that a graph on Canadian exports wasn't included in this analysis. Watching the performance on the Canadian crud (oops, I mean't crude) stocks tumble, his analysis hits the nail on the head. Canadian heavy crude producers are facing huge discounts and they have had to use the condensate to blend heavier sources just pipe it to market.

    And if it doesn't hit the refiner's specs, it is either rejected or priced even lower, as Mr Brown points out. The CAPEX on these Alberta sources has been cut way back and they are only shipping existing heavy crude and conventional production just to keep the lights on. Layoffs in western Canada haven't been this high in a long time. I wonder why?

    The interesting thing I see is that the major refiners in the US are making comfortable margins on finished products that most of the exporting countries are importing. Has your gasoline dropped as much as the price of crude? Doubt it.

    I'm not saying the refiners are having a cakewalk, but low priced base products certainly don't hurt. Bottom line - the good stuff is getting scarce. The 7 billion of us will soon be 9 billion. Just one more affirmation of PP's message. Great discussion and another good slant on the topic. Keep up the good work, Chris.

    Export Numbers

    To understand the oil story we need to understand exports. Well I listened to the podcast twice and I am shocked and confused. It sounds to me like the Bobble Heads in charge aren't on top of the export data or are minimizing, obfuscating or ignoring the information. Isn't this information and data that should be shouted from the roof-tops?

    The Bobble Heads said the Titanic was UNSINKABLE, oops wrong. Now it's we are awash in petroleum, don't worry be happy. Soon it's oops, wrong again ..... really?

    And people are using "implied numbers" or the "available data" this tells me there is some room for error. This wasn't an - "ah ha" podcast this was a Holy Shit podcast.

    Looking forward to others feed back.

    AKGrannyWGrit

    [Sep 13, 2015] Goldman Sachs faces test years after memos touted now faltering economies by Guy Laron

    Sep 13, 2015 | The Guardian
    When the 2008 financial crisis hit the global economy, China experienced only a short slowdown and afterwards it continued to post double digits rates of growth. The voracious appetite of the Chinese industrial machine for raw materials created prosperity among commodity exporters such as Russia, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia and Saudi Arabia. Goldman's prophecy appeared to be on the money.

    There was a vigorous debate in the pages of the financial press about the Brics concept. There was also no denying that developing countries were enjoying fast growth and unusually large inflows of cash from developed countries. The question was whether all that was the result of an improvement in the quality of government, education and infrastructure in emerging markets – a true re-ordering of the world – or instead the result of speculative trade creating yet another bubble.

    The term on the naysayers' lips was "carry trade". Carry trade is a financial practice which involves borrowing in a country where both the value of the currency and the interest rate are low and then investing in countries where the returns on the investment are higher.

    Chief among those who believed that the post-2008 rapid growth in emerging markets was carry trade masquerading as development was Nouriel Roubini, an New York University economics professor who has spent a lifetime researching developing world debt crises.

    In 2009 Rubini published an op-ed whose title said it all: "Mother of all carry trades faces an inevitable bust." Rubini's thesis was that the cause of the sharp rally in emerging markets' bonds, stocks and currencies were the ultra-low interest rates maintained by the Federal Reserve post-2008 in attempt to revive the faltering American economy.

    As a result, the dollar became weak and effective interest rates in the US turned negative. Traders borrowed heavily in the US and sent the money overseas to Asia and Latin America. Rubini ended his article with a warning: the minute interest rates in the US started rising, pushing the value of the dollar upwards, the value of emerging markets assets would collapse.

    Later events have proven Roubini right. Every time investors feared that the Fed would hike interest rates, Brics economies went into a tailspin and commodities prices crashed. This happened in 2011, 2013 and, of course, this year.

    Goldman Sachs, however, stuck to its guns. Jim O'Neill, the company's chief economist, a man who did no work in development economics, visited only one of the Bric countries and spoke none of their languages, was promoted by the sleek Goldman Sachs PR machine as Mr Brics (apparently the acronym was his idea). O'Neill became a tireless advocate for the Brics vision in the media. He and other Goldman Sachs spokesmen brushed aside the carry-trade critique as "nonsense" and emphasized at every downturn that while emerging markets might experience a setback here and there, their rise to economic dominance was inevitable.

    As if in a parallel universe, in 2009 it was revealed that while peddling mortgage-backed securities to unsuspecting American customers, Goldman Sachs was secretly betting on a housing market crash. In 2010, a senior director at the company admitted that Goldman Sachs helped the Greek government conceal the extent of its external debt.

    The investment firm became mired in legal controversies and federal investigations. Its activity became more heavily regulated and it had to give up some "creative" practices that had produced hefty profits in the past. A 2011 piece in the New York Times portrayed Goldman Sachs as losing its edge as a market leader. The Brics story was the only positive narrative that the company could offer to redeem itself in the eyes of the public.

    Moreover, the tough Brics talk suggested that the company had unique expertise in emerging market investments – a high-risk game in which the fees are traditionally higher. In other words, Goldman was able to replace the pre-2008 real estate bubble with speculative trade in emerging markets assets. Finally, the company could signal to potential customers in Bric countries that Goldman was their champion. Indeed, in the last few years, the firm made huge profits by being a go-between between Chinese companies and American capital markets.

    As the performance of emerging markets began to wane in 2010, so did O'Neill's star at Goldman. By that year the Bric fund under his management lost 20% of its value. In 2011, the Asset Management unit, which O'Neill led, lost several US pension clients. He finally left the firm in April 2013.

    This year, as expectation that the Fed would raise interest rates intensified, panicky investors withdrew $1tn from emerging markets assets, the Chinese stock market crashed and the yuan depreciated. Some experts believe that this is the result of the unwinding of the China carry trade. The commodities-dependent economies of Brazil and Russia are in the doldrums.

    This week the Fed will raise interest rates for the first time in a decade – maybe. If doesn't happen this week, you can bet it won't be long. The Bank of England signalled only last week that its rates are likely to rise sooner rather than later. And with those rising rates, the carry trade "myth" will be tested once again – with potentially huge consequences for investors around the world.

    Guy Laron is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and author of Origins of the Suez Crisis: Postwar Development Diplomacy and the Struggle over Third World Industrialization, 1945-1956 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2013).


    Sean Marshall 13 Sep 2015 13:39

    Beware of Goldman Sachs bearing white papers and reports....


    2skeptical 13 Sep 2015 11:18

    Goldman Sacs creates markets -- both buyers and sellers -- and works both ends off each other for maximum gain for GS. This has played out in real estate, coal, oil and many other sectors, while GS pays 15% in taxes by using other people's money. What a con game. Nothing is ever their fault, since they're only creating what others are stupid enough to buy, or sell. Hopefully this scheme is on its last legs.


    boscovee 13 Sep 2015 11:09

    Oh these banksters know the results of mentioning the word about raising the rates and now they use it as a tool for their greed and inside trading.

    lifeintheusa ByThePeople 13 Sep 2015 10:21

    pump them up.... pump them down... it's all bullshit.... you only make profits when prices change. It's simple massive corruption. Forget economics 101, 201, 301.

    Schnitzler88 arsetechnica 13 Sep 2015 10:14

    The bank needs to go away: have its business license revoked, be banned from securities trading, whatever. Too big to fail? What--and leave the rest of the world tottering because of the snake oil the bank peddles? Let's be done with them.

    ByThePeople 13 Sep 2015 09:16

    Goldman has forecast oil at $20 a barrel, which may be correct but they've also heavily shorted gold, silver and other futures commodities - but why? Why has it become so dramatically important for Goldman to so heavily, artificially deflate commodity prices?

    [Sep 13, 2015] Radolsaw Sikorski has joined Poroshenko's Advisory Council for Reforms

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Fern , September 13, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    Well, it was inevitable, I guess. Everyone's favourite Polish mover and shaker, Radolsaw Sikorski has joined Poroshenko's Advisory Council for Reforms. To judge by previous appointees, qualifications appear to include – being a disgraced politico in your own country; being a fugitive and, most important of all, the ability to bleed Russophobia.

    "I intend to visit Ukraine regularly, because I support the country's reform," Sikorski noted, adding that he is "delighted that Ukraine will be looking to learn from the Polish experience."
    Apparently, that experience includes borderline hysterical anti-Russian rhetoric backed by neoconservative ideology. Sikorski is married to Anne Applebaum, an American-Polish journalist known for her hawkish, stridently anti-Russian attitudes, who said at the height of the Ukrainian crisis in March, 2014 that the US and its allies should not allow for the continued "existence of a corrupt Russian regime that is destabilizing Europe," later adding that Europe should prepare for "total war" with Russia…….

    ….Sikorski does not appear to have lost any of his exaggerated anti-Russian zealotry. A few days ago, the politician spoke at the 12th annual Yalta European Strategy forum, organized by Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk and aimed at promoting Ukraine's membership in the European Union via high-level talks between Ukrainian and European officials.
    The politician's appearance at the forum made headlines in both Poland and Ukraine, after he suggested that NATO should stockpile weapons on Poland's border with Ukraine, in case of Russian aggression. "Anti-tank weapons can be deployed somewhere close to Ukraine, in Poland or Romania. If the pro-Russian or Russian forces move deeper into the territory of Ukraine, these weapons will be supplied to Ukraine in a very fast manner, within an hour." The politician warned that "President Putin should understand this."

    http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150913/1026942797/sikorski-poroshenko-poland-ukraine.html

    Does an ex-Polish foreign minister come cheap, I wonder? Your tax dollars at work.

    [Sep 13, 2015] Do Not Vote for Jeremy Corbyn! Ten Perfectly 'Reasonable' Reasons

    Tony Blair neoliberal stooges at Guardian are surely disappointed...
    Sep 13, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    The big political story in the UK this summer is undoubtedly 'Corbynmania'. How a 66-year-old antiwar activist and socialist has gone from being the rank 200-1 outsider in the Labour leadership contest election to be the red-hot favorite.

    Jeremy Corbyn, a modest, unassuming man who wears an open necked shirt and slacks instead of the usual politician's suit and tie, has really proved a big hit with the public, who have grown tired of slick politicians who are always 'on message', and who don't seem at all sincere in what they're saying. Large crowds have turned out to hear Corbyn speak: last week he had to give his speech from the top of a fire engine as an election rally spilled out into the street.

    Not everyone though has welcomed Corbyn's advance. One man who has made repeated warnings about the 'dangers' of Jeremy Corbyn is Cyril Waugh-Monger, a 'Very Important' newspaper columnist for the NeoCon Daily, a patron of the Senator Joe McCarthy Appreciation Society and the author of 'Why the Iraq War was a Brilliant Idea', as well as 'The Humanitarian Case for Bombing Syria'.

    Below are Mr Waugh-Monger's ten commandments to Labour members to not, under any circumstances, vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Remember, we need to take what he has to say very seriously - as, after all, he did reveal to us that Iraq possessed WMDs [Weapons of Mass Destruction] in 2003. 

    1. Jeremy Corbyn wants to 'stop the war'.

    Jeremy Corbyn opposed the bombing of Yugoslavia. He opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. He was against the invasion of Iraq. He was against bombing Libya and also voted against military action in Syria.

    I ask you - is this the sort of man who is fit to be in charge of one of Britain's leading parties?

    If Corbyn - heaven forbid - had been British Prime Minister in 2003 he would not have committed British troops to the invasion of Iraq. Just imagine what would have happened if we hadn't invaded Iraq! Well, I'll tell you what would have happened - the Middle East would now be a haven for terrorist groups which would be targeting British tourists on beaches when they go on their summer holidays. The whole Middle East would now be in turmoil. We'd be facing a refugee crisis with people fleeing all the countries that we hadn't destabilized.

    2. Jeremy Corbyn is a dangerous leftist.

    Just look at the sort of policies this man supports. He wants to re-nationalize the railways which have the highest fares in Europe.

    He wants to scrap university tuition fees which consign students to a lifetime of debt. He would like to make housing affordable for ordinary people.

    He wants an economy to suit the needs of the majority and not the 1%.

    He wants to keep the Sunday trading laws as they are and not introduce 24/7 shopping. He is opposed to illegal wars which kill hundreds of thousands of people and he does not want to bring back fox-hunting. Quite clearly the man is some kind of left-wing nutcase.

    3. Jeremy Corbyn has been critical of the US and Israel.

    Outrageously, Corbyn has criticized US foreign policy and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. He seems to think that the US and Israel have to abide by international law - and should be held accountable for their actions. The man is quite obviously a communist and as such should be barred not only from standing for Labour leader, but banned from the Labour Party too.

    Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn Jeremy Corbyn: Why He's Got Britain's Anti-Democratic Democrats Worried

    4. Jeremy Corbyn has extremist links.

    Not only is Corbyn a dangerous radical himself, he also associates with dangerous extremists. He once spoke at a meeting where one of the other speakers had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once shared a platform with a speaker who had once praised Joseph Stalin - proving undeniably that Corbyn is a Stalinist.

    Also on Twitter, Corbyn once retweeted a person who had once retweeted another person who had once retweeted another person who had retweeted a tweet from someone who I don't approve of - proving once again Corby's extremism.  

    5. Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable.

    Jeremy Corbyn wants to do things which the majority of the British public wants, such as re-nationalize the railways and keep Britain out of Middle East wars. This makes him unelectable because politicians are only electable if they want to do things the public doesn't want.

    At the last election, Labour lost heavily to the anti-austerity SNP in Scotland and also lost lots of votes to the anti-austerity Greens. So it's obvious that to get these votes back, Labour needs a leader who supports austerity, and not someone who opposes it, like Corbyn.

    I'm a very wealthy right-wing, pro-austerity warmonger, but believe me, I only want the best for Labour - which is to be a right-wing pro-austerity, pro-war party - barely distinguishable from the Tories.

    Having two main parties who have identical views on the main issues is what democracy is all about. If Corbyn wins then Labour would be very different from the Conservatives, which would obviously be very bad for democracy as it would give the electorate a real choice.   

    6. Jeremy Corbyn wants to take us back to the 1970s.

    In the 1970s the gap between the rich and poor was at its lowest in the UK's history. Living standards for ordinary people were rising all the time and large sections of the economy were in public ownership. The banks did not run the country and the taxation system was steeply progressive.

    Corbyn wants to take us back to these times!  Think how disastrous that would be for rich people like me who would have to pay much higher rates of tax which would be redistributed to horrible working class-type people and people on middle incomes. The 1% would really suffer and the most talented people - like myself - and my neocon friends, would leave the country. That's what lies in store for us if Corbyn succeeds!

    7. Jeremy Corbyn would leave Britain defenseless and open to invasion.

    Corbyn has promised to scrap Trident.

    If Trident was scrapped there's no doubt that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Hezbollah would launch a full scale invasion of Britain within 45 minutes.

    Britain would be carved up between the 'Axis of Evil', with the Russians taking England, the Iranians Scotland and the Syrians, Wales (and Hezbollah in charge of Northern Ireland).

    Just imagine, Aberystywyth under the control of the evil dictator Bashar al-Assad. Russian troops patroling the streets of Godalming. Iran's Revolutionary Guard marching in Sauchiehall Street.  A nightmare scenario indeed, but all this would be the reality if Corbyn gets his way. The very future of our country is at stake.

    8. Jeremy Corbyn once welcomed an article by John Pilger.

    In 2004, Jeremy Corbyn was one of 25 MPs who signed an Early Day Motion which welcomed a Pilger article on Kosovo. 

    How outrageous! To think, a man is standing for the leadership of one of Britain's major parties who once welcomed an article by John Pilger!

    No one who has ever cited John Pilger with approval - let alone signed a motion supporting him - should be allowed to stand for high public office in Britain. The freedom to hold and express views and opinions in a democracy should only apply to opinions and views that myself and fellow elite neocons approve of! And we most certainly do not approve of John Pilger!

    9. Jeremy Corbyn opposes austerity.

    Spain Podemos rally © AP Photo/ Daniel Ochoa de Olza Rise of the Left: Will Britain Join Europe's Anti-Austerity Rebel Club?

    Austerity is working brilliantly at the moment.

    It's provided a great excuse for the government to flog off remaining state assets at below their true market value to 'the right people' in the City. The welfare payments of lower-class people who have far too many children are being cut. Libraries and local authority services are being closed. Yet, guess what? The bearded one opposes all of this. He says that "austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity." 

    He wants to protect public services and libraries from cuts - and instead wants to crackdown on tax evasion and increase taxes on the very wealthy! I ask you - is this the sort of man we want leading Labour - or worse still, the country?  

    And finally, but most importantly, the tenth commandment:

    10. Jeremy Corbyn is very popular.

    …And if he succeeds - which seems very likely - it's game over for me and my little clique of elite warmongers. We won't get our wars and we'll have to pay more taxes and it'll be all perfectly horrible! So, don't vote for Jeremy Corbyn, because although he'll be very good news for you - his success will be terrible for us!

    [Sep 13, 2015] Neoliberalism as Botox for Development'

    "... The x-ray shows a mass that is probably cancer, but we don't have any good randomized clinical trials showing that your surgeon's recommendation, operating to remove it, actually causes the remission that tends to follow. However, we do have an extremely clever clinical trial showing conclusively that Botox will make you look younger. So my recommendation is that you wait for some better studies before doing anything about the tumor but that I give you some Botox injections." ..."
    "... Center-left, progressive, job class parties need to implement policies that actually work. That may mean ditching the center. ..."
    "... Adopting a broader perspective, though, Corbyn's success isn't so shocking. It represents the latest manifestation of a Europe-wide crisis of center-left politics in the face of slow economic growth and austerity economics. And in the British context, it reflects the failure of the "New Labour" generation of leaders, who came up during the years when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Party. ..."
    "... In the last decade, though, New Labour lost its way. Blair's enthusiastic participation in the Iraq War split the Party and undermined its claim to moral leadership. (Corbyn has said he wouldn't oppose a prosecution of Blair for war crimes.) ..."
    Sep 13, 2015 | Economist's View

    Suppose your internist told you:

    The x-ray shows a mass that is probably cancer, but we don't have any good randomized clinical trials showing that your surgeon's recommendation, operating to remove it, actually causes the remission that tends to follow. However, we do have an extremely clever clinical trial showing conclusively that Botox will make you look younger. So my recommendation is that you wait for some better studies before doing anything about the tumor but that I give you some Botox injections."
    Peter K.
    Off topic, but not totally. Center-left, progressive, job class parties need to implement policies that actually work. That may mean ditching the center. Or those in the center need to recognize what works and what doesn't. What's superficial, like Botox, and what is more substantial.

    "To pay for these policies, Corbyn has promised to raise taxes on the rich, clamp down on corporate-tax avoiders, and, if necessary, lean on the Bank of England to print more money."

    Yes.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/jeremy-corbyns-victory-and-the-demise-of-new-labour

    Jeremy Corbyn's Victory and the Demise of New Labour

    BY JOHN CASSIDY
    Sept 13, 2015

    Saturday, the British Labour Party announced that Jeremy Corbyn, the sixty-six-year-old Member of Parliament who represents the London constituency of Islington North, has been elected as its new leader. In the past, Corbyn has expressed his support for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling Britain out of NATO, getting rid of the monarchy, raising taxes on the rich, and nationalizing some of Britain's biggest industries. In the Middle East, he opposed bombing ISIS and favors talks with Hamas and Hezbollah. With the arguable exceptions of Keir Hardie, the Party's first leader, and Michael Foot, its leader in the early nineteen-eighties, he is probably the most left-wing leader that Labour has had.

    Corbyn, who entered Parliament in 1983, was long regarded as a fringe figure in British politics. And he was widely thought of as a rank outsider when, three months ago, he joined the race to succeed Ed Miliband, who led Labour to a crushing defeat in May's general election. Adopting a broader perspective, though, Corbyn's success isn't so shocking. It represents the latest manifestation of a Europe-wide crisis of center-left politics in the face of slow economic growth and austerity economics. And in the British context, it reflects the failure of the "New Labour" generation of leaders, who came up during the years when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Party.

    Under Miliband, a former aide to Brown who became leader in 2010, the Party equivocated between posing as fiscally responsible and resisting the big cuts in spending on welfare, infrastructure, and other programs that the Conservative–Liberal coalition introduced while arguing that Britain was in danger of turning into another Greece. Rather than making the traditional Keynesian argument that cutting spending during a recession is counterproductive, Miliband and other party leaders also pledged to reduce the budget deficit and hack away at Britain's public debt, which rose rapidly during the Great Recession - just not quite as fast as the government.

    The Party's triangulation strategy wasn't based on economics. It reflected a political judgment by Miliband and other Labour leaders that the British electorate, which blamed the Party for the collapse in the public finances after 2008, wouldn't listen to anti-austerity arguments. If Labour had won the general election, its pragmatism might have been vindicated. But after the Tories won a majority in Parliament and Labour lost twenty-six seats, many Labour supporters felt deflated. "We had no confidence in our own arguments," one Labour centrist told me. "The Tory lie became hegemonic, despite being a lie."

    Corbyn, who vigorously opposed the Tories' economic policies from his position on the backbenches, entered the leadership race promising to fight back against austerity and rising inequality. Like the leaders of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and Sinn Féin in Ireland, he benefitted greatly from his outsider status. Of the three candidates standing against him, two of them-Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper-were cabinet ministers in the last Labour government. Corbyn's third opponent, Liz Kendall, didn't become an M.P. until 2010, but many prominent Blairites endorsed her. Tony Blair didn't back any particular candidate himself, but he did twice issue public statements warning that choosing Corbyn as leader would lead to an electoral disaster for Labour. Among the Party's grassroots, Blair is so unpopular these days that his interventions helped assure Corbyn's victory.

    On Saturday, the British Labour Party announced that Jeremy Corbyn, the sixty-six-year-old Member of Parliament who represents the London constituency of Islington North, has been elected as its new leader. In the past, Corbyn has expressed his support for unilateral nuclear disarmament, pulling Britain out of NATO, getting rid of the monarchy, raising taxes on the rich, and nationalizing some of Britain's biggest industries. In the Middle East, he opposed bombing ISIS and favors talks with Hamas and Hezbollah. With the arguable exceptions of Keir Hardie, the Party's first leader, and Michael Foot, its leader in the early nineteen-eighties, he is probably the most left-wing leader that Labour has had.

    Corbyn, who entered Parliament in 1983, was long regarded as a fringe figure in British politics. And he was widely thought of as a rank outsider when, three months ago, he joined the race to succeed Ed Miliband, who led Labour to a crushing defeat in May's general election. Adopting a broader perspective, though, Corbyn's success isn't so shocking. It represents the latest manifestation of a Europe-wide crisis of center-left politics in the face of slow economic growth and austerity economics. And in the British context, it reflects the failure of the "New Labour" generation of leaders, who came up during the years when Tony Blair and Gordon Brown led the Party.

    Under Miliband, a former aide to Brown who became leader in 2010, the Party equivocated between posing as fiscally responsible and resisting the big cuts in spending on welfare, infrastructure, and other programs that the Conservative–Liberal coalition introduced while arguing that Britain was in danger of turning into another Greece. Rather than making the traditional Keynesian argument that cutting spending during a recession is counterproductive, Miliband and other party leaders also pledged to reduce the budget deficit and hack away at Britain's public debt, which rose rapidly during the Great Recession-just not quite as fast as the government.

    The Party's triangulation strategy wasn't based on economics. It reflected a political judgment by Miliband and other Labour leaders that the British electorate, which blamed the Party for the collapse in the public finances after 2008, wouldn't listen to anti-austerity arguments. If Labour had won the general election, its pragmatism might have been vindicated. But after the Tories won a majority in Parliament and Labour lost twenty-six seats, many Labour supporters felt deflated. "We had no confidence in our own arguments," one Labour centrist told me. "The Tory lie became hegemonic, despite being a lie."

    Corbyn, who vigorously opposed the Tories' economic policies from his position on the backbenches, entered the leadership race promising to fight back against austerity and rising inequality. Like the leaders of Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, and Sinn Féin in Ireland, he benefitted greatly from his outsider status. Of the three candidates standing against him, two of them-Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper-were cabinet ministers in the last Labour government. Corbyn's third opponent, Liz Kendall, didn't become an M.P. until 2010, but many prominent Blairites endorsed her. Tony Blair didn't back any particular candidate himself, but he did twice issue public statements warning that choosing Corbyn as leader would lead to an electoral disaster for Labour. Among the Party's grassroots, Blair is so unpopular these days that his interventions helped assure Corbyn's victory.

    Corbyn celebrated his win by standing on the bar of a London pub and saying, "It's been a campaign of hope. It's been a campaign of justice. It's been a campaign of inclusion." That last sentence was a reference to the fact that, during the leadership campaign, hundreds of thousands of people joined the Labour Party, and most of them voted for Corbyn. Some Labour M.P.s claimed that this membership surge reflected a sustained campaign organized by left-wing groups to subvert the election, rather than a genuine populist movement. Undoubtedly, there was some organized "entryism," but Corbyn also attracted much bigger crowds to his public appearances than the other candidates and generated a lot of support on social media. His margin of victory was also too large to be purely the product of an orchestrated effort: he won almost sixty per cent of the votes cast, defeating his closest challenger, Cooper, by more than forty percentage points.

    Throughout a contest in which the other candidates seemed bland and boring, the bearded Londoner offered something different. Even if many of his policy stances weren't exactly new-"I don't think he has changed his mind about anything since about 1977," the Labour centrist I spoke with told me-his promises of more consultation with the Party's grassroots and a bottom-up approach to policymaking chimed with the anti-establishment mood. In addition, Corbyn, who is low-key and articulate, did a good job of defending traditional Labour values. "Can't we be proud of having a society where there is a safety net that prevents people from falling into destitution?" he asked during one debate. His rivals, by contrast, seemed to lack passion and conviction.

    So what happens now? Corbyn has already tempered some of his more radical views, saying that there is little public support for abolishing the monarchy or withdrawing from NATO. But he is likely to remain steadfast about his economic program, which includes reversing some of the spending cuts, nationalizing the energy and railway companies, scrapping college tuition fees, and setting up a national investment bank for housing, infrastructure, and new industries. To pay for these policies, Corbyn has promised to raise taxes on the rich, clamp down on corporate-tax avoiders, and, if necessary, lean on the Bank of England to print more money.

    At Westminster and on Fleet Street, the conventional wisdom is that the next election, which isn't until 2020, has already been decided, and Labour has lost it. Some pundits predict a rerun of the 1983 general election, which Labour fought on a policy platform that was in many ways similar to Corbyn's, and which resulted in its worst loss since before the Second World War. With almost five years to go until polling day, these predictions aren't worth much. But with Labour having suffered a virtual wipeout in Scotland, which used to be one of its strongholds, in this year's general election, the Party undoubtedly faces a formidable challenge.

    If Britain, like Greece and Spain, had a political system based on proportional representation, an avowedly left-wing party could, perhaps, look forward to gaining substantial representation in Parliament and forming a coalition government with other non-Tory groups. Instead, it has an antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system, which punishes minority parties and usually rewards moderation. Under Blair and his New Labour colleagues, the Labour Party seemed, for almost two decades, to have monopolized the center and displaced the Conservatives as the natural party of government.

    In the last decade, though, New Labour lost its way. Blair's enthusiastic participation in the Iraq War split the Party and undermined its claim to moral leadership. (Corbyn has said he wouldn't oppose a prosecution of Blair for war crimes.) Then the Great Recession undermined Labour's reputation as a competent steward of the economy. The voter backlash that ensued robbed the Party's leadership of the intellectual confidence to defend its own centrist philosophy, which was based on promoting economic growth and using the tax revenues it generated to finance large-scale investments in public goods-schools, hospitals, and so on-as well as programs for the low-paid and poverty-stricken.

    Slowly but surely, the legacy of New Labour, and of previous Labour governments, is being dismantled. Under the cloak of fiscal orthodoxy, Prime Minister David Cameron and his intellectual henchman George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Conservative government seems intent on reducing the size of the government, relative to the size of the over-all economy, to where it was in the late nineteen-thirties before the big expansion in the welfare state that took place under the post-war Labour government.

    Following Corbyn's victory, it will be up to him to resist the Conservative downsizing project, and to persuade the British electorate that Labour has a viable alternative to offer. He spent Sunday putting together a new shadow cabinet. On Monday, he will meet his Labour colleagues in Parliament, and then, according to some reports, he will address a public rally alongside his fellow anti-austerity campaigner, Yanis Varoufakis, the former finance minister of Greece. Since both of them are creations of the ongoing crisis in social democracy, that is only fitting.

    [Sep 13, 2015] Western "scientific publications on the Russian strategy" mean Putin=evil, Russian=scary; Putin + Russian = Mordor.

    September 13, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren, September 13, 2015 at 5:35 am

    Published on 10 Mar 2015
    2014.gada 3.decembrī Latvijas Nacionālajā aizsardzības akadēmijā norisinājās otrā Drošības un stratēģiskās pētniecības centra starptautiskā akadēmiskā konference "Krievija un ģeopolitikas atgriešanās: Stratēģiskie izaicinājumi Rietumiem", kurā diskutēja par aktuālajiem drošības jautājumiem. Konferenci atklāja profesors Marks Galeoti no Ņujorkas Universitātes, kurš ir autors vairākām zinātniskām publikācijām par Krievijas stratēģiju.

    Dec.3, 2014 the 2nd International Academic Conference "Russia and the Return of Geopolitics: Strategic Implications for the West" of the National Defence Academy of Latvia's Center for Security and Strategic Research took place in the National Defence Academy, where experts discussed international security issues. Conference was opened by professor Mark Galeotti from the New York University, who is is an author of numerous – scientific publications on the Russian strategy.

    Vairāk informācijas / More information:
    http://www.naa.mil.lv/Petnieciba/DSPC

    Patient Observer, September 13, 2015 at 6:17 am

    What is a "scientific publications on the Russian strategy"? Something like Putin=evil, Russian=scary; Putin + Russian = Mordor.

    Jen, September 13, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    The phrase "scientific publications on the Russian strategy" sound a lot like the Dutch Safety Board's forensic investigation of the MH17 disaster – only collect the evidence that supports an already existing narrative and ignore any other evidence until RT discovers it and films it.

    Warren, September 13, 2015 at 6:16 pm

    Make sure your publication is well referenced, preferably with plenty of footnotes from the likes of The Economist, Telegraph, Guardian, Henry Jackson Society, Freedom House, Peterson Institute, Atlantic Council and CEPA.

    SmoothieX12, September 13, 2015 at 8:20 am
    Excellent piece. The situation with military-political analysis re: Russia in the West is dire. Basically all "Soviet/Russian" studies complex in the US was solzhenitzified to the point of Russian history being unrecognizable. As per Falgenhauer–it is not that no one of position of power in Russian military and intelligence would talk to him (which they would not), it is the fact that even if they would it would do no good for a guy with degree in biology.

    I never heard of any military officer (and I knew and know many) who went on to become brain surgeons, nor did I encounter brain surgeons who were specialists in Net Centric Warfare or Theory Of Operations (not the brain ones).

    Information and knowledge are too very different things, most people do not recognize this critical difference.

    [Sep 13, 2015] Whoring one's talent

    "... Surely, these two (and many others in their "field") know on which side their bread gets buttered (with occasional black caviar bonus for the "politically correct" reporting). And we can't call it "whoring one's talent", right? Right?"
    Sep 13, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Lyttenburgh, September 12, 2015 at 5:27 am

    Honest and Objective (to the point of extreme rukopozhatnost' and sincere nepolzhivost') Mark Adomanis of the former True/Slant fame have visited Kiev/Kyiv/al-Kuyabia and made some mind-blowing discoveries:

    On the Streets of Kiev
    ______________________________________________________________________

    "I've lost count of the number of headlines and articles which boldly proclaim that Kiev is "transformed." It's become one of those standby journalistic clichés: "transformed" Kiev is right there alongside wealthy London, brash New York, bleak, oppressive Moscow, and technologically-advanced Tokyo as short-hand. There has been such an unending sea of media comments that even people who have never set foot in Eastern Europe know all about the "new" Kiev.

    […]

    "While there wasn't much in the way of change, there was even less evidence of "Europe" or "Europeanization." On the way from the airport I saw a sculpture that was intended to be the EU's insignia (I think it was actually of the Euro, but whatever) but that was pretty much the only physical manifestation of what was supposed to be a society-transforming change in consciousness. That doesn't mean the changes aren't real or that they haven't taken place, but it does mean that the daily rhythm of life seems fundamentally the same.

    Indeed, the parking and driving habits on display still had a distinct note of Russianness about them: even on the block where the conference attendees were being housed (a rather posh part of downtown) cars were left haphazardly on the sidewalk. I even found an intersection where several Mercedes S-classes had been parked directly in the middle of a cross-walk. There are live-fire combat exercises that take less physical courage and skill than navigating that particular intersection.

    […]

    It was frankly a relief that, at a time when Moscow is ever more consumed with hysterical politicization and when the economy is faring worse than any other time in recent memory, that everyday life in Kiev goes on much the same way it always has."
    _______________________________________________________________________

    I, and also the entirety of progressive humanity – all democratic journalists, kreakls, professional hipsters, Euro-Ukrs, gays and the Soviet era dissidents – shake hands of Mark Adomanis of the former True/Slant fame. Verily, verily – "the parking and driving habits on display still had a distinct note of Russianness about them". All signs of the centuries long oppression and forcible Russiphication of Proud and Culturally Superior Ukrs by Mongolo-Finno-Jewish-Ugrish Moscow's Khanate. The fact that Kievans/Kyivans/al-Kuyabia's citizens can't park a car properly points out either to their less then perfect ancestry or can be explained by actions of Kremlinite шпигуни and saboteurs. BTW – this is a universal explanation of everything happening in Ukraine and Mark must adopt it. Because how else can he explain that Ukraine's capital still doesn't look, smell and taste like Paris, London or New York?

    marknesop, September 12, 2015 at 9:51 am
    "It was frankly a relief that, at a time when Moscow is ever more consumed with hysterical politicization and when the economy is faring worse than any other time in recent memory, that everyday life in Kiev goes on much the same way it always has."

    As always, Mark's core loyalty to western corporatism shines through at the end, and in his closing paragraph he manages to incorporate nostalgia for Kiev's success in maintaining its placid beauty as opposed to the "hysterical politicization" of Moscow, and encouragement for Washington's policy of squeezing the Russian economy until it breaks. Keep on with the sanctions, boys – success is within our grasp! Although both currencies have experienced a dramatic slide in exchange rate, one country has huge energy resources and large cash reserves while the other has none of either, but never mind!! Courage, comrades! Kiev is still beautiful!!

    Lyttenburgh, September 12, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    Mark, I admit – I'm bitter. What M.ADomanis and Galeotti have become is really unbearable for me.

    Imagine someone, like writer, actor and/or musician whom you greatly admired some time ago, maybe even going so far as to claim "I grew up watching/reading/listening" this indivudual. And then he becomes Mel Gibson of today. That's what have become to Adomanis and Galeotti from my POV.

    Now they are, like, different people. Surely, these two (and many others in their "field") know on which side their bread gets buttered (with occasional black caviar bonus for the "politically correct" reporting). And we can't call it "whoring one's talent", right? Right?

    P.S. I wonder – what kind of conference (in Kiev of all places) did Mark Adomanis participated in?

    Moscow Exile, September 12, 2015 at 9:59 am

    The most obviously distinct note of "Russianness" amongst the vast majority of Ukrainians is, in my humble opinion, that they speak and understand Russian – and nobody is making them do it!

    Lyttenburgh, September 12, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    That', uh… a "Stockholm syndrome" on a national level! Yeah!

    Whew! And for a moment I thought that I won't find a truly "svidomoje" explanation!

    But Mark shows us that Ukraine is on a right track – "the Ukrainian flag was rather more prominently displayed in public places" and " [t]here might have been marginally more Ukrainian as opposed to Russian language signage since the last time I had visited".

    Peremoga is imminent!

    Pavlo Svolochenko, September 12, 2015 at 9:58 pm

    Every peremoga is but a prelude to the next zrada.

    Which is a prelude to the next peremoga.

    День бабака.

    Jen, September 12, 2015 at 2:58 pm
    Reading Mark Adomanis' article, I get a sense of the conflict going on inside his mind as he tries to reconcile what he sees and hears on the ground with what he knows he's supposed to say. Hence you get expressions like "…. everyday life in Kiev goes on much the same way it always has" which are so ambiguous as to mean nothing at all; it seems Adomanis is counting on his readers to know little of what everyday life in Kiev has been like for a long time.

    [Sep 13, 2015] The workings of the Bush administration by Professor David Gries

    "By their deeds shall you know them."

    Introduction

    I am concerned with the way this administration operates. I am not talking about policy -whether we should be at war, or who is right about the economy. Instead, the focus is on what the administration does and how it does it.

    The actions of this administration have run counter to Bush's statements of April 2000 and have divided this country as no other administration has done in recent memory.

    "I will set a different tone. I will restore civility and respect to our national politics. ... I will work with Republicans and reach out to Democrats ... I will treat the other party with respect, and when we make progress, I will share the credit. ... I will unite our nation, not divide it. I will bring Americans together." George Bush, April 2000

    In August 2004, I created the website www.howbushoperates.info , describing the Bush Administration as I saw it, hoping that enough people would read the website and not vote for Bush again. I was alarmed at what the Bush administration had done in 2001 to 2004, and I was even more alarmed at what another 4 years of Bush would do to the US and the world. I did my best, through this website, to help. But not enough people looked at it to make any difference. Perhaps I should have blogged, or something like that.

    (You can see the original website on the Wayback machine.)

    My worst fears have been realized. Four more years of this administration has ruined the economy not only of the US but of the world. This administration has taken steps to harm, rather than help, the environment. Through its bullying tactics and its actual approval of torture, the US has lost any of its moral authority, and we have lost the US the respect of the world. Its lack of respect for our Constitution, its suppression of and manipulation of information, its lies, its incompetence in handling the Iraq war, its complete lack of planning for the Iraw war and the aftermath --all of these have hurt the United States tremendously. And we, the people, are now paying for it.

    This website is the original website www.howbushoperates.info, with a few minor changes. It will remain as long as I have a website. I don't want people to forget how bad this administration has been.

    I have had to change some links because, over the years, some links have been broken. In order to compensate for further loss of links, on most articles, I have copied the original webpage onto this website, and it appears as a "local version".

    Read this site and weep at the fact that the American People knew what this administration was like four years ago but still allowed him to take over the Presidency a second time. We have ourselves to blame.

    I am concerned with the administration's:

    1. Lack of honesty, which has brought about lack of trust.
    2. Manipulation of information to further its goals.
    3. Secrecy, which has kept the American public and Congress from making sound judgements.
    4. Conflict of interest.
    5. Lack of respect for others.
    6. Lack of reasoning and compromise -the administration's way of responding to differing views seems to be to ridicule rather than reason.
    7. Belligerent and arrogant attitude and mode of operation, which has cost our country the respect and compassion of the rest of the world.

    I do want an administration that is forceful and strong. But that strong administration has to be:

    1. Honest, trustworthy, ethical.
    2. Respectful of all people and all nations.
    3. Able to engage in dialogue and make decisions based on reason.
    4. Without conflict of interest.
    5. A Uniting force, rather than one that divides.

    Everyone - Democrat, Republican, Green, independent, etc. - should be alarmed at what this administration has done and what it may do in the future, if re-elected. A resounding defeat in November is the only way to let the world know that the United States people do not tolerate such an administration.

    The links in the left column are to short discussions that back up my opinions. Again, remember that it is not the policies and programs that are at issue here, although I have problems with some of them. Rather, the issue is the way this government has operated, in a self-serving, untrustworthy, unethical, disrespectful, and even nasty, manner.

    United we stand. If we stay as divided as we have been divided by this administration, we fall.

    If an administration has integrity, ethics, and character, then policies will fall into place, for the administration will be guided by the good of the country and will engage in open, honest, and meaningful dialogue with the whole nation. If an administration has no integrity, ethics, and character, then the nation better beware.

    Ethics and family values

    The actions of this administration display a disregard for the values which Bush speaks of. Its actions have lost the administration the respect and trust of half the nation. The world is even less trustful and respectful. Below, I give some examples of this. "These are universal values, values we share in all our diversity: Respect, tolerance, responsibility, honesty, self-restraint, family commitment, civic duty, fairness and compassion." George Bush. White House Conference on Character and Community, June 2002.

    1. The administration lied to us about the need for going to war in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and there was no link between Al Quaeda and Iraq. Iraq simply was not the terrorist country that we were told it was. I discuss it here.

    The issue is not the war itself; it is the way the administration misled and lied to Congress and the people about why we should be in the war.

    2. The Bush campaigns have repeatedly resorted to slander and inuendo. I discuss it here.

    3. The Bush-Cheney campaign in Pennsylvania asked their volunteers to obtain the names and addresses of the members of their churches. This is not only unethical; a church involved in such an action would be in danger of losing their status as a tax-exempt religious organization. Some conservative church leaders have denounced this action, but the Bush-Cheney campaign defended it. I discuss it here.

    4. The administration withheld information or doctored information in order to sway people and the Congress to their side. Click on "Secrecy" and "Wide-spread misuse of science" in the left column for some examples.

    I cannot vote for an administration that has such disdain for ethics and values, that has so little respect for the people that it is supposed to be representing. I would feel better if more people felt this way, for the character of an administration is of utmost importance.

    Lies about the need for war

    The issue at hand is not whether we should be at war or not. It is the behavior of the administration in getting us into war -the lies that got us into the war and lost us the respect and trust of the world. "Some people think it's inappropriate to draw a moral line. Not me. For our children to have the lives we want for them, they must learn to say yes to responsibility . . . yes to honesty." George W. Bush, June 12, 1999

    The administration got us into war with Iraq for three reasons, they say:

    1. To eliminate Saddam Hussein's WMD. It is clear that he had no WMD, and it is also clear that the administration knew it. In fact, in 2001, both Powell and Condoleezza Rice stated publicly that there were no WMD; two years later, they and the administration told a different story.
    2. To diminish the threat of international terrorism. There was no such threat. It was known that there were no connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda.
    3. To promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas. This is hypocrisy. In the 1980s, members of the administration, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, were quite happy to embrace Hussein and Iraq. At that time, even though they knew that Iraq was using chemical weapons against its own people, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not speak out or suggest that the U.S. discontinue its support of Hussein. Instead, they embraced Hussein and Iraq.

    Rep. Henry Waxman has released a report of the U.S. House of Representatives (16 March 2004) that identifies 237 misleading statements about Iraq made by President George Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in 125 public appearances. How can you trust the administration? . Here is the report (pdf file). This webpage contains a search engine that allows you to view all the misleading statements (and see why it is misleading). These are official items from the U.S. House of Representatives.

    This website (here it is as text only) shows ten lies made by the administration regarding why we went to war. With each statement, facts are given to prove that it was a lie. You can find hundreds of websites with the same theme.

    Whether we should be at war now is a complex issue, and I don't address it. For me, what matters is that the administration lied to get its way. Such behaviour in such a serious context means that the administration cannot be trusted, and an administration that cannot be trusted is a danger to us all.

    Dishonest politics

    One expects the administration to be honest and open in dealing with Congress and in presenting its case to the people, and Bush said he would be.

    But the behavior of this administration has been just the opposite. Besides its misrepresentations and lies about Iraq, here are some examples.

    "And together we will create and America that is open .... I was not elected to serve one party, but to serve one nation. ... Whether you voted for me or not, I will do my best to serve your interests and I will work to earn your respect. I will be guided by President Jefferson's sense of purpose, to stand for principle, to be reasonable in manner, and above all, to do great good for the cause of freedom and harmony." George Bush, Acceptance Speech, 13 Dec 2000
    1. The Medicare bill. In November 2003, the House of Representatives passed a medical bill. Because of the rising deficit, they were worried about cost. Bush promised that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But the administration's own analysis in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had told the administration that it would cost over $550 billion. The bill would not have passed had the truth been known. Chief actuary Richard S. Foster was told he would be fired if he revealed the figures to lawmakers. Read about it here. Public Citizen has information on how drug companies and HMOs led an army of nearly 1,000 lobbyists to promote this misguided legislation, spending almost $141 million.
    2. Misuse of science. Click on the link on misuse of science on the left to see just how much this administration has attempted to use politics, hiding of facts, and misrepresentation of facts for its political gain.
    3. Hiding poverty numbers. The number of people living in poverty rose by 1.3 million in 2003. The Census Bureau Report on such things comes out in September. But the Bush administration had it appear in August instead, well before the Republican Convention and when people generally take vacations. Read about it here (here is a local version)
    4. Leaking news. Bush promised to do everything he could to fight the war on terror. Yet, in August, for their own political gain, the administration leaked the fact that alleged terrorist Kahn had been apprehended. Kahn was a key intelligence source, and the leak allowed several terrorists to escape. Read about it here (here is a local version).
    5. Ashcroft repeatedly lied to Congress about the administration's counter-terrorism effort. He told them terrorism had been his number 1 priority before 9/11; records show that he did not include it as one of the department's 7 goals, putting it as a subgoal beneath gun violence and drugs. He said that his predecessor's (Reno) plan did not mention counterterrorism, which was false. He lied about the amount of money that the FBI requested and that the administration gave the FBI. Read about it here (here is a local version).
    6. Condoleezza Rice repeatedly lied to 9/11 Commission. She made over ten false claims. For example, she said that the Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." The truth is that before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI. Moreover, in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI. Read about it here (here is a local version).

    Suppression of rights

    Bush says he is for freedom and democracy, but his administration has not acted that way. The administration has held secret --and illegal-- deportation hearings. People have been hindered --sometimes illegally-- from voicing quiet protests at Bush appearances. And others have been investigated for no valid reason --partly because of the Patriot Act.

    Many people in the US are really afraid of the suppressive tone of this administration.

    "Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides." John Stuart Mill.

    "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." William O. Douglas.

    "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime."
    Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart.

    Secret courts suppression of protesters Unwarranted investigations
    Search the internet and you can find many more examples of unwarranted investigations and suppression of protestors.

    1. Secret Visa courts are illegal. (Article ( local version) in Guardian Newspapers, 27 Aug 2002). The Bush administration held hundreds of deportation proceedings in secret. A federal appeal court found them to be illegal. Judge Damon Keith wrote in his ruling that, "Democracies die behind closed doors." The ruling describes the secrecy surrounding the government's response as "profoundly undemocratic". The ruling concludes that, "The executive branch seeks to uproot people's lives outside the public eye and behind a closed door."

    2. Suppression of protest at Bush appearances. A number of people have been hindered or stopped from appearing at Bush evenets, even when these appearances were on public grounds. Some people have been arrested, with the case thrown out of court later. Others have not been allowed into Bush events, even though they were doing nothing wrong. In several situations, dissenters are expected to stay in a restricted zone, away from Bush or his motorcade, while non-dissenters are allowed to approach much more closeley. This kind of suppressionof free speech is frightening. Here are just a few examples, some of which go back to 2002.

    Nicole and Jeff Rank (local version) were arrested in Charleston; the judge threw out the charges. Nicole was immediately fired from her job with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but later reinstated with an apology. The City of Charleston said they should not have been arrested.

    Daniel Finsel (local version) was arrested simply for carrying a sign at a Bush event.

    Nelson (local version), an elected County supervisor in Wisconsin, was kicked out of Bush event for wearing a hidden Kerry shirt (the shirt was not showing, but someone had seen him in it earlier).

    20 of 37 members (local version) of a Peace Action group were not allowed to fly from Milwaulkee to a protest in Washington because there names were on a "No fly" list. No one will say how their names got on it.

    Anti-Bush students (local version) were completely silenced at their Ohio State Graduation when Bush came to speak.

    Bill Neel (local version) was arrested in Butler, Pennsylvania; the district Justice threw the case out and returned his protest sign to him.

    Jan Lentz, Sonja Haught, and Mauricio Rosas (local version) two grandmothers and a gay activist, were arrested for displaying dissenting opinions; others with pro-Bush signs were not. All charges were dropped.

    3. Unwarranted investigations. Some people have been detained or investigated simply because they spoke out. Others, for what seems to be no reason at all. Here are some examples.

    The Kjars were visited by the US Secret Service because they had a bumper sticker "KING GEORGE-Off With His Head".

    Barry Reingold (local version) was visited by the FBI for speaking his mind about Bush, terrorism, and Afghanistan at a gymn.

    Daniel Muller (local version) asked for 4,000 stamps without the American Flag on them. The police were called, and Muller was interrogated. He didn't get the stamps until the next day, and only after an interrogation by a federal postal inspector.

    Incompetence

    Suppression of dissent by the Bush administration is mentioned in several places of this website. Judging by what I read about the Iraq war, I conclude that the administration's lack of desire to listen seriously to dissenting opinions -basically their suppression of them- is responsible for his incompetence in leading the war. "I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George Bush. See "Bush at War", by Bob Woodward

    Yes, I mean incompetence. Although the troops have performed admirably, this war has not been led well. Bush may boast loudly about his war on terror, but his actions show incompetence. Do you remember 1 May 2003 (local version; the event used to be mentioned on the WhiteHouse website but was removed) when Bush flew onto the carrier, with a giant sign "Mission Accomplished" on it, and told us that "major combat operations have ended" and that we have prevailed --implying the war was won? Did that show any understanding of the situation? (Six months later, Bush disavowed any connection with that sign, but the White House later said that the White House asked a private vendor to produce it. See this article (local version)) And two weeks before, on 16 April 2003, Gen. Tommy Franks was telling commanders in Baghdad that it was time to make plans to pull forces out of Iraq. They simply did not understand the situation. (See this article (local version).)

    Below are some points about the war. Some of them show that the Bush administration did not listen to advice. Others show that the Bush administration did not care about important issues and that they simply did not plan properly.

    No plans for rebuilding Iraq Warnings about preventing looting ignored Inadequate planning, wrong expectations
    Disbanding the Iraqi army the worst mistake Inadequate troop support Rumsfeld doesn't act on advice
    Abu Ghraib fiasco 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives missing since April 2003 Washington Post cites Bush's failure to follow advice
    Republican and Democrat Senators accuse Bush administration of incompetence in rebuilding Iraq

    1. No plan for rebuilding Iraq. This article (local version)says that post-war planning was non-existent. It talks about a meeting of war planners and intelligence planners in March 2003 (the month the Iraq war started) in which a lieutenant colonol who was giving a briefing on the Pentagon's plans for rebuilding Iraq after the war could say only, "To Be Provided".

    A veteran State Department officer involved directly in Iraq policy said, "We didn't go in with a plan. We went in with a theory." The report was, "based on official documents and on interviews with more than three dozen current and former civilian and military officials who participated directly in planning for the war and its aftermath." Search the web, and you will find many articles reporting that there was no plan for rebuilding Iraq. To top of page

    2. Warnings about preventing looting ignored. After the US troops took Baghdad, the looting began (local version). Hospitals, schools, university buildings, and more were targets. The worst looting was at the Iraq Museum, which contained the largest collection of Near East artifacts in the world. For two days, the looting went on, with no one trying to stop them. Not only the collection but computers, furniture supplies -everything was taken. This looting of so many places showed complete lack of planning by the Bush administration.

    The Bush administration was warned about looting! This site (local version)says that archeologists and others spoke repeatedly to the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Pentagon about the need to protect musuems. Further, the U.S. is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which makes clear that the protection of mseums, hospitals, etc., are the responsibility of the occupying force.

    This website (local version) says that the only sites that the US Forces guarded were the Ministry of Oil, the Ministry of Interior, and oil fields. The Bush administration respected and protected oil, but not the Geneva Convention or the people of Iraq. To top of page

    3. Inadequate planning, wrong expectations. The administration did not expect the Iraq war to last this long. Remember when Bush landed on a carrier and declared victory, saying, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."? (From his speech on 2 May 2003) Paul Bremer said (local version), "There was planning, but planning for a situation that didn't arise." The Bush administration simply did not forsee what would happen.

    On 1 April 2003, Rumsfeld sharply rebuked (local version) a senior battlefield commander for telling reporters that Pentagon planners failed to anticipate the fierce level of Iraqi resistance, and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers complained that remarks by retired generals on TV was not helpful. These people were voicing rational but dissenting opinions, which the Bush administration did not want to hear.

    In November 2003, John McCain criticized the Bush administration's conduct of the war and challenged Rumfeld's assertion that the 132,000 American troops in Iraq can defeat the insurgency in Iraq. "The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives," said McCain.

    An article in the Antagonist says that, "Prior to the war, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said publicly that he thought the invasion plan lacked sufficient manpower, and he was slapped down by the Pentagon's civilian leadership for saying so," and that "During the war, concerns about troop strength expressed by retired generals also provoked angry denunciations by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government, has also said that there were not enough troops in May 2003.

    The above paragraphs reinforce my opinion that this administration does not take criticism of its views easily and is swayed more by their ideology than by reason. To top of page

    4. Disbanding the Iraqi army the worst mistake. In May 2003, a month or so into the war, Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army. The order was reversed a month later, but then it was too late. Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni called the move the Bush administration's "worst mistake" in postwar Iraq. This mistake left a vaccuum. It left hundreds of soldiers with no work. This article looks at the poor planning and follow-through that caused this mistake. To top of page

    5. Inadequate troop support. An article in washingtonpost.com says that Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez wrote to the pentagon in winter 2004 that "I cannot continue to support sustained combat operations with rates this low." He complained about lack of spare parts for helicopters and tanks. Also, "his soldiers still needed protective inserts to upgrade 36,000 sets of body armor but that their delivery had been postponed twice in the month before he was writing."

    This comes on the heels of reports that a group of soldiers refused to go on a mission because their vehicles were dangerously out of repair and didn't have proper armour on them.

    On 1 October 2004, Bush said (local version), "When America puts our troops in harm's way, I believe they deserve the best training, the best equipment, and the whole-hearted support of our government. " His actions are not consistent with his words. To top of page

    6. Rumsfeld doesn't act on advice. This 30 September 2004 (local version) says that a study commisioned by Rumsfeld says that "the military doesn't have enough people for its current pace of missions." But Rumsfeld is not acting on the commissions recommendations. What is more important, having enough troops to carry out all missions or postponing any such actions until after the election? To top of page

    7. The Abu Graib fiasco. We have all seen horrible pictures of Abu Graib, and we know that prisoners were tortured and humiliated. I don't know whether officers were involved or whether orders came from the top to torture in this manner. But at the least, this fiasco shows incompetence at all levels. We storm Iraq as "liberators"; why weren't there procedures in place to ensure that prisoners would be treated properly, so that the Iraqis would see us as friends and not enemies? Why weren't all soldiers and civilians told to respect all Iraqis and their customs, even prisoners? How do you expect to be viewed as friendly liberators if you don't treat people respectfully?

    The blame for this fiasco, in my mind, falls squarely on the Bush administration for not preparing soldiers and civilians properly.

    See this article (local version) for a good discussion of this issue. To top of page

    8. 380 tons of explosives missing. We are just learning (late October 2004) that 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives have been missing since April 2003, after the U.S. invaded Iraq. A NY Times article (local version) of 25 October 2004 says that the facility was supposed to be under U.S. military control but is now a no-man's land. The U.S. was warned about this stockpile of explosives before the war. Only incompetent planning could have led to such a fiasco, which puts the whole world in danger. To top of page

    9. Washington Post cites Bush's failure to listen to advice. On 24 October, the Washington Post Editorial (local version) endorsed Kerry for President. The Editorial found good and bad things to say about both Bush and Kerry. But the Editorial says essentially the same thing I do: Bush's character and ethics did not let him listen to advice, in particular, in planning for postwar reconstruction. The Editorial, says that, "the damage caused by that willful indifference is incalculable." The Editorial also says that "the administration repeatedly rebuffed advice to commit sufficient troops. Its disregard for the Geneva Conventions led to a prison-torture scandal ...."

    Bush talks a good game; he has everyone believing that only he can handle the terrorists. However, the facts say that he has been incompetent in leading the war effort.

    10. Republican and Democrat Senators accuse Bush administration of incompetence. An article in USA Today (local version), 16 Sept. 2004, says that several Senators, including the two top Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, accuse the Bush administration of incompetence in its efforts to rebuild Iraq. Of $13 billion pledged by other countries to rebuild Iraq, only $1.2 billion had been spent. The article goes into more details.

    Transferring full sovereignty. On 24May 2004, Bush said that (local version), "The first of these steps will occur next month, when our coalition will transfer full sovereignty to a government of Iraqi citizens ...." It was a lie, and everyone knew it. He knew he could not transfer full sovereignty, and he has not done so. Why does he lie so purposely? And it was not an error, for he repeated it at least in one other instance.

    Flaunting and tampering with the regulatory process

    Agencies issue rules and regulations to flesh out and implement laws passed by Congress. Agencies must go through an open and transparent process in making regulations, including obtaining comments from the public and justifying what they do in a written record.

    The Bush administration has tampered with this process, sometimes illegally, and has made widespread misuse of this process. In many cases, its use of the regulatory process has not been in the interests of the public.

    "Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix." Harry S. Truman

    "I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George Bush. See "Bush at War", by Bob Woodward

    Below, we outline some of the things this administration has done to the regulatory process and give you details on some specific cases. Some of this material (but not all) is culled from a Report by OMB Watch (pdf file), a nonpartisan, nonprofit research and advocacy center founded in 1983 that "promotes an open, accountable government responsive to community needs". We urge you to read it to see the extent of what this administration is doing. Many of these points can be found in other places on the internet.

    1. Illegally freezing the regulatory process 2. Postponing regulations until after the election 3. Forbidding public release of data
    4. Tuberculosis testing: an example of increasing secrecy 5. Protecting coal workers 6. Subtle changes

    1. Freezing the regulatory process. On inauguration day 2001, the Bush administration issued a directive to stop the processing of all regulations until it had reviewed them. Some of these regulations had already been published and were to go into affect some time later, and their postponement was illegal. Under governing law, an agency may not adopt a proposal to change a rule's effective date, but the directive suggested that agencies not seek public comment. This one directive illustrates the lack of respect this administration would have for the public throughout its tenure.

    Hundreds of regulations, some of which had been in the process of development for years and years were stopped in their tracks. No other administration had ever issued such a blanket statement.

    A report of the Majority Staff of the U.S. Senate (pdf file), ordered by Senator Lieberman, discusses this freezing. This report also goes into detail on three regulations that had already been issued and whose suspension was done without the required justification: (1) A rule concerning roadless forests. (2) A rule regulating hardrock mining on public lands. (3) A rule to lower allowable arsenic content in water. Two of these regulations were significantly weakened; the third was adopted only after a long struggle, mainly because the Bush administration could not find the scientific data to back up its case. To top of page

    2. Postponing rules until after the election. A NY Times article on 27 September 2004 reports that the administration is postponing the adoption of regulations because of heavy lobbying by industry. One regulation would sharply restict what can be in cattle feed. The article says that the National Cattlemen's Beef Association broke its nonpartisan tradition and endorsed President Bush for re-election after the postponement. Other postponements have to do with prescription coverage under Medicare, healthcare, the environment, and telecommunication. The message is that big business takes preference over the needs and safety of the public. To top of page

    3. Forbidding public release of data and other business-pleasing changes. A NY Times article from 27 August 2004 says that a new regulation forbids public release of data relating to unsafe motor vehicles. The article goes on to say that the adminsitration has been quietly changing health rules, environmental initiatives, and safety standards in ways that please business but dismay interest groups that represent the public.

    4. Tuberculosis testing: an example of increasing secrecy. This item is from an article in WashingtonPost.com. Since 1993, regulations for dealing with tuberculosis prevention have been under developed. The Bush administration stopped the process when it ame into office. Then, on 31 December 2003, it canceled the process completely.

    The article says that this is just one of many example of how the Bush administration ahs been using the regulatory process to redirect government out of the public eye. Bush has canceled more regulatory processes that he inherited than he has completed, and many of them have been canceled after years and years of work. The regulatory process has been changed profoundly, and it is has been at the expense of openness and public scrutiny. top of page

    5. Protecting coal workers. An article in the NY Times on 9 August 2004 discusses how the administration is weakening and removing safety regulations for mining coal. One proposal to update technology to better protect workers in two-story-high trucks was scrapped in 2001; since then, 16 miners have been killed in hauling accidents. To top of page

    6. Subtle changes. An article in WashingtonPost.com from 17 August 2004 discusses subtle, almost unnoticed changes in regulations that have profound effects. With regard to mountain-top removal to get at coal, a change reclassifying the debris from objectionable "waste" to legally acceptable "fill" makes it easier to dump mining debris into explicitly protected streambeds. One proposal would scale back the federal government's legal obligation to police state mining agencie, by reclassifying certain duties from "nondiscretionary" to "discretionary".

    The Haliburton affair: conflict of interest at its worst

    The issue of the company Haliburton represents the worst, in terms of conflict of interest and even corruption. It shows how much people in this government can do for their own self-interest and the interest of their friends if not held in check. "There is a fundamental difference of opinion in Washington, and it starts with folks in Washington forgetting whose money we're spending. All that money is not the government's money; it's the working people's money." George Bush, 3 September 2001

    The White House would rather you not know about the Haliburton affair. Even though Cheney was CEO of Haliburton for five years before becoming Vice President, this is not mentioned in the White House biography of Cheney (as of 7 August 2004) --see http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/. (In case the White House changes this page, here is what it looked like, without the images, on 7 August 2004).

    Below, we give a brief history of Haliburton. But first we note that Haliburton favoritism has been going on (local version) in spite of the Corps of Engineers' chief contracting officer objecting to it. She refused to sign the contract. Her signature is required, but they let it go through with her assistant's signature. She was threatened with demotion after raising the issue. This information has just come to light in the last few weeks. See also this article (local version).

    Brief history of Haliburton:

    1. Early 1990s. Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, gives contracts to Halliburton to rebuild facilities in Kuwait that had been destroyed in the first Persian Gulf war.

    2. Early 1990 to 1993. Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, commissions Halliburton to do a classified (secret) study concerning replacing the U.S. military's logistics by work done by private companies. Halliburton says, yes, a company can do the work. In August 1992, with essentially no bidding, Halliburton is selected by the US Army Corps of Engineers to do all work needed to support the military for the next five years! Thereafter, Halliburton (or its subsidiary KBR) and its military logistics business escalated rapidly. In the ten years thereafter revenues totaled $2.5 billion.

    3. 1995-2000. Cheney is CEO of Halliburton. Under Cheney, Halliburton increases its offshore tax havens from 9 to 44, cutting its taxes from $302 million in 1998 to an $85 million refund in 1999. That's almost $400 million they took from taxpayers in one year.

    4. During Cheney's tenure at Haliburton, Halliburton did business with countries like Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Iraq, Libya, Iran, and Nigeria even though the US had imposed strict sanctions on them. They skirted sanctions, and they lobbied against sanctions. Some of this business was illegal, and Halliburton was fined for it.

    5. Spring 2000. Cheney heads Bush's Vice-Presidential Search committee --while continuing as CEO of Halliburton. He ends up picking himself as Vice President.

    6. July 2000. Cheney is asked whether Halliburton or its subsidaries were trying to do business with Iraq. He says no; he had a firm policy that they wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even if it was legal. This was a blatant lie: subsidiaries sold over $73 million in oil-production parts to Iraq.

    7. 2000. As CEO of Halliburton, Cheney clears $20 million in one year, after taxes.

    8. July 2000. Cheney's severance package from Halliburton (as CEO) is far and above what other company officers got when they left --some say it is as high as $62 million in stocks and stock options.

    9. December 2001. KBR (Halliburton subsidiary) is granted an open-ended contract for Army troops supply and Navy construction, wherever U.S. troops go, for the next 10 years (so far, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Yemen, Iraq). This unique contract has no ceiling on cost. KBR is reimbursed for every dollar spent plus a base fee of 1 percent, which guarantees profit. Plus, they can get a bonus as a percentage of company costs.

    10. January 2003. Bush sends a letter to Congress exercising his authority, as president, to waive section 9007, thus removing sanctions and allowing assistance to oil-rich Azerbaijan (see point 4). This administration invites the head of Azerbaijan to the White House, even though this person was the main reason for earlier sanctions against Azerbaijan. Reason? Azerbaijan has oil.

    11. September 2003. Cheney states that when he became Vice President, he severed all ties with Halliburton, as required by law. This was a lie. Government accounting offices said that the compensation he continues to receive is a conflict of interest.

    12. Dec 2003. Halliburton, without competitive bidding, is given a contract to restore the Iraqi oil sector. It is billed initially as a contract for putting out oil-well fires, something in which Halliburton has little expertise. It turns out that the contract is really for the full restoration of the oil business in Iraq. It is kept secret because of the "emergency conditions". It is one of the highest military logistics contracts in history.

    13. June 2004. Cheney has said all along that he had no contact with government officials who coordinated Halliburtons many contracts with the military. A March 2003 Pentagon email refutes this claim. It says that action on a no-bid Halliburton contract to rebuild Iraq's oil industry was "coordinated" with Cheney's office. This has to do with a no-bid contract given to Halliburton for rebuilding Iraq.

    14. August 2004. The SEC (Security Exchange Comission) levies a fine of $7.5 million on Halliburton for illegal accounting changes in 1998, when Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Some people think that politics may have shielded Cheney and others from being held more accountable.


    Serious doubts remain about whether a company with a record like Halliburton's should even be eligible to receive government contracts in the first place. This company has been accused of cost overruns, tax avoidance, and cooking the books and has a history of doing business in government-sanctioned countries like Iraq, Iran, and Libya. Many of Halliburton's no-bid contracts are allowed because of waivers by the Bush administration that allow government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi

    World opinion

    We live in an increasingly smaller -and dangerous- world, and all countries must work together to solve all the problems. The United States, as the one remaining "superpower", bears a special responsibility to use its strength for the good of the world. This requires a president who has the trust and respect of leaders around the world. We had that with Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.

    "But in the international online media, the vast majority of commentators are harshly critical of President George W. Bush. On every continent pundits are faulting Bush for his persona as well as his policies. Most dislike his conduct of the war in Iraq. Many say his attitude toward the rest of the world is contemptuous, misinformed and dangerous." Jefferson Morley, WashingtonPost .com (local version), 30 Aug 2004.

    But, through his belligerent, arrogant, uncompromising, extremist attitude, Bush has lost all trust and respect. The message that this administration has sent to the world is (to quote Carl Bernstein), "the imperialist states can do what they want; the semi-colonial states must do what they are told." The support after 9/11 has given way to the vision of the United States as an imperial power of the worst kind. We are now simply an arrogant bully.

    Condoleezza Rice sends the message when she defends the administration's refusal to join with all other countries in supporting an international war crimes court. She said, "The United States is special because it is a bigger target with forces all over the world. So maybe there is some difference in interests there." So, we are special. You little guys go work together; we'll save the world on our own.

    Jimmy Carter, at the Democratic Convention in summer 2004, said, "Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism." In just 34 months, he said, "all the goodwill [after 9/11] was squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and calculations."

    Being strong does not mean you have to lose respect. John Kennedy was strong, but he had everyone's respect.

    To see the opinion the world has, type in "opinion bush world" into the search engine google and read the articles that are found. The bottom of this page contains links to a few such articles.

    The administration shows no sign of changing its operations and attitudes toward the rest of the world. Re-election would be a disaster.

    Some facts

    1. The table on the left is from a newly released poll (9 September 2004) (local version) taken over the summer.
    2. An opinion poll (local version) by CBSNEWS.com (4 March 2004) reported these percentages of people who had a negative view of Bush: Britain, 66%; Canada, 66%; Spain, 75%; France, 80%; Germany, 80%, Mexico, over 50%, Italy, over 50%.
    3. In June 2003 (local version), a poll showed that nearly 2/3 of the British had an unfavourable opinion of Bush. Asked who is more dangerous to world peace and stability, United States was rated higher than al-Qaeda by respondents in both Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%). The US was rated more dangerous than Iran by people in Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea, and Brazil and more dangerous than Syria by respondents all the countries polled, except for Australia, Israel, and the United States.
    4. This page (local version) contains information on a number of polls like the ones mentioned above.

    Do these polls matter? A leader leads with trust and respect. It is obvious that the Bush administration can no longer lead the world.

    The isolationist, extremist attitude of the administration

    Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor, said in June 2004, "It is not only the Iraq policy of the Bush administration that has caused this [the opinion of the world to turn against the United States]. The Bush administration is the first administration since the onset of the Cold War 50 years ago not to place itself in the political mainstream, not to reflect moderation, not to practice at least de facto bipartisanship, but to embrace extremist principles. Inevitably, extremism produces recklessness." The administration has become increasingly isolated from the world, due to its attitudes and its refusal to engage with other countries.

    Below is a list of examples. Taken one at a time, one might find valid reasons for it. Taken together, one gets the feeling that this administration feels that it can do everything by itself. It is not leading, it is bullying.

    1. Started the War on Iraq without UN sanction for it.
    2. Refused to join with other countries in the international war crimes court.
    3. Refused to sign agreement on limiting the transfer of small weapons.
    4. Walked out of a biological weapons convention agreed to by 143 nations.
    5. Refused to sign treaty barring anti-personnel land mines.
    6. Withdrew from anti-ballistic missile treaty.
    7. Refused to sign the Kyoto agreement.

    Links to a few articles

    1. World opinion moves against Bush. Article (local version) by Simon Tisdall in the Guardian unlimited, 23 January 2003.

    2. Bush withdraws from the world. Article (local version) by Ronald Asmus in The Age, 21 August 2004.

    3. Foreign views of US darken after Sept 11. Article (local version) in the NY Times.

    4. Bush turns Europe's consensus on its head. Article (no longer available; obtained from Wayback machine) in the Telegraph [UK], 20 September 2003.

    5. Billionaire Soros blasts Bush, calls on President to honor world opinion. article (local version) in Post-gazette.com, 28 February 2003.

    6. Mr. Bush is abusing both the UN and international law. Article (local version) by Jonathan Power in New War on Terror, 14 October 2001.

    7. World opinion is more hostile to America than at any time in our history. Article (local version) in NPQ by Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1 June 2004.

    8. History lesson: GOP must stop Bush. Article (local version) by Carl Bernstein in USA Today, 23 May 2004.

    9. Bush demeanor fuels dissent. Article (local version) by Vijay Ramanavarapu in The Lantern, 10 March 2003.

    10. Bush at the UN: Washington's war ultimatum to the world. Article (local version) by Editorial board, World Socialist Web Site, 13 September 2002.

    11. Bush's unilateralism aggravates world's problems. Article (local version) by Robert F. Drinan, National Catholic Reporter, 10 January 2003.

    12. BBC News: World wants Kerry as President, 9/7/2004. Article. (Here's a local, text copy)

    Secrecy

    The Bush administration would have you believe that it is a government for the people and by the people. The way the government operates suggests just the opposite. It is secretive and manipulative, attempting to show us only what it wants us to see. Below are examples. For more, see this website (local version). "Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix." Harry S. Truman

    "I'm the Commander, see ... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." George Bush. See "Bush at War", by Bob Woodward

    1. Undermining laws that promote public access 2. Curtailing freedom of information 3. Dept. of Justice hides its skeletons
    4. Hiding presidential papers 5. Hiding energy task force info 6. Altering an EPA report
    7. Blocking an EPA warning 8. Hiding cuts in National Park Services 9. Altering 9/11 facts
    10. Opposing the 9/11 commission 11. Censoring the Supreme Court 12. Ending the viewing of coffins
    13. Suppressing info on snowmobiles 14. Auto safety info no longer public 15. No protection for federal whistleblowers

    1. The Henry Waxman report. An extensive report released by Rep. Henry Waxman shows that the Bush administration has consistently undermined the laws that promote public access to government records while systematically expanding the laws that authorize secret government operations. Here is an official report (pdf file) of the U.S. House of Representatives. Below, I show just a few of the items that I collected before finding this report. To top of page

    2. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). When the FOIA was enacted in 1966, President Johnson said, "No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions that can be revealed without injury to the public interest." The Clinton memorandum (pdf file) told his government about the importance of the FOIA and instructed them to follow it in letter and spirit. The Ashcroft memorandum (pdf file) does the opposite: it expressly encourages agencies to look for reason to deny access to information. To top of page

    3. The U.S. Dept. of Justice. After disregarding requests for more than a year for a consultant's study about the department's efforts to ensure diversity, the department released the 186-page document-with many lines and pages blacked out. It took more effort to get the whole document. It looks like the administration's policies on FOIA (see pt. 1) were being followed. Here are some of the sentences that had been blacked out:

    1. Minorities are substantially more likely to leave the Department than whites.
    2. Minorities are significantly under-represented in management ranks.
    3. Minorities perceive unfairness in a number of human resources practices, such as hiring and promotion.

    Here is the blacked-out report (pdf file) and the real report (pdf file). Read about it here (local version). To top of page

    4. Presidential papers and executive privilege. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 makes presidential records public property and requires that the records be made public 12 years after a presidency has ended. Therefore, the Reagan-Bush papers should have been made public when Bush, Jr. became president. But Bush immediately signed an excutive order keeping them hidden, and potentially indefinitely. What doesn't Bush want you to see? A coalition has filed suit in federal court, but the case has not yet been settled. Read about it here (local version). To top of page

    5. Who was on the energy task force? In January 2001, Bush created an energy task force, under the direction of Cheney. This task force met and submitted recommendations to Congress. Congress asked to see the list of task-force members. The Bush administration refused, and the case is now in the courts. Why shouldn't we all be able to know who was on the committee? Wouldn't you like to know who is making energy policy for the nation? Why the secrecy? To top of page

    6. Altering an EPA Report. The White House forced (local version) the Environmental Protection Agency to remove from its 2003 report on the state of the environment large sections that talked about the risks of global warming. For more examples of such actions, click on "Widespread misuse of science" in the left column. To top of page

    7. Blocking an EPA Warning. The White House blocked a nationwide alert by the EPA about the danger of a certain kind of insulation that contained a dangerous asbestos for over a year. St. Louis Dispatch, December 29, 2003. (pdf file) To top of page

    8. Hiding cuts in National Parks Services. In Spring 2004, the Interior Department was criticized for making cuts in visitors services and then trying to hide the cuts from the public. According to the memo, "the majority of Northeast Region Parks are beginning this fiscal year with fewer operating dollars than in FY03. Additionally, the absorption of pay costs, necessary assessments and other rising, fixed costs have further eroded operating dollars." The memo suggested using the term "service level adjustment" instead of "cut". The memo also said,

    We will need to be sure that adjustments are taken from as many areas as is possible so that it won't cause public or political controversy. ...

    and

    A statement about cutting 10 seasonal positions does tells us how that affects the visitor so you must put it into words that describe service level adjustments to visitors, resource protection, facility operations, etc.

    Here is the memo (pdf file). Here is an article about it (local version). To top of page

    9. Altering facts during 9/11. Directly after 9/11, the White House forced (local version) the EPA to change its statements about public health risks in NY to make them sound less alarming. To top of page

    10. The 9/11 Commission. Bush opposed the creation of the 9/11 commission, whose purpose (local version) was to find out how the goverment dealt with terror that morning. He gave in to pressure, and it was created. The administration stalled (local version) in letting the Commission read crucial documents, and the Commission had to ask for an extension of time as well as more funds. These were given only after pressure from Congress and the press. The administration tried to place (article no longer accessible) all sorts of restrictions on who could read certain documents and what they could do with them. To top of page

    The administration refused to let anyone from the administration testify before the Commission. Again, only after pressure, did Bush himself and Condoleezza Rice testify, and only under certain conditions. This website (local pdf version) outlines how the administration sought to obstruct and discredit the 9/11 investigation. To top of page

    11. Censoring the Supreme Court. In documentation for a case concerning the ACLU and the Patriot Act, the Justice Department blacked out passages that it felt should not be publically released, ostensibly for national security reasons. Here is one passage that was blacked out-not for security reasons but in order to stifle dissent:

    "The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect 'domestic security.' Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent."

    As the webpage (local version) from which we got this says, this is a blatant misuse of power. To top of page

    12. Ending media coverage of returning coffins. The administration banned the filming of coffins with killed soldiers arriving from Iraq. The reason, most people admit, is that it hurt the administration's image. Here's an article on it (local version). To top of page

    13. Snowmobiles in Yellowstone. The administration touted the use of "quieter" snowmobiles in Yellowstone, even though they knew months earlier that the new snowmobiles were actually much louder. They simply suppressed the information (local version). To top of page

    14. Auto safety data no longer public. A two-paragraph decision buried deep in the Federal Register makes previously public information relating to unsafe automobiles or defective parts unavailable to the public. Few people knew about this act, but awareness is growing. Here's a blog on it (local version) from 18 August 2004. To top of page

    15. Bush administration doesn't want whistleblowers. (Article (local version) in the NY Times, 3 Oct 2004.) Whistleblowers are people who report fraud, waste, or wrongdoing when their employers dismiss their concerns. Whistleblowers are acting in the interests of the public, and they need protection. A bill before Congress would increase the very poor protections for federal employees, but the Bush administration doesn't want the new law.

    On 15 March 2004 (pdf file), four Congressmen wrote to Bush, asking him and his administration not to retaliate against a Medicare official who came out with the fact that administration officials told him he would be severely reprimanded if he gave certain information to Congress. They cited two recent cases where the Whitehouse had tried to discredit whistleblowers.

    Here are examples of what has happened to federal worker whistleblowers under this administration:

    • Two Border Patrol agents, Mark Hall and Robert Lindemann, were disciplined after they disclosed weaknesses in security along the Canadian border.
    • Teresa C. Chambers was dismissed from her job as chief of the US Park Police after she said the agency did not have enough money or personnel to protect parks and monuments in the Washington area.
    • The top Medicare official threatened to fire Richard S. Foster, the chief Medicare actuary, if he provided data to Congress showing the cost of the new Medicare law, which exceeded White House estimates.
    • Airport baggage screeners say they have been penalized for raising concerns about aviation security. But in August, an independent federal agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board, ruled that they had none of the whistleblower rights available to other federal employees. The government, it said, can "hire, discipline and terminate screeners without regard to any other law.''
    • Bunny Greenhouse, the chief contracting officer of the Corps of Engineers, refused to sign a Haliburton contract, citing violations. She was threatened with demotion. See this website (local version). To top of page
    Misuse of science
    The Union of Concerned Scientists investigated the misuse of science by the Bush administration. So far, over 5300 scientists have signed a statement supporting the resulting report (March 2004), including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents. "Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." President George H.W. Bush, 1990

    Here are the findings of the investigation:

    1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

    2. There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

    3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

    4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.

    The investigation found not one or two incidences but a widespread practice of abuse, ranging from deleting material in reports to undermining the quality and integrity of the appointment process. The report says that,

    This behavior by the administration violates the central premise of the scientific method, and is therefore of particularly grave concern to the scientific community. But it should also concern the American public, which has every right to expect its government to formulate policy on the basis of objective scientific knowledge in policies that affect the health, well-being and safety of its citizens.

    Here is the executive summary (as a pdf file), and here is the full report (as a pdf file). If you are a scientist, please take the time to read the discussion and the report and, if you are so inclined, sign the statement of support.

    What they do counts, not what they say

    If the administration has integrity, ethics, and character, then policies will fall into place,
    for the administration will be guided by the good of the country, and
    it will engage in open, honest, and meaningful dialog with the whole nation.

    If an administration has no integrity, ethics, and character, then the nation better beware.

    Politicians may promise something but don't always deliver. They may say one thing but do another.

    We tend to get our information from TV, in small messages, political ads, and speeches that are designed to sway us rather than to give us information. In this sense, TV has been the worst thing for politics, for it emphasizes show and entertainment rather than content.

    Today, it is best to go by what people do rather than what they say.

    "This television image can have its disadvantages. One of the most prevalent drawbacks is that it shifts the electorate's - and the candidate's - attention from his policy to his image. People will judge the candidate on looks rather than ideas." John Gans

    "Television inherently simplifies complex ideas into emotional, self-oriented moral and political impulses." Jeffrey Scheur

    "His [Kerry's] very skill in oratory may be his undoing, because in the political arena, the era of oratory is over. We live in the moment of the sound bite." Allan Metcalf

    I suggest:

    1. Don't be swayed by political ads and speeches.
    2. Use discrimination, and compare what people say with what they do.

    We can only estimate what a Kerry administration will do because he has not been president. But he has been a Senator for 20 years, and we can go look at his record there. There have been some issues of his honesty in campaigning again Weld in 1996, and there is talk of his and his wife's money, but I do not find the large patterns of secrecy, lies, abuse of power, and conflict of interest that I see with the Bush administration.

    Consequently, I would expect a Kerry presidency to exhibit far more integrity, honesty, and openness -qualities that the Bush administration has lacked. For me, the character of the administration is far more important than its policies. With a good character, the policies will take care of themselves. This administration, through its actions, as discussed in the links to the left, have shown a complete lack of character and integrity.

    If you are a scientist (or engineer) and you support the investigative report of the Union of Concerned Scientists, then please sign the statement of support.

    And, if you agree in general with this website, tell your friends about it.

    Websites

    • Bushsecrecy.org. A project of Public Citizen, a not-for-profit organization founded in 1971 to to represent consumer interests (that means your interests) in Congress, the executive branch and the courts.
    • Center for American Progress. Contains articles on all sorts of topics, e.g. Environment to the Iraq War to the Bush Administration's conflict with the 9/11 Commission.
    • Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Helps Americans use the justice system to shine a light on those who betray public trust.
    • Common Cause. Founded in 1970 by John Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. A non-partisan citizen's lobbying group.
    • MoveOn PAC. MoveOnPAC's campaign contributions provide financial support to congressional candidates who embrace moderate to progressive principles of national government.
    • People for the American Way. "An energetic advocate for the values and institutions that sustain a diverse democratic society"..

    This website is not written lightly. I am a computer scientist. I have been teaching and researching for over 35 years. I generally have little to do with politics, and I do not belong to a political party. No one is paying me to do this. I have no agenda except to see the people of the U.S. work together, in harmony and peace, for the good of everyone in the country and the world.

    I believe that the statements in this website are based on facts.

    [Sep 12, 2015] Declining oil prices: OPEC vs. (future) Shale?

    December 16, 2014 | english.alarabiya.net

    When the late John D. Rockefeller, one of America's earliest global business barons, was asked the secret of success, he quipped: "Get up early, work late and strike oil." Of course, as founder of Standard Oil in the year 1870, he certainly got up early, and worked late as he built an empire of oil that made him the richest man in the world by the early 20th century.

    Since then, oil has come to rival water as one of the most essential commodities necessary for modern human life and, thus, the countries and companies that produce, extract, refine, and sell it are among the richest on earth. Rockefeller's advice still holds.

    Norway's sovereign wealth fund is not far off a trillion dollars and Saudi cash reserves clock in at nearly $800 billion. The world's leading energy companies report earnings in the billions every quarter.

    Partly as a result of the U.S. energy boom, oil prices have hit a five-and-a-half-year low

    Afshin Molavi

    Thus, it's no surprise that the current near 50 percent drop in oil prices since June of this year has captured global headlines and spawned numerous narratives: OPEC and/or Saudi Arabia vs U.S. shale oil, one of the more popular ones, and Saudi Arabia/UAE vs Iran/Russia a secondary one. But as with most popular narratives, there is a deeper issue at play here.

    Bristling theories

    First, let us dispense with the Russia/Iran squeeze play story. Theories are rife about a Saudi squeeze play on Iran, a country with far less cash reserves than the UAE, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. Iran, the theory goes, will face far more difficulty with the declining oil price than Arab members of OPEC. That's why Saudi Arabia chose not to "defend" the price through cuts in production, the theory goes.

    With a break-even budget price of oil ranging in the $130-$140 range, according to the IMF, a sanctioned Iran with little access to capital markets can hardly handle a sustained oil price decline. Russia, too, faces a tide of rising sanctions and they, too, are hurt by the global decline in prices. By squeezing Russia, the argument goes, Riyadh would be "punishing" Moscow for its support of President Bashar al-Assad.

    There may be some truth to this, but to truly do significant damage to Iran or Russia, the price decline would need to be larger and over a longer period of time. With large, fiscal expansionary budgets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, such a move would risk cutting off the nose to spite the face.

    Larger play

    No, there is a larger play here than Iran or Russia. So, is it U.S. shale oil? Is the play to let the price drop squeeze out U.S. shale oil producers who need a higher global price to make their projects sustainable?

    Today, the U.S. is producing more oil than it has done in three decades. Over the summer, the U.S. surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer. The U.S. shale boom has added significantly to global inventories of oil and posed a direct challenge to OPEC.

    Partly as a result of the U.S. energy boom, oil prices have hit a five-and-a-half-year low, falling by almost 50 percent since June. Brent crude hovers in the $60 range, and U.S West Texas Intermediate has fallen to $57 per barrel. In some parts of the United States, shale oil is being sold for under $40 per barrel.

    The key question at play here is this: Is the decline in oil price a cyclical or structural phenomenon? Have the tectonic plates of energy shifted?

    To answer that, let us begin with a group of engineers and geologists who, in the early 1980s, began using a technology known as hydraulic fracturing to try to coax gas from tight rock formations in the United States by injecting chemicals and water into the wells. Nothing worked, until a uniquely driven businessman by the name of George Mitchell, laid down the gauntlet for his team of engineers in the early 1980s: get me some shale gas in a decade, or the company collapses.

    Mitchell and his team got up early, worked late, and eventually, after seventeen years of trying, they "cracked the code," as industry observers often say. They became the first company to discover the right combination of water and chemicals to extract so-called tight gas. Those gas fields eventually began producing oil, and today, the shale oil and gas revolution has fueled U.S. economic growth, changed global energy dynamics and transformed global geopolitics.

    Radically transforming global energy markets

    But will U.S. oil radically transform global energy markets over the next decade or two? The answer is no. Middle East oil, Russian oil and African oil will still be in high demand over the next two decades, according to forecasts by the International Energy Agency. Indeed, most forecasts suggest that by the 2020s, U.S. shale will decline and OPEC oil will be needed to pick up the slack.

    So, new U.S. oil will put downward pressure on the price, but will not be a game changer in and of itself. The real question is: Will the U.S. fracking revolution expand globally? If it does, that could have a truly transformational effect on global energy. That would be the game changer.

    Imagine a China that fracks. Or an India. Or some of the other large emerging markets that are driving future demand. Or fracking in Europe? In that scenario, we could see both the cost of fracking fall and the world come awash in new supplies of oil, putting tremendous downward pressure on the price, and reordering world energy markets and world power.

    Some have suggested that we are still in the early stages of shale oil and gas, something akin to the first clunky computers that hit the shelves in U.S. stores, and were being purchased for office use for the first time. In that pre-Internet, pre-high speed computing era, few could have imagined the growth of the information revolution and how it would transform the world.

    The problem with that analogy, however, is that the costs of fracking are so high that only a high oil price environment will allow for companies to take the necessary capital expenditure risks to develop new projects. The declining oil price will not squeeze U.S. shale entirely, but it will make new projects far less feasible. These are not projects that can be hatched in a garage with a couple of engineers and a bit of angel investing money. These are projects that carry massive debt.

    In this context, the OPEC decision to let the market find its own price makes sense. After all, a world of Chinese and Indian fracking would pose tremendous challenges to OPEC producers.

    So, this is not a fight between OPEC and U.S. shale oil. It's a battle between OPEC and future shale. Because what is most dangerous to the future of OPEC is not U.S. production, but a world in which China, India and Europe all begin their own fracking revolution.

    _____________________

    Afshin Molavi is a senior fellow and director of the Global Emerging and Growth Markets Initiative at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington DC-based think tank. A former Dubai-based correspondent for the Reuters news agency, Molavi has also been based in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Tehran. His articles and essays have been published in the Financial Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Foreign Policy, and dozens of other publications. He is currently writes a global affairs column for Newsweek Japan.

    [Sep 11, 2015]I mourn disable and scarred vets, neglected by the country

    Economist's View Links for 09-11-15

    ilsm said...

    Remember the lost on 9/11 and those sacrificed in the US' responding aggression. Honor them by questioning "why the cost with the wrecked results".

    pgl said in reply to ilsm...

    Watching the ceremony now. Tears come to my eyes 14 years later. Brooklyn has a 6K run tomorrow in honor of our heroes. Will be proud to run it for those we lost.

    ilsm said in reply to pgl...

    Why don't we blame the Saudis, and all the multiple SUV per family who send their cash for ISIS through Riyadh, at the memorials?

    Long before the number of dead soldiers related to Iraghistan exceeded the NY site losses I moved on.

    To make sure it never happens again let's call Iran the great terrorist who calls a satan a satan blame Iran and do them like Iraq.

    Faux News was carrying it, enough said.

    I mourn disable and scarred vets, neglected by the country!

    Paine said in reply to ilsm...

    It's a hideous irony that private outfits use our butchered vets like abused pets
    To collect money

    The whole warrior cult is a monstrous fabrication of the demagogues of Uncle Sam global hegemony

    Some died and others still suffer for NOtTHING noble nothing at all nothing but corporate rights to exploit where they will

    pgl said in reply to Paine ...

    9/11 had nothing to do with that stupid war that started in 2003. That was the re-elect Bush-Cheney opening theme. The New Yorkers who died on 9/11 deserve better than any of these pathetic political insults.

    Paine said in reply to pgl...

    The warrior cult goes back to post nam talk radio histrionics

    9 / 11 is more like the sinking of the Lusitania

    Or is it the Maine or the Alamo or little big horn or gulf of Tonkin or ..yes the obvious parallel Pearl Harbor

    Civilians and uniform public servants ?

    Burning of Tokyo ?

    I recall a huge wave of spontaneous sympathy for the families of the victims of that attack
    And for the bravery of the responders that were killed trying to save lives

    What about the grotesque policies of the buildings management
    That clearly increased the death toll

    Or the airlines that refused adequate protocols for decades

    It's better now we delve into the real dark side of 9/11

    Not the phones conspiracy stories

    Nor the further demonizing of bin laden

    Or for that matter your feel good blubbering over the murdered innocent

    [Sep 11, 2015] Not all comments are created equal: the case for ending online comments by Jessica Valenti

    "...The comments section is the only reason I bother with The Guardian any more. The paper and many of it's writers have lost their way - but if you take an article that almost destroys your faith in the progress of human thought, as a starting point,- there is always someone under the line that restores it. "
    Sep 10, 2015 | The Guardian


    Lecram Hernández 11 Sep 2015 16:55

    "Guardian Pick" you have got to be kidding me, do they really pick comments of people licking their butt?


    MarcTectus 11 Sep 2015 15:11

    We need the comments because they contain (interspersed with the dross) more intelligence, more research, more facts and more balance than the articles themselves...


    myhatisgrey artfulintheus 11 Sep 2015 14:41

    How about if comments were restricted to actual paid subscribers?

    The Guardian would already be charging for it if they thought people wuld pay. That's why they stick with the clickbait article/advertising model.


    panpipes randomangles 11 Sep 2015 13:43

    it does not necessarily follow that anything that attracts attention and receives lots of comments must therefore be clickbait.

    True....but I've read quite a few of JV's articles so I am judging more than just the clicks, rather the content.

    Fortune favours the lucky.

    That post made me smile.


    sangfroidwerewolf 11 Sep 2015 13:32

    The sad fact is the Guardian routinely fails to give 'the whole picture', or an impartial or accurate account of a story, and you often have to look below the line for context, counterpoint and correction.


    NeoClassicist WanderingLight 11 Sep 2015 13:23

    a community of moderately intelligent readers making moderately intelligent comments

    I prefer to think of my comments as supremely intelligent!


    RavenGodiva 11 Sep 2015 13:15

    I would censor or moderate personal attacks, but never someone who questions (whether it be climate cooling/warming/change or evolution).

    Grow a thicker skin and let the rabble play.


    consciouslyinformed Bjerkley 11 Sep 2015 12:10

    "and I don't think many people actually approach a debate genuinely prepared to change their mind..."

    Therein lies the essential problem for too many posters, as I think, from reading and participation myself with ongoing dialogues with others who are invested in a genuine discourse about topics that journalists write, and the Cif community responds within the thread. Of those who post comments, many times the engaged individuals who are committed to the process of sharing viewpoints, in order to learn, discuss, debate and as you wisely state "sometimes our own perspectives have been changed through these thoughtful and intelligent discussions," is what I look for too, in this venue.

    The posters who populate the thread with intent to divert, click bait, attempt to harass, or to quite take over the thread, is beyond disruptive, and yet, in this community, if not too distracting or off topic, are offered the freedom of expression, even if not wanted or warranted by the rest of the posters. I find it an exercise of my own ability to allow others, regardless of what I want, to have their say, whether or not it's what most commentators want to hear. Great post from you.


    commuted 11 Sep 2015 10:40

    A deep ontological flaw in an argument gets exposed with the possibility that the writer gets a spanking. While the Guardian would never prostitute themselves to an issue, it does happen. Admittedly, there's not a lot of good news for the writer, but comments still have value.


    auldngreetie 11 Sep 2015 09:51

    The comments section is the only reason I bother with The Guardian any more. The paper and many of it's writers have lost their way - but if you take an article that almost destroys your faith in the progress of human thought, as a starting point,- there is always someone under the line that restores it.

    I read your articles (dammit, can't help myself) and despair. I read the comments and cheer up.

    Regarding your point about utilitarian value and 'rich and worthwhile conversation' - I don't think we could easily agree on what was rich and worthwhile. It is for this reason that we have freedom of expression in the first place. Any conditions such as anonymity that enhance this freedom, while they have a downside, are on balance hightly desirable and beneficial in the long run.

    StuartRG 11 Sep 2015 09:33

    A lot of adblock users get a message asking them to subscribe to the Guardian's quality journalism. They then spend a long time wading through poorly written column after poorly written column looking for this quality journalism rather than something resembling a first draft for a parody Fringe show. So they leave comments reflecting that.

    True some are psychotic idiots. But others are merely reflecting their disappointment at how low the bar is of 'quality journalism' from a newspaper which has 'Pulitzer Prize' on its mast.

    And should anyone at the Guardian feel offended, may I suggest you stop filling columns with self absorbed tat and try to replicate the likes of Oliver Wainwright, who has opinions but backs them up with something more concrete than a fey 'attitude.'


    Liam 90 Paul Mycock 11 Sep 2015 09:16

    Using one of two methods - i) the "This comment was removed by a moderator... etc." and ii) the disappearing into thin air in a puff of smoke method. I've always wondered whether this is a major technical glitch in the software or whether there's something else to it. Maybe the staff are embarassed at just how many comments are removed?

    randomangles 11 Sep 2015 08:43

    Like many others, I would probably not spend as much time reading this website if there were no comments on any articles. That might have some negative impact on monetization perhaps.

    On the other hand, I would probably rate the quality of my experience of using the site much higher.

    Paul Mycock -> lauraekay 11 Sep 2015 07:16

    Hi,

    Why is it that a lot of Guardian moderators remove comments in Jessica Valenti's articles just for critizcizing the content of the article as this does not go against community guidelines?

    You'll see the ratio of removed comments to comments in her articles exceed other authors by a huge distance,

    By the way this comment does not go against community guidelines so if you are to remove it then please provide a reason.

    RogTheDodge -> Raggedclawscuttling 11 Sep 2015 07:14

    Really, you're unfamiliar with the expression "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"? I even have it framed in my kitchen.

    RogTheDodge 11 Sep 2015 07:12

    Without comment sections, would anyone read these articles? The comments are far more interesting than the articles in many cases. The author might want to consider that. But I'm sure she knows that and writes accordingly.


    Mark A O'Toole 11 Sep 2015 06:48

    If this was from someone who I hadn't seen deliberately write polarising troll articles on a regular basis, brag about how it riles people up on her twitter account, and dismisses any and all arguments against the thoughts spilling out of her head as 'misogyny', I might have considered it topic worth discussing. As is, it's just clearly self-serving, disingenuous ramblings of a wounded narcissist.

    goddarp -> PrincessWhatever 11 Sep 2015 06:48

    Unfortunately, it seems to be doing the opposite. Now it's hard to make money as a real journalist, clickbait opinion pieces based on 'I reckon' rather then costly, time-consuming research, seem to be the norm.

    kernjeek -> wavypeasandgravy 11 Sep 2015 06:46

    Those mediums have become echo chambers, where you shout your opinions to the wall and receive them back, often reinforcing views that when exposed outwardly are subject to stringent criticism.

    As has been pointed out, many commenters BTL make coherent and rational arguments, and the upvotes they receive mean they generally tend to reflect the prevailing attitude of the audience. Of course there are a few nutters and people who are downright rude, but that does not mean that you should be able to post opinion pieces on one of the globes most widely read online publications and not expect to have those views challenged!

    standupatonce 11 Sep 2015 06:34

    Your view, as someone with a media outlet, is of course that your writing ought to be as privileged as possible.

    My view, as someone without one, is that I rarely bother to read things without comments sections, as one or two websites that have turned comments off recently may be finding out, because I'm betting I'm not alone. A single opinion is NEVER as interesting as an opinion and a whole load of response to it, even if you do have to wade through cretins to get the benefit of it.

    And social media is NOT the same thing as direct response on the same page.

    Finally, if you wish comments away because you don't like what they're saying, you might want to think again about "being too lazy or overwhelmed to fix the real problem".


    [Sep 11, 2015] Bloody Arseny in the 90's

    Moscow Exile , September 9, 2015 at 9:09 pm

    Bloody Arseny in the 90's

    Here's a Waging Wabbit's wedding day photograph taken some 5 years after he had allegedly participated on the side of Dudayev's breakaway Chechen Republic in the First Chechen War against Russia. He has also been accused of torturing Russian prisoners of war during that conflict.

    If these allegations against Yatsenyuk are true, then Noodleman's candidate "Yats" would have been a "brother-in-arms' of that delightful, late and not so lamented Oleksandr Ivanovych Muzychko (aka Sashko Bilyi [Сашко Білий] – "White Sasha"]):

    What a lovable old rogue Sasha was!

    Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    The guy's a monster just based on who he represents.

    But I just can't see this bloodless corpse of a humanbeing having the will to commit mayhem on a living, breathing human.

    Seriously, how credible do you think this charges are?

    Moscow Exile , September 10, 2015 at 12:46 am

    Показания на Яценюка дали его подельники
    Testimony against Yarsenyuk was given by his accomplices
    Members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership, Nikolai Karlyuk and Kyiv journalist Stanislav Klykh, have said that in the 90s the prime minister of the Ukraine tortured and killed Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

    That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed in 1994 by ther members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership Nikolai Karlyuk and Kyiv journalist Stanislav Klykh.

    Last year dozens of lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to have them released from a remand prison. In order to secure their release, they "sang" to whole of the Ukrainian mass media, but in vain: on September 15 in the Supreme court of Chechnya there was held a preliminary hearing.

    See also: Показания на Яценюка дали украинские националисты Клых и Карпюк

    Moscow Exile , September 10, 2015 at 1:08 am

    "That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed in 1994 by the members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership" should read: "That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed in 1994 by other members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership"

    [Sep 11, 2015] IEA Sees Oil Supply Outside OPEC Falling by Most Since 1992

    "...futures contracts for 2016 trade below the price needed for most projects to break even"
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Oil supplies outside OPEC will decline next year by the most in more than two decades as the price rout curbs U.S. shale output, according to the International Energy Agency.

    Production outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will fall by 500,000 barrels a day to 57.7 million in 2016, the Paris-based adviser said Friday in its monthly report. While fuel demand this year will be the strongest since 2010, record-high oil inventories in developed nations won't start to diminish until the second half of next year, and the revival of Iranian exports with the removal of sanctions may swell supplies further, it said.


    ... ... ...

    U.S. shale output will shrink by almost 400,000 barrels a day next year as futures contracts for 2016 trade below the price needed for most projects to break even, the agency said. As recently as July, the IEA had projected that U.S. shale supply would expand by 60,000 barrels a day in 2016.

    The decline in total non-OPEC supply next year will be the biggest since a drop of 1 million barrels a day in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it said.

    ... ... ...

    U.S. output will need to decline by 585,000 barrels a day next year and other non-OPEC production will need to fall by 220,000 barrels a day for the global surplus to end by the fourth quarter of 2016, Goldman said.

    Global oil demand will climb by 1.7 million barrels a day this year to 94.4 million as low prices stoke consumption, before growth eases in 2016 to 1.4 million barrels a day. China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer, will "keep up its purchases" even as signs of slowing growth and the country's surprise devaluation of its currency fan concerns about its economic stability, the IEA said.

    [Sep 11, 2015] Why Vladimir Putin Won't Be Helping OPEC to Cut Oil Production

    Is this unfounded speculation of hidden attempt to form expectations? Will Iran able or willing to do that taking into account low oil prices? Increase need substantial capital investmant which at current price point might not pay for themselves for a lon, lon time. So why bury money into the ground just to please the USA?
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Iran, which produces a similar grade of crude to Russia, is preparing to ramp up production by as much as 1 million barrels a day next year after reaching an agreement to lift international sanctions.

    [Sep 11, 2015] End Of Cheap Fossil Fuels Could Have More Severe Consequences Than Thought By Kurt Cobb

    "...The shorthand way of understanding this is that in the last century we extracted all the easy-to-get fossil fuels."
    "...Annual world economic growth from 1961 through 2000 according to the World Bank was 3.8 percent per year. From 2000 to 2013, an era of increasingly expensive energy, it slowed to 2.4 percent. From the initial spurt of 4.1 percent growth in 2010 (after a contraction of 2.1 percent in 2009), growth settled down to 2.3 percent in 2012 and 2013, slightly below the recent average. This is despite unprecedented efforts to stimulate the world economy through large increases in government spending and record low interest rates."
    Sept 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The characteristic feeling of the post-2008 world has been one of anxiety. Occasionally, that anxiety breaks out into fear as it did in the last two weeks when stock markets around the world swooned and middle class and wealthy investors had a sudden visitation from Pan, the god from whose name we get the word "panic." Pan's appearance is yet another reminder that the relative stability of the globe from the end of World War II right up until 2008 is over. We are in uncharted waters.

    Here is the crux of the matter as expressed in a piece which I wrote last year:

    The relentless, if zigzag, rise in financial markets for the past 150 years has been sustained by cheap fossil fuels and a benign climate. We cannot count on either from here on out....

    Another thing we cannot necessarily count on is the remarkable geopolitical stability that the world experienced for two long stretches during the fossil fuel age. The first one lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 to the beginning of World War I in 1914 (interrupted only by the brief Franco-Prussian War). The second lasted from the end of World War II in 1945 until now.

    Following the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq, the Middle East has experienced increasing chaos devolving into a civil war in Syria; the rapid success of forces calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria which are busily reshaping the borders of those two countries; and now the renewed chaos in Libya. We must add to this the Russian-Ukranian conflict. It is no accident that all of these conflicts are related to oil and natural gas.

    ... ... ...

    But hidden from the view of most is the role that increasingly expensive energy has played since the beginning of this century in slowing economic growth. The shorthand way of understanding this is that in the last century we extracted all the easy-to-get fossil fuels. Now we are going after the hard-to-get remainder which are costly to extract. That takes resources away from the energy-consuming part of the economy and creates a drag on economic growth. Hence, a dramatically slower economy in 2015 after four years of record or near record average daily prices for the most critical fossil fuel, oil. (The recent drop in oil prices is primarily a reflection of slowing demand that comes from a slowing economy.)

    The financial industry through the media has intervened forcefully during the recent stock market sell-off to tell us all not to panic. These corrections are normal, they say, and long-term investors--that is, virtually everyone except Wall Street--should ignore them. What the industry and the media do not tell us is that these are not normal times.

    Circumstances have changed dramatically. The evidence is there if only we have eyes to see it. Interest rates in much of the world are still stuck at or near zero seven years after the last worldwide downturn. How will the world's central banks stimulate the economy after the next inevitable recession? By lowering interests that are already at zero? In the post-World War II paradigm, rates would be at much higher levels today, say four or five percent, and economic growth would be much faster.

    Annual world economic growth from 1961 through 2000 according to the World Bank was 3.8 percent per year. From 2000 to 2013, an era of increasingly expensive energy, it slowed to 2.4 percent. From the initial spurt of 4.1 percent growth in 2010 (after a contraction of 2.1 percent in 2009), growth settled down to 2.3 percent in 2012 and 2013, slightly below the recent average. This is despite unprecedented efforts to stimulate the world economy through large increases in government spending and record low interest rates.

    ... ... ...

    ...Franklin Roosevelt is famous for saying: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But fear is a protective mechanism. We are right to fear things that can hurt us and to act accordingly. We cannot solve our problems if we refuse to accept that we have them.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 11, 2015] Deflationary Collapse Ahead?

    "..."Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C [crude + condensate] ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD." "
    Aug 26, 2015 | Our Finite World
    Overview of What is Going Wrong

    1. The big thing that is happening is that the world financial system is likely to collapse. Back in 2008, the world financial system almost collapsed. This time, our chances of avoiding collapse are very slim.
    2. Without the financial system, pretty much nothing else works: the oil extraction system, the electricity delivery system, the pension system, the ability of the stock market to hold its value. The change we are encountering is similar to losing the operating system on a computer, or unplugging a refrigerator from the wall.
    3. We don't know how fast things will unravel, but things are likely to be quite different in as short a time as a year. World financial leaders are likely to "pull out the stops," trying to keep things together. A big part of our problem is too much debt. This is hard to fix, because reducing debt reduces demand and makes commodity prices fall further. With low prices, production of commodities is likely to fall. For example, food production using fossil fuel inputs is likely to greatly decline over time, as is oil, gas, and coal production.
    4. The electricity system, as delivered by the grid, is likely to fail in approximately the same timeframe as our oil-based system. Nothing will fail overnight, but it seems highly unlikely that electricity will outlast oil by more than a year or two. All systems are dependent on the financial system. If the oil system cannot pay its workers and get replacement parts because of a collapse in the financial system, the same is likely to be true of the electrical grid system.
    5. Our economy is a self-organized networked system that continuously dissipates energy, known in physics as a dissipative structure. Other examples of dissipative structures include all plants and animals (including humans) and hurricanes. All of these grow from small beginnings, gradually plateau in size, and eventually collapse and die. We know of a huge number of prior civilizations that have collapsed. This appears to have happened when the return on human labor has fallen too low. This is much like the after-tax wages of non-elite workers falling too low. Wages reflect not only the workers' own energy (gained from eating food), but any supplemental energy used, such as from draft animals, wind-powered boats, or electricity. Falling median wages, especially of young people, are one of the indications that our economy is headed toward collapse, just like the other economies.
    6. The reason that collapse happens quickly has to do with debt and derivatives. Our networked economy requires debt in order to extract fossil fuels from the ground and to create renewable energy sources, for several reasons: (a) Producers don't have to save up as much money in advance, (b) Middle-men making products that use energy products (such cars and refrigerators) can "finance" their factories, so they don't have to save up as much, (c) Consumers can afford to buy "big-ticket" items like homes and cars, with the use of plans that allow monthly payments, so they don't have to save up as much, and (d) Most importantly, debt helps raise the price of commodities of all sorts (including oil and electricity), because it allows more customers to afford products that use them. The problem as the economy slows, and as we add more and more debt, is that eventually debt collapses. This happens because the economy fails to grow enough to allow the economy to generate sufficient goods and services to keep the system going–that is, pay adequate wages, even to non-elite workers; pay growing government and corporate overhead; and repay debt with interest, all at the same time. Figure 2 is an illustration of the problem with the debt component.

    philsharris, August 26, 2015 at 8:08 am

    Gail,

    Modern industrial expansion has clearly been driven by the key enabling fuel, petroleum. Not all petroleum, however, has the same potential value as the original stuff of the 1950s to 2005. Nevertheless 'condensate' (gas condensate derived from expanding NG fields) is included in world 'total oil' as if it was.

    US geologist Jeffrey Brown, who has specialised in studying the quantities of oil available to economies round the world – particularly amounts available to the larger economies who are net importers, – that includes US, EU, Japan & China, – has a long comment just now on peakoilbarrel (Ron Patterson blog). He includes an interesting apparent statistic concerning condensate. We should note that the amount of 'real stuff' to go round the industrial world is probably stalled since 2005. The world generally appears to have a lower-value resource to enable any future expansion. The exlixir of youth is going to be in short supply, it seems.

    Jeffrey: "Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C [crude + condensate] ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD."

    Gail Tverberg, August 26, 2015 at 8:55 am

    Yes, the high quality crude has been flattening in supply. I am not sure how important this is in the whole scheme of things, however.

    When we look at energy consumption vs GDP on a world basis, the correlation is best with total energy, rather than with just oil. Also, our oil production has been growing at both the long carbon chain end of the spectrum (oil sands, etc.), and the short carbon chain end (Bakken, etc). In some sense, the mix changes tend to offset.

    I think it is probably more important that world coal consumption grew at an unusually slow rate in 2014, and perhaps is even shrinking in 2015. China's consumption is down, and its electricity use seems to be something like flat in 2015. Natural gas consumption worldwide also grew at an unusually low rate in 2015. These are indications of a world-wide slowdown.

    Harry Gibbs, August 26, 2015 at 10:02 am
    We've also seen global trade contract by over 2% in the first half of 2015:

    http://www.gtreview.com/news/global/global-trade-slumps-in-first-half-of-2015/

    And global capex is likewise shrinking:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/global-capex-set-to-shrink-as-commodities-crunch-bites-20150803-giqv80.html

    It does seem very much like global growth is peaking, just as your look at global energy demand suggested:

    http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/06/23/bp-data-suggests-we-are-reaching-peak-energy-demand/

    Reverse Engineer, August 26, 2015 at 7:38 pm
    There is a lot in Part 3 of the Collapse Cafe TSHTF Vidcast with Gail's view on Renewables, as well as Nicole Foss's views and my own

    You can find all 3 Parts we got recorded last Sunday on the Collapse Cafe You Tube Channel,

    RE

    John Doyle , August 26, 2015 at 8:17 am

    We certainly need an economic model which accommodates a downturn in our civilization. I don't think it is impossible but the longer we remain inactive the less likely we will be to avoid chaos no matter what we do. Governments need to survive but the way they behave these days is not conducive to trust, being so partisan and polarised one one side and head in the sand ignorant on the other. It all looks just so unlikely that we will pull any rabbit out of the hat, even temporarily.
    Michael , August 26, 2015 at 8:02 pm
    Mr. Doyle, I agree with your statement on a need for an economic which accommodates a downturn. Have you found any proposals yet? I've done some jury rigging of models for such but have not found any good alternatives.
    Gail Tverberg , August 28, 2015 at 4:08 pm
    The continuing debt part is the hard part. Very short term works, but longer term doesn't.

    [Sep 11, 2015] Iranian Oil Minister Output to Return After Sanctions Lift, $80 Crude Would Be 'Fair'

    Contradictory statements. On one hand Iran wants $80per barrel prices, on the other is ready to serve as a Trojan horce to keep oil prices low. That's probaly the ffect of Bloomberg reporting ;-).

    Bloomberg Business

    Oil at $70 to $80 a barrel would be "fair," he said. Brent crude, the global benchmark, fell as much as 2.3 percent to $48.40 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange and traded at $49.12 at 3:36 p.m. local time. Brent sold for as much as $102.86 a barrel a year ago.

    ... ... ...

    OPEC said in a bulletin from its Vienna-based secretariat on Monday that the group won't shoulder the burden of propping up prices by cutting supply on its own, and non-member producers would have to contribute. OPEC will protect its interests and there is "no quick fix" for market instability, it said.

    ... ... ...

    Iran plans to produce 3.8 million to 3.9 million barrels of oil a day by March, with output rising by 500,000 barrels a day soon after sanctions are lifted and by 1 million barrels within the following five months, Zanganeh said. Iran is producing 2.8 million barrels a day, its highest level in three years, and is exporting more than 1 million barrels a day, he said.

    Iran has about 60 million barrels of condensate in floating storage and has no crude stored offshore, Zanganeh said.

    "Immediately after lifting sanctions, it's our right to return to the level of production we historically had," Zanganeh said. "We have no other choice," he said. A slump in oil prices won't slow Iran's return to the market, he said.

    [Sep 11, 2015] IEA Sees U.S. Shale Oil Shrinking in 2016 on Price Slump

    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    U.S. shale oil production will drop 9 percent next year as a crude price below $50 a barrel "slams brakes" on years of supply growth, the International Energy Agency said.

    "Oil's downward spiral to fresh six-year lows below $50 a barrel has dimmed the prospects for a recovery in U.S. drilling activity," the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly market report Friday. Unless oil prices "bounce back in coming months," supply is forecast to fall by 385,000 barrels a day next year to 3.9 million barrels a day.

    ...Unless oil prices "bounce back in coming months," supply is forecast to fall by 385,000 barrels a day next year to 3.9 million barrels a day.

    ... ... ...

    Drilling activity and output levels are unlikely to rebound following the cuts in oil producers' capital spending, the agency said. The number of oil rigs active in the U.S. has fallen by almost 60 percent over the past year, standing at 662 in the week to Sept. 4, according to Baker Hughes Inc.

    This has translated into five weeks of declines in U.S. production, the longest retreat in almost 11 years. Total output currently stands at 9.13 million barrels a day, a 5 percent drop from the all-time high of 9.61 million reached on June 5, according to Department of Energy data.

    Continuous investment is needed for production to keep flowing from U.S. shale oil wells, which have "steep decline rates," the IEA said. Output per well tends to decline by an average of 72 percent from initial production rates within 12 months of the well having started, forcing operators to keep drilling to offset the decline.

    U.S. shale oil producers may have to contend with a funding squeeze from capital markets that's seen impacting their ability to drill, Citigroup Inc. said earlier this week. The U.S. bank estimates as much as half a million barrels a day may be cut by year-end.

    ... ... ...

    Drilling and completion of wells will drop by a further 20 percent to 70 percent next year, the IEA predicted. "Impressive increases in productivity" have helped offset the slowdown in drilling and tempered ensuing drop in production, it said. U.S. shale oil producers would also be the first ones to respond should market conditions improve, the IEA said

    [Sep 11, 2015] How Low Can Oil Go Goldman Says $20 a Barrel Is a Possibility

    The first question is standard: Is squid, like always, trying to talk his own book ? Now it looks like the key idea behind Iran deal is to use them as a Trojan horse to keep oil prices low.
    "...Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh has vowed to increase output by 1 million barrels a day once sanctions are removed as the nation seeks to regain market share."
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    The global surplus of oil is even bigger than Goldman Sachs Group Inc. thought and that could drive prices as low as $20 a barrel.

    While it's not the base-case scenario, a failure to reduce production fast enough may require prices near that level to clear the oversupply, Goldman said in a report e-mailed Friday while cutting its Brent and WTI crude forecasts through 2016. The International Energy Agency predicted that crude stockpiles will diminish in the second half of next year as supply outside OPEC declines by the most since 1992.

    "The oil market is even more oversupplied than we had expected and we now forecast this surplus to persist in 2016," Goldman analysts including Damien Courvalin wrote in the report. "We continue to view U.S. shale as the likely near-term source of supply adjustment."

    ... ... ...

    Goldman trimmed its 2016 estimate for West Texas Intermediate to $45 a barrel from a May projection of $57 on the expectation that OPEC production growth, resilient supply from outside the group and slowing demand expansion will prolong the the glut. The bank also reduced its 2016 Brent crude prediction to $49.50 a barrel from $62.

    ... ... ...

    The Paris-based IEA forecast Friday that production outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will fall by 500,000 barrels a day to 57.7 million in 2016. Shale oil production in the U.S. will drop by 385,000 barrels a day next year as a crude price below $50 a barrel "slams brakes" on years of growth, the agency said in its monthly market report.

    ... ... ..

    The U.S. pumped 9.14 million barrels a day of oil last week, according to data from the Energy Information Administration. While the EIA this week cut its 2015 output forecast for the nation by 1.5 percent to 9.22 million barrels a day, production this year is still projected to be the highest since 1972. U.S. crude stockpiles remain about 100 million barrels above the five-year seasonal average.

    Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran will drive supply growth from OPEC, Goldman said. The group, which supplies about 40 percent of the world's crude, has produced above its 30-million-barrel-a-day quota for the past 15 months.

    Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh has vowed to increase output by 1 million barrels a day once sanctions are removed as the nation seeks to regain market share.

    [Sep 11, 2015] These Four Charts Show How Obama's Leverage Over Xi Is Increasing

    "...China still holds $1.27 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, making it the biggest foreign holder of the government debt as of June. But its share of all foreign holdings of Treasuries has been steadily declining. "
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    With sluggish demand around the world, China is increasingly reliant on American consumers and companies to buy its goods. In fact, if current trends hold, China will pass Canada this year as America's biggest trading partner. China's exports to the U.S. have climbed 6.1 percent in the first eight months of 2015 from a year earlier, compared with a 1.4 percent drop in exports worldwide. So Xi needs to ensure that America remains a happy customer, while President Barack Obama can rest easier from a trade standpoint, given that U.S. exports to China are a proportionally much smaller slice of the U.S. economy.

    ... ... ...

    Capital has flowed out of China to the tune of $610 billion in the 12 months through July 2015, compared with an inflow of $224 billion through July 2014, based on data compiled by Bloomberg. That's the worst pace in data going back to 2007. Because of the sharp pullback in investment, China has become and will remain a next exporter of capital "for the foreseeable future," putting money into manufacturing and real estate in the U.S., said David Dollar, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution in Washington who was previously a U.S. Treasury official in Beijing.

    ... ... ...

    China still holds $1.27 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, making it the biggest foreign holder of the government debt as of June. But its share of all foreign holdings of Treasuries has been steadily declining. That proportion stands at 20.6 percent, down from a peak of 28.2 percent in 2011. And it could be poised to fall even further: China's foreign-exchange reserves plummeted by a record $94 billion in August, after a $43 billion drop in July, as the government sold assets to defend the yuan.

    ... ... ...

    Willem Buiter at Citigroup said that China in reality is growing at closer to a 4 percent pace, far below the government's stated rate of 7 percent. (The U.S. reported an annual pace of 3.7 percent GDP expansion for the second quarter.)

    [Sep 10, 2015] Russia complains of 'strange hysteria' over its presence in Syria by Shaun Walker in Moscow and Ian Black in Damascus

    "...I think Cameron & co. planned to use the refugee situation as a pretext for a humanitarian intervention against Assad and Putin put some boots on the ground to prevent that as last thing we'll risk at this stage is blowing up russians. Sorta what he did with his fleet parked at the Syrian coast when carriers were already in position to strike. Wrong or right, gotta admire the mans ability to read and preempt our moves time and time again."
    Sep 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    Moscow responds to concerns from US by saying its military-technical cooperation with Syria is nothing out of the ordinary

    gossy 10 Sep 2015 19:35

    There is no plan, no ideas, no apparent way out for Washington based neo-cons to get out of a trap of their own devising. "Regime change" in the middle east region instigated by them has been an unmitigated disaster! Arming, funding, and training the precursors of ISIS - the Jihadi proxies to bring down Assad with no plan of what to put in his place - has wrecked the middle east and triggered a growing regional conflict.

    The masses of refugees fleeing the region have poured into Europe and threaten to destabilise the EU and some national governments there.

    The key to solving the middle east's problems and the refugee crisis thus starts and finishes with the decisions taken in Washington. Either get rid of the neo cons or watch Europe go down as "collateral damage" too.


    TheCorporateClass -> quorkquork 10 Sep 2015 19:24

    And one of Assad's message to Christian America??

    In the interview, conducted before the ouster of Morsi, Assad said the Egyptian protest marked "the fall of what is known as political Islam."

    "Anywhere in the world, whoever uses religion for political aims, or to benefit some and not others, will fail," ASSAD said.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d9c_1372962367


    TheCorporateClass -> Oldiebutgoodie 10 Sep 2015 19:22

    excellent thx for that.

    I remember that Clarke chat and other things he said.

    Did you ever notice how Gen Petraeus was suddenly rolled in a sex scandal? (not dissimilar to Gov Spitzer who was screaming about the financial markets corruption in Jan 2008)

    That's who Kilcullen worked closely with in Iraq first off, and who Bush flew to Iraq to speak to personally, leaving the rest of his war cabinet at the Camp David retreat and they didn't know where he went. That's when the surge was announced.
    The other surprising plus about GW Bush was in the last year, when Bush found out he had been snowed over the torture etc, Cheney and several others were totally shut out. I don't think they have spoken since.

    Meanwhile Elliot Abrams, PNAC neocon wizard is in Oz atm, when the Syria extension has been announced .... scummy lying psychopath prick that he is! (is that allowed to be said on the US version of TG? Or am I likely to be extradited? LOL )

    MikeBenn -> TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 19:06

    Ukraine is a correction of what was stolen after WW1 and WW2, now the Russians want there stuff back. I say let them have it, if US was smart they would realize Russia could've been the best friend in the area they could've had. If they play their cards right it still maybe possible.

    TheCorporateClass Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015

    I'm deeply offended. You imagine I am a complete idiot with no discernment or any ability to find credible information for myself. How could you. :(
    You are overpaid ... even if you're doing this for free.
    MikeBenn -> HollyOldDog 10 Sep 2015
    If the west would've let Russia finish what they were doing in Chechyna we wouldn't have to worry about them in the Middle East. What Corporate Class is talking about in Fallujah rings much truth, you know US marines had to stand by while these animals escaped from there. Them same people killed a lot of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wait until you see what they are doing in Bosnia.
    TheCorporateClass TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015
    PS and since Merkle and Holland took tea with Putin at the Kremlin, do tell what France and Germany have had to say about Ukraine or Putin ever since?

    Besides absolutely nothing.

    Guestt Bob adda 10 Sep 2015
    I know it's easy to conjure up a conspiracy, but tell me why it took seven years in Iraq, including the surge, to stabilize it? Our government at the time thought it would take much less time and they were wrong. Perhaps this administration is aware of this and are leery about a repeat. Perhaps this administration also does not want civilian casualties, or as few as possible.


    HollyOldDog thomas142 10 Sep 2015

    There are other influences operating on the Graudian now.


    psygone buttonbasher81 10 Sep 2015

    It's simply a good excuse for Russia to play its 'ISIS Threat' card and help Assad to keep on mass-murdering his own people.

    With only 16 percent of the country left in Assad's desparete hands and Russian weapons now pouring in, expect the genocide numbers to climb significantly.


    TheCorporateClass Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

    Don't blame Dinkylou for the US Military in Iraq being ordered NOT to count civilian casualties.

    Gosh after repeated requests for info about a few missing journalists and being told repeatedly, sorry "we know nuffink", when out came a Collateral Damage video from the evil Wikileaks showing exactly what happened to them .... it was only 3 years after the event.

    But no, in Luminaire's strange world, 500,000 was a lie - nothing else. There really were WMD all over Iraq too.
    I hope you are getting paid, because to do this for free, wow, what a loser choice that is. You're worth at least a buck a day!

    Oldiebutgoodie TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015


    You're right, thomas,

    it's Important to re-read past articles - refresh memory and perspective.
    Too much info to recall on how things developed, and what leaders said what.

    Important interview w/ Retired Gen. Clark about U.S & M.E. 2007
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KkNAQIuGZY

    TheCorporateClass Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

    Ever heard of Fallujah?

    TheCorporateClass eminijunkie 10 Sep 2015

    I can't [see] this becoming a major war,
    Said Eisenhower and Kennedy about Vietnam .... and said GW Bush about Afghanistan and Iraq ... when both the latter are pretty much ongoing, when Ukraine and Pakistan are still a basket cases? You're a glass half full kinda guy :)


    HollyOldDog Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

    There doesn't appear to be an ideal Chechen solution, there are Chechen fighters within Islamic State and in Ukraine, where there are fractions fighting for the East and others fighting for the west. I can only assume that the Chechens are basically a warrior race that likes to have battle holidays. In the past there were even a few thousand to be fighting in Kosova during the breakup of former Yugoslavia. At least when these 'holiday fighters' go home they can rest quietly from their exertions and live in greater peace.

    TheCorporateClass Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015

    It's what comes back that's the reason we don't use them...
    Quid pro quo mean anything to you? Or is life always a one way street where you live? :)

    As for attacking ISIS , fine, I don't know why Assad and ISIS have been mostly avoiding each other for so long...benefits them both I suppose
    You don't think that given ISIS is in the East and the Assad govt forces in the West, and the rest of the rebels are in the middle might possibly have something to do with that?
    Not to mention the US group is flying a few sorties a day into the ISIS region, or so they "claim" at least could make a difference to fundamental and very basic military strategies of war?

    buttonbasher81 10 Sep 2015

    Not sure what the Russians are hoping to carve out with any action in Syria? Maybe prop up Assad, protect their military base or maybe even they're genuinely scared of what a total collapse of Assad will mean for the caucuses? Whatever reason it doesn't seem to be a large scale intervention, so I can't see it achieving much apart from adding another faction to an already heavily fractured war zone.

    TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015

    Here ya go, try this on on for size my dear american friends .....

    ........the point is the strategic interest of Russia...the only country extant that can reduce America to a pile of rubble in approximately 32 minutes from the "go" command?

    If Qatari gas gets to Europe then Americas grip on Europe becomes stronger.....and by deduction Russia becomes weaker

    If Qatari gas fails to get to Europe then Americas grip on Europe becomes weaker....and by deductuon Russia becomes stronger.

    Which may go some way to explaining why Russia is expanding the Latakia air head and moving military air traffic control in there?

    Syria and Iran do the ground fighting...Russia supplies the hardware, intelligence and training........there's been some American manufactured and IDF operated losses already according to some sources....which may explain why the IAF has been absent from Syrian skies for the lats week and Kerry is running around like a headless chicken?

    The big game hasn't even begun yet....

    Assad to remain in power as long as Russia needs him....

    Yes, no, or don't know?

    A_Cappella Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

    The U.S. "ally", Saudi Arabia is the biggest financier and provider of personnel for radical causes in the Mideast. And, the U.S. was the one that left Iraq as a failed state and managed to leave a completely destabilized situation.

    A_Cappella 10 Sep 2015

    First the European powers made a mess of things in the Mideast. Then the U.S got in there and mucked around, leaving a colossal mess and disastrous destabilization. Might as well let Russia back in there to complete the job.

    TheCorporateClass Bosula 10 Sep 2015

    How well did the world's most powerful military and air force (luftwaffe) do in the Battle of Britain?

    And who lost that war again?

    American Military Intelligence - a contradiction in terms.

    American Democracy - another contradiction in terms.

    Havingalavrov TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015

    Here you go...

    http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/weapons-of-isis.asp

    Oldiebutgoodie TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015

    I watched the clip you posted by the guardian of Assad's speech.
    It was only a clip
    The following is the whole speech w/English translation:

    Full Speech by Assad at Damascus on 1/5/13, about fighting ISIL
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGeGHVAjG5c

    TheCorporateClass Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015

    The West is indirectly responsible for that downed MH17 flight.
    Until the EU did it's underhanded deal, Nuland and co did her thing, and McCain et al rocked up to support the neo-nazi militias and murdering street thugs there was no Civil War in Ukraine either.
    nah, I must be imagining all that, apparently, it never even happened.

    TheCorporateClass Luminaire 10 Sep 2015

    they're laying the groundwork (wittingly or otherwise) for massive civilian casualties,
    As opposed to what - 4 years of massive civilian causalities?
    And before that Libyan massive civilian causalities?
    And before that Iraqi massive civilian causalities?
    And before that Pakistani massive civilian causalities?
    And before that Afghanistan massive civilian causalities?
    Gosh is that a pattern, or am I dreaming?

    ThomasPaine2 10 Sep 2015

    What a smart and canny operator that Mr Putin is.....

    For months we've been told how awful (our creation) ISIS is... barbaric, head-choppers, rapists and defilers. Mr Assad has been struggling to defeat them... the west apparently wants them defeated but strangely reluctant to engage them seriously.... and instead of being grateful that the Russians might help out, they are being rumbled. If you really despise ISIS, you should support Putin and Assad.

    I have thought for a long time now, that it was rather strange that a kaffir and zionist-hating ideological bunch of terrorists have done nothing against Israel. Why not? Why does it only attack Israel's enemies?

    TheCorporateClass Golelt 10 Sep 2015

    Which is the lesser of three Evils: Assad or ISIL or America?

    TheCorporateClass -> MARSHHAWK 10 Sep 2015

    Would you take in refugees that your nation are fighting against in their own country?
    You mean like the US, saudis, qatar, uae, Australia, UK, and Israel ...
    Israel has taken no displaced persons even on a temporary basis ... all that free open land in the west back and the negev going to waste.

    Oldiebutgoodie Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 17:49

    Meant to post this link to the full interview mentioned bellow.
    This is probably been seen before, just re-visiting policies that led to this.
    Hilary Sec. of State and James Baker former Sec. State interview: 6/20/12
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpJWsryvVrc

    Dinkylou Luminaire 10 Sep 2015 17:46

    You know what gets me about these western fundamentalist sock-puppets...is they think they can rain bombs down on people for a whole year at least... & not make civilian casualties...Not only do they deny that they were killing civilians but they also lie about how many...they report a measly 100,000 but meanwhile half a million is more like it ...& that was only in 2003.

    Oldiebutgoodie Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 17:44

    Mmmm= all this was in the making for many years. The reasons? I don't know . Oil, power, both? But we see the conditions in M.E., Libya and Syria...

    I feel i both parties are responsible. All those at the top involved in the decision making, as well as other leaders in Western countries who wanted a piece of the action.
    A must see, boring at times, but listen closely to what they're saying, and note how gleefully they speak of what they're planning.
    **Hilary and former Sec. of State Baker admit wanting to destabilize Syria.**
    This interview 6/20/12 on Charlie Rose Show PBS.
    Enlightening and disturbing.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF0JyZwqGoQ

    TheCorporateClass seancon 10 Sep 2015 17:42

    What is a "real" Syrian?

    Then, who are the 18 million, including the 6-8 million internally displaced, people currently in Syria? Floridians on vacation maybe?

    TheCorporateClass Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015 17:38

    Yes, Assad is one powerful dude. Barrel bombs the most sophisticated munitions on the planet today. With all his weaponary, including his cache of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and worlds greatest stockpile of chemical weapons ever amassed in human history, well he should win this civil war fighting peasants with peashooters in a few weeks.

    (oh shit, hang on, it started 4 years ago .. I must have missed something)

    So where did the rebels, al queda, al nusra, isis, and all the rest get 4 years worth of arms, munitions, cannon, sams, medical aid, food, beverages, bank transfers, containers full of USDs from?

    Couldn't be Santa Clause because they ain't Christians!

    TheCorporateClass davearnold 10 Sep 2015 17:29

    Assad is a natural ally of the west. We can do business with this guy.
    Sure the day after the State of Israel shuts up shop, the Federation of Palestine is created.

    TheCorporateClass psygone 10 Sep 2015 17:21

    And be assured it has nothing at all to do with the continued blocking of the Iranian gas pipeline to Europe through Syria, nor the more expansive as yet untapped (huge gas field) Qatari plan to run a gas pipeline through Iraq/Syria, and it's absolutely nothing to do with the US/NATO fascist coup in Ukraine to cut off the oil/gas channel from Russia to Europe to help their Saudi/Qatari allies and business partners in Halliburton et al ... nothing at all. All totally an irrelevant coincidence. because the light on the hill America, always stands with it's democratic pro-human rights partners for Peace. (oh hang about .... um)

    The Iranian gas comes from the South Pars Field and the Qatari gas from the North Dome both part of the same geological structure.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pars_/_North_Dome_Gas-Condensate_field

    btw, what's the pay like? I'm good at writing advertising copy too.

    DrKropotkin BigNowitzki 10 Sep 2015 17:15

    9/11 - inside job. Protocols , a forgery. MH17 - shot down by some miscreant on the Kiev side to get Western backing for their battle against the Donbas.

    What's your view on. Sinking of the Maine. JFK and MLK assignations. The Gulf of Tonkin incident. Dead Kuwaiti babies thrown from their incubators by Sadam's troops. Sadam's WMD, Qadaffi's Viagra powered raping soldiers, the Ghouta gas attack and the Maidan snipers? To name but a few of the things that people were called conspiracy theorists for questioning.

    TheCorporateClass psygone 10 Sep 2015 17:11

    Of course, aren't we silly, it's the United Nations fault.
    Never could it be the American public's responsibility who forked out, was it $3 trillion or more to completely destroy the nation of Iraq and 500,000 dead (who's counting those) and several million refugees over nothing?

    TheCorporateClass Canadianidol 10 Sep 2015 17:07

    Assad in Syria is a rank amateur!

    Grand total of war deaths: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (1954-1975) 2.5 to 3.5 Million. That's how to do it properly.

    Bosula swpz_ss01 10 Sep 2015 17:07

    Exactly. No discussion of this in our local paper in South Australia. We have one major state newspaper - Murdoch's The Adelaide Advertiser. It is an appalling right wing newspaper - only good to light the fire with.

    Murdoch owns something like 60 per cent of the press in Australia.

    Jean-François Guilbo 10 Sep 2015 17:06

    If the Russians were able to eradicate IS in 12 months, while the coalition has announced they would struggle to achieve it in a decade:
    The coalition would appear unefficient, weak and faces a credibility issue.
    Russia is not welcome in this race who should keep its snail pace.

    peterpierce24 10 Sep 2015 16:28

    If history really repeats itself (as some prominent historians claim) then closest analogue of the civil war in Syria in the past should be Spanish civil war in 1930s, in my opinion.

    Gazth Sonika Havingalavrov 10 Sep 2015 16:27

    Keep trolling, maybe some nitwit somewhere will listen to you.

    Gazth Sonika Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 16:24

    Addendum: and why aren't you people calling out Turkey for their suspiciously porous border with Syria? Is it that hard to secure it? And how about the West blowing up the Isis-held oil? Hmm? Why do I keep seeing images of Isis cronies driving around in brand new Nissans? Who the hell is selling them that many cars? And why the hell do they still have paved roads?? What the hell is the West even bombing over there??

    mp66 TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 16:15

    Maybe thats exactly the strategy russians and syrians are going for - a combination of closely coordinated ground force with tactical air support (primarily attack helicopters) will probably be much more efficient rolling back daesh than random picking off based on faulty or missing intelligence.

    Gazth Sonika 10 Sep 2015 16:13

    Listen you propaganda trolls: The West is indirectly responsible for that drowned Turkish boy, his brother and their mother. Why? Because they destabilized the region by removing Saddam and Gaddafi and have been trying to remove Assad to finish things off. Who do you think will rule Syria if Assad goes? The peaceful rebels? How did that go in Libya and Iraq? Hmm? Come on, tell me how it went! Hello? Anyone? Let me recall the last time I read about head-chopping, sadistic child rapists and floating dead children in the water. Hmmm, oh yeah that's right: never before.

    So shut the hell up with your anti-Assad and Putin nomsense, they're the only ones actually trying to fight Isis. Isn't it odd that the US, which loves sending in troops everywhere for any goddamned reason has pulled out of the one area they should have troops in?

    Heyyy, what's that smell? *sniff sniff* I smell bullshit.

    thomas142 psygone 10 Sep 2015 16:11

    A sad state of affairs indeed. Tens of thousands killed by Country's leader or millions killed by US bombs. What a choice !

    Erdogan Krimvitz geedeesee 10 Sep 2015 16:11

    I see that studying at a polytechnic really doesn't develop critical thinking facilities. Let me spell it out from 2002-2009 there was a clear policy to try and get rid of Assad if possible. Both of us agree on this. Since 2009 and the election of Obama there has been an attempt led by Obama to cosy up to the Iranian axis of which Assad is one part. Obama, other than making a couple of empty threats against Assad actually does the exact opposite of trying to topple him. Thanks to Obama and his bombing campaign against "ISIS", Assad has plenty of time to barrel bomb non-ISIS held territory and add to the civilian death toll in Syria. If Obama suddenly started bombing the kurds in Iraq and Syria under the argument that the PKK are a proscribed terrorist organisation would you say he was providing military support to Turkey or fighting a war against terror?

    I'm no fan of ISIS and think they should be destroyed alongside Assad but can see the hypocrisy of the situation. Hence also the reason that all the Western leaders including Cameron also pay lip service to toppling Assad.... As they say talk is cheap.

    juster 10 Sep 2015 16:10

    I think Cameron & co. planned to use the refugee situation as a pretext for a humanitarian intervention against Assad and Putin put some boots on the ground to prevent that as last thing we'll risk at this stage is blowing up russians. Sorta what he did with his fleet parked at the Syrian coast when carriers were already in position to strike. Wrong or right, gotta admire the mans ability to read and preempt our moves time and time again.

    Erdogan Krimvitz Bob adda 10 Sep 2015 15:46

    Really, what exactly is bombing ISIS if not actively supporting Assad? They are the major threat to his regime and thanks to the allies bombing campaign he can focus on consolidating his grip on other areas - basically bombing the sh*t out of the civilian population and the non-Islamist rebels. Now if the West has also been bombing Assad's positions or enforcing a no fly zone as they did against Saddam and Gaddafi that would be trying to topple him but as you say not a glimmer, a glimpse, a whisper, nothing, nadda.....

    lefthalfback2 Archie Archieson 10 Sep 2015 15:44

    The media are clearly slanting thier stories and the narrative to push for open borders and societal acceptance of massive immigration. There is a new story just posted here on which comments are not allowed. We can ask why-but we know. The opposition was massive and well-articulated.

    Hungary is going to erect a fence and patrol its borders to stop the inflow. The migrants are pushing hard to get thru Hungary to Austria and germany before that happens. It is not complicated.

    Germany took a unilateral act with continent-wide implications. It did the same thing in 1990, when it unilaterally recognized Croatia and Slovenia- two of its very best and most willing allies in WW2. All that did was trigger 10 years of war in the Balkans.

    Archie Archieson lefthalfback2 10 Sep 2015 15:37

    In any situation such as this you can find individual cases which illustrate any point you want to make. I am sure there is a whole menagerie of journalists and other operatives working hard to find individual stories which suit the narratives of their various paymasters. But the "truth" of the issue is in a narrative which explains the whole picture, however informative individual cases may be.

    Inclement 10 Sep 2015 15:25

    So Nato is increasingly worried about the Russians? Boots on the ground are he only means that will defeat ISIL. A pity the rest of the world won't send troops to do the job. Then again it takes balls and Nato haven't got any unless it is to bomb [ civilians ] from the air..

    Dimmus psygone 10 Sep 2015 15:15

    1) US with allies were always able to do what they want without the UN security council approval, only few of examples are Serbia and Iraq. => It is not anything happening in the UN security council which "prevents" US from doing something.
    2) US were not really prevented to act as US don't listen anyone, was and is acting. Just real goals and political words are very different things.

    Dimmus psygone 10 Sep 2015 15:14

    In the article you cite there is no answer. There are lies and pro-US propaganda only. Just listen what Ban Ki-moon says in the video and what the 'free and independent' journalists wrote he had said.

    TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 15:09

    Even US DoD FOI documents published several months back showed US fully aware before 2010 that Al Queda in Iraq (later to become rebranded as ISIL/ISIS) were planning had intentions of a Iraq/Syria Caliphate STATE and everything that has since transpired was of no surprise at all. Just sayin' feel free to go looking for 'confirmation/facts' and make up your own mind.

    Meanwhile back in Jan 2013 in a Guardian report:
    The Syrian leader referred repeatedly to plots against his country and the role of al-Qaida, long-portrayed as the leading element in what began as a popular uprising in March 2011. Syria was not facing a revolution but a "gang of criminals", ASSAD said.
    "This war targets Syria using a handful of Syrians and many foreigners."
    Assad also thanked Russia, China and Iran for supporting Syria in the face of hostility from the US, Britain and France.
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/06/syria-president-assad-public-speech


    On 8 April 2013, al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that al-Nusra Front had been established, financed, and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq, and that the two groups were merging under the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham"

    Useful for anyone keeping an historical timeline.

    JiminNH psygone 10 Sep 2015 15:01

    More psyops from psygo

    The Sunni majority armed forces, led by generals the majority of whom are Sunni, fight on behalf of their national government, the majority of the Cabinet being Sunni, against foreign jihadi invaders of the medieval Wahabi/Salafist sects who are funded, armed and trained by the western NATO governments, including Turkey, their despotic monarchical allies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are the font from which the Wahabi terrorist emanate, ably assisted by western ally Israel.

    It is well established that the "Arab Spring" was the tool of western secret services, part of the plan to topple (mostly secular) Arab governments spoken about by former NATO commander Gen Wesley Clark; Syria is one of the few remaining after we toppled Khadafy and dismembered Sudan, etc.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    Unlike unproven claims of Russian intervention, we have proof of all western intervention, to include Serena Shim being eliminated, likely by Turkish secret services, for proving that NATO's Incirlik airbase in Turkey was used to ship western arms to ISIS in Kobani (in "humanitarian aid" trucks no less)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2799924/mystery-american-journalist-killed-car-crash-turkey-just-days-claimed-intelligence-services-threatened-coverage-siege-kobane.html

    Turkey being the shipment point for the gas that the rebels used at Ghouta as a black flag operation to incite the US & NATO arforces to reprise their roles as the "Jihadi Air Force" ala Libya 2011-2012

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
    and Israel's proven history of bombing government forces when they are fighting against al Nusra, al Qaeda and even ISIS, as in the Battle of Zabadani today.

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150910/1026822667.html

    Israel makes no secret of its preference for al Qaeda to seize Syria, and are proving it with their airstrikes some 28 miles north Damascus and further still from the Israeli border.

    http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/06/04/israeli-officials-wed-prefer-al-qaeda-run-syria-to-an-assad-victory/

    So that al Qaeda and ISIS can make Syria look like Libya, on steroids

    But something tells me you know all that already, and are fine with it.

    TheCorporateClass 10 Sep 2015 14:44

    Side note: Australian Defense Minister today, after announcing Aus has agreed US request to expand air sorties into Syria against ISIS only targets, said the Govts expectation it will take another 2 to 3 years at least before ISIS could be "destroyed". PM Abbott later gave that short shift saying there was no timeline, it could take longer.

    Alternatively a few ago ex-Australian Col David Kilcullen, of Iraq counter insurgency fame, in print and media interviews said that a minor ground force of 5,000 US troops with air support could completely destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria in as little as a few WEEKS. But also said there was no interest in such a plan in Washington.

    You work it out.

    Dimmus Willothelurcher 10 Sep 2015 14:41

    " we realise Assad might have been better than Assad/IS/A Nusra/Al Quaidi chaos currently running amok in Syria."

    - it depends who "we" are. Many people realized from the beginning that support of islamists including terrorists by western countries was a bad idea. For politicians it does not matter what they think, they just do what US rulers say them to do and cover it in 'human rights' words, usually meaning the right for US to bomb humans.

    Willothelurcher 10 Sep 2015 14:30

    Russia has long been open about its support for Assad.

    It may be that a stable Syria under Assad, a stable Libya under Ghaddafi and a stable Iraq under Saddam Hussein are preferable to the chaos we see today?

    If finishing Assad is in the collective US/UK view 'the way to go' then for everyone's sake drone him and his family to a million pieces. He cannot be as hard to locate as a few British Jihadi in ISIS Syrian enclaves?

    Zap Assad and get the 'meltdown' finished.

    However I have a suspicion that right now we realise Assad might have been better than Assad/IS/A Nusra/Al Quaidi chaos currently running amok in Syria.

    glauben 10 Sep 2015 14:08

    The question is : what prevented the US from acting to stop the slaughter in Syria two years ago. Did George Bush castrate him? Or Libya? Now murderous Putin thinks it obligatory to get into the slaughter. But he hardly show the west how it is done. At leaast he does not hin k to ask what the US Chamber of Commerce thinks? No wonder crazy Netanyanu(not so crazy on this one but on everything else) would question The Iran deal. Every scenario seems more and more horrible.

    Chillskier psygone 10 Sep 2015 14:05

    Says malfunctioning natobot,
    The Sunny majority you are talking about is called al-quida according to your own operating manual

    duncandunnit Putzik 10 Sep 2015 13:47

    please behave, the usa is the biggest cocaine consumer in the world year 15k die in mexico each year due to drug distribution violence. The USA is a hypocrite.

    EcoNasty Had2Say 10 Sep 2015 13:43

    Actually we were happily selling weapons to the Suharto regime whilst he was bombing villagers in East Timor but that aside, I was merely using these as illustrations of how we have been happy to turn a blind eye to murderous bastards when it suits our geopolitical ambitions in the past so it is hypocrisy to claim that Assad should go on the grounds he bombed civilians (not sure the chemical wespons attacks have actually been proven after questionable newsfootage supposedly in the aftermath and uncertainty about which side was actually responsible)

    (Oh and I have reread my post several times and fail to see how you can infer I'm 'anti US' ...I'm anti us making an unbelievably stupid error by (a) bombing that will achieve sod all strategically (b) demanding regime change when we know Russia won't agree to that and when the obvious outcome of Assad going would be utter chaos with violent extremist Islamic groups gaining an even firmer grip.

    Jeff1000 Chris Hindle 10 Sep 2015 13:33

    Exactly. That's why Kerry et al are anti-Russian help. Because the unspoken agenda here is that America and its allies want ISIS to win.

    flight2safety Botswana61 10 Sep 2015 13:30

    Hussein was supported with western weapons whilst he was fighting a proxy war against his neighbours. Same with the nerve gas which he used against the Kurds, supplied by the west. Germany were selling mustard gas to Assad. FFS.

    swpz_ss01 MARSHHAWK 10 Sep 2015 13:22

    If Russia really puts boots on the ground - eradicated ISIS (something they are fully capable of) those refugees, wouldn't be refugees anymore. They are no longer under attack and can go home.

    If anything, a Russian military presence in force would resolve the entire problem.

    aLLaguz Botswana61 10 Sep 2015 13:22

    Whats true .. is that US created the guerrilla that latter was called Taliban ... and it was created to fight USSR back in the 70's ...
    Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan was due to the 2 years war without soviet advances against that US-sponsored guerrila...
    US created that guerilla ...

    [Sep 10, 2015] Let Putin be your fitness inspiration hero by Maeve Shearlaw

    "...And to finish of this conversation I would say one thing - 'articles' like this and bitchy comments about Putin say nothing about him but say a lot about people who write them . Criticise if you have a need for that but don't slide to the level of a bitchy gossiper. I really, really despise it. Especially in men. Have a good morning"
    "...So the Guardian is putting time and effort to publicize a somewhat pointless and tasteless anonymous account on Instagram, making a news out of it? Why? Would the Guardian be as eager to publicize some tasteless parody on Merkel or Obama?"
    Sep 10, 2015 | The Guardian

    DogsLivesMatter -> FelixFeline 10 Sep 2015 18:19

    Okay Felix. I was making a little joke about Dubya, he did try to walk through a locked door once and he did give Merkel a shoulder rub. Perhaps he was still a drunk then, I don't really know, just making light banter is all.

    Corrections -> EstherBell 10 Sep 2015 16:36

    Umm...he's swimming for exercise, not to win races. Not meant to be "efficient'.

    Corrections -> Stoletov 10 Sep 2015 16:25

    Leaked: Obama's Workout /Putin's Workout
    NEWSFLASH: They both work out regularly. Why are you such a hater?

    Also see:
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jun/05/barack-obama-presidential-workout-warsaw-video

    Corrections -> Stoletov 10 Sep 2015 16:16

    Are you kidding? Putin was inspired by Michelle and Barack Obama pushing fitness, especially for children - check YouTube. I can't believe you're so ignorant!

    vr13vr -> George Kombucha 10 Sep 2015 14:53

    I'm in my US based office now and looking around, trying to find something made in the US. Oh, just found it! A pack of paper tissues. And that's about it.

    I'm quite serious. My Dell computer has Made in Mexico label, so do the monitors. I have couple of computer mice and keyboard, all labeled Dell and all made in China. A Lenovo laptop... well, we know it used to be the US company. Not a single thing that I'm wearing now is made in the US either. The computer chair is called Eurotek, but I doubt it is anywhere from a first world country. A Cruizer USB drive - from China. A floor fan with a heater - from China. There is white board on the wall, but I can't see the label. Pens, pencils and other office supply - I'm sure not from here either. A plastic cup - I need to look for a box. I'm sure Obama can ensure there are some US made things in his office but for me - none of that.


    Anna Joanna -> eastofthesun 10 Sep 2015 08:17

    Read the comments- bold, short, etc. what for? Talk about him as a politician, president , who cares , we all have different views , it's normal. Mythmaking? I personally like that he banned GMO from Russia and I like that he makes keeping fit cool


    tanyushka Olga Nicki Hancock 10 Sep 2015 07:06

    Russia has welcomed almost 1 million Ukranian refugees escaping Kiev's "anti-terrorist" operation, which is actually an ethnic cleansing operation... and it has just announced that it's ready to receive a substantial number of Syrian refugees... but of course you probably won't find the news in any of the Western propaganda media you are used to read or watch...


    Olga Nicki Hancock CrystalForce 10 Sep 2015 06:59

    Putin has always been supporting legitimate governments and not rebels and hannibals like US and their boot lickers have. Refugees crisis is a direct result of foreign policy of the west. We get what we fight for. Russia accepted millions of ukrannian refugees. Europe didn't take any.


    ATC2348 weciv01 10 Sep 2015 05:46

    I wish I was as fit as he looks ...I am exhausted just screaming "Hate" , "Hate", "Hate" at all those pictures the Guardian of the Truth are printing never mind all those silly stories about that Warmongering Monster who is obviously a threat to us and all we hold dear......and those poor two Russian "Toddlers" who dug their way out of a kindergarten to try and buy a Jag across the road....it's true ....I read yesterday on this very organ.


    todaywefight George Kombucha 10 Sep 2015 03:15

    Maybe he is not he may be genuinely likes Putin like many people on the west do, here is a guy who will NOT allow the US to "arm twisting" in accepting their malicious intent...Incidentally, who pays you or you just have not arguments therefore you just spout garbage


    todaywefight 10 Sep 2015 03:12

    Define propaganda:

    A newspaper that spouts this type of garbage and ignores what is happening in Ukraine vis a vis accusations by a crook Saakashvili against another crook, "Ytaz is our man" and his friendships with oligarchs one of which apparently was the recipient of 1.9 b dollars of " disappeared" IMF funds. The current governor of Odessa wanted in his own country for criminal acts is in the run to challenge Yatsenyuk for the Prime Ministership. But hey, Putin's exercises are more important than dealing with Poroshenko's, 3 plans to take back Donbass...and yes Crimea...one of which is full military intervention and not to stop until his glorious army reaches Moscow...mind you this poor imitation of walter mitty has understood the population might be a bit reticent about this plan.


    Anna Joanna FelixFeline 10 Sep 2015 02:09

    Send me the picture of your torso. A real one lol. And to finish of this conversation I would say one thing - 'articles' like this and bitchy comments about Putin say nothing about him but say a lot about people who write them . Criticise if you have a need for that but don't slide to the level of a bitchy gossiper. I really, really despise it. Especially in men. Have a good morning

    vr13vr 9 Sep 2015 22:47

    Since we don't like the picture of a leader showing some healthy life style, let's promote the picture of Obama eating hot dogs during campaign stop. Or better yet, Bill Clinton with his bacon cheeseburger and large order of fries.


    vr13vr 9 Sep 2015 22:39

    So the Guardian is putting time and effort to publicize a somewhat pointless and tasteless anonymous account on Instagram, making a news out of it? Why?

    Would the Guardian be as eager to publicize some tasteless parody on Merkel or Obama?

    [Sep 10, 2015] The Weaponization of Ignorance: the West's Go-To Experts by marknesop

    September 9, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    ... ... ...

    In order to be Doing The Right Thing, it is necessary for you to believe Russia is an isolated and reviled international pariah which has invaded its neighbor – Ukraine – with heavy armor, artillery and hundreds of thousands of uniformed soldiers in the country on state orders, and which shot down MH-17 so that it could blame it on innocent Ukraine (among other wild justifications). It is a country which makes nothing and is totally reliant on energy exports; backward, barbaric, uncultured and unlettered, deceitful and underhanded.

    An excellent example to start off with is Forbes, featuring the clownish oaf Paul Roderick Gregory. Mr. Gregory was one of the first to latch on to the scoop that Russia had inadvertently published the figures of its dead in the "Eastern Ukrainian Campaign", in a small, innocuous business newspaper called Delovaya Zhizn (Business Life). Then, the story goes, the government frantically deleted the information, but not before some sharp-eyed truthseekers hasd pounced on it and exposed it to the world. Yahoo – staunchly Russophobic in its news content – jumped on it as well. Social media dismembered it in hours and revealed it as a fake, while the purported representative of Business Life claimed the site had been hacked from a Kiev-registered IP on August 22nd, and the bogus data inserted long enough to be captured, then erased. The excitement the story caused in the media was something to see, and the Twitter storm – led by luminaries like Michael McFaul drawing attention to it for all they were worth – was furious while it lasted. Once it was exposed as a fake, the story just kind of…went away. Nobody said sorry.

    No western news story on Russia or Ukraine is complete without the insertion of the phrase "Russian aggression" like a trademark, and an assertion that Russia has large numbers of military troops in Ukraine although it cynically denies it. News sites regularly claim there is "pretty overwhelming evidence" that Russia and Putin are lying, but none of them ever cite any, and the United States refuses to release any satellite imagery confirming the purported troop movements or transit of armored columns. It must be sensitive about Putin's feelings, and is protecting him. Ha, ha.

    ... ... ...

    CNN's "Banned! 10 Things You Won't Find in Russia" is, unsurprisingly, horseshit. The law forbidding "gay propaganda" does not "mean anyone campaigning for LGBT rights or equating straight and gay relationships can be prosecuted. " It is quite specific that it may not be pitched to minor children, but the United States has become so chuffed with itself over how gay-friendly it is that it seems to think nobody is too young to learn how to do it the gay way. How about three – is three too young, do you think? Thinking about sending your gender nonconforming three-year-old son to Crossdresser Camp? I wonder if the other boys in his class – when he's, say 12 – are going to be as supportive? Gay adults can do as they please in Russia, as they always could, and homosexuality was legal in Russia ten years before the USA got around to saying it was okay to be gay.

    Anonymous blogs are illegal – oh, dear. That should be of great concern to the civil libertarians who are sharing their phone conversations with the NSA, have been for some time before it was revealed, and the NSA refuses to stop, while the government refuses to make them. National security, you know. Think about that next time you're discussing your hemorrhoids with your doctor on the telephone.

    Western food is banned; quite a lot of it, anyway. Why is that, CNN, again? Because of sanctions imposed against Russia. Why? Well, because the Russians shot down MH-17, of course! And before anyone calls tit-for-tat sanctions "childish", yes, they are. But you're talking to the country that changed the name of the American street on which the Soviet Embassy was located to "Andrei Sakharov Street", just for spite. The Wall Street Journal called it "simple but inspired". They were half-right: it was simple. Stay tuned for the U.S. Embassy to be on "Edward Snowden Boulevard".

    Foul language is banned from films and television. Oh, no. How could anyone sit through a movie in America if it was not non-stop swearing from start to finish…kind of like conversation is in the USA. Ridden a city bus lately? Honestly, America has become the proverbial caricature of itself, so obsessed with slagging off the Russians in an attempt to humiliate them that it portrays being The Sopranos from sea to shining sea as some kind of virtue.

    Drug related websites. The mind reels. Where is I gonna get my hit on, iffen I can't fin' my on-line dealer? CNN….man, I just don't know. I used to think, when I still watched CNN, probably about 10 years ago, that Wolf Blitzer was the worst thing about it. But now you is on a ho' notha level. Freedom…is drug-related websites.

    ... ... ...

    The Independent (owned by a Russian oligarch – oops! "Tycoon", I meant, which is how western newspapers sucked up to Poroshenko the Billionaire after he took over the presidency of Ukraine) reports, completely gratuitously, that Moscow is "the world's unfriendliest city"; so designated by a survey conducted among the readers of Travel & Leisure Magazine! Which had a total circulation, in 2011, of just under 971,000. Ha, ha!! Jesus, listen to yourselves, will you? More than twice as many people read Rolling Stone, Bon Appetit and Golf Digest as read Travel & Leisure. Take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut, Travel & Leisure! Who gives a toss what you think? We'll see all 971,000 of you in Galway, Ireland (rated the "friendliest" city), and you'd probably all fit.

    Timothy Snyder, eminent historian and defender of the Maidan, tells whoever will listen that Kiev is the only bilingual capital in Europe. Mind you, he also says Ukraine is a country of 50 million people, when he's actually spotting them about 10 million. Ukraine lost around 3 million people in 2014 – and you know where they went – and the population currently stands at just under 43 million according to the state statistics service. But what's a couple of million more or less? We routinely hear how a million or two well-educated and talented people rush for the exits in Russia every year, but by some miracle the population is increasing! The babushkas must be knitting new Russians in the basement at night, like the Keebler elves.

    There's no need to dissect Snyder's embarrassing knowledge deficit further – my colleague, Paul Robinson, does a wonderful job of that – but suffice it to say Kiev is far from the only bilingual capital in Europe. More importantly, Snyder is playing up the distinctive nature of Ukrainian as if being able to switch between Russian and Ukrainian is an accomplishment on a par with speaking French and English. Russian and Ukrainian are both East Slavic languages descended from a common root – the language of the medieval Kievan Rus – and are mutually intelligible; that is, the two have sufficient common elements that if you can speak one fluently, you will be able to understand much of the other.

    Get the picture? Western leaders, through the western media, rely on feted "experts" who do not know if their ass is bored or punched, but who nonetheless blather whatever their paymasters want to hear – and what they want to hear, pretty consistently, is that Russia is barbaric, weak and surly, reeling from sanctions which are wringing its economy like a dishrag. They want to hear that its population is steadily declining, thanks to its increasingly unpopular and unstable president. Timothy Garton Ash regularly paints a bloodcurdling – if you're a Russian – picture of a tottering giant about to topple. Edward Lucas, narcissistic British bonehead, rails against Putin's non-existent determination to bring the Baltics under his dictatorial command. Craaazzzy Annie Applebaum, Mrs former-Polish-political-wunderkind, snaps at her own entrails in a Russophobic delirium. Julia Ioffe. Luke Harding. Shaun Walker and Roland Oliphant. Simon Ostrovsky of Vice News. Rainbow-Brite Hater Jamie Kirchik of The Daily Beast. Too many to name them all, each pumping out soporific smoke that reassures westerners of their ongoing moral superiority and perspicacious judgment. All of it totally manufactured nonsense, delivered with a straight face in an atmosphere in which nobody wishes to challenge their accuracy, because it just feels so good to let go and believe.

    I'm not arguing this so the west will come to its senses and try to repair the damage it has done to international relationships, entirely owing to society's own myopic stupidity and epic eagerness to be fooled. It's much too late for that; Russia has reached the realization that it cannot be a partner to the west so long as Russia insists upon making its own decisions and following its own policies. Consequently, it is decisively turning away from the west and reordering its markets, its institutions and its partnerships. Some business relationships might recover, but the west will not be trusted again for a generation at least. Because you can't trust someone who will not listen to reason.

    I'm arguing it because the rest of the world is looking aghast at the west as if it had gotten drunk at their kids' birthday party and made an ass of itself, and it's embarrassing.

    et Al says: September 9, 2015 at 11:20 am

    Well Mark, the torrent of b/s spouted by the self-proclaimed and good will only serve one function in the end – something for Western Screaming Heads (TM) to drown in as none of what they produce actually makes a damn worth of difference. There is no talent preaching to the converted, but much of these so called credibly western institutions have also lost credibility with their own citizens. It's a model case of the decline and fall of empire & power. It's only going to get funkier.

    Meanwhile, as if on cue, the Brits are still playing at calling the shots:

    Neuters: UK softens tone against Syria's Assad, moots transition period
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/uk-mideast-crisis-syria-hammond-idUKKCN0R91SF20150909

    Britain could accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad staying in place for a transition period if it helped resolve the country's conflict, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Wednesday, in what appeared to be a softening of tone on the Syrian leader….

    …Reuters reported on Wednesday that Russian forces have begun participating in combat operations in Syria to help defend Assad's government, citing three Lebanese sources familiar with the political and military situation there.

    Hammond told parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee that a political rather than military solution was needed and said Britain had made clear to Russia and Iran, Assad's principal international allies, that it would be prepared to discuss a plan which saw him stay on temporarily.

    "If there is a sensible plan for transition that involves Assad remaining in some way involved in the process for a period of time we will look at that, we will discuss it. We are not saying he must go on day one," he said, adding that the transition could be a period of months….

    …Hammond rejected Russia's suggestion Syria could hold snap parliamentary elections which could see Assad share power.

    "That is not an acceptable position. The international community cannot in my view facilitate and oversee a set of elections in which somebody guilty of crimes of the scale that Assad has committed is able to run for office," he said…

    ####
    We'll not hang you now Bashar, we'll hang you a bit later. Deal?

    The Brits yet again speaking for the US. Who needs puppets when you can have a poodle? Woof!

    marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    That's the kind of stuff that makes me throw things. Jesus Q. Johnnycake, what is it with Britain and its conviction that the world is comprised of Britain, and her colonies, which she suffers to live only insofar as they conform to a standard of decorum bred in Whitehall? Poxy gits; "Britain could accept Syrian President Bashar al-Assad staying in place for a transition period if it helped resolve the country's conflict, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said on Wednesday". Is that so? What that has been instigated by the UK in the last decade would lead you to believe Britain's opinion was indispensable?

    "…Hammond rejected Russia's suggestion Syria could hold snap parliamentary elections which could see Assad share power.

    "That is not an acceptable position. The international community cannot in my view facilitate and oversee a set of elections in which somebody guilty of crimes of the scale that Assad has committed is able to run for office," he said…"

    That's because he knows full well Assad would win in a landslide, and the appropabation of his people cannot be allowed to interfere with Britain railroading him for war crimes without a trial. War crimes! Jesus Christ! What the fuck does he think has been goinmg on in Ukraine?? There's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of what's going on there and who's responsible for it, but "the international community" could not care less.

    I had to take a deep-breathing break. The important thing is to get some effort brought to bear on reversing ISIS and driving them back, and eventually, out. Then Russia will have a little more breathing room for Britain's case to collapse. I'm sure Russia would not preserve Assad only to see the British cart him off to The Hague.

    I was just reading an old post, linked in another reply, and ran across some research I did on the position of General Secretary of the UN. Did you know that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair were nominated to run against Ban Ki-Moon? Blair was still PM at the time, and the UN General Secretary cannot be from any of the veto-wielding powers, so they were both ineligible – but can you imagine?

    et Al , September 10, 2015 at 3:14 am

    It's a particularly British skill putting other people's backs up. Today we call it trolling for that is surely what his PR team is aiming at. Why? Because they can and they enjoy it.

    Of course, two can play at that game, but the Russians should, selectively do this also. It's not hard.

    If only Philip Hammond had an actual talent apart from trolling that was valuable. Something like this:

    Warren , September 9, 2015 at 11:26 am

    Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    Out-fucking-standing. Finally we have been able to field an adult. This is EXACTLY what we need to hear.

    Cheered me up no end.

    et Al , September 10, 2015 at 3:40 am

    He's a threat to the national security state. By hook, or by crook, professionals will try to make sure that he doesn't become Prime Minister. Assuming that he becomes Labor leader, these professionals have less than five years.

    james , September 9, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    thanks mark… "Nobody said sorry." that and the constant hypocrisy from the west via the msm, drives me fucking crazy.. lying and pushing for all the wrong reasons never really impressed me.. at bit part of me doesn't follow the msm for these reasons.. when the herd is going one way, i'm going to be going the other way.. fb – naw… msm – naw, living in a cave – yeah, lol.. i admire your work trying to dissect it all.. that is a constant uphill battle that isn't ever going to stop!

    james@wpc , September 9, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Well said, Mark. I agree the road ahead looks bleak and is not about to get any better any day soon.

    The reason for the eye-rolling of the rest of the world is that few in the West know how to think. Fewer still know that they have been deliberately taught not to think (through being ridiculed for asking questions and not being told the difference between Knowledge, Understanding and Wisdom) and to look to shills and idiots known as 'experts' to do their thinking for them.

    This is not how we survived two million years. Oops, sorry, that should read 6000 years . . . . and never mind those dinosaur bones! Regardless, we will not survive a similar time span either way, or anything like it, into the future

    Warren , September 9, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    Published on 9 Sep 2015
    An unsourced story originating on an Israeli website claimed Russia was about to deploy significant military assistance to Syria to fight Islamic State. This set the media aflame and had Washington issuing warnings. The story was not only unsourced, but also untrue. But it did reveal how the West frames its illegal war against Syria. CrossTalking with Eric Draitser, Danny Makki and Fawaz Gerges.

    Lyttenburgh , September 9, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    Another great article, Mark!

    I've been arguing since… 2012, I think, that the West, it's media – both entertainment and news services – are beholden to what I call an "Ouroboros effect". There is one successful, time-tasted and profitable trademark, let's call it – "Russophobia". It sells. It sells really good. There is a constant demand for it and no shortage of supply.

    But the most beatiful thing of all? "Ouroboros effect" is self sustaining! Clients demand more of what they like and are used to ("Russophobia"), and the producers are glad to oblige, supply them (and a few of uninitiated) with it, thus strengthening the clients perceptions on the topic in question and making them crave more of it.

    Clients are fed basically the same stuff for decades with little or no variations in flavor or consistence – and they gladly swallow all of it and demand more.

    And this "immortal, perfectly constructed animal" (Plato's words, not mine) has an in-built defense systems. Someone is suggesting that biting and sucking your own tail right next to a place where your feces come out is disgusting and there are more healthy things to eat around here? Why, it must paid Kremlin's propaganda, paid Kremlin-trolls, brainwashed serfs of the Regime or bullied by KGB poor and innocent souls. They are not to be trusted, for sure.

    Someone said, that a true totalitarism is not the fact that a StateSec can come one day and take away some "undesirable". It's when the neighbors of these "undesirables" are ratting them away, or take part in lynching of the "Enemy", while policing each other for the slightest sign of sedition and calling it "Being Vigilant". Or something like that.

    Currently there is no any meaningful dialog between the West and Russia. On any level. I'm speaking not only about governments here – I'm talking about every single level of possible communication. Ultimately, I'm talking about people. The West preaches that "when people from different ethnic and religious and cultural backgrounds come together it enriches learning and creativity". In fact, it actually means that everyone must adopt "universal" (read – Western) set of values to be successful and productive, and all other opinions are just "undesirable".

    Right now, I don't see any way to change the Western narrative about Russia. Russophobia is a time-tested product in high demand. The West demands from Russia "conversion" to its superior "values" and is not interested in any compromises or even entertaining the mere thought that the Culturally Superior West might adopt something from Russia as well. And Russia for a change decided that it's fed up with this sanctimonious shit piled on it for decades and would rather have an independent policy, thank you very much.

    Ouroboros will suck on its own tail. Maybe, when it stops this highly entertaining activity the whole wide world will experience the escape from the wheel of Sansara and unite in a humanity-wide Nirvana. Or the pigs will learn to fly.

    et Al , September 10, 2015 at 8:12 am

    What exquisite timing:

    Financial Crimes: Russian group accused of hacking satellites
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/50b1ff84-571d-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/googlenews/feed//product&google_editors_picks=true

    One of the world's most sophisticated hacking groups, linked to the Russian government, has been accused of hijacking vulnerable commercial satellite communications, using hidden receiving stations in Africa and the Middle East to mask attacks on Western military and governmental networks.

    The group, which operates Ouroboros - the virulent malware also known as "Snake" or "Turla" - was outed last year as having mounted aggressive cyber espionage operations against Ukraine and a host of other European and American government organisations over nearly a decade.

    In a report released on Wednesday, digital security and intelligence firm Kaspersky Lab, which was among the first to analyse the Ouroboros hackers' activities in 2014, said it had identified a new "exquisite" attack channel being used by the group that was virtually untraceable…

    …Western security officials have previously told the Financial Times they believe Ouroboros to be a Russian operation - a fact supported by the group's targets and clues in the coding of the malware itself.

    Satellite operators are meanwhile powerless to prevent the hackers from routing requests through their networks - at least for the next few years. The only other way to do so, experts note, would be for them to encrypt all of their downstream communications - a process that would require the launch of entirely new satellite arrays.

    ####

    This piece certainly ticks all the boxes of Fear Uncertainly & Doubt.

    Two points:

    1: Not only would new satellites have to be sent up, but satellite receiving equipment would have to be upgraded on the ground, though I would assume that these days is could be done through software;

    2: But, bu, but haven't we been told many times that Kaspersky – a Russian software security firm – is close to the Kremlin. If so, then why 'uncover' this story that would be so apparently damaging to their own friends? Of course this is one step of logic that no self-respecting active or passive russophobic journalist, or simply one enjoying it, would deign to ask.

    So you see, yet again and apart from Kaspersy in this case, no other named source is willing to come out and publicly name finger the Russians and of course the Kremlin by association. Yes kids, its is journalism at its finest!

    marknesop , September 10, 2015 at 1:07 pm

    Yes, the "western analysts" to whom they refer are probably FireEye, a California firm, who claimed that a super-capable virus program it discovered "was programmed on Russian-language machines and built during working hours in Moscow." We've already been over how idiotic that is.

    Warren , September 9, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    Syria crisis: Nato concerned by Russia 'military build-up'

    The US and Nato have expressed concern over reports that Russia is increasing its military presence in Syria.

    Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg said if confirmed, Russia's involvement would not help to solve the conflict.

    Separately on Wednesday, US Secretary of State John Kerry "reiterated" his concerns to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov over the phone.

    Russia, a key ally of Syria during its four-year civil war, says it has sent military experts but that is all.
    Correspondents say that without Moscow's backing, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may have fallen by now.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34205003

    marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    It is clear the USA does not want any help in Syria, unless it is from its trusted allies. I wonder why? Does Washington honestly think people are so dozy that they can't catch on? A couple of other things are clear, too; one, either the USA's intelligence is terrible or it did not even bother to check if the rumors are true, because the Kremlin has said it has no immediate plans to intervene in Syria. However, two, the USA obviously does not trust the answer, because it has already taken the step of asking European allies in the region to deny permission for overflight to Russia. It seems fairly obvious that the USA does not want Russia in Syria even though it is "losing" to ISIS.

    I'm sure the Kremlin is well aware that the USA is covertly helping and encouraging ISIS, and hopes they will overrun Damascus. And Britain's snooty attitude about Assad possibly continuing in his position as leader suggests they expect the push that will overwhelm Assad to come soon. I can't believe Russia is just going to sit back and let it happen, knowing the main purpose is to enable a Qatari gas pipeline that will cut it out of the European gas market.

    Patient Observer , September 9, 2015 at 5:56 pm

    The pipeline is a big deal but they also want to remove (no, murder) any non-compliant national leader – need to keep up the image of invincibility. Notice how the leaders of Iraq, Serbia and Libya were all murdered directly or indirectly by Western hands.

    Western propaganda simply provides cover for the vast majority of the US population who are fearful of recognizing the Empire's hideous face,

    It has come up in this blog from time to time that most Americans are basically decent and simply lack access to truthful information. I tend to disagree. Anyone with decency and half a brain would not be deluded by the idiocy that passes for news. In short, the majority of Americans choose to be ignorant because they are cowards.

    Fern , September 9, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    You're quite right about the importance of the image of invincibility achieved by the literal or metaphorical grinding of all opposition into the dirt. In addition to the list you give, it seems that Yanukovich was also targeted for assassination, only narrowly escaping with his life and yet his 'crime' was the seemingly pretty minor one of deferring the EU Association Agreement. The same kind of conquering mentality was discernible in the Greek bailout negotiations when the Troika went all out to heap humiliation on Tspiras. A glimpse of the psychopaths behind the liberal, democratic masks.

    james@wpc , September 9, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    This is speculation but what makes sense to me is that there is a faction (at least) within the Russian govt that is pushing for upping the military support to Syria and this fabricated controversy is an attempt to head off that internally proposed Russian initiative.

    All this, to me, points to the US getting desperate to overcome the SAA, and soon, otherwise 'all is lost'

    Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    "…rely on feted "experts" who do not know if their ass is bored or punched…"

    God you make me laugh.

    Thanks for the intro to Rory Galagher. Completely new to me. Working through some you tube videos and it's far better for my blood-pressure than getting caught up on the day's "mendacity index."

    Btw I came across this today:

    marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    Yes, the plan to tip over Syria does go back quite a bit, and the USA has always wanted to take him out because he is a Russian ally. His refusal of the Qatari pipeline deal put the writing on the wall for him.

    Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 10:10 pm

    I remember some U.S. Economic wonk talking about the way Syria seemed to sit out the GFC of 2008 as if it was somehow sinister that the "cheap seats" would get a – cough – pass.

    Wish I could remember who it was. Someone of Summers' stature but not him.

    At the time it struck me as utterly perverse: Let me get this straight… You are belittling this country because its government – maybe by accident: who cares? – has insulated its citizens from the worst of our epochal melt down? You do realize, given the country's level of development, that you are talking about whether the population can, you know, eat?

    Of course no-one called him on it.

    Cortes , September 10, 2015 at 7:33 am

    US "successes" analysed:

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176042/tomgram%3A_nick_turse%2C_nothing_succeeds_like_failure/

    marknesop, September 10, 2015 at 1:00 pm

    I smell the earthy and pastoral bouquet of bovine excrement. Both USA Today and Die Zeit are agreed that ISIS/ISIL numbers only about 20,000-30,000 members. Yet representatives of the "USA-led Coalition" claim to have killed more than 15,000 of them, in around 5,500 air strikes – an air strike for every 6 people in the organization.

    Oh, sure, USA Today claims that recruiting has offset the losses, but seriously – a force of no more than 30,000 is prevailing against the Syrian Army and the USA-led Coalition, despite the fact that it has no air force of its own, and gaining like a brush fire? What kind of nancies is the USA-led coalition recruiting these days? Can you hear, ghost of Simon de Montfort, whose tiny force of French knights defeated a force more than 20 times their own number at Muret? It's no good – the professionalism of the Syrian army is well-established, and they were enjoying significant success against the rebels until the USA poked its warty nose in and said "I insist that I help you; no, no, you're not doing it right", and ISIS straight away began to gain ground. There is no reasonable explanation other than that Washington will countenance no other outcome than an ISIS victory, and is working energetically toward that goal.

    Moscow Exile , September 9, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    ООН: на Донбассе погибли почти 8 тыс. человек

    UN: in the Donbass almost 8 thousand people have died
    Almost 8 thousand people have lost their lives in Eastern Ukraine since mid-April 2014. This is stated in a report published by the UN Monitoring mission on human rights in the Ukraine, reports Ukraine National News.

    In the report, which covers the period from 16 may to 15 August 2015, it is noted that the number of civilian casualties has increased by more than half compared with the previous three months: 105 people were killed and 308 injured compared to 60 killed and 102 wounded between February 16 and may 15.

    So, since the conflict began in Eastern Ukraine in mid-April of 2014, at least 7,962 people, including members of the Ukrainian Armed forces, civilians and members of armed groups, have been killed and at least 17,811 wounded, the high Commissioner said, citing the latest available data.

    And a deathly silence about this in the Western media.

    Oddlots , September 9, 2015 at 10:13 pm

    According to S.F. Cohen German intelligence puts the figure at 50 k and that seems reasonable to me. But out of date.

    marknesop , September 9, 2015 at 10:32 pm

    I'm with him. The casualties in Syria are hyped considerably higher than the real figure, because the activists want to provoke a NATO intervention and a high kill count argues for that, while the aim in Ukraine is the exact opposite.

    et Al , September 10, 2015 at 4:21 am

    That's the Bosnian Gambit. Not long after the civil war in Bosnia started, Cherif Bassiouni picked 200,000 dead Bosnian civilians out of his ass and the Pork Pie News Networks ran with it like an olympic gold marathon runner.

    He of course hails from the De Paul university, one of the biggest sources serbophobic hate during the conflict. He's a Humanitarian War warrior of the first odor:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Cherif_Bassiouni

    Moscow Exile , September 10, 2015 at 12:16 am

    Yes, Cohen and German intelligence say that the 8K figure only correlates to morgue body counts; the total figure is much higher.

    Yukie news and Western Pork Pie News always implies these deaths are caused by the blood thirsty Evil One. Svidomite bloggers even post pictures of slaughtered by Yukie army artillery barrages Donbass civilians, stating that this is the work of Russia's bloody hands.

    Included in those Svidomite propaganda blogs are horrific images of disembowelled, limbless Ukrainian Donbass citizens, including women and babies and small children. The Svidomites even show pictures of those civilians murdered by Yukie air force cluster bombs at Lugansk, including pictures of that woman in the red dress who had her legs partly blasted off and who was still conscious and speaking shortly before she died, claiming that their deaths were caused by Putin.

    ... ... ...

    Польша: зудящее желание реституции
    Poland: A nagging desire for restitution

    Poland – the eternal enemy of the Ukraine. And it is unfortunate that the representatives of the Kiev regime are not capable of recognizing this fact that has been written and voiced by many historical and philosophical minds. So says the leader of the Ukraine Union of Left Forces,, Vasilii Volga, who is amused by the misunderstanding shown by high representatives of the Kiev regime as regards the real goals of the relationship between the Ukraine and the heirs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

    Yeah, well … the perfidious Moskaly subhuman Orcs are the real enemy of the Ukraine, aren't they?

    marknesop , September 10, 2015 at 9:34 am

    I would be willing to bet that a map strikingly similar to the one pictured was swimming in and out of the consciousness of former NATO Secretary-General-in-waiting Radek Sikorsky when he blurted out that outrageous falsehood about hearing Putin propose the carving-up of Ukraine to Poland's leaders. He went for it because he knew English-speakers would immediately assume it was true, and did not count on Polish pushback from his rivals because, like most stuck-on-themselves diplomatic golden boys, it did not occur to him that he had any serious rivals among the dullards that make up his fellows in Poland's political milieu. I am more sure all the time that his bold declaration was a trial balloon to gauge Europe's reaction to Poland's repatriation of its former lands. He just decided to float it as a Russian plan in case Europe freaked out. He probably thought it was foolproof.

    [Sep 09, 2015] What spawned Russia's 'troll army'? Experts on the red web share their views

    What is funny that Havingalavrov, and Alderbaran participated in the discussion ;-).
    Sep 08, 2015 | The Guardian

    Is the Guardian disproportionately targeted?

    Havingalavrov, 08 September 2015 12:23pm

    Judging by the amount of comments on articles about Russia I see on the Guardian website , it seems to me that it holds more importance over others in being targeted. Is this true ? If so why ?

    Which western news outlets do you believe the Kremlin is most interested in targeting with its campaign ?

    Yes, of course the Guardian is a prominent target. Mostly because others British papers are not so popular in Russia. Stories from the Guardian are translated on daily basis, and foreign correspondents are well known, especially among Moscow's liberal intelligentsia.

    Can we learn anything about Russian foreign policy?

    This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate

    Alderbaran, 08 September 2015 7:07am

    A question: Do you think that by watching trends in coordinated comments, you can gain insights into what is sometimes a very hard to judge Russian foreign policy?

    You might understand what is trending right now, but you can't predict the next one. Russian foreign policy is notorious for sudden turns, and trolls would be told afterwards, not in advance.

    They are not spin-doctors, close to the Kremlin, Putin or his advisers. They are given very simple directives by people who have no real access to the Kremlin decision-makers.

    [Sep 09, 2015] 'Washington infected with anti-Russia virus' – senate leader Matviyenko

    Warren, September 8, 2015 at 1:11 pm
    'Washington infected with anti-Russia virus' – senate leader Matviyenko

    Anti-Russian sanctions and visa restrictions only demonstrate a lack of professionalism by US diplomats, as it is not in the Russian mentality to give in to intimidation, the upper house chair states in a major interview.

    "The people in Washington who initiate decisions are infected with an anti-Russian virus. They lack foresight because they don't know the history of our nation, they don't understand the mentality of our people or our traditions, they don't know that one should never use the language of force and sanctions in talks with Russia," Valentina Matviyenko told Izvestia daily.

    She also noted that the origin of the anti-Russian sentiments of American politicians lied in the serious geo-political struggle and the desire to contain Russia's development in the economic and social spheres as well as its growing influence in international politics.

    https://www.rt.com/politics/314710-washington-infected-with-anti-russia/

    [Sep 09, 2015] They don't call it the Empire of Chaos for nothing

    "...My impression is that the West is content with creating chaos if it can not readily control a country – they don't call it the Empire of Chaos for nothing. By that measure, Libya was a smashing success and Iraq is getting there."
    .
    "...But really it is just self serving BS where the western crusaders are always morally superior and justified in their imperial adventures while the barbarians are inferior in every way and need to be pacified. This syndrome has been afflicting the west for more than 1000 years and shows no evidence of going away in spite of all the cultural progress."
    .
    "...True. But at least it affirms that, when Russia "invades", or intervenes, it puts in place an alternative to the chaos so typical of western intervention. The West has to learn that when you trash a country, the West's rivals and enemies are just as likely to benefit as any of our friends."
    Jeremn, September 8, 2015 at 7:42 am
    Interesting analysis of Russian strategy in Ukraine, and beyond. Concludes the strategy is "low cost" and effective, at least compared to recent US adventures:

    "What most discussions of a possible Russian invasion of the Baltics share in common is their inability to explain what is in it for the Russians. Exactly why Russia would risk war against the most powerful military alliance in the world led by the United States in order to seize something in the Baltics remains an analytical quandary. Russia's cautious and measured approach against a relatively weak, incapable, and non-aligned Ukraine offers little support to the notion that it would risk war with NATO."

    http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/putin-is-a-far-better-strategist-than-you-think/

    marknesop, September 8, 2015 at 8:16 am
    The trouble is, it assumes – as does every western assessment, without exception – that Russia is engaging in "limited conventional war" in Ukraine; that is, Russia is present in a state military capacity, uniformed soldiers, organized military formations, the lot. And nobody has been able to provide any proof of that at all. It is inconceivable that could be going on in one of the most heavy-surveillance areas on the globe and nobody would see it. You know the USA would provide proof if they actually had it – that "we have plenty of evidence" line is just bunk.
    Jeremn, September 8, 2015 at 8:23 am
    True. But at least it affirms that, when Russia "invades", or intervenes, it puts in place an alternative to the chaos so typical of western intervention. The West has to learn that when you trash a country, the West's rivals and enemies are just as likely to benefit as any of our friends.

    As per Iran, and how after we defeated Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's two major competitors, we were magically presented with a more powerful Iran – which seemed to appear out of nowhere.

    marknesop, September 8, 2015 at 9:31 am

    Yes, that's an excellent point. It still irks me, however, that the general public in the Anglosphere is so accepting of major allegations – Russia has battalions of soldiers and heavy armor in Ukraine, but you can't see them although it is largely open fields; Russia shot down MH-17 – without any demonstrated evidence at all. It's as if anything we'd like to believe is no longer off limits just because there's no evidence it is true.

    kirill, September 8, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    What has disappeared from the NATO propaganda wankfest if it ever even existed is any consideration for motive. Why would Russia deliberately shoot down MH-17? To prove how evil it is? This is beyond ridiculous and points to serious collective cognitive deficiency in NATO mainstream thought. But really it is just self serving BS where the western crusaders are always morally superior and justified in their imperial adventures while the barbarians are inferior in every way and need to be pacified. This syndrome has been afflicting the west for more than 1000 years and shows no evidence of going away in spite of all the cultural progress.

    Patient Observer, September 8, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    My impression is that the West is content with creating chaos if it can not readily control a country – they don't call it the Empire of Chaos for nothing. By that measure, Libya was a smashing success and Iraq is getting there.

    [Sep 09, 2015] One Shale Boom That Is Bulletproof To The Current Market Chaos

    Sep 09, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Argentina is home to 27 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 802 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and its two shale basins could end up being bigger than the Eagle Ford and Bakken. But adding to the attraction is another significant aspect at a time of slumping oil prices: For producers in Argentina, the price of natural gas and oil is fixed at $7.5 per million British Thermal Units (BTU) for new gas developments and U.S.D $75 to $77 per barrel respectively, well above international oil prices.

    [Sep 08, 2015] Weak economic outlook and oversupply weigh on oil markets

    U.S. crude (CLc1) was at $44.31 per barrel at 0425 GMT, down $1.74 since Friday's close, weighed down by the closure of the largest crude distillation unit at Exxon Mobil Corp's (XOM.N) 502,500 barrel-per-day (bpd) Baton Rouge, Louisiana, refinery.

    ... ... ...

    "Brent will likely be range-bound and volatile over the next 12 months as the supply overhang is worked off," Morgan Stanley said, adding that it expected the glut to be worked off and result in higher prices by the fourth quarter of next year.

    "In the interim, non-fundamental factors (FX, macro themes, fund flows, etc.) and headlines will likely remain key price drivers," the bank said.

    Oil prices have fallen almost 60 percent since June 2014 ...

    On the supply side, recent speculation that Russia might be willing to cooperate with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to curb output in support of prices was given a blow on Monday after the chief executive of Russian oil major Rosneft ruled out a Russian cut.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 08, 2015] Yatsenyuk fought in Chechnya - Russia's Investigative Committee

    UNIAN news

    Ukraine's current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk used to fight in Chechnya against Russia, according to Aleksandr Bastrykin, head of Russia's Investigative Committee, reports Ukrainska Pravda citing the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

    The Russian investigators have questions to the Ukrainian citizens Dmytro Korchinsky, Ihor Mazur, Valery Bobrovich of the UNA-UNSO, the leader of the Right Sector Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the Svoboda Party Oleh Tiahnybok and his brother Andriy in connection with the war in Chechnya in 1994-1995, according to Bastrykin's interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Ukrainska Pravda reported.

    "The investigation also found that at the time, Arseniy Yatsenyuk fought by their side against the Russian military as part of Argo punitive group, and later - Viking, led by Oleksandr Muzychko," said Bastrykin.

    "According to the investigation, Yatsenyuk took part in at least two of the armed confrontations that took place on December 31, 1994, on the Minutka square in Grozny and in February, 1995, outside the city hospital 9 in Grozny; as well as in torture and executions of prisoners," he said.

    In addition, Bastrykin says that Yatsenyuk was conferred Honor of the Nation Dzhohar Dudayev's highest Honor of the Nation title in December, 1995.

    "In early 1995, Arseniy Yatsenyuk returned to Ukraine via Georgia with a group of journalists. Later, he was repeatedly seen at conventions and other events of UNA-UNSO in Kyiv," said Bastrykin.

    According to the official biography of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in 1995, he had studied law at the University of Chernivtsi.

    UNIAN memo. UNA-UNSO) is a Ukrainian political organisation seen as far-right in Ukraine and abroad. Although the Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) was the organisation's political wing, on 22 May 2014 it merged with Right Sector; the UNA-UNSO continues to operate independently.

    Oleksandr Muzychko was a Ukrainian political activist, a member of UNA-UNSO and coordinator of Right Sector in Western Ukraine. Russian prosecutors accused him of killing "at least 20" captive Russian soldiers during the First Chechen War. The inquiry by the Russian Investigative Committee began in March 2014, years after the alleged killings. Muzychko jumped into media spotlight on February 27, 2014, after attacked the Prosecutor of the Rivne region in his office. On 11 March 2014, Russian State Duma opposition leader Valery Rashkin urged Russian special services to "follow Mossad examples" and assassinate Right Sector leaders Dmytro Yarosh and Muzychko. On 24 March, 2014, Oleksandr Muzychko was shot dead.

    [Sep 07, 2015] US, Canadian Shale Sectors Doomed if Oil Price Drops Below $45 Per Barrel

    Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering and materials science at the University of Southern California, agreed that the tumbling global oil price was likely to be followed by a dramatic shrinkage in the US oil and gas sector.

    "Clearly, if the oil price is too low, shale fracking become un-economical," Sahimi, co-founder and editor of the website, Iran News & Middle East Reports, told Sputnik. "Many of the shale formations are [only] economical for fracking, if the oil price is in the range of $60-$70 a barrel."

    Sahimi explained that if the oil price stays low, it would not be economical to continue fracking. "Many of the oil companies that depend on fracking will have a net negative balance sheet this year."

    Sahimi warned that 50 percent of all US companies dependent on fracking were at risk of ruin in the current global energy glut.

    "I estimate that at least half of such companies are already bankrupt, or will go bankrupt by the end of the current year, if the oil price does not change upward dramatically," he said.

    Eventually, Sahimi predicted, the combination of bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions in the United States and Canada with cutbacks in production by some other major global producers would stabilize global oil prices again.

    "It will probably hover around $40-50," he explained. "It may last for a while, but cannot last too long. Saudi Arabia can cut back production to raise the price."

    Although the Saudi Arabia had maintained high production in the short term to bring economic pressure to bear on Iran, their own need to ensure high annual income meant they had to cut production at some point to restore higher prices, he said.

    [Sep 06, 2015] U.S. tight oil production decline

    "...In any case, what causes a peak is the inability to offset declines from existing wells, and therefore the higher the production rate, the closer we are to a peak, because the volumetric decline from existing wells increases in tandem with the increase in production (it's pretty amazing that so few people are willing to admit this)."
    "...I am sorry James but why aren't economists looking at the 10-Ks and noticing that none of the companies were cash flow positive even when oil prices were very high and the wells drilled were in the more productive areas? Why haven't they noticed that when the big players came into the shale space they got burned even though they paid less for the properties than what the sellers were saying they were worth on the conference calls. "
    "...the shale story was a big scam driven by easy access to borrowing. Given the massive increase in debt on the balance sheets of most producers and the high depletion rates I just can't see how the sector can go on selling its narrative for that much longer. Note that in June 2012 the Bakken data showed 4162 wells producing an average of 144 barrels per day. The June 2015 data, which is the last month available, shows 9912 wells producing 116 barrels per day. The number of wells has more than doubled yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. The new wells are high IP wells yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. Sorry for the repetition but most people gloss over the implications. The simple fact is that when you look at the math and the 10-Ks, the narrative being told by the EIA, USGS, and the Wall Street analysts does not work very well.
    "
    "...Peak, shale and tar production is a not-for-profit business, not unlike the US gov't, the Anglo-American imperial military, the USPS, the Corporation of Communist China, Amazon, Twitter, Tesla, and many biobubbletech companies, some with no REVENUES and a market cap of many billions of dollars."
    "...I interpret this remark as there being far too many gratuitous prognostications that do nothing other than inject noise into the airwaves. Or equally as bad, heavily-hedged puffed-up bets that hold no water when held up to the light of day. Academic papers are major offenders in this regard. Over half are not worth the paper they are printed on. If it doesn't forecast, it is not science. "
    "...Corruption at the highest level - crony capitalism as it is now called, otherwise since time immemorial known as vested interests – is strangling economic growth. It is an open question if Fed officials are corrupt. I do not want to think that of them. But certainly they are imbecilic in the mass devastation they have wrought since the time of Greenspan. We cannot yet look back from the vantage point of ten years out. But unless something changes regarding vested interests, coercive big government, and central banks run amok, the miserable last ten years will look like a walk in the park. This is an easy-to-make prediction in light of the crippling debt burden Keynesian economics has inflicted on this and future generations …"
    Sep 01, 2015 | Econbrowser
    U.S. oil production has begun to drop in response to low oil prices, but not as dramatically as many had anticipated.

    Oil companies have cut back spending significantly in response to the fall in the price of oil. The number of rigs that are active in the main U.S. tight oil producing regions– the Permian and Eagle Ford in Texas, Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, and Niobrara in Wyoming and Colorado– is down 58% over the last 12 months.

    Number of active oil rigs in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to July 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Number of active oil rigs in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to July 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Nevertheless, U.S. tight oil production continued to climb through April. It has fallen since, but the EIA estimates that September production will only be down 7%, or about 360,000 barrels/day, from the peak in April.

    Actual or expected average daily production (in million barrels per day) from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Actual or expected average daily production (in million barrels per day) from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    This is despite the fact that typically output from an existing well falls very quickly after it begins production. The EIA estimates that tight oil production from wells that have been in operation for 3 months or more has declined by 1.6 mb/d since April, as calculated by the sum of the EIA estimated monthly declines in legacy production from May to September.

    Legacy production change (month-to-month production change, in thousands of barrels per day, coming from wells in operation 3 months or more) in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, Jan 2007 to Sept 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Legacy production change (month-to-month production change, in thousands of barrels per day, coming from wells in operation 3 months or more) in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, Jan 2007 to Sept 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    One would think that these decline rates from existing wells and the drop in the number of rigs drilling new wells would mean that production would have fallen much more dramatically. Why didn't it? The answer is that there has been a phenomenal increase in productivity per rig. For example, the EIA estimates that operating a rig for a month in the Bakken would have led to a gross production increase of 388 barrels/day two years ago but can add 692 barrels today.

    Average productivity (added gross daily barrels per month) per drilling rig from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Average productivity (added gross daily barrels per month) per drilling rig from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    A key factor in the productivity gains is that companies are finding ways to complete wells faster, so that more wells can be drilled each month from the same number of rigs. For example, The Barrel reports that Occidental Petroleum "has seen a 40% decrease in spud to rig release time in the Wolfcamp area of its Permian holdings from 43 days in 2014 to 26 days in March this year with a target of eventually reaching 16 days."

    The modest drop in U.S. production has been enough to start to bring inventories down. U.S. crude oil stocks last week were down more than 30 million barrels from April. But that still leaves them way above normal.

    Source: EIA This Week in Petroleum.

    Source: EIA This Week in Petroleum.

    The drillers' cash flow is assisted not only by the improvements in efficiency just mentioned but also by the fact that the drop in demand for rigs means companies are seeing drops in day rates and other costs. Even so, major shale producers like EOG, Whiting, Pioneer, and Devon reported before-tax losses each of the last two quarters.

    West Texas Intermediate averaged $53/barrel the first six months of this year. Last week it went as low as $38 before rebounding back to $45 by the end of the week.

    Losing money is obviously not a sustainable business model, yet inventories have to come down further. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, Iraq oil production is up half a million barrels a day from a year ago, and Iran hopes to raise oil production by up to a million barrels a day once sanctions are lifted. Economic prospects for China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer after the United States, are cloudy.

    Another part of the adjustment process is also underway, coming from the big cuts in capital expenditures for exploration and production for more conventional oil fields. This will also affect supply, but with significantly longer lead times than is the case of production of tight oil.

    Gains in efficiency, lower costs of inputs, and, in the case of production outside the United States, appreciation of the dollar have all helped lower the marginal cost of producing oil.

    Even so, the current price is well below the marginal cost, meaning one of two things has to happen. Either the price must rise or output from the higher-cost producers must fall further.

    Bruce Hall August 30, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    Prof. Mark Perry had a slightly different perspective on the dynamics of shale oil in the U.S.
    http://www.aei.org/publication/shale-oil-a-tremendous-development-for-u-s-oil-production-shovel-ready-jobs-economic-growth-and-energy-independence/

    The drop in U.S. production is reasonable considering the no-return on investment at current prices. The point is that current prices are most likely temporary and U.S. shale production can be geared up rather quickly if prices recover a bit. There seems to be quite a range of where the break-even point for shale oil is: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/20/us-crude-oils-break-even-cost-how-low-can-it-go.html


    Jeffrey J. Brown, August 31, 2015 at 6:43 am

    Drilling and completion activity can be geared up, but how quickly is a very interesting question, given the loss of experienced personnel and the loss of equipment, and given the damage to inactive rusting equipment. Also, given the enormous losses that bond investors have sustained in the value of their loans to shale players, one would think that capital will be harder to come by.

    Ricardo, August 31, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Jeffery,

    Bingo!!

    We are close to seeing a repeat of the late 1990s when WTI went down to $10/bbl, essentially the cost of production. Then as the economy began to recover after the Bush supply theory tax cuts oil demand pushed prices through the roof. With a House, Senate, and Presidency of supply theory Republicans we could see a repeat of the oil conditions of early 2000s.

    Hopefully the efficiencies that the Professor notes will help the supply shortages and hopefully the Republicans will resist the restrictionists who will cry "over-heating economy". They must remove production wedges allowing the markets to produce at prosperity levels.

    A large part of this is the current deflationary policies of the FED. Yellen has done well to use restraint, reminiscent of Greenspan in the early 1990s, but she must resist falling prey to Greenspan's hubris and bringing on a deflationary decline.

    Nony, September 6, 2015 at 10:27 am

    I don't know. Six months? A year? Obviously there's spare capacity if rigs are sitting "rusting". And if there are people laid off. Probably a lot quicker to bring back a rig from cold stack than to build it new. And faster to get back laid off workers than to train new ones. (Some will still be sitting around and even those that got other jobs didn't likely get ones that pay as much.) Net, net: easier with spare capacity than without it. [And, FWIW, you can't simultaneously bemoan the laid off workers and stacked rigs, as some peakers have, and then say no one/nothing is available for the next boom.]

    Capital is a commodity. It seeks returns. At $100/bbl there was a lot of opportunity (peakers really overplayed the whole "cashflow" story, etc.) At $50/bbl, there's way less opportunity. New opportunities will just be judged based off of price. If we go back to $100 with a strip, then the money comes back. They could care less if someone else lost money before. Just look at it rationally and mathematically as NPV optimization. [Plus with high decline, you can even hedge most of the price risk.]

    Jeffrey J. Brown August 31, 2015 at 7:07 am

    It's an article of faith among the Cornucopian Crowd, e.g., Mark Perry, that there is no sign of any kind of peak in sight, but in my opinion this assertion is manifestly false when it comes to actual global crude oil production (generally defined as crude oil with an API gravity of less than 45 API crude oil). Note that what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C).

    When we ask for the price of oil, we generally get the prices of two grades of crude oils, WTI and Brent, both of which have average API gravities in the high 30's. But when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of crude oil + condensate + natural gas liquids (NGL) + biofuels. In other words, we get the volume of actual crude oil + partial substitutes. This is analogous to asking a butcher for the price of beef, and he gives you the price of steak, but when you ask him how much beef he has on hand, he gives you total pounds of steak + roast + ground beef.

    Shouldn't the price of an item directly relate to the quantity of that item and not to the quantity of the item being priced + partial substitutes?

    But in any event, the fact that partial substitution has so far worked, in response to higher crude oil prices, does not mean that crude oil has not peaked.

    Following is an essay, which I sent to some industry acquaintances, that I put together about a week ago:

    Regarding oil prices, I may be one of the worst prognosticators around, especially when it comes to demand side analysis. My primary contribution has been as an amateur supply side analyst, especially in regard to net exports.

    In any case, earlier this year I thought that we had hit the monthly low in Brent prices for the current oil price decline ($48 monthly average in January, 2015), and I thought we were more or less following an upward price trajectory, from the 1/15 low, similar to the price recovery following the 12/08 monthly oil price low ($40 for Brent).

    However, a key difference between the 2008/2009 price decline and subsequent recovery and the 2014/2015 decline is that Saudi Arabia cut production from 2008 to 2009 while they increased production from 2014 to 2015.

    But for what it's worth (perhaps not much), I think that this is a tremendous buying opportunity, in regard to oil and gas investments. I don't have any idea what Warren Buffet is doing right now*, but I would not be surprised to learn that he is aggressively investing in oil and gas.

    The bottom line for me is that depletion marches on.

    A few years ago, ExxonMobil put the decline from existing oil wells at about 4% to 6% per year. A recent WSJ article noted that analysts are currently putting the decline from existing oil wells at 5% to 8% per year (in my opinion, the 8% number is more realistic). At 8%/year, globally we need about 6.5 MMBPD of new Crude + Condensate (C+C) production every single year, just to offset declines from existing wells, or we need about 65 MMBPD of new C+C production over the next 10 years, just to offset declines from existing wells. This is equivalent to putting on line the productive equivalent of the peak production rate of about thirty-three (33) North Slopes of Alaska over the next 10 years.

    It appears quite likely that global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) has been more or less flat to down since 2005, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $55 in 2005 to $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at $99 in 2014)–while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

    Following are links to charts showing normalized production values for OPEC 12 countries and global data. The gas, natural gas liquids (NGL) and crude + condensate (C+C) values are for 2002 to 2014 (except for gas, which is through 2013, EIA data in all cases). Both data charts show similar increases for gas, NGL and C+C from 2002 to 2005, with inflection points in both cases for C+C in 2005. My premise is that condensate production, in both cases, accounts for virtually all of the post-2005 increase in C+C production.

    Global Gas, NGL and C+C:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Global%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpskb5bxu6d.jpg

    OPEC 12 Gas, NGL and C+C:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpsox3lqdkj.jpg

    Currently, we only have crude oil only data for the OPEC 12 countries and for Texas (note that what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually C+C).

    Also following is a link to OPEC 12 implied condensate (EIA C+C less OPEC crude) and OPEC crude only from 2005 to 2014 (OPEC data prior to 2005 was for a different set of exporters than post-2005). Obviously, data quality is an issue, and the boundary between actual crude and condensate is sometimes fuzzy. In any case, we have to deal with the data that we have.

    OPEC 12 Crude and Implied Condensate:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Crude%20and%20Condensate_zps12rfrqos.jpg

    As of 2014, OPEC and the US accounted for 53% of global C+C production (41 MMBPD out of 78 MMBPD). Implied OPEC condensate production increased by 1.2 MMBPD from 2005 to 2014 (1.2 to 2.4). The EIA estimates that US condensate production increased by about 1.0 MMBPD from 2011 to 2014. I'm estimating that US condensate production may have increased by around 1.2 MMBPD or so from 2005 to 2014. Based on the foregoing, increased condensate production by OPEC and the US may have accounted for about 60% (about 2.4 MMBPD) of the 4 MMBPD increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2014.

    Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD.

    In other words, the available data seem quite supportive of my premise that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

    If it took trillions of dollars of upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau" in actual global crude oil production, what happens to crude production given the large and ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex?

    And given the huge rate of decline in existing US gas production (probably on the order of about 24%/year from existing wells), it's possible that we might see substantially higher North American gas prices this winter, given the decline in US drilling.

    Furthermore, through 2013 we have seen a post-2005 decline in what I define as Global Net Exports of oil (GNE, the combined net exports from the Top 33 net exporters in 2005), which is a pattern that appears to have continued in 2014. GNE fell from 46 MMBPD in 2005 to 43 MMBPD in 2013 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids). The volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013.

    Here are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, while we are currently seeing signs of weak demand in China, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    And a massively under-appreciated aspect of what I call "Net Export Math" is that the rate of depletion in the remaining cumulative volume of net oil exports, after a net export peak, tends to be enormous. Saudi Arabia is showing a year over year increase in production and net exports, but based on available annual data through 2014, Saudi Arabia's net exports fell from 9.5 MMBPD in 2005 to 8.4 MMBPD in 2014 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids), and I estimate that Saudi Arabia may have already shipped close to half of their total post-2005 supply of cumulative net exports of oil.


    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 1, 2015 at 5:58 am

    Increased oil production in a net oil importing country would reduce their demand for net oil imports, but I'm not an expert on Chinese oil production, although I do believe that a significant portion of their production is in long term decline.

    In any case, once again, following are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports, which are not statements of opinion, but are instead statements about mathematical certainties:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, while we are currently seeing signs of weak demand in China, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 1, 2015 at 8:08 amRe: Global Gas Production

    The reason that I have spent so much time on crude versus crude + condensate is that the conventional wisdom is that there is no evidence of any kind of peak in sight, and my contention is that this is manifestly false, in regard to actual crude oil production (45 API gravity and lower crude oil). And if actual global crude oil production has probably peaked, it's when, not if, that we see similar peaks in global gas and associated liquids, condensate and NGL. In that regard, the global gas data (BP) are pretty interesting. Some rates of change:

    2005 to 2010:

    Global Gas: +2.8%/year
    Global Gas, Excluding North America: +3.2%/year

    2010 to 2014:

    Global Gas: +1.9%/year
    Global Gas, Excluding North America: +1.3%/year

    Note that the rate of increase in global gas, excluding North America, fell from 3.2%/year for 2005 to 2010 to 1.3%/year for 2010 to 2014. And of course, "Net Export Math" works for both oil and gas (as well as for domestic food consumption versus production).

    The shale advocates would argue that shale plays around the world will keep up us on an indefinite rate of increase in production, but global results have been disappointing in many areas, e.g., Poland, and high costs are a problem, combined with the very high decline rates.

    In any case, what causes a peak is the inability to offset declines from existing wells, and therefore the higher the production rate, the closer we are to a peak, because the volumetric decline from existing wells increases in tandem with the increase in production (it's pretty amazing that so few people are willing to admit this).


    Nony, September 6, 2015 at 10:39 am

    Brown:

    You are the only one "generally defining" oil as less than 45 API. 47 API Eagle Ford runs through refineries. It's price is correlated to WTI. And it actually gets a better price than 30 API sour (e.g. "Basra light"). I don't think any economist would look at lighter oils as anything other than a substitute and significant economically. This is an econ blog. You may pay a little less for an EF cargo. And there are some in the weeds concerns with fluffing the barrel (light ends). But this is really a nuance. From any reasonable economic evaluation, that stuff is OIL.

    Even classic lease condensate (like 55-60 API) is pretty much oil. Sure it gets blended with heavy before hitting the distillation tower, but it still makes a lot of gasoline, has a decent price (some delta with WTI) and follows WTI. It's not like methane or even propane.

    And that's just within the US (where we have export restrictions and a new volume of light). Light oils are even more reasonable on a world basis. And in the US, classically the spreads were much closer or even to the benefit of condensate in the past.

    By the way, it's fascinating that we actually ended up with too much light oil. The peaker trope was that new sources would be heavy and non-WTI-like. And Bakken is very close to classic WTI! Also, current peakers never seem to mention the advantage of low sulfur content (and S and API are broadly speaking inversely correlated.)

    rjs, August 30, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    inventories are clearly in a seasonal (driving season) decline, but still way above historical levels because of the contango tradiing…we never saw 400 million barrels before this year….

    in reporting on EIA data weekly, i've noticed that the weekly fluctuatons in inventories are a function of imports…if two extra VLCCs unload in the same week, your inventories rise…

    SecondLook, August 30, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    I think, very relevantly: what is the current cost of production of oil, or even what is the significant distribution range.
    I find discussions about oil, or for that matter any finite commodity, without having an agreed upon cost basis factor sort of meaningless.

    JBH, August 31, 2015 at 8:37 am

    SecondLook Quite so. Technological progress in fracking is nothing short of astounding. Global economic growth is decelerating with no end in sight. So the only meaningful constraint on price is MC. No curve would be more informative than the historic MC of fracking for say the last two or three years. I do not for a moment believe the current price of $44 is well-below MC.

    It may be somewhat below, but the all-important technology dynamic is moving the MC curve lower by the day. The solidest, most-well-backed-up projection I've seen is that by Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute: costs are ultimately heading to the $5 to $20 range! Thus far I've found very little on what to me has gravitated to the forefront as the next biggest question: What happens when fracking goes global at ever-falling marginal cost?

    Jeffrey J. Brown, August 31, 2015 at 9:10 am

    The Economist Magazine suggested an outlook for an extended period of oil prices in the $5 to $10 range:

    http://www.economist.com/node/188181

    Yet here is a thought: $10 might actually be too optimistic. We may be heading for $5. To see why, consider chart 1. Thanks to new technology and productivity gains, you might expect the price of oil, like that of most other commodities, to fall slowly over the years. Judging by the oil market in the pre-OPEC era, a "normal" market price might now be in the $5-10 range. Factor in the current slow growth of the world economy and the normal price drops to the bottom of that range. . . .

    The supply situation is even gloomier for producers. Unlike 1986, oil supplies have been slow to respond to the past year's fall. Even at $10 a barrel, it can be worth continuing with projects that already have huge sunk costs. Rapid technological advances have pushed the cost of finding, developing and producing crude oil outside the Middle East down from over $25 a barrel (in today's prices) in the 1980s to around $10 now. Privatisation and deregulation in such places as Argentina, Malaysia and Venezuela have transformed moribund state-owned oil firms. According to Douglas Terreson of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, an investment bank, this has "unleashed a dozen new Texacos during the 1990s", all of them keen to pump oil.

    Meanwhile OPEC, which masterminded the supply cuts that pushed prices up in the 1970s and 1980s, is in complete disarray. The cartel will try yet again to agree upon production cuts at its next meeting, on March 23rd, but, partly thanks to its members' cheating on quotas, the impact of any such cuts will be small. OPEC members fear that Iraq, whose UN-constrained output rose by 1m barrels a day in 1998, may some day be able to raise production further. Last week Algeria's energy minister declared, with only slight exaggeration, that prices might conceivably tumble "to $2 or $3 a barrel."

    Nor is there much chance of prices rebounding. If they started to, Venezuela, which breaks even at $7 a barrel, would expand production; at $10, the Gulf of Mexico would join in; at $11, the North Sea, and so on (see map). This will limit any price increase in the unlikely event that OPEC rises from the dead. Even in the North Sea, the bare-bottom operating costs have fallen to $4 a barrel. For the lifetime of such fields firms will continue to crank out oil, even though they are not recouping the sunk costs of exploration and financing. And basket-cases such as Russia and Nigeria are so hopelessly dependent on oil that they may go on producing for some time whatever the price.

    BC, August 31, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    https://app.box.com/s/npygb8t139jm69yjcz5nhzm8ygibd5pd

    https://app.box.com/s/0hroqkg7zym2us8em4k55a36affs4xmc

    https://app.box.com/s/6qtqg4w41mrzfn8dhgoq27z3j1n20sg5

    https://app.box.com/s/858zgmul9yfhdi1j5fmybhd54jpuexkz

    https://app.box.com/s/m4d2o0kl8bqf850e6e2ptu3m3rf2c0tb

    https://app.box.com/s/be72m6g0e3pmdss2apjamoswvq7jxe1i

    https://app.box.com/s/41k6v2nfqgqs2jcrixrn5bybjdov3hhv

    https://app.box.com/s/qml1c2s6fdihreha51dr1x2epxv8bg0u

    US oil production per capita is down 40-45% since 1970 and 25% since 1985 (onset of deindustrialization and financialization).

    The oil cycle is turning lower (CPI and US$ terms) as in the early to mid-1960s and 1986.

    However, this time we have much more debt to wages and GDP; real GDP per capita is growing at half the 1960s and 1980s rates; labor share of GDP is much lower; peak Boomer demographic effects are bearing down in the US, UK, Canada, Oz, EZ, Japan, and now China and the Asian city-states; financial assets are in a MASSIVE bubble and about to burst again as in 1929, 2000, and 2007; wealth and income inequality is obscene and pernicious; health care and debt service costs are precluding any discretionary income for the bottom 90%; and labor productivity is decelerating due to deindustrialization, regressive taxes on earned income, demographics, labor share, debt, and inequality.

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-16/oil-prices-likely-to-fall-as-supplies-rise-demand-falls

    I don't know about Shilling's speculation about $10 oil, but $25-$32 fits the cycle, technicals, and price-supply-demand for implied global real GDP per capita rate of growth indefinitely hereafter, notwithstanding a possible seasonal technical rally to $55-$60.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 1, 2015 at 5:51 am

    Incidentally, the Economist Magazine article I linked to, and that I showed an excerpt from, was published in early 1999.

    The Economist Magazine ran their "Drowning in oil" cover story in early 1999, in which they suggested that we would see $5 to $10 oil for the indefinite future. At the time of the story, annual Brent crude oil prices were then in the early stages of three approximate price doublings:

    From $13 in 1998 to $25 in 2002;
    From $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005;
    From $55 in 2005 to $110 range for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at about $99 for 2014).

    And . . . .

    In late 2004, Daniel Yergin predicted that oil prices would be down to a long term index price of $38 by late 2005 (which caused me to suggest that we price oil in "Yergins" with One Yergin = $38).

    Also in 2004, the Saudi oil minister reiterated their support for the OPEC price band of $22 to $28.

    In August, 2009, Michael C. Lynch predicted that oil prices would soon be back to a long term price in the low 30's.

    In early February of this year, Ed Morse predicted that oil prices could fall as low as the "$20 range for a while."

    My prediction is that global net exporters will continue to deplete their remaining volume of post-2005 CNE (Cumulative Net Exports of oil) at an accelerating rate of depletion.

    I estimate that Saudi Arabia shipped about 5% of their post-2005 CNE in 2006, and I estimate that they shipped about 9% of their remaining post-2005 CNE in 2014, AKA an accelerating rate of depletion.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, August 31, 2015 at 6:37 am

    An Interesting Gas Play Case History

    The Haynesville Shale Gas Play, which covers part of both Texas and Louisiana, is an interesting case history. Following is a chart showing the monthly production versus the rig count. Note the significant time lag, a little more than a year, between the beginning of the decline in the rig count (late 2010) and the beginning of the decline in production (early 2012). Also, note that that there was about a three year gap between the beginning of the late 2010 decline in the rig count and the end of the steep production decline (late 2013):

    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Haynesville-rig-count-and-natural-gas-production1_zpsb1n95tiz.jpg

    In any case, the decline in production from the Haynesville Play contributed to the observed 20%/year exponential rate of decline in marketed gas production from Louisiana from 2012 to 2014 (dry gas production for 2014 not yet available). Note that this was the net rate of decline in gas production, after new wells were put on line (for both conventional and unconventional production). The gross underlying decline rate from existing wells in 2012 and 2013 in Louisiana was even higher than 20%/year.

    The Louisiana data provide strong support for the Citi Research estimate that this gross underlying rate of decline in existing US gas production is on the order of about 24%/year (again, gross being the rate of decline, before new wells are added).

    With an underlying gross decline rate of about 24%/year, the US needs about 17 BCF/day of new production per year, just to offset the declines from existing production. Note that this volume of gas–that the US needs just to offset declines from existing wells–exceeds the dry gas production levels of every country in the world, except for the US and Russia. In other words, in order to maintain current gas production, we need to put on line–every year–more gas production than Canada, or Norway, or Iran, or Qater, etc.

    The gross underlying decline rate from existing US oil production is probably not as high, but a plausible estimate is that it is on the order of 15%/year, which would imply that we need about 1.5 MMBPD (million barrels per day) of new Crude + Condensate (C+ C) production every year, just to offset annual declines from existing wells.

    Vangel Vesovski, August 31, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    I am sorry James but why aren't economists looking at the 10-Ks and noticing that none of the companies were cash flow positive even when oil prices were very high and the wells drilled were in the more productive areas? Why haven't they noticed that when the big players came into the shale space they got burned even though they paid less for the properties than what the sellers were saying they were worth on the conference calls.

    I think that the evidence shows that the shale story was a big scam driven by easy access to borrowing. Given the massive increase in debt on the balance sheets of most producers and the high depletion rates I just can't see how the sector can go on selling its narrative for that much longer. Note that in June 2012 the Bakken data showed 4162 wells producing an average of 144 barrels per day. The June 2015 data, which is the last month available, shows 9912 wells producing 116 barrels per day. The number of wells has more than doubled yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. The new wells are high IP wells yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. Sorry for the repetition but most people gloss over the implications. The simple fact is that when you look at the math and the 10-Ks, the narrative being told by the EIA, USGS, and the Wall Street analysts does not work very well.

    I think that some time in the next few months the picture will be much clearer and the fingers will start pointing. Given what I have been reading and hearing the problems were created by the Fed and SEC, not the oil company executives who disclosed everything to people who were willing to pay attention.


    Nony, September 1, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    A company that is growing production at 30% should not be expected to be cash flow positive. Especially when there is a heavy upfront capital investment (the drilling and completion) involved in production.

    Lots of people pointed out the companies were not cash flow positive, but they tended to be peak oil advocates who lacked a good understanding of the basics of investment (as simple as NPV). See Copeland's Valuation or Brealey and Myers Corporate Finance.


    Vangel Vesovski, August 31, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    @Nony

    The problem for the industry is the very high decline rate. Most wells lose more than 50% of their production rate in less than a year so the decline after the lag period clears will be much steeper. Think of the Yibal production rate and you won't be far off for the US shale sector.


    BC, August 31, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_018.htm

    Peak, shale and tar production is a not-for-profit business, not unlike the US gov't, the Anglo-American imperial military, the USPS, the Corporation of Communist China, Amazon, Twitter, Tesla, and many biobubbletech companies, some with no REVENUES and a market cap of many billions of dollars. 😀

    But, hey, Mr. Musk is using Tesla as a loss leader at thousands of dollars per unit (tens of thousands counting subsidies) to become the techno-optimist exemplar to get us to the Moon, Mars, and ultimately to join our extraterrestrial ancestors inhabiting the Rings of Uranus.

    How will be accomplish this? Not by nuclear, wind, or solar. Please! The word is that Musk discovered HUGE deposits of dilithium crystals in Mexico, the Atacama Desert, and not far from where he is building his gigafactory, locations revealed to him by time-traveling Mr. Spock, who himself was informed by the aforementioned extraterrestrials centuries in the future.

    Soon we will upload our consciousnesses into virtual humachines, leaving behind our concerns about Peak Oil, population overshoot, resource depletion per capita, and climate change, and go off planet to explore the cosmos as immortal beings for millennia to come.

    This is going to be so exciting!

    Anonymous, August 31, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    In my view, there world is awash in mis or bad information. Oil prices are anything but linear either positively or negatively. The past 3 days of trading is showing this. Great to read that opec members may begin to discuss a reasonable output level to help restore prices to a fair level. I agree with the bull Boone Pickens as his experience and expertise in energy is par excellence. On his blog, he expects oil to exit this year at 70 per boe. I have a bet with a friend that wit exits this year at at least 60 per boe and I am also long crude, happily long that is…

    JBH , September 1, 2015 at 7:12 am

    Anonymous Re your remark on mis or bad information. I could not agree with you more. I interpret this remark as there being far too many gratuitous prognostications that do nothing other than inject noise into the airwaves. Or equally as bad, heavily-hedged puffed-up bets that hold no water when held up to the light of day. Academic papers are major offenders in this regard. Over half are not worth the paper they are printed on. If it doesn't forecast, it is not science.

    Your own prediction re the yearend price of crude is certainly reasonable. I do not put it in the above category. That said, I do disagree with it. What gives my disagreement gravitas is it has teeth, as the following will confirm.

    What this site needs is a neutral holder of escrow for legal bets of token amount so commenters can put their money where their mouth is. Claims would be written to pay at a specific date for a specified price, growth rate, or quantity. My reasoning is along the lines of what you were driving at. It is to leaven sense into academics and others who say anything fool thing they want to students, or on sites like Econbrowser, without being called on it. That some people have a belief structure so impervious to the real world that leavening sense into them would not be possible is beside the point. Others would be watching, and that would be value enough for a project like this.

    Take the stock market forecast in a comment of mine here on Econbrowser in late-July. I said in no uncertain terms the Dow was in a bear market. That bet would pay off if and when the Dow reached 20% down from its May 19th high; if instead the Dow goes to a new all-time high without first going down 20% I will have lost.

    There is no shame in losing. This is an uncertain world. The shame comes otherwise. Most notably in making a highly amorphous statement about the future, and then at some future date crowing about having been right.

    Allow me to flesh this out more. Using the WSJ print for the 2015 yearend WTI price of crude as the basis, I'll take even money crude will end the year below $60 per barrel. Even money that over the next four quarters – Q3 thru Q2 next year – real GDP growth will be below the current WSJ consensus estimate (a known number available to all). That real GDP growth will be below 2% over the next three years (distant payoff date yet noteworthy for what it says). I would, however, require a clause that this latter bet be negated if Donald Trump becomes president. The Iowa winner-take-all presidential market has the Dem candidate priced at (valued at) 59 cents vs. 41 cents for the Rep. My prediction here is this spread will narrow considerably in coming months.

    I base this last on the venerable methodology of the 13 Keys to the Presidency (original version). As for my Dow prediction, it is based on a proprietary technical model of mine constructed from market internals. At present, market internals are more negative than at their worst in the 2008 crisis! This brings a further thing to light – technical analysis is a highly valuable tool. Economists would do well to master it, since the market is a fine leading indicator of recessions. Paul Samuelson's often quoted statement about the market's ability to predict recessions borders on gibberish. Of course, a bear market does not mean impending recession. No good forecaster ever said it did. Other things have to fall in place. At present they have yet to do so. But in advance of the next recession – whenever that is – stocks will have entered a bear market. The caveat is that stocks go down in both nominal and real terms. Never since the inception of the Dow has the real Dow not led the economy down. Ditto for on the way up.

    BC, September 1, 2015 at 8:52 am

    JBH, agree about the bear market, and it is setting up like 2007, 2000, and 1929 given a list of rarely occurring coincident indicators that occurred only during those periods since the early 20th century:

    https://app.box.com/s/vs7kkhuw96x9rksodwbwvnxxek3nis3b

    https://app.box.com/s/sqpdwrin8dt40t3ri6n0n5ksx88gtoqz

    https://app.box.com/s/5q46eovoo137r3z8xemetj4jipz54jt1

    BTW, since the late 1990s and the onset of hyper-financialization of the economy, the stock market has become a "lagging" indicator rather than the widely believed "leading" indicator. If the phenomenon still maintains, the US economy entered recession as long ago as Q4 '14 to Q1 '15.

    And as is historically characteristic of debt-deflationary regimes of the Long Wave, including Japan since 1992, there will be no persistent capacity constraints, accelerating wages and inflation, a yield curve inversion, and central bank tightening prior to the next recession and bear market. The Fed will much more likely resume QEternity and maintain ZIRP indefinitely.

    JBH, September 1, 2015 at 8:04 am

    Peak Trader Word usage is incredibly important. "We" don't do anything. There is a natural economy driven by the entrepreneurial spirit inherent in humans. It's part of the survival instinct coded by DNA. The Federal Reserve and big government are world-class obstacles to the economy's natural rate of growth. Natural growth is the birthright of common man in a civilization as advanced as ours. The Federal Reserve, politicians, and government officials at all levels create impediments to and worsen the drains on natural growth. "They" should get out of the way. There are nuances around this, one notable being reasonable tariff protection like our nation had in its heyday. Another is reasonable-yet-not-onerous regulation of the environment.

    Corruption at the highest level - crony capitalism as it is now called, otherwise since time immemorial known as vested interests – is strangling economic growth. It is an open question if Fed officials are corrupt. I do not want to think that of them. But certainly they are imbecilic in the mass devastation they have wrought since the time of Greenspan. We cannot yet look back from the vantage point of ten years out. But unless something changes regarding vested interests, coercive big government, and central banks run amok, the miserable last ten years will look like a walk in the park. This is an easy-to-make prediction in light of the crippling debt burden Keynesian economics has inflicted on this and future generations …

    Kirby thibeault, August 31, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    Oil prices will exit, wti, this year at a min of 60 per boe and the extreme pessimists are wrong and I completely disagree with Gary shillings 10-20 call. The past few days should make everyone aware of how quickly prices can change.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 4, 2015 at 5:55 am

    All glory is fleeting


    "For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeteers, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting."

    ― George S. Patton Jr.

    The EIA shows that US Crude + Condensate (C+C) production was 5.0 MMBPD (million barrels per day) in 2008. Let's assume that the current estimate of 9.6 MMBPD in US C+C production in April, 2015 is correct. And let's assume that the gross rate of decline in existing US C+C production in 2008 was about 5%/year. So, in order to offset the decline from existing 2008 wells, US operators had to put on line 0.25 MMBPD of new production (which they clearly achieved, given the observed net increase in production).

    Here's the problem.

    Even with no increase in the decline rate, as production increases, the volumetric decline from existing wells increased in tandem with the production increase. A peak occurs when the production from new wells (and workovers, secondary, tertiary recovery efforts, etc.) can no longer offset the decline from existing production. Therefore, the higher the production rate, the closer that we are to a production peak, i.e., "All glory is fleeting."

    US operators are, in effect, fighting a two front war–an increase in the decline rate from existing wells and an overall increase in the volumetric decline from existing wells, because of the increase in production. This is of course also largely true of total world production, and my contention is that in all likelihood, virtually all of the new actual crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude) that was put on line from 2006 to 2014 inclusive globally only served to approximately offset the declines from existing wells, i.e., it took trillions of dollars in upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating plateau" in actual crude oil production for the past decade.

    In any case, the estimated annualized volumetric declines (rounded off to nearest 0.5 MMBPD) in April, 2015 US C+C production at three rates of decline from existing wells:

    5%/year: 0.5 MMBPD
    10%/year: 1.0 MMBPD
    15%/year: 1.5 MMBPD

    At the 15%/year rate, which IMO is the most likely, in order to maintain 9.6 MMBPD, US operators would have had to put on line, from April, 2015 to April, 2016, production that would be approximately equivalent to all of Norway's 2014 C+C production.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 4, 2015 at 8:13 am

    Late August US net crude oil imports (four week running average data, MMBPD):

    2008: 10.1
    2009: 9.1
    2010: 9.6
    2011: 9.2
    2012: 8.6
    2013: 8.1
    2014: 7.3
    2015: 7.1

    Of course, when we look at total production less consumption, overall net imports on a total liquids basis are lower, but it certainly appears that the decline in US net crude oil imports has slowed considerably, and US net imports will in all likelihood be increasing in future months, as US C+C production declines.

    It looks like the recent low in net US crude oil imports was in early November, 2014, at 6.6 MMBPD (four week running average), which was down quite a bit from the early November, 2013 number (7.5).

    In any event, it seems to me that the bottom line is that for every one bpd of new production that US operators had to put on line in 2008 to offset declines from existing wells, they will need about six bpd of new production now.

    Nony, September 6, 2015 at 11:05 am

    I always felt that high price impact was the best fallback position of peakers after US production explosion surprised them as did worldwide gradual up plateau. It was something that cornies needed to concede. At the end of the day, for the US, as a big net importer we gain more from low prices than from the production itself.

    Now, I'll take the low price as a win. Feels like the peak oil skeptics have won twice now over the peak oil advocates (even the more moderate ones). First with the production. Second with prices.

    I don't even like the "no one could have predicted shale". Peak oil advocates (even the more moderate ones) were slow to look at the warning signs (but quick to look at things like Staniford and Simmons Saudi concerns). They tended to talk it down on the way up. And FWIW, I didn't predict shale, but I'm not surprised that something came out of the bag. Seems like it has often happened over the history of the industry when back against the wall. And we probably could have done the same impact, by approving ANWR, Keystone, and VACAPES drilling (which were known options). The whole US can't affect world prices looks pretty wrong in retrospect.

    [Sep 06, 2015] Oil Shale Reserves

    The Daily Reckoning
    Oil Shale Technology – Old & New

    Extracting oil from the shale is no simple task. The earliest attempts to extract the oil utilized an environmentally unfriendly process known as "retorting." Stated simply, retorting required mining the shale, hauling it to a processing facility that crushed the rock into small chunks, then extracted a petroleum substance called kerogen, then upgraded the kerogen through a process of hydrogenation (which requires lots of water) and refined it into gasoline or jet fuel.

    But the difficulties of retorting do not end there, as my colleague, Byron King explains:

    "After you retort the rock to derive the kerogen (not oil), the heating process has desiccated the shale (OK, that means that it is dried out). Sad to say, the volume of desiccated shale that you have to dispose of is now greater than that of the hole from which you dug and mined it in the first place. Any takers for trainloads of dried, dusty, gunky shale residue, rife with low levels of heavy metal residue and other toxic, but now chemically-activated crap? (Well, it makes for enough crap that when it rains, the toxic stuff will leach out and contaminate all of the water supplies to which gravity can reach, which is essentially all of 'em. Yeah, right. I sure want that stuff blowin' in my wind.) Add up all of the capital investment to build the retorting mechanisms, cost of energy required, cost of water, costs of transport, costs of environmental compliance, costs of refining, and you have some relatively costly end-product."

    But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap the oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.

    Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to
    the point where the oil leaches from the rock. Shell's Terry O'Connor described the breakthrough in testimony before Congress earlier this summer (And Congress may have an acute interest in the topic, since the U.S. government controls 72% of all U.S. oil shale acreage):

    "Some 23 years ago, Shell commenced laboratory and field research on a promising in ground conversion and recovery process. This technology is called the In-situ Conversion Process, or ICP. In 1996, Shell successfully carried out its first small field test on its privately owned Mahogany property in Rio Blanco County, Colorado some 200 miles west of Denver. Since then, Shell has carried out four additional related field tests at nearby sites. The most recent test was carried out over the past several months and produced in excess of 1,400 barrels of light oil plus associated gas from a very small test plot using the ICP technology…

    "Most of the petroleum products we consume today are derived from conventional oil fields that produce oil and gas that have been naturally matured in the subsurface by being subjected to heat and pressure over very long periods of time. In general terms, the In-situ Conversion Process (ICP) accelerates this natural process of oil and gas maturation by literally tens of millions of years. This is accomplished by slow sub-surface heating of petroleum source rock containing kerogen, the precursor to oil and gas. This acceleration of natural processes is achieved by drilling holes into the resource, inserting electric resistance heaters into those heater holes and heating the subsurface to around 650-700F, over a 3 to 4 year period.

    "During this time, very dense oil and gas is expelled from the kerogen and undergoes a series of changes. These changes include the shearing of lighter components from the dense carbon compounds, concentration of available hydrogen into these lighter compounds, and changing of phase of those lighter, more hydrogen rich compounds from liquid to gas. In gaseous phase, these lighter fractions are now far more mobile and can move in the subsurface through existing or induced fractures to conventional producing wells from which they are brought to the surface. The process results in the production of about 65 to 70% of the original "carbon" in place in the subsurface.

    "The ICP process is clearly energy-intensive, as its driving force is the injection of heat into the subsurface.
    However, for each unit of energy used to generate power to provide heat for the ICP process, when calculated on a life cycle basis, about 3.5 units of energy are produced and treated for sales to the consumer market. This energy efficiency compares favorably with many conventional heavy oil fields that for decades have used steam injection to help coax more oil out of the reservoir. The produced hydrocarbon mix is very different from traditional crude oils. It is much lighter and contains almost no heavy ends.

    "However, because the ICP process occurs below ground, special care must be taken to keep the products of the process from escaping into groundwater flows. Shell has adapted a long recognized and established mining and construction ice wall technology to isolate the active ICP area and thus accomplish these objectives and to safe guard the environment. For years, freezing of groundwater to form a subsurface ice barrier has been used to isolate areas being tunneled and to reduce natural water flows into mines. Shell has successfully tested the freezing technology and determined that the development of a freeze wall prevents the loss of contaminants from the heated zone."

    It may seem, as O'Conner said, counter-intuitive to freeze the water around a shale deposit, and then heat up the contents within the deposit. It's energy-intensive. And it's a lot of work. What's more, there's no proof yet it can work on a commercial scale.

    Yet both technologies, the freeze wall and the heating of shale, have been proven in the field to work. The freeze wall was used most recently in Boston's Big Dig project. It was also used to prevent ground water from seeping into the salt caverns at the Strategic Petroleum reserve in Weeks Island, LA.

    But still, you may be wondering, does it really make sense to heat the ground up a thousand feet down for three or four years and wait? Of course it does. In case you missed O'Conner's math, Shell could harvest up to a million barrels per acre, or a billion barrels per square mile, on an area covering over a thousand square miles.

    It's still early days in the oil shale fields of Colorado and Wyoming, but it looks to me like someone's gonna make a lot of money out there. I'm working hard to discover how we outside investors can play along.

    Shell's Mahogany Ridge

    Last week, I paid a visit to Royal Dutch Shell's oil shale project in Colorado. The visit left me with more questions than answers, but I came away from the place with the sense that this opportunity is very real…or, at least, it soon will be.

    After driving across a vast expanse of "Nowhere," Colorado, my brother and I met up with a few geologists from Shell. Of course it's just those large, unpopulated tracts of high desert that make the area so appealing from a geopolitical point of view. Tapping into the oil shale 2,000 feet underground isn't going to bother too many people. And there are no spotted owls around either. If the technology to turn shale into oil works, the entire area will become a new American boom patch.

    Soon after we arrived, the geologists escorted us around the facility, chatting all the while about the successes and challenges of their venture.

    The two trickiest aspects of oil shale development, as the geologists and engineers explained, are heating the shale to extreme temperatures, while simultaneously surrounding the heated area with a subterranean ice wall. Shell doesn't know, or isn't saying, which part of the project will be the most challenging. If you were about to change the world by making it economic to tap into as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil under the Colorado plateau, you'd be pretty careful about showing your competitors how you were going to do it.

    First, anything that heats up rock around it to around 600 or 700 degrees Fahrenheit has to conduct electrically generated heat well. The most conductive metals on the Periodic Table of Elements are, in order, silver, copper, and gold. Naturally, the number of heaters you put in a place affects the amount of time it takes to turn the shale goo into API 34 crude. The more heaters, the more cost, though.

    And given the fact that Shell does not know yet if the heaters will be recoverable, you can see that sticking silver, copper, or gold heaters 2000 meters underground and then leaving them there once the kerogen has been pumped has a serious effect on the economics of your operation.

    At the moment, Shell is not sure what the optimal size of production zones ought to be. The big issue here is how big can a freeze-wall be to be effective and freezing the groundwater surrounding a shale deposit? The test projects, as you can see, were quite small. Shell doesn't know, or isn't saying, what the optimum size is for a each "pod" or "cell". That's what they'll have to figure out at the next stage…and the picture with the dirt is a football field sized project….where rather than creating the freeze-wall at 50 meters down…they will do it at 1,000 ft. down…. with 2,000 being the desired and necessary depth for commercial viability. I'm not sure anyone has ever created a freeze-wall at that depth….neither is shell. But we'll find out. The oil itself that comes from the process looks like…oil. No heavy refining needed.

    Shell thinks the whole thing is economic at a crude price of $30. So barring a major reversal of geopolitical trends, they're forging ahead.

    Since the Bureau of Land Management owns about 80% of the oil shale acreage in Colorado, there is no investment play on private companies that might own land with rich shale deposits. Although, if Shell and the DOE are right that you can recover a million barrels of oil per acre…it wouldn't take much land to make a man rich out here.

    Oil Shale: Testing Public Lands

    The Bureau of Land Management recently received ten applications (by eight companies) for a pilot program to develop Colorado's shale reserves. The program allows the companies access to public lands for the purpose of testing shale-extraction technologies. You see below an interesting mix of large, publicly traded oil giants and small, privately held innovators.

    • Natural Soda, Inc. of Rifle, Colorado.
    • EGL Resources Inc. of Midland, Texas.
    • Salt Lake City-based Kennecott Exploration Company.
    • Independent Energy Partners of Denver, Colorado
    • Denver-based Phoenix Wyoming, Inc.
    • Chevron Shale Oil Company.
    • Exxon Mobil Corporation.
    • Shell Frontier Oil and Gas Inc

    There is dispute within the industry over how long, if ever, demonstration extraction technologies can become commercially viable. I've spoken with some of the smaller companies that have applied for leases from the BLM. Some of them will have to raise money to conduct the project. And some of them have been less than forthcoming about how exactly their extraction technology is different or better than previous methods.

    How will it all unfold? Well, for starters, it could all utterly fail. To me, Shell's in-situ process looks the most promising. It also makes the most sense economically. There may be a better, less energy-intensive way to heat up the ground than what Shell has come up with. But Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil clearly have the resources to scoop up any private or small firm that makes a breakthrough.

    And there are a host of smaller firms involved with the refining and drilling process that figure to play a key role in the development of the industry, should that development pick up pace.

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005, otherwise known as a listless piece of legislation without any strategic vision, does, at least, make provision for encouraging research into the development of shale. But government works slow, when it works at all. It's going to take an external shock to the economy to really ratchet up interest and development of the nation's energy reserves…say…something like a nuclear Iran.

    Dan Denning
    for The Daily Reckoning

    [Sep 06, 2015] Why the $20 Oil Predictions are Wrong By Robert Rapier

    "...I don't like predicting prices short term, because they are less influenced by fundamental factors. Longer term, irrational markets return to pricing based on fundamental factors like the cost to produce something and make a profit. In the long run, $40/bbl oil is not a price sufficient to entice enough oil producers to produce at a level that can satisfy global demand. Hence, prices will rise. How long will it take? Hard to say. Oil prices stayed above $100/bbl for a lot longer than I thought they would. Maybe they will remain depressed longer than I think they will. Personally, I believe prices will be back up to the $60/bbl level in 6 months or a year – and that's without any action from OPEC. If OPEC announced a 10% across the board production cut, that's a Black Swan that would drive prices back to $100/bbl very quickly."
    "...Not only did U.S. oil production grow faster than production in Saudi Arabia and Russia, but it outpaced production growth in all of OPEC, as well as the entire Middle East. Yet even with U.S. shale oil production, oil prices exceeded $100/bbl. And while U.S. shale oil producers have been getting more efficient, they aren't going to invest in new production at current prices. Hence, the handwriting is on the wall. (For an explanation of BP's crude oil accounting, see Is the U.S. Really the World's Top Oil Producer?)."
    Aug 20, 2015 | energytrendsinsider.com

    ... ... ...

    U.S. Crude Production is Falling

    No, U.S. crude oil production is now falling. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in its most recent Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) that U.S. crude oil production declined by 100,000 bpd in July compared with June, and they expect these declines to continue because of the steep cuts shale oil producers have made to their budgets. The EIA reduced its forecast for oil production next year to 400,000 bpd less than this year. More on the significance of this below.

    So why did inventories increase last week? It was actually because crude oil imports surged. Crude oil imports were 465,000 bpd higher than the previous week. That means 3.3 million barrels more oil came into the country than arrived in the previous week. Add that to the BP outage, and there was a surplus of oil of 4.9 million barrels relative to the previous week. This more than explains the 2.6 million barrel weekly gain in inventories. The question is "Will that continue to happen?"

    In my opinion, "No." The BP outage will continue for an indefinite period, but the import surge was an anomaly. Crude imports from Canada surged by 404,000 bpd from the previous week. But guess what? Canadian oil producers are in an even deeper bind than U.S. oil producers. A recent article stated that at $40/bbl WTI, Canada's largest synthetic crude project is losing about $10 on every barrel. How long do you suppose that can continue? The larger producers will hang in as long as they can, but some of the smaller guys are going to be shutting in production at $40 WTI (which implies an even lower price for them due to the distance to market). That will reduce imports from Canada - the very imports that surprisingly drove crude inventories higher this week.

    The U.S. Role in the Global Supply Picture

    U.S. crude oil production is falling because investments into shale oil production dried up as the price of crude oil fell below $60/bbl. Companies aren't interested in putting new capital to work, and because these oil fields deplete, that means crude production is falling. Why is that significant? Because most of the world's new oil production in the past 6 years has come from U.S. shale oil fields. It is hard to overstate the global importance of the new crude supply that came online in the U.S. since 2008. Perhaps this graphic will help put it into perspective:

    6 Years Oil Production Change

    Since 2008, U.S. oil production growth is equivalent to 83% of the global supply added during that time. (Some countries had declines in oil production, which is why the increases shown on the chart add up to more than the global total.) Not only did U.S. oil production grow faster than production in Saudi Arabia and Russia, but it outpaced production growth in all of OPEC, as well as the entire Middle East. Yet even with U.S. shale oil production, oil prices exceeded $100/bbl. And while U.S. shale oil producers have been getting more efficient, they aren't going to invest in new production at current prices. Hence, the handwriting is on the wall. (For an explanation of BP's crude oil accounting, see Is the U.S. Really the World's Top Oil Producer?).

    Insatiable Demand

    But what about demand? Isn't it declining? No. Our Western-centric view of the world may give us the impression that oil demand is declining, but the truth is quite different:

    Global Crude Demand

    Over just the past decade global oil consumption increased by an average of 900,000 bpd each year, and consumption has risen in 18 of the past 20 years. If we look back 30 years, global oil consumption increased by an average of 1.1 million bpd annually. Demand did decline in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - the grouping of the world's developed countries. But demand growth in developing countries overwhelmed the declines in the developed world. In just the past five years, demand in developing countries has increased by an average of 1.6 million bpd annually, and now exceeds OECD demand.

    OECD vs Non Demand

    Note that there was hardly any negative impact on demand in developing countries even with oil prices at $100/bbl. What drives consumption in these countries is a very large number of people using just a little bit more oil than they did before. High oil prices will do little to dissuade them from buying a little bit more when it can make such a big impact on their lives, especially when incomes are rising.

    Global demand growth for crude oil is projected to continue. The International Energy Agency recently forecast that global demand will increase by 1.4 million barrels per day this year, and a further 1.2 million bpd in 2016. The bulk of that demand growth is expected to come from developing countries in Asia. With U.S. supply falling, where are the new oil supplies coming from to satisfy global demand at $40/bbl oil? There simply isn't enough to go around. Another way of looking at this is "We are past peak $40/bbl oil."

    Iran Can't Close the Gap

    Yes, Iran may be putting another half million barrels per day on the export market over the next year. However, oil production in Iran has historically grown slowly. In the past 20 years the most they ever increased production by in a single year was 423,000 bpd. The 2nd most was 249,000 bpd. I am a bit skeptical about some of the optimistic forecasts for their ramp up. A year from now Iran's half million barrels per day may be on the market, but then oil demand will be another 1.4 million bpd higher.

    Further, if U.S. production begins to decline in earnest, that production will have to be made up as well. So if the IEA is correct we need another 1.4 million bpd plus the losses that will happen as a result of lower oil prices - and if Iran is stepping up then it will be taking place in an unstable region of the world. Is this really a scenario that can support $40 oil?

    This is why, in my opinion, oil can't go to $20/bbl. Despite very vocal predictions of much lower oil prices, many people are aware of the dynamics I have laid out here. They know that if you look at this moment in time, today, the market is slightly oversupplied. That is why oil prices are in the $40′s. But 6 months or a year from now? No way. Demand will keep growing, and there aren't enough producers willing to grow oil production at these prices. Thus, prices will rise, so every time WTI gets down to the sort of unsustainable level it is at now buyers start stepping up.

    The OPEC Wild Card

    This scenario presumes that OPEC doesn't blink. If you recall, at OPEC's meeting in late November 2014, they decided to defend market share instead of reducing production quotas, as some expected, to prop up the price of crude. OPEC's rationale was that such a move would only help shale oil producers grow their market share by allowing them to maintain high margins. Instead OPEC decided to produce all out, and the falling oil prices that began in the summer accelerated following OPEC's meeting. (See OPEC Crashed the U.S. Rig Count for additional background).

    At their June 5th meeting this year, they once more decided to leave production unchanged. But this strategy is inflicting a lot of pain on OPEC countries, and many are becoming more vocal about the issue. This week Algeria wrote a letter to OPEC questioning the wisdom of their current strategy. The letter asked OPEC to consider taking some form of action to bolster oil prices, as many OPEC countries need oil prices to be at least $100/bbl to balance their budgets. CNN recently reported that this year Saudi Arabia alone has burned through $62 billion of its cash reserves. By my calculations, the steep slide in the price of oil has cost Saudi Arabia around $200 billion in the past year.

    Personally, I think Saudi made a monumental miscalculation. While I have seen some claim that the rise of shale oil has effectively neutered OPEC, keep in mind that the organization still produced 41% of the world's oil last year. 36.6 million bpd of global production came from OPEC. Had they decided to cut production by 5% or so last fall, they would have lost some market share, and yes, the shale oil producers would have kept growing production. But oil prices would probably be at least twice what they are now. The net outcome for OPEC, despite the loss of market share, would have been much higher revenues than what they ended up with.

    Another problem for Saudi Arabia now is one of saving face. If they announce an emergency cut to the quotas, or even announce this at their next meeting in December, they will be admitting defeat. They may argue that if they can hold out just a bit longer, they can set the shale oil industry back by years, and then when prices go back up OPEC will be the biggest beneficiary. That is not the decision I would make, but certainly a decision that has benefited U.S. consumers.

    Conclusions

    I don't like predicting prices short term, because they are less influenced by fundamental factors. Longer term, irrational markets return to pricing based on fundamental factors like the cost to produce something and make a profit. In the long run, $40/bbl oil is not a price sufficient to entice enough oil producers to produce at a level that can satisfy global demand. Hence, prices will rise. How long will it take? Hard to say. Oil prices stayed above $100/bbl for a lot longer than I thought they would. Maybe they will remain depressed longer than I think they will. Personally, I believe prices will be back up to the $60/bbl level in 6 months or a year – and that's without any action from OPEC. If OPEC announced a 10% across the board production cut, that's a Black Swan that would drive prices back to $100/bbl very quickly.

    Here is a closing thought. If you could freeze the price of oil at $40/bbl for the next year, what do you think would happen? Supply would be lower in a year, and demand would be higher. In the real world, the price of oil will rise. Granted, the oil markets are notorious for over-correcting, which is the situation they are in right now, in my opinion. Could the price of oil drop to $20/bbl briefly? Well, these are predictions and opinions, and I am on the record predicting that WTI would not close below $40/bbl this year, but you never say never. I think it's highly unlikely though. If WTI shocks me and does fall to $20/bbl I will scrape together every penny I can and buy oil, and just sit back and wait for the inevitable swing in the other direction.

    Link to Original Article: Why the $20 Oil Predictions are Wrong

    (Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.)


    Forrest

    Liquid fuels will dominate transportation sector for foreseeable future. Technology improvements will make the common ICE very competitive. A $40k Chevy Bolt is far from being competitive to comparable MSRP $14,455 '16 Ford Fiesta. Also, biofuels will continue to increase production as a result the negative rating of motor fuel will decrease. Inner city mass transit may be the only exception as autonomous technology and computer control would really magnify the benefit of EV with the ensuing loss of roadway congestion, parking, and pollution. This seems to be the perfect application for EV.

    More economist fear the world economies may be intertwined within a vicious deflation pressure per the older generational logistics and our past leveraging of future wealth. Meaning the long time future a slow slog of low growth, high unemployment, low wages, and dwindling standard of living. This would endure until we slowly pay down debt and start to rebuild. This is the "change" that was once was hyped as good. But, saying that the U.S., especially, has a very impressive flow of invention such as the likes from Amazon, Apple, and the internet trading community that may empower our economy. Think of the biofuel, grid, solar, wind, nuclear, oil technology, auto technology, communications, entertainment, housing, materials, fuel cell, education and the rest. We need to, as a country, to become very flexible and agile and to bust roadblocks to improvement. We need to accept even demand invention and reinvention and eliminate holy political cows of Union organizations, Public ed, and corrupt politicians protecting powerful constituencies from Wall Street to Hollywood.

    ben

    Well, this '15 prediction was wrong, yet, underlying factors promoting sustainably higher oil prices remain in play despite temporary price relief. Is this surprising? Not at all, if the influences of the Fed's financial repression policies are taken to their logical conclusion; artificially suppressed interest rates will eventually sow the seeds of dysfunction across the whole spectrum of financial markets and assets with a concomitant impact on national economies. Artificial stimulants temporarily aiding a run-up in financial assets and equity markets cannot ultimately alter the underlying, real-world forces of supply & demand for both capital and labor.

    In short, monetary manipulations of central bankers attempting to orchestrate soft landings in relief of mismanaged fiscal policies on the part of the 'ruling class' will inevitably fall short of the objective.

    Indeed, these manipulations only serve to hide the mismanagement in such a way as to ensure that the ultimate corrections are far more traumatic than is otherwise necessary or advisable. Alas, the pretensions of such orchestrations must necessarily attend arrangements wherein political leadership, in tandem with the money manipulators, since the instinct to put off until tomorrow the demands of today naturally attend the temptation of expedient characters.

    Regrettably, contemporary politicians have made an art form of deflecting on the real issues while promoting their more popular (and their own) interests. Don't believe it? Well, just tune in for a Donald Trump rally and see what it looks like when entertainment "trumps" serious reasoning ;)
    Thanks for the straight talk, RR. No apologies required nor sought!

    TimC • 14 days ago

    "If WTI shocks me and does fall to $20/bbl I will scrape together every penny I can and buy oil."

    Me too. But why not buy oil at $40/bbl, if you believe it's going to $60 within a year? Or, if you don't like the risk in oil, diversify with an ETF. I recall one analysis at the start of the year that predicted the S&P500 Energy Select SPDR ETF (XLE) would rise 10% in 2015. XLE is down 20% YTD, so it should go up 37.5% in the next four months. How can you go wrong?

    "I don't like predicting prices short term..."

    Robert Rapier Mod > TimC

    "But why not buy oil at $40/bbl, if you believe it's going to $60 within a year?"

    I did the last time oil dipped toward $40. Not putting your eggs in one basket is good advice, so I keep a little powder dry. But at $20? I am all in.

    "How can you go wrong?"

    If you make predictions, you are going to be wrong sometimes. The key is being right more often than you are wrong. Then you make money.

    Common Sense

    What about the impact of potentially rising interest rates in the U.S. And its impact on the strength of the dollar?

    Wouldn't further US dollar appreciation stem some increase in emerging market demand and thus impact the price of oil?

    Robert Rapier Mod > Common Sense

    Demand growth in developing countries didn't flinch at $100 oil, so I don't think it's going to flinch with a stronger dollar and lower oil prices.

    Arthur_Henderson

    Robert,

    In my opinion - fantastic analysis! You took all of the variables into account. I think one of those most important variables to emphasize is depletion rates. With producers in the US and across the world pumping as much as they can, they are doing it at a cost of running into diminishing production rates (depletion) on those existing wells even sooner.

    I think the oil market will have turned a corner and prices will be back in the $60 - 70 range within about 18 months. I really think the oil market is going to get blindsided by this and all of a sudden, the reactions will be swiftly to the upside.

    I think we'll bottom out around $30 per barrel as the media broadcasts negative, emotional headlines through their propaganda bullhorns, and that's when we'll spike back into the $40s immediately before seeing more bullish data in the 1st and second quarter of 2016 - driving prices into the $50s.

    This is under the assumption that OPEC stubbornly refuses to budge. If they DO budge, oil markets are going to be on a tear into the $80s at the very least. US producers wouldn't be able to ramp up production quick enough to catch up at that point - and we'd be in the exact opposite situation we're in today!

    Benjamin Cole

    Well, probably right, this analysis is. But then, we did see $10 oil in the 1990s, not that long ago.

    In the longer run, I think there is a ceiling on oil, somewhere in the $70 to $100 range. Alternatives and conservation make a lot of sense once oil gets too expensive, And I guess better and better fracking techniques can go global.

    Plenty of wild cards out there in next 20 years. Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Russia --- gobs of oil, but can it be extracted? Even Saudi Arabia is cutting output artificially (in free-market terms).

    BTW, GS Yuasa says they will have a battery with double the power at half the cost on the market in two to five years. That company is a publicly held, Japanese, and already a major commercial battery maker, so I do not think this is pie on the moon stuff, ala cellulosic ethanol or $200 barrel oil.

    Urban regions with lots of battery cars? You can rent a car for cross-country drives, when you really need the gasoline. Fleets--UPS trucks, etc---will gravitate to batteries.

    It may be soon EVs will actually make commercial sense.

    Not sure oil is a good long-run bet. That said, oil back o $70? Very possible.

    [Sep 05, 2015] WORLD TRADE IS FALLING

    "...so, if we've got plenty of oil stored, and with at least two refineries operating below capacity, why do we continue to import near fracking-era record amounts of crude oil? one reason is the contango trade that we've talked about in the past, wherein contracts for oil to be delivered in the future are at a price somewhat higher than the cost of buying oil now, such that it pays for speculators to buy oil and pay for its storage, and enter into a contract to sell it back at a higher price in the future…at one point last week, the contract for oil to be delivered in December was more than a dollar a barrel higher than the current price, meaning that a speculator could buy oil at today's price, pay the fees to have it stored at Cushing or elsewhere, and sell it back in December with a clear profit…but as we should all know, for every contract there has to be a counterparty, and for everyone who's buying oil now with a contract to sell it in December, there was a seller of that oil at today's price and a someone else buying a contract to take delivery of that oil for a dollar more a barrel in December…so for every one who's trading oil like this, there is someone on the other side of those trades, be it a bank, commodities house, or an oil company, taking the other side of those contracts, and effectively betting against the contango trader…they both can't be right, and those who bet on higher prices in March and a month ago have since lost their shirts… "
    Angry Bear

    rjs August 23, 2015 2:39 pm

    dan, when you brought up oil imports and exports in your comment here Friday, i almost responded, because i already knew our imports the prior week were the highest since April 3, since i watch the reports and write about that stuff every weekend…maybe since i didn't, i continued to think about that and took a closer look at it yesterday than i normally do, which i have just posted online…turns out our net imports of oil and oil products, ie imports minus exports, were the highest they've ever been this year in the week ending August 12th…here's the relevant excerpt, without the links to the data sets i cited:

    US crude oil output fell this week, but our oil imports were the highest since early April, and with a major refinery idled, that unexpectedly led to the largest increase in our inventories of oil in storage in 4 months, precipitating yet a further crash in the price of oil…US field production of crude oil fell for the third week in a row in the week ending August 14th, from 9,395,000 barrels per day last week to 9,348,000 barrels per day in this week's report…while that was down 2.7% from the modern record of 9,610,000 barrels per day set in the week ending June 5th, it was still 9.6% higher than our output of 8,556,000 barrels per day in the same week last year…our imports of crude oil, meanwhile, rose for the 3rd week in a row, jumping from 7,573,000 barrels per day in the week ending August 7th to 8,038,000 barrels per day in the current report…while that's 2.4% more than the same week last year, our 7.6 million barrels per day average crude imports of the last 4 weeks is still 0.9% lower than the same 4 week period of last year…

    however, even with the increased oil supply brought about by that large increase in imports, that oil was not being put to use to the same degree as last week…due in large part to the unexpected August 8 outage at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana, the largest BP refinery and the largest in the US Midwest, U.S. crude oil refinery inputs dropped to 16,775,000 barrels per day, from the 17,029,000 barrel per day level of the week ending August 7th…so with greater supply and less refinery throughput, our crude oil inventories in storage rose by 2,620,000 barrels to 456,213,000 barrels in week ended August 14th, 24.3% more oil than the 367,019 ,000 barrels we had stored at the end of the 2nd week of August last year…that was, of course, more than was ever stored anytime in August in the 80 years that the EIA has records for, which had never seen the 400 million barrel inventory level breached before this year…that news of even higher inventories during the summer driving season when inventories usually fall sent oil prices down by 4.8% to a six and a half year low at $40.57 a barrel on Wednesday, and although the expiring September contract price inched up on Thursday on news of the first hurricane of the Atlantic season, oil prices for October delivery crashed again on Friday in the midst of a global market panic, briefly slipping below $40 a barrel, before closing the week at $40.45, capping the longest weekly losing streak for oil prices in 29 years…

    so, if we've got plenty of oil stored, and with at least two refineries operating below capacity, why do we continue to import near fracking-era record amounts of crude oil? one reason is the contango trade that we've talked about in the past, wherein contracts for oil to be delivered in the future are at a price somewhat higher than the cost of buying oil now, such that it pays for speculators to buy oil and pay for its storage, and enter into a contract to sell it back at a higher price in the future…at one point last week, the contract for oil to be delivered in December was more than a dollar a barrel higher than the current price, meaning that a speculator could buy oil at today's price, pay the fees to have it stored at Cushing or elsewhere, and sell it back in December with a clear profit…but as we should all know, for every contract there has to be a counterparty, and for everyone who's buying oil now with a contract to sell it in December, there was a seller of that oil at today's price and a someone else buying a contract to take delivery of that oil for a dollar more a barrel in December…so for every one who's trading oil like this, there is someone on the other side of those trades, be it a bank, commodities house, or an oil company, taking the other side of those contracts, and effectively betting against the contango trader…they both can't be right, and those who bet on higher prices in March and a month ago have since lost their shirts…

    another reason for continued high imports of oil is that we're exporting more refined products than ever before…in the 2nd week of August, our total exports of refined petroleum products averaged 3,884,000 barrels per day, up 10.6% from the 3,512,000 barrels per day we were exporting in the same week last year…but that's also more than double the 1,851,000 barrels per day of refined products we were exporting in August 2009, and more than quadruple the 964,000 barrels per day of refined products we were exporting in August of 2004…we're also exporting more crude oil too, mostly mostly to Canada, where the lighter grades of distillates are blended with tar from the oil sands to produce diluted bitumen, or dilbit, which can then be delivered by pipeline…on a monthly basis, our total exports of crude and petroleum products hit a record 4,943,000 barrels per day in April, more than double the 2,432,000 total exports of April five years earlier…

    but the week just ended was somewhat an anomaly, in that with the aforementioned refinery constraints, our total exports did not rise, and our total imports of refined products rose to 2,614,000 barrels per day, up from 1,927,000 barrels per day of refined product we imported just two weeks ago …that was only the 2nd time in the past two years wherein our refined product imports topped 2.6 million barrels per day, and as a result our total imports of crude oil and petroleum products rose to 10,652,000 barrels per day, for our highest weekly total imports this year…subtracting the 4,460,000 barrels per day of crude and products that we exported this week means our net petroleum and product deficit was at 6,192,000 barrels per day for the week, which was also the greatest excess of crude and products imports over exports that we've seen this year…

    despite that, the industry is pushing to have the 40 year old crude oil export ban repealed; it's already passed the House. why? simple; international oil prices have been running between $5 and $10 a barrel more than US oil prices. dont have to tell you what will happen to US prices if that happens…

    run75441 , August 23, 2015 3:19 pm

    RJS:

    Like oil production, refining is a cartel in itself and matching refining to demand is profitable.

    Anyhoo here is a chart to help you along. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MOPUEUS2&f=M

    rjs , August 23, 2015 3:52 pm

    yeah, bill, i mine the EIA datasets every week, and the weekly EIA reports are where all the numbers above came from…not surprisingly, the refiners are not passing through all of their lower costs to the consumers…

    the difference between crude oil and gasoline prices has increased by more than 50% from a year ago, so the pure refiners are making a bundle…the oil majors are using refinery profits to offset exploration and exploitation losses, and they all saw big downturns in 2nd quarter earnings anyway…

    and probably half the independent drillers i looked at in the first two weeks of August saw losses in the 2nd quarter, and that was when oil prices were 50% higher than they are now…

    Spencer England , August 24, 2015 10:37 am

    I monitor the Census real trade data and it shows that POL ( petroleum, oils & lubricants) is now equal to almost 50% of exports. that is partly a function of weaker imports, bottleneck but real exports have been growing at double digit rates for several years.

    West Texas Intermediate is selling at a discount to Brent, partially because of transportation bottlenecks. The Gulf Coast refiners are taking advantage of this discount to refine WTI and sell it in Europe where the refiners use Brent oil.

    The Keystone pipeline could eliminate this unusual spread and the US refiners would lose their price advantage - oil companies should be careful of what you wish for. Of course at today's prices the Keystone pipeline is not profitable.

    rjs , August 24, 2015 10:55 am

    the BP refinery in Whiting i mentioned above was one of the main processors of heavy crude such as dilbit from Canada, which is coming in to the US through the Enbridge pipeline system (Steve Horn at Desmogblog has had a series on how the "Keystone clone" , from Alberta to Lake Superior to the Fleming pipeline in Illinois, was quietly approved under the radar)

    at any rate, with Whiting down, maybe for a month, there's no one around to process West Canada Select…i saw it quoted with an $18 handle last week, when WTI was in the 40s…WTI has been trading with a $38 handle all morning, so they're probably having trouble giving that tar sands output away by now…

    [Sep 05, 2015] Global Economic Fears Cast Long Dark Shadow On Oil Price Rebound by Evan Kelly

    Sep 05, 2015 | Zero Hedge via OilPrice.com,

    After bouncing around, oil prices finished off the week with just a bit less volatility than when it started the week. WTI stayed at around $46 per barrel as of midday on September 4, with Brent holding at $50 per barrel.

    Aside from supply and demand fundamentals in the oil markets, central bank policymaking is another major factor determining the trajectory of oil prices. The European Central Bank hinted that it might consider more monetary stimulus to help the stagnant European economy. Oil prices rose on the news. The markets, however, are waiting on a much more significant announcement from the Federal Reserve this month on whether or not the central bank will raise interest rates. This summer's market turmoil – the Greek debt crisis and the meltdown in the Chinese stock markets – has dimmed the prospect of a rate increase.

    Moreover, the global economic unease may begin to reach American shores. On September 4, the U.S. government released data for the month of August, revealing that the U.S. economy added only 173,000 jobs, a mediocre performance that missed expectations. Although an economic slowdown is no doubt a negative for oil prices, the news could provide enough justification for the Fed to hold off on raising interest rates. A delay in a rate hike could push up WTI and Brent.

    Although a slew of Canadian oil sands projects have been cancelled due to incredibly low oil prices, several large projects were already underway before the downturn. With the costs of cancellation too high, these projects continue to move forward. When they come online – several of which are expected by 2017 – they could add another 500,000 barrels per day in production, potentially exacerbating the glut of supplies not just in terms of global supply, but more specifically in terms of the flow of oil from Canada. Canadian oil already trades at a discount to WTI, now at around $15 per barrel.

    That means that when WTI dropped below $40 per barrel last week, Western Canada Select was nearing $20 per barrel. With the latest rebound to the mid-$40s, WCS is only around $30 per barrel. But with breakeven prices for many Canadian oil sands projects at $80 per barrel for WTI, oil operators in Alberta are no doubt losing sleep over their current situation. One important caveat to remember is that unlike shale projects, Canada's oil sands [mines] operate for decades, so the immediate downturn does not necessarily ruin project economics. However, with a strong rebound in prices no longer expected in the near-term, high-cost oil sands projects are probably not where an investor wants to be.

    Low oil prices continue to take their toll. Bank of America downgraded BP to "underperform" and warned that its dividend policy faces risks.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia's King Salman arrived in Washington on September 4 to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama. The two leaders will discuss the Iran nuclear deal, a deal that the Saudi King had strongly opposed from the start, but has since begrudgingly warmed up to following security promises from the United States. If they can manage to stay on the same page with the Iran deal, the two leaders will then discuss the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen. There is obviously little to no prospect that such intensely complicated conflicts will get sorted out in the near future, so more modest goals for the trip include simply building trust between the two countries. Although long-term allies, Saudi Arabia has become more mistrustful of the U.S. President following the thaw in relations between the U.S. and Iran. The trip follows what the media has called a "snub" when King Salman declined to come to Washington this past spring for a summit of other Gulf state leaders.

    ... ... ...

    Russian President Vladimir Putin met Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in China this week, and the two sides apparently discussed ways to stabilize oil prices. Maduro says that they agreed on "initiatives" to address low oil prices, but did not elaborate with details. In all likelihood, Maduro is engaging in a degree of bluster and wishful thinking. Neither side has the capacity to cut oil production as both are facing varying degrees of economic and financial crisis. However, earlier this week oil prices briefly spiked on news that Russia might be willing to negotiate coordinated action. Prices subsequently retreated once expectations subsided.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 04, 2015] Narrative And Reality Of The U.S. War On Syria

    "...The US media knows nothing and cares less, it is anything goes, they just sell media consumption / clicks on the intertubes / TV watching, etc. / advertising / Gvmt. propanganda, all of which which changes day by day… the more ppl are confused, the better"
    .
    "...The sophisticated propaganda apparatus that we enjoy (NOT!) today is a mix of half-truths, false narratives and (falser) counter-narratives. (Some counter-narratives, I think, are from well-meaning people who distrust government and are trying to interpret what is really happening thru the lens of their own (often limited) experience.)"
    .
    "...Interesting too, that the Ukraine situation is hotting up. Maybe the thinking is that Putin could not handle multiple crises? "
    .
    "...Bhadrakumar is always the best. But, I think it's realistic to take a step further Flynn's admission about the US "knowing about ISIL" (but not knowing its name) back in 2012. Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that the US also knew about Saudi defense/intelligence ministry plans to create and fund 'ISIL' from the beginning? Does anyone here think _anything_ going on at a high level in Saudi escapes US intelligence?
    .
    And then, a step further, you would think US experts would be helpfully guiding the Saudis as to where best to insert ISIL forces, how best to fund/supply them, and so on. Saudi royal family cronies are not the most competent or hardworking administrators, and they're not privy to the intel and experience the US has in the 'our terrorism' specialty, and so it's natural to expect they'd ask for and receive US help with this stuff."
    Aug 14, 2015 | M of A

    The Washington Post "It Never Happened" piece on Syria documented yesterday is far from the only one that avoids to mention the intimate U.S. involvement in waging war on Syria.

    A New York Times piece today falsely claims:

    The United States avoided intervening in the civil war between rebels and the government of Mr. Assad until the jihadist group took advantage of the chaos to seize territory in Syria and Iraq.

    McClatchy, which is usual better, currently has two pieces by Hannah Allam looking into U.S. involvement in the war on Syria. Unfortunately these are also full of false narratives and unchecked administration propaganda. Obama administration still predicts 'Assad's days are numbered' is a take of what administration officials now claim about their early believes of the war on Syria. It also includes this whoopers:

    The Americans were determined to keep the United States out of an armed conflict in Syria, but turned a blind eye as Persian Gulf allies sent weapons to hardline factions with ties to al Qaida.

    Years ago the NYT and several other outlets reported that the CIA was the entity which organized the weapon transfers, thousands of tons, for the Saudis and other Gulf countries. The U.S. did not turn a blind eye. It was actively organizing the whole war from the very beginning.

    In The 'magic words:' How a simple phrase enmeshed the U.S. in Syria's crisis Hannah Allam lets the former ambassador to Syria Ford claim that the administration never really wanted to ouster Assad but was pressed into it:

    Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria at the time, said he initially opposed calling for Assad's ouster for two reasons: it was clear to him that sanctions were the only punishment the White House was willing to use, and that such a call would kill his efforts to start a dialogue with the regime.

    Ford said he was up against the same outside pressures other officials listed – influential Republicans, a few senior Democrats, the "very loud" Syrian-American community and foreign governments – but he added one force that's often overlooked.

    "To be very frank, the press, the media, was baiting us. It's not like the media was impartial in this," Ford said. "Because once the Republicans started saying he has no legitimacy, the question then became at press conferences every day: Do you think he has legitimacy? What are we supposed to say? Yes, he does?"

    Hogwash. Ford was one of the first to press for the ouster of Assad. He even organized the early demonstration and the media training for the "peaceful demonstrators" who were early on killing policemen and soldiers. One of the "revolutionaries" reacts to Ford's claims:

    The 47th
    Out of all ppl, Robert Ford is talking about Syrians being mislead by the magic words? Ford "promised" us Syrians full support in 2011.

    The 47th
    In private meetings In damascus, Robert Ford promised his syrian oppo friends full U.S. Support and encouraged Syrians to go on.

    The 47th
    He even went to fucking Hama, during the biggest protest in Syria's modern history youtu.be/AP1vGBJM4NU

    The 47th
    I wdnt talk abt ppl misinterpreting U.S public statements, U were ur Admin's amb, say the truth: u promised Syrians the moon, gave them shit

    All these media pieces, yesterday's WaPo piece, today's false NYT claims, the McClatchy pieces, are part of the Obama strategy to play as if it was/is doing "nothing" or "just something" while at the time time running a full fledged proxy war against the Syrian government.

    Joel Veldkamp lays out and analyses that strategy:

    Why does the U.S. only have sixty fighters to show for its $500 million, year-old training program? Because it reinforces the narrative – nurtured by a raft of previous hopelessly inadequate, publicly-announced and -debated programs to support the opposition – of the U.S. as a helpless bystander to the killing in Syria, and of President Obama as a prudent statesman reluctant to get involved. While the Senate berates the Pentagon chief over the program's poor results, the U.S. is meanwhile outsourcing the real fight in Syria to allies with no qualms about supporting al Qaeda against their geopolitical opponents – unless the U.S. is, as before, cooperating directly or indirectly in that support.

    Once it is recognized that the "helpless bystander" narrative is false, and that the U.S. has been deeply involved in the armed conflict almost from the start, it becomes both possible and necessary to question that involvement.

    What I find astonishing is that the U.S. media are able to have it both ways on Syria. Every other day there is a piece with the false narrative that the U.S. is not and has not been involved in Syria while at the same time the very same media, NYT, WaPo, McClatchy, publish other pieces about the massive "secret" military effort with thousands of tons of weapon shipments and billions of dollars the Obama administration pushes into Syria to wage war against the Syrian people.

    The media know that the "helpless bystander" narrative is false. But Joel Veldkamp's hope that this would make it "possible and necessary to question that involvement" is not coming true. Besides in fringe blogs like this one there is no such public discussion at all.

    Noirette | Aug 14, 2015 1:19:32 PM | 2

    Re. Syria (others...) the US is divided.

    Perpetual violent war-mongers (McCain, his acolytes, neo-cons, neo-libs) facing a more 'realistic' foreign policy - Obama and Kerry, see Iran deal.

    These parties are fighting amongst each other and pursuing different agendas. Ex.: Ukraine, where the ones are gingerly, half-heartedly, supporting the Minsk 2 agreement and want to get rid of the 'distraction' and leave it for now to the EU and/or Russia to pay for the mess.

    The other camp, going for all out-war against Russia, with boots on the ground / powerful arms / bombing / other, in Ukr., attacking Russia through a proxy. - Ukr. can't manage on its own as has now been conclusively demonstrated.

    Now that might be good cop-bad cop routine, but overall it explains the 'frozen-for-now conflict' (deathly as it is and not frozen) in Ukraine. Along with the fact that Putin wants nothing to do with this mess and imho? stops the separatists from conquering more territory.

    Failed states, characteristics.

    ... Being open to outside soft take-over and influence. The PTB hob-nob, submit to outsiders (who have some sorta power), and make contradictory alliances in function of interest groups. A failed state cannot truly defend itself, so it deploys what might it can to intimidate, always with allies, proxies, buddies, etc. It agresses militarily only the weak and easily vanquished (nobody objects to that) but gains no advantages from it. On it goes, squandering its ressources.

    The destruction of Syria has worked fine. But Assad can't be removed. Now the plan is he is to stay but be 'wound down' or whatever.

    The US media knows nothing and cares less, it is anything goes, they just sell media consumption / clicks on the intertubes / TV watching, etc. / advertising / Gvmt. propanganda, all of which which changes day by day… the more ppl are confused, the better!

    Jackrabbit | Aug 14, 2015 3:05:34 PM | 6

    As b points out, the cat is out of the bag. So this is not about plausible deniability.

    The sophisticated propaganda apparatus that we enjoy (NOT!) today is a mix of half-truths, false narratives and (falser) counter-narratives. (Some counter-narratives, I think, are from well-meaning people who distrust government and are trying to interpret what is really happening thru the lens of their own (often limited) experience.)

    The "helpless bystander" narrative is complemented by the "ruthless tyrant" narrative. A recent CBS news segment about the demise of the small American armed and trained anti-ISIL force related how hundreds of potential fighters had dropped out. Why? Because they thought *ASSAD* was a worse problem than ISIL!

    The propaganda push, coming after recent developments like USA saying it will attack any force that attacks USA-supported militants, leads me to wonder if we're being prepared for a surprise! that forces USA involvement.

    Interesting too, that the Ukraine situation is hotting up. Maybe the thinking is that Putin could not handle multiple crises?

    Mina | Aug 14, 2015 1:54:29 PM | 5

    http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2015/08/10/us-took-willful-decision-to-create-islamic-state/
    Bhadhrakumar

    harry law | Aug 14, 2015 3:49:52 PM | 8

    Putin is well aware of US duplicity, and the West promises to protect the Libya minority, which morphed into Regime change. Iran is even more aware of the US game in Syria, it is for that reason both countries be on their guard in the event that the US, or their proxies, intervene in Syria, which I am sure they would like to do.

    I hope it is the case that Assad has things in hand, and that he does not need the help of Iran's military manpower, in the event that he did, I am sure the military alliance between the two would provide such assistance if called for by Assad, this would be entirely within International law, after all the Saudis and Turks have been facilitating the influx of thousands of head chopping fanatics into Syria in breach of International law in their attempt to topple the legitimate Syrian Government.

    Joe Tedesky | Aug 14, 2015 11:58:56 PM | 17

    Someone please give Zbigniew a call, and ask him how to spin the narrative on Syria. This whole mess the U.S. is squirming around in is a result of it's own doing. For a long time the U.S. has attempted to live two lives. One life as a democracy warrior, the other as a master of deception. Brzezinski went big back in the seventies, when he convinced Jimmy Carter to back the Mujaheddin against Russia.

    Smart move, except now every Gulf nation has their personal mercenaries at their disposal. This is going on at the same time that every Joe-Bob in America thinks it's those crazy Muslims. So savage mercenaries they are not, but savage Muslims they must be.

    So finally now when people in the White House wake up to the fact that this isn't 1978 they are struck with an epiphany to suddenly change their tune. This shouldn't surprise anyone. This is what they do. No one ever said they do it well. Well, maybe some will say that, but then again this is how it gets done. My one hope is that all people, whether Syrian, Iraqi, Ukrainian, or just down right anyone may live in peace. Why, is this so hard?

    plantman | Aug 15, 2015 12:50:20 AM | 18

    This is from the WSWS: developments on the ground (in Syria) are underscoring that any diplomatic settlement over Syria will be implemented through a militarized carve-up of the country, spearheaded by the Pentagon and its regional partners and proxy forces.

    As part of a deal reached in July between Ankara and Washington, Turkish President and Justice and Development Party (AKP) government leader Erdogan gained US backing for the imposition of a militarized "buffer zone" encompassing hundreds of square miles in northern Syria. The new zone would be occupied by Syrian opposition fighters and reinforced by the US and Turkish air forces, with US forces having been cleared to operate from Turkish bases as part of the agreement.

    Once established, the military zone would serve as a staging area for US-backed rebel forces fighting against the Assad government.

    Despite their public confidence in Putin's readiness to accept a deal, the Turkish government is clearly preparing its own large-scale military intervention into areas of northern Syria." http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/14/syri-a14.html

    Yes, Putin wants a deal, so Turkey and Jordan are positioning themselves to steal parts of Syria before the agreement is made.

    But what about the US? The US won't want the Russian deal because they won't be able to install their own stooge in Damascus. So the fighting goes on, Iran gets more involved, and Putin has to decide whether to send troops to avoid another Libya.

    What a mess!

    fairleft | Aug 15, 2015 4:14:03 AM | 19

    Mina @5

    Thanks. Bhadrakumar is always the best.

    But, I think it's realistic to take a step further Flynn's admission about the US "knowing about ISIL" (but not knowing its name) back in 2012. Wouldn't it be more realistic to guess that the US also knew about Saudi defense/intelligence ministry plans to create and fund 'ISIL' from the beginning? Does anyone here think _anything_ going on at a high level in Saudi escapes US intelligence?

    And then, a step further, you would think US experts would be helpfully guiding the Saudis as to where best to insert ISIL forces, how best to fund/supply them, and so on. Saudi royal family cronies are not the most competent or hardworking administrators, and they're not privy to the intel and experience the US has in the 'our terrorism' specialty, and so it's natural to expect they'd ask for and receive US help with this stuff.

    fairleft | Aug 15, 2015 5:07:16 AM | 21

    Bhadrakumar's piece ends very strong, especially the final paragraph:

    The specious plea being advanced by Washington currently is that the US wants to turn Afghanistan into a regional hub to wage a war against the IS - a war by the US and its partners, which, in the opinion of Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could last not less than a generation.

    This Dempsey guy is a smart general, isn't it? It was under his watch that the IS was finessed and deployed as the instrument of US regional policy to overthrow the established government in Syria and to force Baghdad to allow the return of American troops to Iraq – and now he pops up in Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's office in Kabul one fine day two weeks ago to make the proposition that Washington might need an open-ended military presence in Afghanistan for another 15-20 years to wage the global war against the IS.

    It will take another Gen Flynn to tell us another time circa 2025 that the IS that subsequently overthrew the established governments in Central Asia, bled white the regions of Xinjiang and North Caucasus and Kashmir, destroyed the Pakistani state and led to that country's disintegration, and kept Iran bogged down in the sheer preservation of its plural society (which is an ethnic mosaic) was actually incubated in the American military bases in Afghanistan.

    El Sid | Aug 15, 2015 9:12:34 AM | 23

    part 1 of 2
    Polar Reorientation In the Mideast (US-Iran)?
    Fri, Aug 14, 2015
    By Andrew KORYBKO
    http://orientalreview.org/2015/08/14/polar-reorientation-in-the-mideast-us-iran-i/

    Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 15, 2015 7:22:04 AM | 22

    El Sid | Aug 15, 2015 9:12:34 AM | 23

    http://thesaker.is/the-saker-interviews-general-ret-amine-htaite-of-the-lebanese-armed-forces/

    The Saker has a great interview with Gnl Amine Htaite of the Lebanese Armed Forces.

    Good to get an Orientalist point of view these days.

    jfl | Aug 15, 2015 9:34:27 AM | 24

    @18

    Turkish nationalists reject minority government in blow to Erdogan

    Hard to tell if the good guys are going to increase their representation or the bad guys ... but I hope to see the hind side of this particular turkey. Looks like the Turks of every species are grousing at Erdogan at every opportunity.


    @21

    ' This Dempsey guy is a smart general, isn't it? It was under his watch that the IS was finessed and deployed as the instrument of US regional policy to overthrow the established government in Syria and to force Baghdad to allow the return of American troops to Iraq – and now he pops up in Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's office in Kabul one fine day two weeks ago to make the proposition that Washington might need an open-ended military presence in Afghanistan for another 15-20 years to wage the global war against the IS. '

    Dempsey is getting ready for his personal revolution ... through the revolving door to the pot of gold as the end of the rainbow. The US armed forces are now committing to losing wars for ... as long as they can. Afghanistan is one of their major profit centers.

    rufus magister | Aug 15, 2015 10:12:34 AM | 26

    Plantman at 18 --

    You're right to call it a hot mess. The Ukraine, Libya, Iraq and More! Collect and trade them all! Everyone will want a complete set of the "Most Wanted" cards, naturally.

    Mike Whitney at Counterpunch is always a good read on the economy. He turns his talents here to Syria, asking the musical question, Is Putin Planning to Sell-Out Assad? He doesn't think so.

    Forget about ISIS and Syrian President Bashar al Assad for a minute and, instead, focus on the terms "autonomous zones", "creation of …sanctuaries", "safe zones" and "a confederal Syria."

    All of these strongly suggest that the primary aim of US policy is to break Syria up into smaller units that pose no threat to US-Israeli regional hegemony. This is the US gameplan in a nutshell.

    In contrast, Russia does not want a divided Syria. Aside from the fact that Moscow and Damascus are long-term allies (and Russia has a critical naval facility in Tartus, Syria), a balkanized Syria poses serious threats for Russia...."

    Amongst them, "the probable emergence of a jihadi base of operations" with some of those ops targeting the Russian Federation, and a legitimizing a whole array of bad practices in international relations.

    The under-reported diplomacy by Putin, Whitney writes, is aimed at implementation of the Geneva accord of 2012.

    Geneva does not resolve the central issue, which is: "Does Assad stay or go?" That question is not answered definitively. It all depends of composition of the "transitional governing body" and the outcome of future elections....

    Here's how Lavrov summed it up two days ago:

    "I have already said, Russia and Saudi Arabia support all principles of the June 30, 2012 Geneva communique, in particular, the need to preserve government institutions, including the Syrian army. I believe its participation in the effective struggle against terrorists is truly essential."

    Whitney allows, "Some will... say that Putin is 'selling out a friend and ally', but that's not entirely true. He's trying to balance two opposing things at the same time." Keep the back of an ally, but get Saudi help to end the jihadi war in Syria.

    And even if Assad is removed, the process (Geneva) is such that the next president is not going to be a hand-picked US stooge, but someone who is supported by the majority of the Syrian people. Needless to say, Washington doesn't like that idea.

    Some "moderate jihadi" riding in on a Humvee is more to DC's taste.

    In as much as Assad the Younger, former London optometrist, is more of a figurehead and less an autocrat than his late father, Ba'ath Party institutions should prove suitably robust and cohesive to have a significant impact on any future government.

    Whitney points to the Turkmen militias earlier under discussion [see the "Turkey Invades" thread] and concludes, time is short for Putin to pull off another diplomatic victory and prevent America from crossing another "red line" in its efforts to destroy Syria.

    jfl at 24

    I'd like to see Erdogan out, but I would note he's survived numerous rounds of substantial discontent. See the links in my nr. 84 in Turkey Invades if you're curious about his political calculations; sadly, he may be correct. He will not see this rejection as a blow, but will welcome it.

    And to all you Barflies, I keep saying -- it's not about ISIS, or even Assad. It's all about the PKK and the Kurds. That's the real story, not the official narrative.

    Noirette | Aug 15, 2015 11:12:00 AM | 30

    As Narrative is in the title….When the protests in Syria broke out, and war began, I awarded the label 'genuine' to some of the early protests, which nobody agreed with iirc. I related these protests to catastrophic drought (which is well documented, > goog) and the unwillingness / incapacity / blindness of the Assad Gvmt in addressing the matter in any way at all.

    One major problem was that the drought coincided with liberal moves by Assad - cutting bread subsidies (2008! - food prices R O S E by astonishing %), fuel subsididies for farmers (others too), opening up the banking sector, and totally mismanaging water -> …all done to please the W and 'modernise'.

    Which lead to massive destruction of the farming community (very consequent at the time) and ppl flocking to the towns where they could not earn a living. The MSM has recently (March 2015) discovered this, e.g. the NYT - http://tinyurl.com/k5asy5h - which states that 1.5 million ppl moved to cities (idk about that no., seems low, but more were displaced and fell into poverty in other ways. Or fled, leading to further disorganisation and damage. At some point a threshold or tipping point is reached.) The article also mentions refugees from Iraq - a separate issue.

    It is natural to be polarised on human decisions, influence, plots, but I really think one should take climate change into account. Note the 'liberalisation moves' were the usual, and Assad agreed but took it very slow - he faced opposition from various quarters, incl. his minister of Economy. Now we see similar but far more radical measures imposed on Greece, Ukraine, like a speeded-up movie.

    academic paper, cautious and wordy. mentions the diff. topics

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1

    news from 2010, 2-3 million ppl thrown into extreme poverty in Syria

    http://www.irinnews.org/report/90442/syria-drought-pushing-millions-into-poverty

    Oui | Aug 17, 2015 12:21:18 PM | 49

    Erdogan preempted the snap elactions by a snap diktat ...

    Erdoğan's declaration of 'system change' outrages Turkey's opposition | Hürriyet Daily News |

    President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's declaration of a de facto shift in Turkey's administrative system to a presidential system has infuriated opposition leaders, who say the declaration indicates "rule by diktat."

    In remarks delivered in his hometown, the Black Sea province of Rize, on Aug. 14, Erdoğan said Turkey had witnessed a change in the president's new role and asked for the constitution to be updated to recognize his de facto deployment of enhanced powers.

    "There is a president with de facto power in the country, not a symbolic one. The president should conduct his duties for the nation directly, but within his authority. Whether one accepts it or not, Turkey's administrative system has changed. Now, what should be done is to update this de facto situation in the legal framework of the constitution," he said.

    Posted to my diary - Israel Ready to Join the Sunni Alliance Against Assad, Syria.

    guest77 | Aug 17, 2015 10:49:49 PM | 51

    There is only one history of the Syrian War so far as I am concerned, and the is b's: http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/09/a-short-history-of-the-war-on-syria-2006-2014.html

    I would suggest that you keep that post updated as we go, though of course maybe it isn't your blogging style. But it's a brilliant piece.

    [Sep 03, 2015] Kievs week of violence is a crisis of its own making

    Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one.
    They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show."
    .
    "...Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred."
    .
    Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has achieved.
    .
    Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told. He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity."
    .
    "...Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government: (1). He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do. (2). He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again."
    .
    "...Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention."
    .
    "...When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through violence. I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's constitutional proposals."
    .
    "...I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!"
    .
    "...I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.
    The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising."
    Notable quotes:
    "... I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically. ..."
    "... - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks... ..."
    "... "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war." ..."
    "... It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better. ..."
    "... Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils? ..."
    "... A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft. ..."
    "... In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us. ..."
    "... It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus. ..."
    "... Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!). ..."
    "... Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face. ..."
    "... February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings. ..."
    "... These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue. ..."
    "... History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS. ..."
    "... Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement. ..."
    "... The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government. ..."
    "... Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one. ..."
    "... Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred. ..."
    "... The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy". ..."
    "... Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention. ..."
    "... Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella. ..."
    "... I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves! ..."
    "... idan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place. The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke. ..."
    Sep 03, 2015 | The Guardian

    Another version has it that the explosion outside parliament was orchestrated by the president's administration or the Ukrainian special services in order to discredit Svoboda and other radical nationalists and to "tighten the screws" on the political life of the country thus justifying control over opposition forces.

    This version hardly stands up to criticism. The demonstration was led by MPs who are members of Svoboda but got into parliament as independent candidates. In the 2014 elections Svoboda did not win the 5% of the vote necessary to enter parliament. Four months earlier, in the presidential election, the party's leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, won only a little over 1% of the vote. This week he was photographed, together with other Svoboda activists, trying to drag a soldier out of the human chain formed around parliament into the crowd of protesters. It was a moment very reminiscent of the Maidan days, only that then Svoboda members and their leader were inside parliament. Since then the party has found itself increasingly marginalised.

    However, there were other groups represented in the demonstration , among them two that deserve special attention: Oleg Lyashko's radical party and Igor Kolomoisky's Ukrop party. T-shirts with the latter party's emblem were given out free at the demonstration, and those willing to take part were paid to protest. Kolomoisky is considered to be an enemy of President Poroshenko since he was sacked from his position as governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region. Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili.

    Immediately after the blast, Lyashko, who is a radical populist with little in common with the radical nationalists, announced the establishment of a campaign to save the nation. Only three or four hours after the explosion, his party had already registered a bill that would block changes to the constitution at times when the country is under military attack. Lyashko came second in the presidential elections, and over the last year his Radical party has gone up in the ratings. It is interesting that articles in the press regularly claim to have evidence that both the Svoboda party and the Radical party have been financed by the same oligarchs, the above mentioned Kolomoisky, Sergey Levochkin – who was head of the presidential administration under Yanukovich and who fled to Moscow after the Maidan – and Dmitry Firtash, who is now being investigated on corruption charges in Austria.

    Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation. To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan. There were also volunteers who had no affiliation to any party who went to fight. When the Ukrainian army took over the main role in the fighting, many of the volunteers returned home, taking weapons with them.

    nnedjo 3 Sep 2015 16:18

    Well, the purpose of the constitutional changes in Ukraine should be that rebels in the southeast stop fighting and accept Ukraine as his country, and not Ukrainian nationalists to stop throwing grenades at the police in Kiev. However, these laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament, can contribute very little that the main objective. Their main goal is just to create the illusion that Ukraine really is trying to comply with the requirement of Minsk 2 agreement, and thus to meet the expectations of their Western friends, which means to prevent lifting of sanctions against Russia. And, on the other hand, these laws need to be completely contrary to the expectations of the rebel peoples in Donbas, or in other words to achieve the same thing that the Ukrainian government unsuccessfully tried to achieve with weapons.

    It is particularly interesting that the President of Ukraine Poroshenko himself makes no secret at all that it is true what I've previously written, as can be understood, among other things, also from those of his statements:

    According to the president, "the threat of break-up of the international pro-Ukrainian coalition" would have increased if the Verkhovna Rada had not voted in favor of decentralization amendments to the constitution on Monday.

    It could also lead to the lifting of sanctions, which "are very painfully hitting the aggressor," he said, apparently, referring to Russia, which Kiev blames for sending troops to war-torn eastern Ukraine....

    ...But what they [Donetsk and Lugansk Regions] have got instead is a lean line about the features of local self-governance," Poroskenko stressed.
    So, even though the law that caused the protests in front of parliament has the name of "decentralization", in fact it needs to further strengthen the competence of the central government. Based on this law, the Presidency received the right to appoint a prefect, who with his hand has the discretionary right to dismiss officials elected at the local elections in certain regions. And if they do not like it, they can appeal to the constitutional court in Kiev, where were apparently is known in advance what may be the decision of the constitutional court.

    On the other hand, the law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk, which was passed earlier, is practically suspended at this point by the recent decision of the President Poroshenko.

    In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize two things.

    Although according to the Minsk 2 arrangement, the special status of the Donbas region should have been incorporated as an integral and permanent part of the Ukrainian Constitution, the law, which is now suspended, does not meet any of these two demands.

    This law therefore is attached only as an annex to the Ukrainian constitution, and its validity is limited to just three years. And, according to the idea of Ukrainian legislators, the law can come into force only after the local elections in Donbass which would be held under the previous Ukrainian legislation, and when Ukrainian forces take control over the whole territory of Ukraine, including its entire border with Russia.

    Until then, they will be consider that Donbas region is temporarily occupied part of Ukrainian territory, and officials of the People's Republic of Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republic will be considered as terrorists. And since with the terrorists must not be negotiations, leaders of the LNR and DNR were completely excluded so far from discussions about the law on the special status, which is also contrary to the Minsk 2 agreement, given that it explicitly requires just that.
    All in all, they are asking the pro-Russian rebels that lay down their arms voluntarily, without getting anything in return. Or more accurately, to get just a little bit of what they are looking for and only for a period of three years. So, congratulations on wishful thinking, but the question is whether it is achievable at all.

    LimaCPapa -> ridibundus 3 Sep 2015 15:48

    I first learned about this when a new Ukrainian student introduced himself, and we asked why the name he gave was not the name on his papers. He explained (with clear annoyance) that he had to use a Ukrainian name. He had to keep it while he was here as well, because it was the name in his passport. Now he's free of all that and uses his Russian name. Needless to say, he did not return to Ukraine. Another Ukrainian has since confirmed that the same thing was true for her passport. In both cases, issued in the early 2000s. So who's lying then?

    beakybloom -> gablody 3 Sep 2015 13:34

    What's inherited??.. The bankrupt economy, loss of Crimea, loss of Donbass, 6000 dead, civil war, downing of Malaysian airliner with 300 souls on board, Odessa massacre, murders of political opponents, the nazi parliament, stupid laws glorifying Ukraine's nazi past, no visa-free access to EU, Nazis throwing grenades at the police???..

    Nothing here is inherited except the absence of visa-free access to EU

    a "show on the road" ? On IMF funny money? For how long? It's a shitshow, and unsustainable to boot.


    nnedjo -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 13:28

    The putinposters are still reeling with the news that the Ukrainian government is fighting "Nazis" in Kiev,...

    It will be possible to say just when the news arrives that the organizers of these demonstrations were sentenced to a few tens of years in prison, and that guy who threw this grenade from which the Guardsmen killed, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

    What is quite unbelievable judging by the past behavior of government from Kiev.

    Chillskier -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 10:43

    Georgia tried:
    http://agenda.ge/news/26188/eng
    Apparently Interpol red notices cannot be issued against US stooges.

    Chillskier -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 10:20

    The piece of shit she CHOSE to work with.
    Jewish neo-con skunk and neo-Nazi thug seems like a match made in heaven.

    jezzam -> Chillskier 3 Sep 2015 10:19

    Go ahead then. I can't wait. Neither can Poroshenko. His best option is passive resistance when Putin launches his next land grab. Russia will be forced to give it back eventually when they are totally bankrupt

    Bosula -> RVictor 3 Sep 2015 08:55

    The congregation is mostly made up of ethnic Ukrainians, members of a community that numbers hundreds of thousands and has been growing rapidly since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine.


    This is what the Guardian reported on 13 May 2015 - this was JUST for Poland:

    "Last year Poland issued 331,000 permits for short-term work to Ukrainians, up 50% on 2013, says Marta Jaroszewicz, a migration expert at the Centre For Eastern Studies (OSW), an independent Warsaw thinktank funded by the Polish government.

    She estimates that there are now 300,000-400,000 Ukrainians in Poland, as many as twice the officially recognised number. In January and February, the number of residence applications by Ukrainians in the Mazovian voivodeship – the province which includes Warsaw – was up 180% on the same months of 2014."

    There are other articles for other neighbouring countries bordering Ukraine, but the Guardian is a pretty authoritative source.

    Since this story the number crossing the border to leave Ukraine has increased significantly.


    FlappyCat 3 Sep 2015 08:20

    Poroshenko to Transnistria..
    Yats to Macedonia and
    Saakishwilly to Tajikistan.


    oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:12

    I read the Gorby's interview where he said 'Yes' about the NATO promises.But he's a fool nevertherless to beleive the promises,written or verbal from his enemy.


    elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:07

    >>He's trying to provoke Putin.

    Hmm in that case you have proved Poroshenko is a fu##ing idiot. Only an idiot would set out to provoke the leader of a neighbouring country into invading. Is that what you lot voted him in for? No, it isn't. He should be making peace and securing the future for his people. Face it, your leader is taking orders from Pyatt and you know it.

    BigBanana 3 Sep 2015 07:50

    "Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili"

    Jeez, Saakashvili is a stupid appointment for a very long list of reasons. He's the idiot who got Georgia dismembered after misjudging the situation terribly.

    It's as if Poroshenko is deliberately trying to fuck things up.

    HuffingHume -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 07:41

    All of the ex-Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic states, are horribly corrupt dysfunctional kleptocracies run by Soviet era bigwigs who carved up their state's assets up for themelves, leaving most of their fellow countrymen in poverty. This is the reason why many Ukrianians want to be more 'European'; because they want to be more like Poland and the Baltic States, rather than in the Russian orbit, in which every state has barely made it out of the 80's.


    Dimmus -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:15

    "It was the right wing Svoboda Party that started the trouble, definitely not a 'peaceful protest' as you make out. "

    I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically.

    RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:14

    Putin has a record of false flag operations, starting with the Moscow apartment block bombing performed by the FSB when he was head and which brought him to power.

    And the proof is ... o, yes, - something written by oligarch in exile! Btw., here is a short list of admitted FF operations be US and it's vassals. Remember "Iraq WMD"?

    oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:10

    Why being invaded by Putin, Ukraine is trading a discount for gas, [and asks for ] deferral of loan?

    irishinrussia -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:03

    It's irony. He is implying that when protesters the west likes kill policemen then they at peaceful demonstrators, perhaps defending themselves against brutal security forces, at worst any violence is the action of a few hotheads or extremists among overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic victims of the state. However, when the very same protesters attack our guys (Poroshenko), they are radicals, extremists and terrorists, perhaps abetted by shadowy enemies of freedom and democracy (FSB).

    PanoptikonicallyKool -> Briar 3 Sep 2015 06:15

    Shhh!!!! You are not supposed to say things like that! 'US backed coup'? That is not part of the story. And it's ancient history history, no connection to current events. In fact it didn't even happen, according to repectable news sites. Or they don't mention it, so it must not have happended . The US, as the article states, or rather doesn't state, or rather doesn't even mention, has nothing to do with political events inside Ukraine, that's why we never read anything about it. Did Russia do it or not do it? That's the only serious question for anything that happens in Ukraine.

    US involvement in Urkaine? Harrruuumph! Conspiracy theory! And don't bring it up again!

    Dimmus 3 Sep 2015 06:15

    "But the media has been busy throwing up theories about who has most to benefit from this terrorist attack. "

    - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks...


    ositonegro -> BastaYa72 3 Sep 2015 06:11

    "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war."

    It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better.

    RVictor -> oleteo 3 Sep 2015 06:01

    Poroshenko Blames Russia For Police Deaths

    paulrou -> kennyboy 3 Sep 2015 05:21

    How can anyone not take the US state department's line. It is the truth. Ergo, everyone else is paid by the Russians.

    Калинин Юрий -> elias_ 3 Sep 2015 04:59

    He does not answer the questions, he blames Putin in all the world's sins and universe disasters. Global warming - Putin, extreme heat in the EU - Putin, police conflicts in the USA - Putin. Ask him, wh has scratched a car by a shopping mall last month - Putin!

    RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:53

    The West has not broken international law since the Iraq invasion.

    Support and organization of governments overthrow all around the world? War in Libya? Killing with drones on foreigns territories? Bombing of Syria territory?

    Theo Humbug -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 04:52

    Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils?

    RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49

    Why does Georgia not get Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for Saakashvili? Ukraine would have to comply. The answer is obvious. They would not get one because the charges against Saakashvili are politically motivated, like most of the corruption charges in Russia.

    Right - like any West institution Interpol is so-o-o independent, exactly like International Court!

    Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49

    I have come to realise that Jizzem is just a Turing Bot.

    Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:48

    HAHAHAHAHA... Are you serious? Which planet are you on? Do you think people forget that quickly? A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft.

    jonsid -> Mark Elliott 3 Sep 2015 04:46

    In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us.

    Theo Humbug -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 04:41

    You clearly have a very bad memory. The Russian offer of cancelling debt and very reasonable prices for fuel was very attractive to the ELECTED government of Victor Yanukovych and far far better than the EU offer, which was why they were all for accepting the Russian offer and aligning more with Moscow..

    But the USA can't have any country deciding it's own fate if it is not in accord with the Lords of this Universe.

    The neocon organised and paid for putsch, Maidan Shootings, Odessa burnings, put a stop to any agreement beneficial to the Ukrainians and opened the way for the IMF to come in and steal the wealth of yet another country.

    There is no excuse for anybody not to know these recorded and verifiable FACTS.

    elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:36

    You are fixated on Putin - you must be a not so secret admirer. Why don't you answer Tomov's question. What has Poroshenko achieved since becoming President?

    RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 04:34

    It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus.

    So I show you official numbers of registered refugees in EU - and amount of unregistered cannot be high due to immigration laws and functioning police system.

    On over side, number of 400000 is taken from nowhere - go on and proof it.

    Salut_Salut -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:32

    If you are such a hard-core proponent of sanctions policy, then may be you can name the beneficiaries of it in EU? Farmers? Businesses? Common people? Methinks - only politicians following in the wake of Uncle Sam's guidelines. The President of Russia is no way a role model or a paragon country leader, but seeing him behind every corner is nothing but a bout of anti-Russian paranoia. People of that long-suffering country aren't actually represented by him only.

    Theo Humbug 3 Sep 2015 04:29

    How far back does history go?

    Lat week, last month, Maidan Square, the fall of the Soviet Union?

    If taken that far back, then people will surely remember Ronnie Raygun's promises to Gorbachev that no NATO forces would encroach on former Soviet territory. Ehh?? What??

    Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!).

    So called separatists voted to stay with Russia, with whom they identified, despite the lies and propaganda from the US/West/Nato including premature accusations of responsibility fro the shooting down of MH17 .. funny how 1) the US never released it's data (another Pentagon "plane"?) 2) that has all gone very quiet... Wonder what they found?

    Perhaps the putschist regime and/or their neo-neocon pay/puppet-meisters have woken up to the very real danger of putting nazties withing 'Cooee' of nuclear weapons?

    Of course, one does not need to be a nazti to call for nuclear mass murder. The blond plaited heroine of the right, the ex jailbird, ex Prime Minister (for ganesh sake!!) Tymoshenko called for the nuking of Donbass, if I remember correctly.

    Russian now has the major Western forces and neonazis on their border. President Putin has to deal with these murderers and the great unwashed, living in their encapsulating bubbles of Newspeak and reality cooking shows, are told by the Mudorc press and other propagandists that it is Russia that is pure evil.

    I wish there were a god.

    Tony Cocks -> danhudders 3 Sep 2015 03:59

    " The airliner was almost certainly downed by a Russian crew "

    But of course you have not one shred of evidence to support your statement in which case would you agree it is valueless and was a waste of your time posting it in the first place.

    RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 03:49

    I think he said refugees crossed the border ........i am not sure that all refugees fill out the application form?

    400000 ? Look on the current 100000's refugees wave from the Asia/Africa to get an expression how it looks like. Or on the last year summer wave of Ukrainian refugees in Russia - with large refugee camps for temporary placements etc. You cannot get 400000 refugees to go "unseen" - especially in case of relatively good-maintained land border.

    martinusher 3 Sep 2015 03:09

    Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face.

    (If you need any indication that something's not quite right in Ukraine then you only have to look to the appointment of Saakashvili as the governor of Odessa last summer. He's best known for his role as a Georgian politician, someone who, among other things, provoked a disastrous confrontation with Russia.)

    SHappens 3 Sep 2015 03:07

    To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan.

    February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.

    These forces were subsequently beaten in the elections, thus rejected by the Ukrainian people. However the first act of Poroshenko was to legitimate these irregular and illegal militias which, absent in Parliament, have received the far more important power of arms, courtesy of the new mixed Ukrainian-American government. Basically the only difference between the parliamentary majority and the far-right groups is that the first take orders from the West, the latter don't.

    These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue.

    History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS.

    Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement.

    Still, Poroshenko and Yatsenuk want more war and call for lethal arms supply. All this while the rating of Ukrainian is now CC with negative outlook.

    RVictor -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 03:02

    400,000 refugees crossed the borders from Ukraine into the EU over the past year.

    You are lying (surprise, surprise!):

    "There were 4,603 applications for international protection in Germany, 3,600 in Poland, 2,956 in Italy, 1,962 in Sweden, 1,763 in France, 200 in Moldova, 60 in Romania, 60 in Hungary and 20 in Slovakia," the UNHCR findings highlighted.

    vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:16

    "Russian TV focused on the events outside the Ukrainian parliament to prove to viewers that chaos reigns in Ukraine. "

    And doesn't chaos indeed reign in Ukraine? I thought that was beyond obvious and doesn't need any additional proof.

    vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:13

    How about the more obvious explanation that Maidan, so much encouraged and celebrated by the West, had taught Ukrainians that it is Ok to attack the police, try to pull away their shields (see the photo above), through molotov cocktail at them (there was a picture on Monday) and grenades in order to pass certain laws in their Rada.

    vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:11

    How exactly Russia is "profiting" from this? is this author just throwing the sentences around or is he required to fulfill some anti-Russia quota in his article?

    ArtofLies -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 02:09

    There are undoubtedly going to be further problems with these nationalists, oh come on, we can call the neo-nazi's or neo-fascists here, just because the journalists above the line cant be seen to be propagandising for fascists does not mean that we have to play those semantic games.

    the fact is this is the second time these fascists have attacked the police, this time with grenades, the last time it was molotov cocktails, but the media wont criticise them because there is money to be made in the ukraine, not everything is privatised yet and i hear there are still dreams of fracking ukraine to prosperity.

    nishville -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 01:43

    The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government.

    Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one.

    They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show.

    drrust 3 Sep 2015 01:38

    Again you are instigating that the Minsk agreements were reached by western or international powers in general, implying that angloamerica was part of this. The agreement was a sole and very sucsessful initiative of Mrs Merkel, who took a reluctant Holland with her who solely sensed a chance to be viewed as a statesman. The UK had already transports of war material underway.

    elias_ -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 01:14

    There's million in Russia although many of them may be hiding to avoid military service. Look on the bright side, there's another 40 million of them and I bet most will want to move into the land of milk and honey which is Europe.

    MaoChengJi 2 Sep 2015 23:31

    "But despite profiting from it, Russia is very unlikely to have perpetrated it"

    Oh no, say it ain't so! How can any trouble in this world be caused by something that is not The Dark Lord Putin?

    And how is Russia 'profiting' from this, I'd like to know? Isn's this rather a case of the western Russophobe industry suffering a loss?

    Well, for sure the Russophobe industry suffering a loss is an undeniable victory for all humanity, but putting it as 'Russia profiting'?.. Oh well, russophobes are weird creatures, I've noticed it a long time ago.

    retarius 2 Sep 2015 22:47

    Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred.

    eric lund 2 Sep 2015 20:43

    How the USA rule sway the destinies of Ukraine flooding it with blood

    One can get an impression that authorities of Ukraine, totally dependent on State Department of USA, are doing anything – searching for spies, begging for money, getting weapons from USA and Europe, suppressing dissidence, self-advertising and desperate propaganda, but not taking the steps to peaceful regulation of conflict in South-East of the country and its economic rise.

    According to the last research of Kiev international institute of sociology the rating of president Petr Poroshenko has fallen three times, down to 13,6%, other candidates don't even get 5%. When authorities are so unpopular, it is only left for them to turn the screws and continue witch hunting at full throttle.

    The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy".

    In order to strengthen his worthless power Poroshenko fired seemingly over powerful chief of Service of Safety Valentin Nalivaychenko, who had been transmitting information which often put Poroshenko himself in not very bright light, to representatives of USA. And new chief of Service of Safety Vasiliy Gritsak, who is very close to Poroshenko and was the head of his own service of safety, at one dash arrested 40 colonels and generals allegedly for dissidence in his department.
    Danger is getting closer for Home Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov. The chief military prosecutor Of Ukraine Anatoliy Matios claimed that members of criminal organization 'Tornado', made on the base of militia and appointed by Avakov from former criminals, had organized secret place in basement floor of school to torture illegally captured people. The Ukrainian patriarch Filareth presented a medal for sacrificing and love for Ukraine, so to say for perverted sadism while torments, which are unofficially legalized by Ukrainian authorities.

    At the same time the level of aggression of Ukrainian militaries is only picking up speed. Thus, the Ambassador of Ukraine in USA Valeriy Chalykh without any scruples stated: We are getting weapons, including lethal, and nobody can prohibit it to independent Ukraine. The other thing is that it is not common to disclose these countries, but they are more than 10, only from Europe. We have different level of technical and military cooperation, and at this stage it is only going further.

    Chillskier -> Paul Moore 2 Sep 2015 20:42

    Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government:

    1. He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do.
    2. He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again.

    So it is what Ukraine g-ment does, not what putin tells.


    EugeneGur -> Chirographer 2 Sep 2015 20:35

    everything would have been wonderful if Ukraine had not decided to finally reject the brotherly embrace of Putin's Russia

    Not everything, because by that time Ukrainian authorities have already ruined a lot. However, there is little doubt that Ukraine would've been a hell of a lot better off if it hadn't followed the path of the coup and indulged in anti-Russian hysteria. Has your mother ever told you that quarreling with your neighbors is never a good idea?

    Looking at the situation objectively, it is a good thing that the Kiev government is trying to follow the Minsk plan.

    Objectively? You? It would be a good thing if it were but it doesn't. These constitutional changes have nothing to do with the requirements for the regional autonomy set out in Minsk II. Nor have they been agreed to by the Donbass representatives, which makes the whole thing pointless. But even these miserable changes had to be pushed through by Nuland, because Rada initially refused to approved them. There are 13 points in Minsk II and so far Kiev fulfilled none of them.

    Jeff1000 2 Sep 2015 20:30

    Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has achieved.

    Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told.

    He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity.

    Julian1972 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:54

    I know! I know!

    Still, when the US funds its various Intelligence Agencies and Covert Overseas Operations Organizations to levels beyond that which most of the rest of the world combined spend on their actual militaries, it's hard not see why they end up being suspected of having sticky fingers in various pies.

    Poor, innocent US...after all, all that money's just being spent on ergonomic seating and biodegradable paperclips, right? Hahahaha!

    nnedjo 2 Sep 2015 19:51

    There is one more possible theory, which seems that the author has failed to notice.
    Thus, due to the fact that the proposed legislation is far from what was envisaged by Minsk 2 agreement, and in particular is far from what would satisfy the pro-Russian rebels, the following question arises:
    Does this event may have been aimed to strengthen the claim that this bill is the most that Ukraine can offer to the pro-Russian rebels, because, "for God's sake, even for this Ukrainians began to kill each other in the middle of Kiev"?


    TomFullery -> Chillskier 2 Sep 2015 19:47

    You are right about Ukraine's economy. I visit fairly often and each time I get more Hryvnia for my Euros. Plus the restaurants are empty so you are guaranteed good service from serving staff desperate for a tip to supplement their meagre wages (so much for joining the US "democratic" system!).

    Strange that the Nazi putsch in Kiev has benefited me (who wouldn't piss on them if they were burning) rather more than 99% of Ukrainians.

    Although I do notice that the Kiev Nazis seem to have taken one step in the direction of moderation - the shrine to the Nazi Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera which was there erected about the time of the putsch has now disappeared (most likely moved to a less conspicuous location).

    Julian1972 -> desnol 2 Sep 2015 19:44

    Dead right.

    In penning the written equivalent of 'The Picture That Fooled the World':

    http://www.srpska-mreza.com/guest/LM/lm-f97/LM97_Bosnia.html

    maybe, at least, his 'confusion' is a symptom of his conscience trying to find it's voice. Hehehe, maybe there's hope for him yet?

    Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention.

    NorthOfTheM25 2 Sep 2015 19:42

    The Ukrainian regime in as much as they try so hard to have a resemblance of 'western values' (whatever that means) & to avoid behaving like the powers that be at the Kremlin. At the end of the day have the same approach in how they apportion blame & deflect attention from their obvious failings.

    When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through violence.

    I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's constitutional proposals.

    TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:35

    His Ukraine policy has two main prongs.

    1. Make Putin realise that military aggression against his neighbours carries too high an economic penalty to be worthwhile.

    Nothing got military until the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev. Strategic imperatives trump short term economic considerations and Russia has reacted skilfully to the attack by the US using Ukraine as a proxy (much to Ukraine's detriment)

    2. Support Ukraine economically until it becomes a prosperous liberal democracy, like the rest of Europe (Russia excepted of course).

    Ukraine will be asset-stripped by US corporations. Ukraine will not be a prosperous, liberal democracy in your lifetime and neither will the US.

    His policy seems to be working very well.

    Oh dear!

    Chillskier -> normankirk 2 Sep 2015 19:33

    Link to the story that will challenge the spotless mind of jezzam:
    http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/08/28/ukrainischer-oligarch-bereichert-sich-an-iwf-krediten/

    Oligarchs in Ukraine are doing extremely well, obviously not a concern for a coup sponsors.

    normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:33

    Want an example of a twist?

    Kerry warning Poroshenko against resuming hostilities, retaking territory in breach of the Minsk agreement, then less than a week later Nuland rushing to Kiev to egg Poroshenko on, thoroughly endorsing his plans

    Hanwell123 -> Knapping 2 Sep 2015 19:28

    He was the idiot who jumped the gun in the CIA plan to create a war in 2008. He went before the whistle shelling an unprotected and unwarned city hours before he was supposed to. One of Asias prize fools. So Poroshenko's made him - a non Ukrainian - Governor of Odessa. Great stuff Poro!

    TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:27

    Despite Yanukovich's corruption he did a decent job of steering Ukraine down the middle path between Russia and the US/EU and he was nobody's proxy. As for his corruption he was a mere pickpocket compared to the like of Timoshenko who is not on any Ukrainian, EU or US corruption list!

    This wasn't good enough for the neocons in Washington who wanted the whole country - hence their instigation of the Nazi putsch in Kiev. It's gone downhill all the way for the Ukrainian people since then considering they have lost a sizeable chunk of territory and now likely having to move to some sort of federal system.

    On top of those miseries they now have Finance and Economics ministers from Lithuania and Poland parachuted in by the US and given Ukrainian citizenship on the day of their inauguration to their respective posts. They also have US stooge and ex-Georgian president Sakaashvili and fugitive from Georgian justice parachuted in as governor of Odessa. Let's not forget Joe Biden's son who was appointed to the board of directors of one of Ukraine's biggest energy companies very shortly after the Nazi putsch.

    At least the east of the country is out of the hands of US corporate predators but it's a certainty that agreements will be signed (if not already) to turn massive tracts of Ukrainian farmland in the west of that country to US GM giants. I wonder how those US-loving west Ukrainians are going to react when the horrible reality of US-style "democracy" hits home.

    NorthOfTheM25 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:24

    Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself & sound like a bitter divorcee who has lost a legal battle. Nothing you have said has little bearing with the article.

    But I guess each time the key trigger words Russia, Ukraine, Kremlin, Stalin & Moscow are mentioned then just like Putin bots, you are also activated from your dwelling under the bridge to reel out the tired & repetitive anti Putin bellicose rants.

    normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:22

    except it is the oligarchs who are prospering. Kolomoisky is under investigation for diverting 1.8 billion of IMF money to his own Cyprus bank account. Poroshenkos profits have increased astronomically while all Ukrainians are taking pay cuts.


    luckyjohn -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 19:03

    Yanukovych contributed a lot to radicalise Ukrainian society. He planned his survival in office by manipulation - stressing Tyannybok's importance to voters so that in the end there would be a choice - Tyaynybok or himself Yanukovych for president. Of course - Yanukovych then wins because the radical Tyahnybok is too "dangerous" to vote in. So much for your democratically elected president Yanukovych! So the presence of radical elements in Ukrainian society is in fact Yanukovych's doing. He was a very divisive president who played on divisions in Ukraine rather than trying to heal them as well as being thoroughly corrupt.


    virgenskamikazes 2 Sep 2015 18:37

    I would believe the Western version if, after ousting Yanukovich, they would do a 21st century, EU version of a Marshall Plan. If the EU had said to Yanukovich "we want to flood Ukraine with Euro with very low interest and in long term, for investment in infrastructure and industrialization projects - given that you cut ties completely with Russia" and Yanukovich had said "no" to that, than I think it would be fair for the Ukranian people to oust him.

    But the EU offered a humiliating, absurd shock therapy style reform, that's why Yanukovich "no". Even imediate full EU, EZ membership was not on the table.

    The thing is, the Ukrainian people bought on the fantasy that they could mass emigrate to central Europe overnight had Yanukovich said "yes", that only them had economic problems, that the West is the promised land, that we are still in the Cold War, etc.

    Had Yanukovich hold on tight on power until two months ago, after the Greek tragedy, I doubt there would be political strength for the USA and the Ukrainian far-right to oust him.

    Beckow -> ArthurJenkinson 2 Sep 2015 18:32

    He wrote a long article with bizarre conspiracy theories in order to confuse a very simple attack by a Ukrainian nationalist mob on the police, killing 3 policemen.

    The "theories" are there to obfuscate and confuse. We are close to the end game in Kiev and it will not be pretty. And the angry hysteria among Washington, London and Berlin sponsors of this madness will also get uglier. They don't like to lose so they would prefer just about anything to admitting to being defeated in Ukraine.


    Julian1972 2 Sep 2015 17:43

    Poroshenko's assertion that Russia is to blame for this week's murder of policemen is of the same Frankenstein DNA as his assertion that Russia was behind the downing of Flight MH17 and that the Eastern part of The Ukraine's population are not democrats rising up against an illegal putsch which brought him to power but are simply 'Kremlin puppets'...and therefore justifiably crushed by the same type of gunfire that otherwise had Maidan martyrs held up as 'heroes'. (Even though it was members of their own side doing the shooting, hahaha).

    Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.


    BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:43

    You can't even tell the difference between 'neo-fascist' and 'Nazi'.

    If either term comes into your tiny mind it obviously defaults to imagining scenes from the last days in the Führerbunbker - whatever turns you on.

    Also, the IMF has always favoured right wing corporatist regimes, preferably with as little democracy as possible.


    desnol 2 Sep 2015 17:41

    The author's puzzlement and confusion are directly proportional to how little he understands the situation in Ukraine. He keeps wondering about various scenario's, each more absurd than the previous.

    I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!

    And then, almost at the very end of the article, after all his fanciful, surreal speculation, Andrey Kurkov hits the nail on the head with


    "Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation."

    But even then he gets it all skewed up, blaming the fact that Ukranian army went to fight the separatists for the fact that the far right thugs are now armed and throwing bombs in Kiev. Doesn't he realise they were armed and throwing bombs in Maidan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place.
    The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke.

    domeus -> thenewstranger 2 Sep 2015 17:30

    At least he is an improvement on all the other Guardian journalists who report on Russia and Ukraine. He connects the right wing group of people behind the killing of the of the policeman in Kiev with those those who volunteered to kill their fellow countrymen in Odessa and throughout the eastern and southern regions. Autonomy for the regions would have solved the problem then and prevented the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. But Nuland had other plans and the western media acted accordingly.

    Jessica Roth -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:14

    The Maidan "protestors" were the ones who broke the cease-fire, shooting at both the Berkut and their own people. The forensic evidence proved it. Did you not listen to the Urmas Paet-Baroness Ashton phone call?

    The "impeachment" of Yanukovich was illegal under the Ukraine constitution, which required a 75% vote. Even with the US-trained thugs forcing MPs to the floor at gunpoint, only 72% of the Ukraine parliament was present for the vote. Poroshenko has no more business being President than the burnt and raped corpses of the people his Azov Nazis butchered in Odessa and Mariupol do. (Although the corpses would probably do a better job.)

    bonhiver 2 Sep 2015 16:49

    I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.

    The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising.

    ositonegro 2 Sep 2015 16:44

    The Azov battalion also declared they would bring the war to Kiev if not sated in Dombass. You make a fascist revolution and the next move is to institutionalize it. Hitler did this very well, destroying the populist SA movement and assassinating their leaders and incorporating the remainder into the regular army. Then fascism could move forward with the whole state support.

    But in Ukraine the EU-US used fascism to make the coup then tried to reign it in. The fascists however cannot be institutionalized. They are still a powerful street movement with the added benefit of having been trained and armed and given military space to grow. Now they are pushing for policy dominance over the regular bourgeois political forces and using bombs to do it. The Azov Battalion always said they would take the war back to Kiev if they felt betrayed.

    It has to be understood that Poroshenko is not a fascist, despite coming to power on the back of their efforts. The EU-US do not want the fascists in power. How could Ukraine enter the EU with an outright fascist government? But they are playing with fire, using these street forces and then renouncing them. It will come a time when they do not have either the legitimacy of the power to stop another coup against themselves, and this time with no restraints. Then what will the EU do?

    While Greece founders under unsustainable debt and Eurogroup dictatorship, Ukraine is given sweeteners, relieving 20% of their debt - something unimaginable with Greece. But you can't stop a tsunami with Canderel.

    [Sep 03, 2015] Who Is Listening to Dick Cheney by Lucy Steigerwald

    "...So yes, Cheney should be mocked, disrespected, and condemned for now. His ideas should be ripped to pieces. But it isn't entirely about him, or whether any of the 2016 GOPers want to explicitly tout his ideas for the world. Cheney is not subtle. Republicans and Democrats today, at this moment, have to be more coy about their imperial ambitions. Often, the only real difference is the honesty. Forget this dangerous notion that warmongering is so last decade. It is part of our daily life. Forget the idea that since we all boo and hiss when Cheney's name appears in a byline, the threat of him is long gone. It isn't. When the leading candidate with antiwar credentials says he supports a limited drone war, you can be assured that the problem is bigger than Cheney, and bigger than the neocons. "
    Antiwar.com

    Who Is Listening to Dick Cheney?

    by Lucy Steigerwald, September 03, 2015

    Print This | Share This

    Dick Cheney is a former vice president who had an enormous effect on public policy, and therefore on history. He should be interviewed by media outlets. He should be asked tough questions about every single aspect of his tenure in the White House. We cannot pretend that Cheney does not belong in history books, or that he will vanish if we just wish hard enough.

    But the line should be firmly drawn. Cheney is part of history, and there he should stay. But not so much that we pretend he is toothless and apolitical. He should not be steered out as a fun toy, the way Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright and other, shall we say, controversial politicians have been on stunt-cast on shows ranging from Gilmore Girls to The Colbert Report.

    Most importantly, Dick Cheney's new attention-grabbing attempts should be ignored. The man was given a much longer leash than most VPs to wreck the world. He's done. Unfortunately, Dick doesn't think so himself.

    George W. Bush has been unfairly praised for mostly keeping his nose out of President Obama's business. But Obama has had his own wars in Libya, and all over the MIddle East via drone. He doesn't really need the advice of any warmongers beyond his own cabinet.

    The question now is who among the 2016 contenders might be the most eager to learn from Cheney. Because Cheney and his daughter Liz do have lots of opinions to share. A whole book of them, in fact. It is called Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America. Last week, The Wall Street Journal published an excerpt.

    It seems Cheney and Lil Cheney know that it's "more than likely" a nuclear weapon will be not just acquired by Iran, but that someone will use one due to catastrophic effects of the Iran deal.

    Forget Obama's claim on the word. Audacity thy name is Cheney. Not only is he shamelessly happy to defend the war he started, he is also ready to tell the whole world how America should act. Best of all, he is ready to predict the long-term effects of foreign policy decisions. He is practically a seer, as long as you ignore his incessant refrain that Saddam Hussein was tied in some way to 9/11.

    Government is magic like that. But few people are quite as bold as Cheney when it comes to defending a 1.7 trillion-dollar boondoggle that killed hundreds of thousands.

    Some people aren't worried about this nostalgia for 2003. The Washington Post's Paul Waldman look at CheneySquared's bid for attention and remained unperturbed. Waldman seems to think that the class of 2016 is not going to give the Cheney spirit attention, so why worry? After all, nearly every candidate – including Jeb Bush! – has suggested that the Iraq war was a mistake as it was fought. Cheney stands almost entirely alone as a national politician in his conviction that it was a good war.

    So what?

    Pardon my pessimism, but the price of allowing Dick Cheney's freedom is eternal vigilance. His special brand of warmongering may not be in fashion at this precise moment, and neither is the 2003 war he championed, but it can always return in force. Just about every GOP candidate for the nomination has suggested or implied that Obama is a foreign policy wuss. That is, we need a more aggressive policy than the one practiced by the man who claims the right to assassinate anyone – including American citizens – and has waged a robotic, undeclared war that has left thousands of casualties.

    It feels so easy now to assume the neocons are ancient history. W. left office with historically low approval ratings. We've heard and made ten thousand jokes about supervillain Cheney. His heart is weak, and he's out of power. In short, we're all superior to our 2003 selves, and would never again tolerate such an aggressive, arrogant war.

    We would, if we were pushed. The American people have a low stamina for long wars, but a strong appetite for starting a new one when they are told it is essential. The idea that the official summary of the Iraq war as a "mistake" means we can relax is a dangerous one. Nobody running with a shot in hell believes that in any substantial way. They believe they have to say it was a mistake, because the popular winds now blow that way. Their war, if they felt they needed to fight one, would be different. Your war is always different.

    If the hawks are smart, they will keep going to war by fits and starts. Then they can remake the world the way they wish to. Drone wars are "better" than boots on the ground in Iraq, so not Obama or Bernie Sanders can say anything about them. The cheaper drones get, the easier it will be to keep a constant, psychologically traumatizing presence in countries with which we cannot even be bothered to declare war.

    Perhaps ISIS will be met with full military force, perhaps the Iran-hawks will gain an upper hand, but not necessarily. It's easier to just send a few more advisers and troops back into Iraq. Make your allies bomb instead. Regardless, as The Nation noted this week, the civilian casualties that result from these engagements will remain minor news. Civilian casualties are boring. Keep that war on the backburner, and after a few more years, 2003 will be a thousand years ago, and then maybe the Cheney crowd will come back.

    So yes, Cheney should be mocked, disrespected, and condemned for now. His ideas should be ripped to pieces. But it isn't entirely about him, or whether any of the 2016 GOPers want to explicitly tout his ideas for the world. Cheney is not subtle. Republicans and Democrats today, at this moment, have to be more coy about their imperial ambitions. Often, the only real difference is the honesty.

    Forget this dangerous notion that warmongering is so last decade. It is part of our daily life. Forget the idea that since we all boo and hiss when Cheney's name appears in a byline, the threat of him is long gone. It isn't. When the leading candidate with antiwar credentials says he supports a limited drone war, you can be assured that the problem is bigger than Cheney, and bigger than the neocons.

    Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and a columnist for VICE.com. She previously worked as an Associate Editor for Reason magazine. She is most angry about police, prisons, and wars. Steigerwald blogs at www.thestagblog.com.

    [Sep 03, 2015] America's terrible roads are good for Michelin's business CEO

    "...The Federal Highway Administration estimates it will take $170 billion a year to make significant improvements on America's roads and bridges."
    Sep 03, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    "The fact that fuel prices are low today is driving more driving miles…so our business right now is very strong," claimed Pete Selleck, Michelin North America chairman and president.

    ... ... ...

    "Right now demand is extremely strong right in the core of our business which is passenger car and medium truck tires," said Selleck.

    And America's deteriorating road conditions are helping the company's sales in that market. "Bad roads is actually good for our business because tires then get damaged," said Selleck.

    In its most recent infrastructure report, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded U.S. roads a "D". But Selleck puts the financial responsibility solely on the government. "At the federal level and at the very state levels, there has to be more money put into maintaining roads, bridges and other aspects of the infrastructure," he said.

    The Federal Highway Administration estimates it will take $170 billion a year to make significant improvements on America's roads and bridges.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 03, 2015] The Inevitability of a War President by Lucy Steigerwald by Lucy Steigerwald

    Sep 03, 2015 | Antiwar.com
    In April, former president George W. Bush told a group of supporters that he wanted to sit out of his brother's campaign because voters have an aversion to the Oval Office becoming a family affair. On September 10, W. will be the man in charge at a fundraiser for Jeb in New York City.

    Former Gov. Jeb Bush being assisted by George W. Bush is just one sign that the new class of would-be presidents is shamelessly, painfully close to what we have seen before. And this includes their stance on keeping American empire strong.

    Indeed, there's a reason the Bushes have done so well in politics. Back in 2013, Barbara Bush said that she didn't want to see another member of the clan as president. The country, she said, had had enough Bushes. Back then, this seemed like a refreshing acceptance that yes, maybe a father and son should be the limit, and we didn't need to add a brother with the same damned name to the Oval Office. But Mrs. Bush backed off these comments two years later – presumably once she got the memo that Jeb was serious.

    Never mind that. The novelty of Bushes paying lip service to the danger of dynasty is long gone. Bush W. and Jeb have managed to sound nuanced and even self-deprecating when they talk about their family's hunger for power. A flicker of self-awareness means only more savvy campaigning. Oh, I know you're all sick of Bushes! This isn't a dynasty! But gosh, I just have so many swell ideas, how could I not run?!

    That same name is bad enough. But Bush palling around with his brother's foreign policy buddies – including none other than Paul Wolfowitz – is enough to make him a truly frightening candidate. And no, being browbeaten into admitting the War in Iraq was not wise does not count as knowing such an endeavor was inherently disastrous. This progress is particularly underwhelming when you consider the fact that W. is also one of Jeb's foreign policy advisers.

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to her exceedingly arguable credit, doesn't pull that card of shucks, I know you don't want another Clinton, but…. Nor do her supporters. For them it is "her turn" and her family tie to a former president is nothing but a win. Her warmongering bonafides are already well-established, however that does not matter to her fans. Anyone dying for a Hillary Clinton presidency is a straw liberal who cares about power quotas for oppressed minorities such as rich, well-educated, white American women. Never mind the real oppressed minorities being bombed abroad, it's time for a woman president!

    In the face of a potential choice between a Bush and a Clinton, no wonder the lunatic, xenophobic populist train of Donald Trump's candidacy has pulled out of the station and is chugging along so fiercely. In an alternate universe, Trump is a ballsy businessman who never supported the war in Iraq, and wants to have a powerful military that is never used. In reality, he's a principle-less, self-aggrandizing cipher who clearly says whatever comes to mind. No matter his occasional flashes of what appears to be sense, is there anyone who believes President Trump would be restrained, and would stress diplomacy over war? The man thinks absurd, walrus-faced hawk John Bolton, the former UN ambassador, is a good foreign policy adviser.

    Rounding out the GOP class are happy interventionists such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz, former Gov. Scott Walker, and neurosurgeon Ben Carson. Many of these candidates have no chance, but regardless of differences in focus, all of them are painfully pro-Israel, and all are willing to use military force against ISIS. No Republican candidate is for the deal with Iran. Almost none of them have expressed the slightest desire to have a less aggressive foreign policy. Rand Paul is the obvious exception there, and he still seems a bit less gung-ho about war-making than the rest of them. Still, he's gone appallingly hawkish during the last few months. Besides, enthusiastic or "regretful" war-making is most often just an aesthetic choice. Are you going to make sad faces after bombing, or are you going to act like a cowboy? It may not matter so much in the end, not unless a president – and a Congress, and a country – is truly dead set on avoiding war.

    (Oddly, the completely ignored, polling at less-than-one-percent Lincoln Chafee has the positive legacy of being the only Republican senator to vote against the war in Iraq. His campaign website even says he "will end drone strikes, torture of prisoners, and warrantless wiretaps." He switched parties, however, making him even more of a dub to partisans.)

    Now, Bernie Sanders is one feasible candidate who has a promising, if slightly underwhelming anti-interventionist history. He does not, however, seem terribly interested in making anti-interventionism a prominent point of his campaign. When I asked former Rep. Ron Paul about this in an interview which went up on the site last week, Paul qualified some of Sanders' antiwar bonafides, but admitted that the man had some good principles. Unfortunately for folks such as Ron Paul, Sanders is a democratic socialist who has subsequently alarming policy goals to anyone interested in a smaller government all around.

    So, those are our choices if we're looking for even a scrap of antiwar feeling. A demagogue with nightmare hair who claims he won't use the military much, but changes his mind on issues every other day (except for xenophobia). A socialist who also hates open borders. A chip off the old block but not enough, who seems to have taken a neocon turn. The third Bush in 30 years, who can be successfully pushed into halfway admitting that his brother made a mistake when he began a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and destabilized an entire region. An antiwar Democrat with no chance in hell. It's going to be a long election.

    Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and a columnist for VICE.com. She previously worked as an Associate Editor for Reason magazine. She is most angry about police, prisons, and wars. Steigerwald blogs at www.thestagblog.com.

    [Sep 03, 2015] Sorry, General, but the title greatest "purveyors of radical Islam" does not belong to the Iranians. Not even close. That belongs to our putative ally Saudi Arabia. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said... Our Radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia
    http://nyti.ms/1LTh6K6
    NYT - Thomas L. Friedman - Sep 2

    The Washington Post ran a story last week about some 200 retired generals and admirals who sent a letter to Congress "urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security." There are legitimate arguments for and against this deal, but there was one argument expressed in this story that was so dangerously wrongheaded about the real threats to America from the Middle East, it needs to be called out.

    Retired generals and admirals urge Congress to
    reject Iran nuclear deal http://wapo.st/1JjkfNm
    Washington Post - August 26

    That argument was from Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, the retired former vice commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, who said of the nuclear accord: "What I don't like about this is, the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians. They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get nuclear weapons."

    Sorry, General, but the title greatest "purveyors of radical Islam" does not belong to the Iranians. Not even close. That belongs to our putative ally Saudi Arabia. ...

    [Sep 03, 2015] Why Did Oil Prices Just Jump By 27 Percent in 3 Days by David Dayen

    September 3, 2015 | naked capitalism

    Dave here. A very good look at the various issues. Optimism reigns supreme among oil traders, it seems…

    By Nick Cunningham, a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter @nickcunningham1. Originally published at OilPrice

    Oil prices have posted their strongest rally in years, jumping an astounding 27 percent in the last three trading days of August.

    While much of the recent price movement defies reason and is enormously magnified by speculative movements by traders to take and cover their bets on oil, still, there were a series of rumors, events, and fresh data that helped contribute to the spike.

    For example, on August 31, the oil markets woke up to the news that Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet his counterpart from Venezuela to discuss "possible mutual steps" to stabilize oil prices. The meeting will take place in China on September 3. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has already called for an emergency meeting of OPEC, a call that has fallen on deaf ears, at least in the most important country of Saudi Arabia.

    It is still highly unlikely, but the one country that might be able to change the minds of Saudi oil officials is Russia. Again, even if Russia promised to cut back oil production to boost prices (which it has not shown a willingness to do), Saudi Arabia has little trust in Moscow to follow through on those promises. Similar understandings to cooperate in the past have fallen apart, making coordinated action unlikely.

    Moreover, it is not at all clear that Russia's best move is to cut back on production. Sure, it wants higher oil prices, but selling less oil will arguably offset price gains. And the depreciation of the ruble has cushioned the blow of low oil prices – Gazprom just reported a 29 percent gain in net profit for the second quarter compared to a year earlier, largely due to a weaker ruble. So, Russia is eager for oil prices to rebound, but the Kremlin is not as desperate as Venezuela.

    Yet, bringing Russia to the table was enough to raise the prospect of OPEC production cuts, at least for oil traders, which bid up the price of oil on August 31.

    Adding to the speculation was a new OPEC bulletin, which included a commentary about the state of the oil markets, entitled, "Cooperation holds the key to oil's future." Most of the article was unremarkable analysis about rising oil demand, but the article concludes with this:

    "Cooperation is and will always remain the key to oil's future and that is why dialogue among the main stakeholders is so important going forward. There is no quick fix, but if there is a willingness to face the oil industry's challenges together, then the prospects for the future have to be a lot better than what everyone involved in the industry has been experiencing over the past nine months or so."

    In all likelihood, that is a throwaway line paying lip service to collective action, with no substance behind it. But the oil markets saw a glimmer of hope in a reevaluation of the group's strategy, possibly portending a production cut. No doubt the Venezuela-Russia meeting added fuel to that speculation. Oil markets, as irrational as they are, don't need confirmation to bid up prices. Oil prices jumped by more than 8 percent on the last day of August.

    But another major reason that oil prices shot up at the end of August was due to very significant revisions by the EIA on U.S. oil production data, pointing to sharper contraction than was previously assumed. The EIA released new survey-based data, which is more accurate than their mere estimates based on extrapolation, and the new data showed that between January and May, the U.S. actually produced 40,000 to 130,000 fewer barrels per day than the agency previously reported. Then, in June, oil production dropped by 100,000 barrels per day from the month before, hitting just 9.3 million barrels per day (mb/d).

    The largest downward revision came from Texas, which has been producing 100,000 to 150,000 fewer barrels than previously reported for the first half of this year.

    To put that in perspective, consider the agency's own weekly data, which comes out every Wednesday, and although it is less accurate than the retrospective looks, oil prices move up and down in response to the results. In its weekly data, the EIA shows U.S. oil production above 9.5 mb/d through the middle of July. For the week ending August 21, the EIA says the U.S. is producing 9.33 mb/d, above what the agency now says the U.S. produced in June.

    In other words, for several months the oil markets had believed the U.S. was producing much more oil than it actually was. Instead of continuing to climb through much of the spring and leveling off into the summer, oil production actually peaked in April and has declined consistently since then. When the EIA released this latest revision on August 31, oil prices shot up.

    Finally, although probably not quite as important as the OPEC rumors and the EIA data revisions, Canada suffered some outages at its oil facilities that could lead to a disruption in supplies. Canadian Oil Sands had to shut down production of its synthetic crude oil facility after a fire damaged equipment. And Nexen Energy, an oil producer in Canada and subsidiary of China's CNOOC, had to close 95 pipelines after inspectors found problems with them. Neither company offered specifics on what the disruptions mean for their production levels, but if the outages persist, they could cut down on supplies. Canada's benchmark for synthetic crude rallied on the news.

    Citigroup analysts think the recent rebound is overdone, calling it a "false start," and the 27 percent gain in just three days was "driven by a misread of market data and financial headlines." Indeed, the largest three-day price rally since 1990 was driven by headlines, but given the severe volatility and huge price swings, oil prices are not trading on the fundamentals right now. Nobody knows what will happen next.

    Russell, September 3, 2015 at 4:02 am

    Could it be that the search for safety in the turbulent markets view oil as the more recoverable commodity? Yet another diversification?

    PlutoniumKun, September 3, 2015 at 6:17 am

    It seems weird that just rumours about Opec and revised data figures could lead to such a huge upsurge in prices. The revised data figures for the US seems particularly odd – surely if it turns out there wasn't so much crude in the market, but this didn't put the price up, this indicates that demand is weaker than everyone thinks? Seems an odd logic.

    I suspect that for whatever reason the market is expecting a huge surge in price and are, a bit like 100 metres sprinters on the line, occasionally jumping the gun. This would match up with the news a few weeks ago that some hedgies are betting big on domestic oil producers. I wonder if they are assuming that the US government will start putting pressure on the Saudis to reign back production after the election? Received wisdom of course is that the US always wants low prices, but now that expense tight oil is so important, it may be that someone important feels that $100 a barrel oil is in the US strategic interest. Now that the Iran deal is sealed, maybe they will be looking for an excuse to pick a fight with the Saudis.

    Bam_Man, September 3, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    "When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done." - J.M.Keynes

    Welcome to the casino, boyzz.


    [Sep 02, 2015] The Mirage Of An Iranian Oil Bonanza By Dalan McEndree

    Total world production is around 86 mmbl (millions barrels a day). Iran probably can contribute additional one million barrels a day). Drop of the US shale production and Canadian sands production might be higher then that. Also Iranian internal consumption (currently 2 million barrels a day) also will rise substantially after lifting of the sanctions.
    "...Projecting from International Energy Agency (IEA) data, Iran is on track to produce an average ~2.85 mmbl/day of crude in 2015. The IEA puts Iran's current sustainable capacity at 3.6 mmbl/day (defined as a level achievable in 90 days and sustainable for an extended period). "
    "... it is possible that Iran will lack the domestic and foreign resources necessary to increase crude output to and over 4 mmbls/day by 2020."
    Sep 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The P5+1 agreement with Iran on Iran's nuclear program has generated (sometimes fevered) anticipation of an Iranian oil bonanza at the end of the nuclear agreement rainbow, both in terms of the increase in Iranian crude output and the business opportunities for foreign firms in driving the increase.

    The anticipation comes from several sources. Iran's crude potential is one. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iran's proven crude reserves, 158 billion barrels, are the world's fourth largest (and among the cheapest to produce at $8-to-$17/barrel, depending on the source).

    Iranian public statements expressing determination to increase crude output significantly are another (to 5.7 mmbl/day, according to Mehdi Hosseini, chairman of Iran's oil contracts restructuring committee). The third is the value of potential contracts for foreign suppliers. Hossein Zamaninia, Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, indicated the government hoped to conclude nearly 50 oil and gas projects worth $185 billion by 2020.

    Projected Output and Exports to 2020

    Projecting from International Energy Agency (IEA) data, Iran is on track to produce an average ~2.85 mmbl/day of crude in 2015. The IEA puts Iran's current sustainable capacity at 3.6 mmbl/day (defined as a level achievable in 90 days and sustainable for an extended period). This is roughly comparable to Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh's assertion Iran could increase output 500,000 barrels per day within a few months after international sanctions on Iran's economy are lifted and another 500,000 barrels per day in the following months .

    ... ... ...

    Iran won't be able to finance this on its own. It has three "internal" sources of investment-frozen Iranian funds in foreign accounts, government budget resources (oil revenues flow to the Iranian government, a portion of which the government returns to the industry), and oil in storage. (Iranian banks evidently can't provide meaningful funding). Rough conjectures of the investment Iran could generate from these three sources in current low price environment are as follows:

    • Perhaps $2-$4 billion annually through 2020 from frozen Iranian funds in foreign accounts. Some estimates put the total at $100 billion (or $20 billion annually). U.S. Treasury Secretary Lew, in testimony before Congress, put the available funds at $50 billion ($10 billion annually). Since Iran's oil industry is only one of many claimants on the frozen funds, including the natural gas industry, the Iranian military, Iran's proxy clients in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, the commercial aviation industry (replacing the passenger jet fleet), other industries, and the Iranian people, maybe it will receive 20 percent of the frozen funds, or between $2 and $4 billion annually.
    • For the sake of argument, $10 billion annually through 2020 from government budget resources, which is very generous given the share of crude export revenues this level of support would consume (see last row of above table), the demands from other Iranian claimants, and Zanganeh's data (investment fell from an average $20 annually in 2011 and 2012, when the OPEC basket crude averaged $107.46 and $109.45 per barrel respectively, to $6 billion in 2014, when it averaged $96.29, and virtually nothing this year, when it averaged $53.97 through August).
    • Perhaps $1-$1.5 billion as a one-time contribution from oil currently in storage.

    ... ... ...

    The possibility of direct military conflict between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies on the other is another factor. The two sides are already essentially at war indirectly in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Moreover, just the threat of direct military conflict or an increase in regional tensions is enough to cause foreigners anxiety.

    The deal structure the Iranians will offer foreign companies-Hosseini described it as a "risk service contract"-will increase rather than mitigate risk. Given their lack of capital, the Iranians will be asking foreigners to bear the upfront investment burden in return for payment (cash and/or crude) in the (perhaps distant) future. Foreigners must take into account the possibility that negative changes in the internal and/or external environment will damage the value of their investment.

    Foreign investors cannot be confident Iran's internal political dynamics will be conducive to foreign investment. Not all influential Iranians or Iranian interest groups (for example, the powerful Revolutionary Guards) welcome the nuclear agreement and détente with the United States and Europe. Should the balance of power tip in their favor-or further in their favor-foreign investments could face anything from unpleasant pressure to expropriation.

    Moreover, absent a binding agreement within OPEC and between OPEC and Russia on production levels, Saudi and Gulf Arab production policies will threaten the value of foreign investment in the Iranian crude industry. Saudi Arabia's sustainable capacity is 2.5 mmbl/day more than its average 10.01 mmbl daily output in 1H 2015, while the UAE has announced plans to increase output 600,000 barrels per day in the next few years, and Kuwait by 1.4 mmbl/day by 2020.

    ... ... ...

    In Sum

    While it is likely Iran will increase crude output once sanctions are lifted, it is possible that Iran will lack the domestic and foreign resources necessary to increase crude output to and over 4 mmbls/day by 2020. Absent a thaw in its relations with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab states, and the West, higher and more stable crude prices, and initial positive experience for foreign companies in negotiating and implementing projects, it is more likely foreign investment will trickle into the Iranian energy industry than gush into it.

    [Sep 02, 2015] Financial Sector To Cut Credit Supply Lines For Oil And Gas Industry By Nick Cunningham

    Sep 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    As time passes, more and more hedges are expiring, leaving oil companies fully exposed to the painfully low oil price environment. "A lot of these smaller guys who had bad balance sheets have pretty good hedge books through full-year 2015," Andrew Byrne, an analyst with IHS, told the Houston Chronicle. "You can't say that about 2016."

    In fact, about one-fifth of North American production is hedged at a median price of $87.51 per barrel. Smaller companies rely much more heavily upon hedging as they are more vulnerable to price swings and are not diversified with downstream assets. Across the industry, IHS estimates that smaller companies had about half of their production hedged at a median oil price of $89.86 per barrel in 2015.

    ... ... ...

    More worrying for the oil and gas companies that are struggling to keep their lights on is the forthcoming credit redeterminations, which typically take place in April and September. Banks recalculate credit lines for drillers, using oil prices as a key determinant of an individual company's viability. With oil prices bouncing around near six-year lows, more companies will find themselves on the wrong side of that equation.

    Banks were more lenient in April when oil prices were a bit higher and many analysts expected prices to rise. This time around the pain is mounting and there will be a lot less leeway. Somewhere around 10 to 15 percent credit offered to drillers could be cut back on average, a move that could slash $15 billion in credit capacity, according to CreditSights Inc.

    ... ... ...

    According to the FT, banking regulators are pushing banks to take a more conservative approach to their energy loans.

    [Sep 02, 2015] ConocoPhillips Fires 10% Of Global Workforce, Warns Of Dramatic Downturn To Oil Industry

    "...Sanford C. Bernstein, the Wall Street research company, calls the rapid increase in production costs "the dark side of the golden age of shale". In a recent analysis, it estimates that non-Opec marginal cost of production rose last year to $104.5 a barrel, up more than 13 per cent from $92.3 a barrel in 2011. "
    Zero Hedge

    ...Houston based ConocoPhillips announce that the E&P giant is about to terminate 10%, or 1,800 people, of its global workforce, in the next several weeks as it copes with low oil prices.

    As the Houston Chroncile's FuelFix blog writes, "Daren Beaudo, a company spokesman, confirmed that an internal communication was sent to employees earlier this week informing them of the upcoming staff reductions. Most of those affected workers will receive layoff notifications next month."

    But don't worry: the great(ly fabricated) US jobs recovery myth will not be impaired: all these formerly highly-paid engineers, technicians, drillers and chemists will find minimum wage jobs flipping burgers at their local recently IPOed Shake Shack.


    Publicus

    Zerohedge logic: oil going up is bad for the economy, oil going down is bad for the economy.

    While gold going up means you should buy more, and gold going down means you should buy more.

    LOL

    El Vaquero

    That's because both are true. If oil is too expensive, people cannot afford to buy as much random crap in this "consumer economy," and if oil is too cheap, well, there's always the $550 billion in energy sector junk bonds floating around that aren't going to get repaid. This is the result of years upon years of economic manipulation.


    Berspankme

    El Vaq- that requires critical thinking

    Winston Smith 2009

    "that requires critical thinking"

    Always, unfortunately, a very rare commodity... which explains why we're where we're at.

    "Five percent of the people think, ten percent of the people think they think, and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think." - Thomas A. Edison

    Magooo

    HIGH PRICED OIL DESTROYS GROWTH According to the OECD Economics Department and the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf

    HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil production has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world's economies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth

    THE END OF CHEAP OIL Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years

    Feb 14, 1998 |By Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrre http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-end-of-cheap-oil/

    BUT WE NEED HIGH OIL PRICES: Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

    The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

    Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000. "The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programmes. Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120," he said http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11024845/Oil-and-gas-company-debt-soars-to-danger-levels-to-cover-shortfall-in-cash.html

    Sanford C. Bernstein, the Wall Street research company, calls the rapid increase in production costs "the dark side of the golden age of shale". In a recent analysis, it estimates that non-Opec marginal cost of production rose last year to $104.5 a barrel, up more than 13 per cent from $92.3 a barrel in 2011. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ec3bb622-c794-11e2-9c52-00144feab7de.html#axzz3T4sTXDB5

    JustObserving

    Obama's war on oil to hurt Russia and Iran having unintended consequences. Maybe he can drone short-sellers of US stocks

    lehmen_sisters

    Good paying oil workers going to get jobs at Chili's and Flingers....talk about a recovery! Drinks on me!

    Magooo

    THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59 onwards)

    The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy.

    But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel.

    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

    crazybob369

    ConocoPhillips Fires 10% Of Global Workforce, Warns Of "Dramatic Downturn" To Oil Industry

    "Dramatic Downturn", really? These morons are in the energy business and they just figured this out now? Or, are they simply justifying the layoffs?

    Jack Burton

    the massive upcoming reserve liquidation (read Treasury selling) that is about to be unleashed as a result of the soaring dollar

    Don't discount Russia in this treasury sell off. No they are not a player like China, but they have a roll to play, they were sitting on 350 billion dollars in FX if you believe some, of 450 billion to believe others. They have been bullsih gold for ages. But if China sells treasuries, Russia will continue to sell theirs also. The economic war on Russia is already worthy of WWIII, thus Russia should have only one goal, "To kick T-Bills in the balls when they get the most kick for their efforts."

    America lives by the Dollar, prints it and buys a consumer bonanza, energy and the greatest military on earth. I suggest to you that fully 1/2 of that spending is deficit, money printing or T-Bill selling. China, Russia and Iran should likely do what they can to hurt the dollar, as the dollar is America's primary support, 1/2 our federal spending is borrowed.

    johmack2

    From magooo post, http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf is highly recommend everyone read that report or have one of the tylers post it, very comprehensive report


    [Sep 02, 2015] US Oil Production Nears Previous Peak

    Sep 01, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel
    MarbleZeppelin, 09/01/2015 at 9:45 pm
    Roads cost the US $155 billion dollars per year and that is a shortfall of what is needed to keep everything in good repair. So the cost of keeping the road system operable is similar to the cost of fuel to use it.
    We need to find ways to minimize the amount of roads in the US and ways to make the necessary ones less expensive. I am sure a lot of energy is tied up in that $155 billion dollar figure.
    Boomer II, 09/02/2015 at 11:26 am
    It just occurred to me last night that while not intended, letting the roads and bridges fall apart is one way to deal with peak oil.

    Where I live, there's been a lot of expanding and repairing roads. While some of it has been to add express lanes to encourage car pool and bus use, other parts of the work are just to add lanes to busy roads.

    Some of us would rather the transportation budget be used for more trains, and that has happened in some places around here, but the focus is still on vehicle transportation.

    Unlike my area, it appears that in other parts of the country there is no money to fix the roads. If, of course, you don't want more cars and trucks moving about, letting the roads fall into disrepair may make economic sense. Why keep pumping money into an infrastructure you may not need in the future?

    MarbleZeppelin , 09/02/2015 at 2:46 pm
    The trucks do account for significant damage to highways and roads. Road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars. Freeze-Thaw, corrosion, erosion, and large temperature shifts are also culprits.
    Fact is we need to get rid of a lot of the roads because even if all trucks were reduced in weight, there would still be significant cost to the public.
    Truck weight damage:
    http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf
    Patrick, 08/30/2015 at 10:09 pm
    "There will be substantial amounts of fossil fuels available to us for many decades to come."

    1. How can you be so sure?
    If Ron is right (http://peakoilbarrel.com/peak-oil-right-now/), global oil production will start declining soon. It will be double-squeezed due to the other phenomenon of Export Land Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model). There is also the Energy Trap (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/). I personally think that assumption (MANY decades) way too optimistic. We will not have that "luxury".

    2. To us, or to the U.S.?
    When you write "us" I tend to include myself, European, in your "us". But I guess what you really meant was "you", the United States, am I right?

    [Sep 02, 2015] West Texas Fracker Uses Toilet Water To Cut Cost By Michael McDonald

    Sep 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Water costs in fracking are expensive, but most major firms including Pioneer have been working on improving efficiency on that front

    ... ... ...

    The firm looks set to buy water for around $6.33 per thousand gallons in the first year of the deal.

    ... ... ...

    ...Pioneer will receive roughly 18 billion gallons of water (18 billion gallons * an average price per thousand gallon of about $6.75 = a total of $120 million) over the next 10 years. Since Pioneer would have had to get that water from somewhere else if it didn't get it from Odessa, the deal is the equivalent of annually freeing up about 16,000 gallons of water per person in the city of 110,000.

    [Sep 01, 2015] No fundamental reason for oil's 'meltdown' energy analyst

    China oil demand is growing modestly 3% a year, which is actually extremely fast for such a large economy. Moderation in China demands started long ago so this is no news. so what we are seeing is sentiment. Sentiment on all commodities is negative right now Capital investment in new oil development this year at least 25% globally and 50% in the USA. The next year it can be worse. Oil supply will eventually reflect this.

    Worries about China and near-record production from OPEC and the U.S. have knocked oil prices below $40 a barrel. But the markets may have beaten up crude a little too much, according to one energy analyst.

    [Sep 01, 2015] Some Day, We'll Look Back at This, and Laugh

    Exemplary of The Guardian's forecasting where Russia is concerned – and The Guardian never met a Russian it didn't hate, unless they were an oligarch expat, a political dissident or a member of Pussy Riot – is this gem by The Guardian's "Economics Editor", Larry Elliott;"Russia Has Just Lost the Economic War With the West".

    For those who don't remember when the west's economic war against Russia started, it actually kicked off with a skirmish, in which the USA stopped service in Russia to holders of Visa and Mastercard at certain sanctioned banks in Russia, back in the spring of 2014. Customers found that their cards did not work and their accounts were frozen. Russian media promptly pointed out that American credit-card companies "had a record of bowing to political decisions from Washington"; the government imposed a security deposit fee equal to two days worth of transactions in Russia, which would cost the companies $1.9 Billion (Visa) and $1 Billion (Mastercard), and Morgan-Stanley issued a report which suggested the two credit-card giants would be better off terminating their operations in Russia, where they together had 90% of market share. For his part, the Russian president announced that Russia would develop its own national payment system and greatly reduce its dependence on western credit-card companies.

    It's hard for me to see that as a western victory. Visa and Mastercard squealed like pigs, Russia introduced a prototype domestic card (Mir) which Mastercard signed on to co-brand, and Mastercard and Visa both humbly signed on to Russia's national payment system, which moves processing to Russia. This results in a huge loss of financial control for the western-based cards, and a bigger one is coming when Russia introduces its national replacement for SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Western regulatory authorities have long been accustomed to using SWIFT to read other countries' financial mail, and a few years back, the USA pressured the supposedly non-partisan system to shut out Iran. It's unlikely America would have tried that with Russia – especially since European courts ruled that it was illegal – but a couple of big-mouthed American senators started hollering for it to be done, and that was enough.

    You would think Larry Elliott would have learned something from that, but it is apparent that he did not. He had all summer and autumn to form an assessment of how things were lining up, and he guessed wrong.

    "The west knows all about the vulnerability of Russia's economy, its creaking factories and its over-reliance on the energy sector. When the introduction of sanctions over Russia's support for the separatists in Ukraine failed to bring Vladimir Putin to heel, the US and Saudi Arabia decided to hurt Russia by driving down oil prices. Both countries will face some collateral damage as a result – and this could be considerable in the case of the US shale sector – but both were prepared to take the risk on the grounds that Russia would suffer much more pain. This has proved to be true."

    Is that so? Well, at least one insight in that passage was accurate – the damage caused to the U.S. shale industry was considerable. Have a look at this comical piece in The Economist, which is almost as big a failure at presenting the world as it actually is as The Guardian; the anonymous author hedges his analysis so hard that his regular reversals make the reader dizzy. Goodrich Petroleum's debts are six times the size of its market-value equity – but it says it has ample liquidity and may sell some stuff. At the start of 2015, it looked like the slaughter among the frackers would be horrific – but only 5 companies actually went bankrupt. The Saudis (treacherous dogs all) have failed to put Houston out of business – but big services companies such as Halliburton have fallen into losses and small ones are on life support.

    Here's another, in which The Economist does not make the link: the United States has increased its oil production to 13% of global output – but it supplies only about half its own consumption. It puts a happy face on this by describing its increase in production as far larger than its increase in consumption. That is indeed a bit of good news, but the USA still consumes more daily oil output than something like the next four nations combined (figures are from 2011), and about 20% of the world's output.

    The global economy is faltering as the World Bank lowers its projections for growth. Saudi Arabia, originally a partner in the effort to crush Russia's economy, has continued to flood a glutted oil market that is now oversupplied by 800,000 barrels per day, and shows no sign of letting up. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Russia inked 6 new trade agreements in June, one of which will see Rosatom operate up to 16 nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia.

    The USA put its head together with its Saudi partners, and worked out a scheme whereby OPEC would administer a short, sharp shock to the energy markets which would tip Putin out of bed – colour revolution successful at last, America gets to pick a new government, we've got momentum, baby! But that's not the way it worked out at all. Who benefits from a weaker ruble? The resource exporters who are a main source of revenue for the Russian government. Putin remains as popular with Russians as he has been since his introduction to upper-echelon politics.

    Meanwhile, in Europe, Russian sanctions coincided with perfect growing conditions and consequent overproduction to kick the British dairy industry in the slats. The Russian dairy market, by contrast, is surging, with some varieties of artisan goat cheese selling for $14.00 a pound at the supplier level. German cars and car parts exports to Russia fell more than 27% between January and August 2014. The Russian food ban is "a nightmare" for French farmers. Even mighty Apple saw its smartphone sales cut in half in 2014 – although, despite the crisis, Russian smartphone sales overall were up 39%. American car brands joined the plunge as car sales in Russia tanked; however, the ruble began to regain strength in the first quarter and was the best-performing of more than 170 currencies tracked by Bloomberg – bear in mind that this is in the face of deliberate efforts to force it down. The tumble in car sales slowed in July as government incentives began to have an effect – but the gains were all felt by Lada and Asian brands, and the only American car to even get on their scoreboard was the Chevrolet Cruze. Expect western brands across the board to continue to suffer, as market replacement continues apace.

    Let us not gild the lily: the economic war against Russia hurt, and for a day or two there was reason for western optimism that their attempt to backstab Putin out of office would bear fruit. But it didn't, and Elliott's brainless rah-rah cheerleading for Washington was torpedoed by Russian resolve and resilience. The west now has the global opponent it thought it wanted, but market replacement and a rejection of western institutions within Russia signifies a decisive turning away from the west that will not easily be reversed, if ever. Vladimir Putin could run over a pensioner with his car on election day and still cruise to victory without breaking a sweat. None of the west's goals of economic warfare against Russia have been realized. Not one.

    It's still too soon to say whether Russia will weather the storm Washington deliberately set in motion. But there is every reason to be optimistic if you are Russian, and no reason at all to be optimistic if you are one of Barack Obama's foreign-policy drones. And John Kerry might as well just run off a cliff, because he has been an even worse Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton was – a benchmark I did not ever think to see surpassed, never mind so quickly.

    As a recent Russia Insider article warned, there's no surer way to lose the next war than to live in delusion about your own strength.

    Oddlots, August 26, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Hard to pick a favourite line but I think mine is this: "Of course America makes mistakes – grievous ones, which are scrutinised sharply in its political system and media."

    Comical. Errr… Haven't seen much evidence of that for quite awhile friend.

    This guy barely has the intellectual ability to run a golf club though his prejudices would make him welcome in any of them.

    Warren, August 27, 2015 at 3:55 am

    Lucas is an odious sanctimonious hypocrite. He merely preaches to people who share his prejudices.

    ucgsblog, August 24, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    Just reread this:

    "The west knows all about the vulnerability of Russia's economy, its creaking factories and its over-reliance on the energy sector. When the introduction of sanctions over Russia's support for the separatists in Ukraine failed to bring Vladimir Putin to heel, the US and Saudi Arabia decided to hurt Russia by driving down oil prices. Both countries will face some collateral damage as a result – and this could be considerable in the case of the US shale sector – but both were prepared to take the risk on the grounds that Russia would suffer much more pain. This has proved to be true."

    Dang. Oh, oh. Where do I even start? First, I know a few US oil traders; they're in it for long term profit. They didn't want the risks and don't give two shits about Ukraine. It's why you don't see them lining up to donate to Ukraine. Second, in order to kill US shale, the Saudis drove down the price, after informing Russia of their actions. Third, it's not US shale that's currently driving up the prices, it's Saudi Arabia, and, yep, Russia. US shale is crying "uncle, uncle!" On top of this, the oil price effectively busted Obama's green energy legacy, or as a commentator said: "da, ne vezet cheburashke, ne vezet!" Student loans also busted his education legacy, he's going to be an all around failure. Ouch!

    But none of what I said makes that comment stupid. Not a thing. What makes said comment absolutely asinine, is that by claiming that the Oil Wars were started by US and Saudi Arabia to hurt Russia, and by additionally claiming that said Oil Wars are continued to be ran by US and Saudi Arabia to hurt Russia, those idiots effectively gave Russia a powerful weapon to hurt the US financially, and because Obama got pwnd on the Iranian Deal, (Bob Gates' words, not mine,) the Saudis want to answer to Russia, which is why they're signing energy deals with Russia like there's no tomorrow.

    To be absolutely blunt: the US media gave Putin a proverbial gun to shoot themselves with, while claiming that they're actually holding said gun to Putin's head. When the proverbial shot goes off, hilarity will ensue.

    As if this wasn't enough, in order to keep US shale somehow functioning, low cost loans are being made, and the current demand is a must. Low cost loans will only work by keeping the interest rate at 0.1%. What does that mean? It means that the "poorly performing" Russo-Chinese currencies have done something that I thought would be impossible a few months ago: they checked the dollar's aggressive stance. Yes, the dollar is still a power to be reckoned with, but the US can no longer lead with the dollar; rather, the US must wait until Russia and China attack the dollar, which they won't do.

    Furthermore, demand is dropping. Supply is increasing. US shale is slowly but surely going bankrupt. In order to prevent that, US must keep interest rates low, meaning that the dollar's effectiveness is checked, which, according to Elliot, is Obama holding a proverbial gun to Russia's head. As if this wasn't enough, there's still the potential Greek Switch, which could lead to the collapse of the Euro. Add the rise of Nationalist Parties in Europe, and you'll see the shift towards Russia, thus giving Putin the Lisbon to Vladivostok trade route. Combine that with the Silk Route, as well as India and Pakistan's dispute being solved peacefully by the SCO… do I really need to keep going here? And remember, according to Elliot, the US has the proverbial gun, so Putin better give Crimea back, pronto!


    marknesop, August 24, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    Certainly a much more optimistic forecast, what?? I wonder if Russia actually does know this, and it is calculated, or is it just a series of big dominoes falling over one by one? It's certainly true that Saudi Arabia and Russia are a lot chummier than you would expect, given that the former is supposed to be part of a deal to screw the latter. And you are correct that the further out on the limb U.S. shale goes to prove to the world that it's still unhurt, the further the drop will be when the fiction can't be maintained any longer.

    I don't really wish the USA any harm – although I despise its government and more or less its entire political class – and I hope there's no collapse like that because it would hurt a lot of decent people who didn't do anything worse than believe in The American Dream. Not to mention our economic fate is inexorably tied to yours. But the global economy does appear to be unraveling – for the second time in our lives – right before our eyes. Whose economy is hurting, Mr. President?

    That's a hell of an analysis. And it's always easier to spot a trend if you're looking for it. So let's see if you're right – if you are, you're a visionary, because nobody who feels they're authorized to talk about it sees a picture like that. I don't dispute that some in the back room see things starting to come apart, but of course they won't say that. Running panics the troops.

    ucgsblog, August 25, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    Thank you! Russia doesn't know this, but simply reacts in the best possible way possible. It's like racing a track for the first time, you don't know where it turns, but when it does, you do the best you can, and eventually, someone is going to have the record time, and someone else will ask: "did they know?" Nope, they simply adapted, and when it comes to resurging and adapting, Russia's numero uno.

    In terms of US shale, it's not so much that it's going to collapse, but rather, that the capitalization of US shale will hold back the dollar. The problem with the US political class is rooted in the two party system, which reduces political debates to "my side yay, your side boo" type of arguments. These in turn rely more on messaging power, i.e. dollars, which enables those with the money to work the electoral college to play a hefty role in elections. If we simply abolished the electoral college… that'd be an improvement, but Republicans and Democrats jointly oppose that.

    I'm coming from the trend that was first displayed when Russo-Chinese leaders called the SCO a "success beyond our wildest dreams". That's my perspective. It's hilarious to see others suggest that Russia and China will break apart, and even paid analysts are getting pissed off at the bullshit they have to write, which is why you get articles with "Russia is China's junior partner… Russia and China treat each other as equals…" where any analyst reading that knows that the writer was very pissed off at the editor.

    As far as panicking the troops, the truth's that there's massive divestment from internationalism and more and more people are pushing for the Moneyball Model. By the time the rout hits, poor saps like Julia Ioffe will look around and go "waaa!" but no one will be there to defend them. And then those whom they fucked in the 1990s will have their vengeance in a trollish way. As for me, I'll be deciding which brand of popcorn to buy. We have more varieties in California than almost anywhere else, it's a tough, tough choice. BTW, I'm open to suggestions.

    Guy, August 24, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    Something i would like to add. There's one more point that i think everyone has overlooked. Fact that the US dollar is backed by other peoples traded oil means that the US is effectively relying on that traded oil to support it's currency. International trade, commodities and the shuffling of paper are what keeps the dollar afloat. If the price of oil drops by let's say $10, the demand for dollars to buy that oil also falls by $10 across the entire spectrum of the oil market. This amounts to a direct attack on the dollar price as if a country had dumped that many dollars. Now we're seeing Chinese trade slow down, also a reduction in demand for dollars, and the're going out of their way to defend their markets which also involves dumping of dollars.


    ucgsblog, August 25, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    Thank you! And you're right that both of those processes hurt the dollar; where we might disagree is a matter of scale. I think that it hurts the dollar slightly, akin to an artillery barrage to prevent a charge, but leaves the unit in cohesion. I'm unsure if you share that view, or if you think that it does extensive damage to the dollar/unit.

    Guy, August 25, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    Well if it really did do extensive damage on it's own would think that it would be more visible by now. I think the damage i not visible due to the fact that people won't necessarily dump their dollars just because they don't immediately need them to buy oil. But your analogy is absolutely correct. I think in the long term this will prevent the fed from printing too much more and facilitate de-dollarisation by freeing that capital up to be invested in other assets, perhaps not dollar denominated. It all depends on where the extra capital goes. If it goes back into more trade or assets that require dollars then there would be no effect. However on it's own the quantity that we're talking about is rather immense. This effect will become more pronounced when China opens up it's own gold and commodities exchange because this allows the freed up capital to be funneled elsewhere.

    Regarding your views on the oil market i think you would be interested to read my analysis below. Ehhh.. it's somewhere down there, not sure how i can link to it. My views are that US shale will be allowed to die so that the companies can be bought up for penny's on the dollar by predatory hedge funds and restarted once the price rises again and the crash in oil prices is solely orchestrated by US banks which have the capital and leverage to short it on the paper market.

    karl1haushofer, August 25, 2015 at 12:14 am

    But generally low oil benefits the West (because they are net importers) and hurts Russia (because they are a major exporter). The losses in US shale industry is not a doomsday scenario for the US economy. The cheap imported oil more than compensates for that. The shale industry can always be restarted once the oil price goes up again (whether it happens in a year or after ten years).

    Russian economy has always been dependent on oil prices though. The fall of Soviet economy started after the oil price collapsed in the 1980's. The two biggest GDP drops of Russian economy happened when the oil price bottomed in 2008-2009 and in 2015.

    So the writer is right that low oil price hurts Russia while the West mainly benefits from it.

    karl1haushofer, August 25, 2015 at 12:27 am

    The biggest question for Russia is that if the period of low oil price lasts for a decade how can Russia cope with it. Easy oil money is not flowing to the economy anymore. Russia needs to find new (and harder, more difficult) ways to earn money and generate wealth. They have no other choice if they want to keep the country intact (since economically weak Russia would become an easier target for disintegration by the West).

    Guy, August 25, 2015 at 12:45 am

    It won't be priced low for decades. The cure for low oil prices is low oil prices. Eventually high cost suppliers will go bankrupt, keep in mind that countries such as Venezuela and even Saudi are struggling. The US most likely won't save it's shale producers. It will use this opportunity to cannibalism them and then yes restart production when oil prices have gone up, however this doesn't impact the fact that they will stop production in the short term, which is already putting hundreds and thousands of people out of jobs.

    The recent hiccup by China saw $250billion wiped off the EU markets. Even if they go into a death spiral Russia is far less affected by this than the EU, US, Japan Etc… due to it's limited exposure to the global financial system. From what i can see THEY DEFINITELY WILL FOLD FIRST. IMO this also strengthens Russia's position vis a vis China.

    Lastly no ones going to be sitting still and twiddling their thumbs for decades. While i do feel that more could be done in some sectors, the initiative is there to reorient the economy.

    ucgsblog, August 25, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    No one is saying that it's a doomsday scenario for either economy, but one has to look at the greater picture. If Putin was truly worried about the price of oil, he would've screwed over the Iranian Deal, which would've increased oil price. He didn't. It's more complex than a-good and b-bad.

    Russia needs to divest from oil. Badly. The fall of the oil price is forcing the Russian economy to do that, when the Russian economy can take the damage. Think of it as having a great workout – yes, it'll hurt, but you need to go through the pain to make the gain. Russia needs the low price oil pain to divest. And Russia can take said pain.

    Similarly, the US also needs more green energy development, but the low prices of oil is hurting said development. The US economy isn't recovering as fast as it should. So while Russia's hitting the gym, US is slouching around, if we are to use my comparison. Which one is going to be better off in the long term?

    The Soviet Economy was stagnating, not falling. The USSR fell due to propaganda damage from within, not economic damage, i.e. the combination of Perestroika and Glasnost. The EU is repeating said mistake with Open Borders and Austerity.

    As thus, the writer's right in the short term. But most analysts don't care about the short term. If we did, we'd be working in shorting stocks. We care about the long term, where the effect is the exact opposite.

    That said, thank you for your responses Karl!

    Warren, August 25, 2015 at 2:52 am

    So How's That Economic War on Russia Faring? #Russia pic.twitter.com/KQVeVAwBHy

    - Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) August 24, 2015

    Warren, August 25, 2015 at 2:55 am

    Londongrad: TV comedy shows London through eyes of its Russian inhabitants

    Russian comedy detective series centres around a 'fixing' agency set up to troubleshoot problems for rich Russians in London

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/londongrad-portrait-of-london-russian-inhabitants

    [Aug 31, 2015] China can ride out this crisis. But we're on course for another crash

    Notable quotes:
    "... There is every reason to fear more fallout from casino capitalism ..."
    "... A dysfunctional model of capitalism, built on deregulation, privatisation and low wages, crashed and burned seven years ago. But the fallout from that crisis is still ricocheting around the world, from Europe to the "emerging economies", as the attempt to refloat a broken model with cheap credit inflates asset bubbles and share buybacks – or enforce it with austerity – fuels new crises. ..."
    "... That's one reason why the anti-austerity movement and the demand for economic alternatives is growing across Britain, Europe and the US. The elites so evidently don't know what they're doing, even as they rake in the spoils. ..."
    "... Conclusion: dramatic market fluctuations of the past few weeks were primarily irrational !! Most losses have already been recouped and for all of the sound and fury, corrections appear to be marginal, not precipitous. ..."
    "... Steve Keen, for example, saw the 2008 crash coming, and continues to provide very good, reasoned analysis about what continues to occur. ..."
    "... First, we all know that markets have been rigged since QE was introduced to pull the Establishment's irons out of the fire. But surely there is an uncomfortable paradox in the knowledge that, in this latest saga, while the world's greatest totalitarian regime was signally unable to rig its market, conversely it took only a day for the great champion of free market capitalism to do so? ..."
    "... "In 2013, 45.3 million people (14.5 percent) in the USA were in poverty. ..."
    Aug 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    Market mayhem is the product of the aftershocks of 2008. No wonder calls for alternatives are growing


    It may not yet be the moment to get in supplies of tinned food. That was what Gordon Brown's former adviser during the 2008 crash, Damian McBride, suggested on Monday as stock markets crashed from Shanghai to New York and $1tn was wiped off the value of shares in one day. But seven years after the collapse of Lehman Brothers brought down the global financial system and plunged half the world into a slump, it's scarcely alarmist to see the financial panic as the harbinger of a new crisis in a still crippled world economy.

    The market gyrations that followed "Black Monday" this week and the 40% drop in the value of Chinese stocks since June have only underlined the fragility of what is supposed to be an international recovery. For all the finger-wagging hubris of western commentators over the fact that the latest mayhem has erupted in China, this is a global firestorm. And after three decades of deregulation punctuated by financial crises and a systemic meltdown, there is every reason to fear more fallout from casino capitalism.

    Financial markets pumped up with credit and quantitative easing to keep the real economy afloat are in any case ripe for a crash – or "correction", as the market players like to call it. The only question is how far and fast they go – and how great is the price paid by the rest of us.

    Paradoxically, Beijing may be better placed than others to ride out this storm. China's economy is slowing down, as it shifts from export-led growth to consumption. But it's still growing at 7%, nearly three times as fast as Britain and the US, which are supposed to be the west's current star performers. Even if China's figure is overstated, its growth is still at least double the Anglo-American rate: the kind of economic problem the rest of the world would be happy to have.

    That follows three decades when Chinese growth averaged 10% a year, delivering the fastest economic development and reduction in poverty in world history – as well as rising inequality and environmental degradation. But China's stock market is small compared with its western equivalents and relatively insulated from the rest of the economy.

    Despite its huge private sector, China is still a hybrid economy, dominated by state banks and publicly owned corporations. That means its financial system is shielded from the impact that a stock market crash on this scale would have in a western-style private banking system.

    China rode out the 2008 crash by pumping public investment into the economy, delivering 78% growth between 2007 and 2014, while the US managed 8%. That has left it with a huge debt pile, estimated at 282% of national income, which some now believe will bring China's economy to a juddering halt.

    But that is mostly debt between state-owned institutions, so there is no basis for a speculative Lehmans-type collapse. In fact, some of the problems China is now facing as it tries to bring the stock market crisis under control, such as capital outflow, stem from the liberalisation urged on it by the World Bank and its own home-grown would-be oligarchs.

    There is every reason to fear more fallout from casino capitalism

    China's room for manoeuvre would certainly be much narrower if it had gone for their full deregulation and privatisation package. But the main drag on the Chinese economy isn't the failings of its own economic model, but stagnation in the rest of the world. Global trade suffered its largest contraction since 2008 in the first six months of this year, partly as a result of the ongoing crisis in the eurozone. Eight years after the financial crisis erupted in the US, its aftershocks are still being felt across the world.

    A dysfunctional model of capitalism, built on deregulation, privatisation and low wages, crashed and burned seven years ago. But the fallout from that crisis is still ricocheting around the world, from Europe to the "emerging economies", as the attempt to refloat a broken model with cheap credit inflates asset bubbles and share buybacks – or enforce it with austerity – fuels new crises.

    That is what has been played out across financial markets this week, in which China has been a transmission belt rather than the motor. Any idea that the western economies that generated stagnation have been fixed is not serious. Their recoveries have been the slowest on record and interest rates remain at a historic low – because owners of capital are prepared to invest in anything except the productive economy. The likelihood must be that this stagnation continues indefinitely, punctuated by financial upheavals. Without far-reaching change in economic policy, they can be expected to trigger crises that will tip western economies, and others, back into full-blown recession.

    That's one reason why the anti-austerity movement and the demand for economic alternatives is growing across Britain, Europe and the US. The elites so evidently don't know what they're doing, even as they rake in the spoils. In such a context, calls for large-scale public investment, ownership and quantitative easing for the real economy made by Labour's leadership frontrunner, Jeremy Corbyn, look far more realistic than the business-as-usual offered by his rivals.

    If the current market chaos turns into another crash, the demand for much stronger measures will become unstoppable.


    the_thoughtful_one 29 Aug 2015 06:47

    well said article - and in the BBC news the ex Sainsbury's boss attacks a living wage - while he earns 176 times that wage and hardly presided over a great Sainsbury's did he - because their share price dropped 30% after his shift, his foundations

    and they still pay 3p/hr less than Tesco after a 4% pay rise so you can see this was forced on the company

    people of his ilk "ARE" the problem.

    HeinzH 29 Aug 2015 06:37

    With todays capitalism ,which derailed under Thatchers/Reagans reign,the problem is not deregulation and privatisation but looting of the economy.Free hands to the bank establishment has given us a never ending criminality in the markets and a rising number of extremly rich people in the industrialized world.Is it that difficult to understand that the amassment of riches amongst the already rich is no way for creating a just and sustainable society?


    soundofthesuburbs 29 Aug 2015 06:26

    The timeline for the collapsing global economy.

    Japanese banks had been on a maniacal lending spree into real estate and the bubble popped in 1989. Rather than own up to losses and admit their bankers were fools, they covered up the problems with loose monetary policy.

    Japan then had the rest of the world to trade with that was still doing well but it never really recovered.

    US banks went on a maniacal lending spree into real estate and the bubble popped in 2008. Rather than own up to losses and admit their bankers were fools, they covered up the problems with loose monetary policy.

    US banks used complex financial instruments to spread this problem throughout the West.

    "It's nearly $14 trillion pyramid of super leveraged toxic assets was built on the back of $1.4 trillion of US sub-prime loans, and dispersed throughout the world" (pg 404, "All the Presidents Bankers", Nomi Prins).

    Rather than own up to losses and admit their bankers were fools, the UK and Euro-zone
    covered up the problems with loose monetary policy.

    Japan, the UK, the US and the Euro-zone had the BRICS nations to trade with that were still doing well but they never really recovered.

    The BRICS nations are now heading for recession.

    Doesn't look good does it.


    coplani 29 Aug 2015 04:45

    The fundamental question is simply this....

    Can millions of people continue to make a living from sitting on their backsides and investing or gambling on the stock markets.
    "Loads of Money" and "Money Making Money from Investing"...

    Is it sustainable in a World where growth is no more...

    Markets and asset values at an all time high...Can this money making money from investing continue indefinitely...Especially when others are joining in by the million.

    Our whole way of life is now dependent on the markets and they cannot be allowed to go down in value...Thus Q.E. and record low interest rates....Currency devaluation could be next as has already happened elsewhere...

    Investment funds, Pension Schemes, Banks, Massive Financial Institutions etc now depend wholly on money making money....

    Any enterprise started, which seems to be profitable is snapped up by the market looking for money to make money...

    For how long can this be sustained....That is the question.


    KassandraTroy 28 Aug 2015 19:06

    Yup. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    Yet here we are, courtesy of the new "free trade agreements", ready to turn 40% of the global economy over to these same players right when we need to put on the brakes. Because, of course, the oligarchs have bought our governments. I shudder to think of a world ruled by the multi national corporations. It'll probably collapse in 6 months...maybe a few more for the planet to just stop

    nnedjo 28 Aug 2015 15:16

    Their recoveries have been the slowest on record and interest rates remain at a historic low – because owners of capital are prepared to invest in anything except the productive economy.

    Well, something like this, only more exclusively, says also a former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. In his article "How I became an erratic Marxist" Varoufakis says:

    Today, turning to the European crisis, the crisis in the United States and the long-term stagnation of Japanese capitalism, most commentators fail to appreciate the dialectical process under their nose. They recognise the mountain of debts and banking losses but neglect the opposite side of the same coin: the mountain of idle savings that are "frozen" by fear and thus fail to convert into productive investments.

    So, indeed, it seems that rich people of today are chosen only to remain rich, and to enjoy life. So they keep their money in banks, not taking anything with them, nor even think to invest it in something and so increase their capital. Accordingly, in addition to reducing the number of workers as a result of the automation of production, modern capitalism is faced with another phenomenon. He is in danger of losing the capitalists too.

    And, capitalism that has no workers, and at the same time has no capitalists too, in many ways resembles Marx's ideal of a classless society by the name of communism. :-)

    konga76 28 Aug 2015 15:08

    The author's message is suspect. The stock market crash of the last week was mostly panic. Fundamentals in China market are unchanged, Western investor participation in said market was severely limited by Chinese law, and Western exposure to market contraction was meager.

    In US, where biggest Western drop was seen, only 1% of economy hurt by China contraction. Additionally, there is considerable doubt that the author's 7% growth in China is accurate. Many economists inside and out of China believe it to be significantly less, and these suspicions are not of recent vintage. And, recent data corrections have shown US economy grew at 3.5% earlier this year, not the 2% previously reported.

    Conclusion: dramatic market fluctuations of the past few weeks were primarily irrational !! Most losses have already been recouped and for all of the sound and fury, corrections appear to be marginal, not precipitous.

    ID401112 -> goodlife9 28 Aug 2015 13:28

    Good post. Economics is imprecise, granted, and it doesn't help that most world leaders are completely financially illiterate. But there are different schools of thought and economist that offer very robust analysis of the current economic situation. They're just not listened to because the needed measures are both in direct conflict with the needs of party donors, and expectations of the voting public.

    Steve Keen, for example, saw the 2008 crash coming, and continues to provide very good, reasoned analysis about what continues to occur.

    Similary, the Austrian school of economics gives very good critique on the inherent dangers and problems associate with fiat money.

    But who in power would significantly reduce the value of housing or return to a gold standard as party policy.


    OstanesAlchemy 28 Aug 2015 09:57

    Who thought a debt based monetary system was a good idea? Oh yes, it was those people who had capital they wanted to "leverage" (multiply) without obligation.

    So why don't we face the fact that over 90% of the money in the economy was issued as debt, and that leads to the mathematical certainty that the debt is, not only never going to be paid off, but thanks to the compound interest, completely unsustainable.

    We must be so stupid as a species to allow the massive excess capacity in our economies to go to waste, and for our populations to go without for the want of the right numbers, in the right places on a computer chip. A problem that could literally be solved (or at least alleviated) at the stroke of a few keys.


    nishville -> Limiting_Factor 28 Aug 2015 02:14

    Is it the West's fault?

    In this case, a resounding yes. West caused this crisis by promoting and exporting neoliberal capitalism, a system that thrives on instability. You can regard it as a virus infecting the organism of interconnected world economy.


    RalphTheStaller 28 Aug 2015 01:17

    As the dust settles on the latest "correction", one is left with a sense of unease.

    First, we all know that markets have been rigged since QE was introduced to pull the Establishment's irons out of the fire. But surely there is an uncomfortable paradox in the knowledge that, in this latest saga, while the world's greatest totalitarian regime was signally unable to rig its market, conversely it took only a day for the great champion of free market capitalism to do so?

    Secondly, we all know that when a market is challenged it is either the earnings base which is called into question or the multiplier used to capitalise the income. Would it not have been healthier for the philosophical base of neo-capitalism if the challenge to valuation had come from bond investors seeking a real return rather than fears that corporate earnings would not fulfil expectations?


    nnedjo lib410 28 Aug 2015 00:36

    And some of the former Soviet and Communist bloc countries have already reached about 50% of this level, after only about 10 years of EU membership?

    More precisely, only one of the former socialist countries and it is Slovenia. Also, it should be noted that Slovenia was the most developed of the former Yugoslav republics. And former Yugoslavia had never belonged to the eastern bloc - Warsaw Pact, and besides that, by its economic development was roughly at the level of the least developed European countries, like for example Greece.

    So the fact that Slovenia, which had previously been economically developed as Greece, after 25 years of capitalism has again reached Greece in average salaries, for you is "an incredibly fast transformation".

    A very interesting observation, I must admit. :-)


    OneCommentator 27 Aug 2015 21:49

    Hunger eliminated in the developed world?? You must be a comedian.

    Here's a statistic for you to chew on:
    "According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 15.8 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.

    And another:
    "In 2013, 45.3 million people (14.5 percent) in the USA were in poverty.

    You say "very few cases" -
    You mean 15% or 1-in-7 qualifies as "very few"?

    Here's another fact:
    "Nearly 70 percent of the households served by food banks report that their most common spending tradeoff was between paying for utilities or food.

    If you're saying that 15% of American households are in poverty because they're drug-addicted, that's delusional. They're in jobs & paying their bills - But they can't keep up with expenses.


    eminijunkie 27 Aug 2015 19:24

    Henry Ford is one of the very few people of the modern, or near modern perhaps, age who actually understood the basic concept of a consumer based economy. There must be consumers, consumers must have the means to obtain what the consume, and if they consume those that produce that which is consumed can make a living by selling the goods that are consumed.

    Cut back on the money people have with which to purchase things and you strangle the economy as a whole. This is called austerity, and so naturally it does not work. The less one pays consumers to consume, the less they consume and the less the producers produce and eventually the whole scheme grinds to a point of catharsis of some sort.

    The idea of a small number of people becoming extravagantly by gained vast wealth is something that is entirely destructive of the whole idea of any economy, whether you call it communistic or capitalistic.

    The problem, of course, is that the earth just might not have unlimited resources, but there is such a thing as recycling and alternate forms of energy etc. The one thing there can't is a rich of inordinately wealthy hoarding all the money and mobs of consumers who don't have the wherewithal to consume.

    Ultimately, of course, if that continues too long and too seriously, history tells us the day will come when the consumers consume the wealthy.

    Perhaps some compromise will come first.

    As a side note, there was a problematic gentleman in Germany in the 1930's that listened to Ford and got himself on the cover of time magazine a number of times as an economic miracle worker, but we no longer pay any attention to him or what he accomplished by implementing the above concept of solving a server economic crisis by just giving citizens money to spend.

    People without wealth who are given money go right out and spend it all, and that's good for business everywhere.

    And a person who works hard enough and/or smart enough to make a billion dollars will, for the most part, work just as hard to earn a million if that's all he or she can get, because a measly million beats the public dole any day of the week.


    smalltownboy shaun 27 Aug 2015 19:15

    It means that the question is, who will now buy US treasuries? (Who will now back-stop the dollar?).

    Don't worry your pretty little head about it, shaun. There are lots of takers for US treasuries. China had no problem selling some of their stockpile in an an effort to prop up the yuan, which is still pegged to a basket of world currencies, including the dollar. You need to stop getting your financial news from Zero Hedge and RT.


    nnedjo nnedjo 27 Aug 2015 17:48

    Thus, the average EU-28 wage per hour amounts to about 18 euros, according to this chart.

    Realworldview 27 Aug 2015 17:48

    China can ride out this crisis. But we're on course for another crash

    We are certainly in for another crash, and its scale will be beyond all previous crashes, also China will not ride it out, it will crash along with other nations. The consequences of the looming financial collapse will last for centuries, because the era of economic growth is over meaning debt cannot be paid down. How Economic Growth Fails provides a plausible explanation, with the consequences explored in Deflationary Collapse Ahead? These extracts reveal a major blind spot in the discipline of economics that means economic and political elites fail to understand the impact of limits on the economy and why their "conventional" economic policies are failing:

    Today's general level of understanding about how the economy works, and energy's relationship to the economy, is dismally low. Economics has generally denied that energy has more than a very indirect relationship to the economy....

    Economics modelling is based on observations of how the economy worked when we were far from limits of a finite world. The indications from this modelling are not at all generalizable to the situation when we are reaching limits of a finite world. The expectation of economists, based on past situations, is that prices will rise when there is scarcity. This expectation is completely wrong when the basic problem is lack of adequate wages for non-elite workers. When the problem is a lack of wages, workers find it impossible to purchase high-priced goods like homes, cars, and refrigerators. All of these products are created using commodities, so a lack of adequate wages tends to "feed back" through the system as low commodity prices. This is exactly the opposite of what standard economic models predict.

    For a comprehensive overview of our situation and just how limited our future options are, this article by Nicole Foss posted on The Automatic Earth website is a must read: Nicole Foss: The Boundaries and Future of Solution Space. These extracts reinforce the role of plentiful cheap fossil fuel based energy in our industrial civilisation, and the unwelcome consequences of its future unaffordability once a global deflationary collapse has occurred:

    We are facing limits in many ways simultaneously – not surprising since exponential growth curves for so many parameters have gone critical in recent decades, and of course even more so in recent years. Some of these limits lie in human systems, while others are ecological or geophysical. They will all interact with each other, over different timeframes, in extremely complex ways as our state of overshoot resolves itself (to our dissatisfaction, to put it mildly) over many decades, if not centuries. Some of these limits are completely non-negotiable, while others can be at least partially mutable, and it is vital that we know the difference if we are to be able to mitigate our situation at all. Otherwise we are attempting to bargain with the future without understanding our negotiating position.

    The vast majority has no conception of the extent to which our modernity is an artefact of our discovery and pervasive exploitation of fossil fuels as an energy source. No species in history has had easy, long term access to a comparable energy source. This unprecedented circumstance has facilitated the creation of turbo-charged civilization.

    Huge energy throughput, in line with the Maximum Power Principle, has led to tremendous complexity, far greater extractive capacity (with huge 'environmental externalities' as a result), far greater potential to concentrate enormous power in the hands of the few with destructive political consequences), a far higher population, far greater burden on global carrying capacity, and the ability to borrow from the future to satisfy the insatiable greed of the present. The fact that we are now approaching so many limits has very significant implications for our ability to continue with any of these aspects of modern life. Therefore, any expectation that a future in the era of limits is likely to resemble the present (with a green gloss) are ill-founded and highly implausible.

    nnedjo Hippokl, 27 Aug 2015 17:43

    Well, these are the data obtained from Eurostat, the statistical office of the European Union. And on the left side of the graph you have data for the EU-28, and the Euro area EU-18. In the previous post I am slightly increased earnings per hour in the EU-28 at 25 euros, because it is in fact the information when other labour costs are added to the wages and salaries.


    nnedjo 27 Aug 2015 17:16

    Let's simplify things a bit. Technological development leads inevitably to the fact that things that were previously available only to a few individuals become available to most average people. The reason is that the development of technology increases the productivity of the average man, so that someone who previously could produce goods only for a few people, now can produce goods for the huge number of people.
    So, if we neglect the economy, judging solely on the basis of technological development should not be such a thing as stagnation in production, and every man would become constantly richer and richer because he would have received more and more goods, as well as other values in the field of health care, education, entertainment, recreation, ... etc.
    And, since even today is nothing wrong with technology, it is obvious that this is not a technological crisis, but this is the economic crisis.

    And, how did it come to this economic crisis? Well, advocates of austerity measures obviously claim that the crisis was created so that people are spending more than they earn, and this is why they must now spend less, or to agree to austerity measures. However, if someone is spending more than it earns, then someone else had to earn more than what he spent. In other words, if this is true, then the economic crisis would have occurred only in some countries and not in all countries of the world, including the most developed ones. That's the obvious flaw of this argument, and it is clear that this is a classic crisis of capitalism, like many that have occurred previously, and on which, among others, Karl Marx also was talking about.

    So the basis of Marx's teaching is precisely the fact that the employer pays employees based on quantitative measures of labor, ie the number of hours spent at work, and not on the basis of what he can really produce for the same number of hours. In this way, the worker always produces more values than it receives from the employer as wages. And in this way the owner appropriates this surplus of created values , and thus becomes more and more rich.

    However, that the surplus of produced values turned into capital, the owner must sell goods in the market. But who is going to buy the goods, if most customers are workers who also produced more goods than they get money for it? In other words, on the market appears surplus of goods, which nobody can buy. You have on one side the huge number of empty houses, and on the other side, you have a huge number of the homeless. (Does this sound familiar?). You have overproduction of food on one side, and on the other side, you have an army of hungry. Or, on the one hand, the huge number of cars, and on the other hand, people go on foot.
    And, since it is impossible to sell previously manufactured goods, it is clear that there is no purpose to increase the new production. In other words, production is decreasing, and the economy falling into recession.

    And how this crisis of capitalism can be overcome? Advocates of austerity say that capitalism can be saved only "by becoming more capitalist". Or in other words, so that the workers will be paid even less than before, either from private owners or by the state, and commodity (electricity, gas, water, etc ...) will become even more expensive. But, whether is not the main cause of the crisis precisely because the goods have become expensive for people who are not paid enough to be able to buy it? And then, how austerity measures may increase production and pull the economy out of recession? It is obvious that they can not, which means that the solution is not "capitalism that will become more capitalistic". Recession can be solved only in that way that capitalism will become more socialist, or roughly with the introduction of those measures that Jeremy Corbyn suggests. In that sense I would say that Seumas Milne is right because he gives Jeremy Corbyn for the right.

    MarkThomason 27 Aug 2015 17:11

    I should add that I know of three stores near me that had been in business a long time, and closed because their usual suppliers were unable to extend the usual terms for inventory, because the suppliers had lost their credit lines. None had new risks or new problems, they just had their long-standing arrangements cancelled on them due to the financial crisis.

    Meanwhile, the casino ran full blast with borrowed money provided by the government.

    [Aug 31, 2015] Ukraine Reignites - 1 Killed, 50 Injured After Grenade Attack On Parliament

    Aug 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Amid the Ukraine government's vote for constitutional changes to give its eastern regions a special status (that it hopes will blunt their separatist drive) protests have turned deadly as RT reports 50 Ukrainian nation guards have been injured in a greande blast near parliament in Kiev.
    • *1 UKRAINE NATIONAL GUARDSMAN KILLED TODAY: INTERIOR MINISTER
    • *UKRAINE NATIONAL GUARDSMAN WAS SHOT DEAD, MINISTER AVAKOV SAYS

    The clashes began earlier in the day...

    Rada violence pic.twitter.com/P8nXRKxrvo

    - Oliver Carroll (@olliecarroll) August 31, 2015

    https://youtu.be/03v3nwJMyA0

    Following, as Reuters reports, Ukraine's parliament on Monday voted for constitutional changes to give its eastern regions a special status that it hopes will blunt their separatist drive...

    At a rowdy session, a total of 265 deputies voted in favor in the first reading of a "decentralization" bill, backed by President Petro Poroshenko's political bloc and his government - 39 more than that required to go through.

    But many coalition allies, including former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, spoke against the changes and it is open to question whether Poroshenko will be able to whip up the necessary 300 votes for it to get through a second and final reading later this year.

    Approval of legislation for special status for parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, which are largely controlled by Russian-backed separatists, is a major element of a peace agreement reached in Minsk, Belarus, in February.

    Though a ceasefire is under pressure from sporadic shelling and shooting which government troops and rebels blame on each other, Western governments see the deal as holding out the best possible prospect for peace and are urging Ukraine to abide by the letter of the Minsk agreement.

    But they have not turned deadly as a greande attack leaves 50 national guard injured...

    At least 50 Special Forces troops have been injured during clashes in front of the parliament in Kiev, the Ukrainian National Guard said. Crowds of protesters came to oppose amendments to the constitution that would provide for decentralization of the country.

    Tweets from journalists at the scene said supporters of the radical group Right Sector were brutally attacking police officers.

    "A combat grenade has been thrown at the Ukrainian special forces. Some of the servicemen from [Ukraine] National Guard have been seriously injured. Their life is in danger," Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Kiev's Interior Ministry, wrote on his Facebook page.

    Another video of the hostilities developing in Kiev:

    https://youtu.be/rGciYFcVcaU

    timeless21

    soros must be mad

    TeamDepends

    It's blood sacrifice time, citizens. The lucies want chaos, and by Soros they are going to get it!

    wesson

    1.5 years ago, Same groups, same people, same organisation, same methods. But it was "freedom" and "the choice of European Union"

    Latina Lover

    Another country destroyed by the USSA, a CIA public works project, courtesy of Nudelman's Building Democracy (tm) in Ukraine project.

    realmoney2015

    There are always reasons for the war hawks to lead are young men into war. That's why we need a president in office that will uphold the Constitution. That means that he/she cannot take our country to war. Congress was given that power.

    If only there was a candidate who actually stands for that and the rest of Constitution! Oh wait there is one candidate who does...

    Latina Lover

    My bet is on Azov and the Right Sector. The USSA needs to step up the game against Russia, thus Porky and the Rat must be retired in favor of the Ukie Lunatic Nazi fringe.

    Latina Lover

    Post communism, the Ukie Oligarchs claimed that by receiving privatized state assets for almost nothing, they would build a capitalist society similar to the US, bring prosperity, European values and modernity to all citizens of the Ukraine.

    It was, of course, a big lie. The Ukraine is now the worlds worst performing economy over the last 24 years, with many Ukrainians looking back to the communist era with wistful eyes. The truth is that most Ukrainians lived better under communism than oligarchic/crony capitalism.

    Enki Anu

    It's funny, Newland's husband name is Kagan ( Khaghan ).
    Khaghans were supreme leaders in Khazaria's destroyed Empire.
    Destroyed by Vikings ( Russians ).

    Sushi von Gestern

    Rewind back two Shemitas...

    "Two men posing as press photographers, one of them a former Israeli Colonel and Mossad agent, were arrested INSIDE the Mexican congress on October 10, 2001 armed with 9-mm pistols, nine grenades, explosives, three detonators, and 58 bullets, but were released following intense pressure from the Israeli Embassy. "We believe that the two Zionists terrorist were going to blow up the Mexican Congress. The second phase was to mobilize both the Mexican and US press to blame Osama bin Laden. Most likely then Mexico would declare war on Afghanistan as well, commit troops and all the oil it could spare to combat Islamic terrorism."

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/mex.html

    JustObserving

    I am sure demented "mass-murderer" Putin will get the blame even as the Nobel Prize Winner continues to drone women and children and wedding parties.

    The war in Ukraine may explode at any point. Just as the Neocons wanted.

    Latina Lover

    Of course Russian agents were behind the attack...perfect false flag to declare war on Russia and ask for NATO's protection. Only problem is that the Eurowimps will definitely back out, and the USSA pro american Ukies will suffer another humiliating defeat. Anyone who thought they could beat Russia on her home turf deserves to eat the Nudelman cookies.

    McCormick No. 9

    The Ukraine is just a diversiinary tactic to distract Russia from Syria. The Iran nuke deal is designed to neutralize Iran while the CIA backed ISIS forces weaken Assad. In this crazy plan, the fanatcial ISIS forces will be defeated (after they defeat Assad) by moderate rebel forces. Yeah, right.

    Wile-E-Coyote

    Putin's passport will be found in perfect condition inside the grenade crater.

    Vylahkinnen

    Now I get it! That Polish Minister - what a smart man! He told us that Poland expected hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Ukraine. Now it makes perfect sense...yeah.

    terry44

    Well there's plenty of space there, half of the Poles have moved to England.

    Vylahkinnen

    I must admit that I never understood why they still call it England. Are there still English people around? Have you seen one? Don't worry. I won't come over. It's already such a crowded place. Density pop/km² = 262! I live as a mad hermit and I die as one.

    beijing expat's picture

    It's a marketing gimmick.

    Freddie

    +1

    The Daily Mail had some more Putin hate yesterday. Putin would not let gangs of child molesters like Jimmy Saville exist in Russia. Jimmy Saville dies but no one in his gang of pedophile is arreested. This went on for decades with top people in govt and in power. CHILDREN. This also happenes in western Europe including Belgium. These f**Kers need to be put in wood chippers for harming children.

    England has Islamic gangs of rapists attacking English CHILDREN and the English police do nothing.

    Cameron, Milliband, Clegg - all stooges for the Red Shield and the City of London Satanists.

    And these evil Satanic shits have the nerve to call Putin a monster. Putin and the Russians are (predominantly) Christians. The Bolsheviks were not. Same people in charge in Kiev.

    Winston Churchill

    Was the Reichstag badly damaged ?

    silverer

    Good excuse for the US to roll in more hardware.

    OzViking

    5 billion dollars spent on destabilizing Ukraine, the gift that keeps on giving.......................

    TeamDepends

    But we got the gold, which is worth way more than 5 billion digidollars.

    SMC

    Reads like a false flag. Cui Bono.

    beijing expat

    Headline should read "Poroshenko's Thugs in brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy protesters."

    Insurrexion

    Cui Bono is correct.

    What about the fecking "Western" Separatists?"

    Jorge Soros and Vicky "Cookie Snookums" Nudelman are on "The List" to receive the Ludovico Technique amongst other pantry pleasantries.

    No worries my droogs...

    Love, from the Lorova Milk Bar.

    Alexa

    shovelhead

    Right Sektors "Hand Grenades for Peace" Program is working splendidly.

    No "decentralization" and no special status for Eastern provinces.

    "Vote right or good night" is the message sent from Vicky & Co. with love.

    Wer're buying ALL of Ukraine...not just the broke-ass parts, and don't you forget it.

    Latina Lover

    I was wondering when you would show up, with your false flag BS. The good news is no one believes anything that comes from the Ukrainian ministry of Truth, ukies least of all.

    BarkingCat

    >>>> The good news is no one believes anything that comes from the Ukrainian ministry of Truth, ukies least of all.
    <<<<<

    Are you sure about that statement?
    Have you ever been to Ukraine?

    Let me give you a comparative example: how many people in the US believe what NBC, CBC, ABC CNN, MSNBC and Fox News tells them?
    Yes Ukrainians, like most citizens of former Eastern Block countries are very skeptical, but the propaganda is thick and plenty gets through.
    Russia is an easy target in most of those countries. People there do not draw a distinction between USSR and Russia.
    ...which is ironic, considering that at least 2 post WW2 leaders of the USSR came from Ukraine and
    the most brutal one was a Georgian.

    Latina Lover

    The latest opinion polls in the Ukraine give Porky and the Rat single digit positive ratings, with most ukies rating corruption and a very badly perfoming economy more important than the civil war against Donbass.

    22winmag

    Ukraine never stopped burning.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4jIASQzwXw&list=PLw613M86o5o5zqF6WJR8zu...

    Mike Masr

    Ukraine a Bloody Mess, Courtesy of Victoria Nuland

    http://russia-insider.com/en/mess-nuland-made/ri8700

    Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

    I wonder whether they too will be deemed "peaceful protesters" as they were presented in 2013, or will Porky use force against them. Actually, I wonder what will happen next. Throwing a grenade can be characterized as an act of terrorism.

    Will the so called "anti terrorist operation" expand to include Kiev too? What will Porky do now? He can't play it down, and yet using force against the so called "patriots" (= ukie nationalists/nazis) may not resonate well with the society, costing him vital support. I think he's ready to call Putin and ask him for advice :-) Yeah, Porky's between a rock and a hard place.

    Latina Lover

    l'll bet Porky is keeping his private jet fueled and ready to bug out to Tel Aviv.

    Kina

    Another creation of the CIA, a Ukrainian 'ISIS' gone rogue.


    Mike Masr

    What next after the neocon rape of Ukraine?

    http://www.rt.com/op-edge/311635-ukraine-crimea-kiev-washington/

    [Aug 31, 2015] Social netwrok reaction on event in front of Ukranian Parlament

    Українська правда

    У понеділок під Верховною Радою сталися сутички між силовиками та мітингувальниками, які вимагали не ухвалювати зміни до Конституції.

    Після голосування парламенту, мітингувальники пішли штурмом на Раду і почали кидати димові шашки.

    Потім хтось кинув у лави міліції і Нацгвардії бойову гранату.

    Пусть вам мой пост покажется агрессивным или упадническим, но очень захотелось написать. Сегодняшнее голосование за изм...

    Posted by Sevgil Musaieva-Borovyk on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Пів години намагалися з Єгор Соболєв та Руслан Сидорович запобігти бійкам мітингувальників з нац. гвардією перед Верховн...

    Posted by Семен Семенченко on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Схоже, Олександр не зрозумів яка трагедія сталась сьогодні під стінами Верховної Ради. Дуже сподіваюсь що вбивця українс...

    Posted by Sergiy Karazy on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Я не удивлюсь, если некоторые депутаты пойдут митинговать под суд, где будут избирать меру пресечения террористу, сканди...

    Posted by Сергій Лещенко on 31 августа 2015 г.

    90 человек ранено, включая бойцов Нацгвардии, прошедших АТО. Насколько мне известно, представители партии "Свобода" пози...

    Posted by Рычкова Татьяна on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Міліція затримала близько 30 осіб, серед яких, начебто, і того, хто кинув гранату під Радою.

    Про мавпу і гранату... Ще до початку активних сутичок перед Радою, в кулуарах мене журналісти запитали: навіщо підніма...

    Posted by Віктор Чумак on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Удивляться не стоит. Политики как играли в свои игры, так и играют. Взрыв - логичное следствие. Политическая игра, а страдают невиновные.

    - Artur Orujaliev (@arturclancy) August 31, 2015

    Навіть якщо гранату під ВР кинув не якийсь дурнуватий фанатик, а це була спланована провокація, ті політичні сили, що були там, мають нести відповідальність в першу чергу.

    Posted by Дмитрий Ларин on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Я была на митинге перед Радой с самого начала. Было несколько групп протестующих. Вкладчики с плакатами "Финансы и Кре...

    Posted by Sevgil Musaieva-Borovyk on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Завжди був проти будь-яких домовленостей з Москвою. Завжди вважав, що розраховувати на гнилу політику сучасної Європи не...

    Posted by Дмитро Ярош on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Граната под парламентом - это терроризм. Любая политическая сила, причастность которой к этим событиям будет доказана, д...

    Posted by Mustafa Nayyem on 31 августа 2015 г.

    !! Около 90 раненых под Радой в том числе несколько человек в тяжелом состоянии. Это результат брошенных нескольких взры...

    Posted by Арсен Аваков on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Те, що Аваков так оперативно "призначив винних", свідчить про одне – провокація була ним і спланована. Путінським шляхом...

    Posted by Олег Тягнибок on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Шановні політікі, не пишіть зараз, що вам шкода і ви невинні. Винні всі, хто організував, хто не врахував, хто не передб...

    Posted by Ярина Боренько on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Рознімали зараз разом Семен Семенченко бійки мітингувальників з міліцією.Рознімали і матюкалися.Ми захищали Парламен...

    Posted by Єгор Соболєв on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Я против внесения изменений в Конституцию. Категорически против. Я противник минских договорняков. Я не поддерживаю поли...

    Posted by Юрий Касьянов on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Если организаторы митинга не могут контролировать людей которых позвали - нах такие митинги и таких организаторов.

    Posted by Михаил Ткач on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Сутички під ВР

    Posted by "Українська правда" on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Политические силы, выводящие своих сторонников под Раду, должны понимать все последствия своих действий. В том числе, пр...

    Posted by Тарас Березовец on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Виродка який кинув бойову гранату в правоохоронців повинно бути знайдено й покарано. Це не політична боротьба, це тероризм. Свобода , за обставин, має бути зацікавлена в цьому найбільше.

    Posted by Sergiy Karazy on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Проглядається наперед спланований геббелівсько-кегебістський сценарій. Його складова частина - криваві провокації та зав...

    Posted by Олег Ляшко on 31 августа 2015 г.

    "Свобода" все більше доводить, що є партією вузьколобих мудаків. І якщо раніше вони були просто безтолковими, то зараз с...

    Posted by Олег Шанковський on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Бросили гранату дебилы и провокаторы, пытающиеся мирную акцию сделать немирной. Однозначно это недопустимо. Гранаты дол...

    Posted by Олексій Гриценко on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Те, що Аваков так оперативно "призначив винних", свідчить про одне – провокація була ним і спланована. Путінським шляхом...

    Posted by Олег Тягнибок on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Независимо от целей, которые стояли перед исполнителями провокации возле парламента – граната в качестве аргумента медве...

    Posted by Андрей Демартино on 31 августа 2015 г.

    Многие в ленте уже бросились проклинать митингующих - "придурки, дебилы, метают гранаты". Я бы не спешил делать выводы ...

    Posted by Денис Казанский on 31 августа 2015 г.

    _ABM_ _ 31.08.2015 17:21

    После того, как "Свободу" прокатили в Верховну Раду Андрей Ильенко говорил: "Посмотри, как теперь будет выглядеть парламент без нашей фракции и не захотят ли украинцы опять получить "Свободу" в качестве инструмента для выполнения определенных заданий". Интересно какие такие "задания" он имел ввиду, уж не подрыв ли гранаты в толпе? Думаю, что такую "Свободу" украинцы не захотят иметь...

    Відповісти | З цитатою

    IP: 188.230.83.---

    Roman Martyniuk _ 31.08.2015 17:04

    свободка давно вже показала своє справжнє неадекватне жадібне до грошей обличчя, косячи під неонацистів і продаючи землю у Львові і області. Чого тільки варті баньки тягнибакса і губи фаріонихи..

    Відповісти | З цитатою

    IP: 195.225.146.---

    Sergey Nemo _ 31.08.2015 16:50

    пукало:
    А що ти пропонуєш? Перевибори президента? Є кандидатура? Що так дратує свободу у змінах до Конституції? Що так дратує всіх інших? Як можна сьогодні таке витворяти?

    Відповісти | З цитатою

    IP: 46.118.143.---

    Анастасия Евтушенко _ 31.08.2015 16:49

    полянин2013:

    тебя расстрелять первого провокатора - ты ПС не трожь! Если бы не они - Путин уже в Варшаве был бы!

    Відповісти | З цитатою

    IP: 78.111.187.---

    полянин2013 _ 31.08.2015 16:37

    Провокаторы Кремля - Правый Сектор , перешли уже межу. Это следовало ожидать, так как этим провокаторам прошло безнаказанно провокация 19 января 2014 г., на Грушевского. И пока их не пересадить или перестрелять, - ничего путнего в Украине не будет.

    [Aug 31, 2015] Ukrainian guardsman killed in protests against vote on rebel autonomy

    Guardianista with their classic British elite hypocrisy did not put this news on the front page... Real number of casualties is unclear. Initially five killed officer were reported by Ukrainian authorities. According to the Ukrainian National Guard about 50 officers sustained injuries.
    Note how those neoliberal stooges report the grenade attack on police defending Parliament Building (clearly a terrorist act) which as attack on Parliament is worse then Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris: "A Reuters TV cameraman at the scene said several police officers were knocked off their feet by a grenade explosion."
    Aug 31, 2015 | The Guardian

    A Ukrainian national guardsman has died and many more have been injured in clashes with nationalist protesters outside parliament in Kiev, the interior minister said.

    A Reuters TV cameraman at the scene said several police officers were knocked off their feet by a grenade explosion. Two officers were treated for wounds at the scene and there were pools of blood on the street, the cameraman said.

    Clashes had erupted outside parliament in Kiev on Monday as politicians gave initial approval to constitutional changes granting more autonomy to pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine.

    The western-backed constitutional reforms are required under the terms of a peace deal signed in February, which called for Kiev to implement "decentralisation" by the end of this year. But critics have branded the reforms "un-Ukrainian".

    A total of 265 politicians voted in favour of the reforms at a stormy session of parliament, with protests both inside and outside the buidling.

    Dozens of demonstrators scuffled with police, Agence France-Presse journalists said. Protesters fired at least one grenade that sent up a cloud of black smoke outside the building. Teargas was used by both sides, an AFP correspondent said.

    An adviser for the interior minister, Arsen Avakov, said one person had died. "A soldier from the National Guard has died of a gunshot wound in the heart," the adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, said. "Apart from using grenades, the provocateurs were using firearms, fired secretly."

    The controversial reforms have been sought by Kiev's western allies, who see them as a way of trying to end the armed conflict in the east that has claimed more than 6,800 lives over the past 16 months.

    The bill has sparked heated debate in Ukraine where opponents see it as an attempt to legalise the de facto rebel control of part of Ukraine's territory.

    The reform bill grants more powers to regional and local politicians, including in the eastern areas currently under rebel control.

    But contrary to separatists' expectations, it does not definitively hand the largely industrial eastern region the semi-autonomous status that the insurgents are seeking.

    According to the text of the draft legislation, the region's status needs to be defined by a separate law.

    Kiev and the west accuse Russia of backing the rebels militarily and deploying its troops to the conflict zone, claims that President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have repeatedly denied.

    A group of Ukrainian politicians had earlier on Monday disrupted the parliament to block the vote on the constitutional reforms, which they condemned as "anti-Ukrainian" and "pro-Vladimir Putin".

    Politicians from the Radical party – part of the pro-western coalition behind President Petro Poroshenko – had also blockaded the speaker's rostrum in an attempt to halt the crucial session.

    Members of the extreme-right Pravy Sektor group blocked traffic outside the parliament, while several hundred activists from the nationalist party Svoboda rallied outside the building against the western-backed reform.

    At the weekend, Poroshenko met politicians from the pro-presidential coalition who oppose the reform in an attempt to persuade them to change their minds.

    [Aug 31, 2015] http://censor.net.ua/video_news/349901/vzryv_granaty_vozle_verhovnoyi_rady_video

    This is the site controlled by Kolomoyski

    censor.net.ua

    Ukrainian man
    UPD 15:00
    Як повідомили Громадському у прес-службі ГУМВС в Києві, особу, яка кинула гранату у правоохоронців затримано.
    UPD 14:50
    Один із правоохоронців помер. Про це Громадському повідомив голова КМДА Віталій Кличко. Як стверджує джерело Громадського в МВС з місця подій, на місці вибухнуло дві гранати. За інформацією співрозмовника, гранати кинули протестувальники від "Свободи". Двоє правоохоронців у критичному стані.
    ypetrm
    "Около 90 раненых под Радой в том числе несколько человек в тяжелом состоянии. Это результат брошенных нескольких взрывных устройств со стороны людей в футболках партии "Свободы", устроившими драку с Нацгвардией под ВР. Источник: http://censor.net.ua/n349911"

    Никакой пощады уродам, которые на акции несогласия с политикой власти убивают ни в чем неповинных сограждан.

    ANTIkomment
    Зачинщики драки под Радой - Тягнибок и Сиротюк? (ФОТО)

    а от такі обличчя крупним планом тобі знайомі?
    сподіваюсь що мову розумієш...

    Игорь Сейшелов
    видео как под верховной радой было столкновение

    уже десятки ранены и 1 погиб, жесть...
    http://kometanews.net/news/one/v_silovikov_pod_vr_brosili_bojevuju_granatu_desjatki_ranenyh_i_odin_pogib

    Мисквамакус Кусакус
    Это не ргд 5. Взрыв этой гранаты дает меньше дыма и дым черно-серый, а не белый. Про Ф-1 молчу, жертв было бы десятками. Что рвануло - х.з. Думаю самоделка с начинкой "очумелые ручки". Про гранату - погорячились. Хотя при воздействии ргд 5, мог быть подобный сценарий по раненным и убитому. Но думаю, что это не штатная граната-взрывное устройство.
    Игорь Сейшелов
    место после столкновений и новая драка под отелем "КИЕВ" - лужи крови и осколки
    http://kometanews.net/news/one/mesto_stolknovenija_posle_vzryva_luzhi_krovi_i_oskolki_foto
    Иван Карпов
    Как вы уже заебали, ебаные майданутые твари!Идите нахер,на передовую, перед орками гавноросскими ,траяпаками своим помашите!!.,Косить всех нахер с пулемета,пока резиной ,потом если не поможет на боевые перейти!Взяли убили ни в чем не повинного, 24ех летнего парнишку!
    Gera Kruger
    Обращаюсь к киевлянам - будьте бдительны и внимательны сегодня на вечерних и ночных улицах города. Свободовские твари готовят несколько провокаций с целью "защиты своих "незаконно задержанных побратимов".
    Не поддавайтесь на провокации - на кону стоит все. В бижайшее время против террориста Тягнибока будет возбуждено уголовное дело, а деятельность ВО Свобода будет запрещена.
    Сама партия будет признана террористической.

    http://censor.net.ua/photo_news/349932/tyagniboka_zasnyali_vo_vremya_primeneniya_sily_k_boyitsu_natsgvardii_fotoreportaj

    Издание "Главком" обнародовало фотографии, на которых в первых рядах митингующих, которые пошли на правоохранителей, запечатлены Тягнибок и экс-нардеп от "Свободы" Юрий Сиротюк. При этом Сиротюк держит в руке дубинку.

    Около полудня в понедельник митингующие попытались прорваться ближе к зданию парламента сквозь линию милиции. В ходе столкновения "свободовцы" вытащили из строя нескольких бойцов Национальной гвардии. Их позже избили. Спустя полтора часа, уже после голосования в Раде, митингующие бросили в правоохранителей взрывное устройство.

    [Aug 31, 2015] Violent Protest Follows Kiev Vote on Autonomy for East Ukraine By ANDREW E. KRAMER

    A grenade was thrown at police defending Parlament buiding. One person was killed, 125 were injured, 12 people are being operated on and one soldier is in deep coma. Doctors have refused to give any forecasts on the condition of another five people. Ukraine's Deputy Interior Minister Vasily Paskal, journalists of Ukrainian TV channel 5 and channel 1+1 as well as a French correspondent were also among the injured. According to the Ukrainian Health Ministry 21 people received gunshot wounds. One died. And look how NYT cover the event. Compare with coverage of Charlie Hebdo.

    The results of a fiercely contested parliamentary vote over autonomy for eastern Ukraine were counted on Monday, partly in blood: 265 in favor, three major parties opposed and one dead policeman.

    About 120 other officers were also wounded in an attack during a protest that intensified after Parliament approved a measure on constitutional changes that could grant autonomy to parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

    The authorities said a man later identified as a member of a nationalist party had thrown a grenade at the police lines.


    Old Nick, NYC

    Shocking development -- Kievans hurting Kievans -- and can only give comfort to the enemies of Ukraine. The fallout from this remains to be seen.

    In any event, leadership demands that legislation be better explained to the people; there is a good argument to be made for entirely abandoning the Eastern areas to their own devices, even to the Russian exchequer.

    [Aug 31, 2015] Price of Oil Jumps Above $48 Per Barrel for WTI by Doug Madson

    Daily violatility was over 13%.
    August 31, 2015 | dakotafinancialnews.com

    Share on StockTwits

    Oil traders recently scared off due to an apparent glut of oil in the U.S. received good news on Monday.

    The price of the dominant blend of North American oil jumped by close to 6% in a bit less than two hours on Monday. It was trading at $48 per barrel for the first time in nearly one month.

    By midmorning on Monday, West Texas Intermediate's price was down slightly from its close on Friday or changing hands at approximately $43.75 a barrel. However, at that time the Energy Information Administration lowered forecasts for oil output in the U.S. The U.S. pumped over 9.3 million barrels daily of oil during June, about 100,000 less than what had been initially reported.

    It was less than was churned out by the country in May, which was good news to the oil traders who were scared off due to the oil glut that has been seeing the world pump up to as much as 2 million more barrels per day that the overall world economy needs during this period of the year. All the excess oil that sits in storage tankers is what drove the price of oil per barrel down to $38 recently.

    The new numbers by the EIA were sufficient to send WTI soaring in price to as much as $48 per barrel only two hours after the report had been released. Crude prices also were buoyed by an OPEC statement that suggested the oil cartel might be willing to reduce production until prices were to come back to levels that were higher.

    Some traders had interpreted the statement as new evidence that the group, which is led by Saudi Arabia could be willing to turn the taps off in what is considered a meaningful way. Monday also is the last day of August, and the oil future contract often times has a volatile day during its last day of a particular month as the traders rush to settle positions prior to the activity of the previous month starting.

    [Aug 31, 2015] Forget China Oil price main driver for market turmoil

    The story that really matters right now is oil derivatives and hedges
    "...Low oil prices have devastating effects on the financial sector that is involved in lending to the oil industry and in the trade of oil related derivatives. "
    "...Many oil producers receive a fixed price for their oil as they covered their production with price insurance in the form of derivatives. With the current oil price, we just guess insurance providers paid out about 35 dollars a barrel to compensate the losses of the producers. Only for the US shale production this amounts roughly to 120 Million dollars a day. Somehow the financial sector has to cover these loses. "
    "...The problem, as with everything, was the financialization of oil."
    Aug 29, 2015 | GEFIRA

    Commentators are linking the current market turmoil to problems in China. Our team sees the oil price as the main driver behind the market route. Low oil prices are positive for consumers and it will lower production costs for numerous industries. However it will also lower the investments in energy such as sustainable energy and oil producers will see their high profits turn into losses. Low oil prices have devastating effects on the financial sector that is involved in lending to the oil industry and in the trade of oil related derivatives. World oil production is about 90 million barrels a day, representing a cash flow of about nine billion dollars a day which comes down to three trillion dollars a year. With the oil price 40 to 50% lower, this flow is also cut by 40 to 50%. This amounts to 10% US GDP. Compare it with the 0.5% growth we are now missing in China, we prefer to keep our eyes on the oil price. These extreme moves can not be without consequence.

    Many oil producers receive a fixed price for their oil as they covered their production with price insurance in the form of derivatives. With the current oil price, we just guess insurance providers paid out about 35 dollars a barrel to compensate the losses of the producers. Only for the US shale production this amounts roughly to 120 Million dollars a day. Somehow the financial sector has to cover these loses.

    Comments from Zero Hedge
    adr

    The problem, as with everything, was the financialization of oil.

    Had oil not been turned into the latest greatest leveraging scheme by Wall Street, it probably never would have gone north of $40 in the first place.

    Rebalancing and true price discovery is needed. Oil needs to settle at $45 a barrel and allow this price to filter all the way through the supply chain. $45 still represents a 100% increase to the price of oil at the close of the 20th century.

    The USA can have $1.65 gasoline. Shipping rates can come down and perhaps the economy can truly mend.

    [Aug 30, 2015] The Guardian view on the latest Ukraine ceasefire call: why this could be the one that works

    Notable quotes:
    "... The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe. ..."
    "... Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians. ..."
    "... Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political games with Ukrainians... ..."
    "... And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine. Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine from the West is now minimum. ..."
    "... Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government. ..."
    "... Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers and IMF funny money men? ..."
    Aug 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    HollyOldDog -> Bosula 30 Aug 2015 20:28

    The rest of Ukraine was descending into chaos, what with police and demonstrators being shot and killed by unknown assalients from rooftops. Odessa , where 45 plus Ukrainian citizens were trapped in a building which was set fire to by outside football supporters, then shot at and clubbed when the citizens climbed out of the burning building seeking help. Would you risk yourself and your family in such a situation or would you seek the protection of a friendly power?

    Chillskier -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 20:00

    Ensure that Ukraine does not go under economically and eventually becomes a fully functioning and prosperous liberal democracy.
    It seems to be working pretty well..

    NO it is not.
    You need to talk to people who actually live there, it is a catastrophe

    HollyOldDog -> truk10 30 Aug 2015 19:46

    Ukraine should be wary of false friends who may lead then down a blind alley. Only today I watched a very interesting TV program that puts the continueing existance of Monsanto into serious doubt. The program was about wheat in terms of the future of Global Warming where presentment her patterns within seasons would vary widely. Is it the right course of action to choose types of GM wheat where seasonal rains would pop up at inconvenient times ( which a farmer would pay 'through the nose for') or to allow your wheats to choose the correct wheat for the growing conditions it encounters. Some of the Wheats on test where from the times of the ancient Egyptians while the oldest variety was around 9000 years old. Instead of gene splicing and growing micro cultures in a lab followed by years of field testing , perhaps we should just look what our ancestors did.

    I know this is not exactly on topic but I am trying to suggest Not to believe the latest SPIN, just because it is new. NEW SPIN does not equal TRUTH. IF something looks to be too good to be true then it is too good to be true - Forbes, verify your stories before you publish.

    Beckow -> impartial12 30 Aug 2015 18:41

    "Ukraine is important to the West because of its encroachment strategy against Russia"

    The strategy is to somehow take over Russia by either having Yeltsin-like puppets in power again, or maybe by physically taking it apart (separatism). The "encroachment" is just the means to that end.

    Russians had two choices when the coup happened in Kiev on the last day of the Sochi Olympics:

    • - do nothing and hope for the best; maybe Ukraine would run into economic troubles, maybe it would collapse into infighting like after the Orange revolution
    • - quickly save what could be saved - Crimea, bases, Donbass Russians - and squeeze Ukraine economically until it collapses

    The West was surprised that Russia went for the second option and decided to fight. I think Russia decided that this was their best chance to resist, and that facts on the ground in Ukraine were in their favor. So far it has worked for Russia, thus the almost hysterical anger in the West.

    Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:55

    Stay sober. Russia's economy is down 4%, that's not "go down in flames". E.g. EU economy dropped 6-9% after '09, and people are ok, kind of.

    The real issue is with the Ukrainian economy and living standards. Russia's per capita income this year is 10 times higher than Ukraine's. That's very substantial, that's why about 3 million Ukrainians work in Russia and more are coming each month.

    The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe.

    vr13vr -> CedricH 30 Aug 2015 17:55

    Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians.

    Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:47

    "it denies the Ukrainian people any sort of agency what so ever and at the same time ignores that the elections within the Ukraine have not been called free or fair for a generation"

    I wrote 'assisted in an overthrow' - do you get the meaning of the verb "to assist"? Assisting in an overthrow of an elected president is by any definition illegal and unconstitutional - all else that followed has to be examined in that light.

    Elections in Ukraine have been free and fair and declared so by EU itself many times. Yanukovitch won fair and square. Russian speakers (or supporters) used to get roughly 50% of the vote, sometimes more, sometimes little bit less. Their party - Party of Regions - was outlawed. So maybe they are listened to, but in a very constrained way - they are certainly not equal to the Western Ukrainians. That's why some of them started a civil war.

    You don't address any of the disastrous economic consequences of Maidan and the war: Ukraine is suffering and is much worse off than two years ago. There is no economic prosperity possible in Ukraine without Russian cooperation (energy, imports, food, investments). That is a reality that cannot be wished away. Unless Ukraine adjusts to being a poor, agrarian country, that exports millions of workers, with living standards maybe like in Albania or Tunis (at best), they will have to make peace with Russia and its own Russian leaning population. There is no other way, even Germany and France have officially told Kiev that much.

    Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political games with Ukrainians...

    SHappens -> Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 17:42

    Ukraine can prosper perfectly well on its own, just like any other county under the right leadership.

    which they dont have. On the other hand when a big part of the country doesn't want to align with the "West" they should be heard. That's what is called democracy

    vr13vr 30 Aug 2015 16:09

    Clueless. The "low intensity" fight continues, but it's evident that the chances of Kiev to establish full control of the area are non-existent, and it is Kiev who is looking for a grace saving exit at this point.

    And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine. Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine from the West is now minimum.

    BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 16:33

    Moreover, a country with the agricultural resources of Ukraine

    Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government.

    Iraq, Libya, Ukraine - you can pretty much guarantee that wherever the West intervenes or interferes, chaos and destruction is pretty much 'nailed-on'.

    Laurence Johnson -> Beckow 30 Aug 2015 16:05

    You make some very sober points. Ukraine is indeed destined to be a wasteland similar to Libya and Syria. The scorch and burn policy of "if I cant have it, nobody can have it" is very clear.

    I suspect that in twenty years time East Ukraine will be an economic miracle that engages with Asia via Russia. As for Kiev I suspect they will still be arguing about which Oligarch has the biggest pair of balls.

    normankirk 30 Aug 2015 15:56

    under the Minsk agreement, the border comes back under Ukrainian control, only when Ukraine has done the necessary constitutional reform that grants autonomy to the Donbas. So far, Kiev has dragged the chain , and to this day has refused dialogue with the leaders of the DPR and LPR.Poroshenko has openly boasted of using the ceasefire to build up another military assault on the eastern Ukrainians , and has vowed to reclaim all the terrItory by force.All this is in breach of the Minsk agreement Articles like this, with their bias and misinformation destroys the credibility of the guardian

    This time the ceasefire may work because Merkel and Hollande have pressured Poroshenko, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Parangaricurimicuaro 30 Aug 2015 15:45

    I think that Europe is having to much on its plate. Terrorism problems, energy insecurity, bailing out Greece, refugees escaping wars south of the Mediterranean, aging population etc. so maybe it is most than they could possible chew. Reality is sobering everyone.


    SHappens Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 15:36

    Russia has no interest in seeing the war end or seeing Ukraine prosper.

    Ukraine cannot prosper without Russia's market, that's an economic truth. Ukraine can even less prosper without the Donbass. The West must accept to share Ukraine with Russia. Federalization can make this possible and fulfill every country's ambitions and will, except for one country overseas, taking part to the events, we dont know why or do we?

    Beckow 30 Aug 2015 15:26

    Half-truths are by definition not truths. To say:

    "deadline for the internationally recognised border to come back under Ukrainian government control"

    Minsk also requires that Donbass has autonomy before border is turned over. How does one leave out the other side of the story? It is like reporting on Soviet Union conquest of Berlin in 1945 without mentioning that Germany invaded Russia in 1941. Maybe that's next in the endless search for just the right narrative where friends are friends, and enemies are, well the enemy is Russia, end of story. No need to actually be accurate. About Minsk or anything else.

    Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers and IMF funny money men?

    Time is definitely not on Ukraine's side: economy is down by 15-17%, inflation is 40-50%, incomes are dramatically down to roughly Senegal-Nepal level, the exports to Russia that Ukraine used to live off are down by more than 50% and dropping - and nothing is replacing the Russian market. With living standards are on sub-African level and with no visa-free access to EU, no investments (see the default above), and energy dependence on Russia, how can time be on Kiev's side? How are they going to grow out of it? What and to whom are they going to export? How is the per capita income going to grow? Today Ukraine income is 1/10 of Russia's per capita income (that's right 10%). How is time on Kiev's side?

    West triggered an unnecessary catastrophe in Ukraine by assisting in an overthrow of an elected government. Ukraine is divided, look at all elections, look at language usage, etc... half is pro-West, half is pro-Russian. It is impossible to have a prosperous Ukraine without both having a say in running the country. So sooner or later, Ukraine will either go back to its traditional role as a buffer state, or it will break-up. There is no way one group can permanently dominate the other. And that takes us back to the Minsk treaty that specifies that Donbass gets autonomy. Maybe we should ask Kiev what happened to that part of the treaty. Why isn't it even mentioned?


    impartial12 Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 15:19

    That is funny considering the amount of armaments building up among the former nations of the Soviet Union neighboring Russia. The escalation in Ukraine had started with an illegal coup of an elected government. And don't even get me started on the neo-Nazi tendencies of the new regime. It takes two to tango, and the West clearly wants to play this game no matter what negative consequences it may bring.


    SHappens 30 Aug 2015 15:14

    Kiev, backed by Washington who is using Ukrainian army foot soldiers, paramilitaries, foreign mercenaries, Nazi-infested death squads and others hasn't stopped since initiated back in April 2014. Kiev flagrantly violated the Geneva and two Minsk ceasefire agreements straightaway. Moreover Kiev has repeatedly refused to sit and talk with the people in the East and grant them autonomy as per Minsk.

    Surely Russia supports the eastern ukrainians, rightly, in a way or another, preventing in this way a full war offensive by Kiev, however Russian's army is not present in Ukraine. President Putin wants peace and has been calling for it since the very start of the event, that is the ATO launched by Kiev back in 2014.

    This is the Donbass who fights against Kiev. It is the US citizens who are forced to devote scarce resources to the dying puppet regime in Kiev (who will not avoid the country's default anyway + they have been downgraded), while Russia can stay away making peace proposals. If the US wants to put the fire, they will put it so it is necessary to be able to quickly turn it off to preserve what is most precious. That's why Putin considers peace of vital importance.

    We can only guess who will be most effective - the US with their fuel container or the Russians with their fire extinguisher?

    [Aug 30, 2015] Why The Great Petrodollar Unwind Could Be $2.5 Trillion4 Larger Than Anyone Thinks

    "...The US has already destroyed Iraq, Lybia, and Syria to secure oil flows and ensure the dollar supremacy. Only Iraq cost them over 2 trillions, projected to go as high as 6 trillion over the next decades once veteran medical care and pensions are factored in, says Reuters. But according to ZH, they are somehow going to allow the Saudis to break the dollar regime as if it was a cheap plastic toy. They will just stand by and watch how their world domination project goes down the drain because of a small desert kingdom of 18 million people. How realistic is this scenario?"
    Aug 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    In short, China's FX management means that Beijing has joined the global USD asset liquidation party which was already gathering pace thanks to the unwind of the petrodollar system. To understand the implications, consider what BofAML said back in January:

    During the oil-boom era, oil-exporters used oil earnings to finance imports of goods and services, and channeled a portion of surplus savings into foreign assets. 'Petrodollar' recycling has in turn helped boost global demand, liquidity and asset prices. With the current oil price rout, external and fiscal balances of oil exporters are undermined, and the threat of lower imports and repatriation of foreign assets is cause for concern.

    Recycling of Asia-dollars might partly replace the recycling of petrodollars. Asian sovereign wealth funds ($2.8tn) account for about 39% of total sovereign wealth funds, and will likely see their size increase at a faster clip. Sovereign wealth funds of China (CIC & SAFE), Hong Kong (HKMA), Singapore (GIC & Temasek) and Korea (KIC) rank in the Top-15 globally

    Yes, the "recycling of Asia-dollars might partly replace the recycling of petrodollars." Unless of course a large Asian country is suddenly forced to become a seller of USD assets and on a massive scale. In that case, not only would the recycling of Asian-dollars not replace petrodollar recycling, but the "Eastern liquidation" (so to speak) would simply add fuel to the fire - and a lot of it. That's precisely the dynamic that's about to play out.

    A careful reading of the above from BofA also seems to suggest is that looking strictly at official FX reserves might underestimate the potential size of the petrodollar effect. Sure enough, a quick check across sellside desks turns up a Credit Suisse note on the "secular downtrend in EM reserves" which the bank says could easily be understated by focusing on official reserves.

    First, note the big picture trends (especially Exhibit 2):

    And further, here's why the scope of the unwind could be materially underestimated.

    Taken into context, the year-to-date fall in EM reserves accounts for only 2% of the total stock of EM reserves. However, the change in the behavior of EM central banks from persistent buyers to now sellers of reserve assets carries important implications. Importantly, official reserves will likely underestimate the full scale of the reversal of oil exporters' "petrodollar" accumulation.

    Crucially, for oil exporting nations, central bank official reserves likely underestimate the full scale of the reversal of oil exporters' "petrodollar" accumulation. This is because a substantial part of their oil proceeds has previously been placed in sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), which are not reported as FX reserves (with the notable exception of Russia, where they are counted as FX reserves).

    • Currently, oil exporting countries hold about $1.7trn of official reserves but as much as $4.3trn in SWF assets.
    • In the 2009-2014 period, oil exporters accumulated about $0.5trn in official reserves but as much as $1.8trn of SWF assets.

    Now that the tide has turned, it is likely that not only official reserves drop but that SWF asset accumulation slows to nil or even reverses. SWF selling may be a slower process as assets tend to be less liquid, but the opportunity might still be taken to repatriate some investments, for instance to boost domestic rather than foreign infrastructure projects.

    In other words, looking at the total amount of official reserves for oil exporters understates the potential for petrodollar draw downs by around $2.5 trillion. Now obviously, it's unlikely that exporters will exhaust the entirety of their SWFs. Having said that, the fact that EM FX reserve accumulation turned negative for the first time in history during Q2 underscores how quickly the tide can turn and how sharp reversals can be. If one fails to at least consider the SWF angle then the effect is to underestimate the worst case scenario by $2.5 trillion, and if 2008 taught us anything, it's that failing to understand just how bad things can get leaves everyone unprepared for the fallout in the event the situation actually does deteriorate meaningfully.

    So that's the big picture. In other words, the above is a discussion of the pressure on accumulated petrodollar investments and is an attempt to show that the pool of assets that could, in a pinch, be sold off to finance things like massive budget deficits (Saudi Arabia, for instance, is staring down a fiscal deficit that amounts to 20% of GDP) is likely being underestimated by those who narrowly focus on official reserves. Switching gears briefly to consider what $50 crude means for the flow of petrodollars (i.e. what's coming in), RBS' Alberto Gallo has the numbers:

    If petroleum prices continue in to year end at their current YtD average ($52), this would represent a 60% decline in Petrodollar generated in 2015 vs between 2011 and 2014. Assuming that 30% of gross Petrodollars generated per year are invested in financial markets, this would imply $288bn ready for investments in 2015 vs a $726bn average between 2011 and 2014. Lower purchasing power from oil-exporting countries may in turn reduce demand for $-denominated fixed income assets, including $ IG and $ HY. US IG and HY firms have issued $918bn and $220bn YtD, which in total marks a record-high vs past years.

    And while all of this may seem complex, it's actually quite simple: less petrodollars coming in without a commensurate reduction in what's going out means the difference has to be made up somewhere and that somewhere is in the sale of USD reserve assets which are prone to being understated if one looks only at official FX reserves. Contrast this with the status quo which for years has been more petrodollars coming in than what's going out (in terms of expenditures) with the balance being reinvested in USD assets.

    Simplifying even further: the virtuous circle (for the dollar and for USD assets) has not only been broken, but it's now starting to reverse itself and the potential scope of that reversal must take into account SWF assets.

    Where we go from here is an open question, but what's clear from the above is that between China's FX reserve drawdowns in defense of the yuan and the dramatic decrease in petrodollar flow, the self-feeding loop that's sustained the dollar and propped up USD assets is now definitively broken and we are only beginning to understand the consequences.

    JustObserving

    Obama's plan to attack Putin by crashing oil prices is backfiring. But then Obama has failed at everything but killing brown people and defending the NSA/CIA infinte spying on the American people and signing NDAA.

    Forward

    Think about how the Obama administration sees the state of the world. It wants Tehran to come to heel over its nuclear programme. It wants Vladimir Putin to back off in eastern Ukraine. But after recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has no desire to put American boots on the ground. Instead, with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by flooding an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with.

    John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/09/us-iran-r...

    CaptainAmerika

    An empire founded by war has to maintain itself by war
    http://www.philiacband.com/propaganda.html

    johngaltfla

    Nicely done Tyler. And the funny part is all the nations stupid enough to buy and peg reserves to the USD which will get destroyed in the process. When Singapore and Hong Kong de-peg, it is over boys and girls.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    And what a fine strategy it is?...

    Create massive over capacity to the market by looting the hell out of every other ME country's reserves (which has been non-stop since 9/11) to destroy Russia and Iran's revenue "party" which everyone by now knows was the objective 14 years ago... Trouble is according to the town crier of the Aspen Institute General "Let's start a nuclear war over an airport in the Balkans"... It was only supposed to take 5 years and ended up taking much longer and at a much more exorbitant price than was previously anticipated!

    That "overcapacity" can be systematically fucked in a major way... Sabotage to those reserves comes to mind and will be the perfect segue for either side in the event the Anglo-American team decides to get another "wild hair up it's ass"to put it's helmet back on again only this time for the last major ass kicking unlike any they have ever had before!!!

    I guess for the truly delusional and criminally insane it's a fun way to end both the party and your life!

    Trouble with this behavior is that the rest of the 99% probably don't see it this way?!!!

    Jack Burton

    Always good posts Captain Nemo! The Iranians have said that should Israel, the USA or Saudi Arabia participate in an attack on Iran, then Saudi oil fields would see a hail of missiles arrive on refineries, Shipping facilities , key pipeline junctions. Iran has build crusise and ballistic missiles to spread their attack around both low altituded and high altitude. So YES, IF the USA plays it's cards Too hard, Iran will burn the fucking Saudi Oil.

    Russia, while still bending over backwards to please the EU, can be counted on to burn some Saudi Oil if need be. Russia has till now been peaceful. But they might just begin to fund their own favorite anti Saudi groups! Then things will change fast.

    Bluntly Put

    Just guessing, but it seems to me the fed doesn't print currency directly, they issue credit, reserves at least in loans. I agree when they monetize debt like buying MBS they are essentially printing money, but what if they sold those assets?

    So, some of their actions result in hot currency, while other actions are more related to the interdependent network of banks as capital flows related to interest and principle payments on outstanding loans/bonds/debt.

    If all those channels get mucked up, then liquidity freezes and you get a credit crisis. If the fed actually just printed money it would retain it's value however much that value might drop over time and depreciation via debasement.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    Good points BP

    The problem is we know how derivatives laden those "assets" are, especially with respect to paper vs. physical in the COMEX.

    Suffice it to say eventually the "Emperor" will default what is underneath the "kimono"...And when he does the ladies (shall we say) will be disappointed!

    cherry picker

    Everything is so convoluted I don't understand it. Maybe it is designed that way so main street can't see it.

    I can understand shipping tonnages dropping, means less goods bought and sold.

    I can understand selling oil at margins to kill off competition.

    I can understand China selling Treasuries to either bolster their finances or to "pay' back the USA for 2008 and sticking their noses in the South China Sea.

    I can understand tax revenues going down among other recession/depression indicators as people have no money, affecting business, labor markets and so on.

    I don't understand at all how this 'reserve currency' stuff will play out and the above post really does not clarify it in my mind.

    DanDaley

    I don't understand at all how this 'reserve currency' stuff will play out and the above post really does not clarify it in my mind.

    I think of it like this:

    As other countries decide that they prefer something other than dollars for trade settlements, all of those FRNs sitting in foreign banks (estimated to be several trillions) will make their way home. When they do, you get big-time inflation.

    Also, when noone overseas wants to take dollars any more for payment, then our we have less cheap stuff...our standard of living takes a nose-dive. Everything that you need or want becomes more expensive and harder (or impossible) to obtain.

    There are going to be a lot of surprised and unhappy muppets out there, and none of them will have the faintest clue of what went wrong.

    Winston Churchill

    Missing a big piece of the puzzle here Tyler.A very big piece.

    $14tn in shadow banking 'assets'.

    Some is within the Venn intersection, but how much ?

    The elephant sitting in the room.

    Urban Redneck

    Counter parties, custody chains, leverage and capitalization ratios... at this point, what difference does it make?

    Urban Redneck

    After MF Global blew up, I stepped up my atypically thorough and anal due diligence to full retard. I discovered that the physical certificates for JBSICA I own through through a US trust with a US account at EuroPac are sitting in a vault at ShitiBank in London! I couldn't find any documentation of the custodial relationship between the two entities even after going though mountains of account/fund paperwork and corporate disclosures and filings. Ratscam tested taking physical delivery of JBSICA here in Switzerland a while back and I have friends at Julius Baer who can do everything short of breaking Swiss law to reissue certificates... But if this thing actually blows up, it won't make any difference, there's simply too much interdependence and complexity to reverse direction if it starts gaining momentum. Midnight harvesting of yesteryear's midnight gardening and wreck diving past boating accidents will be about it.

    Hope your lawyer didn't bill you too much and only confirm what you already knew.

    AC_Doctor

    What do you think King Salman is going to say to Obozo, when he visits next week?

    A. We are going to start taking Yuan for payment of crude

    B. We are going to start liquidating US Treasurys like our buds the Chinese

    C. Both A & B and Oboza doesn't get a reach around

    Aaron Hillel

    Obamas handler will answer *well, my dear king, look out to the sea, do you see the MAU cruising out there, and that? oh thats just a carrier group, nothing to be afraid of, its for your protection.Of course, if they ever land on your hallowed shores, they could install a TrueDemocracy(c) in here and what would you do then?So, what were you saying?*

    The rotten house of Sa'ud is as much puppet of Washington-TelAviv axis as Merkel or Hollande, perhaps more.

    JD59

    Bath house Barry is sending the U.S. Carrier Group back home, no more on station in the Persian Gulf.

    wrs1

    What are they going to buy with Yuan? If so, wasn't it utterly stupid to dump crude at way below market for $ they didn't want anymore? Seems really, really unlikely that your scenario in anyway connects wth their previous actions. Will they sell other assets before Treasuries to get $? You bet and the first thing on the list is stocks and HY bonds no doubt.

    lasvegaspersona

    The flow of surplus oil revenues reversing course does not surprise me. What does is the quantities. We are talking about a few trillion probably over a few years. That is a lot but compared to the 16 trillion in currency swaps and other dollar movement the Fed is said to have engaged in during the 2008 to 2009 period it is trivial.

    I'm thinking that if the Fed could play hide the weiner with 16 trillion or so they can probably pull this off.

    The difference of course is that then the money was probably used to buy worthless assets to prevent global deflationary collapse.

    This time it will be dollars hitting the international currency market and being spent into the economy.

    16 trillion protecting bad assets did not change the number of dollars being spent. A few trillion affecting prices at the margin...that could be an inflationary force to be reconned with.

    cherry picker

    It is humorous to note that the words "In God We Trust" are printed on the greenback.

    Does that mean "In God We Trust" is only true if there is money?

    If there is no money you can't trust "God" anymore?

    A few decades ago all the evangelicals were always crying for donations to help with "God's Work" and Goldman Sach's states it is doing "God's" work too.

    I think that may be a problem for many. They may feel God can't do anything without money, which strips the divine out of the "God" belief, doesn't it?

    For many, God is the big financier in the sky :)

    VW Nerd

    A few years ago, the Social Security fund went into the negative also, meaning that extra revenue used to mask the Federal deficit was gone. I'm thinking that between these two major changes, the American way of life (social and economic) might experience some profound changes going forward. Much more than we've witnessed thus far.

    Also, for decades the petrodollar monopoly has been used by USG, Wall St. and Corp. USA as a political and economic weapon, fomenting hatred toward the US. The only ones who don't get this are the American public. They keep believing "they hate us for our freedom".

    Glorious Kataifi

    I agree. The US has already destroyed Iraq, Lybia, and Syria to secure oil flows and ensure the dollar supremacy. Only Iraq cost them over 2 trillions, projected to go as high as 6 trillion over the next decades once veteran medical care and pensions are factored in, says Reuters.

    But according to ZH, they are somehow going to allow the Saudis to break the dollar regime as if it was a cheap plastic toy. They will just stand by and watch how their world domination project goes down the drain because of a small desert kingdom of 18 million people. How realistic is this scenario?

    Whatever the game is, the US elites are certainly running it. At least that's my two pennies.


    [Aug 30, 2015] The Abyss Looks Back: Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance

    Aug 25, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    ... ... ...

    On Europe's Phenomenal Arrogance

    A lot of august bodies have decided to share their thoughts on the current vis-à-vis between Russia and what is colloquially known as "the West". Most of such "musings" inevitably touches the subject of the current situation in Ukraine, due to it's being a "hotspot" in the bilateral relations. Most often we are graced by some strongly worded opinions from the veritable Legion of the Free and Independent Western press (), or it might be even a Deep and Thorough Analysis by this or that think-tank, NGO or research facility, sharing with the hoi-poloi of the world their convoluted (and, therefore, unquestionably true) findings on the nature of things they probably didn't even have any previous personal contact with.

    And then we have something… anomalous. And huge. I'm talking here about a report (well, "commentary", to be precise) of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a rather self- explanatory name for an organization.

    The Limits and Necessity of Europe's Russia Sanctions

    The picture below the title of the article shows Moscow's Kremlin and the snow-covered streets of Moscow. Because –apparently! – it is always gloomy and snowy in Russia. How you gonna argue with such a paragon of Western objectivity on Russia's portrayal as the Independence Day movie, where there is snow in Russia in July?!

    You might say that I'm too nitpicky. Honestly, I'll cease and desist the very moment the West stops this kind of petty manipulation of public perception of my country.

    The article from the very beginning says what it's about:

    To get a clearer understanding of the situation it might be useful to start from the other end – not to ask if the sanctions work, but to first look at the nature of Europe's problem with Russia and ask what it would take to fix it, or even whether it can be fixed by the West at all. That will allow us to see what role the sanctions can play in remedying the problem – and what the things that sanctions cannot accomplish are.

    In short – this article is about judging Russia by the esteemed people of the EUrocracy, and determining – is it worthy of their "mercy". The author asks her audience,

    "Do we want Russia to leave Donbas? Give back Crimea? Do we expect a regime change in Moscow? Or do we want Russia to start behaving "as a normal European country," i.e. one that tries to base its influence on attraction rather than coercion?"

    with the straightest face possible. Suddenly, Russia became an object of EU decisions, as if Russia now is a member of the EU (it isn't) or that the EU is some super strong, unified world power capable of really compelling Russia to do it's bidding (again – nope).

    Unfortunately, what follows is the author's opinion on "the nature of our Russian problem". The author had a mighty lot of predecessors willing to find a "final solution" for the "Russian problem". This particular individual, elevated well above her station by the simple fact that she writes for the ECFR, does the most "professional" thing possible – goes full ad hominem not only against Russian president Vladimir Putin (KGB reference included), but to the Russian people as well. You see, for the author of this "commentary", Russians are just "rent-seeking clients" mobilized against "enemy figures – real or imaginary". The Russian system of education (in the Soviet era, second to none – now "thankfully" reformed by the West worshiping "democrats") plus "the state-centric way history and international relations are taught at Russian schools and universities" has contributed to the fact that the EU is "having problems" with Russia.

    As a person educated in Russia by the Russian system of education (including Higher Education) I can say that this kind of claim is inaccurate. In the Moscow State University (aka "Lomonosov's") our professors took a lot of effort to drive us to the "multi-vector approach" of the history and historiography, taught us of many existing schools of thoughts and research. No one indoctrinated gentle young souls into some Putin-worshiping cult. I can safely claim, from personal experience, that I was educated from a plethora of historical textbooks – including extremely "handshakable" ones, both in school (state run) and at the Uni. Still, I am who I am despite (and thanks) to everything that I've learned earlier. So, basically implying that the Russian state is "brainwashing" youngsters in the state-run higher education institutions is a big fat lie. One only need to look at MSU's (of Lomonosov) Journalism department to see teeming masses of "handshakables" and "not-living-by-the-lie-ers" in the making.

    But the article is actually right in one regard – it admits the vast abyss that exists now between the Western perception of the current situation and the Russian one. The author is even sufficiently capable to articulate it correctly:

    What makes the current standoff so tense and dangerous is not the reach of Russia's territorial ambitions, as many suggest, but vice versa – the limited nature of them, and its psychological implications. Moscow sees itself as having given up everything: it has left Central Europe, it has left the Baltic States, not to mention Cuba, Africa and the Middle East, but now the West seems intent on 'taking' the last little bit that was left – 'brotherly' Ukraine. Of course Moscow takes it emotionally and tries to fight back.

    But then, as tradition dictates, the author allows her own ideological bias to distort the rest of the narrative in what might have become an honest attempt to look at the current problem from both sides' perspective:

    The countries in Russia's neighbourhood – in what one can call the Eastern Partnership area – received their independence semi-accidentally in 1991, when it was promptly hijacked by corrupt elites. Now, their societies are starting to mature and demand better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures. This manifests in a bumpy, but inevitable evolutionary process that the EU did not launch and does not control, but cannot do anything other than support. Moscow, on the other hand, is fixated on the elites it can control – and therefore bound to resist it. The clash is systemic, and likely to manifest repeatedly as long as the fundamentals remain unchanged.

    Calling the multitude of processes that in the end resulted in the dissolution of the USSR "a semi-accident" is an admission of one's ignorance about the history of every single country of the so-called "Eastern Partnership area". The author also fails to mention that "societies" (the author obviously likes this term as much as she despises the term "the people") in some of these countries indeed have found an answer how to reach a "better governance, rule of law and more say over their countries' futures". One only has to look at Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. And let's not forget that Russia itself was "promptly hijacked by corrupt elites". And what the EU "did not launch… but cannot do anything other than support" were the forces inimical to these governments, which managed, indeed, to bring better governance, rule of law (which was non-existent before) and more say over their countries' futures (that's it – they will have more say about it, not some "advisers" from Brussels or Washington).

    And then the article lists all the reasons why the West won't reach any agreement with Russia. The EU will continue to do what it pleases, not giving a damn about Russian concerns over "spheres of influence" because of "the OSCE charter, the principles of the Council of Europe, the founding documents of the EU and NATO and so forth"- even despite the fact that some members of Russia's elite are indeed ready to strike a deal with them. This sort of sincerity is kinda refreshing, I must say. When a person speaking on behalf of the West freely admits that they don't care about Russia's opinion at all, that any real equal dialog is pointless, this sounds both arrogantly prideful and refreshingly new.

    But the article also discusses some methods to "fix the Russian problem"! Once again, I'm reminded of some other high-ranking citizens of the "United Europe" of old, who had similar plans. But the new generation is much, much more merciful to the undeserving "lessers":

    Ideally, Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential. Some experts suggest that to achieve that, we need a regime change in Russia. This would be true if our Russia-problem was rooted solely in the personality of Putin and the nature of his regime – but this is probably not the case. Russia's dominance-fixated mindset has survived multiple regime changes…

    What is needed, therefore, is something much more complicated: Russia's sincere and extensive rethink of the means and ends of its international behaviour. This is closer to an identity change, than to a regime change. And a lot trickier. While such things have happened in history, the circumstances that bring them about are generally unpredictable and tend to vary greatly – which means that this is not something that outsiders can easily bring about, and achieve a desired outcome.

    One of the biggest reasons why Russians resisted so fiercely (and why the common people's memory preserved it through generations) the many-faced West is because of its desire to "re-make" and "re-model" Russia into forms more suitable to the West. Numerous nomads from the East were up to the usual stuff – pillage, burning, slave taking. But they've never dictated to the Russians how they should rule themselves or how they must worship. Only the West did it and by doing it have forever earned the special degree of distrust – confirmed once again by this "commentary" of the EU institution, not intended to be read by Russian "savages" at all. While the author generously admits that "perhaps" Russia doesn't warrant a "regime change" (which, you must understand, is sort of a norm for the Free and Democratic West – i.e. changing legally elected "regimes" for fun and profit) in Russia, she still argues for an "ideal" Russia without an independent foreign policy; she is arguing for Russia surrendering its security and economical concerns in the name of "appealing to Europe". Oh, and she also dreams of a Russia which abandons any thoughts of allying itself with China because the EU are the good guys, and China is a "meanie".

    The article is a true hodge-podge of some brilliant epiphanies (for a typical westerner) – when, say, the author argues that the West's blind support or Yeltsin in 1996 in face of the possible "communist revival" has been unwarranted and even harmful. But then, unfortunately, the author decides to touch upon the subject of Western sanctions, and here we might glimpse the true attitude of "what it's all about" concerning them:

    This implies a wider strategy that consists of boosting the security of the vulnerable EU and NATO members, defending the independence and sovereignty of the EaP countries, and keeping sanctions until the conditions for lifting them – implementations of the Minsk agreements or settlement of the Crimea issue – are fulfilled…

    … It is good that the sanctions are linked to concrete demands – return of Crimea and fulfilment of the Minsk agreements. This provides a relatively clear conditionality that Europe needs to stick to. While the Crimea-related sanctions will probably remain in place for the foreseeable future, as a settlement of the issue is not on the horizon, the Minsk agreements are supposed to be implemented by the end of the year.

    This is very notable, because in just a few paragraphs a person close to the EU analytical stuff (at least) admits that:

    1. Russia MUST "return" Crimea to Ukraine
    1. b) Russia will be held personally accountable for any failures in implementation of Minsk agreement.

    And despite the fact that the author tries to distract us with all her flowery words about "one does not need to make sanctions a 'barometer' of Russian behaviour in Ukraine" (because, As Everybody Knows It () – "Russia is waging a war on the territory in the territory of Ukraine, and about Zero percent of locals actual contribute to it"), while demanding that the EU's policy " must consist of a refusal to roll back sanctions before Ukraine has gained full control of its eastern border". In short – the current Kiev government can do nothing regarding their responsibilities according to the Minsk-2 accord (with the blessing of the EU, it's implied), but Russia must be held responsible for EVERYTHING. And be sanctioned appropriately, should it falter in its duties. After all, "sanctions should be a slow squeeze that gradually reduces Russia's freedom of manoeuvre and thereby reminds it of its misdeeds and Europe's displeasure."

    The conclusion of the article, despite the absence of any bellicose terms, reads (at least for me) as a declaration of War against Russia:

    Europe needs to be aware that our problem with Russia is long-term and multi-layered. It is clear that the sanctions are not a miracle cure to fix it all, but they need to be a small part of a bigger strategy. They are instrumental in restoring our credibility and possibly fixing a few near- or medium term goals. Getting that right, however, is important, as credibility is something Europe badly needs if it wants to influence processes in the future. Hence the necessity of sanctions – despite all their limits.

    Actually, the majority of politically aware Russians won't find anything "revelatory" in this article. It's been a "Punchinello's Secret" that the EU will always skew more on the side of regime in Kiev while reviewing the "fulfillment" of the Minsk-2 resolution. The Official EU (as opposed to its individual members) will always see Russia as an aggressor and the guilty party by default. While the talks about "possible cancellation of sanctions" remain a sort of tasty carrot for some people (especially for some too eager to sell Crimea for a batch of the "true" Italian Mozzarella cheese), the fact remains – the EU will renew its sanctions against Russian at the end of 2015, no matter what.

    The sheer gall of claiming that "…Europe would want to live next to a Russia that shares if not our values, then at least some of our interests, and uses attractiveness, rather than coercion to win allies and make itself influential" is astonishing. Since when did the so-called "United Europe" abandon the use of "coercion to win allies and make itself influential"? What has happened to the collective memory of the Enlightened Western Public () (Totally Entitled to Its Own Opinion Even Without Knowing A Thing) about the events that preceded the bloody coup d'etat in Kiev on February 22, 2014?

    But, despite all its flaws, I actually like these kinds of "anomalous articles" that sometimes grace the pages of the Free and Independent Western Press (). First of all – some admissions here signify that the so-called analysts in the West are not brain-dead and that they can still understand and articulate some basic things about Russia's perspective, in the language probably accessible to the vast majority of their target audience. Second – the article is refreshingly honest about the West's goals and objectives in the conflict with Russia.

    Yes, there is some flowery prose here, but the core imperatives are hard to miss. And, yes, I'm using the term "the West" in rather broad definition here. Despite their best attempts to conceal this, it's rather obvious for anyone with a functioning brain that the EU sanctions against Russia applied (as they claim) due to "the unlawful annexation of Crimea", "support of militants in the Ukrainian East" or "Russia's as yet unconfirmed (but we are counting on it anyway!) complicity in the downing of MH17" have nothing to do with any point of the Minsk-2 agreement. In fact, right after the signing of this treaty, the EU decided to prove to the Whole Civilized World that it didn't bow down to Russia's demands, and issued yet another batch of sanctions.

    But for every Russian who will read this article (and believe me – there will be a fair amount of them), after they get the essence of it, they will realize that this is not some op-ed by the typically "handshakable" Western outlet, that this "commentary" had been published by the Powers That Be of the EU – and that everything written herein bodes nothing good for Russia in the foreseeable future, no matter what. Russians, being the citizens of Russia, tend to react very negatively to some Western countries' decision to "deal" with them. And the reaction will follow. As it turned out, the Westerners of old (who also had some "long- term problems with Russia") were truly… mortified by such manner of counter-reaction.

    ThatJ, August 29, 2015 at 4:30 pm
    @yalensis

    I don't make any definitions. Similarities and differences are easily observed by the naked eye, but if you want something more scientific, you can always rely on genetics. "Ethnicity" can be considered a modern substitute for "tribe" anyhow, and closely related peoples did wage wars against each other in the past (and today). There was a motley of Germanic tribes in the past, many of whom are today just "Germans", "Dutch", "Danes", &c.

    From Darwin Revisited:

    The following observations in The Origin regarding the nature of evolutionary competition provide valuable clues as to why civil wars occur, why the French make jokes about the Belgians, the Norwegians dislike the Swedes and the British go to war against the Germans. Darwin wrote that 'the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure' (1968: 165).

    [Aug 30, 2015]The Dollar Now What

    Aug 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Canada's fundamentals are poor and this seemed to outweigh the recovery in oil prices. Also, the US two-year premium over Canada recouped most of the ground it had lost earlier in the week. Canada is expected to report a contraction in Q2 GDP in the coming days and a softening of the labor market in August. The US dollar's pullback from the CAD1.3355 spike on August 25 fizzled near CAD1.3140. Another run at the highs looks likely. Over the longer term, we look for the Australian dollar to fall toward $0.6000 and the US dollar to rise toward CAD1.40.

    Oil prices staged a strong rebounded in the second half of last week after falling to $37.75 on August 24. The bounce carried the October light crude futures contract to $45.25, which completes a 61.8% retracement of the slide in prices since July 29. The next objective is seen near $46.80 and then $48.00. There is good momentum, and the October contract finished the week above its 20-day moving average (~$42.95) for the first time since June 23. The October contract posted a potential key reversal on the weekly bar charts. It made a new multi-year low early in the week and then proceeded to rally, taking out the previous week's highs. It closed at its highest level since the end of July.

    ... ... ...

    7. The net long speculative light sweet crude oil futures positions were pared by 5k contracts, leaving 215.6k. Given the large movement in prices, it is surprising to see how small of a position adjustment took place. The longs added 1k contracts, lifting the gross position to 474.2k contracts. The bears trimmed their gross position by 4k contracts, leaving 215.6k.

    [Aug 30, 2015] The US does not permit negative media to undermine domestic support for its war effort

    Warren, August 30, 2015 at 2:46 pm
    The primary lesson the US learnt from the Vietnam debacle was that in any future conflicts the US will not permit negative media to undermine domestic support for its war effort. The US has used CNN and domestic local TV stations as training facilities for its psychological warfare units.

    Army embeds active-duty PSYOPS soldiers at local TV stations

    Warren says:

    August 30, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    The primary lesson the US learnt from the Vietnam debacle was that in any future conflicts the US will not permit negative media to undermine domestic support for its war effort. The US has used CNN and domestic local TV stations as training facilities for its psychological warfare units.

    Army embeds active-duty PSYOPS soldiers at local TV stations

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/army-embeds-active-duty-psyops-soldiers-local-tv.html

    Why Were Government Propaganda Experts Working On News At CNN?

    http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-government-propaganda-experts-working-on-news-at-cnn/

    Speaking of Panama, the success the US had in controlling the media narrative in that short war/intervention provided the template for the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

    According John Perkins the Economic Hitman, the CIA murdered Omar Torrijos. The US and Panama were in dispute over the Panama Canal, specifically who would be in control of it and on what terms.

    Let us not forget that the US and NATO bombed Serbian television and radio stations in 1999.

    [Aug 30, 2015] The Guardian view on the latest Ukraine ceasefire call: why this could be the one that works

    "...This is not good journalism, nor objective, perceptive, informed reporting. It's hogwash- and from the Guardian!!! An effete, ignorant, vague, prejudiced, white washing survey of no value what so ever. "
    "...The same old story on behalf of Washington DC."
    "...It's just the Graun beating the drums of war on behalf of NATO...again."
    "...The Guardian view on the latest Ukraine ceasefire call: why this could be the one that works... So there will be some enforcement on the West Ukrainians to observe it at last and curb the neonazi types?"
    "...This article assumes wrongly that Russia and Putin are to blame when quite the opposite is true .

    This all occurred due to the EU very aggressive expansionist policy in the Ukraine, Russia's backyard encouraged by a under funded sabre rattling Nato which has all gone horribly wrong .

    Eastern Russian Ukrainian separatists have every right to self determination as do people in the Falkland islands or in Scotland and Gibraltar and yet not Ukrainian Russians ?? Why not !

    The EU cannot afford to bail out Greece, never mind the Ukraine and costs are mounting daily .The EU is tilting imperially at windmills

    Many people in the UK EU do not support their governments approach to Russia and cannot even understand it ,and see yet more double standards

    The EU need desperately to get Russia back as a market particularly as China is starting to look wobbly any more talk of sanctions against Russia would be counter productive"

    Aug 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    Bosula -> Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 21:50

    Russia's RTs budget is about a third of the amount that the US State Department spends of funding six state owned propaganda broadcasting services across the world.

    At least one of these US state sponsored propaganda networks has a formal agreement with the Guardian to run their pro US stories on a regular basis (see stories by RFE, for example).

    Does this help you understand that propaganda is complex. It not just a Russian game, if that is really what you thought.

    The Russians are the little kids on the block in this ongoing propaganda 'war'.

    annamarinja -> JakeBrumby 30 Aug 2015 21:49

    You mean, only FauxNews provide the truth and only truth?


    Winifred Kiddle 30 Aug 2015 21:36

    You're reading different stuff to what I read according to my sources Putin is the person who masterminded Minsk. And Porky is the dude who signed an agreement but never kept to it. Something about kids living in basements that's how we'll win this war Yada Yada Yada. Oh that's right the Guardian employs Shaun Walker. Enough said. Please, please get your facts right and stop hoodwinked your readers.

    Bosula HollyOldDog 30 Aug 2015 21:36

    A no brainer for me - seek the protection of a friendly neighbour who shares your culture and language.

    The period following the unconstitutional February 2014 coup in Kiev was a dangerous and lawless period.

    HauptmannGurski Beckow 30 Aug 2015 21:45

    The winter, yes, it is very important in that region, nearby Stalingrad, now Volgograd, etc. That's why a ceasefire before winter has better chances than one before summer, e.g. February.

    As far as these jokers with a German name (Tintenfische) are concerned who delight in the idea of a Russian crash, they really got no idea what they are talking about. Russians do not give in, see Leningrad siege. Russia has received shock therapy with these sanctions and they wll now ensure that never again will they be overly dependend on foreign sources of funds, or even cooperation.

    As the saying goes, if you need a helping hand look at what you find at the end of your right arm. The cooperation after the 1991 collapse was a failure, looked like a good idea at the time. They are very conscious of needing to focus on their own minds and resources, instead of sugar hits from foreign creditors like Ukraine and Greece. And then there are these people who go full frontal against Putin - being totally oblivious that the Putins, Obamas, Bushes come and go. Anyone who's engaging in these primitive Putin attacks just displays a low IQ.

    Economies are in dire straights everywhere, so why should Russia be an exception. There is no country now that isn't plagued by excessive borrowings and Russia is barred from excessive borrowing, good. At least they are free of prooping up Ukraine now. Lets see how the other side likes propping them up.

    poopin4putin PaddyCannuck 30 Aug 2015 21:21

    It is truly stomach-churning stuff. Especially since the rubble is gaining. it was 70+ to US dollar last week, but closed Friday at around 65. Its gaining. oh wait it was around 35 a year or so ago. sorry.

    Beckow -> Rudeboy1 30 Aug 2015 21:21

    Almost everything you wrote is wrong.

    Only 20-25% of Russia's economy is oil, gas and energy. The price crash was in dollars, in rubles the prices are almost the same as a year ago. In Russia they use rubles...

    Russia is increasing both its cash reserves and gold holdings, check Bloomberg.
    Putin increased defense budget.

    Russia's population has been growing since 2011, their birth rates are higher than almost all EU countries. You want to see real demographic disaster, try Latvia - down 25% in 15 years, or Estonia, Germany, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria... Plus Russia gets second largest number of immigrants after US in the world.

    Why are you way off on all your facts? Are you Obama's speech writer? Or do you think this is 1998?

    Parangaricurimicuaro -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 21:20

    Food production is one of the areas in the Russian economy that is starting to show results in this new government guided import substitution. So when a cheese producer in western Europe sees images of tons of cheese been bulldozed then I don't consider that they were laughing. The creation of markets is a process that takes time and effort.

    nadodi 30 Aug 2015 21:00

    The same old story on behalf of Washington DC.

    PaddyCannuck 30 Aug 2015 20:55

    It's really breathtaking how so many of our rabid Russia-haters just ooze schadenfreude when commenting on the imagined effects of western sanctions and other economic measures which they gleefully fantasise as reducing the lives of ordinary Russians to abject misery.

    But then, when it comes to Russian seizure and destruction of contraband goods or one of the daily articles of how bad Russia and Putin are, they're suddenly full of loving concern and compassion for those same ordinary Russians, and inundate us with a deluge of crocodile tears. Truly stomach-churning stuff.


    Vlad Cheprasov 30 Aug 2015 21:18

    According to recent big buzz 2000 russian soldiers killed vs. about 1500 Ukrainian soldiers official stats claims.
    That means that majority in East are russian soldiers vs. ukrainian
    That means that majority captured POW should be russian soldiers
    Considering Ukrianian side is more effective (2000 vs 1500) they must've got more POW's
    Why they provided 12 lost souls in 2014 and just 4 this year ?
    Separatist side handed back more than thousand Ukrainian POW (official Ukrainian sources claim)
    Where are those thousands of Russian soldiers/mercenaries?
    Every time they got couple guys all MSM headers are blown with a really BIG news.

    Bosula -> Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 21:14

    if it works for you - go for it as an 'ethnic Australian'.

    All Slavs in this part of this part of world share the same genetic heritage - regardless of what country they come from. Certainly Russians and Ukrainians are the same people genetically and share much in common, whether they like it on not

    HollyOldDog -> Bosula 30 Aug 2015 20:28

    The rest of Ukraine was descending into chaos, what with police and demonstrators being shot and killed by unknown assalients from rooftops. Odessa , where 45 plus Ukrainian citizens were trapped in a building which was set fire to by outside football supporters, then shot at and clubbed when the citizens climbed out of the burning building seeking help. Would you risk yourself and your family in such a situation or would you seek the protection of a friendly power?


    HollyOldDog -> GhengisMao 30 Aug 2015 21:00

    That is just what Poroshenko is praying for as it would mean more money flowing into the coffers of Ukraine. ( thereby into his own as well). Yats - Americas own man said that Ukraine should be given around $2billion per year for 3 years ( last years request).

    But it will never happen and Poroshenko will be ordered to live up to his obligations in respect to the Minsk2 agreement. I suggest he starts now as the gaze of the EU drifts to the far more serious problem of these migrants who don't carry identity papers entering the EU. terrorist fractions could be in their midst, so the EU has to be diligent. So Poroshenko either get your act together and fulfill your obligations or be sidelined, to sink or swim on your own.

    EugeneGur -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 20:28

    With you, no evidence, hard or otherwise, is ever required. "Everyone knows", "nobody believes" - is good enough for you.

    The alternative is to believe that a ragbag army of separatists in a region of three million people can overwhelm the regular army of a country with 45 million people on their own.

    This is a good example of you reasoning. We Russians call such "facts" "dragged by the ears". You claim to know Russian - you should understand what I refer to.
    First, it isn't clear what was more ragbag - the Kiev army or separatists. Just because it is called regular army doesn't mean they know how, or are willing, to fight. Second, the whole 45 millions didn't go to fight, did they? Kiev has trouble assembling decent number of soldiers even now - separatists don't. What a difference motivation makes.

    HollyOldDog -> alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 20:19

    Ah, I was right all along.
    The West Always Speaks With Fase Tongue.
    Middle East and African countries should keep their own council and keep the Western Wolves from the door.

    HollyOldDog -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 20:14

    The West in terms of the European West, wants a federated Ukraine that is not at war with itself and where one part ,the West is not trying to destroy another part the East. In this context the West of Ukraine has become a liability to Europe by insisting that it requires advanced NATO. weapons to defeat its opponent in Eastern Ukraine. Any Russian involvement other than sending food convoys to East Ukraine is pure speculation and/or wishful thinking by a beleaguered President of Ukraine who cannot/will not hold meaningful discussions with the East of Ukraine. Ultimately it's the responsibility of President Poroshenko to resolve the troubles of Ukraine peacefully, by negotiating with East Ukraine. No IFS, No BUTS just do it, or Ukraine could be just left behind in the mounting migrant crisis. Poroshenko could volunteer his country to take several thousand Syrian Migrants , just to show that he has the true German minded spirit.

    DomesticExtremist -> nnedjo 30 Aug 2015 20:10

    It's just the Graun beating the drums of war on behalf of NATO...again.

    nnedjo 30 Aug 2015 20:03

    It is too soon to be confident but this time the economic and political pressures may be mounting on Vladimir Putin to make agreements that will stick
    Why is it so difficult to understand that Putin would be the last one to want the continuation of this fratricidal war?

    For comparison, imagine that civil war breaks out in the UK between the Scots and the English. In that case whether it would be necessary to take any special pressure on the British Prime Minister to stop such a war?

    Chillskier -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 20:00

    Ensure that Ukraine does not go under economically and eventually becomes a fully functioning and prosperous liberal democracy.
    It seems to be working pretty well..

    NO it is not.
    You need to talk to people who actually live there, it is a catastrophe


    HollyOldDog -> truk10 30 Aug 2015 19:46

    Ukraine should be wary of false friends who may lead then down a blind alley. Only today I watched a very interesting TV program that puts the continueing existance of Monsanto into serious doubt. The program was about wheat in terms of the future of Global Warming where presentment her patterns within seasons would vary widely. Is it the right course of action to choose types of GM wheat where seasonal rains would pop up at inconvenient times ( which a farmer would pay 'through the nose for') or to allow your wheats to choose the correct wheat for the growing conditions it encounters. Some of the Wheats on test where from the times of the ancient Egyptians while the oldest variety was around 9000 years old. Instead of gene splicing and growing micro cultures in a lab followed by years of field testing , perhaps we should just look what our ancestors did.

    I know this is not exactly on topic but I am trying to suggest Not to believe the latest SPIN, just because it is new. NEW SPIN does not equal TRUTH. IF something looks to be too good to be true then it is too good to be true - Forbes, verify your stories before you publish.

    EugeneGur 30 Aug 2015 19:45

    Vladimir Putin laid all the blame on the Ukrainian government, while Kiev has been warning that Russia is readying for new offensives

    There is no need to listen to what Putin says and even less to what Kiev says. The MinskII agreements consists of only 13 point, and it is quite easy to ascertain for anyone who is doing, or not doing, what. MinksII demands certain actions on the part of the Kiev government, including constitutional reform with specific provisions for Donbass and restoration of social payments. None of this has been carried out by Kiev, which should be obvious for anybody, because Kiev doesn't even bother to deny it. They openly say they haven't done any of this and not going to. So, what does it matter what anyone says?

    This marks the deadline for the internationally recognized border to come back under Ukrainian government control. At the moment, however, the Russians maintain an exclusive grip.

    Correction - LPR/LPR maintain the firm grip. They will continue doing so - they aren't suicidal, not at all. The control of the border was supposed to be ceded to Kiev after all other provision of MinskII have been implemented. That hasn't happened, so the border is and will remain in the DPR/LPD hands for the time being. Kiev concentrates on that border issue like it was all they noticed in MinskII - must the Guardian repeat the Kiev narrative verbatum?

    President Putin's recent language may nevertheless indicate that he is looking for a way out of what may have turned into something of a military and political quagmire.

    May I remind the geniuses at the Guardian that it was precisely President Putin who engineered both MinskI and MinskII? If Putin hadn't put pressure on Donbass, they would've agreed to any of this. They don't want to be in Ukraine, and Putins had to use all his influence to make them agree. However, even his authority won't be enough to convince them to go for MinskII. So, it' Kiev's last chance.

    There is rumor Russia will soon start giving Russian passports to DPR/LPR citizens, and Donbass will soon be holding a referendum about joining Russia. There is a very, very probable scenario.

    Yet the separatist forces are a disorderly group that have shown themselves incapable of carving out a territory that could be held sustainably.

    Really? This "disorderly group" inflicted devastating defeat on the Kiev valiant army not once, not twice, but three times. No matter how often the West repeats it was the Russian army, they know full well it is not so. Every independent observes ever to visit Donbass stated that there is no Russian troops there.
    "The territory isn't sustainable" - how surprising they aren't prospering under almost complete blockade and while being shelled daily. How sustainable is Kiev with all the Western help? Nearing default, I hear. And the utility bills are larger than average salaries now. Good job, people - keep it up.

    I wonder whether the Guardian editorial board must make a fool if itself all the time every time.


    nnedjo 30 Aug 2015 19:42

    The head of the Ukrainian General Staff has admitted that 90% of intelligence they have received about the war in the southeast later turned out to be false. Which means only 10% of the information was true.:-)

    And even more interesting/funny is a statement of the US Permanent Representative to NATO:

    The US Permanent Representative to NATO, Douglas Lute, has admitted that his knowledge about the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine comes mostly from social networks rather than intelligence reports.

    "We should all ask ourselves: why is it that we know so little really about what is going on in Donbass," the US ambassador to NATO told "Friends of Europe" forum in Brussels.

    "I mean, frankly, I read more on social media about what is going on in the Donbass than I get from formal intelligence networks. This is because the networks don't exist today," Lute said.


    TomFullery alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 19:05

    I think you're getting confused with Americanswho are famous for their completely over the top indiscriminate use of firepower to "solve" a problem.

    I remember a SWAT team managed to burn down a whole neighbourhood block a few years ago while trying to apprehend a burglar who was holed up in one of the apartments.


    Beckow impartial12 30 Aug 2015 18:41

    "Ukraine is important to the West because of its encroachment strategy against Russia"

    The strategy is to somehow take over Russia by either having Yeltsin-like puppets in power again, or maybe by physically taking it apart (separatism). The "encroachment" is just the means to that end.

    Russians had two choices when the coup happened in Kiev on the last day of the Sochi Olympics:

    • - do nothing and hope for the best; maybe Ukraine would run into economic troubles, maybe it would collapse into infighting like after the Orange revolution
    • - quickly save what could be saved - Crimea, bases, Donbass Russians - and squeeze Ukraine economically until it collapses

    The West was surprised that Russia went for the second option and decided to fight. I think Russia decided that this was their best chance to resist, and that facts on the ground in Ukraine were in their favor. So far it has worked for Russia, thus the almost hysterical anger in the West.

    nnedjo 30 Aug 2015 18:24

    though there are victims almost every day and one report, not independently verified, suggests Russian deaths may have reached 2,000.

    So, here we have an article on the question of war or peace in a such a large country such as Ukraine, and on a possible entry into a total war with its even larger neighbor Russia. And one such article refers to "a report that has not independently verified", or let's just say is not verified at all. One must admit that It is rather frivolous approach to one serious topic like this. That would be about the same as if someone would advise a man seriously ill from cancer to contact the nearest medicine man for a treatment.

    And how this alleged report was created in the first time?
    Thus, the Ukrainian website "New Region" ("Новый Регион") has published an alleged picture of a web page from Russian website, which even by its design does not correspond to the original site, because the right margin (only the right!) is painted in gray-blue color. In addition, they claim that the site from which they took picture "immediately was changed by Russian censors", and it now looks like this. Which means that only they [the Ukrainians] are in possession of incriminating secret information about the number of the killed Russian soldiers, and we probably need to trust them on this.

    What else is interesting about this?

    Except that the Ukrainians were the first and only ones to notice "the self-incriminating" Russian webpage, their, therefore, the Ukrainian webpage that talks about it first was noticed (probably quite by chance too) by the famous author of anti-Russian articles, and former friend of the assassin of US President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald. Of course, when one such "celebrity" like Paul Roderick Gregory publish one such "sensation" against Russia, and yet it is written in Forbes, it is then quickly spread all over the internet and finaly ends up here on the Guardian.

    The only thing the Guardian "forgot" to specify that, in addition to 2000 killed, the "alleged-by the Ukrainians seen only-report" also mentions the 3200 wounded Russian soldiers on the Ukrainian front. Thus, on a total of 5200 Russian troops casualties, there are only 10 Russian soldiers who were captured in Ukraine(we read about it also in the Guardian, a year ago). An amazing proportion, you must admit!


    Agrajag3k Bosula 30 Aug 2015 18:23

    Most of Ukraine speaks Russian as a first or second language. This whole "ethnic Russian" nonsense is an invention of the Kremlin.

    I speak English, share similar customs and very likely have distant relatives who live there, so from now on I'll call myself an "ethnic Australian". Is that how it works?


    Andrew Nichols 30 Aug 2015 18:20

    The Guardian view on the latest Ukraine ceasefire call: why this could be the one that works

    So there will be some enforcement on the West Ukrainians to observe it at last and curb the neonazi types?

    vr13vr Chirographer 30 Aug 2015 17:46

    It wasn't a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It was a conflict between Kiev and people of Crimea, unless you insist their opinion shouldn't matter at all. But you are right about Ukraine not being a NATO member and as such NATO should have never have gone into high gear and escalated its rhetoric over this.


    dmitryfrommoscow gimmeshoes 30 Aug 2015 17:43

    References to 'Euromaidan' sources cannot be accepted. What else can the Ukrainian Security Council say? Do you expect it to admit frankly that root-cause of the conflict in Donbass is found in their own imecilic far-right nationalism?


    MaoChengJi 30 Aug 2015 18:13

    That is not to say that Russia has given up on destabilising its neighbour, nor on trying to redraw Europe's security architecture to its advantage.

    God, what a comedy... Russia is destabilising? Russia is "trying to redraw Europe's security architecture"?

    You're trolling, admit it. I don't mind trolling myself, but not for annoying, bullying, and eventually cornering a nuclear power. Only idiots would do that.


    Bosula Bob49 30 Aug 2015 18:10

    What I can never understand is why three quarters of the Ukrainian army stationed in the Crimea joined the Russian army during or before the referendum?

    No shots were fired?

    How can this be an annexation?

    We are talking about something like ten thousand troops here - close to a third to half of the fighting force of the Australian army.

    Would half the Australian army voluntarily join the army of a foreign country If they tried to 'annex' Australia?

    Could they take over Australia, my home, without firing a shot?

    I don't think so.

    We may not be able to defeat a large annexing force from Asia but we would at least fire our guns and put up a fight.

    We certainly wouldn't 'party' hard about the annexation and vote to join the invading country - yet this is what occurred in the Crimea.

    What is going on here?


    Beckow dmitryfrommoscow 30 Aug 2015 18:06

    Why does it matter who is doing the fighting? I am amused by the legalistic obsession with whose uniform someone wears before they go off to die. It is a distraction - there is a war there. What matters is who wins, not what "regular unit" they belong to. Clearly enough people on both sides feel strongly enough about it to risk their lives.

    The only relevant military fact is that Russians said they will not let Donbass be overrun. Since nobody thinks that Kiev (or Kiev+...) can actually defeat Russia, that kind of puts an end to all military uncertainty.

    This will be decided based on economy and how people feel about their living standards in a few years. If Ukraine is prosperous, inside EU (or close by), jobs are plentiful and incomes high, Donbass cannot and will not stay separate. Hell, even Crimeans might have second thoughts. On the hand, if Ukraine stays poor as it is today - or gets worse - than Donbass separatism will be the least of Kiev's problems.

    Based on the reality we can all see, it is much more likely that we are about to see the second scenario. Fighting just postpones the inevitable and fogs up what is really going on - collapse of Ukraine's economy and living standards....


    Beckow Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:55

    Stay sober. Russia's economy is down 4%, that's not "go down in flames". E.g. EU economy dropped 6-9% after '09, and people are ok, kind of.

    The real issue is with the Ukrainian economy and living standards. Russia's per capita income this year is 10 times higher than Ukraine's. That's very substantial, that's why about 3 million Ukrainians work in Russia and more are coming each month.

    The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe.

    vr13vr CedricH 30 Aug 2015 17:55

    Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians.

    Beckow Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:47

    "it denies the Ukrainian people any sort of agency what so ever and at the same time ignores that the elections within the Ukraine have not been called free or fair for a generation"

    I wrote 'assisted in an overthrow' - do you get the meaning of the verb "to assist"? Assisting in an overthrow of an elected president is by any definition illegal and unconstitutional - all else that followed has to be examined in that light.

    Elections in Ukraine have been free and fair and declared so by EU itself many times. Yanukovitch won fair and square. Russian speakers (or supporters) used to get roughly 50% of the vote, sometimes more, sometimes little bit less. Their party - Party of Regions - was outlawed. So maybe they are listened to, but in a very constrained way - they are certainly not equal to the Western Ukrainians. That's why some of them started a civil war.

    You don't address any of the disastrous economic consequences of Maidan and the war: Ukraine is suffering and is much worse off than two years ago. There is no economic prosperity possible in Ukraine without Russian cooperation (energy, imports, food, investments). That is a reality that cannot be wished away. Unless Ukraine adjusts to being a poor, agrarian country, that exports millions of workers, with living standards maybe like in Albania or Tunis (at best), they will have to make peace with Russia and its own Russian leaning population. There is no other way, even Germany and France have officially told Kiev that much. Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political games with Ukrainians...

    SHappens -> Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 17:42

    Ukraine can prosper perfectly well on its own, just like any other county under the right leadership.

    which they dont have. On the other hand when a big part of the country doesnt want to align with the "West" they should be heard. That's what is called democracy

    Bosula 30 Aug 2015 17:41

    'The Minsk agreement will also come under further international scrutiny as the end of the year nears. This marks the deadline for the internationally recognised border to come back under Ukrainian government control.'

    This editorial is a little like a snake - slides all over place and slithers around facts.

    This is no mention of Minsk agreement preconditions for the border to come back under Ukrainian control.

    This includes progress on constitutional reform and constructive negotiations with East Ukraine.

    The editorial provides no assessment on progress on these important conditions.

    Or don't they matter?

    vr13vr -> alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 17:41

    Kiev doesn't know what it wants. But you are right, why wouldn't Kiev leave Donbass and the entire region. That would stop all the tensions at once because I don't remember people from the East having any intend to go to the West Ukraine and bring the war there. Let Kiev stop the attempts and let the Donbass and Lugansk areas go and there will be peace.

    vr13vr -> Bosula 30 Aug 2015 17:38

    And they should leave them alone.

    Falloe7 CedricH 30 Aug 2015 17:30

    The Guardian news about 2000 Russians dead is out of date as Forbes news who printed it were found out to be a Load of Rubbish and made up. By load of Idiots by the sound of it who Forbes news believed Just goes to show you cannot believe all you read now can you

    Bosula Nick Gresham 30 Aug 2015 17:30

    The US is though - and war is good for the US economy.

    pfbulmer 30 Aug 2015 17:27

    This article assumes wrongly that Russia and Putin are to blame when quite the opposite is true .

    This all occurred due to the EU very aggressive expansionist policy in the Ukraine, Russia's backyard encouraged by a under funded sabre rattling Nato which has all gone horribly wrong .

    Eastern Russian Ukrainian separatists have every right to self determination as do people in the Falkland islands or in Scotland and Gibraltar and yet not Ukrainian Russians ?? Why not !

    The EU cannot afford to bail out Greece, never mind the Ukraine and costs are mounting daily .The EU is tilting imperially at windmills

    Many people in the UK EU do not support their governments approach to Russia and cannot even understand it ,and see yet more double standards

    The EU need desperately to get Russia back as a market particularly as China is starting to look wobbly any more talk of sanctions against Russia would be counter productive


    Beckow Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:13

    There is a difference between selling arms and funding rebellions that overthrow governments. US actually physically invaded Iraq.

    US and EU assisted in an overthrow of the elected president in Ukraine. That's why we have the mess in Ukraine. If the democratic process was followed and all groups were listened to - including Russian speaking half of Ukraine - we would not have this disaster. And it is a disaster.


    Beckow Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:13

    There is a difference between selling arms and funding rebellions that overthrow governments. US actually physically invaded Iraq.

    US and EU assisted in an overthrow of the elected president in Ukraine. That's why we have the mess in Ukraine. If the democratic process was followed and all groups were listened to - including Russian speaking half of Ukraine - we would not have this disaster. And it is a disaster.


    careforukraine 30 Aug 2015 16:47

    The truth is that the west has realized that trying to continue on the same path is futile.
    The public have grown tired of hearing false stories abouy russian aggression and more and more stories about nazism in kiev are becoming apparent.
    Both these facts make it hard for the US to gain support from their own public.
    Now its in the US best interests to cut ties with poroshenko.......and this is why poroshenko was reprimanded by merkel and hollande at the last meeting.
    The has lost the stomach to continue


    BastaYa72 alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 16:33

    Moreover, a country with the agricultural resources of Ukraine

    Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government.

    Iraq, Libya, Ukraine - you can pretty much guarantee that wherever the West intervenes or interferes, chaos and destruction is pretty much 'nailed-on'.


    Laurence Johnson 30 Aug 2015 16:12

    5

    6

    Thousands of Ukrainian far-right supporters have rallied in the Kiev's Independence Square calling for a referendum that would impeach the country's president Petro Poroshenko.

    The peaceful rally held by the Right Sector movement saw thousands of people converge in the centre of Kiev on 21 July, waving Right Sector and Ukrainian flags and chanting "Glory to Ukraine".

    Report


    vr13vr psygone 30 Aug 2015 16:11

    11

    12

    Russia does not need options on Ukraine. Frankly, it doesn't care so much about Ukraine any more. All it needs to do is to keep this status quo in the East Ukraine, supporting Donbass and Lugansk. It will keep Kiev and Washington unhappy but little they could do about it.

    It is Kiev who has no options to recapture the control of the region in face of local opposition there and it is Kiev that is looking for grace saving exit.

    Report


    vr13vr 30 Aug 2015 16:09

    Clueless. The "low intensity" fight continues, but it's evident that the chances of Kiev to establish full control of the area are non-existent, and it is Kiev who is looking for a grace saving exit at this point.

    And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine. Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine from the West is now minimum.

    BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 16:33

    Moreover, a country with the agricultural resources of Ukraine

    Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government.

    Iraq, Libya, Ukraine - you can pretty much guarantee that wherever the West intervenes or interferes, chaos and destruction is pretty much 'nailed-on'.

    Laurence Johnson -> Beckow 30 Aug 2015 16:05

    You make some very sober points. Ukraine is indeed destined to be a wasteland similar to Libya and Syria. The scorch and burn policy of "if I cant have it, nobody can have it" is very clear.

    I suspect that in twenty years time East Ukraine will be an economic miracle that engages with Asia via Russia. As for Kiev I suspect they will still be arguing about which Oligarch has the biggest pair of balls.

    normankirk 30 Aug 2015 15:56

    under the Minsk agreement, the border comes back under Ukrainian control, only when Ukraine has done the necessary constitutional reform that grants autonomy to the Donbas. So far, Kiev has dragged the chain , and to this day has refused dialogue with the leaders of the DPR and LPR.Poroshenko has openly boasted of using the ceasefire to build up another military assault on the eastern Ukrainians , and has vowed to reclaim all the terrItory by force.All this is in breach of the Minsk agreement Articles like this, with their bias and misinformation destroys the credibility of the guardian

    This time the ceasefire may work because Merkel and Hollande have pressured Poroshenko, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Parangaricurimicuaro 30 Aug 2015 15:45

    I think that Europe is having to much on its plate. Terrorism problems, energy insecurity, bailing out Greece, refugees escaping wars south of the Mediterranean, aging population etc. so maybe it is most than they could possible chew. Reality is sobering everyone.


    SHappens Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 15:36

    Russia has no interest in seeing the war end or seeing Ukraine prosper.

    Ukraine cannot prosper without Russia's market, that's an economic truth. Ukraine can even less prosper without the Donbass. The West must accept to share Ukraine with Russia. Federalization can make this possible and fulfill every country's ambitions and will, except for one country overseas, taking part to the events, we dont know why or do we?

    Beckow 30 Aug 2015 15:26

    Half-truths are by definition not truths. To say:

    "deadline for the internationally recognised border to come back under Ukrainian government control"

    Minsk also requires that Donbass has autonomy before border is turned over. How does one leave out the other side of the story? It is like reporting on Soviet Union conquest of Berlin in 1945 without mentioning that Germany invaded Russia in 1941. Maybe that's next in the endless search for just the right narrative where friends are friends, and enemies are, well the enemy is Russia, end of story. No need to actually be accurate. About Minsk or anything else.

    Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers and IMF funny money men?

    Time is definitely not on Ukraine's side: economy is down by 15-17%, inflation is 40-50%, incomes are dramatically down to roughly Senegal-Nepal level, the exports to Russia that Ukraine used to live off are down by more than 50% and dropping - and nothing is replacing the Russian market. With living standards are on sub-African level and with no visa-free access to EU, no investments (see the default above), and energy dependence on Russia, how can time be on Kiev's side? How are they going to grow out of it? What and to whom are they going to export? How is the per capita income going to grow? Today Ukraine income is 1/10 of Russia's per capita income (that's right 10%). How is time on Kiev's side?

    West triggered an unnecessary catastrophe in Ukraine by assisting in an overthrow of an elected government. Ukraine is divided, look at all elections, look at language usage, etc... half is pro-West, half is pro-Russian. It is impossible to have a prosperous Ukraine without both having a say in running the country. So sooner or later, Ukraine will either go back to its traditional role as a buffer state, or it will break-up. There is no way one group can permanently dominate the other. And that takes us back to the Minsk treaty that specifies that Donbass gets autonomy. Maybe we should ask Kiev what happened to that part of the treaty. Why isn't it even mentioned?


    impartial12 Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 15:19

    That is funny considering the amount of armaments building up among the former nations of the Soviet Union neighboring Russia. The escalation in Ukraine had started with an illegal coup of an elected government. And don't even get me started on the neo-Nazi tendencies of the new regime. It takes two to tango, and the West clearly wants to play this game no matter what negative consequences it may bring.


    SHappens 30 Aug 2015 15:14

    Kiev, backed by Washington who is using Ukrainian army foot soldiers, paramilitaries, foreign mercenaries, Nazi-infested death squads and others hasn't stopped since initiated back in April 2014. Kiev flagrantly violated the Geneva and two Minsk ceasefire agreements straightaway. Moreover Kiev has repeatedly refused to sit and talk with the people in the East and grant them autonomy as per Minsk.

    Surely Russia supports the eastern ukrainians, rightly, in a way or another, preventing in this way a full war offensive by Kiev, however Russian's army is not present in Ukraine. President Putin wants peace and has been calling for it since the very start of the event, that is the ATO launched by Kiev back in 2014.

    This is the Donbass who fights against Kiev. It is the US citizens who are forced to devote scarce resources to the dying puppet regime in Kiev (who will not avoid the country's default anyway + they have been downgraded), while Russia can stay away making peace proposals. If the US wants to put the fire, they will put it so it is necessary to be able to quickly turn it off to preserve what is most precious. That's why Putin considers peace of vital importance.

    We can only guess who will be most effective - the US with their fuel container or the Russians with their fire extinguisher?

    [Aug 29, 2015] So Wrong for So Long

    "...For starters, neoconservatives think balance-of-power politics doesn't really work in international affairs and that states are strongly inclined to "bandwagon" instead. In other words, they think weaker states are easy to bully and never stand up to powerful adversaries. Their faulty logic follows that other states will do whatever Washington dictates provided we demonstrate how strong and tough we are. This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us. If we kept up the pressure, our vast military power would quickly transform the region into a sea of docile pro-American democracies."
    .
    "...Moreover, neocons believe military force is a supple tool that can be turned on and off like a spigot. If the United States uses force and things go badly, they seem to think the nation can just pull out quickly and live to fight another day. But that's not how things work in the real world of politics: Once forces are committed, the military brass will demand the chance to win a clear victory, and politicians will worry about the nation's prestige and their own political fortunes. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia should remind us that it's a lot easier to get into wars than it is to get out of them, but that lesson has been lost on most neoconservatives."
    .
    "...They claim their main goal is spreading freedom and democracy (except for Palestinians, of course), but they have no theory to explain how this will happen or how toppling a foreign government with military force will magically cause democracy to emerge. Instead, they believe the desire to live in freedom is hardwired into human DNA, and all one has to do is remove the bad guys at the top. Once they are gone, the now-liberated population will forget past grievances, form political parties, embrace tolerance, line up for orderly elections, accept the resulting outcomes willingly, and offer grateful thanks to Uncle Sam."
    Aug 21, 2015 | Foreign Policy

    Over the past few weeks, proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran - from President Barack Obama on down - have marshaled a powerful attack on some of the deal's most prominent opponents. Specifically, they've been pointing out an indisputable fact: Many of the individuals and organizations that are most actively lobbying and speaking out against the deal helped dream up the idea of invading Iraq or worked hard to convince Congress and the American people to go along with the idea. The logic of the pro-deal camp is simple: Given that the opponents were so catastrophically wrong about the Iraq War, no one should listen to their advice today.

    I agree with this basic argument, of course, but opponents of the deal do have one line of defense against the "Wrong on Iraq, Wrong on Iran" meme. It is possible someone could have been dead wrong about the wisdom of invading Iraq in 2003, but nonetheless be correct to oppose the nuclear deal with Iran today. None of us is infallible, and it is at least conceivable that Bill Kristol, Elliott Abrams, James Woolsey, Fred Hiatt, Max Boot, et al. could have blown it big-time in 2002 - but be absolutely right this time around.

    Conceivable, I suppose, but highly unlikely. Why? Because their views in 2002 aren't independent from the views they're expressing today. On the contrary, their earlier support for the Iraq War and their opposition to the Iran deal stem from the basic neoconservative worldview that informs their entire approach to foreign policy.

    To be more specific, the problem isn't that these people just happened to be embarrassingly wrong about Iraq. After all, plenty of other people were equally misguided back then, including many people who now support the deal today. Nor is the problem the neocons' stubborn and morally dubious refusal to admit they were wrong and take responsibility for the lives and money they squandered.

    No, the real problem is that the neoconservative worldview - one that still informs the thinking of many of the groups and individuals who are most vocal in opposing the Iran deal - is fundamentally flawed. Getting Iraq wrong wasn't just an unfortunate miscalculation, it happened because their theories of world politics were dubious and their understanding of how the world works was goofy.

    When your strategic software is riddled with bugs, you should expect a lot of error messages.

    What are the main flaws that consistently lead neoconservatives astray?

    1. For starters, neoconservatives think balance-of-power politics doesn't really work in international affairs and that states are strongly inclined to "bandwagon" instead. In other words, they think weaker states are easy to bully and never stand up to powerful adversaries. Their faulty logic follows that other states will do whatever Washington dictates provided we demonstrate how strong and tough we are. This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us. If we kept up the pressure, our vast military power would quickly transform the region into a sea of docile pro-American democracies.

      What happened, alas, was that the various states we were threatening didn't jump on our bandwagon. Instead, they balanced and then took steps to make sure we faced significant and growing resistance. In particular, Syria and Iran (the next two states on the neocons' target list), cooperated even further with each other and helped aid the anti-American insurgency in Iraq itself. Neocons were outraged by this behavior, but it shouldn't have surprised anyone who understood Realism 101. At the same time, long-standing U.S. allies were upset by our actions and distanced themselves from us or else they took advantage of our excesses and free-rode at our expense. In short, the neoconservatives' belief that the United States could browbeat and intimidate others into doing our bidding was dead wrong.

      Today, of course, opposition to the Iran deal reflects a similar belief that forceful resolve would enable Washington to dictate whatever terms it wants. As I've written before, this idea is the myth of a "better deal." Because neocons assume states are attracted to strength and easy to intimidate, they think rejecting the deal, ratcheting up sanctions, and threatening war will cause Iran's government to finally cave in and dismantle its entire enrichment program. On the contrary, walking away from the deal will stiffen Iran's resolve, strengthen its hard-liners, increase its interest in perhaps actually acquiring a nuclear weapon someday, and cause the other members of the P5+1 to part company with the United States.

    2. The neoconservative worldview also exaggerates the efficacy of military force and downplays the value of diplomacy. Military force is an essential component of national power, of course, but neocons tend to see it as a magical tool that can accomplish all sorts of wonderful things (such as the creation of workable democracies) for which it is not really designed. In reality, military force is a crude instrument whose effects are hard to foresee and one which almost always produces unintended consequences (see under: Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, etc.). So it was in Iraq, and the results of a direct military conflict with Iran would be equally unpredictable.

      Moreover, neocons believe military force is a supple tool that can be turned on and off like a spigot. If the United States uses force and things go badly, they seem to think the nation can just pull out quickly and live to fight another day. But that's not how things work in the real world of politics: Once forces are committed, the military brass will demand the chance to win a clear victory, and politicians will worry about the nation's prestige and their own political fortunes. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Somalia should remind us that it's a lot easier to get into wars than it is to get out of them, but that lesson has been lost on most neoconservatives.

    3. Third, the neoconservatives have a simplistic and ahistorical view of democracy itself. They claim their main goal is spreading freedom and democracy (except for Palestinians, of course), but they have no theory to explain how this will happen or how toppling a foreign government with military force will magically cause democracy to emerge. Instead, they believe the desire to live in freedom is hardwired into human DNA, and all one has to do is remove the bad guys at the top. Once they are gone, the now-liberated population will forget past grievances, form political parties, embrace tolerance, line up for orderly elections, accept the resulting outcomes willingly, and offer grateful thanks to Uncle Sam.

      It would be nice if that Pollyannaish scenario were accurate, but such views betray near-total ignorance of the prerequisites for meaningful democracy and the actual history of democratic growth in the West itself. In fact, the development of liberal democracy was a long, contentious, imperfect, and often violent process in Western Europe and North America, and anyone familiar with that history would have known the neocons' formula for democratic change was doomed from the start.

    4. Fourth, as befits a group of armchair ideologues whose primary goal has been winning power inside the Beltway, neoconservatives are often surprisingly ignorant about the actual conditions of the countries whose politics and society they want to transform. Hardly any neoconservatives knew very much about Iraq before the United States invaded - if they had, they might have reconsidered the whole scheme - and their characterizations of Iran today consist of scary caricatures bearing little resemblance to Iran's complicated political and social reality. In addition to flawed theories, in short, the neoconservative worldview also depends on an inaccurate reading of the facts on the ground.

    5. Last but not least, the neoconservatives' prescriptions for U.S. foreign policy are perennially distorted by a strong attachment to Israel, which Max Boot (and others) have described as a "key tenet" of the entire movement. There's nothing wrong with such attachments per se, of course, but it has crippled their ability to give sensible policy advice to U.S. politicians. In particular, neoconservatives tend to believe that what's good for Israel is good for the United States - and vice versa - which is why they see no conflict between their attachment to Israel and their loyalty to the United States. But no two states have identical interests all the time, and when the interests of two countries conflict, people who feel strongly about both are forced to decide which of these feelings is going to take priority.

    Over the past few weeks, some proponents of the deal have pointed out - correctly - that some opponents don't like the deal because they think it is bad for Israel and because the Netanyahu government is dead set against it. As one might expect, pointing out these obvious facts has led some opponents of the deal to accuse proponents (including President Obama) of anti-Semitism. But as Lara Friedman, J.J. Goldberg, and Peter Beinart have made clear, this charge is absurd, even laughable. Among other things, it appears a majority of American Jews support the deal - and so do plenty of distinguished figures in Israel's own national security establishment. If anything, it is Netanyahu's efforts to persuade American Jews that it is their duty to support him, rather than their own president, that echoes those hateful anti-Semitic canards about "dual loyalty."

    Instead of being a serious criticism, this familiar smear is really just a way to change the subject and to put proponents of the deal on the defensive for pointing out the obvious. Fortunately, in this case the charge just doesn't seem to be sticking, and its appearance is just another sign that opponents don't have rational arguments or solid evidence to justify their opposition.

    The bottom line: The fact that the neoconservatives, AIPAC, the Conference of Presidents, and other groups in the Israel lobby were wrong about the Iraq War does not by itself mean that they are necessarily wrong about the Iran deal. But when you examine their basic views on world politics and their consistent approach to U.S. Middle East policy, it becomes clear this is not a coincidence at all. Support for the Iraq War and opposition to the Iran deal flow from the same flawed premises, and that's why following their advice today would be as foolish as it was back in 2003.

    Choices2014

    I take a much narrower view as to what motivates neocons-it definitely is not ideology. They have infiltrated most of the "think" tanks, they have infiltrated many of the cabinet level departments, and have infiltrated all levels of political activity. To me, that indicates a hunger for power and money and it has been very successful. Huge sums of money support these people and their constant push for war. Finally, it is all orchestrated my Netanyahu and the Likuds. The neocons and their AIPAC, WaPo, et al take their script from Netanyahu and because of the money and their positioning in the Foreign Policy establishment, it seems impossible to counteract. Indeed, depressing and tragic for the United States.
    Lost in america
    I think it is a mistake to throw all of these positions and policies altogether. Actually, opposition to the treaty may seem bipolar because of the political marketing by the Administration. But there are varied rationales: Some people are against the deal deal because they do not trust Iran under any circumstances. Some are against the deal because we could have negotiated a better deal. Some want more compensation for past Iranian transgressions. Some believe that the treaty is too open ended and allows nuclear development too soon. Some Americans do not believe that you should make a treaty with a nation unless they release your hostages. Some see that Iran has problems and we should not let them off the hook so easily. The best argument for the treaty is that sanctions are weakening anyway. To believe that the treaty will make Iran a better citizen is similar to the belief if you make Iraq a democracy, this will lead to a better world. The Neocons are similar to the people who support the treaty. They are idealistic and probably making the world worse.
    exMod 27
    Why does everyone expect the US to carry the weight? What is in our National Interest? Israel and the Sunni Arab/Turks want a weaker Persia/Shia/Iran so they can dominate the region. A weak Iran means a weak Syria and a weaker Shia presence in the region. (looking at you Hizbollah). That is why a good number of Arabs and Jews oppose the deal. They don't want ANY deal that lifts sanctions on Iran. So, where does that leave the US? 10 years ago, with oil prices sky high, we would have to back the Sauds. 30 years ago, with the Great Bear still running around, we would have to backed the Israelis. Today? Oil is flowing and Putin is driving Russia into a ditch. What is in our National Interest? Commerce. I don't understand today's Republican party. Led by fools.
    WilliamSantiago
    BDL2010 is correct: "You could say the same thing about liberals." My bet is that Prof Walt would have supported any deal coming out the Obama Administration. So I challenge him to state exactly what the minimum deal with Iran would have been that he would find unacceptable.

    I note 2 points of logic: (i) The notion of "the myth of a better deal" is a contrary-to-fact conditional. There is no way to know if Prof. Walt is correct especially has he has provided no evidence that a better deal could not have been or could not be forthcoming. (ii) It's simply name calling to label an opposing point of view a "myth," then define what strawman necons believe as that myth, then knock down the strawman (with little evidence even for this poor task).

    Further, I note an interesting aspect of the deal that even the most neophyte negotiator would have avoided. We gave away for certain the only lever we had (the sanctions) in return for a promise to be fulfilled in the future. And we found out this week that a major portion of the promise will be verified by our opponent in the negotiation. "This used car is in fine shape. Buy it now and I'll come over tomorrow and verify that there isn't sawdust in the transmission."

    Prof. Walt is entitled to his opinion. But intellectual honesty requires that he pressure test his opinion by finding the best, not the worst or vaguest arguments against his conclusion instead of setting up strawmen and knocking them down. Unfortunately, setting up strawmen is a favorite tactic of our commander in chief.

    bdl2010
    More political BS. You could say the same thing about liberals. Case in point, how is Libya going? How about Syria? Right now there is a major refugee crisis due to instability in both of these nations. In one we took action and in the other we failed to. So if you want to pen an article about how neo-cons are always wrong then you need to follow it up with how liberals are not always right either. I'd hope that at some point in the future we would start to realize that we need a foreign policy that transcends political parties. When other nations look at our policies they see that it is America that is enacting it. They do not see Republicans or Democrats to blame. It's due time for us all to grow the hell up and get our act together.
    samamerco
    I disagree in one main point. While most politicians consider the results of the war in Iraq to be negative, neocons see the same results as positive. It removed a major threat to Israel (Saddam) and caused unending social upheaval in the countries surrounding it that continues today. The neocons also see a similar result of war with Iran as positive from the Israeli point view. Who really cares about the interests of the United States?
    Xenophon
    @samamerco Well stated and right on the mark.
    Mark Thomason
    This is a wonderfully clear explanation of a very complex subject, a real tour de force.

    I'd add two smaller points.

    One, it is hard to get out once we start a war, even when we win. WW2 was as overwhelming a win, unconditional surrender, as one could ever hope to get. Yet after all these years, we are still in Germany, Italy, and Japan, and we are in them because of WW2 and how we ended it. Once in, we couldn't get out even by total victory.

    Two, while come neocons may believe in spreading democracy, they did not act as if that was their goal when they had the chance. They imposed government, and supervised the "election" of puppets. It was more like lip service cover for another goal we know was close to the heart of the leaders: make the Middle East safe for Israel no matter what it does, even for continued expansion and a Greater Israel. American power was misused to do that, and it failed as completely as did the excuse of bringing democracy.

    Jinzo
    Most people that oppose this deal have legitimate reasons for doing so, obviously there are some that just don't want a deal full stop for selfish reasons. Obama and Kerry have not come even close at all to a deal of any resemblance to what they initially set out to achieve for the American people. Despite Obamas rhetoric about "its this deal or war", I doubt anyone can seriously contemplate Obama of all people starting a war with Iran and the next president will be faced with the fact that Iran is no feable Iraq, not that Iraq itself have been a walk in the park. The talk that "if this deal is rejected that our European allies will ease sanctions unilaterally" totally overlooks the fact they these same allies applied sanctions on Russia which is much more costly to them then the Iran sanctions are. Lifting the UN restrictions on military equipment and missile technology has to be changed, this should only happen if Iran proves it has stopped their state sponsorship of terrorism, also Iran been allowed to provide their own samples to the international inspectors to verify that they haven't been cheating in the past is just unbelievable, mind boggling, how could anyone think this is acceptable? Imagine an athlete that was suspended for taking drugs being allowed to provide his own urine samples to the sports league. Imagine a criminal in the court of law being the only person to submit evidence of his own guilt or innocence. Imagine if the police pullied over a intoxicated driver, only to let him go cause he said "he hadn't been drinking", but you don't have to imagine something so ridiculous cause this kind of circus act is exactly what's now playing out between Iran and the IAEA. There has to be a better deal then this poor excuse of a 'deal'.
    Mark Thomason
    @Jinzo "Most people that oppose this deal have legitimate reasons for doing so"

    No, they don't.

    Negotiators rarely get all of their initial demands. Anyway, "what they set out to achieve" is here defined as what Netanyahu dreamed of getting, not Obama's real goals.

    Toot Sweet
    They are wrong so often because they are ideologues. And like all ideologues, they are dogmatic and care little for facts, criticism, or compromise. For them, the ends justify the means which explains why they distort and dissemble with great ease, and never apologize.
    Anise
    So, neo-cons are ignorant bullies who are killing the rest of us. How do we stop them?
    Ggee
    This piece is just like the neo-cons: sometimes right, sometimes wrong.

    In the end, though, it always comes down to straining for the opportunity to lambaste Israel. Even when the President flips out and attacks his detractors as war-mongers in league with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard; when hordes of pro-deal lobbyists representing every P5+1nation descend on Capital Hill (as is their right); when virtually every western nation already has sent representatives in the last few weeks to negotiate commercial deals with Tehran even before the mullahs have demonstrated good faith; even as morally neutered "realist" academics spout off while drenched with the blood of hundreds of thousands of Syrian and other innocents but continue to sit in judgment of their inferiors -- even with all that and so much more, it's always the right time to attack Israel.

    The writer is always very busy telling us not only that Israel is a big drag on the U.S., but now offers psychological analysis that Israel's supporters are clinically incapable of having well considered opinions that differ from his own, notwithstanding abundant proof of his own impenetrable bias. Which is to say, what a load of crap.

    bpuharic -> Ggee
    You didn't read the article. What he said was the right has a power fetish. That's why neocons get it wrong
    ozziem
    @Ggee

    RE:

    In the end, though, it always comes down to straining for the opportunity to lambaste Israel.

    It seems abundantly obvious that your are among the people who places Israel's interests ahead of those of the United States. Why don't you just move there?

    Chris F

    "The logic of the pro-deal camp is simple: Given that the opponents were so catastrophically wrong about the Iraq War, no one should listen to their advice today." Mr. Walt, this is a logical fallacy and you should have been done with it when you admitted so. Though you acknowledge the fallacy, you still go on to defend it. You never got specific on how "these people just happened to be embarrassingly wrong about Iraq" but I guess you mean the WMD. True, no nukes were found, but lots and lots of other weapons, including chemical weapons, were found. The New York Times did a huge report on this.

    So, your assertion that we shouldn't listen to opponents of the deal because they were wrong on Iraq is highly debatable, and if that's what support for the Iran deal rests on, the case is very weak indeed.

    As for the neo-con worldview question, occupation has worked pretty well in Japan, South Korea, Germany and others in the long run, so one could be forgiven for looking at the long line of overall successes and thinking it would work in Iraq if we were honest and clear about what we were going to do with Iraq - that is undertake a multi-generational transformation of Iraqi society through occupation. It should also be remembered that there was a lot of support for the US enforcing UN resolutions as part of the Iraq invasion. If the neo-cons were so wrong and we can't listen to them now, then ditto for the Democrats who supported the war and the countries in the UN who also supported it.

    "This belief led them to conclude that toppling Saddam would send a powerful message and cause other states in the Middle East to kowtow to us." Also debatable. Qaddafi saw what happened in Iraq and gave up his weapons program. Even Kim Jong Il was reportedly freaked out as he watched the invasion. We'll never know how things could have been shaped if the US was consistent in its mission.

    "Among other things, it appears a majority of American Jews support the deal - and so do plenty of distinguished figures in Israel's own national security establishment." Of course, there will be some people on both sides. But this is a rare moment when the Israeli left and right, Jew and Arab, are in overwhelming agreement over how bad the deal is. That is no small feat. As for American Jews, I was at the well attended anti-deal rally in Los Angeles last month and judging by how many different groups showed up, your assertion here is also incorrect. Jews, Arabs, Christians, Democrats, Republicans, Palestinians, Israelis and gay activists all showed up and all were against the deal. This is LA, the biggest home of liberal Jews outside of NYC.

    I also saw Ted Cruz speak at one of the largest Persian Jewish synagogues in LA (maybe the country) last month. The place was over capacity and the fire marshal showed up. The subject was the Iran deal and Cruz got multiple standing ovations. Again, we're talking about liberal Jewish LA. So, you may have read a few articles by Jews who support the deal, but I have seen up close thousands of American Jews in liberal LA, many of them Iranian, who are disgusted with this deal.

    [Aug 28, 2015] Ukraine agrees win-win debt restructuring deal

    Notable quotes:
    "... the government conceded that it must pay a higher interest rate on the remaining debts. ..."
    "... includes a four-year extension on repayments ..."
    "... In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending to a country that is in default to another sovereign. ..."
    "... The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said. ..."
    Aug 28, 2015 | The Guardian

    Ukraine has secured a 20% writedown on $18bn (£11.6bn) of its foreign debts in a deal its finance minister described as win-win...

    ... ... ...

    The hedge funds holding Ukrainian debt will write off around $4bn in return for securities that will pay holders a percentage of Ukraine's economic growth from 2021. But in a move that is likely to dismay many MPs in the Kiev parliament, the government conceded that it must pay a higher interest rate on the remaining debts.

    The deal, which still needs to be approved by creditors outside the group, includes a four-year extension on repayments to give Ukraine breathing space. But the interest rate on the bonds will rise 0.5 percentage points to 7.75%. It ended months of tense negotiations aimed at helping to keep the country on track with its International Monetary Fund-led bailout programme, plugging a funding gap and preventing a unilateral debt default.

    Ukraine's finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, who had sought a 40% debt haircut, said the deal meets all targets set by the IMF bailout programme and would allow the country to move ahead. "Everyone's done well out of this deal. That's why it's collaborative. It's not one side winning, it's a win-win situation. We're all now moving forward without putting the value of the bonds at any further risk," she said.

    Ukraine's sovereign dollar bond prices surged after the news, indicating that traders viewed the remaining debt to be on a more secure footing. Its 2017 issue rose 8.7 cents to trade at 64.5 cents in the dollar, according to Tradeweb data, while the 2022 bond rose 10 cents.

    In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending to a country that is in default to another sovereign.

    The debt deal should help keep Ukraine's national currency, the hryvnia, stable and allow increased spending on defence in the east,...

    ... ... ...

    The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said.

    Gabriel Sterne, head of global macro at Oxford Economics, also cast doubt on whether the deal would make Ukraine's debt levels sustainable and added: "There is a strong likelihood that they will be back at the negotiating table before too many IMF reviews have passed."

    Talks had been held up over a disagreement with creditors on whether to provide Kiev with a writedown on the face value of the bonds. Kiev had initially sought a 40% cut. "We started in different places, because the creditor committee didn't believe we had a solvency problem but my goal was not a particular number, it was meeting those IMF targets," Yaresko said. She added that she hoped it was highly unlikely that remaining creditors would reject the agreement and forecast that the process would be wrapped up by the end of October.

    [Aug 28, 2015] Ukraines debt deal is better than defaulting – but its just a stop gap

    Aug 27, 2015 | The Guardian

    The debt deal Ukraine has painstakingly negotiated with its creditors is welcome and preferable to the alternative: a default that would have put additional pressure on the country's shaky banks and led to both capital flight and a protracted battle in the courts. But amid all the backslapping a bit of perspective is needed.

    Greece has severe problems but Ukraine is the most troubled country in Europe. It has inflation at 55%, its economy is expected to contract by 10% this year, and the government is fighting a war with separatists in the east backed by Russia that is costly in both human and financial terms.

    The deal involves a 20% writedown to the face value of $18bn of eurobonds and pushes back the date on which the bonds will be redeemed by four years. Ukraine has some breathing space and the accord means it will continue to be eligible for financial help from the International Monetary Fund. That's the good news.

    But the finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, had to scale back her ambitions once it became clear creditors thought Kiev's threat to default was a bluff. She has had to offer higher interest rates when debt payments resume and has had to accept a 20% writedown rather than the 40% she wanted.

    Ukraine's debts remain high and its economy is in freefall. This agreement is a stop gap not a game changer.

    [Aug 27, 2015] Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump

    "...Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years."
    "... In the U.S., the number of bonds yielding greater than 10 percent has increased more than fourfold to 80 over the past year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Twenty-six European oil companies have bonds in that category, including Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ltd. and EnQuest Plc."
    "...Some earnings metrics are already breaching the lows of the 2008 financial crisis. The profit margin for the 108-member MSCI World Energy Sector Index, which includes Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., is the lowest since at least 1995, the earliest for when data is available."
    "...Credit-rating downgrades are putting additional strain on the ability of oil companies to raise money cheaply. Standard & Poor's cut the rating of Eni SpA, Italy's biggest oil company, in April while Moody's Investors Service downgraded Tullow Oil Plc's debt in March."
    "...The biggest companies, with global portfolios that span oil fields to refineries, will probably emerge largely intact from the slump, Norton Rose's Wood said. Smaller players, dependent on fewer assets, could have problems, she said."
    Aug 27, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    ... ... ...

    "The look and shape of the oil industry would likely change over the next five to 10 years as companies emerge from this," Wood said. "If oil prices stay at these levels, the number of bankruptcies and distress deals will undoubtedly increase."

    Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years.

    U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, Chinese companies rank second with 12 percent and U.K. producers represent 9 percent.

    In the U.S., the number of bonds yielding greater than 10 percent has increased more than fourfold to 80 over the past year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Twenty-six European oil companies have bonds in that category, including Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ltd. and EnQuest Plc.

    ... ... ...

    Slumping crude prices are diminishing the value of oil reserves and reducing borrowing power, even as pressure builds to find replacement fields.

    Some earnings metrics are already breaching the lows of the 2008 financial crisis. The profit margin for the 108-member MSCI World Energy Sector Index, which includes Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., is the lowest since at least 1995, the earliest for when data is available.

    "There are several credits which simply won't be able to refinance and extend maturities and they may need to raise additional equity," said Eirik Rohmesmo, a credit analyst at Clarksons Platou Securities AS in Oslo. "The question is: Would they be able to do that with debt at these levels?"

    Credit Ratings

    Some U.S. producers gained breathing space by leveraging their low-cost assets to raise funds earlier this year and repay debt, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. wrote in a Aug. 6 report. This helped companies shore up their capital and reduce debt-servicing costs.

    That may no longer be an option because energy companies have been the worst performers in the past year among 10 industry groups in the MSCI World Index.

    Credit-rating downgrades are putting additional strain on the ability of oil companies to raise money cheaply. Standard & Poor's cut the rating of Eni SpA, Italy's biggest oil company, in April while Moody's Investors Service downgraded Tullow Oil Plc's debt in March.

    Spokesmen for Eni and Tullow declined to comment.

    The biggest companies, with global portfolios that span oil fields to refineries, will probably emerge largely intact from the slump, Norton Rose's Wood said. Smaller players, dependent on fewer assets, could have problems, she said.

    "Clearly, those companies with debt to pay will have one eye firmly on oil prices," said Christopher Haines, a senior oil and gas analyst at BMI in London. "With revenues collapsing and debt soon to mature, a growing number of companies may find themselves unable to meet repayment schedules."

    Oil Prices Driven Lower By Everything Except Fundamentals

    By Leonard Brecken

    "...According to Reuters, 50 to 60 hedge funds have taken short positions that account for around 160 million barrels of oil in near term contracts. In fact, the amount of short positions in oil options and futures now exceeds levels in the great financial meltdown of 2008, believe it or not, despite talk of a good economy and the Fed needing to raise interest rates. Madness, right?"
    "...All these things still don't explain the panic in oil markets other than financially driven events that aren't directly tied to the supply and demand of oil which, as I stated, has improved vs. the start of 2015. "
    Aug 24, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    It is clear that it is no longer supply and demand for oil that is dictating the price but is instead the financial markets and more importantly money flows tied to central bank policy.

    Bearish sentiment in the oil markets is taking over as net short positions near record highs. According to Reuters, 50 to 60 hedge funds have taken short positions that account for around 160 million barrels of oil in near term contracts. In fact, the amount of short positions in oil options and futures now exceeds levels in the great financial meltdown of 2008, believe it or not, despite talk of a good economy and the Fed needing to raise interest rates. Madness, right?

    ... ... ...

    Fundamentally, almost every bear case presented by the media in 2015 has been proven false. Doomsday events such as rig count (vertical rigs being dropped vs. horizontal), Cushing overflowing, China demand slowing, to Iran floating storage of 50 million barrels being unleashed, U.S. production rising, have all been dispelled.

    In fact, as I said, the fundamentals have even improved as U.S. production has entered into decline, crude stocks have been drawing down since the spring, and demand for gasoline is at record highs (much higher vs. expectations going into 2015). Furthermore, the worries on Iran are completely overblown given that the hype on floating storage – the millions of barrels of crude oil sitting in tankers turned out to be low quality condensate that is hard to process. Also, the 500,000 to 1 million barrels per day (mb/d) increase tied to the nuclear deal will be absorbed by higher demand, which has averaged 1 million barrels or more each year (in 2015, it has been even higher than that; closer to 1.4 mb/d or higher).

    Furthermore, China alone will add 600,000 barrels per day in refinery capacity, as it allows independent refineries to process oil. What has been incrementally negative has been additional capacity added by Iraq and Saudi Arabia since the start 2015. However, aside from Iran, OPEC doesn't have any spare capacity left and, Saudi Arabia has already announced intentions of reducing output by 200,000-300,000 barrels per day post their seasonally strong domestic period.

    Yet even though the dollar has weakened recently, oil has still collapsed some 35 percent. The E&P equities have fallen even further as in addition to shorts, there are also pressing bets on the upcoming fall credit redetermination and hedge funds taking positions in E&P bonds while shorting equities.

    All these things still don't explain the panic in oil markets other than financially driven events that aren't directly tied to the supply and demand of oil which, as I stated, has improved vs. the start of 2015. In fact, demand is soaring while days of supply are improving dramatically as evidenced by the charts the charts below:

    ... ... ...

    Leonard Brecken, Brecken Capital LLC. Leonard is a portfolio manager and principal at Brecken Capital LLC, a hedge fund focused on domestic equities

    [Aug 27, 2015] Oil Prices Must Rebound. Here's Why

    OilPrice.com

    You can see two things on this chart, the first is that when capacity exceeds demand, prices are low (and vice versa); the second is that, since about 2005, despite the oil price being rather high, outside North America the world has struggled to add any oil production capacity at all. In fact, since 2010 oil production capacity outside North America has been in decline. If it weren't for the USA & Canada, where production growth has been driven by LTO & SAGD, we would have been in a right pickle.

    ... ... ...

    In the short term, the oil market is in the doldrums and projects are being delayed or cancelled, left right and center. That will mean that, outside North America, oil production capacity will decline even faster and with the growth knocked out of the shale producers and SAGD projects being put on the back burner, it is only a matter of months before demand starts to exceed world oil production capacity again.

    A nasty recession might put a dent in demand growth and turn those months into quarters, but eventually capacity will wane, demand will wax, and the oil price will climb once again.

    In fact if traders looked hard at these charts they might wonder if the continued weakness in the 2022 Brent Oil future was a tad overdone. For this time, I think the price response might be even stronger and more sustained than before.

    [Aug 27, 2015] Oil markets catch breath after biggest gains in six years

    "A short covering rally, led by crude oil pushed commodities higher across the board. Better than expected U.S. GDP numbers was the main spark, although the force majeure on BP's exports from Nigeria extended the gains," ANZ said in a note on Friday morning.

    "The recovery in commodity prices looks fragile with concerns over China's growth still weighing on market activity," the bank added.

    The U.S. economy grew faster than initially thought in the second quarter on solid domestic demand. Gross domestic product expanded at a 3.7 percent annual pace instead of the 2.3 percent rate reported last month, the Commerce Department said on Thursday in its second GDP estimate for the April-June period.

    Shell's Nigerian unit, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), declared force majeure on Bonny Light crude oil exports on Thursday after shutting down two key pipelines in the country due to a leak and theft.

    China's falling auto sales have been at the forefront of concerns that its economy is slowing much faster than expected, weighing on oil prices.

    Venezuela has been contacting other members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), pushing for an emergency meeting with Russia to come up with a plan to stop the global oil price rout, the Wall Street Journal reported.

    [Aug 26, 2015]Peter Schiff The market's 'pipe dream' is ending

    "For awhile, people thought that the stock market can handle higher interest rates. That was just a pipe dream. They can't," Schiff said Tuesday on CNBC's " Futures Now ." "That's the only thing propping up the market."

    [Aug 25, 2015] Oil rallies but still near six-and-a-half-year lows

    U.S. crude <CLc1>, also known at West Texas Intermediate or WTI, was up $1.40 at $39.64 a barrel by 1320 GMT, while Brent <LCOc1> was up $1.50 at $44.19.

    ... ... ...

    Several members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are producing record volumes of oil in an attempt to squeeze out competition.

    Adding to supply glut concerns, OPEC member Iran said on Tuesday it would increase crude production and reclaim its lost export share after international sanctions are lifted, even if prices remain low.

    gigi

    This is what causes high prices in gas and makes the 10% rich.

    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 Signed by Bill Clinton was ® Senator Phil Gramm's desire to prevent the SEC from regulating swaps, and against CFTC regulation preventing "bank products." derivatives passed allowing banks to invest in risky OIL and farm commodities such as corn, wheat and soybeans Driving the prices up for the consumer and creating large profits for a few people and doing nothing for 90% of the people. Thus SPECULATION in the futures trades in commodities OIL , paper trades, was made possible and is a main driver for higher PRICES at the pump and in groceries at the store. This was good for 10% of America and HURT 90% of of the people and we still are feeling the effects every day!

    Wrekins

    coincidentally, phil gramm's wife worked at the CFTC and puhsed for deregulation that Enron was lobbying for, and then later GRamm's wife left the CFTC and joined the board of directors of Enron. Somehow they managed to stay out of jail. Incredible. As corrupt as the day is long. "Serving their country"

    Rudy

    that was "better self service".

    [Aug 25, 2015] Bulls back in charge; Intervention the 'new normal'; Hollywood's China love story

    Braden

    A bounce back to pre-correction levels will prove once and for all that the 1% are completely manipulating the Casino through the use of the media for their gain. It would mean that the news about China and the world markets was somehow false. Why would the market correct and then go back up within a week unless it were pure manipulation? We shall see. This is a real test as to how rigged the game really is. We have not had a correction like this in about 4 years and I don't see how the market continues to march upward based on the reasons it just corrected unless they are false.

    [Aug 25, 2015] Oil Traders Race for Cover as Light at End of Tunnel Dims

    Bloomberg Business

    The most active WTI options Monday were October $35 puts, which surged 38 cents to 66 cents a barrel on volume of 14,240 lots. It was the highest price since April. The second-most active were November $30 puts, with 8,138 contracts trading.

    The so-called skew, measuring the premium for December 25-delta put options versus 25-delta calls, almost doubled in the past two trading sessions.

    WTI crude for October delivery fell $2.21, or 5.5 percent, to $38.24 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Monday. It was the lowest settlement since Feb. 18, 2009. The December contract fell 5.4 percent to $39.65. Tuesday, October futures rose $1.37, or 3.6 percent, to $39.61 at 9:22 a.m.

    The Chicago Board Options Exchange Crude Oil Volatility Index surged 12 percent to highest level since April. The gauge measures hedging costs on the United States Oil Fund LP, an exchange-traded fund tracking crude futures. Shares of the ETF dropped 5.6 percent to $12.49.

    [Aug 25, 2015] Out in the Real World, Oil Market Is Much Better Than It Looks

    Aug 25, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    The global oil market is healthier than it looks, signaling that crude's plunge to six-year lows has probably gone too far.

    While futures tumbled below $45 a barrel in London for the first time since 2009, Morgan Stanley and Standard Chartered Plc say other measures suggest physical markets for crude have stabilized or even strengthened in recent weeks. China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer, will keep buying extra barrels to fill its strategic reserve this year, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

    "While oil fundamentals aren't strong, physical markets do not corroborate the substantial weakness in flat price," New York-based Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Longson said in a report Monday. The "latest oil pricing pressure appears more financial than physical."

    ... ... ...

    The gap between the price of the first-month Brent contract, October, and futures for settlement 12 months forward hasn't widened enough over the past few weeks to suggest the world is running out of space to store crude, according to Longson. The spread was more than $11 a barrel in January, compared with about $6 on Tuesday, ICE data show. This suggests the supply surplus is smaller today than it was at the start of the year, said Horsnell.

    The spread between Brent and Dubai, the grade used as Asia's regional crude benchmark, is at its narrowest for this time of year in several years, according to Morgan Stanley. This signals continued strength in demand from Asia for Middle Eastern crude, Longson said. Prices for West African crude grades relative to Brent have strengthened in recent weeks, he said.

    ... ... ...

    "Despite poor headline macro data, most China oil demand data points remain resilient," Longson said. The nation's apparent demand for gasoline rose 17 percent last month, the highest growth rate all year, he said.

    The filling of emergency crude reserves in China "gives the market a lifeline" that distinguishes the current situation from the Asian crash of 1998, Jeff Currie, head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television Aug. 21. Brent crude dropped to as low as $9.55 a barrel in December 1998, according to ICE data.

    ... ... ...

    Another weight lifted from the oil market is the conclusion of Mexico's annual hedging program, Morgan Stanley's Longson said. The Latin American producer locked in 2016 prices for 212 million barrels, its Finance Ministry said on Aug. 20. The biggest hedge undertaken by any national government, the program was an "under-appreciated negative" for prices and its completion "removes a bearish overhang for oil," he said.


    [Aug 25, 2015] Norway's Oil Minister Says Crude Price at $40 Can't Last

    Bloomberg Business

    Crude at $40 a barrel is unsustainable and prices will have to rise as supply drops out of the market, according to Norway's Oil Minister.

    "There has developed a surplus capacity on the production side and the supply side -- the supply side will be reduced in today's oil prices," Tord Lien said in an interview in Oslo on Tuesday. "But $40 oil prices? They are clearly unsustainable in the medium- to long-term."

    ... ... ...

    "There's no reason to think we will see oil prices last under $55 a barrel but we will have to adjust to lower oil prices," Lien said. "It's important for Norway to make the adjustments and prepare for a lower price-range than we were getting used to."

    [Aug 25, 2015] What cheap oil means, and where do prices go from here

    Let's take the unassailable good news first: The price of benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil recently dipped below $39 a barrel, which is down from $140 in 2008. That's an incredible 72% drop. And, yes, lower oil prices have pushed down gas prices. At $2.60 a gallon, gas is now about a dollar below where it was last year at this time. And it could continue to fall. Some analysts are looking for prices to drop below $2, maybe even down toward $1.60 a gallon, the low during the Great Recession in early 2009. When President Obama predicted in his State of the Union Address in January that "the typical family this year should save $750 at the pump," he was probably right. Multiply that by the nation's 115 million households and you get a total savings of over $86 billion. That's huge.

    Lower gas prices help poor people in particular; households with incomes of less than $50,000 spent 21% of their income on energy in 2012, according to analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, while households earning more than $50,000 spent 9%. Additionally, Americans who live in chillier regions like New England and the Midwest could save another $750 or so on energy bills.

    ... ... ...

    But the biggest problem with cheap oil may well be the destabilizing effect that it can have on oil-dependent nations around the world. Yes, some may cheer the pain Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations will feel, but they should be careful of what they wish for as a raft of difficulties looms here. There are 19 countries that produce over a million barrels of oil a day, and it's a diverse group, including, of course, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but also the likes of Brazil, Norway and Angola, and Canada. Each country will have to adjust to less income and lower employment in oil-related businesses. The nation's that stand to lose the most, though, are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq-in order, the biggest oil exporters in the world.

    ... ... ...

    bur

    Well this was a crock of manure.... A 72% decrease in oil cost only provides approximately a $1 difference at the gas pump??? Who is making all the money? The price at the pump should be around $1.25 at the most. Seems like the oil refineries making fuel are paying significantly less for oil and minimally reducing costs at the pump based on their savings! Also, this whole thing was directed at fuel.

    Many of our daily use products (plastics etc.) are petroleum based. Has consumption of those items gone down? Did Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc. quit putting their product in plastic bottles? Did the world quit using plastics over night? Its all an attempt to make the general public feel guilty about low fuel prices.

    Give us a small break here. The Middle East has raped the United States for years with the oil prices and we are supposed to feel sorry for them? I don't think so.

    Lou

    I was pleasantly surprised to read such a sober and balanced article. Cheap energy and lots of it is what has made America the industrial leader of the world. Although low oil prices hurt my income (I am a Petroleum Engineer), easy-to-find-and-produce oil is not unlimited in supply and demand for innovation in oil recovery will continue.

    So, I am bullish on Industrial America thriving with these low prices and on the future of the oil industry in meeting future demand. We will not only survive as a nation and as an industry, we will continue to lead the world.

    Mica

    I see the drop in oil prices this way - everything should be cheaper. Truckers can transport products cheaper. Manufacturers can produce a less expensive product. Travel will be more plentiful because the price of fuel is cheaper. Unemployment will go down because businesses will need to employ more people because the demand will go up. People will have more money to spend.

    People don't generally save their money so they will spend more. I'm not really losing sleep over the people struggling in Russia or Saudi Arabia because quite frankly it will be the kings not the general public who will suffer. The general public is suffering already in these countries. As for the people here in the US who work in the oil industry, they have reaped the benefits that we had to pay for so what goes around comes around, Lets face it - there is not an endless supply of oil so the price will soar again.

    Joe

    Translation: We the left hhhhaaaaattttteeee cheap oil, cheap oil means people are free to do as they please, drive wherever they want, and worst of all drive an SUV!. We MUST put stop to this STAT, quick find someone who will write an article and throw in a bunch of BS that weak minded people with buy into, in other words tell them to ignore common sense and only believe what we tell you. "We are the left you will be assimilated, resistance is futile"

    drp

    Peak oil was a valid theory. Hubbert was referring to cheap conventional oil. The new oil which has come onto the market as on late amounts to a world surplus of about 3%. Since world demand is about 93 Million BOPD, the 3% represents about 3 MBOPD. The US brought about 4 to 5 million bbls of new expensive unconventional oil online over the past 5 years. The companies that brought that oil online are mostly cashflow negative, and most of them will go broke due to owing more money than they are bringing in. The new shale oil cost more than conventional oil, and the expensive new oil was financed by low interest rates. About 40 million bbls of the world 93 million bbls of demand comes from expensive unconventional oil (such as deep water oil, tar sands, offshore deep water Brazil oil, shale oil, etc.). Once the OPEC countires become unstable to the point where they could lose their regime, they will cut back on production of oil in order to raise the price of crude oil so that they can finance their countries socal programs and finace their armies to protect the regimes which allows the OPEC countries to stay in power and under civil law. Again, the world needs both cheap oil and also unconventional more expensive oil. We do not have enough cheap conventional oil to meet world demand. So, expect the price of world crude oil to increase again once the CAPEX programs that have already been cut result in less oil production. Again, the 5 million bbls of new shale oil that has been brought on the market in the US is not economic, thus prices will have to increase, or this shale oil will not be produced economically and the companies will go out of business. ZIRP -- zero interest rate production cannot last forever, and shale oil, deep water oil, unconventional oil cost more than $40/bbl to produce. Hopefully we will see the need for increased prices in oil so that the price doesnt go up in a whipsaw way, and cause disruptions in production. $65-$80/bbl will be about the price where OPEC might be stable (although their budgets call for about $112 to $86/bbl to remain out of debt and able to remain stable regimes). There is much more to the world oil picture than this articles brings to folks who would like to know. Regards.

    Gene

    "Another problem with cheap oil, though, is that it will likely derail efforts to develop alternative sustainable energy sources like solar, wind and hydro. These businesses suddenly become uneconomical when the price of oil drops precipitously."

    That is a bad argument. Those alternative energy sources were uneconomical and unpractical when oil price was $140 per barrel. We are not ready technologically yet to deliver efficient solution for alternative source of energy, regardless of what Hollywood said. All other arguments such as feeling of Saudi Arabia and other Arabs - are not our "primary" concern at all.

    paul

    don't let yahoo fool you! What this really means it they cannot pursue further drilling developments without the high price of oil. It cost almost a billion dollars to drill deep and without oil at 80 dollars a barrel they will no longer be able to dig deep. But Alas we have a overflow of oil so why do we need to dig deep still? This is all about big oil not lining their pockets will thousand dollar bills but instead with hundred dollar bills!

    [Aug 24, 2015] Why $20 Oil Won't Happen

    "...U.S. crude oil production is now falling. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in its most recent Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) that U.S. crude oil production declined by 100,000 bpd in July compared with June, and they expect these declines to continue because of the steep cuts shale oil producers have made to their budgets. The EIA reduced its forecast for oil production next year to 400,000 bpd less than this year. "
    "...Canadian oil producers are in an even deeper bind than U.S. oil producers. A recent article stated that at $40/bbl WTI, Canada's largest synthetic crude project is losing about $10 on every barrel."
    Aug 24, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest we have bottomed. You could have $15 or $20 oil - easily," influential money manager David Kotok told CNNMoney. "I'm an old goat. I remember when oil was $3 a barrel," said Kotok, whose clients include former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean.

    Yes, and you could get a candy bar and soda for a nickel. But I will bet him $10,000 we don't see WTI at $15/bbl unless he has access to a time machine. Today I want to address this argument. I got into a debate on this topic with a person yesterday, and I am seeing enough of these predictions that I thought it warranted addressing. Again. The $20/bbl argument goes something like this: Crude oil inventories are extremely high. U.S. oil production keeps rising. Demand is falling. Something has to give.

    Crude Inventories Did Rise

    The problem is that this conventional wisdom argument is wrong on 2 counts. It is true that crude oil inventories are high. Last week there was a surprise build in U.S. crude oil inventories. Analysts were expecting inventories to fall - which they have been doing since April - but instead crude inventories rose by 2.6 million barrels. Following this week's release of the Weekly Petroleum Status Report announcing the surprise build in inventories, I saw more than one person claim "We are definitely going below $40/bbl today."

    Related: Donald Trump Sees No Danger For Environment In Keystone XL Pipeline

    Didn't happen. Now it could happen within the next few days. We are close, so one really bad day could drop us below $40, disproving my January prediction that WTI would not close below $40/bbl in 2015. But the price won't stay there because that is well below the marginal cost of production at the current level of world demand. More on that below.

    I don't believe the people predicting $20 oil are seeing the whole picture. The person I debated this week essentially argued "High inventories = much lower oil prices." But you have to dig down a bit more than that. Why did inventories rise last week? There were two primary drivers.

    The first is that the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana - one of the largest in the country - is dealing with unexpected maintenance problems. They have 235,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil refining capacity offline. (For those who think this is some sort of conspiracy by BP to drive up gasoline prices, get real. This helps all the other refiners - not BP). So BP didn't consume about 1.6 million barrels of crude during the week that they otherwise would have consumed. Yet inventories rose even more than that. Why? Did U.S. production surge?

    U.S. Crude Production is Falling

    No, U.S. crude oil production is now falling. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in its most recent Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) that U.S. crude oil production declined by 100,000 bpd in July compared with June, and they expect these declines to continue because of the steep cuts shale oil producers have made to their budgets. The EIA reduced its forecast for oil production next year to 400,000 bpd less than this year. More on the significance of this below.

    So why did inventories increase last week? It was actually because crude oil imports surged. Crude oil imports were 465,000 bpd higher than the previous week. That means 3.3 million barrels more oil came into the country than arrived in the previous week. Add that to the BP outage, and there was a surplus of oil of 4.9 million barrels relative to the previous week. This more than explains the 2.6 million barrel weekly gain in inventories. The question is "Will that continue to happen?"

    In my opinion, "No." The BP outage will continue for an indefinite period, but the import surge was an anomaly. Crude imports from Canada surged by 404,000 bpd from the previous week. But guess what? Canadian oil producers are in an even deeper bind than U.S. oil producers. A recent article stated that at $40/bbl WTI, Canada's largest synthetic crude project is losing about $10 on every barrel. How long do you suppose that can continue? The larger producers will hang in as long as they can, but some of the smaller guys are going to be shutting in production at $40 WTI (which implies an even lower price for them due to the distance to market). That will reduce imports from Canada - the very imports that surprisingly drove crude inventories higher this week.

    [Aug 23, 2015] Gold Driving Higher: Spec Flambé

    "...A short squeeze, also known as speculator flambé."
    .
    "...It requires some 'juice' to get the minions in the media and the pros on the exchanges to all dance to the same tune, and lure the specs in for 'Pee Wee's Big Adventure' with their Big Bad Short, not only on the metals, but the miners, the ETFs, yada yada. "\
    .
    "...Official reports will no doubt cite an excess of animal spirits in the bearish outlook that took them to an excess, and the markets, in their glorious efficiency, were merely reverting to the mean."
    What do you get when you add the volatile sauce of a 'flight to safety' to the hot pan of a record net short in the large and small speculators?

    A short squeeze, also known as speculator flambé.

    They probably caught a lot of the other peoples' money crowd as well, momentum players and the managed mayhem merchants.

    But don't blame the poor beleagured goldbugs for this one. They are just glad for a break from the pounding they have been taking.

    It requires some 'juice' to get the minions in the media and the pros on the exchanges to all dance to the same tune, and lure the specs in for 'Pee Wee's Big Adventure' with their Big Bad Short, not only on the metals, but the miners, the ETFs, yada yada.

    Finger lickin' good. A lot of cool money, and a lot of powerful connections. The grifters giveth to themselves, and the grifters taketh away, from everyone else.

    Official reports will no doubt cite an excess of animal spirits in the bearish outlook that took them to an excess, and the markets, in their glorious efficiency, were merely reverting to the mean.

    That might be plausible except that it took a lot of energy to drive the futures prices as low as they had gone, starting with that $50 overnight mugging in the quiet early hours of the gold markes few weeks ago. No one sees Mackie Messer, and no one knows.

    Especially with China dragging gold in by the tonne. About 302 of them in July according to the second chart below. Nothing to see there, move along.

    No one wants a pet rock, until you have to provide the one you sold but didn't have.

    And lets not forget about silver. That's in chart three. Plenty of tinder for a short squeeze there.

    Or a bonfire of the inanities.

    Let's see how far it goes. Is it just a flash in the pan, or the first act in something different.

    Must be nearly time to tighten up those margin requirements.

    [Aug 23, 2015] Netanyahu pressed for Iran attacks, but was denied: ex-defense chief

    Looks like Bibi is a certified warmonger. Something like George Bush of Israel
    Aug 23, 2015 | Reuters
    ... ... ..

    In interviews to his biographers aired late on Friday by Israel's Channel Two, Barak said he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had wanted military operations against Iranian nuclear facilities in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

    ... ... ...

    • In 2010, the Israeli leadership wanted an attack but the military said it did not have "operational capability," said Barak, defense minister between 2007 and 2013, and prime minister in 1999-2001.
    • In 2011, two ministers in a top security forum convened to discuss an attack changed their mind and decided against it, Barak said.
    • In 2012 the timing coincided with a joint military exercise with the United States. "We intended to carry it out," Barak said, but going ahead with an attack on Iran while U.S. forces were conducting the exercise would have been bad timing. "You're asking and demanding America to respect your sovereignty when making a decision to do it even if America objects and it's against her interests, you can't go in the opposite direction and force America in when they're here on a drill that was known ahead of time," Barak said.

    Netanyahu's spokesman could not be reached for comment.

    [Aug 22, 2015] Propaganda, Intelligence and MH-17 by Ray McGovern

    "...Propaganda is the life-blood of life-destroying wars, and the U.S. government has reached new heights (or depths) in this art of perception management"
    "...When the tragedy occurred U.S. intelligence collection assets were focused laser-like on the Ukraine-Russia border region where the passenger plane crashed. Besides collection from overhead imagery and sensors, U.S. intelligence presumably would have electronic intercepts of communications as well as information from human sources inside many of the various factions.
    That would mean that hundreds of intelligence analysts are likely to have precise knowledge regarding how MH-17 was shot down and by whom. Though there may be some difference of opinion among analysts about how to read the evidence – as there often is – it is out of the question that the intelligence community would withhold this data from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and other top officials."
    "...The sarin and MH-17 cases reveal the continuing struggles between opportunistic political operatives and professional intelligence analysts over how to deal with geopolitical information that can either inform U.S. foreign policy objectively or be exploited to advance some propaganda agenda. Clearly, this struggle did not end after CIA analysts were pressured into giving President George W. Bush the fraudulent – not "mistaken" – evidence that he used to make the case for invading Iraq in 2003."
    "...For now, the rest of us are told to be satisfied with the Sunday media circus orchestrated by Kerry on July 20, 2014, with the able assistance of eager-to-please pundits. A review of the transcripts of the CBS, NBC, and ABC Sunday follies reveals a remarkable – if not unprecedented - consistency in approach by CBS's Bob Schieffer, NBC's David Gregory (ably egged on by Andrea Mitchell), and ABC's George Stephanopoulos, all of whom hewed faithfully to a script apparently given them with two main talking points: (1) blame Putin; and (2) frame the shoot-down as a "wake-up call" (Kerry used the words repeatedly) for European governments to impose tight economic sanctions on Russia."
    "...Thus started a new, noxious phase in the burgeoning confrontation between Russia and the West, a crisis that was originally precipitated by a Western-orchestrated coup d'état in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, ousting Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych and touching off the current civil war that has witnessed some of the worst bloodshed inside Europe in decades..
    It may seem odd that those European leaders allowed themselves to be snookered so swiftly. Did their own intelligence services not caution them against acquiescing over "intelligence" from social media? But the tidal wave of anti-Putin fury in the MH-17 aftermath was hard if not impossible for any Western politician to resist."

    By Ray McGovern. This article was first published on Consortium News.

    Propaganda is the life-blood of life-destroying wars, and the U.S. government has reached new heights (or depths) in this art of perception management. A case in point is the media manipulation around last year's Malaysia Airlines shoot-down over Ukraine, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

    During a recent interview, I was asked to express my conclusions about the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, prompting me to take another hard look at Official Washington's dubious claims – pointing the finger of blame at eastern Ukrainian rebels and Moscow – based on shaky evidence regarding who was responsible for this terrible tragedy.

    Unlike serious professional investigative reporters, intelligence analysts often are required by policymakers to reach rapid judgments without the twin luxuries of enough time and conclusive evidence. Having spent almost 30 years in the business of intelligence analysis, I have faced that uncomfortable challenge more times than I wish to remember.

    President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

    President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

    So, I know what it feels like to confront issues of considerable consequence like the shoot-down of MH-17 and the killing of 298 passengers and crew amid intense pressure to choreograph the judgments to the propagandistic music favored by senior officials who want the U.S. "enemy" – in this case, nuclear-armed Russia and its Western-demonized President Vladimir Putin – to somehow be responsible. In such situations, the easiest and safest (career-wise) move is to twirl your analysis to the preferred tune or at least sit this jig out.

    But the trust-us-it-was-Putin marathon dance has now run for 13 months – and it's getting tiresome to hear the P.R. people in the office of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper still claiming that the U.S. intelligence community has not revised or updated its analysis of the incident since July 22, 2014, just five days after the crash.

    Back then, Clapper's office, trying to back up Secretary of State John Kerry's anti-Russian rush to judgment, cited very sketchy evidence – in both senses of the word – drawn heavily from "social media" accounts. Obviously, the high-priced and high-caliber U.S. intelligence community has learned much more about this very sensitive case since that time, but the administration won't tell the American people and the world. The DNI's office still refers inquiring reporters back to the outdated report from more than a year ago.

    None of this behavior would make much sense if the later U.S. intelligence data supported the hasty finger-pointing toward Putin and the rebels. If more solid and persuasive intelligence corroborated those initial assumptions, you'd think U.S. government officials would be falling over themselves to leak the evidence and declare "we told you so." And the DNI office's claim that it doesn't want to prejudice the MH-17 investigation doesn't hold water either – since the initial rush to judgment did exactly that.

    So, despite the discomfort attached to making judgments with little reliable evidence – and at the risk of sounding like former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – it seems high time to address what we know, what we don't know, and why it may be that we don't know what we don't know.

    Those caveats notwithstanding I would say it is a safe bet that the hard technical intelligence evidence upon which professional intelligence analysts prefer to rely does not support Secretary of State Kerry's unseemly rush to judgment in blaming the Russian side just three days after the shoot-down.

    'An Extraordinary Tool'?

    When the tragedy occurred U.S. intelligence collection assets were focused laser-like on the Ukraine-Russia border region where the passenger plane crashed. Besides collection from overhead imagery and sensors, U.S. intelligence presumably would have electronic intercepts of communications as well as information from human sources inside many of the various factions.

    That would mean that hundreds of intelligence analysts are likely to have precise knowledge regarding how MH-17 was shot down and by whom. Though there may be some difference of opinion among analysts about how to read the evidence – as there often is – it is out of the question that the intelligence community would withhold this data from President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and other top officials.

    Thus, it is a virtual certainty that the Obama administration has far more conclusive evidence than the "social media" cited by Kerry in casting suspicions on the rebels and Moscow when he made the rounds of Sunday talk shows just three days after the crash. On NBC's "Meet the Press," Kerry told David Gregory that "social media" is an "extraordinary tool." The question is, a tool for what?

    The DNI report two days later rehashed many of the "social media" references that Kerry cited and added some circumstantial evidence about Russia providing other forms of military equipment to the rebels. But the DNI report contains no mention of Russia supplying a Buk anti-aircraft missile system that Kerry and the DNI cited as the suspected weapon that downed the plane.

    So, why does the administration continue refusing to go beyond such dubious sources and shaky information in attributing blame for the shoot-down? Why not fill in the many blanks with actual and hard U.S. intelligence data that would have been available and examined over the following days and weeks? Did the Russians supply a Buk or other missile battery that would be capable of hitting MH-17 flying at 33,000 feet? Yes or no.

    If not supplied by the Russians, did the rebels capture a Buk or similar missile battery from the Ukrainians who had them in their own inventory? Or did some element of the Ukrainian government – possibly associated with one of Ukraine's corrupt oligarchs – fire the missile, either mistaking the Malaysian plane for a Russian one or calculating how the tragedy could be played for propaganda purposes? Or was it some other sinister motive?

    Without doubt, the U.S. government has evidence that could support or refute any one of those possibilities, but it won't tell you even in some declassified summary form. Why? Is it somehow unpatriotic to speculate that John Kerry, with his checkered reputation for truth-telling regarding Syria and other foreign crises, chose right off the bat to turn the MH-17 tragedy to Washington's propaganda advantage, an exercise in "soft power" to throw Putin on the defensive and rally Europe behind U.S. economic sanctions to punish Russia for supporting ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine resisting the new U.S.-arranged political order in Kiev?

    By taking a leaf out of the Bush-Cheney-Tony-Blair playbook, Kerry could "fix the intelligence around the policy" of Putin-bashing. Given the anti-Putin bias rampant in the mainstream Western media, that wouldn't be a hard sell. And, it wasn't. The "mainstream" stenographers/journalists quickly accepted that "social media" was indeed a dandy source to rely on – and have never pressed the U.S. government to release any of its intelligence data.

    Yet, in the immediate aftermath of the MH-17 shoot-down, there were signs that honest intelligence analysts were not comfortable letting themselves be used as they and other colleagues had been before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

    To buttress Kerry's shaky case, DNI Clapper arranged a flimsy "Government Assessment" – reprising many of Kerry's references to "social media" – that was briefed to a few hand-picked Establishment reporters two days after Kerry starred on Sunday TV. The little-noticed distinction was that this report was not the customary "Intelligence Assessment" (the genre that has been de rigueur in such circumstances in the past).

    The key difference between the traditional "Intelligence Assessment" and this relatively new creation, a "Government Assessment," is that the latter genre is put together by senior White House bureaucrats or other political appointees, not senior intelligence analysts. Another significant difference is that an "Intelligence Assessment" often includes alternative views, either in the text or in footnotes, detailing disagreements among intelligence analysts, thus revealing where the case may be weak or in dispute.

    The absence of an "Intelligence Assessment" suggested that honest intelligence analysts were resisting a knee-jerk indictment of Russia – just as they did after the first time Kerry pulled this "Government Assessment" arrow out of his quiver trying to stick the blame for an Aug. 21, 2013 sarin gas attack outside Damascus on the Syrian government.

    Kerry cited this pseudo-intelligence product, which contained not a single verifiable fact, to take the United States to the brink of war against President Bashar al-Assad's military, a fateful decision that was only headed off at the last minute after President Barack Obama was made aware of grave doubts among U.S. intelligence analysts about whodunit. Kerry's sarin case has since collapsed. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case."]

    The sarin and MH-17 cases reveal the continuing struggles between opportunistic political operatives and professional intelligence analysts over how to deal with geopolitical information that can either inform U.S. foreign policy objectively or be exploited to advance some propaganda agenda. Clearly, this struggle did not end after CIA analysts were pressured into giving President George W. Bush the fraudulent – not "mistaken" – evidence that he used to make the case for invading Iraq in 2003.

    But so soon after that disgraceful episode, the White House and State Department run the risk that some honest intelligence analysts would blow the whistle, especially given the dangerously blasé attitude in Establishment Washington toward the dangers of escalating the Ukraine confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. Given the very high stakes, perhaps an intelligence professional or two will summon the courage to step up to this challenge.

    Falling in Line

    For now, the rest of us are told to be satisfied with the Sunday media circus orchestrated by Kerry on July 20, 2014, with the able assistance of eager-to-please pundits. A review of the transcripts of the CBS, NBC, and ABC Sunday follies reveals a remarkable – if not unprecedented - consistency in approach by CBS's Bob Schieffer, NBC's David Gregory (ably egged on by Andrea Mitchell), and ABC's George Stephanopoulos, all of whom hewed faithfully to a script apparently given them with two main talking points: (1) blame Putin; and (2) frame the shoot-down as a "wake-up call" (Kerry used the words repeatedly) for European governments to impose tight economic sanctions on Russia.

    If the U.S. government's hope was that the combination of Kerry's hasty judgment and the DNI's supportive "Government Assessment" would pin the P.R. blame for MH-17 on Putin and Russia, the gambit clearly worked. The U.S. had imposed serious economic sanctions on Russia the day before the shoot-down – but the Europeans were hesitant. Yet, in the MH-17 aftermath, both U.S. and European media were filled with outrage against Putin for supposedly murdering 298 innocents.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders, who had been resisting imposing strong economic sanctions because of Germany's and the European Union's lucrative trade with Russia, let themselves be bulldozed, just two weeks after the shoot-down, into going along with mutually harmful sanctions that have hurt Russia but also have shaken the EU's fragile economic recovery.

    Thus started a new, noxious phase in the burgeoning confrontation between Russia and the West, a crisis that was originally precipitated by a Western-orchestrated coup d'état in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, ousting Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych and touching off the current civil war that has witnessed some of the worst bloodshed inside Europe in decades..

    It may seem odd that those European leaders allowed themselves to be snookered so swiftly. Did their own intelligence services not caution them against acquiescing over "intelligence" from social media? But the tidal wave of anti-Putin fury in the MH-17 aftermath was hard if not impossible for any Western politician to resist.

    Just One Specific Question?

    Yet, can the U.S. concealment of its MH-17 intelligence continue indefinitely? Some points beg for answers. For instance, besides describing social media as "an extraordinary tool," Kerry told David Gregory on July 20, 2014: "We picked up the imagery of this launch. We know the trajectory. We know where it came from. We know the timing. And it was exactly at the time that this aircraft disappeared from the radar."

    Odd that neither Gregory nor other "mainstream" stenographers have thought to ask Kerry, then or since, to share what he says he "knows" with the American people and the world – if only out of, well, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. If Kerry has sources beyond "social media" for what he claims to "know" and they support his instant claims of Russian culpability, then the importance of his accusations dictates that he describe exactly what he pretends to know and how. But Kerry has been silent on this topic.

    If, on the other hand, the real intelligence does not support the brief that Kerry argued right after the shoot-down, well, the truth will ultimately be hard to suppress. Angela Merkel and other leaders with damaged trade ties with Russia may ultimately demand an explanation. Can it be that it will take current European leaders a couple of years to realize they've been had - again?

    The U.S. government also is likely to face growing public skepticism for using social media to pin the blame on Moscow for the downing of MH-17 – not only to justify imposing economic sanctions, but also to stoke increased hostility toward Russia.

    The Obama administration and the mainstream media may try to pretend that no doubt exists – that the "group think" on Russia's guilt is ironclad. And it seems likely that the official investigations now being conducted by the U.S.-propped-up government in Ukraine and other close U.S. allies will struggle to build a circumstantial case keeping the Putin-did-it narrative alive.

    But chickens have a way of coming home to roost.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-years as a CIA analyst, he served as chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch, and prepared and personally conducted early morning briefings of the President's Daily Brief. In January 2013, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    William J. Astore Seventy Years of Military Mediocrity

    August 19, 2015 | naked capitalism

    Yves here. The US pretends not to have industrial policy, but it does, in spades, via which sectors get exceptional support, either via direct spending, R&D support, tax breaks, guarantees, and other subsidies. The military industrial/surveillance complex, banking, housing, and Big Pharma are among the most preferred sectors. The poor performance of the US armed forces, in face of the huge levels of spending, show how being in denial about what our national priorities really are and failing to make those pet industries accountable has led not just to waste but in the last 20 years, to outright looting.

    The focus of Astore's post is on a narrow dimension of this problem: that the US has developed military muscle at the expense of brainpower.

    By William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), and co-author of Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism. He writes for and edits the blog The Contrary Perspective Originally published at TomDispatch

    Thomas Jefferson Hall, West Point's library and learning center, prominently features two quotations for cadets to mull over. In the first, Jefferson writes George Washington in 1788: "The power of making war often prevents it, and in our case would give efficacy to our desire of peace." In the second, Jefferson writes Thomas Leiper in 1815: "I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power, the greater it will be."

    Two centuries ago, Jefferson's points were plain and clear, and they remain so today: while this country desired peace, it had to be prepared to wage war; and yet the more it avoided resorting to raw military power, the more it would prosper.

    Have America's military officers and politicians learned these lessons? Obviously not. In the twenty-first century, the U.S. unquestionably ranks number one on this planet in its preparations for waging war - we got that message loud and clear - but we're also number one in using that power aggressively around the globe, weakening our nation in the process, just as Jefferson warned.

    Of course, the world today is a more complex and crowded place than in Jefferson's time and this country, long a regional, even an isolationist power, is now an imperial and global superpower that quite literally garrisons the planet. That said, Jefferson's lessons should still be salutary ones, especially when you consider that the U.S. military has not had a convincing victory in a major "hot" war since 1945.

    There are undoubtedly many reasons for this, but I want to focus on two: what cadets at America's military academies really learn and the self-serving behavior of America's most senior military officers, many of whom are academy graduates. Familiar as they may be with those words of Jefferson, they have consistently ignored or misapplied them, facilitating our current state of endless war and national decline.

    America's Military Academies: High Ideals, Cynical Graduates

    America's military academies are supposed to educate and inspire leaders of strong character and impeccable integrity. They're supposed to be showcases for America's youth, shining symbols of national service. Ultimately, they're supposed to forge strong military leaders who will win America's wars (assuming those wars can't be avoided, as Jefferson might have added). So how's their main mission going?

    I taught at the Air Force Academy for six years, and I've talked to former cadets as well as fellow officers who taught at Arm's West Point and the Navy's Annapolis. Here are a few reflections on the flaws of these institutions:

    1. In reality, the unstated primary mission of the three military academies is to turn raw cadets into career officers dedicated and devoted to their particular branch of service. On the other hand, service to the American people is, at best, an abstract concept. More afterthought than thought, it is certainly mentioned but hardly a value consistently instilled.

    Careerism and parochialism are hardly unique to military academies. Still, as one former cadet wrote me, it's surprising to encounter them so openly in institutions dedicated to "service before self." More than a few of his peers, he added, were motivated primarily by a desire for "a stable, well-paying career." While a perfectly respectable personal goal, to be sure, it's a less than desirable one at academies theoretically dedicated to selfless, even sacrificial service.

    2. The academic curriculum is structured to prepare cadets for the technical demands of their first jobs, meaning that it's heavily weighted toward STEM (science/technology/engineering/math). Despite the presence of a Cadet Honor Code, the humanities and questions of ethics play too small a role in the intellectual and moral development of the students.

    3. Cadets quickly learn that excelling within the system is the surest path to coveted opportunities - increasingly scarce pilot slots, Special Ops schools, or the like - after graduation. Educationally speaking, they are driven by the idea of advancement within the conformist norms defined by their particular academy and branch of service. A system that rewards energetic displays of conformity also tends to generate mediocrity as well as cynicism. As one former cadet put it to me, "There is something deeper and more perverse here as well: The 'golden boys' [in the eyes of Academy officialdom] got the coveted slots but were generally hated by their cynical peers. Cynicism seems to define the Academy experience."

    A former colleague of mine had this comment: "The [military] academies don't make great people and they don't always make good people better. I have seen them turn off a few really good people, however."

    4. Because the academies are considered prestige institutions as well as symbols of rectitude and their reputations are always at stake, few risks are taken. Misconduct, when it occurs, is frequently hushed up "for the good of the Academy." Scandals involving cheating, sexual assaults, and religious discrimination have often been made worse by not being dealt with openly and honestly. Cadets know this, which is another reason many emerge from their education as cynics when it comes to the high ideals the academies are supposed to instill.

    5. As schools, they are remarkably insular, insider outfits often run by academy graduates whose goals tend to be narrow and sometimes even bizarrely parochial. For example, I knew of one superintendent (a three-star general) at the Air Force Academy whose number one goal was a winning football program. In that sense, he certainly reflected American society: think of the civilian college presidents who desire just that for their institutions. But military academies are supposed to be about creating leaders, not winning football trophies - and the two bear remarkably little relationship to each other no matter how many times the Duke of Wellington is (mis)quoted about the Battle of Waterloo being won on the playing fields of Eton.

    6. Finally, there's a strong emphasis at all the academies on simply keeping cadets busy. To the point where - especially in their first year - they're often sleep-deprived and staggering into class. Theoretically, this is meant to be a test both of their commitment to military life and their ability to handle pressure. Whether they learn anything meaningful while dazed or sleeping in class is not discussed. Whether this is a smart way to develop creative and strong-minded leaders is also not up for consideration.

    As one former cadet put it: busywork and demanding rituals that sometime cross the line and become hazing are embraced in military education as a "rite of passage." The idea "that we [cadets] suffered through something and prevailed is an immensely powerful psychological 'badge' which leads to pride (or arrogance) and confidence (or hubris)."

    Add up the indoctrination and the training, the busywork in classrooms and the desire to excel in big-time collegiate sports, and what you tend to graduate is a certain number of hyper-motivated true believers and a mass of go-along cynics - young men and women who have learned to subsume their doubts and misgivings, even as they trim their sails in the direction of the prevailing winds.

    While the cadets are encouraged to over-identify with their particular academy and service branch, they're also encouraged to self-identify as "warriors," as, that is, an elite apart from and superior to the civilians they're supposed to serve. That this country was founded on civilian control of the military may be given lip service, but in the age of the ascendant national security state, the deeper sentiments embedded in an academy education are ever more distant from a populace that plays next to no part in America's wars.

    That the classic civilian-military nexus, which was supposed to serve and promote democracy, has turned out to have a few glitches in our time should surprise no one. After all, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about what was coming back in 1961. As Ike noticed, the way it was working - the way it still works today - is that senior officers in the military too often become tools of the armaments industry (his "military-industrial complex") even as they identify far too closely with the parochial interests of their particular service branch. Add to this the distinctly twenty-first-century emphasis on being warriors, not citizen-soldiers, and you have the definition of a system of self-perpetuating and self-serving militarism rather than military service.

    To the extent that the military academies not only fail to curb this behavior but essentially encourage it, they are failing our democracy.

    America's Senior Officers: Lots of Ribbon Candy, No Sweetness of Victory

    In my first article for TomDispatch back in 2007, I wrote about America's senior military leaders, men like the celebrated David Petraeus. No matter how impressive, even kingly, they looked in their uniforms festooned with ribbons, badges, and medals of all sorts, colors, and sizes, their performance on the battlefield didn't exactly bring to mind rainstorms of ribbon candy. So why, I wondered then, and wonder still, are America's senior military officers so generally lauded and applauded? What have they done to deserve those chests full of honors and the endless praise in Washington and elsewhere in this country?

    By giving our commanders so many pats on the back (and thanking the troops so effusively and repeatedly), it's possible that we've prevented the development of an American-style stab-in-the-back theory - that hoary yet dangerous myth that a military only loses wars when the troops are betrayed by the homefront. In the process, however, we've written them what is essentially a blank check. We've given them authority without accountability. They wage "our" wars (remarkably unsuccessfully), but never have to take the blame for defeats. Unlike President Harry Truman, famous for keeping a sign on his desk that read "the buck stops here," the buck never stops with them.

    Think about two of America's most celebrated generals of the twenty-first century, Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal and how they fell publicly from grace. Both were West Point grads, both were celebrated as "heroes," despite the fact that their military "surges" in Iraq and Afghanistan proved fragile and reversible. They fell only because Petraeus was caught with his pants down (in an extramarital affair with a fawning biographer), while McChrystal ran afoul of the president by tolerating an atmosphere that undermined his civilian chain of command.

    And here, perhaps, is the strangest thing of all: even as America's wars continue to go poorly by any reasonable measure, no prominent high-ranking officer has yet stepped forward either to take responsibility or in protest. You have to look to the lower ranks, to lieutenant colonels and captains and specialists (and, in the case of Chelsea Manning, to lowly privates), for straight talk and the courage to buck the system. Name one prominent general or admiral, fed up with the lamentable results of America's wars, who has either taken responsibility for them or resigned for cause. Yup - I can't either. (This is not to suggest that the military lacks senior officers of integrity. Recall the way General Eric Shinseki broke ranks with the Bush administration in testimony before Congress about the size of a post-invasion force needed to secure Iraq, or General Antonio Taguba's integrity in overseeing a thorough investigation of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Their good deeds did not go unpunished.)

    Authority without accountability means no one is responsible. And if no one is responsible, the system can keep chugging along, course largely unaltered, no matter what happens. This is exactly what it's been doing for years now in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

    Can we connect this behavior to the faults of the service academies? Careerism. Parochialism. Technocratic tendencies. Elitism. A focus on image rather than on substance. Lots of busywork and far too much praise for our ascetic warrior-heroes, results be damned. A tendency to close ranks rather than take responsibility. Buck-passing, not bucking the system. The urge to get those golden slots on graduation and the desire for golden parachutes into a lucrative world of corporate boards and consultancies after "retirement," not to speak of those glowing appearances as military experts on major TV and cable networks.

    By failing to hold military boots to the fire, we've largely avoided unpleasantness between the military and its civilian leadership, not to speak of the American public. But - and here's the rub - 70 years of mediocrity since World War II and 14 years of failure since 9/11 should have resulted in anti-war protests, Congressional hearings, and public controversy. It should have created public discord, as it did during the Vietnam War, when dissent was a sign of a healthy democracy and an engaged citizenry. Nowadays, in place of protest, we hear the praise, the applause, the thank-yous followed by yet another bombastic rendition of "God Bless America." Let's face it. Our military has failed us, but haven't we failed it, too?

    Listening Again to Jefferson

    America's military academies are supposed to be educating and developing leaders of character. If they're not doing that, why have them? America's senior military leaders are supposed to be winning wars, not losing them. (Please feel free to name one recent victory by the U.S. military that hasn't been of the Pyrrhic variety.) So why do we idolize them? And why do we fail to hold them accountable?

    These are more than rhetorical questions. They cut to the heart of an American culture that celebrates its military cadets as its finest young citizens, a culture that lauds its generals even as they fail to accept responsibility for wars that end not in victory but - well, come to think of it, they just never end.

    The way forward: I don't have to point the way because Thomas Jefferson already did. Just read his quotations in the West Point library: we need to become a peace-loving nation again; we need to act as if war were our last resort, not our first impulse; we need to recognize that war is corrosive to democracy and that the more military power is exercised the weaker we grow as a democratic society.

    Jefferson's wisdom, enshrined at West Point, shouldn't be entombed there. We need a new generation of cadets - and a few renegade generals of my generation as well - who want to serve us by not going to war, who know that a military is a burden to democracy even when victorious, and especially when it's not. Otherwise, we're in trouble in ways we haven't yet begun to imagine.

    [Aug 22, 2015] The Riddle of Obama's Foreign Policy by Robert Parry

    his vision is more ideological than strategic
    "...My view of Obama is somewhat different. It strikes me that Obama is what you might call a "closet realist." He understands the limits of American power and wants to avoid costly military entanglements. But he also doesn't want to challenge the neocon/liberal-hawk dominance of Official Washington.
    In other words, he's a timid opportunist when it comes to reshaping the parameters of the prevailing "group think." He's afraid of being cast as the "outsider," so he only occasionally tests the limits of what the neocon/liberal-hawk "big thinkers" will permit, as with Cuba and Iran."
    "...An elitist would keep the public in the dark while letting the hasty initial judgments stand, which is what Obama has done."
    "...Kissinger: "To me, yes. It means that breaking Russia has become an objective; the long-range purpose should be to integrate it.""
    "...But Obama the Timid Soul – afraid of being ostracized by all the well-connected neocons and liberal hawks of Official Washington – doesn't dare challenge the "group think," what everybody knows to be true even if he knows it to be false. In the end, Obama the Elitist won't trust the American people with the facts, so these international crises will continue drifting toward a potential Armageddon."
    August 22, 2015 | therealnews.com | 0 Comments

    By Robert Parry. This article was first published on Consortium News.

    For nearly seven years of his presidency, Barack Obama has zigzagged from military interventionist to pragmatic negotiator, leaving little sense of what he truly believes. Yet, there may be some consistent threads to his inconsistencies, writes Robert Parry.

    Nearing the last year of his presidency, Barack Obama and his foreign policy remain an enigma. At times, he seems to be the "realist," working constructively with other nations to achieve positive solutions, as with the Iran nuclear deal and his rapprochement with Cuba. Other times, he slides into line with the neocons and liberal hawks, provoking ugly crises, such as his "regime change" tactics in Honduras (2009), Libya (2011), Syria (over several years) and Ukraine (2014).

    Yet, even in some of those "regime change" scenarios, Obama pulls back from the crazier "tough guy/gal" ideas and recognizes the catastrophes such schemes could create. In 2013, he called off a planned bombing campaign against the Syrian military (which could have led to a victory for Al Qaeda or the Islamic State), and in 2014, he resisted a full-scale escalation of Ukraine's war against ethnic Russian rebels resisting the new U.S.-backed political order in Kiev (which could have pushed the world to the brink of a nuclear war).

    Yet, Obama also won't stand up to the neocons and liberal hawks by sharing crucial information with the American people that could undermine pro-intervention narratives.

    For instance, Obama has held back the latest U.S. intelligence analysis describing who was responsible for the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin attack that almost precipitated the U.S. war on the Syrian military, and he won't release the intelligence assessment on who shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, 2014, the tragedy which ratcheted up the crisis with Russia over Ukraine.

    In both cases, I'm told U.S. intelligence analysts have backed off early rushes to judgment blaming the Syrian government for the sarin attack, which killed hundreds, and the Russian-backed eastern Ukrainian rebels for the MH-17 crash, which killed 298 people. But Obama has left standing the earlier propaganda themes blaming the Syrian and Russian governments, all the better to apply American "soft power" pressure against Damascus and Moscow.

    Thus, Obama's foreign policy has a decidedly zigzag nature to it. Or as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recently described Obama: "On the prudential level he's a realist. But his vision is more ideological than strategic," a typically cryptic Kissingerian phrasing that I interpret to mean that Obama is a prudent realist when it comes to major military actions but – short of all-out war – ideologically embraces neocon/liberal-hawk interventionism.

    My view of Obama is somewhat different. It strikes me that Obama is what you might call a "closet realist." He understands the limits of American power and wants to avoid costly military entanglements. But he also doesn't want to challenge the neocon/liberal-hawk dominance of Official Washington.

    In other words, he's a timid opportunist when it comes to reshaping the parameters of the prevailing "group think." He's afraid of being cast as the "outsider," so he only occasionally tests the limits of what the neocon/liberal-hawk "big thinkers" will permit, as with Cuba and Iran.

    Obama is also fundamentally an elitist who believes more in manipulating the American people than in leveling with them. For instance, a leader who truly trusted in democracy would order the maximum declassification of what the U.S. intelligence community knows about the pivotal events in Syria and Ukraine, including the sarin attack and the MH-17 shoot-down.

    An elitist would keep the public in the dark while letting the hasty initial judgments stand, which is what Obama has done.

    Redirecting Conventional Wisdom

    Obama never trusts the people to help him rewrite the narratives of these crises, which could create more space for reasonable compromises and solutions. Instead, he leaves the American public ignorant, which empowers his fellow "smart people" of Official Washington to manage national perceptions, all aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream U.S. media which simply reinforces the misguided "conventional wisdom."

    Despite his power to do so, Obama won't shatter the frame of Official Washington's fun-house mirror of reality. That's why his attempt to invoke the memory of President John F. Kennedy's famous "we all inhabit this small planet" speech at American University in 1963 fell so flat earlier this month when Obama went to AU and offered a pedestrian, point-by-point defense of the Iran nuclear deal without any of Kennedy's soaring, universal rhetoric.

    Presumably Obama feared that he would be cast as a starry-eyed idealist if he explained to the American people the potential for using the Iran agreement as a way to begin constructing a more peaceful Middle East. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's Pragmatic Appeal for Iran Peace."]

    These limitations in Obama's personality and world view have probably doomed his legacy to be viewed as an overall failure to reshape America's approach to the world, away from a costly and confrontational strategy of seeking endless dominance to one favoring a more respectful and pragmatic approach toward the sensitivities and needs of other nations.

    I realize some Obama critics feel that he is simply a tool of American imperialism putting a slightly less offensive face on the same interventionist policies. And no doubt he has served that role in many instances. He even boasted during his Iran speech that "I've ordered military action in seven countries." If some other world leader – say, Russian President Vladimir Putin – had made that claim, we would be hearing demands that he be dragged before the World Court as a war criminal.

    But there is also the Obama whom Kissinger described as "on the prudential level he's a realist." And there is significant value in sidestepping the maximalist catastrophes that would be caused by policies favored by the neocons and liberal hawks, such as U.S. bombing to destroy the Syrian military (and open the gates of Damascus to a reign of Sunni terrorism) or a U.S. military escalation of the Ukraine crisis (to the point of a nuclear showdown with Russia).

    While Obama's modicum of "realism" may seem like a modest thing, it isn't when you recognize that Official Washington's favored choices could contribute to the mass executions of Syria's Christians, Shiites, Alawites and other minorities under the swords of the Islamic State or could provoke a thermonuclear war with Russia that could end all life on the planet.

    That acknowledgement aside, however, Obama has fallen far short of any profile in courage as he's allowed dangerously false narratives to develop around these and other international conflicts. The most hazardous of all is the Putin-bashing storyline about Ukraine, which holds that the entire ugly civil war was part of some nefarious scheme cooked up in the Kremlin to recreate the Russian Empire.

    Though this notion that the Ukraine crisis was simply a case of "Russian aggression" is held by virtually every important person in Washington's current power circles, it was never true. The crisis was provoked by a U.S.-backed coup on Feb. 22, 2014, which overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Putin reacted to that provocation; he didn't instigate it.

    Kissinger's Take on Ukraine

    And if you don't believe me, perhaps you might listen to Henry Kissinger who explained the reality in a July interview with National Interest editor Jacob Heilbrunn, who noted: "we have witnessed a return, at least in Washington, DC, of neoconservatives and liberal hawks who are determined to break the back of the Russian government."

    Kissinger: "Until they face the consequences. The trouble with America's wars since the end of the Second World War has been the failure to relate strategy to what is possible domestically. The five wars we've fought since the end of World War II were all started with great enthusiasm. But the hawks did not prevail at the end. At the end, they were in a minority. We should not engage in international conflicts if, at the beginning, we cannot describe an end, and if we're not willing to sustain the effort needed to achieve that end. …"

    Heilbrunn: "How do you think the United States can extricate itself from the Ukraine impasse - the United States and Europe, obviously?"

    Kissinger: "The issue is not to extricate the United States from the Ukrainian impasse but to solve it in a way conducive to international order. A number of things need to be recognized. One, the relationship between Ukraine and Russia will always have a special character in the Russian mind. It can never be limited to a relationship of two traditional sovereign states, not from the Russian point of view, maybe not even from Ukraine's.

    "So, what happens in Ukraine cannot be put into a simple formula of applying principles that worked in Western Europe, not that close to Stalingrad and Moscow. In that context, one has to analyze how the Ukraine crisis occurred. It is not conceivable that Putin spends 60 billion euros on turning a summer resort into a winter Olympic village in order to start a military crisis the week after a concluding ceremony that depicted Russia as a part of Western civilization.

    "So then, one has to ask: How did that happen? I saw Putin at the end of November 2013. He raised a lot of issues; Ukraine he listed at the end as an economic problem that Russia would handle via tariffs and oil prices.

    "The first mistake was the inadvertent conduct of the European Union. They did not understand the implications of some of their own conditions. Ukrainian domestic politics made it look impossible for Yanukovych to accept the EU terms [for an association agreement] and be reelected or for Russia to view them as purely economic. …

    "Each side acted sort of rationally based on its misconception of the other, while Ukraine slid into the Maidan uprising right in the middle of what Putin had spent ten years building as a recognition of Russia's status. No doubt in Moscow this looked as if the West was exploiting what had been conceived as a Russian festival to move Ukraine out of the Russian orbit. …

    "If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities. We should explore the possibilities of a status of nonmilitary grouping on the territory between Russia and the existing frontiers of NATO.

    "The West hesitates to take on the economic recovery of Greece; it's surely not going to take on Ukraine as a unilateral project. So one should at least examine the possibility of some cooperation between the West and Russia in a militarily nonaligned Ukraine. The Ukraine crisis is turning into a tragedy because it is confusing the long-range interests of global order with the immediate need of restoring Ukrainian identity. …

    "When you read now that Muslim units are fighting on behalf of Ukraine, then the sense of proportion has been lost." [For more on this reference, see Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine Merges Nazis and Islamists."]

    Heilbrunn: "That's a disaster, obviously."

    Kissinger: "To me, yes. It means that breaking Russia has become an objective; the long-range purpose should be to integrate it."

    When Kissinger Makes Sense

    It may be a little scary when Henry Kissinger makes relative sense, but that's only in contrast to the current dominant neocon/liberal-hawk "big thinkers" of Official Washington.

    For Obama the Realist, the most practical way to begin moving toward a pragmatic resolution of the Ukraine crisis would be to stop the endless propaganda emanating from the U.S. State Department and repeated by the mainstream media and start telling the public the full truth – how the crisis really began, why the mantra "Russian aggression" is false, what on earth the U.S. government thinks it's doing collaborating with neo-Nazis and Islamic jihadists in killing thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians, and who was responsible for the key escalating moment, the shoot-down of MH-17.

    But Obama the Timid Soul – afraid of being ostracized by all the well-connected neocons and liberal hawks of Official Washington – doesn't dare challenge the "group think," what everybody knows to be true even if he knows it to be false. In the end, Obama the Elitist won't trust the American people with the facts, so these international crises will continue drifting toward a potential Armageddon.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

    [Aug 22, 2015] Investors Flood Oil ETFs Looking For Bottom ETF.com By Cinthia Murphy

    ... ...

    Investors poured more than $2 billion into energy-linked ETFs in the past week alone, more than doubling the assets in funds such as United States Oil Fund (USO | A-70), and adding nearly $740 million to the Energy Select SPDR (XLE | A-96) in just five days.

    ... ... ...

    Sam Stovall, U.S. equity strategist for S&P Capital IQ, says the energy sector is looking downright "compelling" from a relative strength perspective at these levels. ETF asset flows suggest investors are taking notice.

    "There have been six times in the past quarter-century that the S&P 500 energy index traded this low, or lower," Stovall said in a recent webcast. "Over the subsequent 24 months, however, the energy index was positive six of six times, and beat the S&P 500 five of six times. It also outpaced the broad stock market by an average 16 percentage points."

    Value Opportunity Brightens

    Past performance is no indication of future outcomes, as Stovall noted, but the numbers do cast a positive light on the prospects for energy stocks going forward.

    USO is largely considered the closest ETF proxy to oil prices, and a very liquid one at that. The fund invests only in near-month Nymex futures contracts on WTI crude oil, and trades more than $350 million, on average, every day, making it a popular choice with investors who want to tap in to oil through energy-futures-based ETFs.

    XLE, meanwhile, is an equity energy fund, and owns some 44 stocks as it tracks a market-cap-weighted index of U.S. energy companies in the S&P 500. The fund has almost $11 billion in assets.

    As a segment, energy-linked ETFs had more than $48.6 billion in total assets as of Dec. 18, up 4.3 percent from a week earlier.

    Top 5 Commodity ETF Creations Dec. 12-18, 2014

    Ticker Fund Net Flows ($,mm) AUM
    ($, mm)
    AUM % Change
    XLE Energy Select SPDR 738.14 11,085.38 7.13%
    USO United States Oil 392.54 1,162.14 51.01%
    DJP iPath Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Total Return ETN 354.48 1,755.75 25.30%
    OIH Market Vectors Oil Services 198.62 1,091.21 22.25%
    VDE Vanguard Energy 171.97 3,102.97 5.87%

    [Aug 21, 2015] What Will It Take For The Fed To Panic And Bail Out The Market Once Again BofA Explains

    "...Nobody but Madoff went to jail in '08 the last time they were bailed out. -No "Pecora" investigation(s) took place with officer(s) of AIG, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Citigroup, JP Morgan and our favorite bank in the whole World that had their fingers among other appendages up the sphincty of everyone and has a revolving door to the Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury EU and IMF -Leadman Sucks..."

    Aug 20, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    One of the main reasons a month ago we started carefully following the commodity trading giants, the Glencores, Mercurias and Trafiguras of the world...

    Which will be first: Trafigura, Mercuria or Glencore

    - zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 22, 2015

    ... is because nobody else was.

    Perhaps due to their commodity-trading operations, these companies were expected to be immune from the mark-to-market vagaries of the commodity collapse on their balance sheet, and as such presented far less interest to market participants than pure-play miners whose stocks have gotten crushed since the commodity collapse and subsequent relapse.

    And then, yesterday, Glencore "happened" and everyone was so shocked by the company's abysmal results, which as we explained may servce as "The Next Leg Of The Commodity Carnage: Attention Shifts To Traders - Glencore Crashes, Noble Default Risk Soars." This took place a day after we penned "Noble Group's Kurtosis Awakening Moment For The Commodity Markets" in which we profiled the ongoing slow-motion trainwreck of Asia's largest commodity trader.

    Of course, Glencore's problems should not have been reason for surprise: after all it was a bet on a surge in Glencore's default risk that prompted us to write "Is This The Cheapest (And Most Levered) Way To Play The Chinese Credit-Commodity Crunch?" in March of 2014 as a levered and relatively safe way to trade crashing copper prices (since then, Glencore CDS have doubled).

    And so others started to notice.

    So with Wall Street's attention suddenly focused, with the usual delay, almost exclusively on the commodity hybrids, it was none other than Bank of America which earlier today reserved a very special place for a possible collapse of these companies. In fact, the "credit event" (read "failure") of a company like Glencore is precisely what BofA's Michael Hartnett said "may be necessary to cause policy-makers to panic."

    Bank of America starts with a chart that ZH readers are all too familiar with: a comparison of the CDS of Noble and Glencore which as duly noted many times already, have recently spiked:

    And here is why Bank of America decided to suddenly focus on a small subset of the commodity sector, one which we have been fascinated with for over a month: to BofA the collapse of either of these two companies is the necessary and/or sufficient condition for the Fed to exit its recent trance, and reenter and bailout the market.

    That's right: Bank of America is begging for another Fed-assisted market bailout, which gladly hints would be accelerated should Glencore experience a premature "credit event." To wit:

    Short-term, markets seem intent on forcing either the Fed to pass in September, or the Chinese to launch a more comprehensive and credible policy package to boost growth expectations. Alternatively, a credit event in commodities (note CDS is widening sharply for resources companies – front page chart) may be necessary to cause policy-makers to panic. Markets stop panicking when central banks start panicking. We think that is increasingly likely in September, thus arguing that risk-takers should soon look to add risk, particularly on any further weakness.

    We thank Bank of America for making it quite clear what the catalyst for QE4 will be (and why we should double down on the Glencore long CDS trade), but we are confused: how is the Fed expected to "panic" in September when that is when BofA's crack economists predict the Fed will hike rates. If anything, a rate hike is supposed to calm the market and give confidence that the Fed is on top of the situation, even if as has been clearly the case, the US economy, not to mention the global one, are both going into reverse.

    And while that is a major loose end to any trading thesis BofA may want to present, it does hedge by saying that all bets on a market bailout are off if the Fed and other central banks have now "lost their potency", i.e., if the market's faith in money printing has ended.

    Finally, we believe the inexorable rise in volatility as QE programs wane leads to the ultimate risk. In our view, all investment strategies have been tied in recent years to the power of central banks. There are few bond vigilantes willing to punish profligate governments, fewer currency speculators willing to defy central bank intervention, and investors have become adept at front-running policy-makers and/or expecting central banks will "blink" at signs of market volatility. We believe a loss of central bank potency is an unambiguous risk-off.

    Indeed, we too believe that if not even central banks can boost this market, then the time to get the hell out of Dodge is at hand. And while exiting, make sure to have a lot of gold, silver and lead. Because if the days of Keynesian voodoo and fiat are almost over, then absolutely nobody has any idea what lies ahead.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    That's right: Bank of America is begging for another Fed-assisted market bailout, which gladly hints would be accelerated should Glencore experience a premature "credit event."

    And why the fuck "not"?...

    Nobody but Madoff went to jail in '08 the last time they were bailed out. -No "Pecora" investigation(s) took place with officer(s) of AIG, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Citigroup, JP Morgan and our favorite bank in the whole World that had their fingers among other appendages up the sphincty of everyone and has a revolving door to the Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury EU and IMF -Leadman Sucks...

    If you don't put them on the top of the Federal Reserve headquarters and the Freedom Tower to be thrown off the roof 7 years after the irreparable harm they continue to carry out...

    This is what you get and what you deserve!

    OldPhart

    We're just waiting for the Statute of Limitations to run out. Then we'll investigate. [Obama Administration]

    Crocodile

    Quote: "if not even central banks can boost this market, then the time to get the hell out of Dodge is at hand."

    Got that right; seems like they are losing the handle and ready to implement "Plan B"; massive short squeeze followed by "pulling the plug" and letting the chips fall. Seems we are at or near the end-game. I was hoping the DJIA would not go below 17K and it did, so tomorrow will give strong forward guidance that will answer the question; "have they lost control altogether?". I hope not.

    Pareto

    News flash Dundee. The FED has NEVER been in control. Being forced to react to redemptions is not becoming of someone who is "in control". Short of buying stocks, like the PBOC, or more MBS and CDS (QE1,2, Twist, 3), or, more Treasuries (QE forever), they're done. The thing about the market is that eventually it exposes the reality of central planning - that it doesn't work, hasn't worked, and never will work. It is simply naiive to think that any central bank has been in control of anything - ever. If they have been in control of anything at all, it would be that they own one of the greatest wealth redistributions that has ever occurred in history. They own that, And they also own every major recession since 1913. And they will own this cluster fuck too when it is all said and done. Because there is no free lunch. Sooner or later - everybody pays.

    Angry Plant

    Do higher interest rates represent a greater threat than lower growth to the 1% is the question?

    The Fed will always serve the interests of the 1%.

    Current stock, housing, car loan, and college loan bubble will all get worse if Fed does more QE. More QE really just means more malinvestment while no QE means that current malinvestment will come due. Those bubbles popping is inevitable so popping them now while they're smaller is maybe the best course.

    China and Europe are now in position where they have to QE to stop economic implosion so US can exploit that to shut down US QE and let China and Europe carry the load.

    In regards to the 1% the big loser of this would be Hillary and the likely big winner would be Jeb. Both candidates are completely in the pocket of the 1% so the rest of the 1% really don't care.

    Angry Plant

    I don't think I explained it well.

    To be more clear I believe the fed will let the stockmarket tank instead of raising interest rates. The drop in stocks will have same impact as rate increases. That will allow fed to keep rates low and avoid a surge in US dollar.

    It will also correct one of the bubbles currently in the US economy. The oil buble got popped last year now it's time for the stock bubble to be popped.

    [Aug 21, 2015] Is The Oil Crash A Result Of Excess Supply Or Plunging Demand The Unpleasant Answer In One Chart

    "...I, for one, feel much better that we have returned to depleting our natural resources at a record pace. This will help to ensure that our children and our children's children have a bright future. "
    "..."Breaking Russia has become an objective [for US officials] the long-range purpose should be to integrate it," the 92-year-old told The National Interest in a lengthy interview for the policy magazine's anniversary that touched on most of the world's most pertinent international issues. "If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities." "
    Aug 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    One of the most vocal discussions in the past year has been whether the collapse, subsequent rebound, and recent relapse in the price of oil is due to surging supply as Saudi Arabia pumps out month after month of record production to bankrupt as many shale companies before its reserves are depleted, or tumbling demand as a result of a global economic slowdown. Naturally, the bulls have been pounding the table on the former, because if it is the later it suggests the global economy is in far worse shape than anyone but those long the 10Year have imagined.

    Courtesy of the following chart by BofA, we have the answer: while for the most part of 2015, the move in the price of oil was a combination of both supply and demand, the most recent plunge has been entirely a function of what now appears to be a global economic recession, one which will get far worse if the Fed indeed hikes rates as it has repeatedly threatened as it begins to undo 7 years of ultra easy monetary policy.

    Here is BofA:

    Retreating global equities, bond yields and DM breakevens confirm that EM has company. Much as in late 2014, global markets are going through a significant global growth scare. To illustrate this, we update our oil price decomposition exercise, breaking down changes in crude prices into supply and demand drivers (The disinflation red-herring).

    Chart 6 shows that, in early July, the drop in oil prices seems to have reflected primarily abundant supply (related, for example, to the Iran deal). Over the past month, however, falling oil prices have all but reflected weak demand.

    BofA's conclusion:

    The global outlook has indeed worsened. Our economists have recently trimmed GDP forecasts in Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and South Africa, while noting greater downside risks in Turkey due to political uncertainty. Asian exports continue to underwhelm, and capital outflows are adding to regional woes. Looking ahead, we still expect the largest DM economies to keep expanding at above-trend pace but global headwinds have intensified.

    And yet, BofA's crack economist Ethan Harris still expects a September Fed rate hike. Perhaps the price of oil should turn negative (yes, just like NIRP, negative commodity prices are very possible) for the Fed to realize just how cornered it truly is.

    Ms No

    I'd say it is more like the answer in one quote, Kissinger the corpse is squealing again.

    "Breaking Russia has become an objective [for US officials] the long-range purpose should be to integrate it," the 92-year-old told The National Interest in a lengthy interview for the policy magazine's anniversary that touched on most of the world's most pertinent international issues. "If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities."

    Budnacho

    Yep, Zero demand at $3.75 a Gallon for gas....

    Antifaschistische

    I, for one, feel much better that we have returned to depleting our natural resources at a record pace. This will help to ensure that our children and our children's children have a bright future.

    Jumbotron

    "Meh - our children's children will farm or die."

    Howard Kunstler talked about this in his book "The Long Emergency" back in 2005. And continues to do so on his web site.

    http://kunstler.com/

    The "JIT" (Just In Time) model based on cheap global energy and cheap wage slave labor arbitrage is breaking down. This is a multi-decade issue. There will be recoveries....but each drop will see the world get, poorer, slower, and more local as the decades pass.

    However, the elites of the world will try the very last trick in their bag of horrors......CASHLESS. With a cashless, purely digital credit system, they can manipulate all they want, even to the point of doing "buy-ins" if the need arises...you know...to "save the children".

    That's when the last attempt at total control will happen. But when there are still too many people, and not enough cheap, easily extracted and easily obtained resources for those people......shit will hit the fan none the less. Cashless or not.

    Then......war. Global war....and the big reset to farming or dying.

    Jumbotron

    " The JIT model has exactly nothing to do with cheap energy. More like accountants telling us "we don't need to put capital into holding a stock of materials." "

    Bull...Fucking...Shit.

    Ever heard of Fed-Ex ? Ever heard of UPS ? Ever heard of 24/7 trucking ? Ever heard of 24/7 rail service ? Ever heard of Cloud Computing ? Ever heard of Amazon ? Ever heard of 24/7 overseas shipping ?

    Ever heard of paved Interstate Highways ? What about the Internet ? What about all the steel mills, and the coke factories and the plastic factories and the asphalt makers......etc....etc....and fucking etc.

    ALL of these, including so much more, rely SOLEY on cheap energy.

    Go back to your magical X-Box and the comfort of your mother's basement. And her magical microwave which just made you some magical popcorn.

    Apply Force

    Not like when we were 16... I bought my own 1st (and 2nd, and 3rd) cars in cash that I earned working (mowing lawns/yard work) from 12 on. I worked on my own cars, which was not so hard, and usually Dad or another in the neighborhood could help out. I paid for my own ins. and my own gas.

    Not so easy to buy a used car now - way more expensive per what a child can earn prior to being driving age. And good luck working on your own car now - way more complex, and parts are way, way more expensive. And insurance costs are higher as well. No need to drive to a job for a 16 year old if the wage they earn can not even pay for car maintenance - if they could even find a job to begin with!

    The Age of Less is upon us - adjust accordingly!

    Shaznardickleze...

    No jobs, no money, no where to go, internet social life. Whats your point?
    Would you pay $3 a gallon if you were paid $7 an hour?

    nope-1004

    Fed will raise rates? lmao. As BOP noted a few days ago, the last rate hike was in 2006.

    NINE YEARS OF BULLSHITTING THE PUBLIC about raising rates. Enough.

    Apply Force

    The chart is Brent oil and world demand - not so sure US local gas prices and demand are reflected so well there.

    "Demand" at any rate really means "affordability" and oil production lags affordability changes by quite a bit - - hence what appears to be excess production to many people. Reality just takes a while to catch up to long-term endeavors like drilling for oil.

    It is simply a whipsaw in prices that is generally on it's way down... Down for the count within the decade, imo.

    Cloud9.5

    The demand for gasoline is to a large extent inelastic. Cougar is right that we are trapped in the car culture. I picked up my mother in law's maid this morning. She was walking the three miles from her house to my mother-in-laws. She could not afford the repairs on her car. We have no mass transit so she either walks or quits. Most people would quit and go on welfare. For all I know she may already be on welfare.


    Dr_Snooz

    Dr_Snooz's picture


    "Yep, Zero demand at $3.75 a Gallon for gas...."

    Yeah, the price of oil has halved, but the price of gas is unchanged. How does that work? If we yell loud enough at our Congresscriminals, they'll launch some price-gouging investigation, determine that there is none, sweep it all under the rug and get back to servicing their corporate constituencies.

    The problem is that you can only steal so much from the people before it's all gone and the whole system crashes...

    Oh wait. That's already happening.

    Login or register to post comments

    Fri, 08/21/2015 - 10:50 | 6451448 BustainMovealota

    BustainMovealota's picture


    It works when the people put their ass in the air and let their elected "representatives" have their way with that ass. ie, not good for you.


    cougar_w

    cougar_w's picture


    People will buy gas -- at any price -- before they buy groceries. Because they have to get to work as an urgent matter, because they cannot afford to lose their job, because half the people they know are already out of work. They have to keep that job no matter what -- and work two jobs 20 milesa part maybe three -- so that later in the week they can then think about buying groceries.

    I'm kind of surprized the ZH crowd doesn't get this part.

    The price of gas will go down when a lot of people are homeless or dead.

    samsara

    "Calling Gail Tverberg, whose finite world is looking ominously true."

    Yes, GailTheActuary of course was correct. Smart lady, read her comments/articles for years on TheOilDrum.

    Falak, Try this one from AutomaticEarth. Nicole(aka StoneLeigh) nails the future I believe very correctly.

    Nicole (and Ilargi) used to run TheOilDrum Canada before AutomaticEarth.

    http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/08/nicole-foss-the-boundaries-and-future-of-solution-space/

    Nicole Foss: The Boundaries and Future of Solution Space

    falak pema

    thanks I enjoyed it.

    Local area networks and value chains, not cancerous globalization. Minimal mercantile exchanges to starve the Oligarchy beast, to sustain human chains; except where labour lacks like in Germany.

    Peak Oil and peak RM were already in the cards in 1979 with world population exploding. We should have learned from second oil shock.

    Help Africa grow don't rape it! Respect Che Guevara's legacy by doing same in Land of Latinos. All those guys who died for what : Che, Gandhi, Mandela, even Giap!

    But Pax Americana was on another page : Reaganomics!

    I said this back in 2007 -2010, to the wind!

    I wrote it all down but haven't published it.

    Lol, it blows back now.

    moneybots

    "the most recent plunge has been entirely a function of what now appears to be a global economic recession, one which will get far worse if the Fed indeed hikes rates as it has repeatedly threatened as it begins to undo 7 years of ultra easy monetary policy."

    The boom causes the bust. Years of QE is the problem, not potential rate hikes. Can't burst a bubble, until you build one. A bubble is 100% guaranteed to burst.

    DaveyJones

    Gail the Actuary (The Oil Drum) and many others have been predicting this phenomenon for some time now. The (modern) world (and their economic models) are entriely built on the fiction of never ending growth. Since energy drives everything and since the economic world has exponentially bet way out into the future, the economic structure will fall (completely apart) before the energy structure does. Even though it will take more and more money (read energy) to get the same energy out of the ground, the people will not be able to afford the price the companies need to charge and, as Ruppert said, everything wil just shut down.

    ejmoosa

    Central planners who pushed electric vehicles to the tune of 8,000 dollar tax credits and forcing fuel standards higher and higher despite the cost are baffled by the drop in oil demand.

    [Aug 21, 2015] Feels like 1986 Oil on track for longest weekly losing streak in 29 years

    In late 1985, oil prices slumped to $10 from around $30 over five months as OPEC raised output to regain market share following an increase in non-OPEC production.

    BP CEO Bob Dudley said in late-July, when oil prices were some $8 a barrel higher than now, that "it does feel like 1986".

    U.S. crude for October delivery was 46 cents lower at $40.86 a barrel at 0656 GMT. The September contract, which expired on Thursday, ended 34 cents higher. The U.S. benchmark hit a 6-1/2 year low of $40.21 a barrel on Thursday.

    Brent was on track for its seventh weekly decline in the past eight, trading 41 cents lower at $46.21 a barrel, after settling 54 cents lower on Thursday.

    The dollar continued retreating on shrinking expectations of an U.S. interest rate hike in September, providing some support for oil prices.

    ... ... ....

    "The only silver lining we are seeing coming from the United States is that refining rates remain high and that crude production continues to fall," Singapore-based Philip Futures said in a note to clients.

    Despite the rout in oil prices, some mutual funds keep ploughing money into oil exploration and production companies in the United States in a bet that production will retreat sharply over the next 12 months, setting the stage for a rebound towards $65-70 per barrel.
    ... ... ...

    Spot prices of Western Canada Select (WCS), a marker for heavy, diluted bitumen from Alberta's oil sands sank to a 12-year low near $20 per barrel.

    SCOTT USMC VET 2 hours ago

    Tomorrow we will be in short supply and need to raise prices. Too many people with the poker in the fires. All scam artists need to reported to sec for fraud and manipulation of commodities.

    Larry 3 hours ago

    IN 1986 Reagan enlisted the Saudi's to flood the market in an economic attack against Russia, in 2014 US gov. repeated the attack. Now, with the internet, US citizens can learn the truth and see that the US gov. acts unconstitutionally against it's own citizens by market manipulation.

    [Aug 20, 2015] Rosneft Doubling Down To Survive Oil Price Storm

    A very weak article. The actual volumes Rosneft produces and volume growth dynamics are left behind...
    Notable quotes:
    "... With a production of more than 10 million barrels per day in month of July, Russia's oil output has reached its post-Soviet era production levels. ..."
    "... According to a study by Citigroup, Russia's exports are still as profitable as they were during the $100 per barrel oil price levels, because of the currency devaluation. ..."
    OilPrice.com

    In fact, some market analysts and traders are even predicting oil prices will fall to $30 per barrel.

    ... ... ...

    In contrast, the drilling volumes at Rosneft have increased by 27 percent during the first seven months of 2015 where more than 800 new wells were drilled. At a time when oil companies are shying away from newer acquisitions, Rosneft is all set to buy Trican Well Service Limited's Russian Hydraulic Fracturing business. So how does Rosneft manage to increase spending on its operations and acquisitions when other major oil companies are struggling?

    ....the ruble has weakened substantially against the U.S. dollar and is now trading at almost half of the value it was a year ago. The devaluation in the ruble has reduced the operational costs as oil companies would earn in dollar and pay their expenses in rubles.

    Moreover, Russian tax laws have resulted in domestic oil companies bearing just one fifth of the burden related to the total drop in the crude oil prices. "As we expected, changes to Russia's taxation mechanism on the oil sector at the start of 2015 are cushioning domestic companies within the sector from the effects of lower oil prices," said Julia Pribytkova of Moody's. With a production of more than 10 million barrels per day in month of July, Russia's oil output has reached its post-Soviet era production levels.

    ... ... ...

    According to a study by Citigroup, Russia's exports are still as profitable as they were during the $100 per barrel oil price levels, because of the currency devaluation. It is therefore quite obvious that Russia is set to increase its exports (and add to the supply glut) as the country has no other choice but to produce more oil in order to maintain its market share. This is highlighted by Rosneft's first quarter profits, which fell by more than 35%, yet it still decided to increase its production levels

    ... ... ...

    Gaurav Agnihotri, a Mechanical engineer and an MBA -Marketing from ICFAI (Institute of Chartered Financial Accountants), Mumbai

    [Aug 20, 2015] Low Oil Prices Could Break The "Fragile Five" Producing Nations By Nick Cunningham

    August 20, 2015 | naked capitalism

    By Nick Cunningham, a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter at @nickcunningham1. Originally published at OilPrice

    ... ... ...

    Meanwhile, in southern Iraq, which produces the bulk of the country's oil and has been far from the violence associated with ISIS, protests have threatened oil operations there. Protests at the West Qurna-2 oilfield operated by Russian firm Lukoil have raised concerns within both the company and the Iraqi central government about disruptions. The Prime Minister even traveled to the site to reassure Lukoil about the stability of its operations.

    ... ... ...

    Low oil prices could also push Venezuela into a deeper crisis.

    ... ... ...

    For Libya, already torn apart by civil war and the growing presence of ISIS militants, low oil prices are the last thing the country needs. ISIS violently crushed a civilian rebellion last week in the coastal city of Sirte, according to Al-Jazeera. Libya's internationally-recognized government has called upon Arab states for help in fighting ISIS, something that the Arab League has endorsed. Meanwhile, the country's oil sector – the backbone of the economy – is producing less than 400,000 barrels per day, well below the 1.6 million barrels per day Libya produced during the Gaddafi era. In other words, Libya is selling far less oil than it used to, and at prices far below what they were as recently as last year.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia could run a fiscal deficit that is equivalent to about 20 percent of GDP. To finance public spending, Saudi Arabia has returned to the bond markets for the first time in eight years, issuing 15 billion riyals ($4 billion) in July, only to be followed up by an additional bond offering of 20 billion riyals ($5.33 billion) in August. The government plans on taking on more debt in the coming months as well.

    ... ... ...

    Praedor, August 20, 2015 at 9:01 am

    I am always automatically dubious about instability in Latin America, particularly Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela. I cannot but assume that the CIA and State Dept are all over it, pushing it beyond what it would otherwise be organically, perverting it towards coup if a rightwing US-selected leader cannot be "elected". The US wants nothing MORE than instability and overthrow of these national governments and will do anything possible to manufacture disaffection inside their borders. There's water to privatize, oil to privatize, schools to privatize, corporations to feed.

    shinola, August 20, 2015 at 10:56 am

    My local newspaper carried a story this a.m. about low oil prices becoming a problem for Mexico too.

    Sam Kanu, August 20, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Any clarity yet on who is funding Boko Haram in Nigeria?

    PlutoniumKun, August 20, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    The War Nerd (Gary Brecher) is required reading on Boko Haram, although unfortunately his work is increasingly being screened by paywalls. From memory, he was pretty clear that much of its funding comes from the usual suspects among 'our allies' in the Middle East.

    Sam Kanu, August 20, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Local opinion on the source of funding seems to settle on certain elements of the Nigerian military, and possibly them acting as a conduit from global suspect #1.

    Never mind the so called allies and the so called "experts" who have never set foot in the country.

    Now start adding up 2 and 2.

    Charles Fasola, August 20, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    More bull crap from the controlled main stream media concerning Venezuela. Which is a target for regime change by the empire and its CIA organized criminal syndicate. Any nation that attempts to serve public purpose in any form becomes a target. Assassinations, overthrowal of legitimately elected governments, opium and narcotics production in Afghanistan and now Ukronazistan, money laundering for drug cartels, theivery and human trafficking are the specialties of this vile cesspool called the USA.

    [Aug 20, 2015] Wolf Richter It Starts – Broad Retaliation Against China in Currency War

    Aug 20, 2015 |
    naked capitalism

    Kazakhstan saw what's happening to oil, its main export product, and to the currencies in China and Russia, its biggest trading partners. The yuan devaluation was relatively small, compared to the ruble, which is now allowed or encouraged to drop with oil. It has plunged 14% against the dollar over the past 30 days and 45% over the past 12 months, to 66.7 rubles to the dollar. With the Russian economy losing its grip, the ruble is dropping perilously close to the panic levels of last December and January.

    And Kazakhstan freaked out and devalued the tenge by 4.5% today, to 197.3 per dollar, the biggest drop since that infamous day in February 2014 when the central bank let the tenge plunge 20%. So today's move is likely just a foretaste of what is still to come.

    ... ... ...

    But devaluations are not free lunches. They're desperate measures that demolish domestic consumption and real incomes (see Japan), business investment, and overall credibility. And capital flees. They can also heat up inflation. But many emerging market countries and their banks and corporations borrow in other currencies to get access to lower interest rates. That foreign-currency debt can't be devalued or inflated away.

    Instead, the opposite happens. Their struggling or battered economies have to service foreign-currency debt with their own devalued currencies. Commodity exporters are getting sapped additionally by plunging commodity prices. Then that foreign currency debt, that cheap easy money everyone got to used playing with, becomes an insurmountable pile of expensive debt in a currency they can't control and whose exchange rate might run away from them.

    This is when a debt crisis begins to spiral elegantly through the emerging markets, taking down banks, entire economies, and gobs of investors as it goes – or taxpayers in other countries if there is a bailout. It's always the same story. But this time, it's different: after years of global QE, low interest rates, and hot money sloshing through the system, the sums are larger, and the risks are higher.


    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, August 20, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Only one nation is exceptionally lucky with an import-driven/global reserve currency circulated model that's free from this need to devalue or to service foreign currency loans.

    Mike Sparrow, August 20, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Currency war? Not seeing it.

    'International Money Mania'

    Aug 16, 2015 | Economist's View
    Paul Krugman:
    International Money Mania: China is claiming that it's not devaluing the renminbi to gain competitive advantage, it's adding flexibility to prepare for the yuan as an international reserve currency, becoming part of the basket in the IMF's SDRs and all that. That's highly implausible as a story about what's happening right now; but it may be true that China's urge to loosen capital controls is driven in part by its global-currency ambitions. ...
    So what are the advantages of owning a reserve currency? ...
    What you're left with, basically, is seigniorage: the fact that some people outside your country hold your currency, which means that in effect America gets a zero-interest loan corresponding to the stash of dollar bills - or, mainly $100 bills - held in the hoards of tax evaders, drug dealers, and other friends around the world. In normal times this privilege is worth something like $20-30 billion a year; that's not a tiny number, but it's only a small fraction of one percent of GDP.
    The point is that while reserve-currency status may have political symbolism attached, it's essentially irrelevant as an economic goal - and definitely not worth distorting policy to achieve. Someone needs to tell the Chinese, you shall not crucify this country on a cross of SDRs.

    am said...


    Wo! Prof K pulls the reins on the reserve currency objective. I think that prestige is the main objective in China's moves in this direction and they wouldn't mind a bit of the seignorage too. But to get prestige fully they will have to let the currency float.
    China won't peg the yuan forever and doesn't want to either, I think. Their long term objective is surely international bonds in yuan to rival the USA dollar bonds.

    RogerFox said...


    'Reserve' status tends to make a currency stronger that it otherwise would be. When they think it through, the Reds will eventually come to the realization that such an outcome might not be to their benefit, any more than it has been for blue-collar-types in the States.

    Manipulating their currency down, then up, then down again - that's hardly demonstrative of an embrace of market-forces, is it?


    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RogerFox...


    'Reserve' status tends to make a currency stronger that it otherwise would be.

    [Krugman doesn't seem to believe in the Triffin dilemma, but you are correct. What you mean by "stronger than it otherwise would be" is having a higher foreign exchange value relative to its surplus trading partner's currencies than if they were not holding securities denominated in the reserve currency. So, the reserve currency does have a higher import purchasing power in the face of persistent trade deficits. Whether that increases or decrease the overall trade deficit for the reserve currency nation depends upon the real balance of trade relative to the effect of exchange rates. If US based MNCs were going to offshore production regardless of exchange rates just because of arbitrage over regulation and standard of living (real wages) and the US was going to import the same amount of oil anyway then the over-valued dollar actually reduced the US trade deficit. That may be why Krugman just tiptoed past the Triffin dilemma. ]

    *

    ...When they think it through, the Reds will eventually come to the realization that such an outcome might not be to their benefit, any more than it has been for blue-collar-types in the States...

    [The US had developed a higher standard of living including higher environmental quality and higher labor safety standards. There are plenty of Reds and they do not have much leverage in their political system. Most importantly China can liberalize their financial system while still practicing protectionists industrial policy. What China needs to grow is a switch to domestic consumption and that will take a lot more imported oil. China wants to make this transition. China wants the Triffin dilemma to lower the cost of their oil imports. They are ready to let lower wage countries perform more of the low skill labor while China raises their standard of living and switches from surplus to deficit on trade. China will be smart about what it choses to import though unlike the US. The US was smart about making the rich even richer until they controlled the media and even the political system. The Chinese government would want to avoid that embrace.]


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 04:44 AM


    Lafayette said...


    WAKEY, WAKEY …

    From Forbes : {Technically, the news that many rich people in China have personal ties to China's top leaders is not really news anymore. Nor is it news that many rich Chinese have placed their assets in offshore accounts or even that many rich people in China get that way through peddling influence or corruption.

    After all, the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion, making their American congressional cousins across the Pacific-whose top 50 members are worth only $1.6 billion-look positively poverty stricken. The link between politics and money in China is well-established.*}

    And we thought that Uncle Sam had a problem with too many plutocrats fixing policy from the top?

    Wakey, wakey. The sun rises in the east … !

    *From here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2014/01/28/the-political-plight-of-chinas-wealthy/

    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:25 AM


    anne said in reply to Lafayette...


    After all, the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion...

    [ Not that the crazed viciousness directed against the Chinese will stop, but it is not conceivable that Forbes could know this. ]


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:43 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to anne...


    Anne, don't be naive.

    I have seen this figure confirmed by Chinese, in China, on TV reports here in France. In fact, the reportage was done by some very brave Germans who would not dare set foot again in China.

    The report was very well done, in that it interviewed dissenters in hiding as well as those who had been in jail. It even went to the backwaters of large cities and out into the countryside.

    In fact, I heard quotes for the position of regional leadership that are bantered about and even well-known. Meaning this: The corruption is so wide-spread that those in command are no longer even hiding it.

    I cannot imagine how they (the reporters) got away with it, because the Political Police go right down to the village level. You cannot believe what's going in China from abroad.

    But when it implodes, and it WILL implode, the economic earthquake caused is going to be enormous ...


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:02 AM


    anne said in reply to Lafayette...


    "In fact, the reportage was done by some very brave ------- who would not dare set foot again in China."

    Rubbish, though no doubt self-sacrificing and bravely gathered rubbish, but what is now all important through the West is the destroying of China.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:14 AM


    pgl said in reply to anne...


    How is reporting that a few people have gotten very rich destroying China? You are paranoid here.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:23 AM


    anne said in reply to anne...


    "After all, the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion..."

    "In fact, the reportage was done by some very brave ------- who would not dare set foot again in China."

    Rubbish, though no doubt self-sacrificing and bravely gathered rubbish, but what is now all important through the West is the destroying of China. What is being reported cannot conceivably be known and is simply making up stuff with the intent of destroying China.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:36 AM


    kthomas said in reply to Lafayette...


    Mao is turning in his grave at Ludicrous Speed.


    Im enjoying the hell out of this.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:31 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to kthomas...


    Witnessing what is happening in China from afar is a privilege.

    They are flocking to France this summer because French "style" is highly prized. And what do they find here ... gangs of Romanian pick-pockets.

    They are a decent people, the Chinese, but haven't the slightest sense of "individualism". Quite unlike Americans, who have little sense of "solidarity".

    So, the Chinese are easy to manipulate. And they ARE being manipulated by a corrupt caste-system that has replaced the iron-fist of communist rule.

    These billionaires are "communists" in sheep-clothing - they are no different from Putin's kleptocrats ...


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:55 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to Lafayette...


    NICE MONEY IF YOU CAN GET ... AND YOU CAN GET IT, IF YOU TRY

    {... whose top 50 members are worth only $1.6 billion}

    Only? That's more than a cool $300M each on average.

    Now who the hell "needs" 300M dollars ... ?


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:56 AM


    am said in reply to Lafayette...


    How do they define a billion. If it is 1000 million then 50 into 1.5 billion is 30 million.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:20 AM


    pgl said in reply to am...


    $94.7 billion collectively. Almost $1.9 billion per person. I know - Forbes needs better writers. But the DONALD would still call these rich dudes "light weights". When they each have $10 billion, then he'll be nice to them.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:28 AM


    am said in reply to pgl...


    My comment was about the US combined wealth. Laf says it works out at 300million each for the top 50 but if a billion is 1000 million then he should have said 30million each. All rounded down, of course. I think there are different definitions of a billion which is why I asked the question in the first comment.

    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:39 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to am...


    Your right, it's ONLY $30M. That changes EVERYTHING, doesn't it!

    Dammit, where's that delete button when you need it ... ;^)


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:38 AM


    pgl said in reply to Lafayette...


    I thought the figure was $94.7 billion. Now it is $1.6 billion? Let's get the accounting straight. BTW - $300 million is what the DONALD spends in just a couple of months.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:24 AM


    pgl said in reply to pgl...


    "the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion, making their American congressional cousins across the Pacific-whose top 50 members are worth only $1.6 billion".

    Oh wait - I get this story. Sort of. But 94.7/50 is a bit more than 1.6. Right?


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:26 AM


    pgl said in reply to pgl...


    Oh good grief - the original story reads:

    "MANY Americans grumble about the wealth of their politicians. An annual survey released this month by CQ Roll Call, part of The Economist Group, showed that the median net worth of all Congressmen was $440,000, compared with American household net worth of around $70,000. Indeed, the 50 richest members of Congress hold a staggering $1.6 billion. But that's nothing compared with China. The wealthiest 50 delegates to the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber-stamp parliament, control $94.7 billion, according to the Hurun Report's latest rich list. That's about 60 times more than their American confrères. Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, is the richest man in Congress, with $355m. But that is pocket money compared with the riches of Zong Qinghou, an NPC delegate and boss of Hangzhou Wahaha Group, a drinks-maker, whose wealth totals almost $19 billion (including assets distributed to family members). Americans might not take much succour in being trumped by China, but it certainly brings new meaning to the idea that the seat of political power is called the capital."

    Better writing. The DONALD is still laughing at this as he is worth $10 billion but he has decided that Zong Qingjou is not a light weight.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:32 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to pgl...


    Does the exact number really matter? Nobody knows for sure what the real figure is, so its's just an estimate for the moment.

    I quoted that figure from Forbes ...

    If any division is of - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ...


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:44 AM


    pgl said in reply to Lafayette...


    One of these dudes has raked in $19 billion? Damn - what did he give away to make that?

    And notice - any story on China that says anything other than their growth rate is the highest in a long time sends Anne off in another one of her tantrums. Just sad.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:53 AM


    pgl said...


    China's real exchange rate has doubled over the past 20 years:

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RBCNBIS

    Krugman notes this fact and writes:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/china-2015-is-not-china-2010/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

    "It's true that China's real exchange rate has trended upward for a long time, and that this didn't lead to a loss of competitiveness until recently - mainly because of Balassa-Samuelson and other effects of rising productivity. But with Chinese growth slowing and the pace of appreciation rising - and with rising competition from other emerging markets - the past five years almost surely have brought a major reduction in competitiveness. It's perfectly consistent to believe that China was destructively undervalued in 2010 but overvalued now."

    We used to lecture the Chinese on alleged currency manipulation but maybe we should stop lest we become clowns like the DONALD!

    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:41 AM


    am said...


    http://www.afr.com/markets/chinas-central-bank-moves-to-calm-markets-20150813-giy9w9

    A good Aussie report on the new Chinese policy. Basically the peg has a range for the day's trading. The value at close of business is then the new starting peg the next day. Hence the devaluation each day this week.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:28 AM


    am said in reply to am...


    http://www.afr.com/markets/currencies/hockey-backs-china-central-bank-moves-to-calm-markets-20150813-giyihc
    The Aussies seem to like what is happening with the yuan.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:37 AM


    pgl said in reply to am...

    "China's central bank said it would keep the exchange rate at a "reasonable" and stable level at a press conference on Thursday".

    In other words, pegged at a different level than earlier but still pegged. I say this because Matty Boy Bot thought this meant floating. OK - the Boy Bot gets everything wrong.

    john c. halasz said...

    Umm... the "advantage" of having a reserve currency is that one can borrow cheap and long and then invest at much higher returns elsewhere, especially abroad. Why does PK miss that, instead focusing on the trivial seigniorage? Of course, that's not an advantage for the economy as a whole necessarily, just for certain factions of the elite, but should macroeconomic abstraction blind one to the different interests in play?

    Peter K. said in reply to john c. halasz...

    The carry trade?

    "and then invest at much higher returns elsewhere,"

    And then pull it out in a panic as they did during the East Asian crisis in the late 90s and the European periphery's debt crisis recently.

    or with subprime and mortgage-backed securities with the housing bubbble.


    [Aug 16, 2015] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Republicans Cant Face the Truth About Iraq

    "...For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world's biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington's bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel's most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists."
    .
    "...It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel's viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush's invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region's key nation, is run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship."
    August 15, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Gov. Jeb Bush repeated one of the biggest falsehoods of our time during the recent presidential candidate debate: "we were misled (into the Iraq War) by faulty intelligence."

    US intelligence was not "misled." It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

    PM Tony Blair, forced British intelligence services to "sex up" reports that Iraq had nuclear weapons; he purged the government and the venerable broadcaster BBC of journalists who failed to amplify Blair's lies. Bush and Blair reportedly discussed painting a US Air Force plane in UN colors and getting it to buzz Iraqi anti-aircraft sites in hope the Iraqis would fire on it. Bush told Blair that after conquering Iraq, he intended to invade Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan.

    In fact, Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction," save some rusty barrels of mustard and nerve gas that had been supplied by the US and Britain for use against Iran. I broke this story from Baghdad back in late 1990.

    Tyler Drumheller, who died last week, was the former chief of CIA's European division. He was the highest-ranking intelligence officer to go public and accuse the Bush administration of hyping fabricated evidence to justify invading Iraq.

    Drumheller was particularly forceful in denouncing the Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball," whose ludicrous claims about mobile Iraqi germ laboratories were trumpeted before the UN by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Curveball's" claims were outright lies and Powell, whose career was ruined by parroting these absurd allegations, should have known better.

    "Curveball" was an 'agent provocateur' clearly sent by a neighbor of Iraq to help promote a US attack on that nation. Whether it was Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel that sent Curveball," we still don't know. All three fabricated "evidence" against Iraq and passed it to Washington. That is where US intelligence was indeed misled. But that's only a minor part of the story.

    A Washington cabal of pro-Israel neocons, oil men, and old-fashioned imperialists joined to promote a grossly illegal invasion of oil-rich Iraq. One of its senior members, former Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the most convenient and emotive pretext for war. Orders went out to CIA and NSA to find information linking Iraq to 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction.

    Some of the worst torture inflicted on suspects kidnapped by CIA's action teams was designed to make them admit to a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was, of course, none. But administration officials, like the odious Condoleeza Rice, kept broadly hinting at a nuclear threat to America.

    Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, polls showed a majority of Americans believed Iraq was threatening the US with nuclear attack and was behind 9/11. Amazingly, a poll taken of self-professed evangelical Christians just before the US attacked Iraq showed that over 80% supported war against Iraq. So much for turning the other cheek.

    Most of the US media, notably the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, amplified the lies of the Bush administration. TV networks were ordered never to show American military casualties or civilian dead. Those, like this writer, who questioned the rational for war, or who wouldn't go along with the party line, were blanked out from print and TV.

    For example, I was immediately dropped from a major TV network after daring mention that Israel supported the 2003 Iraq war and would benefit from it. I was blacklisted by another major US TV network at the direct demand of the Bush White House for repeatedly insisting that Iraq had no nuclear capability.

    Very few analysts, journalists, or politicians took time to ask: even if Iraq had nuclear weapons, how could they be delivered to North America? Iraq had no long-range bombers and no missiles with range greater than 100kms. Perhaps by FedEx? No one asked, why would Iraq invite national suicide by trying to hit the US with a nuclear weapon?

    The most original answer came from George W. Bush: nefarious Iraqi freighters were lurking in the North Atlantic carrying "drones of death" that would attack sleeping America. This hallucination was based on a single report that the bumbling Iraqis were working a children's model airplane that, in the end, broke and never flew. What inspired such a phantasmagoria? Pot, too much bourbon, LSD, or thundering orders from Dick Cheney to find a damned good excuse for invading Iraq.

    For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world's biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington's bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel's most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists.

    It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel's viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush's invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region's key nation, is run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship.

    Tyler Drumheller was the only senior CIA officer to stand up and tell Americans they were lied into an unnecessary, illegal war. Today, we have Iraqi déjà vu anew as the lie factories and fear mongers work overtime to promote war with Iran.

    Reprinted with permission from EricMargolis.com.

    [Aug 16, 2015] Iran Nuclear Deal: Why Empire Blinked First

    August 14, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    We've now spent three weeks watching American politicians argue needlessly over the Iran nuclear deal. For or against, they all miss this one salient point: It is the US that needed to end this standoff with Iran – not the other way around.

    For years we have been hearing that US sanctions "were biting" and had "teeth." Sanctions, it was said, would "change Iranian behaviors," whether in regards to the Islamic Republic's "support of terrorism," its "calculations" over its nuclear program, or by turning popular Iranian sentiment against its government.

    Here is US President Obama spinning the fairytale at full volume:

    "We put in place an unprecedented regime of sanctions that has crippled Iran's economy…And it is precisely because of the international sanctions and the coalition that we were able to build internationally that the Iranian people responded by saying, we need a new direction in how we interact with the international community and how we deal with this sanctions regime. And that's what brought President Rouhani to power."
    There is, of course, scant evidence that any of this is true.

    If anything, on the economic front, the net effect of sanctions has been to rally Iranians behind domestic production and thrift – establishing both the discipline and policy focus necessary to sustain the country indefinitely. A 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report explains this unintended consequence of sanctions:

    "There is a growing body of opinion and Iranian assertions that indicates that Iran, through actions of the government and the private sector, is mitigating the economic effect of sanctions. Some argue that Iran might even benefit from sanctions over the long term by being compelled to diversify its economy and reduce dependence on oil revenues. Iran's 2013-2014 budget relies far less on oil exports than have previous budgets, and its exports of minerals, cement, urea fertilizer, and other agricultural and basic industrial goods are increasing substantially."
    Sanctions didn't succeed on the political front either. By in large, Iranians did not hold their leadership responsible for sanctions-related economic duress, nor did they seek rapprochement with the West as a way out. The US continues to flog the narrative that Iranians elected President Hassan Rouhani in a bid to "moderate" foreign policy stances, but a survey conducted by US pollster Zogby Research Services in the immediate aftermath of Rouhani's election turns that premise on its head:

    Ninety-six percent of Iranians surveyed agreed with the statement that "maintaining the right to advance a nuclear program is worth the price being paid in economic sanctions and international isolation." Of those polled, a mere five percent of Iranians felt that improved relations with the US and the West were their top priority.

    No, sanctions have not worked in any of the ways they were intended.
    So if the Iranians were not 'dragged' to the negotiating table, then what was the sudden incentive behind a multilateral effort to forge a deal in 2015 - 36 years after the first US non-nuclear sanctions were levied against the Islamic Republic, and nine years after the UN Security Council first issued nuclear-related sanctions?

    Keep in mind that both the Iranians and the permanent members of the UNSC have offered up proposals to end the nuclear deadlock since 2003. So why, this deal, now?

    Could it be that the Americans had simply blinked first?

    And the world turned

    It must be understood that much of this nuclear brouhaha has nothing to do with Iran actually possessing or aspiring to possess nuclear weapons. The Islamic Republic neither has nuclear weapons, nor does it profess to want them.
    US intelligence agencies, over the years, have conceded that Iran has not even made the "decision" to pursue weaponization, and the IAEA has repeatedly stated in 52 periodic assessment reports that there has been "no diversion"of nuclear materials to a weapons program.

    In short, all the fuss has really only ever been about containing, isolating and taming a developing nation with aspirations that challenge Empire's hegemony.
    Iran was never going to be able to change the rules of the game single-handedly. That is, until the game itself shifted hands and direction.

    In 2012, cracks in the global economic and political power structures started to shift dramatically. We started to see the emergence of the BRICS, in particular Russia and China, as influential movers of global events. Whether it was a shift in trading currencies from the conventional dollar/euro to the rupee/yuan/ruble, or the emergence of new global economic/defense institutions initiated by BRICS member states, the world's middle powers began to assert themselves and project power on the international stage.

    But it was in the vast and complicated Middle East arena that old power and new power came to clash most ferociously.

    In November 2011, the year of the Arab uprisings, the BRICS announced their first collective foreign policy statement, urging the rejection of foreign intervention in Syria's internal affairs.

    By 2012, it started becoming clear that the crisis in Syria was being heavily fomented by external players, including the three UNSC Western permanent members, the US, UK and France and their regional allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO-member Turkey.

    In 2012, it also became clear that Al-Qaeda and other militant Islamist fighters were dominating the opposition inside the Syrian military theater and that these elements were being backed by the United States and its allies.

    The American calculus, at this point, was to allow and even encourage the proliferation of fighters prepared to unseat the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, anticipating that at some future date they could then reverse the gains of radicals.

    Assad did not fall, but extremism – fueled by funding, arming and training from US allies – entrenched itself further in Syria.

    This did not go unnoticed in Washington, which has always struggled to make a coherent case for its Syria strategies. The rise of ISIS (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) and the flood of jihadists into the Syrian theater began to change the American calculations. The US began to work on hedging its bets…and that is when Iran began to factor significantly in America's Plan B.

    That Plan B began in mid-2012, just as Saudi Arabia's incoming intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan was preparing for a violent escalation in Syria, one that would exacerbate the Islamist militancy in the Levant exponentially.

    That July, secret backchannel talks between the United States and Iran were established in Oman, kicked off, according to the Wall Street Journal, by "a pattern of inducements offered by Washington to coax Tehran to the table."

    Take note that the Americans initiated this process, not the allegedly "sanctions-fatigued" Iranians, and that this outreach began when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was at the helm, not his successor Rouhani.

    Iran – or bust

    Iran's elite Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani said a few months ago: "Today, there is nobody in confrontation with [IS] except the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as nations who are next to Iran or supported by Iran."

    If you look at the array of ground forces amassed against Islamist radicals from Lebanon to Iraq, they consist almost entirely of elements allied with the Islamic Republic, or are recipients of weapons and sometimes training provided by the Iranians.

    There are no combat forces from Western states and none from their Arab or Turkish allies within the region.

    'Boots on the ground' are essential in asymmetrical warfare, but the US military will continue to oppose inserting its troops into direct combat situations in Syria and Iraq.

    In a Telegraph op-ed on the eve of the Vienna nuclear agreement, Britain's influential former ambassador to Washington Christopher Meyer wrote:

    "Whether we like it or not, we are in de facto alliance against ISIL with Assad of Syria and with Iran, the implacable foe of our long-standing ally, Sunni Saudi Arabia…. if ISIL is able to expand further in the Middle East, won't this unavoidably lead to the conclusion that our strategic ally in the region for the 21st century must be Iran?"
    This is the conundrum Washington began facing in 2012. And so it set in motion a face-saving strategy to enable itself to "deal" with Iran directly.

    The Vienna Agreement

    Here's what the Iran nuclear deal does – besides the obvious: it takes the old American-Iranian "baggage" off the table for the US administration, allowing it the freedom to pursue more pressing shared political objectives with Iran.

    The Iranians understood full well in Vienna that they were operating from a strong regional position and that the US needed this deal more urgently. The Americans tried several times to get Iran to expand discussions to address regional issues on a parallel track, but the Iranians refused point-blank. They were not prepared to allow the US to gain any leverage in various regional battlefields in order to weaken Iran's position within broader talks.

    Although the Iranians are careful to point out that the Vienna agreement is only as good as the "intentions" of their partners, this deal is essentially a satisfactory one for Tehran. It ensures rigorous verification that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, which is great for a country that doesn't seek one.
    It also provides Iran with protections against 'over-inspection' and baseless accusations, dismisses all UNSC resolutions against the Islamic Republic, recognizes the country's enrichment program, provides extensive international sanctions relief, binds all UN member-states to this agreement (yes, Israel too) and nails down an end-date for this whole nuclear saga.

    The deal also frees up Iran to pursue its regional plans with less inhibitions.
    "What the president (Obama) and his aides do not talk about these days - for fear of further antagonizing lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have cast Iran as the ultimate enemy of the United States - are their grander ambitions for a deal they hope could open up relations with Tehran and be part of a transformation in the Middle East," reads a post-Vienna article in the New York Times.

    US Secretary of State John Kerry, commenting after the deal, said: "I know that a Middle East that is on fire is going to be more manageable with this deal and opens more potential for us to be able to deal with those fires, whether it is Houthi in Yemen or ISIL in Syria and Iraq than no deal and the potential of another confrontation with Iran at the same time."

    "The Iran agreement is a disaster for ISIS," blares the headline from a post-agreement op-ed by EU foreign affairs chief Frederica Mogherini. She explains:

    "ISIS is spreading its vicious and apocalyptic ideology in the Middle East and beyond…An alliance of civilizations can be our most powerful weapon in the fight against terror…We need to restart political processes to end wars. We need to get all regional powers back to the negotiating table and stop the carnage. Cooperation between Iran, its neighbors and the whole international community could open unprecedented possibilities of peace for the region, starting from Syria, Yemen and Iraq."
    Clearly, for Western leaders Iran is an essential component in any fight against ISIS and other like-minded terror groups. Just as clearly, they have realized that excluding Iran from the resolution of various regional conflicts is a non-starter.
    That is some significant back-tracking from earlier Western positions explicitly excluding Iran from a seat at the table on Mideast matters.

    And stay tuned for further policy revisions - once this train gets underway, it will indeed be "transformative."

    As for the Iran nuclear deal…except for some hotheads in Congress and the US media, most of the rest of the world has already moved on. As chief US negotiator and undersecretary for political affairs, Wendy Sherman said recently: "If we walk away, quite frankly we walk away alone."

    The balance of power has shifted decisively in the Middle East. Washington wants out of the mess it helped create, and it can't exit the region without Iran's help. The agreement in Vienna was reached to facilitate this possibility. Iran is not inclined to reward the US for bad behavior, but will also likely not resist efforts to broker regional political settlements that make sense.

    It was not a weak Iran that came to the final negotiations in Vienna and it was not a crippled Iran that left that table.

    As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (for once) aptly observed:

    "It is stunning to me how well the Iranians, sitting alone on their side of the table, have played a weak hand against the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain on their side of the table. When the time comes, I'm hiring (Iran's Supreme Leader) Ali Khamenei to sell my house."
    Iran just exited UNSC Chapter 7 sanctions via diplomacy rather than war, and it's now focusing its skill-sets on unwinding conflict in the Middle East. If you're planning to challenge Empire anytime soon, make sure to get a copy of Iran's playbook. Nobody plays the long game better - and with more patience.

    Reprinted with permission from RT.

    [Aug 16, 2015] Deal or War': Is Doomed Dollar Really Behind Obama's Iran Warning?

    "..."At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the international payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."
    The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct of international trade and financial transactions..."
    .
    "...Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery.""
    .
    "..."If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the US economy.""
    .
    "...Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey. He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed in 2007-08.... "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"..."
    .
    "...President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option..."
    August 15, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    US President Barack Obama has given an extraordinary ultimatum to the Republican-controlled Congress, arguing that they must not block the nuclear accord with Iran. It's either "deal or war," he says.

    In a televised nationwide address on August 5, Obama said: "Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any US administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative. I am stating a fact."

    The American Congress is due to vote on whether to accept the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed July 14 between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers – the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Republicans are openly vowing to reject the JCPOA, along with hawkish Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer. Opposition within the Congress may even be enough to override a presidential veto to push through the nuclear accord.

    In his drastic prediction of war, one might assume that Obama is referring to Israel launching a preemptive military strike on Iran with the backing of US Republicans. Or that he is insinuating that Iran will walk from self-imposed restraints on its nuclear program to build a bomb, thus triggering a war.

    But what could really be behind Obama's dire warning of "deal or war" is another scenario – the collapse of the US dollar, and with that the implosion of the US economy.

    That scenario was hinted at this week by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking in New York on August 11, Kerry made the candid admission that failure to seal the nuclear deal could result in the US dollar losing its status as the top international reserve currency.

    "If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell [US allies], 'You're going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world."

    In other words, what really concerns the Obama administration is that the sanctions regime it has crafted on Iran – and has compelled other nations to abide by over the past decade – will be finished. And Iran will be open for business with the European Union, as well as China and Russia.

    It is significant that within days of signing the Geneva accord, Germany, France, Italy and other EU governments hastened to Tehran to begin lining up lucrative investment opportunities in Iran's prodigious oil and gas industries. China and Russia are equally well-placed and more than willing to resume trading partnerships with Iran. Russia has signed major deals to expand Iran's nuclear energy industry.

    American writer Paul Craig Roberts said that the US-led sanctions on Iran and also against Russia have generated a lot of frustration and resentment among Washington's European allies.

    "US sanctions against Iran and Russia have cost businesses in other countries a lot of money," Roberts told this author.

    "Propaganda about the Iranian nuke threat and Russian threat is what caused other countries to cooperate with the sanctions. If a deal worked out over much time by the US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany is blocked, other countries are likely to cease cooperating with US sanctions."

    Roberts added that if Washington were to scuttle the nuclear accord with Iran, and then demand a return to the erstwhile sanctions regime, the other international players will repudiate the American diktat.

    "At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the international payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."

    The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct of international trade and financial transactions.

    Former World Bank analyst Peter Koenig says that if the nuclear accord unravels, Iran will be free to trade its oil and gas – worth trillions of dollars – in bilateral currency deals with the EU, Japan, India, South Korea, China and Russia, in much the same way that China and Russia and other members of the BRICS nations have already begun to do so.

    That outcome will further undermine the US dollar. It will gradually become redundant as a mechanism of international payment.

    Koenig argues that this implicit threat to the dollar is the real, unspoken cause for anxiety in Washington. The long-running dispute with Iran, he contends, was never about alleged weapons of mass destruction. Rather, the real motive was for Washington to preserve the dollar's unique global standing.

    "The US-led standoff with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons," says Koenig. The issue is: will Iran eventually sell its huge reserves of hydrocarbons in other currencies than the dollar, as they intended to do in 2007 with an Iranian Oil Bourse? That is what instigated the American-contrived fake nuclear issue in the first place."

    This is not just about Iran. It is about other major world economies moving away from holding the US dollar as a means of doing business. If the US unilaterally scuppers the international nuclear accord, Washington will no longer be able to enforce its financial hegemony, which the sanctions regime on Iran has underpinned.

    Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery."

    As Paul Craig Roberts commented, the dollar's value has only been maintained because up to now the rest of the world needs the greenback to do business with. That dependency has allowed the US Federal Reserve to keep printing banknotes in quantities that are in no way commensurate with the American economy's decrepit condition.

    "If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the US economy."

    Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey.

    He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed in 2007-08.

    The picture he painted isn't pretty: "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"

    President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option.

    Reprinted with permission from RT.

    [Aug 15, 2015] Radek Sikorski Throws Eggs At Ben Judah And Blake Hounshell - Hits Faces

    As Russian is now official enemy of the US empire, to slander Russia became the new non-contact sport for Polish neocon "athletes". Radek Sikorski decided to rush for the gold medal.
    moonofalabama.org

    Yesterday Politico promoted a story about "Putin's Coup written by junior neocon Ben Judah. The lede:

    The war in Ukraine is no longer only about Ukraine. The conflict has transformed Russia. This increasingly is what European leaders and diplomats believe: that Vladimir Putin and his security establishment have used the fog of war in Ukraine to shroud the final establishment of his brittle imperialist dictatorship in Moscow.

    Among those who believe that this is happening, and that Europe will be facing down a more menacing Russia for a long time to come, is Radek Sikorski, who was Poland's foreign minister from 2007 until September.

    Anything that starts off by calling the elected government of the Russian Federation an "imperialist dictatorship" is obviously rubbish.

    But the hard right-wing Radek Sikorski, who ones had a U.S. passport and is married to the neocon Washington Post columnist Anne Appelbaum, always makes some funny jokes like identifying Obama's grandfather as a cannibal so I read on.

    And I was right, there were some really funny lines in there:

    Russia has attempted to involve Poland in the invasion of Ukraine, just as if it were a post-modern re-run of the historic partitions of Poland. "He wanted us to become participants in this partition of Ukraine," says Sikorski. "Putin wants Poland to commit troops to Ukraine. These were the signals they sent us. … We have known how they think for years. We have known this is what they think for years. This was one of the first things that Putin said to my prime minister, Donald Tusk, [soon to be President of the European Council] when he visited Moscow. He went on to say Ukraine is an artificial country and that Lwow is a Polish city and why don't we just sort it out together. Luckily Tusk didn't answer. He knew he was being recorded."

    So Russia was planning, in 2008, to divide Ukraine between Poland and itself? Why the hell should or would Russia ever take up such a burden? Why should it create a mess in Eastern Europe which would be against all its interests? Anyone who has intelligently watched Putin and Russian politics would immediately recognize that Sikorski's claim is obviously false. Putin does realpolitik, always and ever. He reacts when Russia gets attacked, by Georgia's artillery on Russian peacekeepers or by a U.S. plotted neonazi coup in Kiev, but he is certainly not one who will risk anything significant for some lunatic imperial phantasy.

    Whoever came up with that funny joke must have had way too many drinks. And the reporter who believed it and the editor who published it must have way too few braincells.

    Reuters though thought differently, or just for fun wanted to stir the caldron, and distributed the nonsense on its wire.

    Following that wire, Russia characterized the claim as "a fable" and Sikorski was pressed to take it back. That did not go well either:

    In a news conference on Tuesday, Sikorski was vague about whether he made those exact remarks to Politico Magazine and told journalists to refer to another interview he gave to a Polish media website. He said there that he didn't hear Putin's words firsthand, but stressed that they were treated in 2008 as "surrealistic" or a joke.

    Later in the day, he held a second news conference where he said his memory had failed him in the interview with Politico Magazine and that the bilateral meeting between Tusk and Putin didn't take place in Moscow, as he said earlier, but at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008.

    So Sikorski said:

    • "Putin suggested to Tusk to divide Ukraine between themselves."
    • "Putin suggested to Tusk to divide Ukraine between themselves, but it was a joke."
    • "Putin suggested to Tusk to divide Ukraine between themselves, but I wasn't present at the conservation."
    • "No such conservation took place and I certainly was not present when it happened."

    Sikorski even got the place of Putin-Tusk meeting wrong. The Politico author and editors, Blake Hounshell in this case, obviously did not even do a basic fact-checking of their sources claims.

    Sikorski is nuts. Everyone in Europe knows this and that is exactly the reason why he was recently fired as Foreign Minister of Poland and reassigned to play Speaker of Parliament where one had hoped that he would produce less nonsense. As that reassignment did not help it is now really time to send him off to the American Enterprise Institute or some other asylum for neoconned lunatics. His boss seems to agree:

    Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz, who's in the same party as Sikorski, criticized him for dodging reporters' questions on the issue at the first conference. Political opponents want him fired, saying there is no room in politics for what they called irresponsibility.

    Kopacz said she expected Sikorski to directly answer reporters' questions.

    "I will not tolerate this kind of behavior. I will not tolerate this kind of standards that Speaker Sikorski tried to present at today's (news) conference," Kopacz said.

    Note to reporters and editors: Publishing such nonsense like Sikorski's obviously rubbish claims is egg on your faces. Lots of it.

    Oui | Oct 21, 2014 3:38:59 PM | 1

    .. who once had a U.S. passport.

    He held a British passport, worked as a "roving reporter" for National Reniew in Angola on the UNITA project with neocons like Condi Rice, Abramoff and Gingrich; witnessed the first Stinger missiles handed to mujihadeen in Tora Bora; worked for AEI and the Atlantic Initiative; pushed the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, was defense minister and FM in Poland and is married to Anne Applebaum.

    National Review reporter Sikorski as witness to US Congress: The Mystique of Savimbi | Oct. 12, 1989 |
    Radek Sikorski Returns to Ukraine's Headlines: Putin's Coup

    james | Oct 21, 2014 3:59:21 PM | 2

    this guy should get a gig working with the usa state dept.. oh wait - i guess he indirectly does in a weird sort of way thru his bozo propagandist wife annie applepants..great couple.. i take it they live in the usa, right?

    Oui | Oct 21, 2014 4:00:58 PM | 3

    We don't have Faux News, however the public news broadcast treats the Dutch with "neutral" observers on Ukraine and Putin's Russia with Ben Judah and Anne Applebaum.

    Nana2007 | Oct 21, 2014 4:09:06 PM | 4

    It's sad to think that the great experiment in democracy that is the US has devolved into 'making it up as we go along'' and a core belief in ignorance. The US at it's inception was bankrolled by Russian trade and diplomacy, so I guess it would be fitting if it be undermined by the same. With senility spreading among even the junior elite quicker than Ebola, the words 'We will bury you' are looking more prescient by the day.

    Anonymous | Oct 21, 2014 4:15:31 PM | 5

    Here he is..
    http://freepl.info/uploads/foto/2011/08/radek_sikorski_w_afganistanie.jpg

    Hugo First | Oct 21, 2014 4:24:47 PM | 6

    The initial claim goes out, is picked up on the wire, and after that all the retractions and controversy are quickly lost in the shuffle as more scurrilous claims are stuffed into the slobbering maw of gullible "news" consumers. This is how the game is played, and it is cynical and insults the intelligence of anyone able to recall what was said or done last week, but it reminds me of people who drive while their attention is focused on their ongoing cellphone conversation: they barely know what's going on around them, and forget about what they've driven past.

    somebody | Oct 21, 2014 4:28:49 PM | 7

    It is an old idea - last being floated in March

    Reuters) - A prominent Russian politician has proposed dividing Ukraine along the lines of an infamous Nazi-Soviet pact and suggested that regions in Western Ukraine hold referendums on breaking away from Kiev.

    In a letter sent to the governments of Poland, Romania and Hungary, Vladimir Zhirinovsky also suggested those countries hold referendums on incorporating the regions into their territory.

    Zhirinovsky, whose nationalist Liberal Democratic party largely backs President Vladimir Putin in the Russian parliament, sent the letter as Russia annexed the Crimea region of southern Ukraine last week.

    He is deputy speaker at the Duma and his party holds a minority in the parliament. But his ideas and language resonate with a large part of the Russian population and the Kremlin's increasingly pro-nationalist rhetoric.

    His letter, seen by Reuters, suggested Poland, Hungary and Romania, who are now in the European Union, might wish to take back regions which he said were in the past their territories.

    The regions were incorporated into Ukraine when it was part of the Soviet Union at the end of World War Two and featured in a secret annex of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact under which the Soviet and Nazi German foreign ministers carved up the area.

    The politics of this are beyond my understanding. But Reuters considering it news in March - and straining the news to implicate Putin - presumably was supposed to embarrass Germany by referencing the Hitler Stalin pact, which actually was something completely different.

    Sikorski spreading the rumour is crazy. I suspect a lot of people threaten to wash dirty linen just now when Europe is supposed to pay for Ukraine's gas and Poland's activities in Ukraine could be part of it.

    I guess it is due to the negotiations process. Ukraine's position does not look good. Talking of the Polish partition does nothing to improve it.

    There seems a lot of hard bargaining going on - the United States suddenly sanction Hungarian.

    Don Bacon | Oct 21, 2014 4:52:37 PM | 9

    @somebody #7
    ...Reuters considering it news in March...

    "News" ain't what it used to be, if it ever was. Only a small part of Reuters is news, most of it is financials. Same with Bloomberg and Wall Street Journal, etc. (Reuters and Bloomberg are particularly helpful in promoting stock activity when the place the ticker symbol after the corporate name in "news" articles.)

    wiki--Reuters Group plc was a British multinational media and financial information company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. It merged with The Thomson Corporation in 2008, forming Thomson Reuters. Reuters Group was best known for the Reuters news agency, which was the original business of the company. By the time of its merger with Thomson the bulk of Reuters Group's revenues came from the provision of financial market data, with news reporting comprising less than 10% of its turnover.

    Look at the Reuters news header to get an idea of Reuters' priorities:
    home-business-markets-world-politics etc
    So what was the financial benefit to Reuters with this bogus "news?" I don't know, but I bet they knew.

    Michal | Oct 21, 2014 4:56:35 PM | 10

    Kopacz is not his boss. Actually the Speaker of Parliament is a higher rank than Prime Minister, or at least parallel in constitutional hierarchy. She might be considered his boss within the party but still she's not the one who decides there.

    Anyway, being Polish, I'm happy that this utter idiot is not representing my country abroad anymore. I hope after this incident he will be flushed down the toilet. Pity that in politics shit often resurfaces.

    Almand | Oct 21, 2014 4:57:00 PM | 11

    Sikorski maybe a loose cannon, but isn't some partition of the Ukraine an inevitabilty? Eastern Ukraine has no reason to ever trust the coup government again, and reconciliation doesn't seem to be an option anymore. Neither the EU nor Russia wants the responsibility of propping up the rapidly failing state (to say nothing of the gas bill owed Russia).

    Regardless, the idea that Russia would want a new border region full of hostile Ukrainians inside a hostile, NATO member Poland seems a touch... absurd. Then again, what's the need for logic when dredging up bad memories of WW2?

    [Aug 10, 2015] Big myth that Yanukovych was pro-Russian

    karl1haushofer, August 8, 2015 at 7:32 am
    "This is good to remember, because long before Maidan, every single government in "independent Ukraine" was a puppet of the West and incessantly plotting against Russia."

    Even Yanukovich government???

    Moscow Exile, August 8, 2015 at 8:24 am
    Big myth that Yanukovych was pro-Russian.

    He was pro-Viktor Yanukovych.

    And Putin, they say, can't stand him: never could.

    At least, that's what a man who rods the blocked drains at the Kremlin Palace told me.

    This person, Elizabeth Pond, believes that "the reasons why Putin can't stand Yanukovich are: First, Yanukovich wasn't smart enough not to kill the goose while he was pocketing golden eggs, and second, Yanukovich had the effrontery to play off Russia and the EU for two years".

    Medvedev used to suck-hole up to Yanukovych though:

    Well he would, wouldn't he?

    marknesop, August 8, 2015 at 11:14 am
    It often seemed that Putin could barely restrain himself from being openly impatient with Yanukovych, and he seemed to me (just a personal opinion, unsupported by anything analytical) to consider Yanukovych a provincial clod not a great deal different from Yeltsin. For his part, Yanukovych appeared thoroughly committed to the EU Association agreement and subsequent EU membership – which probably would have happened quite briskly, had Ukraine not been shattered by war and assuming it remained intact – even going so far as to hold that private and semi-secret meeting (in a theatre or something, wasn't it?) that we learned of via our talented researcher Peter, in which he allegedly raged at his government that Ukraine was irrevocably on an EU course and he would have the guts of anyone who did not get on board the plan. It seems very ironic now to observe that had the west not pulled the rug out from under Yanukovych – in a display of overconfidence that is so typical as to constitute the default – by insisting that Tymoshenko be freed as a condition, then compounding the error by pulling the trigger on a violent coup, there is every reason to imagine they would have gotten the whole of Ukraine, including Crimea, none the worse for wear.

    [Aug 10, 2015]Naryshkin: the US wants to grab the natural resources of other countries

    For this purpose, according to the speaker, America and leads the sanctions against Russia. The United States plans not only to maintain the dollar as the sole world currency, but I want to get as close to the economic resources of other countries in the world, according to the Chairman of the state Duma Sergey Naryshkin.

    "Actually, because of that, the U.S. has now published a new list of Russian organizations and individuals, giving instructions to their banks (and with them European) to work with our structures and look for any and all reasons," he said in his article published in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta".

    Naryshkin believes that America "stops to help even the existence of global "printing press". "Do not save and complete control over NATO, wiretapping and blackmail "League" of European Union. The colonizers "model of the XXI century" - all this is not enough. The main goal is to assign to American jurisdiction global monopolies, and to maintain his influence on the financial system of the world, to stay here the only Potentate," said Naryshkin.

    [Aug 09, 2015] Seven countries near bankruptcy

    Aug 08, 2015 | usatoday.com

    Moody's Investors' Service rates seven countries Caa1 or worse, several tiers lower than Ba1, which still carries a significant credit risk. These countries are approaching or have narrowly escaped bankruptcy. Ukraine is rated Ca, which is currently the lowest credit rating of any country reviewed by Moody's.

    ... ... ...

    Ukraine

    > Moody's credit rating: Ca
    > Moody's outlook: Negative
    > 2015 Gov't debt (pct. of GDP): 94.1%
    > 2015 GDP per capita (PPP): $8,278

    Ukraine's conflict with Russia over its annexation of Crimea continues to fuel the country's financial problems. While the IMF approved Ukraine's debt restructuring plan in March, Ukraine has the worst credit rating of any country reviewed, downgraded this year from Caa3 to Ca, the second lowest possible level. Creditors can expect a 35% to 65% recovery rate on loans issued by the country. According to Moody's, "The likelihood of a distressed exchange, and hence a default on government debt taking place, is virtually 100%."

    The same day that Moody's issued the downgrade, the National Bank of Ukraine announced the establishment of the Financial Stability Council. According to Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriia Gonatreva, the Council's function will be to "take a comprehensive and systemic approach to identify and mitigate the risks threatening the stability of the banking and financial systems of the country."

    [Aug 09, 2015] The main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    yalensis, August 7, 2015 at 2:54 pm

    Op-ed by Sergei Markov, a Russian political analyst who is considered to be close to the views of the Kremlin:

    http://rusnext.ru/recent_opinions/1438977256

    According to Markov, Kiev was only interested in the first part of the Minsk Accords, namely in a panic to stop counter-offensive of Novorossiya army, after their debacle at Debaltsevo.

    But they have zero interest in carrying out the rest of the accords.

    Plus, according to Markov, Kiev is under instructions from their American masters, to continue the war at all costs.
    According to Markov, Kiev is actually carrying out a plan called the "Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan", and I googled Gorbulin, but couldn't get any more information, so I don't know who this person is.

    But the main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan are said to be:

    1. Kiev does not take on any (Minsk) obligations which involve peace-making moves.
    2. Full blockade (of Donbass).
    3. Continue artillery shelling of residential areas of Donbass, kill as many civilians as possible.
    4. This in order to make life unbearable in Donbass.
    5. The goal is to turn the residents against their leaders, in DPR and LPR.
    6. Weaken Russia with sanctions.
    7. Planning a military blitzkrieg against Donbass, on the model of the attack of Croatian army against Serbian Krajina.
    8. NATO will station troops in Kharkov, Zaporozhie and Dnipropetrovsk.
    9. NATO will beef up Ukrainian army and prepare for fatal strike against Donbass.
    10. The police state/dictatorship in Ukraine will be strengthened.

    marknesop, August 7, 2015 at 5:45 pm

    Volodymyr (Ukraine has to spell it differently so they can all high-five each other, the way the British deliberately misspell "tire") Gorbulin is the former National Defense and Security Council (NDSC) Secretary, now a personal adviser to Poroshenko. Looks a right Himmler type.

    [Aug 09, 2015] The intention of installing Gaidar in a position of power in Ukraine is to infuriate Russia

    Moscow Exile, August 8, 2015 at 3:11 am
    Мария Гайдар отказалась от российского гражданства

    Maria Gaidar renounces Russian citizenship

    On Friday, August 7, Maria Gaidar, the newly created assistant to the Odessa Region governor, Mikhail Saakashvili, wrote a statement renouncing her Russian citizenship.

    "I do not know when this might take place: it is just a formality that I was ready for and I wrote the statement", she told reporters.

    Up to then, Gaidar had insisted that she was not going to voluntarily give up her Russian citizenship. And if she was deprived of it, then it would be a "tragic moment".

    This week, Ukrainian President Poroshenko personally handed her a Ukrainian citizen's passport, Gaidar thereupon stating that she was ready "to share the fate of the Ukrainian people".

    It seems that this political whore's stance changes as rapidly as does a real whore's in response to her clients requests.

    yalensis, August 8, 2015 at 3:25 am
    I don't think that Maria is actually being a whore.

    I think this is what she truly believes, and she is willng to take this big risk (losing her Russian passport) for what she believes in.
    Which is NATO, Bandera, and the American Way of Life.

    Besides, all of this has been brewing ever since August of 2008.

    Jen, August 8, 2015 at 4:53 am
    I'm thinking that Maria Gaidar, like Kurt of Lemberg, lives in a parallel fantasy world and does not realise the full import of what she is doing in renouncing Russian citizenship. Perhaps she half-expects Moscow to refuse or denounce her renunciation and make her into a martyr, in which case the right thing for Moscow to do is to publicly accept her disavowal and say her Russian citizenship will be annulled in due course.
    yalensis, August 8, 2015 at 5:05 pm
    Maria is making a desperate wager. Like Pushkin's Hermann, she is going all-in, betting everything that she has, on 3 cards, which she received in a mystic vision.

    She is wagering that Russia, an ancient and respectable nation of 150 million people, will collapse; and that her new Motherland, a johnny-come-lately nation of 20 years and some 40 million souls, most of them unwilling participants, will flourish, in the arms of NATO..

    Instead, it is more likely that Ukraine will dissolve into several parts.

    Maria's former boss and lover, Governor NIkita Belykh, will not join her in this illogical wager. He is a kreakl too, but is more of a realist, he knows that the 3 cards are just a cruel scam. This is why he (Nikita) remarked that Maria still has not achieved her final state of self-realization.

    kirill, August 8, 2015 at 4:07 am

    Good riddance. The rest of the liberast 3% should pack their bags and bugger on off. Fifth column degenerate trash.
    marknesop, August 8, 2015 at 9:43 am
    As I mentioned previously, I devoutly hope she does indeed share the fate of the Ukrainian people. Cats like her always land on their feet, though, and she'll bug out before things go completely sideways. The difference is that now she will not be able to go back to Russia. Well, maybe not – Ukrainian citizens are still able to travel to Russia at will. But she will have foresworn benefits of Russian citizenship that she will not be able to get back. I reckon she will head off to the Shining City On A Hill for eventual residence, where she will doubtless be received with the ecstasy traditionally reserved for "Russian dissidents".
    ThatJ, August 8, 2015 at 12:13 pm
    The intention of installing Gaidar in a position of power in Ukraine is to infuriate Russia, but it will backfire: she will be a reminder of liberal treachery and failure.

    [Aug 09, 2015] The Link Between Oil Reserves and Oil Prices

    Aug 05, 2015 | energytrendsinsider.com

    Last December the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its latest estimate of U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves. Although natural gas reserves rose, the real story was crude oil reserves. The EIA reported that U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate had increased for the fifth year in a row, and had exceeded 36 billion barrels for the first time since 1975:

    fig_1

    There are two reasons for this increase in proved reserves. The first is that despite >150 years of oil production in the U.S., new fields are still being discovered. In March 2015 the EIA released its update to the Top 100 U.S. Oil and Gas Fields as a supplement to the December report. This was the EIA's first update on the Top 100 fields since 2009. The most significant addition to the list was the Eagleville field (in the Eagle Ford Shale), which was only discovered in 2009 but is now the top producing oil field in the U.S. In addition to the Eagleville, there were 4 other fields in the Top 100 that were only discovered in 2009. Several others in the Top 100 were discovered in 2007 and 2008.

    But the largest additions to reserves weren't via new discoveries at all. The largest reserves additions have been a result of rising oil prices, and this is a source of frequent misunderstanding on the topic on reserves.

    An oil resource describes the total amount of oil in place, most of which typically can't be technically or economically recovered. For example, it is estimated that the Bakken Shale centered under North Dakota may contain several hundred billion barrels of oil (the resource). However, what is technically and economically recoverable in the Bakken may be less than 10 billion barrels. The portion that is technically AND economically recoverable is the proved reserve. Because of the requirement that the oil be economically recoverable, proved reserves are a function of oil prices and available technology.

    Thus, as oil prices rise, oil resources that may have been discovered decades ago can be shifted into the category of proved reserves. Venezuela provides a perfect case study of this phenomenon. Venezuela has an enormous heavy oil resource in the Orinoco region of the country. But this oil is very expensive to extract. In 2003, Venezuela's proved oil reserves were only 77 billion barrels. At that time Saudi Arabia's reserves were tops in the world at 263 billion barrels.

    After the past decade saw oil prices rise to above $100/barrel, more of Venezuela's heavy oil resource became economic to produce. Thus, by 2013 Venezuela's proved reserves were estimated to be tops in the world - 289 billion barrels. Saudi Arabia has now slipped to second with 266 billion barrels.

    But that economic argument cuts both ways. Oil and gas resources that became proved reserves as prices rose will be declassified as proved reserves should lower prices render them uneconomical to produce. This is often the reason that companies have to write down proved reserves. It's not that a company believed there was oil or gas and found out later that there wasn't (although that of course also happens), it's generally because a period of depressed prices has rendered those proved reserves to be no longer economical. See the dip in gas reserves in 2012? That was caused by lower prices in 2012, which rebounded somewhat in 2013.

    ... ... ...

    Because of the crash in oil prices, it is likely that many companies will have to write down their proved reserves - especially those in the PUD category. Thus, for the first time in several years, many companies - and indeed countries, including the U.S. - are likely to see a big drop in their proved reserves at year-end when they file their annual reports. I will discuss this in more detail in an upcoming article.

    Note: This is a slightly edited version of an article that originally appeared in the Oil and Gas Monitor called Proved Oil Reserves the Real Story.

    [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

    Notable quotes:
    "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
    "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

    1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
    2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
    3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
    4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
    5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

    Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

    "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

    He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

    "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

    In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

    Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

    "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

    Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

    The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

    DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

    France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

    The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

    (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

    [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

    Notable quotes:
    "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
    "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

    1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
    2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
    3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
    4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
    5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

    Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

    "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

    He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

    "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

    In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

    Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

    "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

    Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

    The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

    DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

    France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

    The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

    (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

    [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

    Notable quotes:
    "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
    "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

    1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
    2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
    3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
    4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
    5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

    Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

    "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

    He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

    "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

    In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

    Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

    "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

    Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

    The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

    DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

    France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

    The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

    (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

    [Aug 08, 2015] France to pay Russia under $1.31 billion over warships

    Notable quotes:
    "... In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday. ..."
    "... The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    PARIS (Reuters) - The total cost to France of reimbursing Russia for cancelling two warship contracts will be less than 1.2 billion euros ($1.31 billion), French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday.

    1. France says 'several' nations interested in Mistral warships AFP
    2. Hollande, Putin reach agreement on cancelled warship deal AFP
    3. Russia agrees compensation deal with France over Mistral warships AFP
    4. 'Extremely difficult' for France to sell Mistral warships: experts AFP
    5. France, Russia reach Mistral compensation deal: RIA Reuters

    Le Drian said on radio RTL the initial price for the two Mistral helicopter carrier warships had been 1.2 billion euros, but France will have to pay less than that because the ships were not been finished and the contract was suspended.

    "Talks between President Putin and President Francois Hollande have concluded yesterday. There is no further dispute on the matter," he said.

    He added that the discussions had been held in an amiable way and that there were no further penalties to pay over the contract, which was canceled because of Russia's role in the Ukraine conflict.

    "Russia will be reimbursed euro for euro for the financial commitments taken for these ships," he said, adding that the ships are now fully owned by the French state.

    In exchange for the reimbursements, France will have full freedom to do whatever it wants with the two undelivered vessels, which contain some Russian technology, according to statements from Hollande's office and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.

    Le Drian said that France, whose navy already has three Mistral warships, would look for other buyers for the two ships.

    "I am convinced there will be other buyers. Already a number of countries have expressed an interest for these two ships," he said.

    Canada and Singapore have been mentioned as potential buyers. So has Egypt, which has just bought French fighter jets and naval frigates.

    The ships' builder, state-backed DCNS, said last month it was spending at least 1 million euros ($1.1 million) a month to hold on to them.

    DCNS is 35 percent owned by defense group Thales and 64 percent by the French state.

    France last year suspended the Mistral contract, dating from 2011, after coming under pressure from its Western allies over Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis.

    The long-discussed French sale was Moscow's first major Western arms purchase in the two decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. Nicolas Sarkozy, who was France's president when the order was struck, had hailed the signing of the contract as evidence the Cold War was over.

    (Reporting by Geert De Clercq, editing by Larry King)

    [Aug 08, 2015] Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands

    Notable quotes:
    "... The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    yalensis, August 4, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Russia found good way to get even with Netherlands:

    Starting 10 August, Russia will start limiting import of cut flowers from Netherlands.
    The pretext is that all cut flowers from Netherlands must go through phyto-sanitary inspection before being admitted into the country.

    In Russia, a whopping 90% of all cut flowers are imported. Of this, Europe supplies 40.5%; Netherlands by itself 38.5%. Hence, the new rule is sure to hit the Dutch in their pocketbooks.

    The surprising thing is, as the article points out, of the flowers which Netherlands exports, not all of them are even produced locally (in Holland). A surprising number of the flowers come from third countries, such as Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, and Kenya.

    Recently Russia started forming direct ties with those countries and importing the flowers directly, bypassing Netherlands. This process is expected to continue.

    Already, Ecuador is pushing out Netherlands in the Russian market for flowers.

    Even China is getting in on the game, starting to supply some of the voracious Russian appetite for cut flowers. Given all these sources of the flowers, Russian consumers are not likely to suffer a deficit of flowers, the article concludes.

    [Aug 08, 2015] How Russian energy giant Gazprom lost $300bn

    Notable quotes:
    "... Since the Russians haven't rolled over the first time, the US is trying again. These days, the price of oil is determined by activity in the futures market impacting the spot price. Likewise, I expect for shares and wouldn't be surprised if someone is shorting the stock. Any oil and gas not pumped today is available to be pumped tomorrow - possibly at higher prices. Gazprom isn't going bankrupt. Neither are any of the other major oil companies. ..."
    "... Therefore, he said, "today there are no conditions under which all thought that if tomorrow Russia will cease to supply gas, this same gas would be supplied by Iran." "Our production is still far from this stage", - said the president. ..."
    "... "Competition should not be problematic, it should be healthy competition, should not do so to the profit only for the buyer, and the exporters suffering damage ". ..."
    "... the recent Security Council vote ending the Iran sanctions also enabled was the release of ~$150 billion that was held in foreign accounts. ..."
    "... When Russia responded at the sanctions by its sanctions in the agriculture I heard here the malevolent sneers there'd be a famine in Russia. Now the collapse of Gasprom, the failure of the deal with China. What a shame for The Guardian to become an yellow shit ..."
    "... Seems the author is a warrior in the camp of the unnamed competitor which would like to supply its liquid costly gas.I know one direction where his bid will be welcomed at any price but for free- Ukraine ..."
    "... What is happening in the oil market is a very complicated process. Do not simplify the process of digestion by eating only the headlines. The headlines are not very high-calorie product, if you certainly do not pursue the goal to lose weight. Including lose money. ..."
    "... Putin has tried to shrug off the economic sanctions as no big deal, but the secret agreement between the West and Saudi Arabia to keep oil supplies high and gas prices low is really hurting Russia. ..."
    "... Kuwait and Abu Dhabi can live with crude at its current level: Saudi Arabia cannot. It requires an oil price of $106 a barrel to balance the books... Not $20 ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    ...energy giants ExxonMobil and Petro China, Gazprom's financial contemporaries back in mid-2008, have remained top performers . Norway boosted its market share and overtook Russia as western Europe's top gas supplier over the 2014-2015 winter.

    ... ... ...

    Russia is looking to channel gas through Turkey and adding two new lines to the Baltic Nord Stream network, transporting gas over the top of Europe.

    The total costs of the projects, without taking into account overruns, will reach about $25.4bn.

    Beyond the construction expenses, transit costs for North Stream appear to be significantly more expensive than through Ukraine. Experts estimate that in 2014 it cost Gazprom $43 to transport1,000 cubic metres via Nord Stream compared to $33 via Ukrainian . Factored over the tens of billions of cubic metres that Gazprom wants to send through the Baltic pipes, that's a mighty extra cost just to avoid Ukraine.

    Willinilli 8 Aug 2015 02:36

    Lazy, lazy, lazy journalism.. Even for a business /economics journalist .. Saudi Aramco has a much larger potential market cap..

    Though to be fair, it was the original FT study that was lazy.. This is just uninformed churnalism..

    annamarinja airman23 8 Aug 2015 09:09

    Poor airman23. Have you ever heard about Dick Cheney? Have you ever looked at the Wolfowitz Doctrine? If not, then you are very much behind the nowadays understanding of fascism and fascists. On the other hand, you are such a concrete success of Mrs. Nuland-Kagan' (and likes) travails.

    annamarinja -> psygone 8 Aug 2015 09:03

    Fracking? Are you serious to monger this this barbaric technique that has spurred a mass movement in the US and Canada against the ecological dangers generated by fracking? Each and every of your posts is in line with MSM "reports." It seems that you value FauxNews above else.

    yemrajesh -> psygone 8 Aug 2015 07:36

    Difficult to say. If the costs are true'ly low it would have reflected at the Pump. But it hasn't. Another flaw is how can oil pumped from deeper well ( Fracked Oil) is cheaper than conventional oil. It looks more like US flexing its muscles to subdue Russia. Besides its not Just Gazprom , shell, BP, Exxon , Gulf, Mobil etc also many of US vassal states are affected. It would be interesting to see how long this artificial price drop continue with zero benefit to the customers.


    Kaiama 8 Aug 2015 06:07

    Since the Russians haven't rolled over the first time, the US is trying again. These days, the price of oil is determined by activity in the futures market impacting the spot price. Likewise, I expect for shares and wouldn't be surprised if someone is shorting the stock. Any oil and gas not pumped today is available to be pumped tomorrow - possibly at higher prices. Gazprom isn't going bankrupt. Neither are any of the other major oil companies.

    AlbertEU -> alpamysh 7 Aug 2015 17:09

    The crisis of one industry necessarily will hurt other sectors. Hard-hit banking sector, which is credited US shale industry. The effect can be like an avalanche. Especially if it is strengthened by additional steps. I think for anybody is not a secret the existence of a huge number of empty weight of the dollar, which is produced by running the printing press. Oil trade is in the dollar, which in turn keeps the volume of the empty weight of the dollar. Now imagine a situation where part of the oil market has not traded more in dollars. It is equally affected, the USA and Russia.

    But there is one important detail. Russia has never in its history, was a rich country (if you count all the inhabitants of Russia, not individuals). In the country there is no cult of consumption. The traditional religions of Russia, that is, those that have always existed in Russia (Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Buddhism) did not contribute to the emergence of such a cult.

    Orthodoxy says plainly that material wealth is not important for a man. Wealth is only supplied in addition to achieve the main goal in the life of an Orthodox Christian. Therefore, to be poor in Russia is not a problem. This is a normal way of life. Hence the stoic resistance to any hardship, challenges, wars and so on. Expectations of great social upheaval in Russia, caused by the lowering of the standard of living is a little naive. Russia used to run in the marathon. Who would have more strength, intelligence and endurance is a big question. Geopolitics is a very strange science...

    airman23 7 Aug 2015 16:31

    Ooops, It's just been announced that the U.S. is adding the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye oil and gas field that belongs to Gazprom to it's sanctions list. It looks like Gazprom is gonna loose even more money. This is certainly not what the Fuehrer had in mind when he started his imperialist war of conquest in Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea. Unintended consequences to be sure but what comes around, goes around.

    John Smith -> William_Diaz 7 Aug 2015 16:05

    From Iranian president from October last year:

    Therefore, he said, "today there are no conditions under which all thought that if tomorrow Russia will cease to supply gas, this same gas would be supplied by Iran." "Our production is still far from this stage", - said the president.

    He also said that Iran is ready to cooperate with Russia in the gas sector. "For several years we have been making efforts that countries that export gas would be able to cooperate" - he recalled. - "Competition should not be problematic, it should be healthy competition, should not do so to the profit only for the buyer, and the exporters suffering damage ".

    John Smith -> William_Diaz 7 Aug 2015 15:56

    Your ignorance only, with whom do you think Iran will coordinate their actions?
    Who brokered them a deal? Do you think Russians are stupid?
    Turkey will be not just a transit country but a hub. The EU got to built they own pipeline if they want Russian gas in 2019. Turkey will set prices.

    William_Diaz -> John Smith 7 Aug 2015 15:13

    Your ignorance is astounding, lol. Iran doesn't need anyone else to 'jump in', among the other things that the recent Security Council vote ending the Iran sanctions also enabled was the release of ~$150 billion that was held in foreign accounts.

    There is more than enough money available for domestic investment, including a natural gas pipeline to Europe.

    Have a great day!

    oleteo -> JanZamoyski 7 Aug 2015 14:23

    When Russia responded at the sanctions by its sanctions in the agriculture I heard here the malevolent sneers there'd be a famine in Russia. Now the collapse of Gasprom, the failure of the deal with China. What a shame for The Guardian to become an yellow shit

    oleteo 7 Aug 2015 14:12

    Seems the author is a warrior in the camp of the unnamed competitor which would like to supply its liquid costly gas.I know one direction where his bid will be welcomed at any price but for free- Ukraine

    AlbertEU 7 Aug 2015 12:59

    To kill a competitor, had to endure their own pain. Are you sure that these actions will kill the Russian oil production instead of US shale oil? In this case, Saudi Arabia has nothing to lose by increasing oil production, the same does and lowering the price of Russian oil. Recently, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia visited Russia.

    They have a lot of something talked with Putin. Russia, the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia are competitors.

    Over the past year the United States increased the number of purchased crude oil from Russia. Saudi Arabia's oil squeezed out of the US market by their own shale oil. If Saudi Arabia could bankrupt the US oil shale industry, it (Saudi Arabia) will regain US market.

    What is happening in the oil market is a very complicated process. Do not simplify the process of digestion by eating only the headlines. The headlines are not very high-calorie product, if you certainly do not pursue the goal to lose weight. Including lose money.

    Yankee_Liberal 7 Aug 2015 11:37

    Putin has tried to shrug off the economic sanctions as no big deal, but the secret agreement between the West and Saudi Arabia to keep oil supplies high and gas prices low is really hurting Russia. Eventually the Russian people will realize that a lot of economic pain will go away when Putin goes and they start respecting their neighbors boundaries.

    andydav 7 Aug 2015 11:18

    The Guardian has no idea what it is printing. Fact's are not a requirement in there story's any more EG:: Like many oil-producing countries, Saudi had got used to an era of high oil prices.

    Kuwait and Abu Dhabi can live with crude at its current level: Saudi Arabia cannot. It requires an oil price of $106 a barrel to balance the books... Not $20

    [Aug 08, 2015] Vladivostok to St. Petersburg by Car: This Is One New Zealander's Journey

    August 4, 2015 | russia-insider.com

    Ever wanted to pack a bag and travel across Russia by car? Here's how to do it the Russian way.

    [Aug 08, 2015] Russia's Stalinist Diplospeak

    [Aug 08, 2015] Alliance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Russian fascist groups and individuals

    Aug 06, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    yalensis, August 6, 2015 at 2:21 am

    Saker has interesting piece about the attempted alliance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Russian fascist groups and individuals.

    This was in reference to the July 25 demonstration of Right Sektor, Azov, et al, in support of Russian "political prisoners".

    A new group which promotes this "nationalist internationale" calls itself "Petr i Mazepa", they favor a reconciliation between Ukrainian and Russian fascists, and claim to represent "Russian nationalists" who also respect "Ukrainian nationalists".

    Saker goes on to discuss how the annual "Russian March" (of Russian nationalists, on 4 November) has a majority which is pro-Ukrainian junta.

    This is, they sided with Ukrainian Junta against Novorossiya. There is also a video of that Russian March, which shows that the majority of the parties taking part in it, had an anti-Novorossiyan position . But that fact is not very rare position: one of the organizers of Russian March, Denis Tyukin, said in 2014 that " all Russian nationalist youth is supporting Ukraine ". Tyukin, member of the National-Socialist party "Russkie" had been also in the demonstration of 25th of July in Kiev (image below).

    And it is not only Tykin, the head of the Russkie movement, Dmitry Dyomushkin, has called in the past for a "Slavic March" in Ukraine to express support for Ukrainian nationalists .

    This is interesting development, because it shows that a goodly segment of the Russian nationalist right, just like the liberals, are flocking to see Ukraine as their preferred model of nation-building!

    [Aug 08, 2015] Russia's Stalinist Diplospeak

    Interesting way to spent taxpayers money to re-invent methods that West is practicing for centuries. Just looks at BBC reporting to find example of tricks described below. Or our unforgettable Jen Psaki.
    "...I have analyzed all official communications of the Russian Foreign Ministry from September 2011 to June 2015, indexed them, and run them through a specific linguistic software called Voyant Tools, based on Stanford Natural Language processing toolkit. The total database consists of 2.5 million words, and 21,765 documents. Here's what I found."

    Self-questioning

    Stalin's classic essay "Marxism and the Issues of Language Studies" gives a perfect example of this style: "The question arises, what have changed in Russian language since the October Revolution? The vocabulary shifted significantly, in a sense that it got amended with a large number of words and idioms."

    The question here only "arose" because Stalin himself raised it.

    Metonymy

    As developed in the Stalinist style, this is when the speaker seamlessly assigns a much broader and encompassing name to refer to a specific thing or constituency. Some pure examples remain in the Soviet archives, such as this statement from 1976:

    "Those forces in the West are capable of any deception method to complicate the issue of the termination of the arms race."

    "Those forces in the West" refers to the American military-industrial complex but note how much more ambiguously menacing the reformulation is. "Forces" suggests a multitude with global reach.

    Proactive Commentary

    This is when the speaker says something even if no one is seeking his opinion. Overreaction laden with clichés of ideology and emotive abuse is the defining feature. A classic form of such commentary was an unsolicited "reaction to anti-Soviet hysteria in country X".

    The following quote, for instance, is taken from a 1977 Soviet communique:

    "In China, (we observe) a widening scale of the anti-Soviet campaign that is maintained by propagandistic institutions and officials at all levels. Chinese press and other media distributes daily obvious lies and slanders in regard to the USSR, those are not much different from imperialist propaganda that has long discredited itself with the peoples of the world."

    Now here's one by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich, reacting to a U.S. State Department report on human rights in June 2015, which of course contained criticism of Russian human rights abuses:

    "The report published on June 25 by The Department of State of the USA on the conditions of human rights in the world, as with all previous opuses, is plagued with politicized remarks and rude ideological stock phrases. The document is nothing more than a serial specimen of American mentorship and lecturing manner in the area of human rights. This manner is grounded on a false logic of US's infallibility and perceived problems other states have on the issue."

    In neither case was Moscow's response necessary. It was freely offered, almost with a joyous expectancy of being able to get its "retaliation in first."

    Criminal Vocabulary

    The Russian Civil War birthed a new gangland vocabulary for everyday use to denigrate real and perceived opponents of the Soviet order. It transcended Stalin's own style to amplify the underlying mood of belligerence, if not mercilessness.

    In the 1930s, the Stalinist criminal vocabulary became the subject of a famous satire, Golden Calf by Ilia Ilf and Eugeny Petrov. The central character, Ostap Bender, is a talented adventurist who tries to make his fortune on the edge of NEP (the New Economic Policy, which constituted a temporary turn back to capitalism in the USSR from 1921 to 1930). In one of the episodes, Bender travels on the train with a group of Soviet journalists whose verbal resources are maximally constrained by the new rules on revolutionary reportage. Bender creates a dictionary of over 100 clichéd constructions which perfectly comply with the Party's editorial standards for journalism, he successfully sells it to the bored journalists who can now use it as boilerplate.

    ***

    Today, Vladimir Putin has resurrected Stalin's four foundations of style and encouraged his diplomats and government officials to employ them with the same frequency and purpose as his Soviet forbears.

    I have analyzed all official communications of the Russian Foreign Ministry from September 2011 to June 2015, indexed them, and run them through a specific linguistic software called Voyant Tools, based on Stanford Natural Language processing toolkit. The total database consists of 2.5 million words, and 21,765 documents. Here's what I found.

    Self-Questioning

    Self-questioning is barely present in Foreign Ministry statements until fall 2012, with the occasional use of a formulation such as, "Some partners of Russia question that…" But starting in 2013, when Putin took a harder stance against the West, self-questioning became much more frequent. The method skyrocketed in 2014, reaching 188 total uses, most commonly deployed by the nameless "press statements" on behalf of the Foreign Ministry, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich.

    Official press statements are much less speculative and rarely employ Stalin's favorite tool: a meager 25.

    Lavrov is a great fan of self-questioning. He holds 66 of 189 uses of the formulation "the question arises" and its manifold variations.

    The winner of self-questioning, however, is Lukashevich, with 101 uses, but some of his briefings and statements just repeat Lavrov's earlier sentiments.

    Metonymy

    Likewise, metonymy has made a comeback. Consider this comment by Lavrov in his November 2013 Address to the State Duma:

    "Some countries are guided with an opportunistic interest to circumvent the global limits on the use of force in international relations… It's obvious for us that some countries exercise the power they possess more frequently and tend to redraw the guiding principles of international relations."

    He means only one country.

    Since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, however, the frequency of Stalinist metonymy grows. "Western partners," "hegemonic force," "some country that imagines itself a policeman of the world"-all these become have become frequent stand-ins for "White House" or "United States."

    Criminal Vocabulary

    Putin himself is famous for deploying Bender-like formulations. He uses "whack" like an Italian mobster when he refers to what Russia will do to terrorists. Another favorite: "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather," used to derisively dismiss what he considers a non-possibility, such as the capacity for the post-Yanukovych Ukrainian transitional government to perform.

    Typically, professional diplomats don't resort to gangland jargon, but in Putin's Russia, the exceptions are subtly smuggled in.

    For instance, one Foreign Ministry briefing on June 29, 2012, read, in Russian, "Americans prefer to pull down their allies rather than take their interests into account." To the untrained reader, this sounds hostile but ho-hum. However, the usage here of the verb, opustit ("to pull down"), in the Russian criminal argot refers to homosexual rape. Opustit, in fact, refers to how tougher inmates make weaker ones their "bitches."

    Proactive Commentary

    When Russia abandoned its Soviet identity in 1991, its Foreign Ministry's language changed accordingly. Diplomats attempted a sober neutrality and a more rational mode of communicating with the outside world. Until 2007, Russian diplomacy maintained a formal, if sometimes murky, style which rarely conveyed a single, unambiguous meaning. Moscow knew that its post-Soviet leaders would need wiggle room to dodge and obfuscate; in a democracy, climb-downs from original "official positions" were inevitable in the course of engagement other countries.

    But in 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin put aside this new mode of Russian "diplospeak." He presented the idea that the collapse of the USSR "was the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century." This was hardly unambiguous and signaled a calcification in the Russian view of recent history. Further, Putin blamed the West in seeking to humiliate Russia, thus wakening the "sleeping beasts" of the Soviet style.

    I was working in Russian media at the time and remember this grim return to form quite well.

    First, the vocabulary zombies crept back into conservative pro-government newspapers. The language again started to resemble the stochastic cocktail of Pravda, the old Party daily, as well the Benderist GoodFellas jargon. Today, these styles are everywhere.

    Take, for instance, this Foreign Ministry Press Department statement on Macedonia from last May:

    The news published by the Serbian media about the detention in Macedonia of some Montenegrin, who assisted the Kosovo Albanian extremists is a convincing proof of the plans run from outside that presume loosening the political situation in the country, trying to push it into the abyss of a color revolution. This is proof that Western organizers of such catastrophic scenarios prefer to exercise their proxy using the Ukraine, and now Macedonia, as citizens of those countries which, like Montenegro, are attracted by the lure of NATO. The more than obvious danger for Europe is now provoking chaos in the Balkans, spiraling conflict in the region, which has has not yet recovered from the bloodshed of the 1990s.

    The first sentence is 32 words in Russian! And note the context: Macedonians protested against corruption and the feebleness of their own government in countering it, with some calling for an end to Macedonian-Russian cooperation on a notoriously crooked gas pipe project. They also called for faster accession into NATO. Finally, the Foreign Ministry is actually reacting to Serbian press speculations about events in a neighboring country, rather than to any on-the-ground, factual information. This is the classic proactive commentary of the bad old days.

    I mentioned earlier that the thug's lexicon is particularly noisome to the Russian speaker. This is intentional because the Foreign Ministry, despite its remit, is actually communication to a domestic rather than international audience.

    To some extent, this irony can even be quantified.

    A data analysis I performed of Foreign Ministry communication from September 2011 to June 2015 shows that a mere 10 percent of the statements contains a direct call to action ("do something, change something"). Another 14 percent is suggestive ("it's time to think about…" or "our partners have to think about…"). This 24 percent can thus be viewed as written for a foreign audience.

    However, some official statements are "factual," such as the reporting on a meeting between Lavrov or his deputies with foreign officials. These constitute 18 percent of the total. Then there are those statements and interviews that attempt to "explain" Russian foreign policy, from global warming to the war in Ukraine. These statements are meant exclusively for Russians and are often untranslated into any other language. They constitute 75 percent of all Foreign Ministry communications. And sometimes the Russians they're geared toward are in fact other agents of the Putin regime.

    Consider this masterpiece published by Ministry on the day after former deputy prime minister and opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was murdered:

    We assume that support and protection of the human rights should be a goal rather than a tool of the political fight. In the European Council on Human Rights we oppose politicization of human rights and a compulsory export of standards that are typical for an isolated group of states as if those standards are global. It's unacceptable to exploit the human rights agenda to undermine the principles of the international laws and UN Charter, to substantiate the incursion with the internal affairs and violent scenarios of the solution of contradictions and arguments, establishment of economic sanctions. Such actions only deteriorate the situation in the "target" country and contribute to further violations of human rights.

    This statement was meant to explain Lavrov's participation in the UN Human Rights Conference in Geneva, taking place that week. The real ear for this denunciation of "politicized" human rights-i.e., human rights as they apply to Russia-is in fact the siloviki in the Kremlin. The Russian Foreign Ministry was telegraphing its loyalty to Moscow.

    Haifei Huang, a researcher from University of California Riverside, published a very interesting study last year, in which he explained the signaling theory of propaganda. In the modern world, he said, information is much less censored and restricted-but the institutions that engage in political communication must send "signals" to the superiors and subordinates. Also, they have to demonstrate that they are loyal purveyors of the propaganda wherever and whenever they are charged to distribute it.

    To the Western, democratic imagination, this sounds bizarre and redundant. Consider how odd it would be for the U.S. State Department to reaffirm its commitment to Barack Obama's foreign policies, which it is duty-bound to carry out in the first place. But under authoritarian regimes, public declarations of fealty, couched in the discourse of statecraft, are everyday occurrences. Under Stalin, professions of embracing the party line were daily occurrences. Putin has revived them.

    The problem, though, as Huang points out, is that signaling can reach everyone including those it's not intended to. The Foreign Ministry's messaging may show an unwavering line to Russians, but foreign embassies read and translate and disseminate these back to their capitals, and Western correspondents relay them in international newspapers. The impression given is that of an arrogant, thin-skinned and geopolitically psychotic nation, whose interests can only be misunderstood and inevitably transgressed.

    [Aug 08, 2015]Can the United States Stop a War With Russia?

    "...America is heading for war with Russia. Some call the current situation "an increase of hostility" or "Cold War II." There are two sides to this story. I believe that American journalists from all political persuasions are not offering critical analysis. Understanding the Russian side and taking their arguments seriously can help prevent serious consequences."
    .
    "...Russia sees the US as the aggressor, surrounding Russia with military bases in Eastern Europe at every opportunity since the collapse of the Soviet Union."
    observer.com

    America is heading for war with Russia. Some call the current situation "an increase of hostility" or "Cold War II." There are two sides to this story. I believe that American journalists from all political persuasions are not offering critical analysis. Understanding the Russian side and taking their arguments seriously can help prevent serious consequences.

    Americans believe that Russians are fed propaganda by the state-controlled media. If Russians only could hear the truth, the thinking goes, they would welcome the US position. This is not so. There are more than 300 TV stations available in Moscow. Only 6 are state-controlled. The truth is that Russians prefer hearing the news from the state rather than the Internet or other sources. This is different from almost any other country. It is not North Korea where the news is censored. Each night during the Crimea crisis, anyone could watch CNN or the BBC bash Russia.

    With regard to Ukraine, Russia has drawn a red line: It will never allow Ukraine to be part of NATO. Russia sees the US as the aggressor, surrounding Russia with military bases in Eastern Europe at every opportunity since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US sees Russia as the aggressor against its neighbors. A small misstep could lead to war. This time the war will not be "over there." The Russian bombers flying off the California coast on July 4th clearly demonstrate this point. Russians understand that the US has not fought a war on its soil since the civil war. If new hostilities start, Russia will not let the war be a proxy war where the US supplies weapons and advisors and lets others do the "boots on the ground" combat. Russia will take the war to the US. How did we reach this critical point in such a short time?

    Russia sees the US as the aggressor, surrounding Russia with military bases in Eastern Europe at every opportunity since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US sees Russia as the aggressor against its neighbors.

    First, some background. I moved to Moscow two and a half years ago. I went to Russia to build a non-government funded news channel with editorial views consistent with the Russian Orthodox Church. I have completed that task and returned to the west. I see both sides of this escalating conflict and unless there is a change in thinking, the result will be catastrophic. When I first arrived, the relationship between the US and Russia seemed normal. As an American, my ideas were welcomed, even sought after. At the time, Mr. Obama planned to attack Assad's army in Syria for crossing the "red line" for a chemical weapon attack. Russia intervened and persuaded Syria to destroy its chemical weapons. Mr. Putin had helped Mr. Obama save face and not make a major blunder in Syria. Shortly after, Mr. Putin wrote an editorial published in the New York Times, which was generally well-received. Relations appeared to be on the right course. There was cooperation in the Middle East and Russia phobia was easing.

    Then Russia passed a law that prevented sexual propaganda to minors. This was the start of tensions. The LGBT lobby in the West saw this law as anti-gay. I did not. The law was a direct copy of English law and was intended to prevent pedophilia, not consenting relationships between adults. Gay relations in Russia are not illegal (although not accepted by the majority of the public). Regarding gay protests, they were restricted from view of children. I saw this in the same way that we in America restrict children from seeing "R" rated films. The punishment for breaking this law is a fine of less than $100. Double-parking a car in Moscow carries a heavier fine of $150. Nonetheless the reaction was overwhelming against Russia.

    The boycott of the Sochi Olympics was the West's way of discrediting Russia. Russia saw this boycott as an aggressive act by the West to interfere with its internal politics and to embarrass Russia. Sochi was for Russians a great source of national pride and had nothing to do with politics. For the West, this was the first step in creating the narrative that Russia was the old repressive Soviet Union and Russia must be stopped.

    Then came the color revolution in the Ukraine. When the president of Ukraine was overthrown, from a Russian viewpoint this was a Western organized coup. The overthrow of a democratically elected president signaled that the West was interested in an expansion of power, not democratic values. The leaked recorded conversations of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt suggested that the US was actively involved in regime change in the Ukraine. For Russia, the Ukrainians are their brothers, much more than any other group. The languages are similar; they are linked culturally and religiously. Kiev played a central role in the Christianization of Russia. Many Russians have family members in Ukraine. For Russians, this special relationship was destroyed by outside forces. Imagine if Canada suddenly aligned itself with Russia or China. The US would surely see that as a threat on its border and act decisively.

    When the Soviet Union collapsed, from an American viewpoint, the borders of Eastern Europe were frozen. However in the late 1990s, the borders of Yugoslavia changed, breaking that country apart. Russians had accepted Kiev's rule of Crimea since 1954 as a trusted brother might watch a family property. But when that brother no longer is a part of the family, Russia wanted Crimea back. Crimea also wanted Russia back. Crimeans speak Russian and are closely tied to their 300-year Russian heritage. From the Russian point of view, this was a family matter and of no concern to the West, The sanctions imposed were seen as aggression by the West to keep Russia in its place.

    Sanctions are driving Russia away from the West and toward China. Chinese tourism in Russia is at record levels. More transactions are now settled directly between Rubles and Yuan, with the US dollar's role as middleman being limited. Although the dollar remains strong now, this is deceptive. China has created the AIIB bank to directly compete against the IMF for world banking power and the US is having trouble preventing its allies from joining. This is the first crack in US financial domination as a direct result of sanctions.

    We are moving closer and closer to a real war. Republicans and Democrats talk tough on foreign policy towards Russia. When all politicians are in agreement, there is no discussion of alternative approaches. Any alternative to complete isolation of Russia and a NATO build up on Russia's borders is a sign of weakness. Any alternative to this military build up is criticized as "appeasement," likened to the failed foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain toward Nazi Germany between 1937 and 1939.

    Liberal Democrats historically are anti-war, but not this time. In the Czech Republic, there was the start of an anti-war movement when NATO paraded its military along its borders. "Tanks but no thanks" became a rallying cry. Czechs became uncomfortable with a muscle flexing approach to the standoff. Only a lone libertarian, Ron Paul raises a critique of the wisdom of this military build up.

    The mistake that will cost America dearly is the assumption that Russia has the same ambitions as the Soviet Union. The cold war strategy used against the Soviet Union cannot be repeated with the same result. The Soviet Union was communist and atheistic. Modern Russia has returned to its Christian roots. There is a revival in Russian Orthodoxy with over 25,000 new churches built in Russia after the fall of Communism. On any Sunday, the churches are packed. Over 70% of the population identifies themselves as Orthodox Christians. Combine this religious revival with renewed Nationalism and Russia is growing in self-confidence.

    A war with Russia cannot be won economically. Russia has oil and an abundance of natural resources. It occupies the largest landmass in the world.

    The Marxist ideology followed by the Soviet Union was evangelistic. Only when the whole world became communist will Marxist principles be realized. When collective farms missed their goals, it was because the whole world wasn't communist yet, not because the ideology destroyed individual initiative. For this reason, the Soviet Union needed to dominate the whole world. For modern Russia, world domination is not its goal. Russia wants to keep its Russian identity and not lose it to outside forces.

    Russian history is filled with invaders trying to conquer Russia. Napoléon and Hitler are only the latest examples. Russia has always prevailed. Driving in from the airport, you can see exactly how close Hitler came to Moscow. You are also reminded that it was here that he was stopped. Russia is sure that they will repel the newest invader NATO.

    A war with Russia cannot be won economically. Russia has oil and an abundance of natural resources. It occupies the largest landmass in the world. It is growing in its ability to replace goods restricted from the west. A proxy war using the Ukrainian army will not solve the problem.

    There is still time to make a deal. More sanctions, and more isolation from the West are not the way to resolve differences. The US flexing its military muscle will not solve the problems. War is not the answer but too often in history becomes the only solution when two sides refuse to see the other's point of view.

    Jack Hanick recently completed the development of a state of the art television network in Moscow, built without government funding. Its evening news program broadcasts to 65 million homes in Russia across eight time zones. Previously Jack was a TV director, where he won the New York Emmy in 1994 for best director. His biography of Desmond Tutu also won a New York Emmy. Currently Jack is Chairman of the Board of HellasNet, a group of TV stations in Greece.

    [Aug 08, 2015] What language are these people speaking?

    "...One of the first thoughts that struck me when I listened to the infamous Nuland/Pyatt tape (Vicky's f**k the EU moment) was 'what language are these people speaking?' There was barely a coherent utterance from either party. Reading the comments above from Marc Veasey and Nancy Pelosi, it seems the US Congress must select its Ukraine 'specialists' by excluding anyone who can form sentences. "
    yalensis, August 6, 2015 at 2:50 am
    Members of U.S. Congress in Kiev today, expressing their fervent support for the Kiev junta, while not forgetting to mix metaphors as much as humanly possible.

    Congressman Marc Veasey of Texas, a member of the Armed Services Committee:

    Congressman Veasey.

    Well, obviously, we want to see Ukraine push back the separatists. We believe that we want them to be successful in Crimea obviously and want to be supportive as much as we possibly can. On this trip we met with officials here in our U.S. Embassy. We also met with government officials and it's very important to us. We want to see Ukraine whole.

    Q: What are the next steps to support Ukraine for the International Tribunal, [MH]17 air crash investigation?

    [Demoratic Party] Leader [Nancy] Pelosi. Well, I think it was said very well when they said – when Russia vetoed the U.N. Security Council resolution that it was – that would make one suspicious or ask the question 'why?' Why would there not be the interest of everyone on an organization called the Security Council of the United Nations to have an investigation that would lead to the truth? And that's what people need to hear: the truth. And that's what's so important – taking us back to here. This is about shedding light about the angels, the heroes and the Heavenly Hundred – identified in so many ways for their courage to shed light on the need for more transparency and more light here.

    Fern, August 6, 2015 at 6:01 am
    One of the first thoughts that struck me when I listened to the infamous Nuland/Pyatt tape (Vicky's f**k the EU moment) was 'what language are these people speaking?' There was barely a coherent utterance from either party. Reading the comments above from Marc Veasey and Nancy Pelosi, it seems the US Congress must select its Ukraine 'specialists' by excluding anyone who can form sentences.

    [Aug 08, 2015]Keeping Ukraine whole

    "...It does make a lot of sense from a psychopathic point of view. Psychopaths do not suffer from the effects of cognitive dissonance that we do. When faced with contradictions, hypocrisy and lies, we normal human beings suffer physiological discomfort and mental confusion. Psychopaths know that it weakens us and use the reversal of reality (if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one) as a weapon against us. "
    marknesop, August 6, 2015 at 9:51 am
    I see. No goal should be so sacred as the one of "keeping Ukraine whole". But in dozens upon dozens of other examples, the USA has been enthusiastically behind the breakup of countries which resulted in the carving out of pro-western enclaves, and in fact hopes for Russia that it will be broken up into ethnic states. Yep, I believe that.

    And I actually would have expected better from Nancy Pelosi – just as Kirill suggested, she is propagating the myth that Russia vetoing the tribunal means there will not be an investigation that leads to the truth. I personally think that is hopeless now anyway, the west is determined to whitewash Ukraine's role in it, but such investigations as there are going to be are proceeding unimpeded. How could anyone say anything so blatantly stupid in public? Russia simply refused to agree to accept the UN's verdict and the UN's awarding of punishment for it. After being told by the UN to quit whining after the attack on its Embassy in Kiev by Ukrainians, I think Russia is quite realistic on the issue of what it might expect in the way of fair treatment from the UN.

    yalensis, August 6, 2015 at 3:16 pm
    This doesn't make any sense!
    American State Department accuses Russia of not doing enough to help them (='Muricans) fight Islamic state (IGIL=ISIS=ISIL=whatever).
    State Department spokesperson Mark Toner, who looks like a barely-resuscitated zombie IMHO, chides Russia for not being engaged enough in the struggle against Islamic extremism.

    [yalensis: If I was Russian government, I would respond thusly: "Jesus H. Christ what do you want from me? You want me to fight YOU? What is this, the fight club? I should fight YOU and bleed so that YOU can get your rocks off? You creepy zombie-looking fellow…. and by the way, this is highly illogical….."]

    james@wpc, August 6, 2015 at 3:59 pm
    It does make a lot of sense from a psychopathic point of view. Psychopaths do not suffer from the effects of cognitive dissonance that we do. When faced with contradictions, hypocrisy and lies, we normal human beings suffer physiological discomfort and mental confusion. Psychopaths know that it weakens us and use the reversal of reality (if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one) as a weapon against us.

    This is especially effective when they know that we know that they are lying. When they can get a response like Yalensis' above, they laugh because they have direct evidence that they are causing internal distress. Mission Accomplished.

    To observe this in action, watch RT's Crosstalk when Peter Lavelle has a neocon think tank representative on. He (and it is usually a 'he') will reverse the truth without batting an eyelid. This then sends Peter and the other guests into animated protests. Meanwhile, the neocon sits there placidly and you may even detect a little smile – read smirk – on his face, confident that the others do not understand how he is controlling them.

    Of course, once you see that the 'big lie' and the hypocrisy are signs of psychopathy and you know what psychopathy involves, they can no longer control you.

    marknesop, August 6, 2015 at 4:15 pm
    Incredible. The USA assumes unto itself the freedom to break any law so long as doing so allows it to achieve its objective. Having been frustrated in its desire to simply go in and bomb Syria until Assad submitted, it created an armed opposition to the armed opposition it had already created against Assad, then announced smugly that it would defend the opposition from the opposition, and if government forces got in the way, well, that'd just be too bad for them. Pilots do not know shit about what's going on on the ground, they just bomb targets they are told to bomb, so the people who always wanted to get Assad and remove him are in charge of assigning bombing targets in Syria. How is this in any way legal? It's not, is the short answer, but the USA has gone completely rogue and recognizes no authority but its own needs and desires.

    Russia should announce that it will be delivering the S-400 system to Syria so that Syria can "defend itself", and that anyone who fires upon those delivering the systems will receive return fire, while once the system is in place, anyone who attacks government forces may be shot down. Assad has a marked advantage in this conflict, in that everybody is the enemy. He doesn't have any identification problems.

    [Aug 08, 2015] The "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power

    "...I would completely agree that the "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power but am frankly confused by what the essential mechanism of this is. To my mind to institute the petrodollar it is not sufficient to say that oil will be denominated in dollars or even sold only in dollars. The key is that the proceeds need to STAY in dollar assets. This was only achieved once Kissinger brokered Petro-dollar recycling, meaning that the dollars earned in this way would be recycled into treasury securities or used to purchase American weaponry or the engineering skills of the American firms that basically built the Kingdom as it now exists. This is what I was hinting at when I was talking about the circular nature of trade between currency blocs. No non-circular trade patterns can persist for long.
    .
    We emphasize different things. I suspect that the simple scale of the dollar value of trading of financial claims on things – trading in which London and New York are dominant – contributes more to the maintenance of the dollar reserve system than you are proposing. The upshot being that America's "debt" problem is actually a demonstration of its financial power. "

    .
    "..."The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold."
    .
    So it seems that the oil sellers, seeing that their "real" income from selling oil was decreasing (they were selling oil at the same price in terms of dollars, but at a lower price in terms of gold), were determined not to let the depreciating dollar erase a big chunk of their earnings. I think this goes to show how deep is entrenched in the collective psyche the idea that gold is THE medium for storing wealth. Barbarous relic? I think not…
    .
    After all, value is a social construct and economic relations are social relations mediated through these things we call "commodities". Gold has proven itself to be a very good mediator of these social relations, not because some magical qualities, but because of obvious practical advantages. So, although its role is significantly smaller these days, I think it still retains the roles of "medium of last resort" and "measuring stick of wealth"."

    james@wpc, August 4, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    I had to start a new thread, Mark. Your first question – "does the fact that the USA's debt is more than 100% of its GDP not make it insolvent?"
    I take it you are using the definition of insolvency being when an organizations liabilities exceed it's assets. The nation's GDP does not belong to the government and so cannot be seen as an asset of the govt. So the question, as framed, is not 'well English', speaking economically :) Perhaps you could rephrase it?

    Insolvency can also be defined as an inability to meet current liabilities as they fall due which is a cash flow problem rather than an asset problem. A government that owns and controls its central bank cannot ever have a cash flow problem; that would be Iran, for instance, or Libya before Terror Inc was unleashed on it.

    A govt that does not own and control its central bank cannot have a cash flow problem so long as its debt is denominated in its own national currency and the privately owned central bank continues to monetize the government's newly issued bond/treasury certificates; that is countries like the US and the UK.

    A government that has its debt nominated in a foreign or external currency, such as Greece and other Euro zone countries, is in the position of any other business and can be declared insolvent and its assets sold up for the creditors. This situation with Greece was always going to come right from the beginning.

    I don't follow what you are asking with your second question – "Would it, if there were a deliberate run on the dollar to drive it down and reduce its circulation, by refusing to use it as a medium of exchange?" Could you rephrase it also?

    astabada, August 4, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    @james, TimOwen

    A government that has its debt nominated in a foreign or external currency, such as Greece and other Eurozone countries, is in the position of any other business and can be declared insolvent and its assets sold up for the creditors. This situation with Greece was always going to come right from the beginning.

    Bang! I do not follow all of your points, but on this one I totally agree. To reconnect with what Tim was writing about Italy, the problem with Italy (and Greece) is that they both have:

    • – a currency which is grossly overvalued with respect to their economies (this makes import artificially easier than it should be, and export artificially harder)
    • – no control on what the value of that currency is (e.g. by devaluing its currency Italy could keep its products competitive in the past)

    When did the Italian crisis start? Answer: when Italy pegged its currency to the future Euro, with the Maastrich Treaty.

    marknesop, August 5, 2015 at 7:34 am

    In the second question, I meant ""Would it (be insolvent), if there were a deliberate run on the dollar to drive it down and reduce its circulation, by refusing to use it as a medium of exchange?" That is, would a deliberate turning-away from the dollar put the USA in a position where it had to pay its debts and live within its means? And the answer is, not likely, because the government does not control the bank or own the money, although there is most definitely a very close relationship between the governors and the bankers. Still, there must be a relationship between the whole world using the dollar and U.S. power, because if there were not the U.S. would not attack a country on some made-up excuse as soon as it made noises about dropping the dollar. Unless that's just a crackpot conspiracy theory.

    james@wpc, August 5, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Thanks for the clarification, Mark. The US could well find itself in trouble and that is my expectation but "insolvent" is the wrong word to use.

    First, the basics of the relationship between the Fed and the US Treasury dept. I think someone here (Tim?), about a year ago, spelt out the actual mechanics of it all but a rough Idea will suffice for our purposes. When the US govt wants to get more money, they have the Treasury Dept draw up treasury certificates which are essentially IOU's and hand them to the Fed. The Fed creates the credit to the value of the IOU's and places it in the US govt's a/c (at interest). The govt can then meet all future expenses including maturing loans with this money because all of the US's trade and loan contracts are written in US$.

    There is no limit to the debt that the US can run up in this manner so there will always be money to meet commitments. So the US govt cannot become technically insolvent.

    Crystal ball stuff now – the problem for the US govt (and the Fed) is that it is committed to printing ever more money at a time when the demand for it internationally is shrinking because the BRICS countries and others are avoiding using the US dollar when possible. This will lead to inflation for the dollar. In other words, it will lose value and make it less and less attractive for people, companies and govts to hold it and thus further decreasing demand. We now have a self fuelling downward spiral for the dollar.

    The inflation happens because the US dollar is backed not only by the domestic GDP of the US but also by all the international trade that is conducted using the dollar. As the total amount of dollars in circulation increases and the demand decreases (because people are avoiding using it) we have more dollars to buy less goods (because sellers do not want US dollars for their goods) so the prices on the goods that are still available for US dollars will be bid upwards by the excess money over goods available causing the inflation. I have been very impressed how the FED/govt and Wall st generally have been able to stave off this inevitable inflation so far.

    As for the US ever 'living within its means' that will only come when other trading partners en masse refuse to accept US dollars for their goods (incl military materiel). The US will then have to sell something tangible to raise the foreign currency (as most other countries now have to do) to buy Chinese clothing and uniforms and ammunition etc. They may not be able to pay for the military occupation in foreign countries using US dollars and so the Empire will start visibly shrinking.

    If this happens, countries like israel and Saudi Arabia will be left high and dry and have to fend for themselves – and good luck with that! But psychopaths never say die so they just might pull something out of the hat other than a rabbit. We'll see soon enough, I think. You can see, though, that time is not on the side of the usual suspects.

    I hope that answers your question adequately, Mark. If not, come on back to me!

    Jen, August 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    " … Still, there must be a relationship between the whole world using the dollar and U.S. power, because if there were not the U.S. would not attack a country on some made-up excuse as soon as it made noises about dropping the dollar. Unless that's just a crackpot conspiracy theory."

    I mentioned earlier in this thread that in 2000, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein switched to trading oil for euros and then Iraq began conducting all its trade in euros. Not long afterwards, the euro appreciated in value, perhaps in part as a result of its use as a trading currency, and the value of Iraq's gold reserves also shot up as a result.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

    Iran and North Korea then switched to trading in euros. Next thing you know, all three countries became the New Axis of Evil.

    If the world has to use the US dollar for trade, this means there will always be a demand from exporters and importers for US dollars and this keeps the value of the US dollar high relative to other currencies. To an extent this means that in a situation where all currencies are free-floating (that is, not subjected to any controls on their value or supply by governments in the countries where they are legal tender) and are completely subject to market supply and demand, the US dollar will not experience high and low extremes when its value against other currencies fluctuates. This keeps the US dollar's value high and steady.

    The use of the US dollar as a world currency for trade was adopted during the Bretton Woods conference in the late 1940s just after the Second World War. At the time, the US was the pre-eminent manufacturing economy in the world and could dictate its terms to a ruined Europe. If the rest of the world were to catch up with the US in manufacturing and trading capability, then everyone needed to use US dollars to buy US goods, services and intellectual know-how in the form of patents, advice and training. Few people at the time foresaw what would happen to the US economy if the US dollar became the world's trading currency: the US economy would start to suffer persistent trade and balance of payment deficits and the US government would be unable to control the supply of US dollars. This is known as the Triffin Dilemma.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

    The British economist John Maynard Keynes who attended Bretton Woods was one of the few who knew – that was partly why he advocated for adopting an international trade currency (bancor) and an international clearing house for balance-of-payments surpluses and deficits – but as he was the representative of an exhausted and defeated empire, his ideas were given short shrift by the US attendees.

    Tim Owen, August 5, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    Posted this on earlier thread one page back before I saw this:

    Here's where I think you, James and I agree: the reserve status of the dollar allows the U.S. to fund it's deficit at the expense of other countries.

    Here's' where I think (?) we disagree:

    • my point is that the reserve status makes it possible for the U.S. to run persistent trade deficits but the ability to run a deficit is a virtue of all fiat systems. The fact that the reserve status of the dollar means those deficits can be much higher doesn't change the fact. Nor should it discredit deficit-spending by association.
    • I would completely agree that the "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power but am frankly confused by what the essential mechanism of this is. To my mind to institute the petrodollar it is not sufficient to say that oil will be denominated in dollars or even sold only in dollars. The key is that the proceeds need to STAY in dollar assets. This was only achieved once Kissinger brokered Petro-dollar recycling, meaning that the dollars earned in this way would be recycled into treasury securities or used to purchase American weaponry or the engineering skills of the American firms that basically built the Kingdom as it now exists. This is what I was hinting at when I was talking about the circular nature of trade between currency blocs. No non-circular trade patterns can persist for long.
    • We emphasize different things. I suspect that the simple scale of the dollar value of trading of financial claims on things – trading in which London and New York are dominant – contributes more to the maintenance of the dollar reserve system than you are proposing. The upshot being that America's "debt" problem is actually a demonstration of its financial power. *

    Could it become it's greatest weakness? It's possible I suppose but I don't see this happening when western finance dwarfs the trading clout of its rivals. The system develops over time and, with time it gains scale and so momentum. In other words I'm suggesting that a dollar collapse is less likely than one might suppose.

    *This was the point I was trying to make with the dollar as "safe haven" comments above. If the dollar zigs (strengthens) when your mental model of the world says it should zag (weaken) then this should really suggest that your model is missing some important part of the complex mechanism it is trying to simulate.

    james@wpc, August 6, 2015 at 12:05 am

    Tim, I'll quote your words back to you and insert some clarifying (for me) words to demonstrate my understanding and to see if it is the same as yours-

    – my point is that the reserve status makes it possible for the U.S. to run persistent (international) trade deficits but the ability to run a (domestic budgetary) deficit is a virtue of all fiat systems. The fact that the reserve status of the dollar means those (international trade and domestic budgetary) deficits can be much higher doesn't change the fact. Nor should it discredit (domestic budgetary) deficit-spending by association."

    The Bretton Woods agreement specified that the US would make gold available for purchase at an agreed fixed price. This condition was thought to inhibit the US from printing money to excess. But the Vietnam War came along and the US was printing money to pay for it. This extra money was not financing extra productive capacity or creating wealth. Quite the opposite, in fact. So we had an increasing supply of US dollars around the world but no commensurate extra production to absorb the extra dollars.

    This is exactly what the French thought would happen and they started demanding gold for their US dollars. Eventually, the US had to stop selling gold now that it was greatly undervalued because the dollar was overvalued. So Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard. Inflation ensued.

    Something was needed to soak up the extra purchasing power of the extra US dollars sloshing around the world. This money was called "EuroDollars" at the time. Oil was the answer. The Saudis (at the behest of Wall St) and OPEC jacked up the price of oil by a factor of four (IIRC) and rapidly increased the demand for dollars and reversed the inflationary trend and the subsequent loss of value.

    As Tim points out, the Saudis had to not only sell oil exclusively for US dollars but they had to deposit their surplus with New York banks. This way the banks won in three different ways. 1. they had overnight increased the international demand for US dollars and boosting its strength and prestige (perceptions are everything)
    2. They had handed a fortune to the Saudis but by keeping the money in the NY banks, the bankers still controlled the Saudis
    3. This surplus money was also kept out of other international banks and so could not be used by them to effectively compete with the NY banks and so kept those other banks under control as well and Wall St dominant.

    Point 1 was the most important for the bankers, in my view. This created the petrodollar – a dollar that used to be covered by gold as well as international trade and the US domestic GDP. Then gold dropped out of the equation and was replaced with oil at a hugely inflated price.

    At a bankers symposium during the eighties (I think from memory), the head of Citibank at the time, Walter Wriston, answered a question concerning what his bank would do if the Saudis wanted their money back. He replied blithely, "No problem. We'll write them a cheque!" His reply was met with dumbfounded silence which told me told me that most of the audience of bankers did not understand banking at that level. There should have been laughter because the money cannot escape the system. It can only get transferred from one bank to another and each bank is dependent on remaining in the system to keep operating.

    It's just a matter of borrowing from each other. If Citibank has the Saudi's money to cover their other loans, then this will be more profitable for them than having to borrow it from other banks. But it is not a system breaker if they do have to borrow it from other banks. That's what the system is for.

    Jen, August 6, 2015 at 12:33 am

    It would be interesting to know when the Saudis also started buying up weapons and military hardware from the US and the UK. If they began some time in the early / mid 1970s to buy such equipment, and it were possible to find out where the money was coming from, that would be another piece in a big puzzle that links the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement, the Vietnam War, the 1973 oil crisis and subsequent decline in the US car manufacturing industry, the Yom Kippur War and maybe more besides.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#End_of_the_Bretton_Woods_accord

    James, thanks for the extra detail.

    spartacus, August 6, 2015 at 1:45 am

    Hello Jen! From the Wiki article you linked, I found this paragraph to be very interesting:

    "The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold."

    So it seems that the oil sellers, seeing that their "real" income from selling oil was decreasing (they were selling oil at the same price in terms of dollars, but at a lower price in terms of gold), were determined not to let the depreciating dollar erase a big chunk of their earnings. I think this goes to show how deep is entrenched in the collective psyche the idea that gold is THE medium for storing wealth. Barbarous relic? I think not…

    After all, value is a social construct and economic relations are social relations mediated through these things we call "commodities". Gold has proven itself to be a very good mediator of these social relations, not because some magical qualities, but because of obvious practical advantages. So, although its role is significantly smaller these days, I think it still retains the roles of "medium of last resort" and "measuring stick of wealth".

    marknesop, August 6, 2015 at 9:42 am

    The currency Gaddafi had moved to introduce was the gold dinar, an actual negotiable gold coin, and he proposed all African and Muslim nations accept only the dinar for oil. The sources speculating on this look a little tabloid-ey, but as with many such subjects, the mainstream press just never mentions it, as if deciding not to talk about it removes it from consideration as an issue.

    Similarly, the disappearance of Libya's gold is easily explained – unscrupulous people, including Gaddafi himself, stole it. The guy who was planning to introduce a gold currency to Africa actually stole all the gold for himself, the tricky devil.

    james@wpc , August 6, 2015 at 1:48 am

    Jen, my recollection is that the Saudi's started buying armaments big-time during the seventies because I remember asking myself, "what's wrong with this picture?" Here is a supposed enemy of Israel buying huge amounts of military equipment, particularly fighter jets, from the country it has just imposed sanctions on, the US. Added to that, the US is THE big supporter of Israel and indeed, saved its bacon during the Yom Kippur war!

    The money for the military hardware could only have come from the increased price of oil and looking back it is increasingly obvious that these sales were part of the original deal to increase the price of oil. It is part of the circular trading that Tim was talking about.

    The petrol rationing exercises in the US and elsewhere are looking more and more like theatre to condition the punters that we have to pay more. The whole crisis was stage managed and nothing has changed in forty years!

    marknesop, August 6, 2015 at 9:14 am

    The USA has a similar arrangement with Israel, in which it transfers billions in foreign aid to this prosperous country and Israel then uses it to buy U.S. weapons and military equipment. It would be simpler to just gift them the military equipment, but that would look as if the USA was building a military ally to extend its own power – which it is – and the former way helps create the need for more dollars.

    [Aug 08, 2015] Global Oil Supply More Fragile Than You Think

    "... the delay of 46 major oil and gas projects that have 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves mean that global production several years from now could be much lower than anticipated. Due to long lead times, decisions made today will impact the world's production profile towards the end of this decade and into the 2020s. It makes sense for companies to cut today, but collectively that could lead to much lower supplies in the future."
    Aug 05, 2015 | Oilprice.com

    Many oil companies had trimmed their budgets heading into 2015 to deal with lower oil prices. But the rebound in April and May to $60 per barrel from the mid-$40s suggested that the severe drop was merely temporary.

    But the collapse of prices in July – owing to the Iran nuclear deal, an ongoing production surplus, and economic and financial concerns in Greece and China – have darkened the mood. Now a prevailing sense that oil prices may stay lower for longer has hit the markets.

    Oil futures for delivery in December 2020 are currently trading $8 lower than they were at the beginning of this year even while immediate spot prices are $4 higher today. In other words, oil traders are now feeling much gloomier about oil prices several years out than they were at the beginning of 2015.

    The growing acceptance that oil prices could stay lower for longer will kick off a fresh round of cuts in spending and workforces for the oil industry.

    "It's a monumental challenge to offset the impact of a 50% drop in oil price," Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., told the WSJ. "The priorities have shifted completely. The priority now is to discontinue budget spending. The priority is to live within your means. Forget about growth. They are now in survival mode."

    And many companies are also recalculating the oil price needed for new drilling projects to make financial sense. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, BP is assuming an oil price of $60 per barrel moving forward. Royal Dutch Shell is a little more pessimistic, using $50 per barrel as their projection. For now, projects that need $100+ per barrel will be put on ice indefinitely. The oil majors have cancelled or delayed a combined $200 billion in new projects as they seek to rein in costs, according to Wood Mackenzie.

    But the delay of 46 major oil and gas projects that have 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves mean that global production several years from now could be much lower than anticipated. Due to long lead times, decisions made today will impact the world's production profile towards the end of this decade and into the 2020s. It makes sense for companies to cut today, but collectively that could lead to much lower supplies in the future.

    That is a problem because the oil majors were struggling to boost oil production even when oil prices were high. 2014 was one of the worst in over six decades for major new oil discoveries, even though oil prices were high for most of the year. Despite high levels of spending, exploration companies are simply finding fewer and fewer reserves of oil.

    Shale production has surged in recent years, but it could be a fleeting phenomenon. Precipitous decline rates from shale wells mean that much of a well's lifetime production occurs within the first year or two. Moreover, after the best spots are drilled, the shale revolution could start to come to a close. The IEA predicts that U.S. shale will plateau and begin to decline in the 2020s. That means it would not be able to keep up with rising demand. Add in the fact that oil wells around the world suffer from natural decline rates on the order of 5 percent per year (with very wide variation), and it becomes clear that major new sources of oil will need to come online.

    One other factor that could tighten oil markets over the long-term is the fact that Saudi Arabia has churned through much of its spare capacity. As one of the only countries that can ramp up latent oil capacity within just a few weeks, Saudi Arabia's spare capacity is crucial to world oil market stability.

    Many energy analysts like to compare the current oil bust to the one that occurred in the 1980s. But one of the major differences between the two events is that, in addition to the glut of oil supplies in the 1980s, was the fact that Saudi Arabia dramatically reduced its output from 10 million barrels per day (mb/d) down to less than 4 mb/d in response. As a result, on top of the fact that the world was awash in oil throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were also several million barrels per day of spare capacity sitting on the sidelines, meaning there was virtually no chance of a price spike for more than a decade.

    That is no longer the case. Today OPEC has only 1.6 mb/d of spare capacity, the lowest level since before the 2008 financial crisis. So while Saudi Arabia is currently flooding the market with crude, it has exhausted its spare capacity, leaving few tools to come to the rescue in a pinch.

    That brings us back to the large spending cuts the oil majors are undertaking. With spare capacity shot and major new sources of oil not coming online in a few years, the world may end up struggling to meet rising oil demand. That could cause oil prices to spike.

    More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
    •Could WTI Trade At A Premium To Brent By Next Year?
    •How Russia's Energy Giant Imploded
    •US Oil Production Finally Starting to Decline

    1. Oil Guru Who Called 2014 Slump Sees a Return to $100 Crude Bloomberg
    2. Oil Warning: The Crash Could Be the Worst in More Than 45 Years Bloomberg
    3. Oil bulls' hope for quick price dip dimmed by 2020 crude under $70 Reuters
    4. How Iran Impacts The Price and Supply of Oil Investopedia
    5. Shell to Cut 6,500 Jobs as Profit Drops The Wall Street Journal

    [Aug 08, 2015] Tyler Drumheller, CIA officer who exposed U.S. reliance on discredited Iraq source 'Curveball,' dies at 63

    Aug 06, 2015 | The Washington Pos

    Tyler S. Drumheller, a high-level CIA officer who publicly battled agency leaders over one of the most outlandish claims in the U.S. case for war with Iraq, died Aug. 2 at a hospital in Fairfax County. He was 63.

    The cause was complications from pancreatic cancer, said his wife, Linda Drumheller.

    Mr. Drumheller held posts in Africa and Europe over a 26-year career during which the CIA's focus shifted from the Cold War to terrorist threats. He rose to prominent positions at CIA headquarters, serving as chief of the European division at a time when the agency was abducting al-Qaeda suspects on the continent and U.S. allies there faced a wave of terrorist plots.

    But he was best known publicly for his role in exposing the extent to which a key part of the administration's case for war with Iraq had been built on the claims of an Iraqi defector and serial fabricator with the fitting code name "Curveball."

    In contrast to Hollywood's depiction of spies as impossibly elegant and acrobatic, Mr. Drumheller was a bulky, rumpled figure who often seemed oblivious to the tufts of dog hair on his clothes.


    "I always thought of him as an overfed George Smiley," said Bill Murray, a former CIA colleague, referring to the character in John le Carré spy novels known for his espionage acumen but unassuming appearance.

    Mr. Drumheller spent the bulk of his career as an undercover officer seeking to avoid public attention. But after retiring in 2005, he emerged as a vocal critic of the George W. Bush administration's use of deeply flawed intelligence to build support for its decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

    Curveball, who had defected to Germany in the late 1990s, was the primary source behind the administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq had developed biological weapons laboratories - lethal germ factories supposedly built on wheels or rails to evade detection.

    The claim was included in Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech as well as then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations designed to marshal international support for intervention in Iraq.

    "We had failed," he wrote. "It was bad enough that we had not prevented the Sept. 11 attacks and we were being blamed for that. Now the nation was about to embark on a war based on intelligence I knew was false, and we would surely be blamed for that, too."

    A scathing 2005 report on the intelligence failures in Iraq did not mention Mr. Drumheller by name but concluded that officials in the agency's European division had "expressed serious concerns about Curveball's reliability to senior officials at the CIA," and that the warnings were inexplicably dismissed.

    The allegation touched off a bitter feud. When then-CIA Director George J. Tenet denied that he had ever been warned about Curveball, Mr. Drumheller fought back in public, saying that "everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening."

    Mr. Drumheller was widely quoted in news accounts and appeared on the CBS program "60 Minutes."

    No mobile germ warfare labs were found, and the defector, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, has since admitted that the story was a fiction he fed to German intelligence while seeking asylum.

    The blow-up over Curveball coincided with Mr. Drumheller's retirement from the CIA "I think he was really proud of standing up against the war," Linda Drumheller said in an interview. "That was his personal greatest achievement."

    The son of an Air Force chaplain, Tyler Scott Drumheller was born in Biloxi, Miss., on April 12, 1952. He spent part of his childhood in Germany before attending the University of Virginia. He graduated in 1974 with a history degree and did postgraduate work in Chinese at Georgetown University before being hired by the CIA in 1979.

    He met Linda Blocher while she was working at the spy agency as a secretary in the Africa division, and proposed to her in a stairwell at CIA headquarters after learning that he would soon be sent to Zambia. It was the first in a series of stops for the couple that would also include South Africa, Portugal, Germany and Austria. Two and sometimes three pet dogs accompanied every move.

    Besides his wife, of Vienna, Va., survivors include a daughter, Livia Phillips of Great Falls, Va.; a sister, Alecia Ball of Chester, Va.; and a grandson.

    Mr. Drumheller's affable manner made it easy for him to form lasting connections with people throughout his career, Linda Drumheller said. He also had a prodigious memory, she said, that enabled him to keep track of cryptonyms, children's birthdays and Detroit Tigers statistics.

    Mr. Drumheller "understood human nature," Murray said. "Beneath that pleasant and fun kind of personality, he understood exactly what people were and what he was dealing with. Good or bad."

    Mr. Drumheller had retained a young CIA recruit's enthusiasm for much of his career. But he seemed to grow tired of the internal conflicts after the Sept. 11 attacks. In his memoir, he wrote that in retirement he asked to have his Distinguished Career Intelligence medal delivered by mail rather than returning to headquarters for a ceremony.

    When the envelope arrived, he wrote, "I opened it up and fell into a bit of a reverie, reflecting on my career and the years past, the successes and the friends gained, the colleagues lost and the mistakes made."

    Juceam, 5:10 PM EDT

    Drumheller's preoccupation with Curveball apparently did not allow him to uncover the real motivator for the Bush decision to invade Iraq.

    The US invaded Iraq for Israeli national security interests, not those of the US. Iraq with WMD posed no threat to the US. They posed a potential threat to Israel.

    In their book, The Israel Lobby, John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt argue that among the more important impetuses for George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 was the Israel lobby. Important evidence for this allegation was the central role played in propagandizing for the war by Israel lobby Neoconservative figures such as:

    Richard Perle-was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board.
    Paul Wolfowitz -Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board.
    Douglas Feith-Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor.
    David Wurmser-Special Assistant to the under-secretary for arms control and international security.
    Lewis (Scooter) Libby -Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.
    John Hannah- National Security aide to Dick Cheney.
    Douglas Feith established in the Pentagon the Office of Special Projects (OSP).

    The OSP forged close ties to an ad hoc intelligence unit within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel. The purpose of the unit was to provide key people in the Bush administration "with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorize." Thus, the OSP was getting cooked intelligence not only from its own intelligence unit, but also from an Israeli cell.

    the3sattlers, 8/7/2015 10:24 AM EDT

    "Sidney Blumenthal, a confidant who was paid by the Clinton Foundation, told the Select Committee on Benghazi Tuesday that the information he supplied the sitting Secretary of State came from a "respected former high-ranking CIA official," ...Sources close to the Benghazi investigation identified the official as Tyler Drumheller, a 25-year veteran of the CIA who retired from the agency in 2005 and has since worked in private consulting." Was it purposeful by WAPO to ignore this? Unimportant? Better to remember Iraq than more recent events? Tyler Drumheller RIP.

    Even WAPO obits are biased and disgraceful. Great work, Miller.

    jfschumaker, 8/6/2015 8:53 PM EDT

    It's a great pity that Mr. Drumheller's doubts about "Curveball" were not more widely shared. It might have saved the country from a disastrous mistake, the invasion of Iraq.

    That said, it's pretty clear that the political decision to launch the war was already made, and the intelligence was just gathered up to provide support for the idea, not to vet it.

    It's also interesting that the Washington Post obit does not contain any information on Mr. Drumheller's most recent claim to fame, that he was reportedly Sidney Blumenthal's source for information provided to Secretary Clinton on Libya. I'm sure there must be a reason for that, but it escapes me. Washington is, after all, still "This Town." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tyler-drumheller-ma...


    [Aug 08, 2015]About the value of top secret documents

    Yves Smith August 8, 2015 at 1:40 am

    No, you are wrong on this. It's more complicated than you think. Henry Kissinger sought out Daniel Ellsberg as one of his top priority meetings as a new government official . Ellsberg was highly respected as a world-reknown decision theorist, and as one of the most insightful people on Vietnam, having spend substantial time on the ground (as opposed to cloistered in Saigon) on behalf of the DoD and State. Ellsberg's description of that encounter from his book Secrets:

    "Henry, there's something I would like to tell you, for what it's worth, something I wish I had been told years ago. You've been a consultant for a long time, and you've dealt a great deal with top secret information. But you're about to receive a whole slew of special clearances, maybe fifteen or twenty of them, that are higher than top secret.

    "I've had a number of these myself, and I've known other people who have just acquired them, and I have a pretty good sense of what the effects of receiving these clearances are on a person who didn't previously know they even existed. And the effects of reading the information that they will make available to you.

    "First, you'll be exhilarated by some of this new information, and by having it all - so much! incredible! - suddenly available to you. But second, almost as fast, you will feel like a fool for having studied, written, talked about these subjects, criticized and analyzed decisions made by presidents for years without having known of the existence of all this information, which presidents and others had and you didn't, and which must have influenced their decisions in ways you couldn't even guess. In particular, you'll feel foolish for having literally rubbed shoulders for over a decade with some officials and consultants who did have access to all this information you didn't know about and didn't know they had, and you'll be stunned that they kept that secret from you so well.

    "You will feel like a fool, and that will last for about two weeks. Then, after you've started reading all this daily intelligence input and become used to using what amounts to whole libraries of hidden information, which is much more closely held than mere top secret data, you will forget there ever was a time when you didn't have it, and you'll be aware only of the fact that you have it now and most others don't….and that all those other people are fools.

    "Over a longer period of time - not too long, but a matter of two or three years - you'll eventually become aware of the limitations of this information. There is a great deal that it doesn't tell you, it's often inaccurate, and it can lead you astray just as much as the New York Times can. But that takes a while to learn.

    "In the meantime it will have become very hard for you to learn from anybody who doesn't have these clearances. Because you'll be thinking as you listen to them: 'What would this man be telling me if he knew what I know? Would he be giving me the same advice, or would it totally change his predictions and recommendations?' And that mental exercise is so torturous that after a while you give it up and just stop listening. I've seen this with my superiors, my colleagues….and with myself.

    "You will deal with a person who doesn't have those clearances only from the point of view of what you want him to believe and what impression you want him to go away with, since you'll have to lie carefully to him about what you know. In effect, you will have to manipulate him. You'll give up trying to assess what he has to say. The danger is, you'll become something like a moron. You'll become incapable of learning from most people in the world, no matter how much experience they may have in their particular areas that may be much greater than yours."

    Kurt Sperry August 8, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    That doesn't really read to me as any sort of refutation of my skeptical assessment. This above top secret stuff is in Ellsberg's words "often inaccurate" and can thus lead or be used to lead the target away from more correct analyses by its inflated putative authority. As the sources for this in all likelihood cannot be fact checked or held accountable in any immediate way, it will tend to become an ad hoc vector for the deliberate injection of misinformation or highly biased analyses into the highest levels of policy decision making processes that can be used to influence policy outcomes in a completely opaque and unaccountable way. To cite the most obvious example, the entire Iraq War II was built around a false set of these "above top secret" assertions of fact that were fed to the highest levels of the executive, and in hindsight these could have been pretty easily debunked entirely using open sources. This "above top secret" intelligence turned out to be complete garbage and a major war was launched based on this garbage, which clearly says to me that "The stuff the spooks/deep staters/whatever tell the POTUS is probably in large measure just scaremongering bullshit tailored to elicit or lead the target towards a self serving set of policy choices."

    Given this, it just feels "foily" to me to uncritically accept that there is a large body of highly secret and objective facts that top level decision makers have access to. If that stuff went through any real vetting or rigorous fact checking processes, Iraq War II would never have even happened. History says clearly and unambiguously that a system to do that fact checking isn't in place and thus the notion of a 'large body of highly secret and objective facts' is at best a distortion and probably often a complete fiction.

    Neocons/ /media_military /nulandgate. Fighting_russo*/ Neoliberalism/ Neocolon*/ /color_revolutions. /deep_state. /predator_state.

    [Aug 08, 2015] Don't Expect An Oil Price Rebound This Side Of 2017

    "...with most market participants now resigned to at least another year of low oil prices, a lot of hope has gone out of the markets."
    .
    "...Second, firms will keep pumping in many cases until their wells run dry. Fortunately for oil investors, shale wells have a much faster decline rate than traditional wells. Shale wells decline at a rate of between 60 percent and 90 percent over the course of three years."
    .
    "...Rapid decline rates mean that U.S. oil production could begin declining as fewer and fewer new wells are drilled. But it will take time for production to come down sufficiently enough to support a major oil price rebound. Given that, investors need to focus on oil stocks that can get through the next two years on minimal (if any) profit, and they themselves need to be prepared to wait for a price rebound until 2017."

    OilPrice.com

    ...firms have an incentive to produce now rather than waiting. Previously, some firms likely hoped that oil prices would spring back by the end of 2015 and that the firm's hedges could keep sales receipts high enough to avoid dealing with the dramatic fall in prices. But prices have not bounced back, and with most market participants now resigned to at least another year of low oil prices, a lot of hope has gone out of the markets.

    ... ... ...

    This will take time though. First, many firms were propped up by their hedging programs. Those hedges are only just now starting to expire and exposing firms to the full depth of the oil price drop. Second, firms will keep pumping in many cases until their wells run dry. Fortunately for oil investors, shale wells have a much faster decline rate than traditional wells. Shale wells decline at a rate of between 60 percent and 90 percent over the course of three years.

    Rapid decline rates mean that U.S. oil production could begin declining as fewer and fewer new wells are drilled. But it will take time for production to come down sufficiently enough to support a major oil price rebound. Given that, investors need to focus on oil stocks that can get through the next two years on minimal (if any) profit, and they themselves need to be prepared to wait for a price rebound until 2017.

    By Michael McDonald for Oilprice.com

    [Aug 08, 2015]Top 6 Myths Driving Oil Prices Down

    "...The Saudis, as OPEC's largest producer and largest contributor to growth in 2015, have already stated that they will reduce output by 200,000-300,000 by summers end. "
    OilPrice.com
    "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."

    Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood, The Busy-Body, and Early Writings

    I start with that quote because once the media, as well as politicians for that matter, have no accountability for actions or words then liberty will dissolve. Over the last few weeks I have witnessed another litany of lies that the media insists on putting forth. They come in the form of statements presented as facts to sway opinion while others are opinions quoted by others. Either way, the bias in talking down oil prices, reinforcing the "glut" that is fueled in part by misleading EIA and IEA data, is readily apparent.

    Earlier in the year I documented half a dozen media reports which turned out to be 100 percent false. Now I expose another half dozen in just the past few weeks. Prices remain unchanged as a result of the largest drop in production in a year, as well as a large inventory draw this week via the EIA. The very fact that prices haven't responded demonstrates my points. This comes despite the dollar index (UUP) over the last month remaining essentially flat while USO has fallen over 15 percent (so much for that relationship, except when the dollar rises right?)…

    Related: A Reality Check For U.S. Natural Gas Ambitions

    Even at the time of this article the dollar index is down 1 percent yet oil is down as well.

    Here is a list of the latest lies:

    1. Iran Agreement to flood market. FALSE. OPEC has even stated that the natural 1.0 to 1.5 million barrels per day (MB/D) rise in demand in 2016 will more than offset any production rises in Iran which, contrary to earlier reports, won't come on line until early 2016. In addition, China will open up refining to third party, non-state-owned refineries which will reportedly add another 600,000 B/D in demand in 2016.
    2. Iran floating storage will flood market. FALSE. As initially reported in the media, it was Iranian oil floating in storage but it now turns out to be low grade condensate as stated by PIRA on Bloomberg a few weeks back and then supported by tankers attempting to move inventory to Asia. Later media reports corrected earlier ones that the storage is in fact condensate while failing to report on its grade.
    3. U.S. production resilient. FALSE. The latest EIA data refutes this as does data via EPS calls at Whiting Petroleum (WLL) & Hess Corporation (HES). Yes, some are increasing production such as Concho resources (CXO), but in the Bakken both companies confirm that 2H15 production will decline due to lower rigs and depletion. HES raised production for the year as a result of 1H15 production being higher than expected by some 5 percent. All in all, next week should see further production drops.
    4. U.S. Inventory resilient. FALSE. EIA data would have fallen last week by some 4MB as it did this week ex import surges and continues to be overstated by "adjustments" made to production that amount to millions of barrels in daily production.
    5. Cushing inventory fears revived. FALSE…see above.
    6. OPEC supply will continue. The Saudis, as OPEC's largest producer and largest contributor to growth in 2015, have already stated that they will reduce output by 200,000-300,000 by summers end. Yes true, OPEC as an entity won't formally announce a cut but isn't it misleading to report this?

    ... ... ...

    I should note that WLL also refuted Goldman Sachs' call that, at $60, U.S. production and rig count increases would resume. Before the most recent fall in oil, that call admittedly looked true as rigs did rise and Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) was reportedly going to add 2 rigs a month until early 2016.

    WLL, however, finally drew a line in the sand as they stated on their EPS call that they would not add a rig until 4-6 months after oil remained at $60 or better. PXD, if they are smart, will follow suit and, I suspect, the oil industry has finally come to realize that the "Trillion Dollar Swindle" in oil is very real and normal supply and demand dynamics no longer apply. The law of diminishing returns in more supply is real thanks to media hype.

    Lastly, I wish to emphasize that freedom of speech not only comes as the freedom to express yourself, as I am doing here now, as others have done freely in the media, presenting both bullish and bearish cases. However, the number of statements that have been proven false and not retracted, as well as the obvious bias should raise serious questions about the role of media in the current oil bust. Which industry will be under attack next?

    Meanwhile, an industry which by simple math cannot generate free cash flow (FCF) on $100 oil is disintegrating before our eyes, with millions affected by the fallout. Targeting individuals has become a regular theme in the media but now it appears to have moved to certain industries.

    Below demonstrates that even on $100 oil shale isn't self-sustainable on a FCF basis, never mind $50 oil.

    Below is the estimated CF deficits for 2016 according to Jefferies with hedges:


    (Click to enlarge)

    How one on the sell side or media can argue for even lower oil to balance the market demonstrates the lack of detailed research and understanding of shale economics.

    By Leonard Brecken of Oilprice.com

    steve from virginia on July 31 2015 said:

    - Oil prices are declining because oil product end users around the world are broke and cannot borrow. They cannot borrow b/c they are insolvent, they are insolvent b/c they cannot borrow.

    - Oil prices are declining as a direct result of worldwide QE and other forms of easing. Easing shifts purchasing power proportionately to banks and large firms away from product end users. Without funds the end users cannot retire the drillers' expanding debts => drillers fall bankrupt.

    - Oil prices are declining because using fuel does not offer any real returns, only vaporous 'utility' which is really pleasure. Oil is an indispensable form of capital, it has been squandered for 'thrills', we are now facing the consequences: end users who lack the means to support extraction efforts.

    Keep in mind, ongoing fuel supply constraints (!) adversely affect end users faster than declining prices can subsidize them; this is a self-amplifying process. When it takes hold there is no escape from it; oil prices will decline to near-zero and the price will still be too high.

    Joseph Castillo on August 01 2015 said:
    Thank you for your insights, Leonard. No one seems to be noticing the production rollover here in Texas, nor the growing disparity between the Texas numbers and the EIA numbers and forecasts. Yesterday the market punished oil because of a very small increase in the rig count. Amazingly, the market completely missed that the EIA finally reported a significant drop (on the order of 150,000 bbls/day) for both their monthly volumes as well as their July 31st weekly numbers. At some point these facts will have to be recognized.

    I am at a loss for how this goes unnoticed by the media and why "reputable" researchers at groups like Goldman-Sachs continue trumpeting the oil glut horn in direct conflict with the facts. Anyway, thanks for your work. It gives little guys like Bold Energy hope that we can survive.

    Mike on August 02 2015 said:
    Timothy. Your statement about demand growth is wrong. There has been significant demand growth and if you look at actual statistics you will see that.

    I would not believe the fairy stories in Media news about demand though, because like most media stories at present, they seem to perpetuate a desired view rather than any effort to represent and true and honest account. .

    Shakespit on August 03 2015 said:
    Tone of article seems angry and strident, maybe desperate. How dare the media print anything that negatively affects oil pricing. The news stories are "myths," read "lies." Well surely if the stories are myths, reality will soon correct the price.

    I am no expert but have read energy news with interest since the first oil shock in 1973, I know that the statement that "...$100 oil shale isn't self-sustainable ..." is a joke. Shale oil certainly is very sustainable at $100 per barrel; a lot of shale is sustainable at $50, as are Canadian tar sands.

    The cost floor for unconventional oil to be sustainable has been wildly exaggerated for several years. Not four months ago Shell's head of tar sands production in an NPR interview corrected a young-sounding reporterette, who was stating the tar sands production needed $70 a barrel to break even, to say that the actual break even point was $36 a barrel. A $36 a barrel price for most unconventional oil is about the break even point cited for decades in the literature -- I think I'll stick with that figure as my understanding as the sustainable floor for most unconventional oil. Cheer up, myths can only hurt for so long, then the market will catch up and make it all better! So don't you worry about a thing! Thank you!!


    Andrew on August 03 2015 said:

    Agree with Steve from Virginia. QE was the most blatant and convoluted blow at the laws of economics, supply and demand. By seeking to undermine the cyclical nature of the economy and save those who would have been justly taken down the Fed and the politicians have created huge distortions which will echo through the economy for years to come. They stopped the market from adjusting itself, rebalancing wealth distribution and asset values, removing inefficiencies and restoring consumers purchasing power.

    How this tinkering (this word is obviously inadequate to describe the meddling, a wrench in the gears is more appropriate) will propagate through the system is anybody's guess. I suppose the stats perversion in the oil industry and its subsequent degradation so aptly described by the author is one of them. .

    zorro6204 on August 03 2015 said:

    Myths don't drive the oil markets, supply and demand does. And the facts are that in spite of the price drop, production is not falling. I'm hard pressed to find any companies guiding to lower production, and neither could these guys:

    "Barclays said a group of 101 oil companies that it tracks, which cover around 40% of global oil production, show no slowdown in the pace of production growth in 2015. After growing by one million barrels a day in 2014, the companies plan to accelerate output growth to 1.4 million barrels a day this year and maintain that level into 2016." - WSJ .

    Matt on August 03 2015 said:

    What the large independents should've done (the majors never would. Heck, they may be behind this driving down of the price of oil so they can snatch up a CLR or someone cheap) is stack every rig. Not drill a darn well at all in 2015, pay all of their hands from cash flow,and reevaluate at year end. Most of us little guys have already done that.

    Shakespit is correct. If production is truly declining, the market will correct itself even if it is being manipulated psychologically or otherwise. When a buyer needs physical oil and it's not so easy to come by, the price offered will go up.

    [Aug 07, 2015] U.S. adds Russian oil field to sanctions list

    U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power says Washington is very concerned about reports of a visit to Russia by Iran's Quds Force chief to Russia in breach of U.N. sanctions. Rough Cut (no reporter narration). Reported Russia visit by Iran military chief' "very concerning" to U.S.
    yahoo.com

    (Reuters) - The United States has added a Russian oil and gas field, the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field, to its list of energy sector sanctions prompted by Moscow's actions in Ukraine, drawing a prompt rebuke from the Kremlin on Friday.

    The federal government said on Thursday the field, located in the Sea of Okhotsk of the Siberian coast and owned by Russia's leading gas producer Gazprom, contains substantial reserves of oil in addition to reserves of gas.

    "The Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field is being added to the Entity List because it is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil," according to a rule notice in the Federal Register.

    A Kremlin spokesman criticized the move.

    "Unfortunately, (this decision) further damages our bilateral relations," spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

    Gazprom declined to comment.

    Adding the field to the list means a license will be required for exports, re-exports or transfers of oil from that location, it said. The gas and condensate field was discovered in 2010, according to Gazprom.

    Douglas Jacobson, an international trade lawyer in Washington, said the addition "represents a new arrow in the quiver of U.S. sanctions on Russia."

    He said the addition means that no U.S. origin items or non-U.S. origin items containing more than 25 percent U.S. content can be exported or re-exported to the field without a Commerce Department license, which he said was not likely to be issued.

    "This goes beyond the current Russia sanctions, which prohibit certain items to be exported to Russia when they are used directly or indirectly in the exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet)," Jacobsen said in an email.

    The action builds on those taken since last year by the United States and the European Union after Russia's annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine.

    Last week, the United States imposed additional Russia and Ukraine-related sanctions, adding associates of a billionaire Russian gas trader, Crimean port operators and former Ukrainian officials to its list of those it is penalizing in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine.

    (Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati in Washington and Ekaterina Golubkova and Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow; Editing by Andrew Hay)

    [Aug 07, 2015]What Lindsey Graham Fails to Understand About a War Against Iran

    Earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham, a hawkish Republican from South Carolina, used a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to stage a theatrical display of his disdain for the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

    The most telling part of his time in the spotlight came when he pressed Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to declare who would win if the United States and Iran fought a war:

    Here's a transcript of the relevant part:

    Graham: Could we win a war with Iran? Who wins the war between us and Iran? Who wins? Do you have any doubt who wins?

    Carter: No. The United States.

    Graham: We. Win.

    Little more than a decade ago, when Senator Graham urged the invasion of Iraq, he may well have asked a general, "Could we win a war against Saddam Hussein? Who wins?" The answer would've been the same: "The United States." And the U.S. did rout Hussein's army. It drove the dictator into a hole, and he was executed by the government that the United States installed. And yet, the fact that the Iraqi government of 2002 lost the Iraq War didn't turn out to mean that the U.S. won it. It incurred trillions in costs; thousands of dead Americans; thousands more with missing limbs and post-traumatic stress disorder and years of deployments away from spouses and children; and in the end, a broken Iraq with large swaths of its territory controlled by ISIS, a force the Iraqis cannot seem to defeat. That's what happened last time a Lindsey Graham-backed war was waged.

    Recommended: What ISIS Really Wants

    But one needn't be an opponent of the Iraq war to glean its basic lessons.

    Hawkish pols have a tendency to harken back to the late 1930s exclusively, but one need only look to the eve of World War I (to the Czar in Russia and the German Kaiser, say) to see that two countries can and do fight wars that both end up losing.

    A war against the U.S. would likely be a disaster for Iran. And rigorous attempts to game out such a conflict suggest that it could be very bad for the U.S. as well.

    My colleague Peter Beinart has written about this:

    Robert Gates, who led the CIA under George H.W. Bush before becoming George W. Bush and Barack Obama's defense secretary, has said bombing Iran could prove a "catastrophe," and that Iran's "capacity to wage a series of terror attacks across the Middle East aimed at us and our friends, and dramatically worsen the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and elsewhere is hard to overestimate."

    Meir Dagan, who led Israel's external spy service, the Mossad, from 2002 to 2011, has warned that an attack on Iran "would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program." In the aftermath of a military strike, he added, "The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible."

    Says Jeffrey Goldberg, another colleague, "War against Iran over its nuclear program would not guarantee that Iran is kept forever away from a bomb. It would pretty much guarantee that Iran unleashes its terrorist armies against American targets."

    In 2004, my colleague James Fallows observed an Iran war game led by Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who spent more than two decades conducting war games at the National War College and other military institutions––and whose prescience about aspects of the Iraq War, derived from simulations, came far closer to what happened than anything Senator Graham predicted.

    Recommended: The Case for Reparations

    Said Fallows:

    The most important hidden problem, exposed in the war-game discussions, was that a full assault would require such drawn-out preparations that the Iranian government would know months in advance what was coming. Its leaders would have every incentive to strike pre-emptively in their own defense. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a threatened Iran would have many ways to harm America and its interests.

    Apart from cross-border disruptions in Iraq, it might form an outright alliance with al-Qaeda to support major new attacks within the United States. It could work with other oil producers to punish America economically. It could, as Hammes warned, apply the logic of "asymmetric," or "fourth-generation," warfare, in which a superficially weak adversary avoids a direct challenge to U.S. military power and instead strikes the most vulnerable points in American civilian society, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11. If it thought that the U.S. goal was to install a wholly new regime rather than to change the current regime's behavior, it would have no incentive for restraint.

    What about a pre-emptive strike of our own, like the Osirak raid? The problem is that Iran's nuclear program is now much more advanced than Iraq's was at the time of the raid. Already the U.S. government has no way of knowing exactly how many sites Iran has, or how many it would be able to destroy, or how much time it would buy in doing so. Worse, it would have no way of predicting the long-term strategic impact of such a strike. A strike might delay by three years Iran's attainment of its goal-but at the cost of further embittering the regime and its people. Iran's intentions when it did get the bomb would be all the more hostile.

    Here the United States faces what the military refers to as a "branches and sequels" decision-that is, an assessment of best and second-best outcomes. It would prefer that Iran never obtain nuclear weapons. But if Iran does, America would like Iran to see itself more or less as India does-as a regional power whose nuclear status symbolizes its strength relative to regional rivals, but whose very attainment of this position makes it more committed to defending the status quo. The United States would prefer, of course, that Iran not reach a new level of power with a vendetta against America. One of our panelists thought that a strike would help the United States, simply by buying time. The rest disagreed.

    Iran would rebuild after a strike, and from that point on it would be much more reluctant to be talked or bargained out of pursuing its goals-and it would have far more reason, once armed, to use nuclear weapons to America's detriment.

    Lindsey Graham's notion that the question of war between America and Iran is coherently reducible to "we win" or "they win" is facile, dangerous, and especially galling from a man who ought to have learned better from the last war he urged. Even the most severe Iranian losses would not necessarily mean that "we win."

    This article was originally published at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/what-lindsey-graham-elides-about-a-war-against-iran/400148/?UTM_SOURCE=yahoo

    Read more from The Atlantic

    An Introverted Writer's Lament

    My Outrage Is Better Than Your Outrage

    Si

    One thing these war mongers do not realize is; by America getting involved in these small regional fights all around the world is making us weaker not stronger. An old bear who fights multiple fights with small bears, receives multiple scars and finally is overtaken by competing bears. Russia and China are just waiting on side lines for this opportunity. Let's not foreign entities, like AIPAC get us involved in these local wars. America's interest should be set at higher and moral goals.

    Ronald Mayle

    For one. If we were not war mongers we would be speaking German or French right now. We would still be kissing the rear end of a queen. Russian banks are failing and China's economy is tied into ours. We fight that is who we are

    Elizabeth A

    Many Americans were speaking German before the world wars. It's time to quit the Chamberlain, Pearl Harbor, Holocaust, deranged John Wayne Brain Cold Warrior nonsense! Germany could not handle an invasion across the English Channel, 20 miles and not the 3,500 across the Atlantic Ocean. Germany was roughly the size of Ohio. Japan was roughly the size of California. Neither had the population or production or ability to invade, beat or defeat us over here or over there. So, save it because we are no longer scared! Are the commies gonna still get us too?

    thomas

    Si, you are absolutely correct. We are squandering our resources all around the globe fighting bush wars on behalf of others while the two nations that are actual existential threats to the US build their military assets for the confrontation both have openly acknowledged that they foresee coming down the road. Both Great Britain and Rome in their empire days fell for this trap of over extension and military exhaustion.

    TruTH

    If victory is defined as who can kill more opposing soldiers, then the US has won all the wars its been part of since WWII.
    However, if we look at the objective of any war being completed then we've lost all the wars since WWII (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).
    So to answer Lindsey Graham - we will win by killing more opposing soldiers but lose because our objectives would not be completed.

    Brad

    My political beliefs, ideas, and my opinion on this deal put aside... that was just absolutely ridiculous. To talk about War, middle east politics and lives and future of millions of people as if we are talking about a UFC fight ( who would win? IDK, who won the Iraq war? what about the Afghanistan war? or Vietnam? or Korean war? can we honestly say that we "won" those wars? what did we win exactly?) that is just absolutely infuriating!! I tell you who would win a war with Iran, NOBODY WINS ANYTHING! WE ALL LOSE!

    Sam Spade

    The Iranians do not understand the nature of Satan's brothel. It is all about the money honey! Senator Lindsey Graham, like most American politicians, sides with those who bribe him. Sweet nothings whispered in the ear are not enough! You got to shell out some of them shekels to get some of that orgasmic bliss. The Iranians should get smart and start showering our political prostitutes with gold and silver. If they shell out love gifts, they will surely get some of that passionate love and affection (multiple ovations and ejaculations) which are now exclusively reserved for those handsome circumcised dashing gentlemen at AIPAC/Zionist/Israel.

    Rudy t. Miller

    Bernie Sanders: "While much more work remains to be done this framework is an important step forward. It is imperative that Iran not get a nuclear weapon. It also is imperative that we do everything we can to reach a diplomatic solution and avoid never-ending war in the Middle East. I look forward to examining the details of this agreement and making sure that it is effective ‎and strong."

    Sanders vehemently OPPOSED the war in Iraq, one of the few in Congress who did. NO MORE CLINTONS OR BUSHES IN THE WHITE HOUSE!
    Bernie Sanders for President, 2016!

    [Aug 06, 2015] Crude Carnage Continues As Goldman Warns Storage Is Running Out

    "... $58/bbl the 3-year forward oil price is at its lowest in a decade"
    .
    "...Not only has emerging market growth slowed, but any benefits from lower prices are mostly behind us now, as the benefits only last 6 to 9 months. "
    .
    "...The oil industry on average is not earning its cost of capital. The distinction between cash costs and total costs, also applies to 'well' versus 'company' returns. While the returns at the well can be economical at prices near $50/bbl, the returns for the company can be deeply underwater due to large-scale investments when prices were at $100/bbl. "
    .
    "...While the supply and demand for the barrels of oil will likely find a balance between now and sometime in 2016 with an increasing likelihood of this being driven by operational stress, this doesn't mean a sharp rebound in prices will occur quickly as so many other factors will likely weigh on prices. "
    .
    "... Iran has the potential to add 200 to 400 kb/d of production in 2016 and with significant investment far greater low-cost volumes in 2017 and beyond. Iran, like other OPEC countries, needs the revenues through volume. "
    .
    "...I can almost foresee a crude [production] liquidation throughout all non OPEC and OPEC nations"
    Aug 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    WTI Crude is back below $45 again this morning - pressing towards 2015 and cycle lows -after Goldman Sachs' Jeffrey Currie warns 'lower for longer' is here to stay, with price risk "substantially skewed to the downside." His reasoning are manifold, as detailed below, but overarching is oversupply (Saudi Arabia has a challenge in Asia as it battles to maintain mkt share, the Russians are coming, andother OPEC members want a bigger slice) and, even more crucially, storage is running out. As Currie concludes, this time it is different. Financial metrics for the oil industry are far worse.

    As Goldman Sachs' Jeffrey Currie explains...

    1)Although spot oil prices have only retraced to the lows of this winter, forward oil prices, commodity currencies and energy equities/credit (relative to the broad indices) have now all retraced to levels not seen since 2005, erasing a decade of gains. This creates a very different economic environment as the search for a new equilibrium resumes: financial stress is higher, operational stress as defined below is more extreme and costs have declined further due to more productivity gains, a substantially stronger dollar and sharp declines in other commodity prices. These differences reflect not only a further deterioration in fundamentals, but also the financial markets' decreasing confidence in a quick rebound in prices and a recognition that the rebalancing of supply and demand will likely prove to be far more difficult than what was previously priced into the market. This is all in line with our lower-for-longer view. While we maintain our near-term WTI target of $45/bbl, we want to emphasize that the risks remain substantially skewed to the downside, particularly as we enter the shoulder months this autumn.

    2) In January, we argued that one of the key tenets of the New Oil Order was that capital is now the new margin of adjustment. As shale has dramatically reduced time-to-build (the time between when producers commit capital and when they get production) from several years to several months, oil prices now need to remain lower for longer to keep capital sidelined and allow the rebalancing process to occur uninterrupted. This spring's rally in prices did prove to be self-defeating. Not only did all the capital markets reopen as oil prices rose, but producers began to redeploy rigs and remained under hedged, which is a reflection that the industry simply had not faced enough pain to create real financial stress that would create change.

    3)This time it is different. Financial metrics for the oil industry are far worse. Forward oil prices are c.10% lower (at $58/bbl the 3-year forward oil price is at its lowest in a decade). At the same time leverage for the industry is rising as hedge books are much lighter, with 2016 hedge ratios at 9% versus a five-year average of 25%. Energy equity markets relative to the equity indices are at the lowest level since 2005 and at 3-year lows on an absolute basis. Energy high yield as an OAS spread ratio has also pushed above December 2014 highs. Although financial stress is higher, it alone is still unlikely to create the rebalancing needed due to the unique market structure of the New Oil Order, sidelined capital and declining costs.

    4) The market structure of the New Oil Order is unprecedented. In January we showed that high-quality producing assets were on average owned by weak balance sheets while strong balance sheets on average owned the lower-quality producing assets. In other words, the IOCs and some NOCs own most of the higher-cost production while E&Ps, particularly US E&Ps, own much of the lower-cost production. Historically, weak balance sheets typically owned high-cost assets and vice versa, creating a linear relationship between lower prices and financial stress, which historically led to more financially motivated supply cuts as prices dropped. Yes, we have seen some of the few companies with weak balance sheets and high-cost assets run into trouble and go into maintenance mode, but they are not sufficient to shift the market balance. In contrast, the weaker balance sheets with high-quality assets issued equity during the spring, when capital markets were open, to buy more longevity by reducing leverage by half a turn. On net, from a financial perspective, the adjustment process is now likely to take longer.

    5) Logistical and storage constraints are also tighter this time. We have argued for decades now that modern energy markets mostly rebalance through operational stress. Operational stress is created when a surplus breaches logistical or storage capacity such that supply can no longer remain above demand. Although perceptions this past April were that the market was near operational stress, it is now far closer. We estimate that the industry has added c.170 million barrels of petroleum to crude and product storage tanks since January and c.50 million barrels to clean and dirty floating storage. With increased operational stress in the system versus six months ago, we now attach a substantially higher probability to this being the margin of adjustment than we did in January. While the probability of blowing out storage this autumn is higher, the market will need to balance or adjust before next spring's turnarounds.

    6) Should the market breach logistical and storage capacity constraints, this would kill the storage arbitrage between spot and forward prices and create a significant flattening of the entire forward curve (though front timespreads would likely blowout initially). Historically, once storage capacity is breached across all crude and products, supply must be brought back below demand immediately. To create the rebalancing physical constraints create a collapse in spot prices below cash costs as supply is forced in line with demand (late 1998 is a good example), creating the birth of a new bull market. Breaching crude storage capacity alone is not sufficient, as it simply leads to an increase in refinery runs creating product where storage capacity is available, so both crude and product storage needs to be breached. Further, this only requires breaching capacity in one or two of the key product markets given constraints on refinery product yields. In the current market, the likely candidate is distillate as inventories, particularly outside of the US, are extremely high and margins are weak. As the curve flattens, long-dated oil prices historically have drifted down toward cash prices. As producers face increasing financial stress, covering operating costs and surviving becomes more important than future growth.

    7) It is important to separate cash costs from total costs. As oil markets are substantially oversupplied by nearly every measure (see below), the need for new incremental capacity is limited at the margin. New incremental capacity requires prices above 'total' costs, defined as fixed (capex) plus variable/cash costs (opex). However, in an environment where the market only needs to produce from existing capacity, prices only need to cover variable/cash costs to keep existing capacity operating. And herein lies the paradox, for the high-cost, strong balance sheet producer, cash costs are $40-$45/bbl versus total costs closer to $75/bbl. In contrast, the low-cost, weak balance sheet producer faces cash costs near $20/bbl with total costs near $55/bbl. As the high-cost production is mostly oil sands and other costly to shut in conventional oil, the stronger balance sheet producers with this production will resist the costs of shutting in, leaving the easier-to-shut, lower-cost production held by the weaker balance sheets as the more likely candidate. This suggests the volatility and risks to the downside are significant. Furthermore, a stronger US dollar, productivity gains and other commodity price declines only creates more cost deflation, via the negative feedback loop, making cash costs a moving target to the downside.

    8) Commodity and emerging market currencies have also erased a decade of gains, reflecting the significant macroeconomic imbalances many of these countries are facing, created in part by the sharp decline in all commodity prices. This not only impacts emerging market demand for oil, Latin American demand in particular, but also lowers the costs to produce oil and commodities in these countries. To illustrate the sensitivity of oil cash costs to the Brazilian real (BRL) and Canadian dollar (CAD), we find that a 10% move in BRL or CAD shifts cash costs by 3% and 5% respectively. The BRL and CAD have weakened year-to-date by 31% and 14% respectively. Further, as we argued late last year, 2015 supply growth in regions facing sharp currency depreciation have been revised up since March by the IEA: Brazil (+24 kb/d), North Sea (+65 kb/d) and Russia (+145 kb/d). It is important to emphasize that markets have never seen such a large appreciation in the US dollar at the same time they have seen such a large surplus in the oil market. While it is unprecedented in the current direction, the weakest US dollar ever recorded on a trade-weighted basis was when oil prices peaked above $147/bbl in July 2008. As we have emphasized in all of our research since 2013, it is the same macro forces working in reverse today that pushed markets to the highs during the previous decade. The crude market didn't go to $147/bbl on oil fundamentals alone, nor would it be collapsing like this on oil fundamentals alone.

    9) Nonetheless, fundamentals are weaker today than in 1Q. Global supply is currently up 3.0 million b/d (and averaged up 3.2 million b/d over the past 12 months), driven in large part by a surge in low-cost production from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Russia. The largest demand growth ever observed was in 2004 when China and the emerging markets kicked off the previous decade's commodity boom and drove a 3.15 million b/d demand growth number. In 2004 the emerging markets had clean balance sheets in strengthening currencies which reflected their good health. Today, that boom decade has been brought to a halt. These countries are facing large macro imbalances and debt. Not only has emerging market growth slowed, but any benefits from lower prices are mostly behind us now, as the benefits only last 6 to 9 months. We estimate that current oversupply is c.2.0 million b/d versus c.1.8 million b/d in 1H15.

    10) The oil industry on average is not earning its cost of capital. The distinction between cash costs and total costs, also applies to 'well' versus 'company' returns. While the returns at the well can be economical at prices near $50/bbl, the returns for the company can be deeply underwater due to large-scale investments when prices were at $100/bbl. Even assuming an aggressive company decline rate of 25% over the past year, that would make 75% of the assets legacy production. While commodity markets don't care about legacy fixed costs, and only about today's cost to bring on a marginal barrel, potential equity and credit investors do care about those legacy costs and what they do to company long-run returns. In general, energy companies at present cannot earn their cost of capital over the long-term (defined as the past 50 years). Long-run returns are 10% versus a cost of capital of 12.5%. In other words, they are wealth-destroying propositions from the get go. The reason for this is the industry constantly invests in new capacity during the investment phase of the super cycle, i.e. high and rising prices, and brings on line this new capacity during the exploitation phase of the super cycle, i.e. low and declining prices.

    11) While the supply and demand for the barrels of oil will likely find a balance between now and sometime in 2016 with an increasing likelihood of this being driven by operational stress, this doesn't mean a sharp rebound in prices will occur quickly as so many other factors will likely weigh on prices. Not only will the macro forces keep prices under pressure, but historically markets trade near cash costs until new incremental higher-cost capacity is needed (even the IEA has revised 2015 non-OPEC output growth from existing capacity up by 265 kb/d since March).

    In addition, low-cost OPEC producers are likely to expand capacity now that they have pushed output to near max utilization. At the same time Iran has the potential to add 200 to 400 kb/d of production in 2016 and with significant investment far greater low-cost volumes in 2017 and beyond. Iran, like other OPEC countries, needs the revenues through volume.

    Even Venezuela accepted another $5 billion last week from China to produce oil from older fields. Finally, the capital markets for energy need to be rebalanced through consolidation and capital restructuring. This takes time to achieve. In the previous cycle this took from 1986 to 1998 and ended with the creation of the super majors. Today we expect it to go more quickly, just as we erased a decade in the matter of months, but it will take time.

    JustObserving

    Goldman always talks their book. How many hundreds of billions worth of oil is Goldman short?

    cn13

    Goldman predicted $32/barrel crude oil earlier this year right before the market rallied higher by nearly 50% in just a few weeks.

    Why would anyone listen to these crooks? They are the worst of the worst.

    I Eat Your Dingos

    ZH its not like you haven't reported on this several times! [sarc]

    Wait for Goldman to catch up. I can almost foresee a crude [production] liquidation throughout all non OPEC and OPEC nations . I wonder how long US shale producers can holdout during this continued crude drop in WTI and Brent


    [Aug 02, 2015]Peak Oil Notes - July 30

    The Turks have taken out after the Kurds again by intensive bombing of Kurdish military units in Turkey and Iraq. The Kurds have retaliated by blowing up the gas pipeline into Turkey from Iran and the line that was exporting oil from northern Iraq to the export terminal at Ceyhan, Turkey. The revival of open hostilities between Ankara and the Kurds almost certainly has many important ramifications for the future of the region.

    Russia's economy has taken another a big hit from falling oil prices. The ruble was back above 60 to the dollar for a while on Tuesday before the government stepped in to stop the slide. If oil prices continue to fall, Moscow will be in a lot of economic trouble before the year is out.

    [Aug 02, 2015]Shale Gas Reality Check

    Key Conclusions

    • The EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2015 is even more optimistic than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. The AEO2015 reference case projection of total shale gas production from 2014 through 2040 is 9%, or 36 tcf, greater than AEO2014. Cumulative production from the major plays in AEO2015, which account for 80% of this production, is 50% higher than Hughes's "Most Likely" case in Drilling Deeper, and the projected production rate in 2040 is 170% greater. In AEO2015, the EIA is counting much more on unnamed plays or ones-like the Utica Shale-that aren't as yet producing very much shale gas.
    • The only way to meet projections for most of these plays would be for production to ramp up massively years from now. But because the best wells are drilled first, and decline rates are so steep, this means that the EIA is likely counting on new technologies that aren't yet proven or even developed.
    • It's very difficult to see how unknown new technologies would be brought online, and be sufficient to overcome poorer and poorer quality drilling locations, without the price of natural gas going up well beyond what the EIA forecasts.
    • As it has acknowledged, the EIA's track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. Admittedly, forecasting such things is very challenging, especially as it relates to shifting economic and technological realities. But the below-ground fundamentals- the geology of these plays and how well they are understood-don't change wildly from year to year. And yet the AEO2015 and AEO2014 reference cases have major differences between them; production rates have been revised both down and up by amounts exceeding 40% in some plays.

    [Jul 31, 2015] Moscow Must Burn Ukraines Christian Taliban Pledges Anti-Russian Crusade

    07/30/2015 | Zero Hedge

    "Like the majority of Ukrainian people, I think (the new leadership) is bad ... They steal a lot. When Yanukovich was stealing, that was bad. But these people are clearing up when the country is at war, so they are guilty on two counts. This is marauding."

    Those are the words of Dmytro Korchynsky, the commander of "Saint Mary", a volunteer battalion that, like Ukraine's official forces, is fighting to subdue the Russian- backed separatists who control the eastern part of the country.

    Korchynsky - who spoke to Reuters - shares his generalized disaffection for the Poroshenko government with other Ukrainians who feel that little has changed since the ouster of Viktor Yanukovich.

    "The (Maidan) revolution was interrupted by the aggression (in the east) and the patriots left Maidan and went to the east to protect Ukraine. Only 10 percent of people in positions of power are new; the rest are all the same, pursuing the same schemes they always did", says Serhiy Melnychuk, an MP and volunteer battalion founder who also sat down with Reuters.

    Over the course of the last year, Ukraine has become the battleground for a proxy war between Russia and the West. It's one of several pieces currently in play on the geopolitical chessboard, and its citizens, like those of Yemen and Syria (fellow pawn nations), have been forced to endure a humanitarian crisis while more "consequential" countries sort out how the spoils will be divided and how borders will be redrawn.

    Some Ukrainian nationalists however, have chosen to take matters into their own hands, taking up arms against the separatists and likening themselves to a "Christian Taliban" bent on ensuring that "Moscow burns."

    Here's more from a Reuters special report on Ukraine's "maverick battalions":

    From a basement billiard club in central Kiev, Dmytro Korchynsky commands a volunteer battalion helping Ukraine's government fight rebels in the east.

    A burly man with a long, Cossack-style moustache, Korchynsky has several hundred armed men at his disposal. The exact number, he said, is "classified."

    In the eyes of many Ukrainians, he and other volunteer fighters are heroes for helping the weak regular army resist pro-Russian separatists. In the view of the government, however, some of the volunteers have become a problem, even a law unto themselves.

    Dressed in a colorful peasant-style shirt, Korchynsky told Reuters that he follows orders from the Interior Ministry, and that his battalion would stop fighting if commanded to do so. Yet he added: "We would proceed with our own methods of action independently from state structures."

    Korchynsky, a former leader of an ultra-nationalist party and a devout Orthodox Christian, wants to create a Christian "Taliban" to reclaim eastern Ukraine as well as Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014. He isn't going to give up his quest lightly.

    "I would like Ukraine to lead the crusades," said Korchynsky, whose battalion's name is Saint Mary. "Our mission is not only to kick out the occupiers, but also revenge. Moscow must burn."

    Most of Ukraine's almost 40 volunteer battalions grew out of squads of protesters who battled the Berkut riot police during the protests on Kiev's Independence Square, or Maidan Nezalezhnosti, which began in November 2013.


    After the protests toppled President Viktor Yanukovich, pro-Russian separatists rose up in the east of Ukraine in April, 2014, demanding independence from the new government in Kiev, which they called a "fascist regime." In response, several leaders of the Maidan protests raced east with fellow protesters to try to stop the rebel advance.

    Numerous brigades and battalions formed haphazardly, with most leaders accepting anyone willing to fight. Serhiy Melnychuk, who founded the Aidar battalion in eastern Ukraine and is now a member of parliament, said he signed up people between the ages of 18 and 62 and "from the homeless to pensioners."

    Irregular though theses forces were, some acquired weapons from the Defense Ministry, officials and battalion leaders said. Others received money and equipment from wealthy oligarchs. They became powerful forces in the struggle against pro-Russian separatists.

    In his billiard club headquarters, commander Korchynsky of the Saint Mary battalion made his disdain for the government plain. "Like the majority of

    Ukrainian people, I think (the new leadership) is bad ... They steal a lot. When Yanukovich was stealing, that was bad. But these people are clearing up when the country is at war, so they are guilty on two counts. This is marauding."

    He said the revolution that began with the Maidan had been interrupted, but would one day be completed. He did not say when.

    If so, he will have to confront Poroshenko. On July 16, the president, decried the problems posed by unspecified "internal enemies" of the country. He told parliament: "I will not allow anarchy in Ukraine."

    So in the end, we suppose the question is whether US weapons shipments to Kiev will be handed out to Ukraine's "Christian Taliban" and whether they, like their namesake, will one day turn those weapons back on the US once the Russians have been expelled.

    Scratch that. The real question is this: what does George Soros think?

    [Jul 29, 2015]Are Chinas Problems Responsible For Recent Market Slides

    "... I have tried to link to a report from just over a week ago by Pete Wargent, an Australian with an accounting background who reports from investing.com, but it did not work. So, I am just going to lay out a bunch of reported data from a bunch of sources that suggests that while Dean is right about the NYTimes story, things are going on in China that are negatively affecting the world economy and are not being reflected in more aggregated statistics. One reason I wanted to link to Wargent was not just his immediate report that capital flight from China has been steadily soaring, probably at least quadrupling from about two years ago, he linked to an older report laying out how the Chinese government messes with its GDP accounts, pointing out foreign trade data as one area where things get misreported. He snarkily noted that China had just reported that the most recent quarterly growth report was at 7%, just what the government had forecast, but...|"
    .
    "...In May, oil imports were down 11% from a year before."
    .
    "...Anyway, declines in oil purchases by them and rumors that the Chinese have guaranteed a gold price floor of $1000, well, I guess we do not know what is really going on with any of this, whether or not declines in these and other markets are really due to a bigger slide in the Chinese economy than is being officially reported at the aggregate level, this cannot be ruled out. But, I think there is reason to be concerned."
    Jul 29, 2015 | EconoSpeak

    So, WTI oil has slid below$49 per barrel; gold has gone below $1100, although it jumped today. The US stock markets have been down in recent days for no obvious reasons, and some others are not looking so hot either. Is there a common thread? The big Greece crisis is over, although that could yet blow up, although I think most markets already know about that.

    There have been lots of rumbling that problems in China might have something to do with all that. There is no way to know this for sure, especially given China's long record of manipulating data. Furthermore, serious observers are dismissing all this as a bunch of bad hype, most notably Dean Baker recently, accurately dumping on an incompetent story out of the NYTimes (who seem to be pretending that they were secretly bought by Rupert Murdoch lately). The Times had a story about the decline of the Chinese stock market, making a big deal about it. Dean accurately noted that it is still above where it was in February, so the NYT looks pretty silly making such a big deal about it, especially since the Chinese stock market seems to have stabilized, as have the housing markets in Shanghai and Beijing, even if it is still falling in a lot of lower tier cities.

    I have tried to link to a report from just over a week ago by Pete Wargent, an Australian with an accounting background who reports from investing.com, but it did not work. So, I am just going to lay out a bunch of reported data from a bunch of sources that suggests that while Dean is right about the NYTimes story, things are going on in China that are negatively affecting the world economy and are not being reflected in more aggregated statistics. One reason I wanted to link to Wargent was not just his immediate report that capital flight from China has been steadily soaring, probably at least quadrupling from about two years ago, he linked to an older report laying out how the Chinese government messes with its GDP accounts, pointing out foreign trade data as one area where things get misreported. He snarkily noted that China had just reported that the most recent quarterly growth report was at 7%, just what the government had forecast, but...

    So, what he noted is that while these aggregate number can say one thing, looking at more micro data can tell very different stories. Here are some numbers, each taken from a different source:

    1. In March, electrical power production (from all sources) was down 2% from a year before.
    2. In May, oil imports were down 11% from a year before.
    3. Truck sales have fallen by nearly a half between last year and now.
    4. Capital flight numbers are accelerating, possibly more dramatically than the quadrupling figure reported by Wargent.

    So, maybe these are consistent with an aggregate 7% growth rate, but does not look like it. Many outside observers are arguing that the Chinese GDP growth rate is more like 4%, with some saying that in the first quarter it hit zero or even lower, although picking up more recently.

    A final point regards the stock market bubble story. While Dean Baker sneered at the story from the NYTimes, an aspect not reported by them or him, but in Wargent reports and some other sources says that the methods used by the Chinese government in its efforts to halt the stock market slide (so far successful) were very extreme, including simply forbidding many stocks from being sold, and also forcibly confining stock dealers in rooms until they engaged in purchasing some stocks, with portions of the market still shut down with no transactions allowed. So, the stock market is not at all really stabilized. We are seeing the ugly side of the old Chinese system, trying to keep a lot of problems under control that they have not had to deal with.

    Anyway, declines in oil purchases by them and rumors that the Chinese have guaranteed a gold price floor of $1000, well, I guess we do not know what is really going on with any of this, whether or not declines in these and other markets are really due to a bigger slide in the Chinese economy than is being officially reported at the aggregate level, this cannot be ruled out. But, I think there is reason to be concerned.

    Barkley Rosser

    [Jul 29, 2015] Oil groups have shelved $200B in new projects as low prices bite

    "...The plunge in crude prices since last summer has resulted in the deferral of 46 big oil and gas projects with 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves "
    .
    "...Deepwater drilling rigs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to hire and these projects could yet proceed if contractors' costs fall far enough. "
    .
    "...Canada is the biggest single region affected, with the development of some 5.6 billion barrels of reserves, almost all oil sands, having been deferred."
    Jul 26, 2015 | cnbc.com

    The plunge in crude prices since last summer has resulted in the deferral of 46 big oil and gas projects with 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves - more than Mexico's entire proven holdings - according to consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

    ... ... ...

    More than half the reserves put on hold lie thousands of feet under the sea, including in the Gulf of Mexico and off west Africa, where the technical demands of extracting crude and earlier inflation have pushed up the cost of projects. Deepwater drilling rigs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to hire and these projects could yet proceed if contractors' costs fall far enough.

    Canada is the biggest single region affected, with the development of some 5.6 billion barrels of reserves, almost all oil sands, having been deferred.

    [Jul 29, 2015]Is oil price set for rebound after losing streak

    "...JP Morgan, for instance, expects Brent prices to hit $65 a barrel in the third quarter, and $67 dollars in the fourth quarter of this year."
    .
    "...Barclays analysts, meanwhile, expect Brent to trade around $61 a barrel in the third quarter and $66 in the last quarter of the year – although it did acknowledge the threats to its forecast."
    Jul 20, 2015 | cnbc.com

    JP Morgan, for instance, expects Brent prices to hit $65 a barrel in the third quarter, and $67 dollars in the fourth quarter of this year.

    "We view July and August as the most likely time within 3Q 2015 when crude markets should be at their tightest, given peak summer demand for gasoline and the fact that refinery crude runs are forecast to peak in August," the bank said in a note on Friday.

    ... ... ...

    Barclays analysts, meanwhile, expect Brent to trade around $61 a barrel in the third quarter and $66 in the last quarter of the year – although it did acknowledge the threats to its forecast.

    ... ... ...

    Barclays analysts added that, from a fundamental perspective, 2016 looked undervalued.

    [Jul 29, 2015]World Natural Gas Shock Model

    "...I mean, I know WTI is around $47.00 due to the temporary lull in world oil consumption (leading to a temporally local oversupply of 2 million or so barrels a day), but that won't last (after all, what's the solution for low prices? Low prices, which spurs consumption. Duh! Econ 101 right?). Still though, it does seem like some optimism is perhaps not out of place."
    .
    "...A sustainable industrial civilization IS at least technically possible."
    .
    "..."Looks like any oversupply won't be around much longer" depends on the time span, and the human factor: how many investors are willing to bet oil prices will recover to $80-90 per barrel by 2017? The key is to understand there's a large dose of unquantifiable human behavior in this game."
    .
    "...BREAKING: US #oil production fell 145 kb/d according to latest #EIA weekly data to 9413 kb/d http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/overview.pdf #crude"
    Jul 29, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel
    The Wet One: 07/28/2015 at 3:30 pm
    I've been on holidays, taking a break from it all and flying all over the western hemisphere burning up precious fuel.

    Now that I'm back to reality, is there any reason to believe that the world will not go to hell in handbasket before I die in about 40 or so years?

    I mean, I know WTI is around $47.00 due to the temporary lull in world oil consumption (leading to a temporally local oversupply of 2 million or so barrels a day), but that won't last (after all, what's the solution for low prices? Low prices, which spurs consumption. Duh! Econ 101 right?). Still though, it does seem like some optimism is perhaps not out of place.

    But then I read Albert Bartlett's comments about the exponential function and, yeah, I'm hoping against hope aren't I? World population growth, carbon continues to be added to the atmosphere, and bad things will still probably arrive before I die in about 40 years.

    And my planned for, but presently non-existent children, will be going into that maelstrom along with my grandchildren.

    Ok, I'm properly depressed again now.

    I need to go back on holidays. Perhaps somewhere a little closer this time (seriously, no need for another 15,000 km round trip. That was a lot of travel).

    Dennis Coyne: 07/28/2015 at 3:55 pm
    Hi Wet one,

    There is a good possibility (better than 50% chance) that within 5 to 10 years of the beginning of oil decline (more than 0.5% per year for 3 years or more so people recognize it) that there will be an economic depression. My guess is between 2028 and 2033 for the start of Great Depression 2.

    How the world responds is key, will we also repeat WW2 or worse or will there be a focus on solving the energy problem and associated environmental problems with wise social investments? A build out of rail, light rail and High Voltage DC transmission would be a start. Tax credits for non fossil fuel energy production and development might also help along with a stiff tax on carbon emissions.

    Much is possible, higher fossil fuel prices as they deplete will help move society towards alternative energy, but it probably won't be fast enough to avoid a crisis. The response to crisis will determine the ride.

    old farmer mac: 07/28/2015 at 9:41 pm
    Don't let people like Bartlett get you too far down.

    Back when I was an agriculture undergrad in the fabled sixties I heard all the doom and gloom predictions made up until that time in the biology classes that made up well over a third of my studies. Those classes sometimes carried ag id such as Ag BioChem 201 as opposed to Intro BioChem 201 etc but they were taught in the same classrooms at the same hour by the same professors to the biology majors.I had a long conversation with Erlich himself, the guy who wrote The Population Bomb, when he came to Va Tech as a visiting scholar.

    Back in those days I had a "hot young blossom" ( Twain) of my very own, who although she was a hot blooded Baptist farm girl with four sisters and a brother make it perfectly clear that SHE would never have more than two kids. Of course being young and intellectually arrogant and extremely well read (for a youngster) and all that sort of thing it never even occurred to me in my ignorance that women all over the world might be thinking the same way in a couple of generations.When I look back the width and depth of my ignorance in those amazes the hell out of me. Nowadays I am so far behind when it comes to really understanding the new technological realities the youngsters look at me with pity if not outright contempt. But I know ONE thing they have not yet learned – that thing being that they just might be WRONG about the future.

    I looked at people like Erlich as demigods back in my youth and promptly forgot about them -believing that the shit would hit the fan SOMEDAY just as they predicted but also believing that someday was too far down the road to concern myself with it.

    There is NOTHING wrong with Bartlett's actual science but as Yogi sez, predicting is HARD, especially the future. Bartlett and Erlich know (knew) their stuff but they failed to anticipate falling birth rates and they grossly underestimated or ignored the rate at which progress was being and is still being made in energy efficiency and conservation measures.

    They did not foresee the computer and electronic communication revolution that is making it possible for poor people's kids in backward countries to get a basic education formerly totally out o their reach.

    They did not foresee the coming of cheap photovoltaics or the sort of genetic engineering that allows modern farmers to grow more food on less land without the topsoil washing away due to plowing over and over.

    There is as much critical knowledge to be gained from the study of history and literature as there is from the hard sciences themselves.

    A sustainable industrial civilization IS at least technically possible. Anybody who tells you otherwise is basing his arguments on outdated assumptions such as the EROEI of renewables being too low to get the job done. Plenty of capable physicists will tell you the same. I have asked four personally. None of the four is willing to predict such a civilization WILL come to pass but all four believe it is within the realm of the possible.

    Falling birth rates and changing life styles in combination with new technology mean we DO have a chance – some of us at least.

    There is no reason to assume that the entire world is going to suffer a silmantaneous hard crash, although the cards might fall that way-especially if we fight a flat out WWIII which is a real possibility.There ARE plenty of good reason to believe large parts of the world WILL suffer such a crash at somewhat different times. This is what overshoot is all about.

    Western European countries will sooner or later do whatever they must do to stop the flow of immigrants from Africa and other nearby places. If it takes machine guns at the borders, machine guns will eventually be deployed.

    I anticipate our southern American border being closed up tight within ten years or so regardless of which party controls the country. As times get tougher the voters are not likely going to tolerate much immigration legal or otherwise.

    Life IS a Darwinian affair and while we have a great capacity to show empathy and assist each other in times of trouble, we look after our nested "in" groups starting with the immediate family, the extended family, the local community… right on up to the nation state we call home.

    With a little luck – more than a little – the USA, Canada, and a few other nations possessed of plenty of resources, defensible borders, large educated populations, very powerful armed forces or very powerful allies etc etc have a decent shot at pulling thru the coming crisis, although I expect some very hard times even here in the USA.

    There really isn't ANYTHING at all that we MUST have to survive and live decent lives that we do not possess already within our borders.

    Stay well away from places such as Egypt and Detroit and go ahead and have a couple of kids.

    It times past they would have been at high risk of dieing from starvation, a dozen different contagious diseases, war, snake bite, exposure, food poisoning, a broken bone or an abscessed tooth or old age at thirty five due to working themselves to death.

    Pick a good spot to raise them and teach them how to think for themselves and to work hard and smart and they will probably have about as good a shot at living to be old and providing you with grandchildren as any generation that has ever lived.

    There is a LOT to be said for the Bible Belt mountains of the southeastern USA. In the event the shit hits the fan really hard, there is no better place to be. In the lottery of life I am a damned lucky individual, having been born to a family with the right color skin and a suitable name etc in the strongest and best situated nation on earth. I got lucky again coming from one of the best spots in the USA. Call my hand four of a kind. If my parents had been rich and connected, I would have drawn a royal flush. I am guessing that you are holding not less than a full house yourself but I don't know where you are from.

    Safety is an illusion. The grave worms WILL have their way with us unless our carcasses are pumped full of nasty chemicals and in that case the anaerobic bacteria will get the carcass anyway. When we quit believing in God we did not just immediately start believing in NOTHING. Without something bigger and grander to look up to we have gotten to looking at our navels too often and want to live forever since death is so scary.

    I don't have any qualms about life being dangerous. Life has always been dangerous until very recently indeed. Quite a few of the people buried in the church cemetery where I will rot away next to my parents met violent ends. Men who wear panties feel compelled to call the police when troubles come to them but men around here just make it clear that trouble is met with more and BIGGER trouble. Consequently we have very little trouble excepting domestic troubles and occasional burglaries etc. Home invasions and armed robbery are just about unheard of.

    Something will get us all sooner or later but later might very well be a century or ten centuries down the road for YOUR bloodline. That something might be ten thousand years down the road.

    Your kids and grandkids will not miss what they did not experience themselves. They might have to fight and they might have to work themselves to death but there is nothing new about such fates.

    Fernando Leanme: 07/29/2015 at 4:55 am
    "Looks like any oversupply won't be around much longer" depends on the time span, and the human factor: how many investors are willing to bet oil prices will recover to $80-90 per barrel by 2017? The key is to understand there's a large dose of unquantifiable human behavior in this game.
    islandboy: 07/28/2015 at 10:31 pm
    This presents a nice opportunity for me to present the results of this months EIA Electricity Supply Monthly or more accurately Tables 1.1 and 1.1A. The graph shows production as a percentage of total by source and it is worthy of note that while coal regained it's prominence over all other sources particularly Natural Gas, between April and May, all sources except renewables (both hydro and non hydro) are up in absolute terms. April seems to have been the low point so far for this year, as it has been for the two previous years.

    old farmer mac: 07/28/2015 at 11:37 pm
    From the same report:

    lectric Utilities
    Year-to-Date
    Receipts Cost Receipts Cost
    (Physical Units) (Dollars / Physical Unit) Number of Plants (Physical Units) (Dollars / Physical Unit)
    Fuel May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014
    Coal (1000 tons) 47,094 50,122 45.07 48.21 222 237 239,155 239,638 44.57 46.85
    Petroleum Liquids (1000 barrels) 1,192 895 75.86 131.40 109 119 6,842 7,534 74.47 131.26

    Petroleum Coke (1000 tons) 357 383 56.26 60.11 9 8 1,657 1,794 54.27 56.52
    Natural Gas (1000 Mcf)

    Unless my mental arithmetic is off this chart indicates that utilities spent about two billion bucks buying coal in May. Say for conversational purposes twenty four billion for the 2015 calendar year.

    I have found that hard numbers are hard to come by but my best guess is that wind and solar power are saving us very close to what it would have cost to buy another four percent of either coal or gas.

    And when you do things to reduce the sale of a commodity, you are doing things that reduces the price of that commodity. EVERYBODY all across the economy, excepting coal and gas producers and their employees gets just about everything a little cheaper.

    The avoided expense of purchasing that much MORE coal and gas will be repeated month after month year after year for the entire life of EXISTING wind and solar farms. The price reduction resulting from utilities buying less coal and gas will spread out all thru the entire economy benefitting ALL of us for that same lifetime.

    Excepting a mere handful of railroad employees the coal industry produces damned few jobs except in the coal fields and not very many even there.

    Renewables on the other hand create a lot of jobs spread out over the entire country. A wind or solar farm built in Podunk pays taxes locally and provides employment locally.

    Fernando Leanme: 07/29/2015 at 5:02 am
    U.S. Gas producers pay taxes. Almost everything used to build wells and facilities is USA sourced. The labor is mostly natives, and a lot of that work is well paid.

    The cheap gas price is caused by over drilling, not by renewables. On the other hand wind turbines and solar require subsidies and increase electricity bills. This reduces disposable income, which in turn cuts business for barbers, hairdressers, plastic surgeons, and dentists. This in turn increases the crime rate, which leads to higher prison costs on society.

    old farmer mac: 07/29/2015 at 6:42 am
    The very cheap price of gas is caused MOSTLY by excess supply at this time-you are right about this.Your entire comment is on the money- so far as it goes if you consider only the SHORT term.

    But in your usual mule stubborn way you refuse to recognize any fact that does not reflect well on your own positions. Gas is not always going to be cheap and not everybody believes the good jobs should always go to people who live far away and that property taxes should always be paid to people in far away places.

    You just flat out refuse to put any weight at all on the perfectly well understood and universally accepted (except by Watcher) relationship known as supply and demand-except when it suits YOUR argument.

    CHEAP gas is the result of OVERSUPPLY. Oversupply is as a matter of fact mostly brought on by over drilling FOR NOW but part of the oversupply is due to renewable power cutting into the demand for gas and coal.

    As time passes renewables will produce a larger and larger share of our energy and thus hold down gas prices to a substantial extent.

    Overshoot is a VERY real problem and we are deep into overshoot already and the end result is going to be that barring miracles most of the seven billion people on this planet are going to continue to live very hard lives and meet untimely hard ends.

    But you may be forgiven the typical engineers fault of near total ignorance of the life sciences since they were not taught in the engineering curriculum back in the dark ages and are seldom taught in that field even today.

    People by the BILLION cannot afford coal and gas TODAY. The capital to extend grid system electricity to them does not exist and they would have nothing to export to pay for oil and gas in any case. There is a limit to the amount of throw away junk the rich countries can consume and the supply already overwhelms demand for it.

    Renewables are the closest thing we have to a pressure relief valve on the boiler of overshoot. The valve is going to prove to be TOO SMALL to get the job done PROPERLY but it will nevertheless DELAY the violence of the eventual baked in explosion.

    Karen Fremerman: 07/28/2015 at 7:07 pm
    Thanks Dennis. I have a question. Won't oil declines really rule over natural gas in the short and long run? If/when oil starts it's real relentless decline, won't that limit how much natural gas (or any other resource/commodity for that matter) can be delivered because extraction and transportation all take oil to get to market? Isn't oil the limiting factor?
    Thanks
    Karen
    old farmer mac: 07/29/2015 at 7:04 am
    Oil is for very good reasons known as the lifeblood of the economy but it is NOT absolutely necessary for the economy to continue to thrive IF the supply declines slowly and the supply of gas increases fast enough to compensate for the decline of oil.

    Gas can be substituted as a motor fuel in the gas and oil fields and most mining is already electrified anyway. Heavy industries such as the manufacture of steel and all the things made out of steel depend on only to the extent that they depend on highway trucks to deliver input materials and output product.Otherwise they run on electricity generated mostly with coal and gas.

    Trains can be electrified and so can mining machinery used for surface mining – machinery such as bulldozers and excavators.Trucks can run on natural gas.

    Shrinking oil supplies are going to hurt us and hurt us a LOT but if gas is as plentiful as some think it is then a lack of plentiful oil is not going to KILL us but the pain may well extend to the economy going into the longest and deepest depression of modern times.This would be the MOTHER of ALL DEPRESSIONS and the worst one EVER.

    Eventually both oil and gas are going to come up very short indeed and then the fall back position will probably be coal to liquids.

    The proof that we can get by with less oil is crystal clear. Take a look at the per capita consumption in places such as France and consider that the French will have a totally electrified rail system within the next few years.

    It sounds very mean and harsh to say it but the billions of poor people in the world who use next to no oil at all are going to CONTINUE to use next to no oil at all and stay poor given that the oil they would like to consume does not exist for the most part.

    The rest of us are going to learn to get by with electrified automobiles, mass transit,bicycles and shoe leather sooner or later.

    UNLESS renewables get to be incredibly cheap. In that case we might MANUFACTURE motor fuels using renewable electricity but the odds of this coming to pass look to be exceedingly slim.

    Dennis Coyne: 07/29/2015 at 8:30 am
    Hi Karen,

    I am glad I read Mac's response before ing. I agree with him that it is possible that oil decline will not affect natural gas output very much. Note that in the past, oil shocks have not affected natural gas output very much, this may or may not continue in the future, but the effect will be limited by substitution as Mac suggests IMO.

    SAWDUST: 07/28/2015 at 9:46 pm
    In a world with less oil. The use of other sources of energy will grow exponentially. Unless you believe people will stop doing things that require energy. Or believe there will soon be far fewer people using energy.

    In all likelihood oil shock will bring the day of gas shock forward in time a good bit. As gas consumption will rise a good bit in the wake of oil shock.

    shallow sand: 07/28/2015 at 9:58 pm
    Off topic.

    To Rune. Also to Doug, who I recall has a connection in the industry in Norway.

    Read over Statoil earnings release. They beat estimates due to better than expected domestic results, but their international operations lost money for the third quarter in a row. The Wall Street Journal article said the company was the most disappointed in its North American operations, which I presume means shale and tar sands.

    Would be interested in your take on this or any additional information you may have.

    shallow sand: 07/28/2015 at 11:39 pm
    Looked at SM Energy Q2 10Q. Production dropped from 186K BOE per to 181K BOE per day from Q1 to Q2. Full year guidance is 168-175K BOE per day. So will drop significantly in second half.

    Majority of production in EFS. Next most in Bakken, Divide County, which is not sweet spot but wells cost much less also.

    They sold $317 million of assets and used 100% of the proceeds to pay down debt.

    They reduced rigs from 17 to 9 and will pull two more from the Bakken in the fall.

    They did lower OPEX significantly from Q1 to Q2. They greatly benefitted from hedges, and have around 40-45% of production hedged through 2015. Caused realized oil price after hedges to be $65 per barrel and $4.30 for gas. 2016 hedged volumes much less than 2015.

    Playing it smart in my opinion. Should be close to cash flow neutral in second half, due to greatly reduced CAPEX and hedges.

    IMO a company that is playing the down turn smarter than others. Still have over $2 billion of debt, but are choosing reduced production over adding even more debt.

    shallow sand: 07/29/2015 at 8:34 am
    Looked at Hess Corporation second quarter 10Q/earnings release.

    Company wide production up to 391,000 boepd from 361,000 boepd in first quarter.

    Bakken production also up to 119,000 boepd from 108,000 boepd in first quarter.

    Company burned over $1.5 billion in cash from 1/1/15 to 6/30/15

    Report that cost to Drill and Complete a well in Bakken decreased to $5.6 million, which to me is a tremendous cost reduction. This to me is very noteworthy.

    Sold interest in their Mid Stream assets for $3 billion dollars, which will (unfortunately) provide them with a lot more cash to keep increasing production.

    For the second quarter of 2015, company posted a loss of ($1.99) per share v. earnings per share in second quarter of 2014 of $2.96 per share. For first six months, posted loss of ($3.37) per share v. earnings of $4.13 per share in first six months of 2014. The ($1.99) includes a large impairment due to much lower commodity prices, operating loss for Hess was ($.52) for the second quarter of 2015.

    Hess did not add debt. That still stands at just about $6 billion. The asset sale gives them a ton of cash to either pay down debt, drill more wells, or both. It closed this month, will be reflected in Q3 numbers.

    Given that they raised production in the Bakken by 11 thousand barrels per day from Q1 to Q2, I think it is doubtful we will see much of a decrease in June Bakken production. Whiting releases after the close, but they have already guided higher production in the Bakken as well, I believe. Will be interesting to see if they disclose similar lower costs per well as Hess. If we are going from $10 million dollar wells, to $5-6 million dollar wells, I assume US production will not decrease and there could be an even more prolonged period of low oil prices. The US companies will not make money, but I really don't think management like Hess cares about that as much as increasing production, given that they sold a major asset in order to fund more drilling at such low commodity prices.

    coffeeguyzz: 07/29/2015 at 9:07 am
    Shallow

    To continue the meme of increasing output despite horrific financials, the July 27 piece on Seeking Alpha by Mike Filloon (Mega fracs increasing production …), discusses the 'halo effect' whereby operators are not only increasing production via new frac'ing designs, they are also boosting offset wells' output, sometimes to a startling degree.

    One CLR well doubled output after a new nearby well was frac'd, and its decline rate practically ceased. Furthermore, the two wells were in different formations, one TF and one Middle Bakken.

    Should these operators continue to successfully implement this, as new wells are frac'd one by one, offset wells will see ongoing elevated production causing all prior predictive decline curves to be inaccurate.

    Could be a lot more hydrocarbons coming to market, shallow.

    Dean: 07/29/2015 at 9:42 am
    BREAKING: US #oil production fell 145 kb/d according to latest #EIA weekly data to 9413 kb/d http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/overview.pdf #crude

    Lower48 down 151 kb/d to 8953 kb/d.First big fall in US #oil production: is fracklog no more sufficient to compensate the fall in rigs?#crude

    [Jul 28, 2015] A Foreig n Enemy is a Tyrant's Best Friend by Dan Sanchez

    Antiwar.com

    Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away

    by Dan Sanchez, July 28, 2015

    Print This | Share This

    Iran Great Satan

    The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country. It is a welcome sequel to the Obama administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late last year.

    Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such critics' own hardline, hawkish policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.

    That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic warfare, saber-rattling, clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.

    This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.

    Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking on the mantle of foremost defender of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan." Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic oppression by the now indispensable "guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war on? Don't you know we're under siege?"

    Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles away from their own misrule, and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially with regard to economic blockades and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.

    Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it only tends to bolster public support for the regime.

    The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.

    The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign threat recedes, and the fog of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and more likely to feel that they can afford to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel governments to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.

    Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam, both of those countries greatly liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following American detente.

    Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued without stint for decades, providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.

    Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had installed over Iran in a 1953 coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their repressive theocratic power.

    All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond. Disastrously, it is being unheeded.

    Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This has only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular than ever.

    And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security threat, imposing new sanctions. As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro. As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:

    "Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to fire up supporters, copying a tactic used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor, the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.

    A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions and distract Venezuelans from relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."

    [Jul 28, 2015] The Geopolitical Big Bang You Probably Don't See Coming

    In the end, whatever Washington may do, it will certainly reflect a fear of the increasing strategic depth Russia and China are developing economically, a reality now becoming visible across Eurasia.
    Jul 28, 2015 |  thenation.com

    So consider it the Mother of All Blockbusters to watch how the Pentagon and the war hawks in Congress will react to the post-Vienna and-though it was barely noticed in Washington-the post-Ufa environment, especially under a new White House tenant in 2017.

    It will be a spectacle. Count on it. Will the next version of Washington try to make it up to "lost" Russia or send in the troops? Will it contain China or the "caliphate" of ISIS? Will it work with Iran to fight ISIS or spurn it? Will it truly pivot to Asia for good and ditch the Middle East or vice-versa? Or might it try to contain Russia, China, and Iran simultaneously or find some way to play them against each other?

    In the end, whatever Washington may do, it will certainly reflect a fear of the increasing strategic depth Russia and China are developing economically, a reality now becoming visible across Eurasia. At Ufa, Putin told Xi on the record: "Combining efforts, no doubt we [Russia and China] will overcome all the problems before us."

    Read "efforts" as new Silk Roads, that Eurasian Economic Union, the growing BRICS block, the expanding Shanghai Cooperation Organization, those China-based banks, and all the rest of what adds up to the beginning of a new integration of significant parts of the Eurasian land mass. As for Washington, fly like an eagle? Try instead: scream like a banshee

    [Jul 27, 2015] For Greece, Oligarchs Are an Obstacle to Recovery

    Notable quotes:
    "... ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. ..."
    Dec 05, 2012 | The New York Times

    ATHENS - A dynamic entrepreneur, Lavrentis Lavrentiadis seemed to represent a promising new era for Greece. He dazzled the country's traditionally insular business world by spinning together a multibillion-dollar empire just a few years after inheriting a small family firm at 18. Seeking acceptance in elite circles, he gave lavishly to charities and cultivated ties to the leading political parties.
    But as Greece's economy soured in recent years, his fortunes sagged and he began embezzling money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say. With charges looming, it looked as if his rapid rise would be followed by an equally precipitous fall. Thanks to a law passed quietly by the Greek Parliament, however, he avoided prosecution, at least for a time, simply by paying the money back.

    Now 40, Mr. Lavrentiadis is back in the spotlight as one of the names on the so-called Lagarde list of more than 2,000 Greeks said to have accounts in a Geneva branch of the bank HSBC and who are suspected of tax evasion. Given to Greek officials two years ago by Christine Lagarde, then the French finance minister and now head of the International Monetary Fund, the list was expected to cast a damning light on the shady practices of the rich.

    Lavrentis Lavrentiadis embezzled money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say

    Instead, it was swept under the rug, and now two former finance ministers and Greece's top tax officials are under investigation for having failed to act.
    Greece's economic troubles are often attributed to a public sector packed full of redundant workers, a lavish pension system and uncompetitive industries hampered by overpaid workers with lifetime employment guarantees. Often overlooked, however, is the role played by a handful of wealthy families, politicians and the news media - often owned by the magnates - that make up the Greek power structure.

    In a country crushed by years of austerity and 25 percent unemployment, average Greeks are growing increasingly resentful of an oligarchy that, critics say, presides over an opaque, closed economy that is at the root of many of the country's problems and operates with virtual impunity. Several dozen powerful families control critical sectors, including banking, shipping and construction, and can usually count on the political class to look out for their interests, sometimes by passing legislation tailored to their specific needs.

    The result, analysts say, is a lack of competition that undermines the economy by allowing the magnates to run cartels and enrich themselves through crony capitalism. "That makes it rational for them to form a close, incestuous relationship with politicians and the media, which is then highly vulnerable to corruption," said Kevin Featherstone, a professor of European Politics at the London School of Economics.

    This week the anticorruption watchdog Transparency International ranked Greece as the most corrupt nation in Europe, behind former Eastern Bloc states like Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. Under the pressure of the financial crisis, Greece is being pressed by Germany and its international lenders to make fundamental changes to its economic system in exchange for the money it needs to avoid bankruptcy.

    But it remains an open question whether Greece's leaders will be able to engineer such a transformation. In the past year, despite numerous promises to increase transparency, the country actually dropped 14 places from the previous corruption survey.

    Mr. Lavrentiadis is still facing a host of accusations stemming from hundreds of millions of dollars in loans made by his Proton bank to dormant companies - sometimes, investigators say, ordering an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. But with Greece scrambling to complete a critical bank recapitalization and restructuring, his case is emblematic of a larger battle between Greece's famously weak institutions and fledgling regulatory structures against these entrenched interests.

    Many say that the system has to change in order for Greece to emerge from the crisis. "Keeping the status quo will simply prolong the disaster in Greece," Mr. Featherstone said. While the case of Mr. Lavrentiadis suggests that the status quo is at least under scrutiny, he added, "It's not under sufficient attack."

    In a nearly two-hour interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis denied accusations of wrongdoing and said that he held "a few accounts" at HSBC in Geneva that totaled only about $65,000, all of it legitimate, taxed income. He also sidestepped questions about his political ties and declined to comment on any details of the continuing investigation into Proton Bank.
    Sitting in the office of his criminal lawyer last month, relaxed, smiling and dressed in a crisp blue suit and red-and-blue tie, Mr. Lavrentiadis said he found it puzzling that he had been singled out in reports about the Lagarde list when other powerful figures appeared to evade scrutiny.

    "My question is, 'Why me?' " he said. "I'm the scapegoat for everything."

    In the interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis depicted himself as an outsider and upstart, an entrepreneur in a small country dominated by old families who frown on newcomers. "I am not from a third-generation aristocratic family," he said repeatedly.

    Indeed, by some lights, Mr. Lavrentiadis fell in part because he rose too quickly and then failed to secure enough of the right friends to protect him, a perception he did not dispute.

    [Jul 27, 2015]The Nuclear Deal is Mostly about Oil by John Browne

    Jul 27, 2015 | Safehaven.com

    The recent nuclear non-proliferation agreement between Iran and the U.S. has created a firestorm debate in the Middle East and both sides of the Atlantic. While the deal is supposedly all about nuclear power and nuclear bombs, its practical implications are all about oil. But the conclusions we should make about its impact on the energy sector are far from clear. A ratification of the deal would allow Iran to make lucrative long term production and distribution contracts with foreign energy firms. However, freely flowing oil from Iran would add significant new oil supply into the world markets, disrupt U.S. plans to become an energy exporter, and could potentially put further downward pressure on prices.

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports Iran's proven oil reserves as the fourth largest in the world, at 158 billion barrels, or about 10% of the world's crude oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest reserves of natural gas (Oil & Gas Journal, January 2015). But as a result of the series of sanctions laid on Iran by the United States and the United Nations for Iran's failure to abide by nuclear inspections, which have essentially blockaded the nation, these reserves have done little good for the Iranian economy or the theocratic Muslim government that holds the country in its tight grip.

    The IMF estimates that Iran's oil and natural gas export revenue had been $118 billion as recently as 2011/12. But by 2012/2013 revenues fell by 47 percent to $63 billion. Revenues declined another 10 percent in 2013/14 to $56 billion (Islamic Republic of Iran, Country Report, April 14, 2014). By May 2015, Iran's daily oil production had fallen from 4 million barrels in 2008 to just over 2.8 million barrels.

    It goes without saying that the removal of the sanctions regime will allow Iran to resume exports at levels seen in the past. And if Iran is true to its word, and that its nuclear program is indeed focused on the development of nuclear power plants, then it is likely that its domestic demand for fossil fuels will fall, thereby allowing for even greater exports.

    The first issue regarding Iran's new oil flow is how easily will it be able to reestablish its former customer links and sell its oil, regardless of increased production. Having destabilized the Middle East by killing Saddam Hussein, the U.S. may wish now to leave the areas' nations alone to sort out the resulting mess. Into this void we can be sure that the Chinese and Russians will stride forcefully and deliberately.

    Even if Iran is successful in regaining former customers, and selling down its inventory, how quickly can its production be increased? The Iranian oil infrastructure has been neglected for years and Iran needs to rebuild it desperately. Fortunately, Western expertise in energy development is by far the most advanced, which will give Western interests a leg up on Chinese and Russian rivals. But Chinese cash and strategic support may prove decisive.

    Reuters reports that, in the opinion of 25 economists and oil analysts, Iran could be able to increase its oil production by up to 500,000 barrels a day this year and reach 750,000 a day by mid-2016. This will add to a current global oversupply of some 2.6 million barrels a day.

    Meanwhile, as the price of oil remains relatively depressed, production wells in the U.S. and other producing nations, planned and established when oil prices were much higher, are drifting off stream. Finally, there is increasing evidence that recession may be felt internationally, reducing at least the rate of growth of oil demand if not the absolute level of demand in some countries.

    Today's oil market faces a global supply overhang and price weakness. Iran's new oil production and exportation is not likely to come on line for at least a year or two, provided the treaty is ratified. But when that oil does start to flow, the new supply could add to downward price pressures. However, the amounts are unlikely to greatly affect the totality of the global marketplace and by that time whatever inflationary effects there may be of continued monetary expansion in America and Europe should act as a stronger force pulling prices upward.

    In total then, the return of Iran to the global energy market should have a beneficial effect on the global economy, both in pushing down prices and providing lucrative development work for oil companies around the world. However, the economic aspects of the deal are largely insignificant in comparison to the geopolitical ramifications.

    President Obama's nuclear arms deal leaves open to debate whether Iran will become a nuclear power within the next decade, if not earlier. Unleashing a nuclear arms race in a highly unstable area of the world would render oil supplies sourced from there considerably less secure and unattractive, possibly even at lower prices, to consumer nations, including the 500 million strong EU.

    The deal will also threaten the longstanding alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The implicit arrangement between the two countries has always been that the Saudis would direct the lion's share of its oil exports to the United States in exchange for American support of regional Saudi security interests. Shiite dominated Iran has always been one of Sunni-led Saudi Arabia's top concerns. If the U.S. and Iran drift closer together, Saudi Arabia will surely seek other partners who are more supportive of its interests.

    No one knows what such a Middle East will look like. But given the volatility of the region, change is unlikely to be pretty

    John Browne is a Senior Economic Consultant to Euro Pacific Capital. Opinions expressed are those of the writer, and may or may not reflect those held by Euro Pacific Capital, or its CEO, Peter Schiff.

    [Jul 27, 2015]Which is more likely, $33 or $75 oil

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-likely-33-75-oil-130102167.html

    The trouble with ETFs

    Trading futures is not suitable for most investors. Fortunately, there are many ETFs such as United States Oil Fund LP (USO) ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO), iPath Goldman Sachs Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (OIL), VelocityShares 3x Long Crude ETN linked to the S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index Excess Return (UWTI) and United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL).

    There are also inverse ETFs that profit from oil going down. These include United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (SCO), DB Crude Oil Double Short ETN (DTO), DB Crude Oil Short ETN (SZO) and VelocityShares 3x Inverse Crude ETN linked to the S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index Excess Return (DWTI).

    Investors may choose to focus on USO and SCO, as they offer the most liquidity.

    The trouble with these ETFs is that they exhibit significant tracking errors. An investor can easily be right on oil, but the ETF may not perform in line with the oil move.

    The reason behind these tracking errors is that most of these ETFs invest in oil futures instead of buying or selling oil. Oil futures expire, and the funds have to go into the next contract. The price adjustment does not always work in the ETF holders' favor. Typically, an ETF is buying high and selling low as it rolls into new futures.

    For the foregoing reasons, oil ETFs are not suitable for holding more than a few months.

    ... ... ...

    Oil is the most volatile commodity, and our price forecast is revised weekly. We expect it to trade in a very wide range. Here are our forecast ranges at this time.

    2015 - $33.00 to $62.00

    2016 - $33.00 to $75.00

    2017 - $55.00 to $85.00

    [Jul 27, 2015] 185 Billion Reasons Why The US Agreed To Nuclear Deal With Iran

    "...Iran's energy supplies also devalue the energy exports from Russia. It's all part of Obama's full spectrum war against Putin."
    .
    "...There are so many factions vying for power, many with ulterior motives, who are forming counter intuitive alliances based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategies. The whole shit show has become so convoluted that at this point we (the west) might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks. Better yet, we could mind our own business, and take care of problems here on the home front. It seems like the linked picture is emblematic of world foreign policy."
    .
    "...It was not long ago that media was abuzz with the fracking miracle, energy independence, USA the new Saudi Arabia etc. etc. What everyone failed to realize is all energy is not the same. Some is low cost to produce and transport, others are high cost, out at the margins of profitability. We know where Fracking stood on that scale. Not to mention Canadian Tar Mines, coming in at the top of production costs. Harper bet Canada's future on a total Tar Sands development policy. That investment is looking questionable. And I for one can find few if any new media coverage of North Dakota. Though they still produce in a desperate bid to keep meeting debt repayments. Their hedges are the only thing keeping companies alive at present."
    Jul 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Many have questioned just why President Obama was so keen to get the Iran nuclear deal done - apparently with almost no real concessions - in the face of allies home and abroad deriding the agreement. Well, if one were so inclined, OilPrice.com explains that Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, Hossein Zamaninia, told Reuters that the country has already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids - with the government pegging the value of these properties at $185 billion...

    Submitted by Dave Forest via OilPrice.com,

    Important news last week -- from a place that's quickly becoming the world's focus for high-impact oil and gas projects.

    That's Iran. Where government officials said they are on the verge of revolutionizing the country's petroleum sector. Which could provide big profit opportunities for foreign investors.

    Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, Hossein Zamaninia, told Reuters that the country has already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids. With the government pegging the value of these properties at $185 billion.

    And officials are hoping to get these fields licensed out soon. With Zamaninia saying that the government plans to offer all of the blocks over the next five years.

    Perhaps most importantly, Iranian officials say they have designed a new petroleum contract structure for international investors. Which they are calling the "integrated petroleum contract" or IPC.

    Officials said that the IPCs will last for a term of 20 to 25 years. A substantial improvement over the older, shorter-term contracts -- which have been a major stumbling point for the world's oil and gas companies.

    Few other details on the IPC structure have yet been provided. But the government noted that the new contracts will address "some of the deficiencies of the old buyback contract".

    Deputy Minister Zamaninia said that full details on the new contracts will be announced within the next two to three months. Along with specifics on the fields being offered by the government for bids.

    Of course, all of this is predicated on the lifting of Western sanctions against Iran -- which is still not a certainty. But if and when the country does open for investment, it appears there will be substantial prizes to won. Watch for further announcements on projects and fiscal terms over the next few months.

    * * *

    Billions of dollars for the firms that lobbyists represent can be one hell of a motivation to do a deal with the devil it seems...

    JustObserving

    Iran's energy supplies also devalue the energy exports from Russia. It's all part of Obama's full spectrum war against Putin.

    JustObserving

    Lot more energy becomes available as sanctions against Iran are lifted. So energy prices fall and it hurts Russia.
    Russia and its oil are likely to be losers in Iran deal
    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/russian-and-its-oil-are-likely-to-be-lose...


    Billy the Poet

    "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." -- Jefferson

    Fahque Imuhnutjahb

    There are so many factions vying for power, many with ulterior motives, who are forming counter intuitive alliances based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategies. The whole shit show has become so convoluted that at this point we (the west) might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks. Better yet, we could mind our own business, and take care of problems here on the home front. It seems like the linked picture is emblematic of world foreign policy.

    http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/backwardgImage1.jpg

    Billy the Poet

    we (the west) might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks.

    That's called American history, 1945-2015.

    Fahque Imuhnutjahb

    Agreed, but it seems we used to at least make the pretense of choosing sides, hell now it's a damn free for all, literally free arms for all. It's no damn wonder 2.3 trillion of tax dollars fell down the rabbit hole, and we,

    the damn taxpayers didn't even get offered any rabbit stew.

    insanelysane

    It's easier to go to war with someone that you have a treaty with because breaking the treaty is a slam dunk justification. No one cared what was really in the treaty as long as Iran agreed to the treaty because they know Iran will break it.

    roadhazard

    uh, Russia was in on the deal. You mean they fucked themselves.

    CrazyCooter

    Or maybe in three to five years when that huge frack ramp has run its couse and the US mean reverts to its production trend line the additional global supply coming online around that time will be sorely needed.

    Don't forget one of the largest oil fields in the world is in Iran ... and it was discovered in the 80s. Saudis big field was discovered in the 40s.

    If the game is going to continue, it has to have oil - and they can't print that.

    Regards,

    Cooter

    Winston Churchill

    Iran could'nt become a full SCO member with sanctions on.

    None of that money,which is theirs anyway, will be going to US companies.

    You can bet the farm on that.


    Colonel Klink

    Just goes to further prove how our politican's sell out to corporations. That's called Fascism!

    Billy the Poet

    Isn't it better to trade for energy than to bomb for freedom? Each scenario can be seen as supporting corporations but assuming that the corporatist paradigm is presently inescapable which corporations would you rather see prevail?

    greenskeeper carl

    Say what you will about the deal, but aside from all the noise, anything that avoids another war that kills a few thousand more Americans, a few hundred thousands innocent civilians, and racks up another 2-4 trillion in debt is a good thing.

    Who knows, maybe those lobbyists not wanting to get their investments nationalized by the Iranian govt(which would happen in the event of a conflict) will exert more influence on whatever stooge occupies the White House than the regular neocon cheerleaders constantly looking for a new war.

    Probably not , but one can hope.

    roadhazard

    But it's an OBAMA deal so fuck all that saving lives crap. BushCo would have hung another banner and the repubicans would cheer.

    FreeMoney

    There was no need for deal to made at all. Iran's oil can sit in the ground un used and unsold, while the West continued to block trade with the Mullahs. I think the Mullahs were loosing power over the prople slowly drip by drip.

    No we have eliminated barriers to Iran going NUC, are dropping import and export sanctions against a regeme that calls for our destruction daily, and next we are going to give them billions of dollars for their oil so they can buy or develope weapons to use against us.

    Without question, this is the stupidest course of action we could take for America.

    Billy the Poet -> FreeMoney

    No we have eliminated barriers to Iran going NUC

    Cite the specifics or shut the fuck up. Iran was already a signatory to the NNPT which barred them from developing nuclear weapons and this treaty sets the bar even higher.

    DutchBoy2015 -> FreeMoney

    Stop with your stupid goddam LIES.

    Iran never threatened the USA , you fucking MORON. You believe bullshit.

    A group of 30 paid agents screaming ''Death to America'' does NOT a revolution make.

    I bet you have never been to Tehran. You just parrot the bullshit your lying ZioNazis feed you.

    Pathetic.

    DutchBoy2015 -> FreeMoney

    Morons like you don't have a fucking clue about the real world. YOu support despotic regimes like Saudi where women can't drive, and they behead people daily , and have actually asked Pakistan for nukes.

    monoloco

    So many logical fallacies there I don't know where to start. For one, what would be the motive to "buy or develop weapons to use against us" ? If the sanctions are lifted and they are participating in the world's economy by selling oil on the open market, it would be completely counter-productive to attack a country that could totally destroy the economy that lifting the sanctions enabled. But don't let logic or facts get in the way of pushing the Zionist/corporate agenda.

    Babaloo

    There is so much wrong with this post it almost defies belief. Let's start with this quote: "...in the face of allies home and abroad deriding the agreement." How can the writer seriously expect sentient humans to believe this? Our "allies" England, France, Germany, as well as non-allies, China and Russia were signatories to the deal! If by "allies" we're saying Israel, well, that's a whole different set of "allies" isn't it?

    ajkreider

    This is brilliant stuff. Obama is such a darling of the oil services industry. Is Cheney still VP?

    $185 billion is chump change, and the U.S. isn't getting that anyway.

    Do the people who write this garbage have paying jobs?

    DutchBoy2015

    German and French company CEOs are already in Tehran making deals. Not oil companies but companies like Bosch,AEG, Stihl, Miele etc.

    Iranians use washing machines, power tools etc etc also.

    Everything in my home is German or Korean. NOT one USA product because they don't make anything but weapons and burgers anymore.

    assistedliving

    185 Billion Reasons
    You got a problem with that?

    I lived in Iran awhile back. Imo, best place in entire Near East except maybe Lebanon. Only Iran far richer, culturally and every other way except maybe cuisine.

    Jack Burton

    How do you say "American frackers are dead, and several hundred thousand jobs will die." already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids - with the government pegging the value of these properties at $185 billion...

    It was not long ago that media was abuzz with the fracking miracle, energy independence, USA the new Saudi Arabia etc. etc. What everyone failed to realize is all energy is not the same. Some is low cost to produce and transport, others are high cost, out at the margines of profitability. We know where Fracking stood on that scale. Not to mention Canadian Tar Mines, coming in at the top of production costs. Harper bet Canada's future on a total Tar Sands development policy. That investment is looking questionable. And I for one can find few if any new media coverage of North Dakota. Though they still produce in a deperate bid to keep meeting debt repayments. Their hedges are the only thing keeping companies alive at present.

    smacker

    OK. Obola bends over for Big Oil and gets his kicks by stuffing the US workforce that will go to Iran full of CIA spies.

    [Jul 24, 2015]Ukrainian politician Tatiana Montyan interview: All sides of the conflict suck (article + video)

    "...Attitude of the population to the government is clear: the Prime Minister's approval rating isn't just the size of a molehill - a molehill compared to his rating is Mount Everest. The "Narodny Front" party is going down in flames, and they are stealing as much as they can while they still can. "
    .
    "...So, for the sake of American ambitions, EU bit itself in the penis."
    .
    "...Ever since last November the wartime economics has taken hold of Ukraine. If a country goes on wartime economy even for a couple months, it takes hold – and it's like a hard drug addiction, an addict can only be saved by chaining him to a lamppost and not giving him any drugs. The first time I went to East Ukraine, our bus, which was packed with poor locals that took a day to make the trip that used to take mere hours, was stopped and extensively searched by both sides, 6 or 7 times. But through the windows we could see columns of semi-trucks going through both UAF and NAF checkpoints without any delays."
    .
    "...< But the fun thing is that> all the nationalists were screaming "Glory to Ukraine", "Ukraine for Ukrainians", and now we have Georgians, <Americans and Latvians> in top government positions. They even no longer have a law that a government official has to speak Ukrainian in official capacity. "
    .
    "...<It takes about $10,000 per semi truck to get through the "blockade" > - it depends on the price of the goods in the truck . For example, I heard that to be allowed to control a checkpoint you have to pay the military bosses a million dollars a month. So if you pay a million dollars just to stand at the checkpoint, you can imagine how much people are making. As for who physically controls those checkpoints - it's not clear. When I was getting out of the DPR, with a smuggler, we were driving through a rural checkpoint and I'm not even sure which side it was on, but there was a guy who lives in Kiev in my neighborhood, he even recognized me and let me through without paying. So I have no idea who manages those things - I told you, in the morning it could be one set of guys, and in the evening somebody can come up, kill them and take over the checkpoint. I don't exclude the possibility that at some checkpoints it can even happen more than once per day. You know how they say - "In the bad part of Kiev, an iPhone can change hands several times a day, and outlive a quite few owners". That's how it is. "
    .
    "...And the people are being conscripted, sixth wave of it already - people being caught literally on the city buses, students are caught in universities... People are running away - I was asked what is the journalist Kotsaba is in jail for - he's there for protesting illegal forced conscription, because he was protesting against the government grabbing all those people, stealing the food they are supposed to get, stealing the ammo and weapons they are supposed to have and selling them to the DPR and LPR... And the people obviously have realized all this by now, and have no desire to die in some encirclement to fill the oligarch's wallets. "

    ... ... ...

    Interviewer:

    Almost a year and a half after the coup in Kiev, a lot of details have already come to light, so what do you think were the aims of the people who engineered it and people who carried it out? Go as high up the ladder as you can.

    Montyan:

    < Major oligarch> Firtash already said everything, completely cynically and honestly, under oath in a court in Vienna:

    Of course, there was a group of oligarchs that wanted the EuroAssociation to be signed for their commercial interests. But the greedy and stupid Europeans gave completely unacceptable economic conditions - and Putin offered Yanukovich a ton of money for free, so Yanik changed his mind. The oligarchs decided "we need to do something about this", and it started...

    Maybe they didn't to want to destroy the country quite so much, but then Americans joined in with Nuland's cookies, McCain and the whole circus - as always, they thought fighting a proxy war with Russia to the last Ukrainian is a splendid idea!

    Putin was also completely happy to fight Americans - and also to show the entire world that Ukrainians are completely unable of running a country, that Ukraine is a totally "failed state". And of course, compared to our idiot usurpers, even Putin and his bunch of crooks can be made to look like extremely competent managers. Not to mention that our current president can be controlled through his factory in Lipetsk, Russia.

    So everybody's happy - Putin even recognized Poroshenko as the legitimate president - even though he didn't have to, <Poroshneko is unconstitutional>, but he did because it's beneficial to him. Not to mention Crimea, which was given up for two and half billion < cash>, as we now know.

    So now Crimea is being dismantled**, similar to what Americans did to Latvia - they turned that country into a border checkpoint, and Putin will turn Crimea into a military base.

    I think that all these pointless Ukrainian checkpoints at the entrance are intentional, because they block traffic, they block tourists, and core of Crimean economy was random tourists - because the people who come there on organized tours don't spend money in local economy and they don't buy local food, they have everything included in the resorts. So the plan is very simple, especially since the Crimean channel bringing water for agriculture has been blocked by our government. The Tatars will probably leave to Turkey, because all the businesses, restaurants and all that stuff aren't going to be viable anymore. The retired will slowly die out naturally. So what will be left are shipbuilding facilities, the big resorts which now look cute and have really been restored - unlike Ukraine that has never invested local infrastructure - so it will be much like what America did with the Baltics, where for example in Latvia only the center of Riga is still buzzing, the rest is completely dead, and the schoolchildren leave abroad as entire classes the moment they graduate.

    So everybody's happy, except Ukrainians.

    Well, and most Europeans are starting to ask questions - "Why do we need this?". Officially, they lost a hundred billion due to sanctions, really, much more, and Russians are laughing at them - "Okay, Spaniards, we make our own ham now, where you going to sell yours?". And of course, the worse the situation Ukraine gets, the sooner crowds of our criminals will start running across the border to EU, and what are they gonna do with em? So, for the sake of American ambitions, EU bit itself in the penis. And I think they deserve everything their greed has caused - if they gave us even somewhat acceptable deal, Yanik might have taken it.

    So I don't think what happened has been really planned by anybody. The process has gone completely out of control from the very beginning - because you can't start a fire in your common home! You never know what's going to catch fire first! It's dumb to start chopping down a tree that you are all sitting on! But turns out we had plenty of degenerates who thought that they won't get hurt when the country goes down. So oligarchs have devalued their own factories, and their own country.

    And the main beneficiary is China! Because America forced Russia into China's arms. And I think China will eventually engulf and assimilate Russia now.

    By the way, last April, "Xinhua" - the official press agency of the Republic of China, has voiced the opinion of the Chinese Communist Party on the issue. It says, roughly : "America and Europe have destroyed the Ukrainian state and plunged the country into civil war. Of course, they will not help Ukrainians fix the mess caused by their meddling, because they are bankrupt both financially and morally. Their "democracy" is only empty talk, and in practice all the "progressive" attempts to export it lead to untold human suffering." The Chinese already said this over a year ago.

    = On Russian government

    <interesting part so moved to top; others are more or less in order>
    Interviewer: The Russian government it doesn't seem to be very homogeneous, not as much as people think. Do you see, in Russian government, some forces that are benevolent?

    Montyan:
    I know some people who are reasonable, but I won't say their names, because they're waiting until Putin would naturally die or get pushed away from power. They think it's easier to let Putin and his gang steal for ten more years than to destroy the country like we did in the Maidan. And they're completely right.


    =About the change of heart in Ukrainian society:


    The attitude in society is changing, even the most brainwashed now understand that there is something wrong with this war. Fewer and fewer people are willing to go volunteer - to die and get eaten by dogs in some encirclement. Fewer and fewer people donate money and food to private organizations supplying the Army. And of course, things like the Military Prosecutor General talking live on air above the police battalions raping and killing people in the warzone does not encourage people to go join <the good fight>. Basically, people that didn't understand it with their brains finally started understanding it through their empty wallets and empty fridges.

    … ... ...

    Ever since last November the wartime economics has taken hold of Ukraine. If a country goes on wartime economy even for a couple months, it takes hold – and it's like a hard drug addiction, an addict can only be saved by chaining him to a lamppost and not giving him any drugs. The first time I went to East Ukraine, our bus, which was packed with poor locals that took a day to make the trip that used to take mere hours, was stopped and extensively searched by both sides, 6 or 7 times. But through the windows we could see columns of semi-trucks going through both UAF and NAF checkpoints without any delays.

    So that was complete "proof in the pudding" for me that this war is a sham. This is "wartime economy" will continue until both sides run out of people who still believe that they are fighting for a cause, and not for their bosses wallets.

    Attitude of the population to the government is clear: the Prime Minister's approval rating isn't just the size of a molehill - a molehill compared to his rating is Mount Everest. The "Narodny Front" party is going down in flames, and they are stealing as much as they can while they still can.

    Journalist Boyko recently described very nicely how the Police Minister Avakov and Co. set fire to that oil depot by Kiev in order to take over the poor gas station chain - and by the way, the idiot Head of State Security Nalivaichenko has accused the Prosecutor General even though the Prosecutor General's men were actually trying to save that chain.

    Not because of any respect for the law, of course, but because of their own financial interests, but anyway. So the head of State Security has spoken against the Prosecutor General, made it clear to everybody that he is completely retarded, so they voted in the Parliament to remove him. Moreover, some people even managed to get something for voting – for example, <head of Samopomosh' fraction> Sadovoi, who supposedly has bargained for a permission to put his men as the head of the local customs service and the Prosecutor's office. So in general, that's how it is.

    ... ... ...

    = On Ukrainian politics

    Interviewer:
    So the current Ukrainian regime has two large groups centered around the Prime Minister and the president…

    Montyan:
    They aren't really "centered" - those crooks don't have friends, they have interests. Groups are constantly rearranged based on who managed to screw over whom, and everybody's planning to screw over each other all the time. For example, Firtash decided to blab his mouth in an Austrian court, and the President decided that's enough to kick Firtash's people out of government - because they had an agreement not to talk about the agreement they had. <Nalivaichenko was one of these men. Also he was fired for snitching to Americans about corruption in the President's faction>. The next rearrangement is going to happen after the elections...

    = On Jewish domination of Ukrainian government, media and business

    Interviewer:
    In the Ukraine currently, the government, business, mass media - it's all dominated by Jewish people, and not the nicest representatives of that ethnicity. And they are less than 1% of the total population. What do you think of this disproportional representation?

    Montyan:

    I have nothing against Jews, nothing at all. I don't think I'm dumber than them. It's an old quote, attributed to Churchill - "Why aren't Englishmen anti-Semitic? They do not consider themselves to be dumber than the Jews".

    Also, the Jews themselves don't think Poroshenko and all those other guys are Jews - they consider them a-holes, Yid traitors, etc. Read what our prominent Jewish people are writing.

    Yes, of course, a nation that for many years - millennia, even, needed to develop their brains and their solidarity, of course that's an advantage. But if anybody thinks that Jews are any different from other ethnicity - they are much the same. Look at Israel - they have much the same disagreements that we have over here. So, in Ukraine, they have better education,have their social capital, so that's what happens - < they get to the top>. This isn't because somebody's naturally superior or inferior, it is not good or bad, that's just how it is.

    < But the fun thing is that> all the nationalists were screaming "Glory to Ukraine", "Ukraine for Ukrainians", and now we have Georgians, <Americans and Latvians> in top government positions. They even no longer have a law that a government official has to speak Ukrainian in official capacity.

    = On the reasons for Donbass rebellion, the current situation, and the huge difference between DPR/LPR

    I think the situation in Donbass was initially fueled by the local oligarchs to blackmail the Kiev government, saying –"If you pressure us, we will split". And Russia immediately thought - "How awesome and very convenient!"

    By now, Plotnickiy is controlled from Russia, and I think Zaharchenko as well. DPR and LPR are similar in that respect – although they are completely different types of government, there are now checkpoints and customs between them, so they are two very different republics that are not administratively connected. You know, Donetsk always considered Lugansk their inferior younger brothers.

    The situation in the DPR is much more organized - back in April 4th, that was the point where all the non-organized armed bands had to either disband or integrate into the DPR Army. After that all the bands were forcibly disarmed, those caught on rapes, robberies, drug dealing etc. were sent to remove minefields where most of them died, or shot on the spot. In the LPR, the situation is much different - the territories controlled by various bands are still present. For example, Mozgovoi has been killed, but his group still controls territory, there are other groups like Dremov, <Kozityn's men>, etc. Plotnickiy is mostly sitting in Lugansk, being accused of stealing humanitarian aid. And that's how LPR exists.

    Russia helps both republics to survive, of course, <with aid and currency>. So the situation is frozen for now. People are making a ton of money on various checkpoints, there is a whole smuggling business all around there, so you can get into the DPR and LPR without any ID because there are "stalkers" who know how to get through the minefields, know how to get around checkpoints. The large checkpoints make money on large convoys, and there are tons of small checkpoints on country roads that are controlled by anybody who can. There are even horror stories of a car coming up to a rural checkpoint, "peasants" getting out, killing everyone and taking over the checkpoint, and taking bribes instead of those killed. So that's how they live. As I said, wartime economy will not stop by itself, just like a drug addict will not stop taking drugs, so it can only be stopped by USA, Russia or Europe, but they don't want to do it for now.

    Interviewer:

    Do you consider the national elites the organizers, the oligarchs?

    Montyan:

    How can you consider our oligarchs to be independent? Of course they are controlled from abroad, much like the DPR/LPR government controlled by Russia. It's a fight between Russia and US to the last Ukrainian.

    Interviewer:

    Why do you think Donetsk and Lugansk have not unified all the past year?

    Montyan:

    I say again - those are completely different entities ruled by a completely different people with completely different interests. I'd been to both - they are different countries, different continents even. The people are wrong to confuse them, there is nothing in common in any way. Both are controlled by Moscow, but the situation is different ... there is even a different mentality. In DPR - they got centralized, very quickly organized, exterminated or exiled those who could not be controlled, and in LPR all that is still going on.

    Interviewer:

    So how "People's" are the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk?

    Montyan:

    Somewhat more "People's" than here, that's actually true.

    They got rid of some of the oligarchs - actually the only big one left is Ahmetov, and they also make him pay up. In the DPR , I was talking on the Oplot TV channel that they took from Ahmetov, I was given a ride by a their minister on a car they took from the oligarch Kluev, and they told me they took the Starobeshevo Power Plant from Yanukovich - as a result they pay half the price for electricity that we do!

    And the funniest thing is that I'm being accused of riding in the car taken from an oligarch, by the same people who took over Yanukovich's house and Pshonka's properties in Kiev! Do these people think at all?

    Interviewer:

    Do the governments of the People's republics and the Kiev government work together?

    Montyan:

    Of course! They are just stealing whatever they can. By now, everybody talks about giant cargo shipments going between DPR and LPR and Kiev, while people are fighting each other the frontlines. Of course, this is impossible without the governments on both sides being complicit - I do not quite know who specifically is involved, I doubt we'll ever find out, but it's clear they work together because otherwise they wouldn't be making such huge shipments.

    <It takes about $10,000 per semi truck to get through the "blockade" > - it depends on the price of the goods in the truck . For example, I heard that to be allowed to control a checkpoint you have to pay the military bosses a million dollars a month. So if you pay a million dollars just to stand at the checkpoint, you can imagine how much people are making. As for who physically controls those checkpoints - it's not clear. When I was getting out of the DPR, with a smuggler, we were driving through a rural checkpoint and I'm not even sure which side it was on, but there was a guy who lives in Kiev in my neighborhood, he even recognized me and let me through without paying. So I have no idea who manages those things - I told you, in the morning it could be one set of guys, and in the evening somebody can come up, kill them and take over the checkpoint. I don't exclude the possibility that at some checkpoints it can even happen more than once per day. You know how they say - "In the bad part of Kiev, an iPhone can change hands several times a day, and outlive a quite few owners". That's how it is.

    = About Mozgovoi and his murder:

    He was a non-typical commander. He was charismatic, played a local Che Guevara, really tried to pass justice in the area he controlled... He was confiscating drugs by the pound and burning them on the central square of Alchevsk. He personally came to resolve conflicts - almost down to family squabbles. He was playing Robin Hood, and people loved him. This is shown by the number of people who came to his funeral - the people now saying bad things about him, I don't think such a number of people would even bother coming to spit on their graves if they die.

    But Mozgovoi was very inexperienced at running a city, and running any sort of government, really. The maximum he could do is deliver humanitarian aid, organized by him for the population. He had four free canteens running for the people. When I was there, he was arguing with the Russian customs because they weren't letting through food, and he was shouting - what will I feed my soldiers, my civilians, children in our kindergartens... He didn't much care for the elections or stuff like that - non-typical.

    Anybody could have killed him - from local drug dealers for burning all the drugs, to anybody else, he did not fit in there and did not have powerful backers. There is only one road there - plant an EID, sit and wait for him to come. And that's that's how it happened. As far as Moscow's backing, he was due to go there, but did not make it in time.

    = About future plans of the oligarchs and direction of the country:

    I have no idea what the oligarchs think. I don't think they think far - the are just stealing what they can, while they can.

    And the people are being conscripted, sixth wave of it already - people being caught literally on the city buses, students are caught in universities... People are running away - I was asked what is the journalist Kotsaba is in jail for - he's there for protesting illegal forced conscription, because he was protesting against the government grabbing all those people, stealing the food they are supposed to get, stealing the ammo and weapons they are supposed to have and selling them to the DPR and LPR... And the people obviously have realized all this by now, and have no desire to die in some encirclement to fill the oligarch's wallets.

    So obviously conscription isn't going very well - people understood that they are being basically used as cattle for slaughter.

    Interviewer: If Donbass completely leaves Ukraine, and after Crimea, could that trigger a process like in Yugoslavia, could Ukraine split into several fragments?

    Montyan: Where will Donbass go? Russia clearly stated they don't want Donbass.

    How will DPR, LPR survive independently? I have no idea. As unrecognized states? Kiev under the control of the nationalists, and DPR and LPR by themselves - they are not capable of surviving. They will slowly rot, the fabric of the state would keep on failing and degrading further, so without external interference, without some reformatting, this situation cannot be resolved. This situation cannot be solved from the inside - by people inside the cage. Only the people who set it up can stop it, and for now they have no desire to do so.

    = On fixing the mess:

    Fixing the country is not that hard, and wouldn't take that long, but for now, nobody wants it. I could fix it in a couple years, probably. The mechanisms are commonly known, they had been used successfully multiple times - as long as you have the desire to do it, it's not hard. But nobody wants to do it! The elite needs to be at least minimally interested in not just robbing the country for its resources, but thinking about the future. For now, the people who are getting to the top are those looters from the checkpoints - because, for now, that's the most profitable business. When it becomes less profitable, then things may change - that's basic economics. In Ukraine, we can see how capital takes over the people and the state, the judiciary, the executive... All the branches of government and all the the state-owned corporations are being taken over by oligarchs, . Now they're talking about actually handing over the Customs Service to a private corporation. Thus, state monopolies are being replaced by oligarch monopolies.

    District governments are a sham, local governments are a sham - because every "state-owned" local government service is actually being controlled by specific people who get money.

    When there's no open mechanisms showing where the money comes into the state and how it gets out, then the game turns into "King of the Hill" - whoever climbs to the top steals as much as he can before he gets kicked off, then he runs away to another country with the stolen money and laughs those he left behind.

    = On Russian government (originally here, moved to top)


    = On demonizing Putin:

    Putin is just some guy. What's the difference who is the talking head at the top? He's just a <product of a system>. Here, Poroshenko is already the exact same thing as Yanukovich, exactly. There are cartoons - you take Yanukovich, curl his hair, you get Poroshenko!

    It doesn't matter who "Putin" is, doesn't matter what the name is. They are determined by what the country is. Don't like Yanukovich? Look in the mirror.

    The president is the same as the country, as the people. I ask them - you don't like Yanukovich? Is it him putting trash in your yard? Are the oligarchs making penis drawings all over your elevator? Which government official urinated by your door? It is done by the population, by you, and because you are like that - Yanukovich is like that. It's like that in every country.

    If you don't find any compassion for journalists who are put in jail just for voicing their opinion, why do you ask for justice for yourself? If you are ready to throw homemade grenades at police, why do you think cops should not beat you up? That's so weird - <those people don't understand> that justice has to be for everybody, not just "justice for us and injustice for our enemies".

    = On civilians suffering in Donbass and Russian army:

    What do you mean I don't talk about civilians in warzone? I pity all civilians in the warzone, because they being shot at by all sides. They are stuck there, in this zone of chaos, they're being screwed over by everybody.

    I do have to say people don't believe me, <and that's scary>.

    When I came back from my first trip to the East, I told them Ukrainian Army nearly killed me at the Alchevsk cemetery, but people tell me "It's Mozgovoi". He was standing right next to me!

    "Then it's Dremov" - he was on the phone telling us to run!

    "Then it's Kozitsyn" - he was in a complete different direction, look at the maps! Still, nobody believes me.

    In the end, after I showed pictures of all the gravestones damaged with shrapnel and maps of the area, some did... But people were really convinced <separatists are shelling themselves>.

    But yes, both sides are shooting. Armies don't much care for civilians. In Lugansk, for example, UAF were standing at the Metallist and shelling the city with unguided rockets - I was where they landed, even visited local businessman Aleksandr Nigoves, found Grad pieces by his destroyed house, there's plenty of videos and all... Eventually UAF hit something - either in Russia, or right on the border, so Russian Army came in through Izvarino and crushed them, went through the positions <UAF set up in towns> Khryaschevatoe and Novosvetlovka, and wiped them off the face of the earth. Chased the UAF into an encirclement, and left 5 days later. In Novosvetlovka, 300 out of 600 houses are destroyed, around 600 locals perished.

    And who are the good guys here? That's how it is. That's war. It doesn't have a good and a bad side - it's murder, horror and suffering.

    Inteviewer:

    Do you think something similar could happen in Kiev?

    Montyan:

    How can I know what's going to happen in this madhouse? What goes through the sick mind of some heavily armed idiots somewhere? Anything can happen.
    In the near future, more people will come back from a from the warzone and join street gangs, especially when the standard of living goes down. Even now, they are shooting cops with AKs to rob a gas station for $40, what's going to happen next?


    = About "de-Sovietization" law:

    Yes, they have nothing better to do than rename everything. Let's destroy the factories and highways, because the damn communists built them.

    Everything we see here, everything in Ukraine, was built by the Soviet Union. And a lot of it is on the edge of the physical collapse. 70 to 90% of infrastructure - various sewerage, heating, power lines - they're starting to fall down. Since "independence", they were patched up when they failed, but no investments in replacement or renewal. And when the communist-built houses start falling down - that's going to be real hell... But for now, the <dark Soviet legacy> still stands.


    = About role of history in politics:

    I'm completely amazed by the people who let the past affect their present and future. History is for historians, for professional historians! I would personally prohibit using history in propaganda - because history already happened, <it's over and done with>! The historical figures being put on the posters that marchers run with - those people are gone! They lived their lives, in their conditions, and bringing them into the present is completely retarded!

    Live your own lives, here and now, and don't try to use historical figures in your propaganda - because the vast majority of those historical figures, if you met them face to face, would chop off your head as soon as you started spouting your drivel!


    = About the nature of a "nation":

    Interviewer:
    Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nations - is it one nation that's been divided, or no?

    Montyan:

    No. I don't think a nation exists as a separate entity. For me, an African from Papua New Guinea who believes in civil rights is closer than nationalist extremists beating people in Kiev. I refuse to think I'm part of the same nation as them, and they probably don't think I'm part of "their" nation either.

    But that said, we can live in the same country, as long as it has laws and they do not have the right to attack people. They can have their views, if they don't have the capacity to make their sick fantasies a reality. As long as we have a decent civil and criminal law, and have the capability to punish those who violate it, that's all we need for people to coexist.

    Take Jews - they are so different! Some of them have gay parades in Jerusalem, run around in latex, and others walk around in complete black garb and pray constantly. And they live together in the same country, don't kill each other, because they have decent civil law, all the questions had been solved, each millimeter of land has a clear established owner, and there's nothing to argue about. They can talk about their views on TV and newspapers but that's it.

    = On Ukrainian sovereignty:

    What kind of sovereignty are you even talking about? Ukraine's territory is broken into pieces controlled by various foreign powers. <The "revolution" only made it worse>: if you break apart a crappy shed, you will only be able to build several smaller and crappier sheds out of the fragments. So now they built Kiev shed, DPR and LPR sheds in place of what once was a decent country.

    VIDEO (English voiceover)



    < I recommend clicking the gear symbol on the bottom-right of the video and increasing playback speed to 1.5x, that will save you 30 minutes and is completely understandable).


    Previous video with Montyan:


    Notes:
    *Take our recent darling Shilova, for example - she managed to get involved with both Yanukovich's corruption and Lyashko's radicals before becoming a "separatist", not to mention being a member of half a dozen political parties before. Of course, she could have an honest change of heart _this_time_... but that's what she must have said many times before.

    ** About Montyan's points on Crimea: Crimea saw over twice the amount of airport traffic this year compared with the last, so the economy is gaining traction. Yes, I bet the economy still suffers overall with the peninsula being in a complete blockade by Ukraine (not only people and goods but also water and often power), and only joined to Russia by a ferry. Still, "littlehirosima" is currently in Crimea and tells me life is good there for now. And once a bridge gets built, or nationalists get chased out of Kiev, it should get a lot better.

    *** "Homemade firecracker grenades" - Ukraine has no laws against selling extremely powerful firecrackers. They are almost at hand grenade level, and can definitely kill or maim, especially with nails&bolts taped as fragments. Here's a video of such a "big firecracker" shredding a toilet (common pastime in East Europe, heh). The firecracker is actually far from the biggest one, but the video is just hilarious:


    **** I cut out the part of the big video where Montyan talks about gay rights because, first of all, it has nothing to do with the Novorossiya war or Ukrainian politics, and second, because her genetics arguments are wrong, although she may be right about human rights aspect.

    [Jul 24, 2015] Ron Paul Iran Agreement Boosts Peace, Defeats Neocons

    "...I was so impressed when travel personality Rick Steves traveled to Iran in 2009 to show that the US media and government demonization of Iranians was a lie, and that travel and human contact can help defeat the warmongers because it humanizes those who are supposed to be dehumanized."
    Jul 20, 2015 | ronpaul.com

    The agreement has reduced the chance of a US attack on Iran, which is a great development. But the interventionists will not give up so easily. Already they are organizing media and lobbying efforts to defeat the agreement in Congress. Will they have enough votes to over-ride a presidential veto of their rejection of the deal? It is unlikely, but at this point if the neocons can force the US out of the deal it may not make much difference. Which of our allies, who are now facing the prospect of mutually-beneficial trade with Iran, will be enthusiastic about going back to the days of a trade embargo? Which will support an attack on an Iran that has proven to be an important trading partner and has also proven reasonable in allowing intrusive inspections of its nuclear energy program?

    However, what is most important about this agreement is not that US government officials have conducted talks with Iranian government officials. It is that the elimination of sanctions, which are an act of war, will open up opportunities for trade with Iran. Government-to-government relations are one thing, but real diplomacy is people-to-people: business ventures, tourism, and student exchanges.

    I was so impressed when travel personality Rick Steves traveled to Iran in 2009 to show that the US media and government demonization of Iranians was a lie, and that travel and human contact can help defeat the warmongers because it humanizes those who are supposed to be dehumanized.

    As I write in my new book, Swords into Plowshares:

    Our unwise policy with Iran is a perfect example of what the interventionists have given us-60 years of needless conflict and fear for no justifiable reason. This obsession with Iran is bewildering. If the people knew the truth, they would strongly favor a different way to interact with Iran.

    Let's not forget that the Iran crisis started not 31 years ago when the Iran Sanctions Act was signed into law, not 35 years ago when Iranians overthrew the US-installed Shah, but rather 52 years ago when the US CIA overthrew the democratically-elected Iranian leader Mossadegh and put a brutal dictator into power. Our relations with the Iranians are marked by nearly six decades of blowback.

    When the Cold War was winding down and the military-industrial complex needed a new enemy to justify enormous military spending, it was decided that Iran should be the latest "threat" to the US. That's when sanctions really picked up steam. But as we know from our own CIA National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, the stories about Iran building a nuclear weapon were all lies. Though those lies continue to be repeated to this day.

    It is unfortunate that Iran was forced to give up some of its sovereignty to allow restrictions on a nuclear energy program that was never found to be in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But if the net result is the end of sanctions and at least a temporary reprieve from the constant neocon demands for attack, there is much to cheer in the agreement. Peace and prosperity arise from friendly relations and trade – and especially when governments get out of the way.

    This column was published by the Ron Paul Institute.

    [Jul 24, 2015]Peak Oil Review - July 23

    I think much more the 23 billion is distressed. And this is by design...
    "...More than $22 billion of the $235 billion of the debt owed by 62 North American oil companies, however, is "distressed" and unlikely to be paid back."
    Jul 23, 2015 | resilience.org

    As prices continue to fall, concerns are increasing on Wall Street as to the quality of their loans to unprofitable oil and gas companies. Many banks are starting to set aside money to cover bad loans which eat into banking industry profits. In recent years Wall Street has been the biggest ally of the "shale revolution" by allowing companies to exceed their debt limits time after time in hopes that they would someday turn profitable. With US oil prices now below $50 a barrel and unlikely to climb significantly during the next year or so, bankers are demanding that drillers reduce their credit lines and increase equity. In response US oil producers have raised some $44 billion by selling bonds and shares in the first half of this year. More than $22 billion of the $235 billion of the debt owed by 62 North American oil companies, however, is "distressed" and unlikely to be paid back.

    The recent drop in oil prices is giving Moscow second thoughts about the economic recovery in 2016 that President Putin has been talking about. Russia will face recession or stagnation if oil trades near $50 a barrel next year. If oil is trading near $40 a barrel, Moscow is facing a 7 percent decline in its GDP next year.

    [Jul 23, 2015] The Effect of New Production Methods on U.S Oil Output

    The Effect of New Production Methods on U.S Oil Output

    Tags: Bakken, fracking, oil production, oil shale, shale oil, WTI inShare

    Since 2005, the "total oil supply" for the United States as reported by the Energy Information Administration increased by 2.2 million barrels per day. Of this, 1.3 mb/d, or 60%, has come from natural gas liquids and biofuels, which really shouldn't be added to conventional crude production for purposes of calculating the available supply. Of the 800,000 b/d increase in actual field production of crude oil, almost all of the gain has come from shale and other tight formations that horizontal fracturing methods have only recently opened up. Here I offer some thoughts on how these new production methods change the overall outlook for U.S. oil production.

    Let me begin by clarifying that "shale oil" and "oil shale" refer to two completely different resources. "Oil shale" is in fact not shale and does not contain oil, but is instead a rock that at great monetary and environmental cost can yield organic compounds that could eventually be made into oil. Although some people have long been optimistic about the potential amount of energy available in U.S. oil-shale deposits, I personally am pessimistic that oil shale will ever be a significant energy source.

    By contrast, the expression "shale oil", or the more accurate term "tight oil", is often used to refer to rock formations that do contain oil and that sometimes might actually be shale. The defining characteristic is that the rock is not sufficiently porose or permeable to allow oil to flow out if all you do is drill a hole into the formation. However, enterprising drillers have discovered that if you create fissures in the rock by injecting water (along with sand and some chemicals to facilitate the process) at high pressure along horizontal pipes through the formation, oil can seep back through the cracks and be extracted.

    As seen in the figure above, these horizontal fracturing methods have been the main factor behind recent increases in U.S. field production. The key question is how much more growth we should expect. Leonardo Maugeri, senior manager for the Italian oil company Eni, and Senior Fellow at Harvard University, has a new paper in which he predicts that the U.S. could get an additional 4.17 million barrels per day from shale/tight oil plays by 2020, though he notes that any such predictions are problematic:

    the huge differences in permeability, porosity, and thickness of a shale/tight oil formation require many more exploration wells be drilled in different areas of the field before making it possible to have an idea of the effective recoverability rate from the whole formation…. it is impossible to make any reasonable evaluation of the future production from a shale/tight oil formation based on the analysis of a few wells data and such limited activity.

    To put the 4.17 mb/d number in perspective, total U.S. field production of crude oil in 2011 was 5.68 mb/d. If 4.17 mb/d could be added to that, it would almost put us back to where we were in 1970. Alternatively, 4.17 mb/d represents 22% of the 18.8 mb/d currently consumed by the U.S. and 4.7% of total world consumption.

    Crude oil production (in millions of barrels per day) from entire United States, 1859-2011, with contributions from individual regions as indicated. Updated from Hamilton (2011)

    Maugeri describes the assumptions under which he arrived at his estimate for the Bakken tight formation in North Dakota and Montana as follows:

    • A price of oil (WTI) equal to or greater than $70 per barrel through 2020;
    • A constant 200 drilling rigs per week;
    • An estimated ultimate recovery rate of 10 percent per individual producing well (which in most cases has already been exceeded) and for the overall formation;
    • [original oil in place comes to 300 billion barrels];
    • A combined average depletion rate for each producing well of 15 percent over the first five years, followed by a 7 percent depletion rate;
    • A level of porosity and permeability of the Bakken/Three Forks formation derived from those experienced so far by oil companies engaged in the area.

    The above assumptions detail the total quantities that Maugeri estimates can eventually be extracted (a stock variable), but they clearly are not enough to calculate an annual production rate for the year 2020 (a flow variable) which is the key number Maugeri is reporting. His analysis also makes use of a proprietary database of results for existing wells. What he evidently did was to calculate average well completion rates and flow rates per well from that database and extrapolate those forward, though he does not tell the reader what were the actual summary averages that he used for this calculation nor indicate in what way the $70 assumed price enters the calculations. His paper really just seems to provide his own summary judgment as to what his private database implies rather than specifics that other analysts could use to evaluate or reproduce his claims.

    I recently attended an excellent conference on oil market fundamentals, whose proceedings can be viewed online if your budget allows for a hefty registration fee. One of the presentations was by Morningstar analyst Jason Stevens, who estimated the 2015 potential U.S. tight crude oil production using two different approaches. The first approach, which Stevens called a "top-down" approach, was to "use best-in play curves and assume repeatability and similar results in emerging plays," which sounds identical to Maugeri's methodology, and indeed, Stevens' calculations used the identical 200 rigs per week assumption for Bakken as did Maugeri. But whereas Maugeri predicted we'd see 1.5 mb/d additional Bakken production by 2010, Stevens calculated that the area might only add 150,000 b/d or so by 2015. On the other hand, Stevens' calculations suggested about a 900,000 b/d gain for the Eagle Ford in Texas by 2015, compared with 1.47 mb/d anticipated by Maugeri for 2020.

    Source: Jason Stevens, 2012 Symposium on Oil Supply and Demand.

    Stevens also calculated a forecast using a second method that he described as "bottom up", which used specific production forecasts for 16 of the individual firms involved in these plays, and assumed that the fraction of each area's total production represented by these particular firms would stay constant. This bottom-up calculation leads to an expected additional flow by the particular firms studied of almost 1 mb/d by 2015, implying perhaps 3 mb/d combined production from all drillers in the plays. Thus Stevens' bottom line was similar to that of Maugeri's, although the specifics differ.

    Source: Jason Stevens, 2012 Symposium on Oil Supply and Demand.

    In addition to the uncertainties noted above about extrapolating historical production rates, the rate at which production declines from a given well over time is another big unknown. Another key point to recognize is the added cost of extracting oil from tight formations. West Texas Intermediate is currently around $85/barrel. With the huge discount for Canadian and north-central U.S. producers, that means that producers of North Dakota sweet are only offered $61 a barrel. Tight oil is not going to be the reason that we return to an era of cheap oil, for the simple reason that if oil again fell below $50/barrel, it wouldn't be profitable to produce with these methods. Nor is tight oil likely to get the U.S. back to the levels of field production that we saw in 1970. But tight oil will likely provide a source of significant new production over the next decade as long as the price does not fall too much.

    It is a separate critical question how much additional production may come worldwide from other sources, and how far this new production will go toward offsetting declining production from existing mature fields. Maugeri is also quite optimistic about these issues as well. I hope to take up a discussion of these separate questions in a subsequent post.

    This article originally appeared on Econbrowser.

    [Jul 23, 2015]Bernard Baruch's 10 Rules of Investing

    Posted February 17, 2013 by

    You want someone to emulate?

    Bernard Baruch (August 19, 1870 – June 20, 1965) was the son of a South Carolina physician whose family moved to New York City when he was eleven year old. By his mid-twenties, he is able to buy an $18,000 seat on the exchange with his winnings and commissions from being a broker. By age 30, he is a millionaire and is known all over The Street as "The Lone Wolf".

    In his two-volume 1957 memoirs, My Own Story, Baruch left us with the following timeless rules for playing the game:

    "Being so skeptical about the usefulness of advice, I have been reluctant to lay down any 'rules' or guidelines on how to invest or speculate wisely. Still, there are a number of things I have learned from my own experience which might be worth listing for those who are able to muster the necessary self-discipline:"

    1. Don't speculate unless you can make it a full-time job.
    2. Beware of barbers, beauticians, waiters - of anyone - bringing gifts of "inside" information or "tips."
    3. Before you buy a security, find out everything you can about the company, its management and competitors, its earnings and possibilities for growth.
    4. Don't try to buy at the bottom and sell at the top. This can't be done - except by liars.
    5. Learn how to take your losses quickly and cleanly.
    6. Don't expect to be right all the time. If you have made a mistake, cut your losses as quickly as possible.
    7. Don't buy too many different securities. Better have only a few investments which can be watched.. Don't try to be a jack of all investments. Stick to the field you know best.
    8. Make a periodic reappraisal of all your investments to see whether changing developments have altered their prospects.
    9. Study your tax position to know when you can sell to greatest advantage.
    10. Always keep a good part of your capital in a cash reserve. Never invest all your funds.10

    Baruch would later go on from Wall Street to Washington DC as an advisor to both Woodrow Wilson and to FDR during World War II.

    Later, he became known as the Park Bench Statesman, owing to his fondness for discussing policy and politics with his acquaintances outdoors.

    He lived til a few days shy of his 95th birthday in 1965. You could do worse than to invest and live based on these simple truths.

    Financial_skeptic/ Stagnation/ /energy. Fighting_russo*/

    [Jul 23, 2015]Iran Deal Heads Toward Showdown With Adelson's GOP

    Jul 15, 2015 | LobeLog

    The Iran nuclear deal announced in Vienna yesterday means that the tough international negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran are finally over. But now attention shifts to the 60-day period during which Congress has the option of voting to approve or disapprove the agreement or doing nothing at all. A resolution of disapproval, as Obama most recently warned yesterday, will provoke a presidential veto. At that point, the question will be whether the opponents can muster the necessary two-thirds of members in both chambers of Congress to override, effectively killing by far the most promising development in U.S.-Iranian relations since the 1979 revolution.

    This process not only represents a key test of Obama's ability to deliver his most significant foreign-policy achievement to date. It also sets up a major showdown between the GOP's single biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson, and the president of the United States.

    Adelson is a big supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and finances Israel's largest-circulation newspaper, Israel Hayom, often referred to as "Bibiton," or Bibi's paper. He makes no secret either of his hawkish views toward Iran or his animosity toward the Obama administration. Adelson has proposed launching a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran as a negotiating tactic and was treated as a guest of honor during Netanyahu's controversial speech before Congress last March. (A number of pundits speculated about Adelson's role in securing Netanyahu's invitation from Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).)

    Adelson and the Republicans

    The casino magnate, whose net wealth is estimated by Forbes at $29.4 billion, and his Israeli-born wife, Miriam Adelson, are heavily invested in the current GOP members of the House and Senate.

    In the 2014 election cycle, Adelson was the biggest single donor to the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Super PAC closely tied to Boehner and dedicated to electing Republicans to the House, according to public filings. He contributed $5 million-or nearly 40%–of the Fund's $12.6 million in total contributions. Boehner's Super PAC's second largest contributor, and only other seven-figure donor, was Chevron. It contributed a mere $1 million.

    The loyalty of Republican senators to the Las Vegas-based multi-billionaire may run even deeper. Sheldon and Miriam Adelson reportedly contributed up to $100 million to help the GOP retake the Senate last year.

    Adelson's close relationship with Netanyahu is well documented, but his influence in Congress will soon be tested.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) already pledged to Netanyahu that he would "follow your lead" before a January vote on the Kirk-Menendez sanctions legislation. Graham joked about having the "first all-Jewish Cabinet in America [if elected president] because of the pro-Israel funding," an apparent reference to the critical role played by campaign contributions by Adelson and other wealthy supporters of Israel-a number of whom are on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition-in making or breaking Republican presidential candidacies. (The Adelsons' generosity in 2012 virtually singlehandedly kept alive the presidential candidacy of former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who told NBC that Israel's survival was "the central value of [Adelson's] life.")

    Yesterday, Graham declared that the Iran deal was "akin to declaring war on Israel and the Sunni Arabs." Not to be outdone, other GOP candidates, most of whom, no doubt, are also seeking Adelson's endorsement and financial support, slammed the deal.

    Jeb Bush, for instance, denounced the agreement as "appeasement." Having received a bitter complaint from Adelson, Bush had earlier distanced himself from his father's secretary of state after James Baker publicly criticized Netanyahu at a J Street conference earlier this year. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), reportedly an Adelson favorite, blasted the accord as "undermin[ing] our national security," while Gov. Scott Walker characterized it as "one of the biggest disasters of the Obama-Clinton doctrine." And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) described it as "a fundamental betrayal of the security of the United States and of our closest allies, first and foremost Israel."

    All of these candidates may, of course, truly believe what they are saying (no doubt having personally studied the 100-plus-page agreement in detail). But Adelson's largesse may also have played a role in their summary rejections of a deal that has been negotiated over more than three years and that has been endorsed by Washington's most important NATO allies, not to mention the overwhelming majority of recognized U.S. non-proliferation, nuclear policy, Iran, and national security experts.

    GOP Reservations about Adelson

    But other Republicans, including those who don't necessarily harbor the national ambitions that require raising tens of millions of dollars from wealthy donors, may feel some reservations about the growing influence Adelson exercises over their party's leadership. Indeed, a closer look at Adelson, beginning with the way his gambling interests may not precisely align with the values of the party's social conservatives, suggests a degree of disconnect between the man and a core Republican constituency.

    Adelson's interests in China, which many Republicans believe poses the greatest long-term threat to U.S. national security, may also be cause for concern. After all, in order to run his highly profitable Macau-based casinos, Adelson would presumably require some friendly relations, or guanxi, with the Communist government in Beijing. Indeed, reports that Adelson played a key role-at the personal behest of Beijing's mayor-in scuttling a proposed House resolution opposing China's bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics on human-rights grounds should give pause to some elements in the party, including both China hawks and neoconservatives who profess a devotion to democracy. The fact that Adelson also faces accusations of ties to Chinese organized crime groups at his Macau properties and that a former Sands executive charged him with personally approving a "prostitution strategy" at his properties should raise a few questions in the minds of some Republicans. Adelson has rejected all these charges, which may soon be tested in court.

    And despite having personally promoted the use of U.S. military (and nuclear) forces against Iran and funded a number of hawkish groups, including the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, that have similarly advocated the threat or use of U.S. military force, Adelson appears at least ambivalent about his own service in the U.S. armed forces.

    Speaking to a group in Israel, in July 2010, Adelson said:

    I am not Israeli. The uniform that I wore in the military, unfortunately, was not an Israeli uniform. It was an American uniform, although my wife was in the IDF and one of my daughters was in the IDF … our two little boys, one of whom will be bar mitzvahed tomorrow, hopefully he'll come back– his hobby is shooting - and he'll come back and be a sniper for the IDF. … All we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel, because even though I am not Israeli born, Israel is in my heart.

    With a deal now reached in Vienna, Adelson is undoubtedly placing calls to the GOP leadership in Congress urging them to vote down a nuclear accord supported by an overwhelming number of experts in the relevant fields, as well as a majority of Americans, according to the latest polls. How they respond will tell us a great deal not only about Adelson's influence in the Republican party, but also about the impact of enormously wealthy, highly focused, one-issue donors on U.S. foreign policy and national security.

    Image: DonkeyHotey via Flickr

    [Jul 23, 2015]First Thoughts About The Iran Deal

    "...BUT, since when has American opinion against war ever mattered? 1848? 1898? 1916-17? 1938-1941? 2001 and subsequently? When our oligarchs want war, we end up with a black flag, or backdoor to war ... and always go blindly off to war. And, it is always the 'exceptional/indispensable' us against the evil them!"
    .
    "...Diplomats also came up with unusual procedure to "snap back" the sanctions against Iran if an eight-member panel determines that Tehran is violating the nuclear provisions. The members of the panel are Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States, the European Union and Iran itself. A majority vote is required, meaning that Russia, China and Iran could not collectively block action."
    .
    "...The Iran deal will allow oil to flow to Europe. It is a temporary measure to try and keep Russia out of business with the EU. The ultimate fear of the Atlanticists is collaboration between Russia and Germany."
    Jul 14, 2015 | M of A

    The deal itself is a major infringement on Iran's sovereignty extorted though a manufactured crisis about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that does not and did not ever exist. To see the hypocrisy of it just count the nukes:

    ... ... ...

    The U.S. has a bad record of sticking to international deals it made. North Korea was promised two civil nuclear electricity plants to be build by the United States for stopping its nuclear activities. None was build and North Korea restarted its weapon program. Libya agreed to give up the tiny preliminary nuclear program it had and the U.S. destroyed the state.

    Netanyahoo's puppets in the U.S. congress will do their best to blockade the current deal. Should they not be able to do so attempts will be made to press the next U.S. president into breaking the agreement.

    Iran must now be very careful to not get trapped into more concessions or even a war.

    Tom Murphy | Jul 14, 2015 7:14:13 AM | 1

    But recall how ruthless the actions against Iran have been.
    See video mentioning terrorist attacks against Iran: Iran Deal Reached on Peaceful Nuclear Program

    okie farmer | Jul 14, 2015 9:59:25 AM | 5

    I wonder how many nukes are aimed right at Iran

    None. Why bother, everyone knows Iran has NO nukes. This is all about Israel's hegemony in the region which includes their best ally KSA.

    harry law | Jul 14, 2015 10:45:31 AM | 8

    In some respects the Iranians can claim a victory [of sorts] since they never intended to produce a nuclear weapon in the first place, all the concessions made by them only put them into the same position as before. They can still enrich uranium, as much as they need to fuel their reactors and for medical isotopes, and, in theory, can look to grow rich by selling its vast reserves of oil and gas to the West and open up its lucrative home market to investors from all over the world. Possibly a win win for Iran, to the consternation of Israel and the Saudi perverts. As our host rightly say's the devil is in the detail, and many people will try and distort the interpretation of the text. The bottom line in my opinion is the US electorate do not want another war in the middle east. That much was made clear when the warmongers received condemnation from ordinary Americans when strikes against Syria were proposed. Now the Iranians can concentrate on helping Syria and Hezbollah eliminate the anti-human Jihadis.

    DamascusFalling | Jul 14, 2015 11:19:18 AM | 10

    The bottom line in my opinion is the US electorate do not want another war in the middle east. That much was made clear when the warmongers received condemnation from ordinary Americans when strikes against Syria were proposed. Now the Iranians can concentrate on helping Syria and Hezbollah eliminate the anti-human Jihadis.
    -----------------------
    Public opinion clearly means little, voting might account for even less. We'll soon have a new presidential regime that can decide whatever they want to do, and the public will just follow along, or at least the media substitutes that represent the 'national discussion' will anyway

    okie farmer | Jul 14, 2015 12:57:12 PM | 16

    http://tass.ru/en/world/808492
    Moscow expects Washington to drop missile defense shield plans

    Lavrov stressed that Russia expects Washington's move towards giving up plans on creating the missile defense shield in Europe after the deal on Iran's nuclear program has been reached.

    Speaking on the deal in a "broader context," Lavrov reminded that US President Barack Obama said in 2009 in Prague that there would be no more need to create a European segment of the missile shield should a solution be found to Iran's nuclear issue.
    "That's why we drew the attention of our American colleagues to this fact today and we will expect a reaction," Lavrov stressed.

    ToivoS | Jul 14, 2015 1:28:04 PM | 17

    In general this looks like a very good deal for the Iranians. It is also a good deal for the US since it will reduce the chances of war. There a two points that are problematical however.

    One is that the arms embargo will continue for 5 years. Iran is still threatened by an air attack by Israel. Does this mean Russia will not be able to deliver the S-300 antiaircraft missiles they already ordered and paid for? This sounds like a major concession.

    Two concerns the inspection of Iran's conventional military sites. Iran rejected the demand for "unfettered" access to their military sites. However they agreed to this:

    Iran will allow UN inspectors to enter sites, including military sites, when the inspectors have grounds to believe undeclared nuclear activity is being carried out there. It can object but a multinational commission can override any objections by majority vote. After that Iran will have three days to comply. Inspectors will only come from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran, so no Americans.

    "Inspectors have ground to believe" leaves many opportunities for Israel to fabricate some documents and send them to the "inspectors" which I presume will be IAEC personnel. Under Amano the IAEC has been a tool of the US. Israel has been sending fabricated documents to that agency for some time.

    Mike Maloney | Jul 14, 2015 4:01:45 PM | 28

    Virgile @ 25 says, with some understatement that "One of their [KSA's] option left is to weaken Iran by creating troubles in countries where Iran has influence: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen. Yet until now this strategy has shown to be inefficient and dangerous."

    The Kingdom will not change its strategy. Its takfiri proxies have been very successful so far. The blowback is going to be a shattered EU, as more displaced persons arrive on Greek beaches. Member states will fight among each other. Greece is already on its way to being another Serbia. Marine Le Pen should do quite well. A Brexit will probably make a lot of sense to the English in another two years.

    okie farmer | Jul 14, 2015 5:50:33 PM | 33

    TRNN
    Col Wilkerson on the Iran deal
    https://youtu.be/uOfr9OuCv6E

    Rg an LG | Jul 15, 2015 1:38:26 AM | 35

    The alleged 'deal' is way over my head. So, no comment ...

    BUT, since when has American opinion against war ever mattered? 1848? 1898? 1916-17? 1938-1941? 2001 and subsequently?

    When our oligarchs want war, we end up with a black flag, or backdoor to war ... and always go blindly off to war. And, it is always the 'exceptional/indispensable' us against the evil them!

    Does that mean war with Iran? I have no idea, but if our owners want the US at war, we will find a way ... no matter who the enemy might be. Living near Texas, maybe even the 7 states of Jade Helm 15?

    Do have a day ... whatever flavor it may be.

    Harry | Jul 15, 2015 3:16:31 AM | 36

    The deal is a bit better than I expected, Iran did an amazing job of withstanding an insane pressure from the West. Iran had to make some big concessions, but they are non-essential. Countries' economy will boom and Iran would become a legit region superpower, this naturally created a hysteria in Israel and Saudi.

    The main problem, US has reneged on every single agreement with Iran before, and they can easily do it with current deal. Consider two points:

    "Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency had "entered into an agreement to address all questions" about Iran's past actions within three months, and that completing this task was "fundamental for sanctions relief.""

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-is-reached-after-long-negotiations.html

    Amano will do as US says, and if US wants for IAEA to not give a green light, thats what he'll do. Amano has been doing it for years.

    Diplomats also came up with unusual procedure to "snap back" the sanctions against Iran if an eight-member panel determines that Tehran is violating the nuclear provisions. The members of the panel are Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United States, the European Union and Iran itself. A majority vote is required, meaning that Russia, China and Iran could not collectively block action.

    So if anyone says "Obama wont allow this deal to be tanked", so what? Next president will be able to, at will. Under any bogus pretext of Iran's non-compliance, US with its minions will be able to re-start sanctions and there is nothing Iran, Russia or China can do about that.

    Granted, EU by that time will have invested tens of billions in Iran, mass flowing of goods, and more importantly - EU is desperate for alternative to Russia's oil/gas, and Iran is a perfect choice. Therefore if US wants to sanction Iran again, it will face serious intransigence from EU, nonetheless US is still superpower with a lot of clout over minions, so they'll have to comply. Just like EU doesnt want to pay for US proxy-war in Ukraine, but are forced to. Just like they were forced to even initiate sanctions on Iran before and lose hundreds of billions in the process.

    zingaro | Jul 15, 2015 5:12:35 AM | 38

    "US will face serious intransigence from EU"...

    huh, EU from which planet ? last time I checked they pretty much all insisted on committing suicide on US-demanded sanctions (while US laughed and evaded pretty much these same sanctions at will)...

    dahoit | Jul 15, 2015 1:06:24 PM | 55

    I forgot;The Zionist neocon warmongers at the NYTS and Wapo, of course, say Iran is untrustworthy.
    The ultimate pot kettle remark.

    linda amick | Jul 15, 2015 2:13:32 PM | 56

    The Iran deal will allow oil to flow to Europe. It is a temporary measure to try and keep Russia out of business with the EU. The ultimate fear of the Atlanticists is collaboration between Russia and Germany.

    Johnboy | Jul 15, 2015 11:06:56 PM | 66

    @36 "Amano will do as US says, and if US wants for IAEA to not give a green light, thats what he'll do."

    Absolutely. The IAEA will be *the* litmus test for how genuine the USA is regarding this agreement, precisely because Amano does as he is told.

    So if he reports that the Iranians have answered all questions regarding "PMD" to the IAEA's satisfaction then, well, heck, everyone can conclude that Obama really is serious about this agreement, because Amano would have been told by the USA to reach that conclusion.

    Alternatively, if Amano can't be satisfied No Matter What then you know for a certainty that he is being obstinate on the orders of Obama. Which means that the USA has no intention of ever allowing Iran to re-engage with the rest of the world.

    Amano's inability to act independently makes him the perfect yardstick for judging the USA's real intentions.

    We could spend years dissecting *this* statement or *that* complaint from various Notable Americans. We can then argue for/against where that official's true loyalties are, and it's all totally unnecessary.

    Just keep your eye on the puppet over at the IAEA, because it is abundantly clear that
    (a) he doesn't think for himself, and
    (b) he answers to only one master.

    So what he says on any issue will be a true, unadulterated representation of what the USA really, truly, means, precisely because he will mouth words without any considerations of petty politics or the need to jerk off the critics.


    [Jul 22, 2015] Hundreds of Ukrainian right-wingers rally against govt

    KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - Hundreds of Ukrainian right-wingers were rallying in Kiev on Tuesday to protest against government policies in the wake of a deadly stand-off between radical nationalists and police in the country's west.

    The radical Right Sector group was one of the most militant factions in the massive protests in Ukraine's capital that prompted pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country in February 2014. Since the war broke out in eastern Ukraine between government forces and pro-Russia separatists several months later, the Right Sector has fought on the government side.

    However, Right Sector militants keep running into disputes with local Ukrainian authorities and Amnesty International has accused the group of holding civilians as prisoners and torturing them. The activists claim they are trying to clamp down on corruption and nepotism but Ukrainian authorities accuse Right Sector of using violence to reach its goals.

    Speaking Tuesday at the national Right Sector congress, group leader Dmytro Yarosh called for a referendum to impeach President Petro Poroshenko and his government.

    Yarosh also called for the recognition of volunteer battalions and their right to carry arms as well as introducing martial law, which he said, will help defeat the rebels in the east.

    Right Sector supporters gathered on Tuesday evening on Kiev's main square to support Yarosh's motion. Most of them were civilians and appeared to be unarmed, although some young men wore camouflage.

    Yarosh told the supporters at the square that the new government that replaced Yanukovych's regime was only about "changing names" but not the political system.

    "We are an organized revolutionary force that is opening the new phase of the Ukrainian revolution," he told the rally.

    The Right Sector leader garnered about 1 percent of the vote in the May 2014 presidential election. His radical anti-Russian stance prompted the Kremlin to dismiss the uprising in Kiev as a neo-Nazi coup.

    The Ukrainian government has attempted to rein in the volunteer battalions who often took frontline positions in eastern Ukraine where soldiers were reluctant to go by encouraging them to join the National Guard and police forces. In reality, hundreds of men in government-controlled eastern Ukraine still carry arms without any authorization.

    Two Right Sector members were killed earlier this month after the group attacked police in the western city of Mukacheve with gunfire and grenades. Police responded and then surrounded some gunmen in a wooded area of Mukacheve and have been trying to negotiate their surrender since then.

    Right Sector insists that the men were trying to confront local policemen who he said were involved in a major smuggling business in the region.

    Yarosh accused the government of deploying troops and weaponry to hunt down the Right Sector members instead of focusing on the war in the east: "Our guys were spilling their blood (in the east) but now they are being punished behind the lines."

    In a sign that he does not control the men in Mukacheve, he said Tuesday he did not know for sure how many men were still out there but said it was likely to be nine. He also dismissed reports that Right Sector fighters are roaming the country with the arms they were given to fight the rebels in the east.

    The stand-off in Mukacheve has caused a split in Right Sector with several dozen fighters quitting the battalion to join other battalions in protest.

    1. Right Sector gunmen take boy hostage in western Ukraine Associated Press
    2. At least 2 dead in in Ukraine sports club attack Associated Press
    3. Ukraine PM says reforms continue despite 'lunatic' lawmakers Associated Press
    4. Far right group challenges Ukraine government after shootout Reuters
    5. Ukraine nationalists in standoff with security forces after two killed AFP
    eco123eco

    The march on Kiev is coming. Old enemies and new allies are getting closer and closer day after day. The time of Poroshenko is running out, falling to the same corruption as the former Yanukovych. Corruption increased ten fold buy selling off Ukrainian Business to foreign investors. Poroshenko is a world puppet running the Ukraine like a world business with him being the CEO responsible for increasing the profits of the world before the Ukraine. Is it too much to ask for a united Ukraine against corruption?

    Blood was spilled, lives lost, all because a government fired upon its own people in protest. Now those very same protesters have been led down the same path again marching on Kiev against corruption. They have discovered corruption doesn't go away because you change the name of your government, and indeed it gets worse when in secret the new government in power has been murdering and torturing more Ukrainians than its predecessor whom also was corrupt to the point of murdering and torturing Ukrainians.

    The Ukraine must indeed be united as one Ukraine. It must become independent of West or East as it is the last great front where West and East ideology meet upon mutual terms. For this reason it is of vital importance to both West and East alike and that is a wealth like no other nation currently has. Even America is divided West and East, North and South, but it is still one America. Groups such as the Right Sector only exist because they have suffered under the corruption of others, and have taken it upon themselves to fight corruption at the highest levels with only one Ukraine, united West and East as a global front where West and East meet as equals, partners to solve world conflicts from West to East or East to West.

    The Ukraine is now the keeper of World Peace capable of going forward with hope. Protesters all share one thing in common, they have lived under inhumane and harsh conditions, many have given their lives for a better way, many more will continue to give their lives for the same. Government has failed in the Ukraine, it is failing again dividing the Ukraine causing Civil War. Ukrainian killing Ukrainian, simply because the Ukraine can't form a unified government bringing West and East together in peace. Peace must be achieved, many lives are being lost, the people of the Ukraine are suffering and corruption is still the rule of law in the Ukraine.

    All Ukrainians must take a good look at themselves, at what they are becoming. They must decide their futures as their governments continue to fail influenced by East and West. It is the Ukraine that should influence the East and West, the Ukraine that should be one nation united where difference and opinion come together for the best the Ukraine has to offer the world on a grand scale. The future awaits the Ukraine, will it be divided because Ukrainians could not negotiate with Ukrainians of Russian descent? Lives have been lost, many have died and suffered, many still are and it is sure to get worse before better. In the American Civil War, neither side really won, one side just decided it was best for America and the people to end the killing so it gave up in peace. From that moment forward America became a greater nation.

    The Ukraine and the many peoples of the Ukraine are far more important than any amount of profit, corruption or greed, and it's time the Ukraine start acting like it by achieving its own world independence through peaceful negotiations. It's time the Ukraine regain it's independence and set aside its difference for the sake of the people who have died and continue to suffer. The dying and suffering must end, and if it should end in Civil War then it's time for the war to commence to end the dying and suffering at all cost in every part of the Ukraine. The past is over, the future is waiting, the world is watching, drawing lines in the sand, rallying armies to march across the Ukraine, foreign armies ready to kill Ukrainians over the failure of Ukrainians to achieve their own peace and independence.

    To Be

    Here are some very true facts about WW2 they don't teach you....

    The bankers and industrialists and royal families were all concerned after what happened in Russia after the revolution that killed czar and his family (who were related to almost every other royal family) and the industrialists and bankers didn't want to lose their assets to the communist revolution. So they took things into their own hands.

    Bankers and top corporations tried to take over America in the 1930's. Heinz, Colgate family, Dupont family, Birdseye family, Rockefellas and more. Major General Butler warned FDR in time to stop it.

    Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush ran the Union bank and loaned Hitler extremely large sums of money to fund the war. Henry Ford was awarded the highest Nazi medal by Hitler (who also kept a life size painting of Ford) for his part in building the tanks and such for Germany.

    The president of AT&T personally flew to Germany after the start of the war to hook up a state of the art communications for Hitler. Coke sold millions of bottles of soda to Germans during the war. Rockefella's supplied oil, and the list goes on.

    This is no joke... these men and more quite literally built the Nazi party and got off scott free with more power and money then ever.

    They treated Germany as an "investment". The use of concentration camps was much more widespread then they make you think. They used them as sources of slave labor to try and recoup their investment in the Nazi war machine. Over 15 thousand were used.


    If all this seems far fetched or made up then I urge you to use the internet you have at your disposal. These same families control our media and our education too.

    Of course you wont find direct links but the info is certainly there. Knowledge is our best weapon if we want to save our country.

    Christopher Harrison

    Agreed , more and more info is now coming out about what really happened during WW2 thanks to the internet and You Tube. Go to You Tube and check out the video series The Best Enemies Money Can Buy with Professor Anthony Sutton form the Hoover Institute talking in 1964. It will blow your mind how much US corporations were working with Hitler through subsidiaries and the German company IG Farben. And yes it was the Rockefellers and the Rothschild and the Bushes

    G.

    You are brave T/To be. You forgot the headmaster Rothschild who said ( Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws)

    b

    This article says hundreds protested but the Ukranian paper (KyivPost) says it was thousands... this story/problem is bigger than what our own media wants us to know.

    Christopher Harrison

    Why is it not being considered that it was these fascists that shot down MH-17 as another false flag? After all, it was they who shot people at the 1stMaidan from the Hotel Ukraine where they were headquartered. The BBC captured them shooting at the BBC's own film crew. They also are on film burning 45 people alive in Odessa and beating them with baseball bats as they jumped from windows. They also shot people point blank on camera in Mariupol. Their Neo-Notzee battalions have been shooting artillery at civilians towns for a year and even Human Rights watch has said they commit atrocities. Hence the reason 1.3 million refugees fled TO RUSSIA. This stuff isn't that difficult to understand, here they are again and this time they are going after the new government. No one is safe, even in Europe, while these guys are around. It's time to get rid of them once and for all before they shoot down another airliner or gain access to nuclear fuels rods.

    Madeski

    Most Western media tried hard to ignore this story thinking it would just go away, but because many of us also read and watch the Russian news also especially RT, we knew the true situation in Ukraine and that things will soon get out of hand and snowball into an armed confrontation between the western backed Govt and their militia who have a different ideology but are together in the fight in the east only because the 2 parties view the East as Pro-Russia that most be crushed.


    Michael

    More violent thugs. What a mess the CIA and NATO have caused for Ukraine, Russia, and European security.

    BrainPick

    Any place where instability can be implemented NED/CIA will be there.

    OdessaFile

    BrainPick --They arrived long before it.

    Stephen

    Another fine mess the stupid US government has created. These thugs of the Ukrainian far right are N@zi lovers. Their Fathers & Grandfathers fought for Hitler & ran the death camps on behalf of Hitler & N@zi Germany in WW2. This is what many Americans do not understand & it's very clear the foolish American government was not expecting this. Just like Iraq & Taliban central the US went into the Ukraine & put a weak leader in charge who would be a lap puppy to the US government but also will fail because the US puppet cannot lead & control his own country.

    james 8

    If Kololmsky is involved in subversive activities that compromise the National security of Ukraine than Nationalize all his assets in Ukraine and later sell them off to the private sector of the economy . These assets need to be broken down so that they do not continue to be a monopoly and a threaten national security . In this way Ukraine can also break the Oligarch control on the country . Drastic measures are needed . The country can not be sacrificed for the benefit of a few billionaires that enriched themselves by stealing from the Ukrainian people .

    Fvok Yo

    Buk missle explodes above an airplane, and 50 to 150 yards above it. How can you possibly explain the
    focal schrapnel damage to the mh17 with a Buk. You cant. Moreover, a Buk strike would instantly depressurize the aircraft, resulting in immediate incapacitation of the pilot and crew. The pilot was alert after the initial (not a BUK ) strike, and contacted ATC, but the Ukraine has refused to release that communication. Of course for the hollywood drama to play out, the missle absolutely has to be a Buk. An air to air missle would have had to be done by the Ukranians, or outside forces assisting the Ukranians.

    maxcrusader

    "...but Ukrainian authorities accuse Right Sector of using violence to reach its goals."

    I'm sure they had no problem when the same Right Sektor helped the junta government get into power through a coup.

    Eye Of Horus

    The US orchestrated coup in Kiev has guaranteed the collapse of the US. The world is no longer willing to fund a govt that's gone insane by continuing to use the dollar in trade settlement and to buy treasuries. It's only a matter of time until we get to that tipping point where there's a stampede for the exits and the US manifests into the 3rd world sh|thole that it already is. Parts of the country is already there. The rest will follow.

    Gary and Minge

    "The radical Right Sector group was one of the most militant factions in the massive protests in Ukraine's capital that prompted pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country in February 2014. "

    and here we were fed all this garbage about "peaceful protest" and "evil president" . In fact US "NGO's" created this organization training most of them in Baltic states.
    US treatened then president Yanukovich with sanctions "and more" if he so much "try to disperse this peaceful protest" .
    McCain was taking pictures at maidan with this neo-na_zies between anti government speeches, Nuland fed them cookies, Pyatt [US ambassador and man who really in charge in Ukraine] called them "will of the people"
    McCain made sure they get weapons, they were coming to US visiting McCain among other US congressman telling how bad "Russians" are showing picture of "invasion" , using Georgia 2008 pics.
    No one cared, no one paid attention of Amnesty international reports of tortures of civilians in war zone. They been called 'true patriots" by most US media outlets.
    Now that the monster no longer needed lets call them "Ukrainian al quida "

    Here is more examples of what those "volunteer battalions" up to
    google search : " Ukrainian volunteer battalions | meet heroes from "Tornado" battalion. [English Subtitles]

    Video with English Subtitles

    Commenter

    I'm waiting for evidence to appear that would link Yarosh and Right Sector to the snipers on Midan. That would take away any public support they may currently have and allow the government to crack down on them hard. I would venture to say that we have not seen this yet because there is still a hot war in the East but if they remove themselves from the front line there, Right Sector will quickly outlive it's usefulness.

    John

    Another pogrom in Kiev will be more devastating! Watch the real Ukraine, Ukraine is Europe! Let gay Europe witness all the brutality!
    Government of Ukraine is instructed by CIA chief of station in Kiev what to do next!
    Here is possible scenario: Poroshenko will order troops to "pacify" "Right Sector"-those troops trained by US. "Right Sector" has combat experience and would out power freshly trained "boy scouts". By the way, Porosehnko's family is not in Ukraine, he is not an idiot to have his children in the middle of total chaos!

    Gabriel

    The combination of Oligarchs and Neo Nazi troops could be very dangerous for the future of Ukraine, if any.

    Pynk

    Manipulated by, used by, and then betrayed by the corrupt elite power brokers?

    SAY IT AIN'T SO!


    Rick Harner

    Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has been on a steady path to imploding. Corruption, mass demonstrations in 2004, revolution in 2014, Crimea seized, civil war in the east, neo-fascist groups in the west... How much more can this country withstand before it completely comes apart?

    Commenter

    The Right Sector members till the rest of their live will be on the run from justice. No government needs them. Just today NYT published a story on some Cilian junta policeman sentenced for killing people half a century ago. The burning in Odessa of people will never be forgotten too. So better look for your ratholes starting right now.

    Madeski

    Since Last year Yahoo has been calling them 'revolutionaries, freedom fighters, nationalists'

    Today Yahoo is calling them 'Right Wingers, radical Right Sector group and one of the most militant factions' in this article, what happened? Can somebody please explain to us?

    Yachob

    US state dep and our spin doctors have been "refining" the image of provincial #$%$ Bandero-stan Right Wing for more than a year. Clear signs of progress: all have clean hair cut, clean uniform, no signs of swastika, no Confederate flags: a striking difference from rabid bidlo on Maidan. Now Ukrainian %nazi% seemed to be under control. and this is just a theater, a show of political diversity but foremost a warning of the Kiev regime to those, who really oppose Parashenko and %nazism%.


    Dana

    Most analysts indicate that The Right Sector and other Ultra-Nationalists are supported by only a small percentage of Ukrainians. The same thing was said about the National Socialists with respect to Germany in the 1920s. It is very important that the central government in Kiev not underestimate the threat represented by Ultra-Nationalists.

    Glenn

    This is media hype. There are major parts of the story that were not included. Those things were not included so readers would be left with an image of fascists marching in Kiev in the hundreds calling for Poroschenko's ouster and the imposition of martial law, because that will look scary to readers who don't know that much about what is going on in Ukraine recently.

    Two weeks ago in Mukacheve, an upstart smuggling gang got entangled with local authorities and did not want to pay them off with bribes. The well-established smugglers were pressuring the local police to demand newcomer prices, because their new competition was unwanted. So the new kids on the block decided not to pay the bribes, and called in fellow militia strongmen from across the country for a show of force to intimidate the local cops into backing down. It turned into a violent confrontation and a gunfight at the ok corral. The Ukraine federal authorities responded rapidly with superior force, and the majority of militiamen scattered for the provinces. The remaining two dozen militia stayed because they were close family relations withe the smugglers still held in jail. This has caused an uproar in the militia's national leadership, because the majority interest - nationalist politics - has been undermined by an attempt by a small faction to enforce a new smuggling business venture by using militia men to assert power over local police. Corruption is plain on both sides. Right Sector's rally in Kiev is their attempt to re-assert their political message and call for unity. Meanwhile, several chapters of Right Sector have walked out in disgust - somewhere close to 20% of their membership is on the way out because they did not sign up for smuggling and armed enforcement gangs. They signed up to kill Russians, and to kill Russians only.

    This news piece is not telling you anything much about all of that, and that is what is going on. There is no violent mob calling for the government to step down. It is just a fascist rally to try to stem the loss of membership after one faction inside Right Sector with ties to organized crime did some very stupid and damaging things to their nationalism image.

    [Jul 22, 2015]Oil falls, U.S. crude settles below $50 as inventories rise

    "... Oil is trading at inflation adjusted price equal to 1974 pricing. "

    U.S. September crude (CLc1) fell $1.67 to settle at $49.19 a barrel, first settlement below $50 since April. The $49.06 intraday low was a September contract low.

    U.S. crude dropped below $50 on Monday for the first time since April and its 14-day Relative Strength Index is below 28. A reading below 30 is considered an indication of an oversold condition by technical traders.

    DSR

    The reason inventories are not going down is mostly due to imports of heavy sour grade, which the US does not produce in substantial quantities. Over the years, most US refiners have upgraded to run lower priced heavy crude versus WTI sweet. Thus, refiner demand for WTI has been tempered. Thus our inventory problem at Cushing, etc. BUT, the WTI supply is going to come down and probably faster than most think.

    Chris

    The API is usually off by about double whatever they report, so we'll see a little bit later how much of build there really is in the USA.

    doubtingthomas1 6 hours ago

      4/26/09 9/23/10 7/21/15 
          50      75     50 cost of barrel oil
        1.43     1.91  1.91 RBOB wholesale 
        1.86     2.44  2.45 price seen at the pump
    Data from the commodity Exchange and my local pump prices.

    p2i

    Saudis step up diesel export? Their refineries were only using 2.4M barrels a day in the last report for June. They can't export a lot of product when it's been reported by Wikipedia that they consume 3M barrels a day themselves.

    Joseph

    Somebody is really trying to keep oil above $50/bbl. It's going to be interesting if Oil dips below 50 and possibly triggers some automatic selling. It seems like $50 is a technical indicator.

    IC

    In CA we're getting reamed as usual. We're paying at the $100/bbl level, $4.25/gal. Hell, at the rate these thieves are going, the gas taxes alone will end up being the national avg of the price of gasoline.

    David

    When will the media stop reporting fudged numbers. Media that broadcasts numbers that are obvious estimated aka fudged are just as guilty as the perpetrators. The reality is that fracked oil is not the same quality, estimates of production include distillates that cannot be used as Oil or Gas production. World oil demand is estimated at about 95 million barrels per day, while Saudi's supply is about 31 million per day. The demand is going to quickly outpace the so called 2.5 million bpd surplus. Oil is trading at inflation adjusted price equal to 1974 pricing.


    jim

    This is good news for Americans.
    Bad news for speculators, banksters, Putin, and Texans!

    Jay 5 hours ago

    Low oil prices?

    It's not just overproduction, the world economy is in bad shape and demand is falling.

    Lars Mors

    It is interesting that Saudi Arabia came up short $4 billion in just the last month, and has run short of capacity. Something is gonna break ... either prices shoot up or economies collapse.


    [Jul 22, 2015] Far Worse Than 1986 The Oil Downturn Has No Parallel In Recorded History, Morgan Stanley Says

    "...[There are] strong similarities between the current oil price downturn and the one that occurred in 1985/86. The trajectory of oil prices is similar on both occasions. There were also common reasons for the collapse. "
    .
    "...Folks, we are in the throes of economic war and most of us haven't a clue as to the enemy. It isn't really OPEC, but they may be an ally of the enemy. The true enemy is the financial system itself - the big banks. To the extent the Fed enables this behavior, it is part of the problem, not the solution. Easy credit is creating dilemas that constrain policy choices. By issuing too much high risk credit the banksters have made it tough for the Fed to raise rates. Welcome to Japan."
    .
    "...Summary: Morgan Stanley is trying to talk down the price of oil even more, so they can buy oils stock at ridiculoulsy low values. I'll be buying too, when the time comes."
    Jul 22, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    In a ZIRP world, there's plenty of demand for new HY issuance and ill-fated secondaries, which means the digging, drilling, and pumping gets to continue indefinitely in what may end up being one of the most dramatic instances of malinvestment the market has ever seen.

    Those who contend that the downturn simply cannot last much longer - that the supply/demand imbalance will soon even out, that the market will clear sooner rather than later, and that even if the weaker hands are shaken out, the pain for the majors will be relatively short-lived - are perhaps ignoring the underlying narrative that helps to explain why the situation looks like it does. At heart, this is a struggle between the Fed's ZIRP and the Saudis, who appear set to outlast the easy money that's kept US producers alive.

    Against that backdrop, and amid Wednesday's crude carnage, we turn to Morgan Stanley for more on why the current downturn will be "worse than 1986."

    From Morgan Stanley

    Worse than 1986? Really?

    We have been expecting the current downturn to be as severe as the one in 1986 – the worst for at least 45 years – but not worse than that. Still, if oil prices follow the path suggested by the forward curve, our thesis may yet prove too optimistic.

    Our constructive stance on the majors is based on four factors: 1) supply – we expected production growth to moderate following large capex cuts and the sharp decline in the rig count; 2) demand – we anticipated that the fall in price would boost oil products demand; 3) cost and capex – we foresaw both falling sharply, similar to the industry's response in 1986; and 4) valuation – relative DY and P/BV indicated 35-year lows.

    So far this year, we can put a tick against three of them [but] our expectation on supply has not materialised: US tight oil production growth has started to roll over, but this has been more than offset by OPEC, which has added ~1.5 mb/d since February.

    On current trajectory, this downturn could become worse than 1986: An additional +1.5 mb/d is roughly one year of oil demand growth. If sustained, this could delay the rebalancing of oil markets by a year as well. The forward curve has started to price this in: as the chart shows, the forward curve currently points towards a recovery in prices that is far worse than in 1986. This means the industrial downturn could also be worse. In that case, there would be little in analysable history that could be a guide to this cycle.

    [There are] strong similarities between the current oil price downturn and the one that occurred in 1985/86. The trajectory of oil prices is similar on both occasions. There were also common reasons for the collapse.

    A high and stable oil price in the preceding four years stimulated technological innovation and led to a high level of investment. This resulted in strong production growth outside OPEC, exceeding the rate of global demand growth. When it became clear that OPEC would no longer rein in production to balance the market (as it did during both the Nov 1985 and Nov 2014 OPEC meetings) the price collapsed.

    And although MS notes that similar to 1986, costs and capex are likely to come in sharply while demand growth should materialize, the supply side of the equation is not cooperating thanks to increased output from OPEC.

    Due to the sharp slowdown in drilling activity and the high decline rate of tight oil wells, we expected production in the US to flatline and start declining in 2H. This seems to be happening: according to the US Department of Energy, tight oil production in June was 94 kb/d below the April level, and it forecasts further falls of 90 kb/d in both July and August.

    Now that capex is falling, we anticipated non-US production to be flat at best. Still, this has not yet been the case. At the time of our 'Looking Beyond the Nadir' report in February, OPEC production stood at ~30.2 mb/d. This increased substantially to 31.3 mb/d in May and 31.7 mb/d in June, i.e. OPEC has added 1.5 mb/d to global supply in the last four months alone.

    Our commodity analyst Adam Longson argues that the oil market is currently ~800,000 b/d oversupplied. This suggests that the current oversupply in the oil market is fully due to OPEC's production increase since February alone.

    We anticipated that OPEC would not cut, but we didn't foresee such a sharp increase. In our view, this is the main reason why the rebalancing of oil markets had not yet gained momentum.

    If oil prices follow the path suggested by the forward curve, and essentially remain rangebound around levels seen in the last 2-3 months, this downturn would be more severe than that in 1986. As there was no sharp downturn in the ~15 years before that, the current downturn could be the worst of the last 45+ years.

    If this were to be the case, there would be nothing in our experience that would be a guide to the next phases of this cycle, especially over the relatively near term. In fact, there may be nothing in analyzable history.

    Needless to say, this does not bode well for everyone who has unwittingly thrown good money after bad on the assumption that the Saudis will cut production and trigger a rebound in crude.

    In addition to the immense pressure from persistently low prices, US producers also face a Fed rate hike cycle and thus the beginning of the end for easy money.

    Of course, the more expensive it is to fund money-losing producers, the less willing investors will be to perpetuate this delay-and-pray scheme, which brings us right back to what we've been saying for months: the expiration date for heavily indebted US drillers is fast approaching, and if Morgan Stanley thinks the oil downturn has no parallel in "analysable history," wait until they see the carnage that will unfold in HY credit when a few high profile defaults in the oil patch send the retail crowd running for the junk bond ETF exits.

    aVileRat

    Yes it is worse than 87, and 83. In fact you have to reach all the way back to 1860 and the brief 1931-33 period to figure this one out. And given that most of the majors will require fresh credit roll over and drilling capital for the 2016 drill programs, this could get nasty. Most bonds are pricing that debt will be rolled over at the same terms, with at best 500 basis point moves for some of the most horrible offenders of debt binge drilling. Those were financed at 80/bbl projections on Par. Most corporates have locked in their hedges down at the low 60's. (all USD). For some corporates the capital programs needed to keep production flat, plus roll their bonds over at the 80/bbl interest rate are nearly 4x their current cash flows. Yet most HYG still trades at 80/100 or better.

    This salient fact is what is keeping the 51 billion in special situations PE money on the sidelines. Who wants to buy into the next GDP or PVA ? and then see a 50% haircut in 6 months. Very few on a standard 5% WACC (going to 8). That is also what keeps most of the major Pensions, Endowments and bond managers awake at night. What happens when a BBB+ rolls the yield at 300 bps. What happened to the money markets when nobody knew what was economical.

    MonetaryApostate

    I believe that banking institution are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

    There are two ways to conquer a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams

    http://galeinnes.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-invisible-enslavement.html

    steelhead23

    I would assume that MS sent a forward copy of this to the FOMC because this information is likely to encourage the Fed to continue ZIRP. Those with rose colored glasses should stop reading this comment now.

    The U.S. economy is a virtual zombie, kept alive by easy credit. Even those seemingly good numbers coming out of the car biz is simpy another credit bubble, including a huge amount of high risk credit. Let's use autos as a metaphor here. If interest rates increase, tight oil producers would not be able to roll their debt and would go bankrupt. U.S. oil production would decline. If OPEC did not fill the supply gap, prices would rise. If they did fill the gap, the U.S. trade balance would get worse, but let's assume OPEC sits tight (not a great assumption, but I want to make a point). The effect of increasing interest rates would be to reduce production. Prices would then rise. Now, let's look at our new car owner. The increased cost of gas would consume more of his/her cash flow. They could either buy less, causing an economic downturn, or default. If either the economy goes down or defaults increase the Fed would be looking to juice the economy and would reduce rates, reinitiating ZIRP. The Fed is a reactionary organization, not a leader.

    Folks, we are in the throes of economic war and most of us haven't a clue as to the enemy. It isn't really OPEC, but they may be an ally of the enemy. The true enemy is the financial system itself - the big banks. To the extent the Fed enables this behavior, it is part of the problem, not the solution. Easy credit is creating dilemas that constrain policy choices. By issuing too much high risk credit the banksters have made it tough for the Fed to raise rates. Welcome to Japan.

    From where I sit the best answer is a painful one. The Fed should do a Volcker; raise rates and keep raising rates until credit is being created at a rate equal to or lower than economic growth. Yes, there would be an absolute hemorroage in the markets. Lots of folks would lose lots of money. As long as this global Ponzi scheme continues we will be seeing rampant insider looting and other criminality because prosecution could cause the systemic collapse the entire regulatory apparatus fears most. End ZIRP now!

    Dr. Engali

    Cracks me up every time I read that we are facing a fed rate hike cycle. Fucking hilarious. Here's some food for thought; we have an over supply of oil because we have no demand thanks to the global depression we are currently in.

    Carpenter1

    You falsely assume our rulers are benevolent and actually want to hold the financial system together.

    In that assumption, you are incorrect.


    Carpenter1

    Here's some food for thought; we have an over supply of oil because we have no demand thanks to the global depression we are currently in.

    Your own words, no assumptions necessary. Or is this statement supposed to be the lead in to why there WILL be a rate hike? Because we're in a depression right?

    Doubt that very much, obviously you're saying there'll be no hike cause the economy sucks.

    So I repeat, you falsely assume our leaders are benevolent and want to keep the system up. In that you are incorrect.

    Dr. Engali

    What the fuck does that statement you highlighted have to do with the powers that be wanting to hold the system together? You make no fucking sense. I will repeat what I have said in the past. We will never see a fed funds rate above 1% again. We may get a little hike to prolong the illusion that all is well, but we will never see "normal" rates again. When TPTB do collapse the system, and they will, there will be a false flag to give them cover.

    Meremortal

    Well yes, governments are in the oil biz. The feds collect 22.3 cents a gallon and the states average around 18 cents a gallon. They make that by sticking their hands out.

    So, subtract out the 40 cents a gallon the various levels of govt make and the cost of boutique fuels and prices would be a good bit lower.

    Of course there's also the big bad oil companies' profits, which average 9 cents a gallon. Horrors. To get that profit, they have to permit, explore, produce, refine, ship and retail the product.

    There's also the fact the almost 30% of all oil use is non-fuel in nature.

    Oil has been a boom-bust biz for a century and some people are just noticing.

    Carpenter1

    No, that's not why.

    Super major producers have been reducing their reserves for decades, some thought this was a sign they were losing ground. To the contrary, they, being insider elites, knew this day was coming and would be far more than a typical cyclical downturn in oil prices.

    We are witnessing the destruction of every non-super major producer worldwide.

    In the meantime, super majors are making their money refining and manufacturing instead of producing. Thus, they've kept prices high to offset whatever losses they take from their leftover production business. So, they'll survive this thing just fine, and notice they aren't raising bloody hell in government with their extremely powerful lobbyists.

    Seem odd? It should, cause big oil gets what big oil wants. Apparently big oil doesn't want higher prices, cause big oil has planned for this event long ago.

    Meremortal

    Lots of "ifs" in that article.

    WTI prices in this downturn so far:

    116.75 - 49.92

    WTI prices in last downturn, 2008:

    146.12 - 46.56.

    http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

    Take a look of what has happened after each crash in oil prices, adjusted for inflation.

    Jus7tme

    Summary: Morgan Stanley is trying to talk down the price of oil even more, so they can buy oils stock at ridiculoulsy low values. I'll be buying too, when the time comes.

    piratepiet2

    Can this not be explained by the following :

    1. renewable energy revolution->downward pressure on demand

    2.fracking in US->downward pressure on demand on world market (as still ban on exports)

    3.nuclear deal with Iran in return for sanctions relief-> increase in supply

    4.Global warming narrative with potential deal in Paris in december 2015->downward pressure on demand

    5.economic depression ?

    6.I have the impression that peak oil hysteria was possibly a scare tactic to justify high prices. Are people waking up to that ?

    7.Young generation is too hooked to their internet connected devices to want a car to drive anywhere ? Or the sharing economy makes having your own car less of a must ? Think Uber,...

    Your thoughts ?

    Radical Marijuana

    piratepiet2,

    my answers:

    Primarily, it is the counter-intuitive results of systems which were based upon presuming endless exponential growth running into real limits of diminishing returns making that no longer possible. Civilization was based upon being able to make "money" out of nothing as debts, in order to "pay" for strip-mining the natural resources of the planet. Running into the real limits of diminishing returns, after we have high-graded ourselves to hell, show up first and foremost through the fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems. However, since those systems ARE ENFORCED FRAUDS, the intrusions of physical realities into those integrated systems of legalized lies backed by legalized violence results in various sorts of psychotic breakdowns, which manifest through a wide variety of counter-intuitive ways, because none of the mental models that people are using to perceive the real world were remotely close to being realistic, since those were based on being able to operate as professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.

    As was recently concluded in another article that I also commented upon $900 Million Payday Is Billionaires' Reward For Crushing Twinkie-Maker's Labor Unions

    "... an entire world filled with lunatic central bankers who have clearly taken over the asylum."

    In every way possible, on every possible level, it is a gross understatement to assert that: "In fact, there may be nothing in analysable history."

    As I also explained in my reply under:

    So You Say You "Don't" Want A Revolution?

    There is nothing in human history to compare to the development of globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic bombs. The only thing that compares to the progress in physical science is the development of photosynthesis, which had profoundly revolutionary effects upon the evolution of life on planet Earth.

    Morgan Stanley thinks the oil downturn has no parallel in "analysable history."

    Nothing during "analysable HUMAN history" can be compared to advances in physical science enabling technologies to be developed that are trillions of times more powerful and capable, which then were primarily applied through social pyramid systems based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS.

    The wild swings in the price of oil are due to hyper-complicated interactions within systems that were always based upon being able to back up lies with violence, so that everything that happens occurs through those infinite tunnels of deceits.

    The renewable revolution is not yet sufficiently significant to explain the wide price swings in oil. Being able to make "money" out of nothing to speculate with is much more related to the wild price swings in oil. DEMAND DESTRUCTION is the single best explanation for the collapse of the price of oil, which in turn is related to those who are able and willing to make more "money" out of nothing to speculate with continuing to do that.

    Nothing regarding the objective supply of oil explains the wild oscillations in the price of oil. Rather, the background steady deterioration due to diminishing returns from investments to extract oil ends up being leveraged up and down by many orders of magnitude, through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, such that those have intensely counter-intuitive manifestations, because there is nothing like that which was ever globally faced before, by the Neolithic styles of social pyramid systems, based upon being able to back up lies with violence.

    The global warming narrative exists inside of that overall context that civilization is controlled by backing up lies with violence. Therefore, nothing can be trusted. Even although the greenhouse gas mechanisms exist, the overall climate includes more cosmic factors, such as the Sun and Earth magnetic fields, which are changing significantly in ways that nobody understands, and which factors were deliberately ignored by the mainstream climate models. In any case, there are not yet any sufficiently significant impacts from laws that are supposed to limit carbon emissions, but rather, only more scam "solutions" designed to deceptively be able to make more privatized profits, in ways which do not really resolve the bigger problems.

    Economic depression is what I believe in the currently most significant reason for the DEMAND DESTRUCTION, that hit the price of oil. However, that cannot be comprehended outside of the extremely counter-intuitive aspects of how everything is priced through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems.

    Peak oil was not "hysteria," although the statistics can not be trusted regarding that, due to all of the vested interests that are behind misrepresenting that data. However, the basics appear to me to be irrefutable, without some series of technological miracles, none of which have been sufficiently proven to be possible, as far as I now know, our current kind of industrial civilization has sailed itself way up its shit creek without enough of a paddle, by presuming that there surely would be some technological miracles to save us from ourselves.

    However, the basic problems are that money is measurement backed by murder, or that the debt controls depended upon the death controls. The history of oil can not be separated from the history of warfare, nor separated from the basic ways that civilization actually operates according to the principles and methods of organized crime. Again, there "nothing in analysable history" to be able to compare to what happens to petroleum resources, after the human murder systems have to adapt to the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

    At the present time, we are cruising on the autopilot of human habits, to have developed globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, in the forms of MAD Money As Debt, backed by MAD Mutual Assured Destruction. We have NOT adapted to that, other than mostly by continuing to follow our morbid psychological and political habits, which were based upon thousands of years of social successfulness through backing up deceits with destruction, and then through enforcing frauds.

    The ways that the industrial revolution developed were never done with any overall rationality, but rather, were done in the expedient ways directed by the continued triumphs of organized crime. Therefore, the petroleum resources' real past was wrapped up in the paradoxical triumphs due to enforcing frauds, and so, the future of those must also continue to be wrapped upon in their continuing enforced frauds, which has wildly counter-intuitive consequences, related to the wild oscillations in the price of oil, that have no direct relationship to the relatively overall steady supply of oil, which has perhaps overall been plateauing.

    The oil markets, like all other markets, are being rigged to the maximum possible degree by the people who most control the SOURCES of the public "money" supply as ENFORCED FRAUDS, which therefore, are able to create as much of that "money" out of nothing as they want to, in order to speculate with that, which are the primary reasons how and why the price of oil can be MADLY manipulated, in counter-intuitive ways, which will increasingly have even more MAD counter-intuitive consequences, because, overall, those ENFORCED FRAUDS are reaching their turning or tipping points, towards reaching the cusps of various psychotic breakdowns.

    We are NOT analyzing a "rational" market, we are actually analyzing runaway criminally insane markets. It is only from that perspective that one can comprehend the otherwise astonishingly counter-intuitive ways that the oil markets have been behaving. Personally, I believe that Peak Oil is real, however, I therefore think that that will provoke Peak Insanity.

    The younger you are, the more you are being lied to, cheated and robbed by the political system that you were born into. Some young people may have an intuitive bullshit detector. However, the circuits of that have probably burned out due to the overload placed upon those detectors. The entire system was based on maximizing the short-term benefits, while that also simultaneously maximized the longer term costs, which was facilitated through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems. Overall, therefore, the debts have been deferred onto future generations, and even more so, the deaths have been deferred onto future generations, in order that past and present generations could indulge in strip-mining the planet's natural resources as fast as possible, regardless of the overall eventual consequences from having done that ...

    The more one learns about that, the worse it gets. Furthermore, the younger you are, the worse that will probably become. For generation after generation, people have been the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. That continues to be the case now more than ever before. All in all, I can quite sympathize with young people who have turned their intuitive bullshit detectors off, because otherwise those would have their sirens blaring louder and louder, while their warning lights blinked brighter.

    In order to become more realistic about human energy systems, one has to go through series of intellectual revolutions, in order to encompass how and why we have ended up operating our civilization through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, whereby those frauds by privately controlled banks were enforced by governments to achieve leverage levels which appear to have become so extremely unbalanced as to be criminally insane (as I just recited in my other comment I posted today under $900 Million Payday Is Billionaires' Reward For Crushing Twinkie-Maker's Labor Unions

    "... an entire world filled with lunatic central bankers who have clearly taken over the asylum."

    In my view, it is impossible to exaggerate the degree to which that is literally the case, and since petroleum resources are the single most important component in our current kind of industrialization, those are also subject to being the most criminally insane, and therefore, the oil markets manifest the maximum counter-intuitive events.

    PrimalScream

    OIL has tanked

    COAL has tanked

    COPPER has tanked

    The Baltic Dry Index is at generational lows.

    But no worries - the Dow continues to have record values !!!!!

    HAS IT OCCURRED to anyone ... how stupid and corrupt our Financial System looks, when this kind of stuff goes on? I know Banana Republics that that have better "price discovery" mechanisms than this. And they only deal in bullets and bananas!

    Youri Carma

    Halliburton secures $500 million to fund drilling in old wells
    20 July 2015, by Amrutha Gayathri (Reuters)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-halliburton-results-idUSKCN0PU11H20150720

    Halliburton said it had tapped BlackRock for $500 million to help fund drilling in existing shale wells, the first such move by a major oilfield services provider at a time when oil producers are shying away from drilling new wells.

    HardlyZero

    bullish. They have to keep up appearances to keep the entire show on the road. It's going to take years to wipe out all this fiat financed capex and stop the madness.

    adr

    In the late '90s there was a lot of talk at very high levels about the discovery that oil is abiotic and the supply is just about limitless. New oil massive oil fields were being discovered and ones that should have run dry kept on producing. Oil looked to go below $10 a barrel. Cheap energy and low cost raw materials are the lifeblood of small business and the true economy.

    This, like Tesla's discovery of free limitless electricity generated from the Earth itself didn't work for the powers that be. It sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory but there is plenty of evidence that true world changing innovation has been stifled.

    The Saudis could still rake in billions with oil selling for $10. US oil companies were making billions with oil selling for less than $20 and still exploring and expanding deep sea rigs. I remember talking with some of my college friends who went on to work at Exxon that a price of $50 for a barrel of oil was seen as impossible. When prices first started creeping up I was told that at $50 it would be profitable to drill anywhere on Earth, even the bottom of the deep sea. If $20 oil still allowed for massive exploration, why is $50 oil seen as the end of the world now? Either oil really is that expensive, or we have been lied to by investment banks and traders who can't make a profit if a commodity falls below the price they paid for it.

    The world functioned quite well with commodities at a fraction of their current prices. It is pretty clear that the global economy can't function the way things are right now. We have had fifteen years of absolute economic hell since the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed. I don't think anyone even knows what commodities should be selling for since we haven't had anything close to real price discovery for coming up on two decades. Just look at the inflation caused by the massive increase in contract volume. Did growing corn, cutting trees, mining ore, or drilling for oil really get that expensive? Or did everything skyrocket in price because contracts became the next great speculative investment.

    The global depression started when total economic control was handed over to investment bankers. The passage of that piece of legislation along with the repeal of Glass Steagall has caused more damage than every war in history combined.

    Wed, 07/22/2015 - 18:12 | 6342998 piratepiet2

    two words for you : petro and dollar.

    Wed, 07/22/2015 - 19:30 | 6343312 Pareto

    Inflation. Eventually, $50 oil will be viable when the prices of labor, equipment, services, housing, food, etc., all come down. And the longer the commodity rout continues, the more likely these adjustments will occur. Talking to a kid the other day - figured his time is worth $30/hr. Hasn't worked a fucking day in his life - but - thats just what he figures he's worth........ When the reset occurs I think most (conscious) people will do just fine. Others, like this kid will have an incredibly rude awakening. The way commodities are headed and their duration, nominal wages need to come down at least 40%. Which means the nominal prices of all other things have to come down commensurately as well. And they will.

    It just takes time for the shock effect to etch permanently in the minds of people, that things are never going to be the same. We are still in the denial stage. That will change and give way to a more realistic expectation once the greatest monetary experiment completes its cycle.

    Wahooo's picture

    How do you get a 40% drop?

    Winston Churchill

    None of the historic ratios mean anything.

    We are truly in uncharted waters, without a paddle.

    It is different this time, but not in the way CNBC says.

    KJWqonfo7

    OK, I know im going to regret saying this but... could the Obama policy for Iran be right?

    Ignore the nukes and the fact that they hate our guts..

    Strategically are we better off if the Saudis have an enemy that is well funded, strong and close by? It will force them to build capacity, spend political capitol and treasure to face off against an Iran that has a VERY young population and has been living like the red headed stepchild of the middle east? Hell their lives are already shit what can the Saudis do to them.

    Will it focus their anger more on each other and less on the Tribe (in the short term)? Is a locked and loaded ME with a weak Amerika a strategy to turn them on each other and weaken the region over the long term?

    Has Obama been playing chess while the rest of us were playing checkers?

    Are dogs and cats living together? Is there mass histeria (or just localized to me)?

    Fuck I can feel the downvotes like a chill running down my spine....

    rsnoble

    Who knows. Possible. Neo-cons are capable of anything, including killing off their own, if they think they can come out ahead.

    RaceToTheBottom

    Compare the response of the FED to the 2007 Bankster crisis and the Oil Crisis (especially shale) now.

    • Banksters get bailed out so much that they have their largest bonuses ever.
    • Shale companies go down the toilet.

    This country really needs a come to Jesus moment, and it isn't a stupid "Black lives matter" or "save unborn lives" or "Gays marrying is the most important thing in the world".

    We are sliding into some Sci Fi crazy world reminiscent of some Star Trek show, only this one won't get solved in an hour.

    [Jul 19, 2015] Shell Warns, Oil Price Recovery To Take 5 Years

    "...The price of oil has fallen from more than $100 per barrel in June 2014 to under $60 today, and Brown said the company has believed for months that it will take until 2020 for the price to rise to a mere $90 per barrel."
    "...It will take several years [for oil prices to recover fully], but we do believe fundamentals will return"
    Jul 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Andy Tully via OilPrice.com,

    Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, and one of his senior executives envision low oil prices for some time unless energy producers cut production and the demand for fuel doesn't rebound.

    In a wide-ranging interview with Oil & Gas Technology published July 14, van Beurden spoke of competing benefits of the low price of oil for fuel demand, and its liabilities for those who produce it.

    "Low prices have big implications for exporting countries like Iran, Russia and Venezuela," he said.

    "But also for shale-producers in the U.S., and even the domestic budgets of producers in the Gulf states. In consuming nations, low oil prices are an economic boon stimulating growth and demand."

    For the near term, van Beurden pointed to one key forecast that this year will see more worldwide demand than in 2014. "Compared to last year, the International Monetary Fund expects the global economy to grow [in 2015]," he said. "So global oil demand is expected to grow as well."

    But he stressed that many oil producers also are reluctant to explore and drill for oil because of smaller profit margins. Therefore, he said, "Supply … may even decline." As for Shell itself, though, he said, "We're determined to avoid a start-stop approach to investment."

    As for the global market, Van Beurden said that at best, "a rapid recovery could occur if projects are postponed or even canceled. This would lead to less new supply – not so much now, but in two or three years. Combined with economic growth, the market could tighten quickly in this scenario."

    But he pointed to one major snag in that view: U.S. shale oil. A boom in North American production over the past few years helped to create the glut that led to the steep decline in oil prices that began a year ago. OPEC, under the leadership of Saudi Arabia, decided to fight shale producers with a price war, hoping that keeping prices low would make shale extraction, already costly, unprofitable.

    But if shale producers cut costs and take other steps to keep producing, van Beurden said, "With moderate economic growth, prices could stay low for longer."

    Van Beurden qualified his outlook by stressing that "I can't predict the future," but his director of oil and gas production outside America gave a more specific view of Shell's expectations in a separate interview with Reuters, published July 16.

    Andy Brown, a top Shell official, said the Anglo-Dutch oil giant forecasts no quick rebound in the average global price of oil, but only a gradual recovery lasting five years. He attributed this sluggishness to a slowdown in China's economy, leading a drop in demand for fuel, and the continuing oversupply of oil.

    The price of oil has fallen from more than $100 per barrel in June 2014 to under $60 today, and Brown said the company has believed for months that it will take until 2020 for the price to rise to a mere $90 per barrel.

    In fact, he said, that was a key driver for Shell to offer of $70 billion to buy rival BG Group more than three months ago. This not only supports van Beurden's insistence that low oil prices won't cause Shell to trim investments, but also expands Shell's capabilities in deepwater oil production and gives it immediate entree to markets for liquid natural gas (LNG).

    "It will take several years [for oil prices to recover fully], but we do believe fundamentals will return," Brown said. "Until such time, we, like other companies, will have to make sure we stay robust."

    [Jul 19, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts Greece's Lesson For Russia

    "...The Wolfowitz doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, declares that the rise of Russia or any other country cannot be permitted, because the US is the Uni-power and cannot tolerate any constraint on its unilateral actions. As long as this doctrine reigns in Washington, neither Russia, China, nor Iran, the nuclear agreement not withstanding, are safe. As long as Iran has an independent foreign policy, the nuclear agreement does not protect Iran, because any significant policy conflict with Washington can produce new justifications for sanctions."
    "...If Obama were to dismiss Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power and replace these neoconservatives with sane diplomats, the outlook would improve. Then Russia, China, and Iran would have a better possibility of reaching accommodation with the US on terms other than vassalage."
    "...With the deregulation that began in the Clinton regime, Western capitalism has become socially dysfunctional. In the US and throughout the West capitalism no longer serves the people. Capitalism serves the owners and managers of capital and no one else."
    "...The "globalism" that is hyped in the West is inconsistent with Washington's unilateralism. No country with assets inside the Western system can afford to have policy differences with Washington. The French bank paid the $9 billion fine for disobeying Washington's dictate of its lending practices, because the alternative was the close down of its operations in the United States. The French government was unable to protect the French bank from being looted by Washington."

    Jul 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    "Greece's debt can now only be made sustainable through debt relief measures that go far beyond what Europe has been willing to consider so far." - International Monetary Fund

    Greece's lesson for Russia, and for China and Iran, is to avoid all financial relationships with the West. The West simply cannot be trusted. Washington is committed to economic and political hegemony over every other country and uses the Western financial system for asset freezes, confiscations, and sanctions. Countries that have independent foreign policies and also have assets in the West cannot expect Washington to respect their property rights or their ownership. Washington freezes or steals countries' assets, or in the case of France imposes multi-billion dollar fines, in order to force compliance with Washington's policies. Iran, for example, lost the use of $100 billion, approximately one-fourth of the Iranian GDP, for years simply because Iran insisted on its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Russian journalists are asking me if Obama's willingness to reach a deal with Iran means there is hope a deal can be reached over Ukraine. The answer is No. Moreover, as I will later explain, the deal with Iran doesn't mean much as far as Washington is concerned.

    Three days ago (July 14) a high ranking military officer, Gen. Paul Selva, the third in about as many days, told the US Senate that Russia is "an existential threat to this nation (the US)." Only a few days prior the Senate had heard the same thing from US Marine commander Joseph Dunford and from the Secretary of the Air Force. A few days before that, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff warned of a Russian "hybrid threat."

    Washington is invested heavily in using Ukraine against Russia. All the conflict there originates with Washington's puppet government in Kiev. Russia is blamed for everything, including the destruction of the Malaysian airliner. Washington has used false charges to coerce the EU into sanctions against Russia that are not in the EU's interest. As Washington has succeeded in coercing all of Europe to harm Europe's political and economic relationships with Russia and to enter into a state of conflict with Russia, certainly Washington is not going to agree to an Ukrainian settlement. Even if Washington wanted to do so, as Washington's entire position rests on nothing but propaganda, Washington would have to disavow itself in order to come to an agreement.

    Despite everything, Russia's president and foreign minister continue to speak of the US and Washington's EU vassal states as "our partners." Perhaps Putin and Lavrov are being sarcastic. The most certain thing of our time is that Washington and its vassals are not partners of Russia.

    The Wolfowitz doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, declares that the rise of Russia or any other country cannot be permitted, because the US is the Uni-power and cannot tolerate any constraint on its unilateral actions.

    As long as this doctrine reigns in Washington, neither Russia, China, nor Iran, the nuclear agreement not withstanding, are safe. As long as Iran has an independent foreign policy, the nuclear agreement does not protect Iran, because any significant policy conflict with Washington can produce new justifications for sanctions.

    With the nuclear agreement with Iran comes the release of Iran's $100 billion in frozen Western balances. I heard yesterday a member of the Council for Foreign Relations say that Iran should invest its released $100 billion in US and Europe companies. If Iran does this, the Iranian government is setting itself up for further blackmail. Investing anywhere in the West means that Iran's assets can be frozen or confiscated at any time.

    If Obama were to dismiss Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power and replace these neoconservatives with sane diplomats, the outlook would improve. Then Russia, China, and Iran would have a better possibility of reaching accommodation with the US on terms other than vassalage.

    Russia and China, having emerged from a poorly functioning communist economic system, naturally regard the West as a model. It seems China has fallen for Western capitalism head over heels. Russia perhaps less so, but the economists in these two countries are the same as the West's neoliberal economists, which means that they are unwitting servants of Western financial imperialism. Thinking mistakenly that they are being true to economics, they are being true to Washington's hegemony.

    With the deregulation that began in the Clinton regime, Western capitalism has become socially dysfunctional. In the US and throughout the West capitalism no longer serves the people. Capitalism serves the owners and managers of capital and no one else.

    This is why US income inequality is now as bad or worse than during the "robber baron" era of the 1920s. The 1930s regulation that made capitalism a functioning economic system has been repealed. Today in the Western world capitalism is a looting mechanism. Capitalism not only loots labor, capitalism loots entire countries, such as Greece which is being forced by the EU to sell of Greece's national assets to foreign purchasers.

    Before Putin and Lavrov again refer to their "American partners," they should reflect on the EU's lack of good will toward Greece. When a member of the EU itself is being looted and driven into the ground by its compatriots, how can Russia, China, and Iran expect better treatment? If the West has no good will toward Greece, where is the West's good will toward Russia?

    The Greek government was forced to capitulate to the EU, despite the support it received from the referendum, because the Greeks relied on the good will of their European partners and underestimated the mendacity of the One Percent. The Greek government did not expect the merciless attitude of its fellow EU member governments. The Greek government actually thought that its expert analysis of the Greek debt situation and economy would carry weight in the negotiations. This expectation left the Greek government without a backup plan. The Greek government gave no thought to how to go about leaving the euro and putting in place a monetary and banking system independent of the euro. The lack of preparation for exit left the government with no alternative to the EU's demands.

    The termination of Greece's fiscal sovereignty is what is in store for Italy, Spain, and Portugal, and eventually for France and Germany. As Jean-Claude Trichet, the former head of the European Central Bank said, the sovereign debt crisis signaled that it is time to bring Europe beyond a "strict concept of nationhood." The next step in the centralization of Europe is political centralization. The Greek debt crisis is being used to establish the principle that being a member of the EU means that the country has lost its sovereignty.

    The notion, prevalent in the Western financial media, that a solution has been imposed on the Greeks is nonsense. Nothing has been solved. The conditions to which the Greek government submitted make the debt even less payable. In a short time the issue will again be before us. As John Maynard Keynes made clear in 1936 and as every economist knows, driving down consumer incomes by cutting pensions, employment, wages, and social services, reduces consumer and investment demand, and thereby GDP, and results in large budget deficits that have to be covered by borrowing. Selling pubic assets to foreigners transfers the revenue flows out of the Greek economy into foreign hands.

    Unregulated naked capitalism, has proven in the 21st century to be unable to produce economic growth anywhere in the West. Consequently, median family incomes are declining. Governments cover up the decline by underestimating inflation and by not counting as unemployed discouraged workers who, unable to find jobs, have ceased looking. By not counting discouraged workers the US is able to report a 5.2 percent rate of unemployment. Including discouraged workers brings the unemployment rate to 23.1 percent. A 23 percent rate of unemployment has nothing in common with economic recovery.

    Even the language used in the West is deceptive. The Greek "bailout" does not bail out Greece. The bailout bails out the holders of Greek debt. Many of these holders are not Greece's original creditors. What the "bailout" does is to make the New York hedge funds' bet on the Greek debt pay off for the hedge funds. The bailout money goes not to Greece but to those who speculated on the debt being paid. According to news reports, Quantitative Easing by the ECB has been used to purchase Greek debt from the troubled banks that made the loans, so the debt issue is no longer a creditor issue.

    China seems unaware of the risk of investing in the US. China's new rich are buying up residential communities in California, forgetting the experience of Japanese-Americans who were herded into detention camps during Washington's war with Japan. Chinese companies are buying US companies and ore deposits in the US. These acquisitions make China susceptible to blackmail over foreign policy differences.

    The "globalism" that is hyped in the West is inconsistent with Washington's unilateralism. No country with assets inside the Western system can afford to have policy differences with Washington. The French bank paid the $9 billion fine for disobeying Washington's dictate of its lending practices, because the alternative was the close down of its operations in the United States. The French government was unable to protect the French bank from being looted by Washington.

    It is testimony to the insouciance of our time that the stark inconsistency of globalism with American unilateralism has passed unnoticed.

    [Jul 14, 2015] Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism

    yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 3:54 am

    Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism:

    Rada Deputy Boris Filatov, who belongs to Igor Kolomoisky's party, was outraged when he read some blogposts written by Trans-Carpathians. Who claimed that Trans-Carpathia was unjustly taken away from Slovaks and Hungarians in the 1950's.
    Some of the Rusyns there say they are not Ukrainians, and never have been.

    Filatov was outraged at some of this loose talk on blogs. He retorted on his own blog with the following proposed remedy to these separatist inclinations:

    "Можете почитать, что публично пишут в своих бложиках некоторые местные деятели. Врачи! Жечь падаль каленым железом. Сажать и лишать имущества", - написал Филатов на своей странице в соцсети.

    "You cannot even imagine what some of these local activists are scribbling in their blogs. I would brand these scum with a heated up iron. I would throw them in jail and confiscate their property."

    yalensis:
    Recall that Filatov made similar threats against Crimeans.
    Which just scared them even further into escaping from the tender embraces of Ukrainian nazis.
    I am betting most Rusyns also wish they could opt out of this Ukrainian "prison of nations" and become part of Slovakia or Hungary. Unfortunately, they don't have that option, so they are stuck in this abusive relationship.

    Link:
    http://www.politnavigator.net/deputat-verkhovnojj-rady-o-rusinakh-zakarpatya-zhech-padal-kalenym-zhelezom.html

    [Jul 14, 2015] Ukraine government in armed standoff with nationalist militia

    "... Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
    False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say."

    .
    "...this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi."

    The Guardian

    HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 20:40

    The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.
    ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22
    That does not detract from the fact that the Ukranian cabinet has been chosen by the US state department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors - in his capacity as head of state?
    ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16
    Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what colour stool our future king has produced this week.
    jgbg Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 18:42

    Diverse Unity sounds much better than Nazi

    http://rt.com/files/news/russia-national-unity-day-celebrations-976/russian-attend-demonstration-national-261.jpg

    The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.

    jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26

    If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.

    Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.

    PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22

    Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.

    HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11

    But the Euro maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt government in Kiev.

    jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54

    I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.

    Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.

    Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments of foreigners in their country.

    Vatslav Rente , 13 Jul 2015 17:44

    Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
    Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
    - A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café and wounded police officers.
    I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
    "Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...

    jgbg gimmeshoes , 13 Jul 2015 17:42

    Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.

    Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on the Czech police stolen vehicle database: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)

    Right Sector are no strangers to such thuggery - remember their failed attempt to extort a casino in Odessa?

    Laurence Johnson, 13 Jul 2015 17:18
    The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.

    So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?


    Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15

    Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years.
    Transcarpathian REgion is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see here is a gang war in fatigues.


    tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14

    sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...

    in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription, they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...

    an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays... not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)

    did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO

    Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13

    Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.

    Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11

    Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is, sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".

    BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20

    But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles. If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.

    BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15

    There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.

    Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32

    More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.

    Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24

    Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned in, one way or another, and soon.

    GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02

    Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but Russian propaganda.

    Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54

    It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.

    Story here.

    EugeneGur , 13 Jul 2015 11:21

    Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.

    Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine? They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the control of contraband.

    At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population. They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists" everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
    Examples:
    http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655

    Jeremn, 13 Jul 2015 11:16

    Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources, 19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under one roof:

    The US-Ukraine Business Council's 16-member Executive Committee is packed with US agribusiness companies, including representatives from Monsanto, John Deere, DuPont Pioneer, Eli Lilly, and Cargill.

    The Council's 20 'senior Advisors' include James Greene (Former Head of NATO Liason Office Ukraine); Ariel Cohen (Senior Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation); Leonid Kozachenko (President of the Ukrainian Agrarian Confederation); six former US Ambassadors to Ukraine, and the former ambassador of Ukraine to the US, Oleh Shamshur.

    Stas Ustymenko Jeremn 13 Jul 2015 11:14

    You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast, stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's members are clear on what these are.
    With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.

    Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03

    Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage. Right Sector claims they were trying to fight the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians", members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party. One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.

    PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21

    Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.

    1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
    2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids, devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
    3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot of bad stuff happened, including -
    4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.

    Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

    tanyushka Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 10:10

    http://rt.com/news/207899-un-anti-nazism-resolution/

    http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/docs/voting_sheets/L56.Rev1.pdf

    do these links answer your question?

    tanyushka 13 Jul 2015 09:55

    meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West, Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...

    Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53

    Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages, but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities, fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine. And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.

    VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51

    This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian mongrels. Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them with their private foreign mercenary force. Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds, no doubt with promises of power sharing. So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than to the US. An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war. She no doubt got her position not by intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor, Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?

    Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51

    The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.


    Jeremn DrMacTomjim 13 Jul 2015 09:43

    Yes. But meanwhile the Atlantic Council tells us this is why more Ukrainians admire nationalists.

    Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying or questioning their heroism).


    Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35


    Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:

    In his article for the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (Weekly Mirror) newspaper Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaliy Yarema wrote that 74 peaceful citizens and 12 policemen had been killed in Kyiv downtown on February 18-20, 2014, while 180 citizens and over 180 law enforcers had suffered gunshot wounds.

    12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.

    Still Kremlin lies?


    Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30

    Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant Nazi street gangs don't kill you.


    Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26

    You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero. Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.

    6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24

    The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics.

    Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for the Ukrainians.


    6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18

    Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.

    6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12

    The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are in order for such dedication.

    The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved to the temptation to report news. Too bad.


    aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36

    Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
    False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say.

    SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25

    The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.

    todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54

    Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)

    Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38

    Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.


    monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54

    Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
    PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?

    Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49

    Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t. Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)

    Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33

    In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.


    Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16

    It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics in western Ukraine.

    Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.

    Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces.

    They favour ethnic cleansing.


    Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10

    The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved the Ukrainian people.

    Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.

    It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western Ukrainians.


    Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02

    Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...

    Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53

    It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine infrastructure to US corporates.


    SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14

    Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:

    "Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."

    The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.


    careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09

    I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine?
    Kind of seems like we have seen this all before.
    Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?.....
    Well we all know what happened there.

    Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04

    If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.


    GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41

    Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.

    Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.

    And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia go to other organisations?

    VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26

    It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of being pro-Putin as the govermment accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.


    stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24

    The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they succeeded


    GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54

    I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi…I mean 'Iran', but surely you understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back to the very early 90's.

    From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.

    And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.


    Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38

    The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!


    Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50

    We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national organisation.


    DrMacTomjim 13 Jul 2015 02:04

    "Note to Ukraine: Time to Reconsider Your Historic Role Models" Someone wrote this a bit late.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/note-to-ukraine-time-to-r_b_7453506.html


    DrMacTomjim hisimperialmajesty 13 Jul 2015 02:01

    "neo-Chekists" That's new to me.... Are you sure they are not "Just doing their jobs" ?
    Did you read the Nafeez Ahmed piece someone linked ? Here (if you didn't)

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

    And this from Foreign Affairs

    https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/2015-02-16/obamas-libya-debacle

    It's never the US....it's never the West.....
    (you know, to balance things) : )


    todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53

    If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant. Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.

    Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.


    GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35

    So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear when it's one of their own violating them.

    You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing of their government


    HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09

    The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular Ukrainian government.


    sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35

    this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.

    annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31

    The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/ Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.


    annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25

    perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from your beloved Faux News.

    annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14

    the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.


    Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59

    Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army. This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine as a functional state.

    The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland) in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.


    DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38

    That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.

    I rather reword it to

    That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population (which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)


    Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37

    What do you think it is?

    There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.

    If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads' - you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.

    The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this do?

    You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.

    This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing is also acknowledged by the BBC.

    Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?

    If so - why?

    And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?

    Have I addressed your point yet?


    HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34

    I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive) and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.

    The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together - maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.


    HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33

    The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave Ukraine alone.


    6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29

    One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was.

    Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the silence would be broken.

    At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media is much more murky.

    The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu - ie real news very occasionally appears in it.

    6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08

    So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away.

    The BBC are still keeping shtum.

    The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.

    PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07

    There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor was going to muscle in.

    If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.

    This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.


    PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05

    Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.


    BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04

    11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better candidates here.


    fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55

    It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears for the Nazis and Banderistas.


    hisimperialmajesty Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 19:54

    Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc. Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!


    Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53

    If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they just want the business for themselves.


    Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51

    I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German domination or Russian protection.

    The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason to want to rejoin the rest of the country.

    If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.


    Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45

    just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them 14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil


    Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44

    According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding officer. It was the beginning of the fight.


    Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41

    Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go..
    The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.


    Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39

    The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will easily find it.

    The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from investigating Maiden shooters.

    Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up your own mind.


    Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29

    Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the benefits of seasons and weather.

    Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were foced to stay in).

    Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population). Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine or Russia - they are all genetically the same people.

    This information should be better taught in Ukraine.

    The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.


    quorkquork annamarinja 12 Jul 2015 19:27

    There are already jihadist groups fighting in Ukraine!

    IN MIDST OF WAR, UKRAINE BECOMES GATEWAY FOR JIHAD
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/26/midst-war-ukraine-becomes-gateway-europe-jihad/


    Havingalavrov obscurant 12 Jul 2015 18:33

    It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they should leave Right sector and join the army.

    This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.


    annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18

    have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia (next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language. She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.


    Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10

    Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.


    jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53

    And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation inside the Donbass.

    It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.

    The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.


    jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45

    Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.

    Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.

    jgbg caaps02, 12 Jul 2015 17:34

    The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...

    Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.

    Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.

    .... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the hands of Yanukovich's little clan...

    As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.

    There was no "coup".

    An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September 2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.

    The maidan protesters were not armed

    This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina - the video is still on the BBC website.

    ....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.

    The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.


    pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45

    There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?


    pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38

    His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking, is beyond him.


    normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19

    Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless, Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.


    pushkinsideburn sashasmirnoff 12 Jul 2015 16:13

    That quote is a myth

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-cia-owns-everyone-of-any-significance-in-the-major-media.t158/

    Though doesn't mean it's not true of course


    greatwhitehunter 12 Jul 2015 15:47

    As predicted the real civil war in ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and the ordinary ukrainian was largely manufactored . In the long term no body would be able to live with the right sector or more preciselly the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.


    sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44

    "When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?"

    This may be why:
    "The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William Colby


    Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43

    This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in 2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced the Police to arm themselves in preparation.

    Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.

    Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.

    The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent in the coming months.


    SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40

    Putin is a Fascist dictator.

    Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses some democratic elements and space for opposition groups.
    He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia. He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.


    ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31

    'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'

    Agreed.
    As is everything is Russia's fault.


    ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26

    This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.


    CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06

    Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of Ukraine to identify themselves as ukrainians under the process of rootisation - ukrainisation, then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided to ethnically cleane them..It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.


    annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05

    let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII.
    There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
    Now moving to the present. The US-installed oligarchs in Kiev have been cooperating closely with Ruropean neo-nazis (the followers of the WWII scum): http://rt.com/news/155364-ukraine-nazi-division-march/
    In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during the WWII.


    Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04

    These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists' revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...


    annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59

    Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs (sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.


    foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58

    zonzonel

    Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
    What is a poor troll to do these days??
    Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.

    What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the "Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.


    samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55

    Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution -- with regret and cynicism.

    That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle. Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.

    In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.

    TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49

    The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...

    Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople, not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a great service to Ukraine, can it?


    annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44

    Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).


    vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38

    "Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week, there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading towards Maidan 3.0.

    ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26

    The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.

    The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.

    Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American post -imperial foreign policy.

    Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or Putin's apologists.

    The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.


    Dennis Levin 12 Jul 2015 13:29

    Canadian interviewed, fighting for 'Right Sector'.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j65dBEWd7go
    The Right Sector of Euromaidan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yFqUasBOUY
    Lets reflect for a moment on the Editorial directives, that would have 'MORE GUNS' distributed to NAZIS..
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/putin-stopped-ukraine-military-support-russian-propaganda
    The Guarn publishes, 'Britain should arm Ukraine, says Tory donor' - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/11/britain-should-arm-ukraine
    Al Jazeera says,'t's time to arm Ukraine' - http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/arms-ukraine-russia-separatists-150210075309643.html
    Zbigniew Brzezinski: The West should arm Ukraine - http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/zbigniew-brzezinski-the-west-should-arm-ukraine-354770.html


    ploughmanlunch ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 13:06

    'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'

    Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.

    However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their fellow countrymen ).

    Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.

    Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations, using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried out.

    mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52

    I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian, Russian and Romanian minority.

    How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?

    SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49

    Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.

    You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will manage to blame the russians now.


    RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33

    Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by their own admission!

    These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy.

    Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law, Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.

    The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is a financial black hole.

    When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?


    jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15

    The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.

    Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative.

    Here's some video of some of the events:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hexRskhproc&feature=youtu.be

    Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian. In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen.

    Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.

    [Jul 14, 2015] Canada's Embassy Gave Shelter to Maidan Protesters in Kiev

    Sputnik International

    The Canadian embassy in Kiev was used as a haven for anti-government protesters during the uprising that toppled the government of former President Viktor Yanukovych, Canadian media reported.

    Former Maidan Activists Start Fighting Against Ukrainian Police - Reports
    "It began, according to several sources in Kiev and Ottawa, when one of the protesters being chased by riot police waved a Canadian passport at embassy security. Once the door was open, the individual was quickly followed by other demonstrators armed with sticks and paving stones," The Canadian Press reported on Sunday.

    Roman Waschuk, the current Canadian ambassador in Kiev, confirmed the account in a recent interview with The Canadian Press.

    He acknowledged the protesters were camped in the main lobby for at least a week, which is something neither the country's Foreign Minister nor the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ever publicly stated.

    "I understand there was a Canadian passport holder associated in some way with the group," Waschuk noted adding that opening of the embassy doors was "a gesture designed to react and to reach out to the people suffering in the turmoil."

    But some of Canada's European allies, speaking on anonimity because of the sensitivity of the subject, said the fact protesters were allowed to stay for so long and operate freely made it appear Canada was an active participant in regime change, and not just lending morale support.

    [Jul 14, 2015] Russia and the west are quits for good as far as any hope of alliances is concerned, because the west is just too untrustworthy

    "...Sherr is the archetypal think tank expert. The most interesting part in that biographical sketch – was reading that he was born in New York and holds dual US-UK citizenship. "
    .
    "...The self-delusion, hypocrisy and deceit of Western leaders, policy makers and analysts has no limits. This panel exemplifies this. "
    .
    "...Whenever I see his name, though, I'm reminded of a piece he wrote on Ukraine years ago, long before Maidan. ... it's called "Realism About Ukraine Part I – Internal Conditions. James Sherr, Conflict Studies Research Centre, UK Defence Academy". Read it over carefully; this dates from June 2005, and I found his assessment of the competitors for power to be frank and realistic, especially that on Tymoshenko. "
    .
    "...I have no idea who this guy actually is but, just from that statement I would say he's an empty vessel in moral terms."

    marknesop, July 10, 2015 at 7:56 am

    I think Russia and the west are quits for good as far as any hope of alliances is concerned, because the west is just too untrustworthy. However, it is my personal opinion that much of the demonization of Putin is intended to make him respond in kind with bellicose rhetoric which will allow him to be cast as an unstable, ranting dictator. Moreover, he seems to see the trap or for whatever reason is avoiding it, choosing instead to keep his criticism mild, measured and slightly mocking. So if that is the strategy, it's failing pretty badly, and it is the western media which looks unhinged.
    Published on 15 Jun 2015
    What You Need To Know:
    ✓ Russia needs to win a conclusive victory fairly quickly because this conflict is not economically sustainable for them;
    ✓ Since the post-Cold War order was established Russia has wanted to discuss the new world order with the West;
    ✓ Some in the West now understand that this is long term struggle, but it is unclear how much longer some EU members states will support the sanctions;
    ✓ It is unlikely that Russia will target Georgia next, rather, the next two countries will be Moldova and Belarus because they are more vulnerable;
    ✓ Things are being achieved in Ukraine primarily because of the civil society which is increasingly strong and self-confident.

    "The appearance of a stalemate is deceptive. If the West's sanctions remain in place and the oil price remains low it will be very difficult for the Russian state to function in the way it does now," James Sherr, associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia programme at Chatham House told Hromadske. The current occupation regime in Donbas is not sustainable economically and Russia no interest in subsidizing it, said Sherr, the situation, therefore, will not remain frozen forever.

    "They [Russia] need to win a conclusive victory fairly quickly or time starts to work against them. This creates a dangerous situation because they are under pressure to do something more here," said Sherr. "It might not mean they will take Mariupol but it might mean the kind of military offensive that produced Minsk 1 and 2".

    Since the post-Cold War order was established Russia has wanted to discuss the new world order with the West, said Sherr. Russia does not see this as conflict with Ukraine, it views as a conflict in Ukraine but with the West. According to Sherr, the solution from Russia's perspective is to have that conversation with the West, not only about Ukraine but about elsewhere in the former Soviet space, central and eastern Europe.

    Some in the West now understand that this is long term struggle, said Sherr. In 2015, the West has been more realistic about what it is facing compared to 2014, when many were talking about the 'Ukraine Crisis' – as if it was something short term. However, the West is also more tired now than it was last year, explained Sherr. Several EU states who imposed sanctions on Russia at the cost of their own economies thought that they would have an effect within a few months. It might take a couple of years and thus it is questionable whether or not they will continue to support the policy, Sherr told Hromadske.

    In terms of developments in the rest of the region, according to Sherr, it is unlikely that Russia will target Georgia next. Firstly, the Georgians are very astute and secondly, NATO has a much higher profile there so there is more certainty that they will respond. The next two countries will be Moldova and Belarus because they are more vulnerable. Nobody wants to see Putin defeated more than Alexander Lukashenko because he knows if he is not defeated in Ukraine, he will be next, said Sherr.If Moldova is attacked it is far from certain if the EU or NATO will respond. Romania would respond but it is unclear how. At the moment Russia is doing everything to make Moldova dysfunctional, said Sherr. In the Baltic region, furthered Sherr, one of the dangers is miscalculated accident. It is unclear what could happen if a Russian military plane collided with an SAS Boeing, for instance.

    Sherr also discussed the question of Ukraine's energy dependence. According to him, steps have been taken towards making Ukraine more energy efficient. Ukraine is now surviving with a very low level of imports from Russia compared to what it was. However, there is still work to be done improving investor confidence.

    One of the worst realities for Ukraine, according to Sherr, is that the system and the culture of power has survived 2 revolutions and is now surviving a war. Things are being achieved in Ukraine primarily because of the civil society which is increasingly strong and self-confident. The state, however, is still a major problem for people "so far much more talk about change than real change.

    Hromadske International's Nataliya Gumenyuk spoke with James Sherr on May 28, 2015.

    et Al, July 10, 2015 at 2:46 pm
    Another prick in the wall.
    Warren, July 10, 2015 at 7:43 am

    Published on 21 Apr 2015
    Lecture by James Sherr about Russia's Challenge to the West' organized by Center for Security and Strategic Research, March 4, 2015.

    James Sherr is one of top experts on Russia in the United Kingdom. He is an associate fellow and former head of the Russia and Eurasia programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs "Chatham House".

    He was a fellow of the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the UK Ministry of Defense from 1995 to 2008. He has published extensively on Soviet and Russian military, security and foreign policy. He has spent last weeks in Kiev.

    Moscow Exile, July 10, 2015 at 8:15 am
    James Sherr
    Warren, July 10, 2015 at 8:55 am
    Sherr is the archetypal think tank expert. The most interesting part in that biographical sketch – was reading that he was born in New York and holds dual US-UK citizenship.

    Sherr and Lucas are the most erudite and loquacious Russophobes in the Anglosphere.

    marknesop, July 10, 2015 at 10:53 am
    Whenever I see his name, though, I'm reminded of a piece he wrote on Ukraine years ago, long before Maidan. I never had any success linking it because it was an odd document, and the link always led to the wrong story, about an air show in Lvov. Let me see if I can find it again.

    Yeah; it's still a weird one, it opens in a new window, so you'll have to google it yourself; it's called "Realism About Ukraine Part I – Internal Conditions. James Sherr, Conflict Studies Research Centre, UK Defence Academy". Read it over carefully; this dates from June 2005, and I found his assessment of the competitors for power to be frank and realistic, especially that on Tymoshenko.

    He describes her as "an electoral ally [of Yushchenko] but a personal rival, is not averse to confrontation and seems determined to exercise authority without limit. If Yushchenko has confused leadership with inspiration, she has confused it with control and, to the astonishment of many in Ukraine's business sector, these controls are taking the form of Soviet style 'administrative measures' which extend to the micro economy.". Later he opines (unclear whether this was Tymoshenko's decision or Yushchenko's, but I believe the former), "But this defence cannot be stretched to justify price controls on meat or subsidies on electricity, and the decision to increase public sector salaries by almost 57 per cent flies in the face of economic reality". You go, James.

    Northern Star, July 10, 2015 at 10:27 am
    "James Sherr is one of top fascist Nazi moron stooges.."

    end of story

    Warren, July 10, 2015 at 7:45 am

    Published on 14 May 2015
    Lennart Meri Conference 2015

    Saturday, April 25

    Tim Owen, July 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm
    Might return but only got as far as 4:49 where his nibs suggested that ALL the EU wants is a "borderlands" – oh, the irony – that is, what was it?… "quiet, stable and prosperous" while the inscrutable Russians positively YEARN for a humanitarian disaster on its, you know, ACTUAL border.

    I have no idea who this guy actually is but, just from that statement I would say he's an empty vessel in moral terms.

    Warren , July 10, 2015 at 7:17 pm
    The self-delusion, hypocrisy and deceit of Western leaders, policy makers and analysts has no limits. This panel exemplifies this.
    xxx July 10, 2015 at 5:16 pm
    Give it a few years at this rate, and you'll be able to get gobbled by your boyfriend on the sidewalk and people will surround you and applaud while the police do a burlesque pantomime beside you in their rainbow vinyl uniforms. I am curious in an academic sort of way to see how far the pendulum will swing as the western democracies vie with one another to see who can be the most gay and hedonistic. This has all happened before, for anyone who never studied history – it was called the Roman Empire. And it will end in tears; you'll see.
    Pavlo Svolochenko , July 10, 2015 at 5:21 pm
    More recently, in Weimar.

    Imagine a visitor to Berlin in 1925. Would he even recognise the place ten years later?

    Warren, July 10, 2015 at 7:13 pm
    The acceptance of homosexuality is the most potent example of a civilisation that is decadent. Tolerating and indulging in such degeneracy and perversion, demonstrate that such a civilisation no longer cares for its future and no longer has any morals.
    marknesop, July 10, 2015 at 9:57 pm
    I am absolutely fine with the acceptance of it, because it is not a "problem" for society like alcoholism or chainsaw juggling or diabetes. Healthy homosexuals pay taxes and consume products and laugh and drink and have fun like all the rest of us.

    Although I am liberal in my politics I am a social conservative in that I do not care for overt sexual displays in a public setting unless it is a strip club, where presumably you knew what you were getting into when you came in and that's your choice. I do not want to know how you and your partner do it, and I don't want to be forced into thinking about it by having to run down an endless rainbow tunnel surrounded by prancing boys in pink jockstraps.

    Just keep it to yourself and confine your lust to significant glances exchanged with one another, and we'll be just fine. Being forced to play gooseberry to overt gay displays is embarrassing and uncomfortable for me, and just when we were beginning to internalize the lesson that thinking about your fellow citizens' feelings was important, the tolerance train pulled into the station and the rule book was thrown away in favour of celebrating homosexuality.

    I don't have anything against it – I'm just not interesting in being dragged into a neverending boogie of celebration of it. I'm even less interested in it just so my country can thumb its nose at other countries and say "Beat that, you anti-gay brute!"

    [Jul 14, 2015] Tensions rising in Ukraine as far-right militia's boobytraps injure two police

    "...This negotiation is quite impossible because Kiev, even if you wanted to negotiate honestly, is pushed by the nationalist forces, all those Right Sectors, "volunteers" and "heroes of Maidan." Poroshenko has to please the nationalistic crowd so the honest negotiations is just a dream. Besides, all those "volunteer battalions" had declared from the first day that the Minsk agreement would apply to them. They've been having major marches in Kiev over the last couple of weeks, menacing marching in full fatigues and face masks and demanding resumption of the war in the East."
    .
    "...Madam "F*ck the EU" Nuland's engineered coup is not going according to plan. She used Ukrainian nationalism as a cause, enticing Ukrainian Nationalists and supposed Ukrainian NAZIs (the right sector) both of whom hate Russians as dupes to aid her coup. Now that the illegitimate IMF and Soros funded Kiev junta has consolidated their hold on government, they dare not have any Ukrainian Nationalists or anyone who would care and honestly work on behalf of Ukrainian citizens any role in the new government. Instead, foreign IMF collaborators are given instant Ukrainian citizenship and posted in important ministerial jobs. No doubt, the nationalists were promised a part in the government if they aided in the coup. Now that madam Nuland is ignoring them, they no doubt aren't very happy, posing a threat the the Poroshenko junta. Poroshenko's remedy, on advice of madam Nueland no doubt, seems to purposely create tension with the nationalists so that they could be classified as terrorist and either jailed or killed. "
    .
    "...Madam Nuland is the classic intelligent, over educated idiot. Knows nothing about Ukraine but because of her education, her high position in the state department (no doubt by connection) and her arrogant demeanor has led her to believe she could do no wrong. Thus far, her civil war in Ukraine has resulted in more than 6000 dead Ukrainians, mostly civilians including children. Not only that, madam Nuland has destroyed what was a united Ukraine and it will never be whole again. Eastern Ukrainians will never reconcile with those who waged war against them for no reason at all. Her chocolate oligarch, Poroshenko, on her advice chose to intentionally bomb and shell civilians. Killing civilians is a war crime. This puts Porosenko in the same league as Hitler and other war criminals of history."
    .
    "... Ha, moderate rebels. Reminds me of Syria. Ukraine may be heading the same way.
    .
    "...Well, it is, of course, hard to tell what's going on there, what kinds of deals are being made, but indeed it sound like Poroshenko is trying to rein neonazis in a little bit, while Yatsenyuk, the PM and a Nuland's stooge, is betting on them. What a mess, what a shame."
    .
    "...Maidan raised expectations and shrunk resources. The inevitable disillusionment and bloody struggle for remaining resources will destroy Ukraine. The people in the West who aided the violent overthrow of the elected government, who over-promised and played geo-political games, they should be held accountable. From State Department to EU busy-bodies (Sikorski and Bildt), to media cheerleaders, to human rights professionals - all of them must explain what gave them the right to meddle and unravel a relatively prosperous country of over 40 million."
    .
    "...What was bound to happen is happening. There is a long story of the good guys turning bad but they never learn. This is no exception, it could have been avoided in due time by not accepting these groups as units into the military for they have dangerous ideologies incompatible with democracy. What is more amazing though is that the EU supported these guys all along by remaining silent. As long as they were killing in the east of the country it was fine and that tells a lot about the whole Ukraine situation which is politically driven."
    .
    "...No, Kiev doesn't struggle with armed nationalist groups. It encouraged, organized and armed them. It even came up with the patriotically sounding name for them, "volunteers," so now they are pretty legitimate."
    .
    "...Finally western media are starting to report the fact that Poroshenko and his government have absolutely no control of the far right militia that got them in poeer and fought in East Ukraine. No peace deals or Minsk agreements will be implemented while there are out of control and armed to the teeth people fighting in the east for either side. They do not care about agreements."
    .
    "...Not all unicorns and rainbows in Nulandistan it appears."
    Jul 14, 2015 | The Guardian

    vr13vr -> ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 15:23

    "I suppose this is the end of the Right Sector, since the government machine is much stronger than a small organisation. "

    It is not necessarily at all. They were promoted into "heroes defending Ukraine" and there is simply not enough political will to squash them. They will have to come up with some sort of a pact, just as they did last year during their elections and when they formed the Right Sector into "National Guards." They will essentially split the spheres of influence.

    As for the government machine, Ukrainian army doesn't want to fight. They are ill prepared and lack motivation to fight, especially inside their country. Right Sector, on the other hand is more seasoned, organized, and more aggressive. It has advantage over the army. Poroshenko doesn't have strength to squash it either by force or politically.

    vr13vr -> ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 15:16

    This negotiation is quite impossible because Kiev, even if you wanted to negotiate honestly, is pushed by the nationalist forces, all those Right Sectors, "volunteers" and "heroes of Maidan." Poroshenko has to please the nationalistic crowd so the honest negotiations is just a dream. Besides, all those "volunteer battalions" had declared from the first day that the Minsk agreement would apply to them. They've been having major marches in Kiev over the last couple of weeks, menacing marching in full fatigues and face masks and demanding resumption of the war in the East.

    Debreceni 14 Jul 2015 15:09

    Mission accomplished. The German-dominated EU and the US turned Ukraine into a failed state. The new Russophobic regime alienated the only country, which cared about the Ukrainian people and which was ready to help: Putin's Russia. Their wish has been granted: now they are part (and a colony) of Europe and never will be free again. Ukraine is Europe' Mexico ruled by drug lords, mafia bosses, soldiers of of fortune, adventure capitalists, outsiders and common criminals. Feel sorry for them.

    SHappens -> Havingalavrov 14 Jul 2015 15:07

    I understand from what Ukraine has face by Russia's armed and led war against its people, that it didn't have many options of who could help them.

    Oh come on, they could have refrained from the ATO. Ukraine doesn't need to defend themselves they just have to stop attacking the east and make a reconciliation, how does that sound? You seem to advocate a full war.

    VictorWhisky 14 Jul 2015 15:07

    Madam "F*ck the EU" Nuland's engineered coup is not going according to plan. She used Ukrainian nationalism as a cause, enticing Ukrainian Nationalists and supposed Ukrainian NAZIs (the right sector) both of whom hate Russians as dupes to aid her coup. Now that the illegitimate IMF and Soros funded Kiev junta has consolidated their hold on government, they dare not have any Ukrainian Nationalists or anyone who would care and honestly work on behalf of Ukrainian citizens any role in the new government. Instead, foreign IMF collaborators are given instant Ukrainian citizenship and posted in important ministerial jobs. No doubt, the nationalists were promised a part in the government if they aided in the coup. Now that madam Nuland is ignoring them, they no doubt aren't very happy, posing a threat the the Poroshenko junta. Poroshenko's remedy, on advice of madam Nueland no doubt, seems to purposely create tension with the nationalists so that they could be classified as terrorist and either jailed or killed.

    It seems madam Nuland and her Zionist collaborators had no problem getting in bed with the Ukrainian NAZIs, who were the major force and contributed to the success of the coup. Now madam Nuland has turned against the Nationalists and the Right Sector. Sasha Biley, a right sector leader appeared on video claiming he would be arrested by the Kiev junta police and assassinated or sent to Russia to have them do it. The next day, the was shot dead by the Kiev junta's police in a shout out. Why would they want him dead? He was one of the major leaders who helped in madam Nuland's coup. In fact, he was one of the most violent leaders. Did he know who hired the snipers on the Maidan and promised to spill the beans if he was not given a government post? Dead men tell no tales.

    As corrupt as Yanukovich was he never ordered the Ukrainian army to bomb and shell their own people. Poroshenko has ordered the Ukrainian army to bomb and shell Eastern Ukrainian civilians whose only crime is to refuse to recognize madam Nuland's illegitimately installed Kiev junta. It was not the Eastern Ukrainians that mobilized and advanced on Kiev, it was the Ukrainian army that was mobilized and ordered to advance on Eastern Ukrainians. Madam Nuland is the classic intelligent, over educated idiot.

    Knows nothing about Ukraine but because of her education, her high position in the state department (no doubt by connection) and her arrogant demeanor has led her to believe she could do no wrong. Thus far, her civil war in Ukraine has resulted in more than 6000 dead Ukrainians, mostly civilians including children. Not only that, madam Nuland has destroyed what was a united Ukraine and it will never be whole again. Eastern Ukrainians will never reconcile with those who waged war against them for no reason at all. Her chocolate oligarch, Poroshenko, on her advice chose to intentionally bomb and shell civilians. Killing civilians is a war crime. This puts Porosenko in the same league as Hitler and other war criminals of history.

    Tee7467 -> vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:58

    Ha, moderate rebels. Reminds me of Syria. Ukraine may be heading the same way.

    JoePope 14 Jul 2015 14:54

    Its hard to feel any sympathy for Kiev government and their Western sponsors- they brought this on themselves.
    A joke photo was doing rounds on twitter this weekend with desperate looking Poroshenko holding up a sign which reads "Putin bring the army!"
    That would be poetic justice.

    ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 14:48

    Interestingly, the western media did touch this topic despite the fact that it does not go along with the anti-Russia line. Let's see how this incident ends.

    I suppose this is the end of the Right Sector, since the government machine is much stronger than a small organisation. Moreover, the Ukrainian media started to talk a lot about the RS, writing all sorts of crimes they committed and etc.

    Maidan heroes are no longer heroes but criminals.

    I just hope the country will climb out of the shithole it got in. I'm sure people of the Western part of Ukraine do not want war as well as people in the East. The whole thing just got out of control. Everybody shoot freeze and then start negotiating. It's very hard to negotiate when people shoot each other.

    geedeesee 14 Jul 2015 14:40

    These guys have no qualms about killing police officers - we saw that on Maiden - they haven't suddenly changed.

    MaoChengJi 14 Jul 2015 14:37

    Well, it is, of course, hard to tell what's going on there, what kinds of deals are being made, but indeed it sound like Poroshenko is trying to rein neonazis in a little bit, while Yatsenyuk, the PM and a Nuland's stooge, is betting on them. What a mess, what a shame.

    vr13vr -> SHappens 14 Jul 2015 14:17

    But remember, these armed nationalists were viewed as "moderate rebels." They were helping to overthrow the previous government and they were eager to fight in the East of the country. But then again, we've heard the story about the good and moderate rebels before.

    Beckow 14 Jul 2015 14:16

    Maidan raised expectations and shrunk resources. The inevitable disillusionment and bloody struggle for remaining resources will destroy Ukraine. The people in the West who aided the violent overthrow of the elected government, who over-promised and played geo-political games, they should be held accountable. From State Department to EU busy-bodies (Sikorski and Bildt), to media cheerleaders, to human rights professionals - all of them must explain what gave them the right to meddle and unravel a relatively prosperous country of over 40 million.

    Poroshenko orders police "to disarm illegal groups", and one wonders why that has to be "ordered", why was post-Maidan tolerating armed groups? These are the wages of engaging in an armed street uprising, of Nuland giving cookies to armed demonstrators, EU politicians posing with assorted mobs as they were fighting police. Imagine any of this in any European country, imagine how quickly and brutally it would be suppressed, look at everything from Occupy, Frankfurt, kettling in London. So why was street uprising supported by EU in Kiev? And what can EU do now?

    vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:15

    "Right Sector grew in popularity after it played a lead role in the tumultuous mass protests that overthrew president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014"

    So, after all the back and force, we finally agree that the infamous Maidan was led by the armed nationalist militia rather than peace loving democratic people who wanted to join EU? Ouch, that's the first step.

    Pterinochilus 14 Jul 2015 14:15

    That´s exactly what happens when you arm, encourage and embed yourself with armed neo-nazis.

    SHappens 14 Jul 2015 14:11

    What was bound to happen is happening. There is a long story of the good guys turning bad but they never learn. This is no exception, it could have been avoided in due time by not accepting these groups as units into the military for they have dangerous ideologies incompatible with democracy. What is more amazing though is that the EU supported these guys all along by remaining silent. As long as they were killing in the east of the country it was fine and that tells a lot about the whole Ukraine situation which is politically driven.

    vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:11

    "[The event] highlights Kiev's struggles with ... armed nationalist groups who have helped it fight pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. "

    No, Kiev doesn't struggle with armed nationalist groups. It encouraged, organized and armed them. It even came up with the patriotically sounding name for them, "volunteers," so now they are pretty legitimate.

    thenewstranger 14 Jul 2015 14:05

    Oh, interesting. I suppose those guys are peacefull, democratic protesters from Maidan. Or maybe dictator Yanukovich masked in Right sector again kill it's own citizens.

    IvanYur 14 Jul 2015 13:39

    Finally western media are starting to report the fact that Poroshenko and his government have absolutely no control of the far right militia that got them in poeer and fought in East Ukraine.

    No peace deals or Minsk agreements will be implemented while there are out of control and armed to the teeth people fighting in the east for either side. They do not care about agreements.

    goatrider 14 Jul 2015 13:35

    Not all unicorns and rainbows in Nulandistan it appears.

    [Jul 14, 2015]Kiev forced to fight its own fascist militias

    Jul 14, 2015 | The Times

    A pro-government Ukrainian militia accused of neo-Nazism has fought a gun battle with the country's security forces that left at least three dead and several police vehicles destroyed by rocket-propelled grenades.

    The fighting marks the first clash between Kiev and one of the country's "volunteer battalions" who have led the fight against pro-Russian separatists.

    The fierce confrontation in the city of Mukachevo, near Ukraine's western border, involved members of Right Sector, a controversial nationalist group. Three policemen were among six injured, officials from the Ukrainian interior ministry said.

    A stand-off with Ukrainian police continued yesterday while Right Sector announced that

    [Jul 13, 2015] The Ukrainian state is disintegrating and Washington smiles beatifically, having created another Libya, this time on Russia's doorstep

    Jul 12, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 10:59 am

    They just love fighting with guns and the thrill of shooting to kill. The front is boring right now, shooting artillery into cities does not have the same gratification. The only way for Ukraine to purge itself of Right Sector is to kill them all. So long as any are left alive they will cling to their guns – which nobody seems to be able to make them give up – and foment armed insurrection.

    The Ukrainian state is disintegrating and Washington smiles beatifically, having created another Libya, this time on Russia's doorstep.

    karl1haushofer , July 12, 2015 at 5:27 am
    "Yarosh hates Avakov even more than he hates the Russians."

    Aren't they both Russians themselves? Yarosh does not even speak Ukrainian and Avakov is a Russian name.

    Pavlo Svolochenko, July 12, 2015 at 5:37 am
    Yarosh, yes. Avakov (Avakian?) is an Armenian from Baku.
    et Al, July 12, 2015 at 4:29 am
    Via Antiwar.com

    Neuters: Kerry doesn't view Russia as existential threat: State Department
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/10/us-usa-defense-dunford-state-idUSKCN0PK27120150710

    …"If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia," Dunford said. "And if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming."

    U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry did not share the assessment, even though Russia's actions in Ukraine posed regional security challenges.

    "The secretary doesn't agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States, nor China, quite frankly," Toner told a regular news briefing when asked about Dunford's remarks.

    "You know, these are major powers with whom we engage and cooperate on a number of issues, despite any disagreements we may have with them," he said. "Certainly we have disagreements with Russia and its activities within the region, but we don't view it as an existential threat."…
    ####

    The problem with ignorant blowhards like Dunford is that if their words are to be taken seriously, then seriously needs to be funded with cold, hard dollars. Resources daarlings. The USA has pinned its flag to the Asia Swivel (aka fk China!) as its fundamental future military posture.

    That is an expensive proposition.

    To then start bivolating (sp?) about Russia means some cash going to contain China would have to go instead to containing Russia, which so far, the USA has been doing on the very cheap by using Ukrainians as willing (or not so) canonfodder and the Europeans paying the economic consequences. To mix a metaphor or three, the US Gorilla shits in an European chinashop and still expects fawning applause for the performance*. Instead, by amping up the rhetoric via NATO and bigging up the Russia threat, the USA is trying to get Europe to pay (new UK budget promises 2% GDP on weapons) for the US' own mess and aggressive anti-Russia policy, squaring the military budget circle if you will. Except, it is not working. Europe as a whole will still not pick up the military tab US wants it to. This is the de facto recognition by Europe that the Russia threat is total bullshit, in total contradiction of all the mass propaganda to the opposite by the pork pie news networks.

    * "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under" – Rapper's Delight

    Warren, July 12, 2015 at 7:50 am

    The Europeans need to free themselves from American yoke, the Americans must have serious leverage on European leaders to explain their servility to the US.

    * "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under"

    That line comes from Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five – The Message

    marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:06 am

    All that notwithstanding, Kerry is out of favour and the State Department has the bit in its teeth. It likes the cut of Dunford's jib and his willingness to help imprint brand "Russian Aggression". Kerry's demurrals are not going to mean anything in the great scheme of things, and it is much too late for him to assuage his conscience now for all the lies he told and partisan bullshit he spread. He deserves to ride his doomed state down nearly as much as the rest of his government.

    Jeremn, July 12, 2015 at 5:06 am
    Just looking at who funds the ECFR.
    http://www.ecfr.eu/about/donors
    George Soros is the primary funder, and the European Commission also supplies money. Then there's a whole slew of banks, oil firms and foundations. Interesting reading.
    marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:20 am
    It would of course be a generalization, but just about everywhere you find a western agency fomenting revolution and stirring up unrest in the names of freedom and democracy, you will find George Soros's money. It's a wonder Obama has not awarded him the Presidential Gong of Freedom.
    yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 4:01 am
    Do they, or don't they?
    Some people say, that Right Sektor is withdrawing all their battalions from Donbass and moving them West, back towards Kiev.
    Right Sektor denies this, and says, no, all their guys are still in place at the ATO, valiantly fighting the Colorados.

    The Donetsk News Agency says that Right Sektor is withdrawing from the front lines. Quoting DPR Deputy Minister of Defense Eduard Basurin.

    Basurin reports that the Right Sektor guys truly are leaving, thus providing some blessed relief to the people of Donetsk. Resulting in fewer incidents of shelling, etc.

    yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 3:54 am

    Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism:

    Rada Deputy Boris Filatov, who belongs to Igor Kolomoisky's party, was outraged when he read some blogposts written by Trans-Carpathians. Who claimed that Trans-Carpathia was unjustly taken away from Slovaks and Hungarians in the 1950's.
    Some of the Rusyns there say they are not Ukrainians, and never have been.

    Filatov was outraged at some of this loose talk on blogs. He retorted on his own blog with the following proposed remedy to these separatist inclinations:

    http://www.politnavigator.net/deputat-verkhovnojj-rady-o-rusinakh-zakarpatya-zhech-padal-kalenym-zhelezom.html

    "Можете почитать, что публично пишут в своих бложиках некоторые местные деятели. Врачи! Жечь падаль каленым железом. Сажать и лишать имущества", - написал Филатов на своей странице в соцсети.

    "You cannot even imagine what some of these local activists are scribbling in their blogs. I would brand these scum with a heated up iron. I would throw them in jail and confiscate their property."

    yalensis:

    Recall that Filatov made similar threats against Crimeans.

    Which just scared them even further into escaping from the tender embraces of Ukrainian nazis.

    I am betting most Rusyns also wish they could opt out of this Ukrainian "prison of nations" and become part of Slovakia or Hungary. Unfortunately, they don't have that option, so they are stuck in this abusive relationship.

    yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 4:13 am

    And what's the plan, once the Right Sektor battalions reach Kiev?

    According to this piece, Right Sektor is organizing a massive meeting on the Maidan this coming Sunday, July 19.

    Right Sektor spokesperson Dmitry Pavlichenko announced the following:

    -He urges everybody to swarm to Kiev on Sunday. The meeting ("veche") will start promptly at noon.

    -The purpose is to form "organs of power" to replace the current government.

    -A priority will be also to form a "people's court".

    Right Sektor has issued ultimatum to Ukrainian government: They want Avakov's head on a platter.

    There is constant picket of around 100 persons around President Poroshenko's office building. The picketers wear insigna for parties such as "OUN", "Freedom or Death", and "Right Sektor". The building is protected by around 30 National Guards troops, and there has been a stand-off up until this point.

    [Jul 13, 2015] OPEC expects a more balanced oil market in 2016

    This is Reuter interpretation which is by definition slanted toward energy consumers, who are interesting in low prices bonanza to continue. Should be taken with a grain of salt.
    "...In its monthly report, the 12-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said it expected world oil demand to increase by 1.34 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2016, up from growth of 1.28 million bpd this year."
    "...Benchmark Brent crude traded around $58.70 a barrel at 1230 GMT on Monday, down from a peak above $115 in June 2014."
    "...OPEC said supply of oil from non-OPEC producers was expected to grow by only 300,000 bpd in 2016, down sharply from growth of 860,000 bpd this year.
    U.S. oil output, which has seen rapid increases over the last five years thanks to the development of huge shale resources by "fracking", is expected to log much more modest supply growth in 2016."
    "...The group said it estimated, based on figures from secondary sources, that its own collective crude output rose by 283,000 bpd to 31.38 million bpd in June, led by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. That is still well ahead of current demand for OPEC oil and should help ensure global inventories continue to build for some time to come."
    Jul 13, 2015 | Reuters
    • Group expects world oil demand growth to increase in 2016
    • U.S. oil output growth to fall sharply next year
    • Saudi Arabia says it pumped at record high in June (Updates throughout)
    The oil market should be more balanced next year as China and the developing world use more oil while supply of fuel from North American shale grows more slowly, OPEC said on Monday.

    In its monthly report, the 12-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said it expected world oil demand to increase by 1.34 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2016, up from growth of 1.28 million bpd this year.

    World oil demand growth should outpace any increase in oil supply from non-OPEC sources and ultra-light oils such as condensate, increasing consumption of OPEC crude, it said.

    "This would imply an improvement towards a more balanced market," OPEC's in-house economists said in the report.

    OPEC has increased production sharply over the last year as its most powerful member, Saudi Arabia, and other core producers in the Middle East Gulf attempt to build market share, leading to higher inventories worldwide.

    OPEC said Saudi Arabia reported that it pumped 10.56 million bpd last month, up 231,000 bpd from May. According to industry data, that would be a record high.

    Higher OPEC production has been a major factor behind a collapse in oil prices, which are now around half their levels of a year ago.

    Benchmark Brent crude traded around $58.70 a barrel at 1230 GMT on Monday, down from a peak above $115 in June 2014.

    Lower prices have squeezed high-cost oil producers and brought a sharp fall in the number of oil exploration rigs in operation, particularly across North America.

    OPEC said supply of oil from non-OPEC producers was expected to grow by only 300,000 bpd in 2016, down sharply from growth of 860,000 bpd this year.

    U.S. oil output, which has seen rapid increases over the last five years thanks to the development of huge shale resources by "fracking", is expected to log much more modest supply growth in 2016.

    "Total U.S. liquids production is expected to grow by 330,000 bpd, just one third of the growth of 930,000 bpd expected this year," it said.

    That should mean more demand for OPEC oil next year.

    OPEC said it expected demand for its own crude to rise by 860,000 bpd in 2016 to 30.07 million bpd. But it cut its estimate of demand for its crude this year by 100,000 bpd to 29.21 million bpd.

    The group said it estimated, based on figures from secondary sources, that its own collective crude output rose by 283,000 bpd to 31.38 million bpd in June, led by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. That is still well ahead of current demand for OPEC oil and should help ensure global inventories continue to build for some time to come.

    (Editing by Dale Hudson and Jason Neely)

    [Jul 12, 2015] Putin, the Greeks, and Academic Spies by Phil Butler

    July 9, 2015 | phillip-butler.com

    ...Switching gears here, that rag of an information portal, The Daily Beast, now jumps on Vladimir Putin again about a supposed "Witch Hunt" for western spies in academia. Excuse me! My research so far indicates Putin should be on a spy hunt. I'll get into that in a more in depth report later, but the CIA and GCHQ, all the embassies and diplomatic corps of America, Britain, Germany, France and the rest, are scurrying about Russia like idiotic Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau of the Pink Panther films, performing everything from sabotage to corporate espionage. I mean, why wouldn't they be? Mr. Putin's Russia is as easy to mill around in as California these days.

    The latest "Beastly" piece from Newsweek's Moscow agent, Anna Nemtsova, is standard anti-Putin ritual with a Pulitzer Center protege flair for sub-headlines:

    "The Russian president's effort to stamp out Western influences is full of dangerous contradictions for scientists, students, and the future of Russia."

    Meanwhile the level head of Mr. Putin's press adjutant Dmitry Peskov is prevalent again. He was quoted as saying; "I hope things will change at some point. The trend of mixing politics and education is a dangerous one." and I add, "Ain't it the damned truth?" Peskov, the smartest of the lot in my book, cut to the bone with that one. Teachers have no business performing their proper propaganda duties on young minds anywhere, much less in a Russia assailed on every corner. I say; "What, do you think you are dealing with idiots?"

    To round out this latest moron attack of mine, a news media outlet I've worked with four or five years just discontinued overnight an entire blog/contributor community on account of this writer's moderate stance on Russia. How's that for Russian-American agents in the heat of a media war? Oh, and it's not just me. I've got correspondence from dozens, a Forbes writer says he's tired of the "bullying" and pressure to "adhere to the party line", and there's more, a lot more.

    BBC pulling strings and things to alter opinion and polls, Reuters interested in interesting vested interests, Newsweek and Daily Beast authors exuding quantitative and qualitative analysis with no proof? What's a citizen journalist to do amid all this? Nemtsova pulls a professor who was at St. Petersburg State University out of the magic Russophobia hat. A Dr. Dmitry Dubrovsky who does double duty as a human rights activist and Washington think tank plebeian. Fired back in March from the university, the good doctor was Reagan Fascell Democracy Fellow in between Jan 2015 – Jul 2015. That endowment is part of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is essentially a non-profit arm of the United States government since its institutionalizing.

    The President of the National Endowment for Democracy, Carl Gershman (pictured, second from the left), presents an award to a Tunisian leader of the Arab Spring in November 2011 (Wikipedia)

    Dubrovsky is one of hundreds of "fellows" at Woodrow Wilson Center's Kennan Institute who the US State Department and other foreign policy instruments lean on for at best expert testimony, and at the worst various forms of what I would call "light espionage". Of course I've not the resources (yet) to ascertain Dr. Dubrovsky's role in any "questionable" activities, I'll leave that to the powers in charge in Russia. My point here is the lack of any real proof either journalists, or these supposed inured parties provide.

    I'll tell you this much, if Vladimir Putin did not recognize the internal threat to Russia via academia, I'd question his reputation as a KGB super-brain, or as a Russian leader who cares about his people. In the end we are at war in this world. It is not a world war like the one that ended in 1945, but the breadth and scope are not far off impact wise. The weapons have changed some, tanks and bombs often replaced by sanctions, economic "haircuts", the leveraging of debt onto an already burdened society. In a very real way the big players in this game ignore the rest of us, save to demonstrate to get our professor back, to buck majority systems, or two tweet our the latest White House quasi-victory over an invisible foe who never harmed us.

    Vladimir Putin is hunting down spies, as well he should be. Greece is telling the Brussels puppets to go to hell, as well they should. And I am calling a tiny bit of attention to western operatives, that really should be called attention to before they become too dangerous. Oh my, I fear I am too late. Wait and read my "frustration theory" of destroying good. It's a story about pitting friends against friends, and shutting the mouths of all truth speakers.

    If you think I am too harsh, read Dr. Dubrovsky's "Undesirables" piece from May of this year. Then march over to the Department of Homeland Security to compare legislation and infringements of freedoms in America. My vote is Mr. Putin's government gave fair warning based on Russia's societal requirements. Remember, Moscow is not Washington. For me, warning "agents" that acting contrary to what's good for the people is a more honest method than hiding behind phantom terror. The truth of Russia's "desires" seems easy, while The Daily Beast and Newsweek just contend at it.

    But then, this is an opinion piece.

    [Jul 12, 2015]Rethinking Russia A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen

    "..."The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy.""
    .
    "...I understood some time ago that USA presidents are very fickle animals, nobody can trust them and nobody is safe of them, they could turn from being a friend to be your enemy overnight"
    Jul 07, 2015 | huffingtonpost.com

    Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord, a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

    Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

    Even Henry Kissinger -- I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post -- wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

    And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

    What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international leader to offer help to President Bush:

    Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do," and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country, and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this -- Putin gave all this -- to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO country.

    However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.

    And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev (who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya -- with disastrous consequences -- despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

    All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:

    If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...

    Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way. Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...

    And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument -- for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not -- ... but the reality is that Putin has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...

    Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...

    This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ...

    But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.

    I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping up to be a disastrous war in Europe.

    Joseph Skibinsky · Top Commenter · Las Vegas, Nevada

    I understood some time ago that USA presidents are very fickle animals, nobody can trust them and nobody is safe of them, they could turn from being a friend to be your enemy overnight, starting from Bush - father, and those who followed him. For those who don't believe me about Bush-father, I suggest to read Autobiography of Colin Powell who was a member of Bush's staff. And what Pr Cohen tells us about Bush-son confirms what I stated about our Presidents/politicians.
    Those who want to comment on my statement, please, stick to facts. I don't take easily personal attacks and let me assure you, I will respond in kind.

    Samuel Ramani · Contributor at The Huffington Post

    I think that Professor Stephen Cohen is raising a valuable and vital point, that Russia's annexation of Crimea and Ukraine was not just naked aggression. Russia acted impulsively due to a variety of factors: the fear that it would lose great power status if NATO encroached onto its sphere too much, the fear that the Maidan protests could be an inspiration for unrest in Russia, and the concern that a Westward tilt for Ukraine would weaken his Eurasian Union project. Our perceptions of what is rational differ markedly from Russia's as our regimes are different and climate in which decision-making is made is different. Neoliberal_rationality/ is always contextual and the same should apply to Russia.

    To prevent this conflict, an incremental approach would have been best- we should have very clearly delineated that EU association agreement would be strictly economic and not a gateway to immediate NATO membership for Ukraine. Preserving Ukrainian neutrality in security matters, while revitalizing its economy and broken political institutions was the optimal approach. I'm not excusing Russia's conduct by any means or claiming that Russia was right in annexing Crimea, and violating the sovereignty of Ukraine, but at the same time, we have to realize that Russia views this conflict from a very different lens than the West. Russia views NATO expansion in the CIS with the same alarm as we would if Russian missiles and equipment started appearing in Latin American countries with uncomfortable proximity to America. Russia views sovereignty not as the inviolable rights of individual countries but the inviolable integrity of the Russian sphere of influence (the CIS), as a zone that the West cannot enter and intervene.

    Donald Schellberg · Top Commenter · Universidad Tecnológica de Panamá

    It seems like you are leaving the Ukrainian people out of this. I don't think it is between the US and Russia. It is for them to decide. They should allow a referendum in Donbas, free an open with international monitors. The same with Crimea. If the majority of the permanent residents want to remain in Russia, that is fine, if not let them choose. If Crimea does formally become part of Russia under this referendum than Russia should reimburse the Ukrainian government for the businesses, bases and state institutions that were taken over. And Ukraine would guarantee access via Maripol until they finish the bridge. Just my opinion.

    John-Albert Eadie · Top Commenter · Stanford University

    This is late. If you look in adjacent media you will see folks like Stephen Cohen and others are not ignored, but looked to as being experts. WHAT YOU MUST DO IS LOOK TO ALTERNATIVE MEDIA. BECAUSE Time, WSJ, and all else cannot be trusted. Then you would have first seen Stephen Cohen's stuff, and many serious others. Try Facebook first, flimsy as it seems.

    [Jul 10, 2015] A dozen foreign NGOs declared unwelcome in Russia Europe

    Looks like Russian authorities started to take the danger of color revolutions more seriously...
    "...On Wednesday, 12 foreign NGOs were placed on a blacklist, reflecting an intensified crackdown in Russia on activities that represent a "threat to constitutional order and national security.""

    Jul 09, 2015 | DW.COM

    A dozen foreign NGOs declared unwelcome in Russia

    The Duma's Federation Council has placed 12 foreign NGOs in Russia on a blacklist and forbidden any activity in the country. The new legislation has placed even tighter restrictions on NGOs in Russia than before.

    The first step was to force domestic non-governmental organizations in Russia to register as "agents." Now Moscow has gone a step further and taken aim at foreign NGOs active in the country. According to freshly passed legislation, cooperation with foreign organizations is punishable by law.

    Since 2012, when the so-called "agent laws" were passed by Russian parliament, all organizations within the country that received foreign aid were forced to register as "foreign agents." On Wednesday, 12 foreign NGOs were placed on a blacklist, reflecting an intensified crackdown in Russia on activities that represent a "threat to constitutional order and national security."

    The list includes seven independent organizations based in the United States, including Freedom House and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Two Polish organizations, including the East European Democratic Center based in Warsaw, and three Ukrainian organizations, including the Ukrainian World Congress (UWC), are on the list. No German NGOs have been blacklisted.

    The list is the result of consultations between Konstantin Kossatschow, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma's Federation Council, the chief state prosecutor, the Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin's domestic intelligence service.

    "We decided to place these organizations on the blacklist, because they have used all means in an attempt to interfere in Russia's foreign affairs," Kossatschow told Interfax news agency on Thursday.

    Concern and anger

    The organizations implicated took a very different view of the situation. Freedom House immediately called the legislation a grave mistake. "The Russian government has worked tirelessly to limit human rights in the country," Robert Ruby, director of communications at Freedom House, told DW. The NDI said the laws would further contribute to Russia's international isolation.

    Agnieszka Komorowska, chair of Warsaw's East European Democratic Center, called the decision unfathomable.

    "We don't really understand why we have been placed on this blacklist," Komorowska said. "For 15 years, we have worked as an NGO for independent media in Russia. Our objective has always been to help the people who live there - and not any political organizations. Our work has never been directed at anyone in particular."

    NGOs won't give up

    The new legislation has been criticized in Germany, as well. Stefan Liebich, the parliamentary foreign affairs spokesperson for the Left party, reiterated the criticism voiced by the NGOs, saying Russia was further isolating itself on the global stage. Marieluise Beck, the Green's parliamentary spokesperson for eastern European affairs, said the new laws reflected an "increasing repression of Russian civil society in connection with the Kremlin's treatment of its European neighbors." Beck decried Russia's "increasingly harsh handling of those campaigning from abroad for a more democratic, open Russia."

    The foreign NGOs on the blacklist are aware that the new laws have distinguished them as "unwanted organizations" and that any cooperation with them could be seen as a crime. However, they have said this will not stop them. Robert Ruby of Freedom House said Thursday that his organization will continue to support anyone in Russia who is willing to "fight for democracy."

    [Jul 10, 2015] US torture doctors could face charges after report alleges post-9/11 collusion

    "...Fascism is well understood, its not just a perjorative buzzword. I think its definition is a bit out of date -- instead of a nationalist, militaristic political ideology mobilizing corporations and the population as an expression of national will it looks more like corporatism enlisting the trappings of extreme nationalism and militarism to further its agenda."
    Jul 10, 2015 | The Guardian

    Littlemissv -> norecovery 10 Jul 2015 18:51

    Here is a comment from JCDavis with some important information:

    Russ Tice revealed that the NSA was spying on Obama as early as 2004 at the behest of Dick Cheney, who had already convinced the NSA's director Hayden to break the law and spy on everyone with power.

    It can't be any coincidence that President Obama went (or was sent) to Bill "Cheney is the best Republican" Kristol to get his foreign policy validated, and Kristol congratulated him on it, calling him a "born-again neocon."

    And it is no coincidence that Obama has the Cheney protegee Victoria Nuland in his administration, right in the center of his new cold war with Russia. And no coincidence that she is the wife of neocon Robert Kagan, who with Bill Kristol founded PNAC. PNAC counts neocon Paul Wolfowitz as a member, who saw Russia as our main obstacle to world empire.

    It's a nest of neocons running Obama as a puppet and pushing us into a confrontation with Russia while smashing all the Russian allies according to the Wolfowitz doctrine.

    norecovery 10 Jul 2015 17:34

    Many of the Neocon criminals that promoted and started that awful war are still in power behind the scenes in the Obama administration, and they are still doing their dirty deeds throughout the MENA and in Ukraine.


    martinusher TickleMyFancy 10 Jul 2015 17:20

    Fascism is well understood, its not just a perjorative buzzword. I think its definition is a bit out of date -- instead of a nationalist, militaristic political ideology mobilizing corporations and the population as an expression of national will it looks more like corporatism enlisting the trappings of extreme nationalism and militarism to further its agenda.

    (The distinction is a bit subtle, come to think of it. Maybe its easier to just stick to slinging names about....)


    reptile0000 Cornelis Davids 10 Jul 2015 16:50

    Yeh thats what i said American war is Global. Their leaders repeatedly say it over and over again. Nothings surprising about their doctors torturing people kidnapped from all over the world. Brutal empire that's what it is for many around the world


    [Jul 09, 2015] Hatred Toward Russia Turns Western Leaders 'Incredibly Stupid'

    Jul 09, 2015 | Sputnik International

    Western leaders are so blinded by their hatred toward Russia and Vladimir Putin that they have started taking absurd and miscalculated steps, French journalist Ronald Zonca said in Boulevard Voltaire.

    Instead of building a favorable economic partnership with the BRICS members, the West alienates a potential ally in Moscow. If France continues to thoughtlessly follow NATO policies, soon everyone in the world will hate it, as they do the United States, Zonca said.

    Instead of trying to work out a deal with the BRICS members, the EU prefers to close itself in "Brussels' coffin."

    "Hate makes people not only blind and deaf, but also incredibly stupid," Zonca wrote in Boulevard Voltaire.

    Western leaders long ago became the "bundles of hatred" who blindly force NATO principles on everyone. Russia became the target of this policy of hatred because it has an independent position established by the interests of the Russian people, the French journalist said.

    European leaders envy Vladimir Putin. Compared to him, they feel their mediocrity and weakness, dictated by their service to NATO and the United States. The Russian President has overwhelming support among his own people, something most Western leaders lack. The only thing European leaders can do is try to undermine Putin's popularity and charisma. They envy the Russian leader and their hatred towards him and Russia only keeps increasing. People tend to hate things that they can't have themselves, Zonca explained.

    [Jul 08, 2015]Are we the fascists now?

    Jul 03, 2015 | OffGuardian
    thanks-4-kit-mum

    The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.

    To initiate a war of aggression…," said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, "is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

    Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.

    Libya

    Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.

    In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that "most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten".

    The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a "rebel" bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: "We came, we saw, he died." His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew… that if we waited one more day," said President Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

    This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato's inferno, described by David Cameron as a "humanitarian intervention".

    Secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS, many of the "rebels" would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.

    For Obama, David Cameron and then French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".

    Following Nato's attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu…

    confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency".

    The Balkans

    The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59″ might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.

    With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA.

    There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

    Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its "natural market" in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.

    In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer's duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia – a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation – and the implementation of a "free-market economy" and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.

    Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations – 69 countries – have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America's modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as "sanctions". The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.

    Afghanistan

    Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over."

    These were opening words of Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. "The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion," said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records.

    The majority have been killed – civilians and soldiers – during Obama's time as president.

    The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives', Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because "the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion… Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation." He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter's National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan's first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?

    In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.

    The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan's doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. "Every girl," recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, "could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported."

    The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, "there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]". Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the "threat of a promising example".

    On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal "fundamentalist" groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests… would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.

    The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA Hekmatyar's specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter".

    Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah – who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help – was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.

    The "blowback" of Operation Cyclone and its "few stirred up Muslims" was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the "war on terror", in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer's message was and remains: "You are with us or against us."

    The common thread is mass murder

    The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its "free fire zones", "body counts" and "collateral damage". In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians ("gooks") were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.

    Today, the world's greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama's victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA "kill list" presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each "hit" is registered on a faraway console screen as a "bugsplat".

    "For goose-steppers," wrote the historian Norman Pollack, "substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."

    Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being," said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, "The sovereign is he who decides the exception." This sums up Americanism, the world's dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.

    The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the "tragedy" of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places – just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood's violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, 'American Sniper', which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a "patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days".

    There are no heroic movies about America's embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens – as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the "father" of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.

    Ukraine

    In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its "new wave" hailed by the enforcer as "nationalists".

    This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left.

    These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get "the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry". If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.

    No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe – with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as "the minister for defeatism". It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading "neo-con" luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.

    Nuland's coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia's historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea – illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 – voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.

    At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleansing. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping "the violence" caused by the "Russian invasion". The Nato commander, General Breedlove – whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove – announced that 40,000 Russian troops were "massing". In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.

    These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine – a third of the population – have long sought a federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not "separatists" but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous "states" are a reaction to Kiev's attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.

    On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as "another bright day in our national history". In the American and British media, this was reported as a "murky tragedy" resulting from "clashes" between "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) and "separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).

    The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington's new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims – "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Obama congratulated the junta for its "restraint".

    If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine's top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: "The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army". There were "individual citizens" who were members of "illegal armed groups", but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for "full scale war" with nuclear-armed Russia.

    On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell's fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government, since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established… If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three – much as it did into world war one a century ago – all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."

    In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack… In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons." In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. "Putin must be stopped," said the headline. "And sometimes only guns can stop guns." He conceded that the threat of war might "nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement"; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that "America has the best kit".

    In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, "has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones." He lauded Blair as a "Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist". In 2006, he wrote, "Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran."

    The outbursts – or as Garton-Ash prefers, his "tortured liberal ambivalence" – are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: "The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This American "kit" will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.

    Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas "investment". She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.

    Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.

    The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.

    [Jul 05, 2015]Russian university fires US academic accused of harming national interests

    "...This particular one is not a scientist, he was an administrator. And a CEO of a venture-capital company, so that he probably doesn't need a job, to survive."
    .
    "...I wonder if calling what Washington has been doing for the last year can be called "waging war". They certainly attack Russia in every way they think possible: economy, diplomacy, military buildup, media demonization campaigns, and just a total overall hostility.

    Maybe the word "war" is too strong a metaphor, but given that it is simply not possible to have a shooting war with Russia (those damn nukes!), this might be as war-like that it will ever get. It is pretty dismally ugly and reflects rather poorly on West's residual rationality."

    Jul 05, 2015 | The Guardian

    MaoChengJi -> Калинин Юрий 5 Jul 2015 08:19

    ...and incidentally even academic tenure doesn't help: check out the Ward Churchill controversy.

    Also, I don't think you're right assuming that this is all government pressure. I'd argue that this is mostly public pressure. Private enterprises aren't immune. People who are perceived as enemies are going to be ostracized no matter what. All you can do is to insist that they are not illegally discriminated. And in this case I assume everything was done by the book.


    MaoChengJi -> Калинин Юрий 4 Jul 2015 10:40

    "I am sure that this particular scientist will find a job. But the whole situation is sad."

    This particular one is not a scientist, he was an administrator. And a CEO of a venture-capital company, so that he probably doesn't need a job, to survive.

    However, for the scientists Americans have a mechanism to ensure at least some degree of independence: tenure. There are pluses and minuses, of course, like in everything else.

    Does it exist in Russia?


    Beckow Gunnar -> René Øie 4 Jul 2015 02:22

    There are obscenity laws in US and many EU countries (Poland!!) that are identical to the Russian law. Same for the "foreign agent" laws. Instead of addressing it, you repeat as an assertion that "in Russia it is different...inconsistent and arbitrary".

    Really? Why? Because you say so? You realize that is not an argument? Back up what you say, we could all assert things we want. I can say that "blacks are not treated equally by law in US". Is that true?

    Regarding slavery or British colonial mass murder: why Rhodes, that would be too easy. Why not Churchill, or Queen Victoria, or Jefferson/Washington? Are US-UK ready to denounce them? If not, why do they expect others to demonize their own past personalities? Learn how to use the same metric, be objective, or you will simply stay irrelevant...hypocrisy is fatal for people who want to preach to others. We might be beyond point of no return for the current Western preachers...


    nnedjo 4 Jul 2015 02:00

    White told the Guardian by email that he was on vacation in Florida but would be returning to Russia this weekend. "What I am going to find there is absolutely not clear to me now that I am proposed to be on some sort of stop list," White said. "But I plan to meet with the university to try to better understand the situation with my good friends and colleagues there."

    From all this it is only clear that even for the professor White himself is not clear what exactly is going on with his position on the Lobachevsky University. But, as usual, Moscow Times is the only one who is best informed about everything.

    This Moscow Times is a really interesting newspaper. It is published in Russia, but nobody seems to read it there. Unlike the Western media, which immediately reprinted their news as they occur.:-)


    Калинин Юрий Gunnar René Øie 3 Jul 2015 22:23

    For sure the american soldiers are there.
    The situation of your poor country exactly the same that has been described by Bernard Shaw in his book Arms and the man. A war between Bulgaria and Serbia. All the officers in Bulgaria were Russians and all the officers in Serbia were Austrians and even a soldier from Switzerland. Because locals are too stupid and ignorant.
    Even BBC already call it a civil war but you continue to cry an ocean about the Russian troops there. Poroshenko tells about 200 000 - more then the army of Germany. Ask him - what does he smoke and where you can buy it.


    Mo Rochdale sasha19 3 Jul 2015 20:03

    Who's closing of who? The yanks started this by banning russian businessmen and politicians. It sticks in your crow when somebody does it back to the yanks.


    Russianelf caliento 3 Jul 2015 16:21

    As the saying goes "a friend in need is a friend indeed" :-).

    Why have not you mentioned Xi Jinping?

    20 years ago the first president of Russia, Boris Eltssin, always drunk and funny, destroyed Russian industry and economy. I was a minor at that time but I remember clearly that I had nothing to eat then. He was so much welcome by US and its satellites. He had many friends!
    If you think that UK and US are friends you are deeply mistaken!


    AndreyR2008 Gunnar René Øie 3 Jul 2015 16:10

    So in nutshell it's bad not because it's bad but because it's Russian.
    Thank you! Finally somebody of our western teachers had an honesty to say that outloud.


    Beckow Gunnar René Øie 3 Jul 2015 13:29

    Your distinctions do not establish a real difference. Those are adjustments that account for different situation in Russia vs. US, e.g. lots and lots of Russian oligarchs have foreign citizenships and keep their money abroad - e.g. Zimin, etc...

    Russian law against "indecent sexual propaganda to minors (under 18)" is actually also almost identical to laws in many US states, and also laws in Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and lots of other countries in EU. There is no mention of gay-this or that, it simply says that minors cannot be "exposed" to non-traditional stuff that could be considered obscene.

    So the laws are the same, and somehow none of this attracts much attention in the West, only when it is in Russia, they are "shocked". That is a definition of total hypocrisy. Your argument that it is the "application" of the law that is different is not supported by any evidence: the number if cases in Russia where these questionable laws have been used is very small, the outcomes were ambiguous (small fines, endless appeals, etc...), in other words none of the Western hysteria is reflected in reality.

    You seem to - like "Ijust want to say" - live in a virtual reality that you have created based on ideology, endless dated allusions (Dzerzhinsky?), and a bit of dislike or even hatred for the "eastern beast". In other words your thinking is not reality-based it is politicized. That is not a good place to be, reality will come back to bite you. I can also pontificate on US genocides (natives, slavery) or British murderous march around the word - it is past, not that relevant today. Let go of this obsession with Stalin, he has been dead for 60 years. Look at Russia as it is today, don't exaggerate, calm down and maybe peace can prevail....


    LoneSurvivor AbsolutelyFapulous 3 Jul 2015 13:17

    LOL. What virtual reality are you in?

    AbsolutelyFapulous 3 Jul 2015 13:09

    He can now teach in russian language in Ukraine, if he wants. And go back later to Russia, together with the Ukraine army, conquering the European part of it.


    Agatha_appears AbsolutelyFapulous 3 Jul 2015 12:29

    Absolutely fabulous lies


    Калинин Юрий 3 Jul 2015 09:47

    AbsolutelyFapulous - 12 messages
    dropthemchammer - 240 both with the replies
    truk10 - only 8 with the answers
    Luminaire - 29 with the answers
    raffine - 59 with the answers
    srmttmrs - 106 messages including the answers

    You guys are talking to each other. Get yourself a good job!

    johnbonn 3 Jul 2015 08:19

    It is not paranoia at all. It is sanctions for sanctions. But there is no question that the US is aggressively organizing protests and orchestrating regime change in the RF.

    The Pentagon will work tirelessly and relentlessly to unsettle the RF until it can extricate Crimea from Russia.

    Crimea is the crossroads of the Middle East, Europe, and Asia and is the single most strategically situated piece of land on the planet.

    centerline Luminaire 3 Jul 2015 04:12

    that the Kiev regime are US backed is in every MSM article. It is in the Ukraine Freedom act passed by congress into law in the US and signed by Obomber.

    Popeyes raffine 3 Jul 2015 04:01

    You really need to do more research currently there are 21 universities in Russia featured within the QS World University Rankings® 2014/15, five of which are placed among the top 400 universities worldwide. Russia also boasts a substantial presence in the QS University Rankings: BRICS 2014, a ranking of the leading universities in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), with 53 Russian universities making the BRICS top 200.Lomonosov Moscow State University, or Lomonosov MSU for short, is Russia's highest ranked institution, placed 114th in the world in the QS World University Rankings® 2014/15.


    vr13vr raffine 3 Jul 2015 02:01

    We might not have the "fifth column" argument but we simply fire academics for them expressing opinion that doesn't match the one of the administration. Which, come to think of it is even worse. At least Russians believe in some potential threat while we don't even need threat, we just fire whoever disagree with us:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/02/stripping-a-professor-of-tenure-over-a-blog-post/385280/

    https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/academic-heavyweights-slam-univ-illinois-firing-steven-salaita-palestine-views

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/19/firing-sets-debate-over-whether-deans-must-publicly-back-administrations

    And so on.


    Agatha_appears MaoChengJi 3 Jul 2015 01:53

    Kendrick was not a rector but vice-rector on innnovations. I assume the University needed him badly to get some grants and launch joint projects with businesses.

    He was not fired . He is no longer vice-president, but is dotzen and, as far as I know, heads a laboratory or center that deals with innivations, start ups etc. But he is really a great guy.


    vr13vr 2 Jul 2015 21:40

    I hold and MBA and it doesn't make me an academic. His bio by the way does not mention neither MBA nor PhD.


    Beckow Gunnar René Øie 2 Jul 2015 20:49

    It is the same. Same law, same interpretation - being a "foreign agent" is not the same as a "spy". There has been controversy about "foreign funded" initiatives in US too - but the law is purely about labeling, it doesn't forbid being a "foreign agent". Same is US, same in Russia, the law was copied word-for-word from US.

    Anglican Church in Boston (Episcopalian I would presume) is based in US and funded in US. It is also not a political organization (at least not primarily). So there is no comparison...

    centerline 2 Jul 2015 20:44

    After the colour revolutions and springs of the last decade, and the death and destruction they have brought, any independent sovereign nation needs to sweep the US garbage out the door.

    Terry Ross Nashi_kb 2 Jul 2015 20:05

    Drop the travel bans and asset freezes and I am sure they will reconsider. ha ha
    At least they did not freeze the academics assets within Russia and prevent him from returning by refusing a visa.

    Terry Ross truk10 2 Jul 2015 20:01

    Seems like you just missed this year's Saint Petersburg international Book Salon Exhibition.
    http://www.advantour.com/russia/saint-petersburg/exhibitions/book-salon.htm

    However you still have plenty of time to arrange your presence at the Moscow 17th International Book Fair to be held in November.
    http://www.moscowbookfair.ru/eng/about.html


    Wardellsworld 2 Jul 2015 19:48

    Coca Cola next.

    Terry Ross 2 Jul 2015 19:44

    Firstly, the leadership in Kiev did not simply 'come' to power: a sitting president and his cabinet first had to be deposed.
    Secondly, the 2012 law has been since justified by the attempts of US-AID to depose the Cuban government via a mobile phone and social networking scheme
    'USAID programme used young Latin Americans to incite Cuba rebellion'

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/04/usaid-latin-americans-cuba-rebellion-hiv-workshops

    Thirdly, the issue of travel bans and freezing assets via a hit list was first employed by the US and EU.


    Beckow sasha19 2 Jul 2015 17:46

    I wonder if calling what Washington has been doing for the last year can be called "waging war". They certainly attack Russia in every way they think possible: economy, diplomacy, military buildup, media demonization campaigns, and just a total overall hostility.

    Maybe the word "war" is too strong a metaphor, but given that it is simply not possible to have a shooting war with Russia (those damn nukes!), this might be as war-like that it will ever get. It is pretty dismally ugly and reflects rather poorly on West's residual rationality.

    PaddyCannuck caliento 2 Jul 2015 17:32

    "Nazi" is a word with very serious implications, and not a word that should be casually thrown around the place by children chanting childish insults. Naziism is an extreme and violent form of nationalism based on morally repugnant concepts of ethnic purity and racial superiority.

    Has Putin ever said that Russia should be exlcusively a country for "ethnically pure Russians", or advocated ridding Russia of "ethnic impurities"? If so, please provide references, links etc. Otherwise, crawl back into your hole and shut the hell up, because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Remember, there's always somebody else out there who sees YOU as a racially inferior ethnic impurity, and you should be very grateful that Mr Putin is not one of them.


    sasha19 AndreyR2008 2 Jul 2015 17:10

    There are some excellent universities with great technology same as the West and there are others that are behind, same as the West

    sasha19 Beckow 2 Jul 2015 17:08

    "waging war" that was a quantum leap. It is true what has happened to Russian academics, one of my friends lost her post in March due to budgetary issues. The article was not about western academics but it is true that many universities are eliminating programs that are not producing graduates and thus faculty are released. At the same time there are some universities hiring as they have growing programs. It is 6 of one and a half dozen of another.

    Beckow sasha19 2 Jul 2015 16:59

    You seem to get pleasure out of "my neighbors' cow died" new stories. I don't even think it is news, more like a propaganda distraction.

    How about looking at "pay cuts, job losses" at home? Wouldn't that be real news? Or would you claim that no academician ever lost a position for "political" reason in the West? A foreigner from a country (US) that basically is waging a war on all allowable fronts on Russia is unlikely to keep a cushy academic sinecure. That's the way it is all over the world.


    Beckow 2 Jul 2015 16:13

    High administrative posts in all universities, in all countries, since time immemorial have been political. To be a dean in Oxford, Sorbonne, or Warsaw or Munich, it always has a major political components. These are cushy jobs given as rewards, not earned in any meaningful sense of the world.

    Why should it be different in Nizny Novgorod? Maybe a local well-connected guy wants the job. Why is this "news", there are tens of thousand frustrated academicians all over West who didn't get a job or were let go. It is political, it is always political, declaring that it is "news" because it is in Russia is, by the way, also political.

    MaoChengJi 2 Jul 2015 16:02

    Really, how does a venture-capitalist become rector of a university in the first place? One can hardly imagine any other way but bribery. Good catch, Mr. Kiselyov, but firing is not enough, they need to investigate.


    Canigou sasha19 2 Jul 2015 15:59

    Not every Fulbright Program person, and member of other similar U.S.-funded academic organization, is a spy. Some have been, however, and it was a big scandal when the CIA was exposed (to its disgrace) as subsidizing supposed student organizations and using them as fronts to promote U.S. propaganda.


    Laurence Johnson 2 Jul 2015 15:49

    We all know how NGO's have been used in an attempt to undermine the government in Russia. Yet again Putin is streets ahead and clearing them all out. There isn't a way to topple the Russian government and the more we try the more foolish we look.

    Its time to leave Russia to sort out its internal affairs and concentrate on getting our economies back on track before we find the world has passed us all by.

    Canigou -> sasha19 2 Jul 2015 15:01

    The U.S. has decided to exclude many Russians from its territory because it does not like their political views. Russia's expulsion of an American professor looks to be a blowback from that U.S. policy.

    If you want your academic friends in Russia to feel secure in their ability to have their Russian visas renewed, perhaps you could ask The State Department to reconsider its politicized travel sanctions against Russian individuals.

    vr13vr sasha19 2 Jul 2015 14:53

    Good try. He is "the chief executive of the Russia-focused investment consultancy Marchmont Capital Partners," according to the article. "In 2005, Mr. White founded Marchmont Capital Partners, LLC an investment advisory firm... ," and he worked in the same city, according to the link. How many Marchmont Capital Partners exist in Nizhniy Novgorod and how many of them were created by someone with the name Kendrik White?

    In either case, the article doesn't mention any academic credentials. The website does mention a lot of finance credentials instead.

    SHappens 2 Jul 2015 14:13

    The Putin government has also stopped many US/Russia collaborative studies, blaming the US for "stealing" Russian intellectuals.

    When we know the NSA spies on technology everywhere in the world this is hardly surprising that'd be true. Tit for tat. US got what it sowed.

    [Jul 04, 2015]The New Ukrainian Exceptionalism

    "...Russian-backed aggression, relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics have pushed many Ukrainians to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism, dissenting views, and even observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to Ukraine. This phenomenon might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because it threatens the very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international support."
    .
    "...The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor, or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical right movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point to the resurgence of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian Nationalists, OUN, or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian nationalist figures Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every right to define its own history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that of millions of its citizens now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented in the government. The new Ukrainian exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance and extreme nationalism to cohabit with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy."
    .
    "...These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public discussion. Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's security"
    June 23, 2015 | yaleglobal.yale.edu

    Ukrainian leaders, under siege from Russian and separatist forces, resist constructive criticism

    Russia on the dock, Ukraine not without blemish: Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, left, walks past Russian President Vladimir Putin during an international gathering (top); bellicose Ukrainian Semen Semenchenko grandstanding

    WASHINGTON: The slow boiling war in Southeastern Ukraine is by now well known to the world. It has been projected in stark moral and political terms and in gruesome detail by the international press, Ukrainian and Western political leaders, and ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that Ukraine is engaged in a struggle not only for its sovereignty, but for its very survival as a nation-state.

    In this hour of need, every Ukrainian citizen and every self-described friend of Ukraine in the international community should not only speak but act in support of Ukraine. But speaking out and taking action in support of Ukraine have become increasingly fraught in recent months. Russian-backed aggression, relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics have pushed many Ukrainians to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism, dissenting views, and even observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to Ukraine. This phenomenon might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because it threatens the very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international support.

    The new Ukrainian exceptionalism comes at a high price for Ukrainian civil society and for the international community focused on helping Ukraine. There have already been cases in which prominent Ukrainian thought leaders have been threatened and even attacked for expressing views critical of the government, nationalist politicians, or volunteer militias. Likewise, among Ukraine's friends abroad there is precious little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line that Ukraine's current government is the best it has ever had, and that the West must provide not only political and financial support, but also supply it with lethal weapons to fight the Russians in Donbas.

    There is little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line in Ukraine.

    This exceptionalist worldview is nowhere more evident than in the discourse around Ukraine's President Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko is a billionaire confectionary baron who also owns banking and agricultural assets, and several influential media platforms, most notably Ukraine's Fifth Channel, and who served in high government posts, including as Yanukovych's minister of economic development and minister of foreign affairs under Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Today, Poroshenko presides over a state and a government that has committed to a reform campaign it styles as "de-oligrachization."

    Yet when queried about whether, as an oligarch himself, Poroshenko can be effective in removing oligarchic influence from Ukraine's politics and economy, many Ukrainians feel compelled to defend their wartime leader by denying that he is, in fact, an oligarch in the first place. Or if he is one, they say, he's a different kind of oligarch, certainly the best of the bunch. After all, they reason, he has used his wealth and influence to help Ukraine and fight Russia, and anyway, his business interests are more transparent and of more value to the country than those of his rivals. Instead of selling his businesses, as he promised to do during last year's presidential campaign, Poroshenko has held onto them, demonstrating that even in the new Ukraine, politics and the private sector remain inseparable.

    Exceptionalists argue: While oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's patriotic oligarchs are not.

    The exceptionalism does not stop with Poroshenko. In fact, the same tortured logic extends to support for other "good" oligarchs: Lviv's mayor Andriy Sadovyi, who has run that city for nearly a decade, owns major media, electrical utility and financial assets, and has backed his own party in the national parliament, is described as having made Lviv a "lighthouse" for Ukrainian reform, on the model of neighboring Poland. Even Dnipropetrovsk's Ihor Kolomoiskiy, who himself embraces the oligarch moniker, has spent millions in defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression, served as governor of a vulnerable frontline region and held it together, and besides, his Privat Bank group is a pillar of Ukraine's financial stability. So, while oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's most patriotic oligarchs, the exceptionalists argue, are not.

    The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor, or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical right movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point to the resurgence of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian Nationalists, OUN, or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian nationalist figures Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every right to define its own history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that of millions of its citizens now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented in the government. The new Ukrainian exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance and extreme nationalism to cohabit with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy.

    New Ukrainian exceptionalism: Undercurrents of intolerance cohabit with commitments to democracy.

    The Euro-Maidan was dubbed a Revolution of Dignity because it represented the victory of the people in defense of basic human rights and human dignity. But a year after that victory, the parliament has approved a decree limiting Ukraine's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So far, the decree applies only to portions of the two oblasts, or regions, of Donetsk and Luhansk where the war is going on, but it has been accompanied by allegations of torture and unlawful detention by Ukrainian authorities. These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public discussion. Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's security, while it fragments and diminishes the human rights activist community that was once a bulwark of the new Ukraine.

    Finally, raise the problem of private armies in Ukraine, and one is told that the famous "volunteer battalions" are actually completely legal and legitimate police, interior ministry or army units that have been integrated under a single, responsible national command. This would be a reasonable position and an extremely important step to constrain possible future internecine violence, corporate raiding and other abuses in Ukraine, if only it were true.

    The same goes for so-called soldier deputies, commanders of the volunteer battalions elected to the parliament last October, many of whom still appear in uniform and demonstrate scant regard for the boundaries between civilian and military authority. Dashing but bellicose figures like Serhii Melnychuk, Semen Semenchenko and Dmytro Yarosh, we are told, are not really soldiers any more, their grandstanding is just a PR exercise. Maybe so, but their message hardly confirms Ukraine's commitment to rule of law, civilian control of the military, and national reconciliation. With prominent exceptions like these in the new Ukraine, it is increasingly difficult to identify the rule.

    Without a doubt, Ukraine now faces its most severe crisis of the post-1991 period. In the face of attacks by Russia and its separatist allies, Ukraine deserves the support of its citizens and the wider world. Yet the enthusiasm of the world to help Ukraine will be diminished and the damage from Russian aggression magnified if Ukrainians succumb to the kind of exceptionalism described above. Instead, Ukrainians should seek to preserve what have actually been their most exceptional characteristics – a rare and genuine commitment to pluralism, civic freedom, and human dignity that make Ukraine a cause worth fighting for.

    Matthew Rojansky is director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC; Mykhailo Minakov is associate professor/docent in philosophy and religious studies at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and was a Fulbright-Kennan Scholar in 2012-13.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Western Educated Russian, my 5 cents, 28 June 2015

    That is not today Ukrainians decided to find a way to differentiate themselves from Russians. That is the way how ethnic genesis works. So in the situation when multinational state (USSR) collapsed, Ukrainian national elites became interested in doing so even more. What could be a difference to strong order of Moscow, the answer is illusory freedom.

    Consequentially, Ukrainian mass media and even academic sources such as Yale draw a picture of Russia as a place where there is a fallout of human rights, corruption, and democracy and at the same time whitening Ukrainian far right guys as a fighters against "double evil" of communists and fascists.

    The reality of course is different. Russia is just a powerful player that is emerged after collapse of Soviet Union while Ukraine failed to do so. Russians respect Ukrainians and Ukrainian language, and what is more important overall have more freedoms that even Westerns do. The only thing Russians care about is comparative advantage. Ukrainian politics is irresponsible, and thus destabilize the whole region of Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union.

    It is actually not so funny because the US thinks about itself as a warrant of stability. In reality stability of many Eurasian territories in the hands of Russia. We should not forget civil war in Tadjikistan, war between Georgia and Ossetia, Armenia and Azerbaidjan. All those conflicts were stopped because of Russia's actions. If Ukraine won (= lose anyway), there will be hundreds of different uncontrolled conflicts, economic downfall and millions of additional immigrants to Europe.

    Whether Europeans like it or not, it is better to have strong Russia with good relationship that can guarantee stability over many territories than one more Africa with nuclear weapon on the backyard and Greece (sorry Ukraine).

    Jim Kovpak , OUN, 28 June 2015

    The OUN thing pisses me off when they say Ukraine has the right to define its own heroes- excuse me, but when did these "heroes" represent Ukraine? The OUN and UPA never attracted more than a fraction of Ukrainians even in the region where it was most popular, and even then many people were conscripted into its ranks. Later, many of them deserted in droves, including a large number who switched to the Soviet side.

    But it is not simply to appease the population in the East that these organizations should be condemned. They have a clear connection to the Holocaust via the role the OUN-B played in organizing the militia and Ukrainian police who took part in pogroms that killed thousands of Jews. Many of those police personnel then ended up in the ranks of the UPA. Add to that the ethnic cleansing of Poles and you see why these thugs, which DO NOT represent Ukraine, don't deserve to be called heroes.

    Eastern Ukrainians are always told they need to give up the past, so why can't these other people give up that past, which in most cases doesn't have anything to do with them?

    Of course many Ukrainians I talk to swear up and down that Bandera and the OUN aren't really so popular in post-Maidan Ukraine -- okay then, watch what happens when someone says people ought not to fly the flags and there shouldn't be memorials to the OUN and UPA. Suddenly the Bandera-cultists emerge from the woodwork, enraged. It's a lot like defenders of the Confederate flag in the US.

    The EIA's Questionable Numbers - Peak Oil BarrelPeak Oil Barrel

    "...For the past three years, Saudi domestic energy demand has been rising by about 8% due to an expanding population and new construction and large-scale projects. More than 25% of the country's crude is consumed domestically by cars, planes, homes and businesses, a figure that rises in the summer and is almost double what the kingdom used in the early part of the last decade. The kingdom's population has increased 17% since 2005, faster than most developed countries."
    "...Based on most recent EIA data, the US is still dependent on net crude oil imports for about 40% of the crude + condensate (C+C) processed daily in US refineries, and a plausible estimate is that our existing C+C production is declining at about 20%/year (we have to run very fast to stay in place production-wise). The US is one of about 157 net oil importing countries in the world. "
    "...I am surprised that most people don't seem to notice how things are taking a turn for the worse lately. At the same time the world is radicalizing, (Isis, Syriza, French National Front, Spanish Podemos, etc) and the world economy is worsening (Greek bankruptcy, fake recovery, world commerce diminishing, China growth reducing). To me is like seeing storm clouds approaching. "

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 07/02/2015 at 6:47 am
    The WSJ has discovered "Net Export Math."

    WSJ: As Saudis Keep Pumping, Thirst for Domestic Oil Swells
    Kingdom is poised to break records for crude output, but its ravenous energy needs threaten its ability to ramp up exports

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-saudis-keep-pumping-thirst-for-domestic-oil-swells-1435786552

    RIYADH-Saudi Arabia is poised to break records for oil production this summer, analysts said, as domestic-energy needs soar during its scorching summer and the holy month of Ramadan and threaten its ability to ramp up exports.

    Saudi Arabia has said it produced a near-record 10.3 million barrels a day in May, a mark that industry observers said could increase to 11 million barrels this summer as air-conditioning use increases with temperatures reaching 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The country has the ability to produce 12.3 million barrels a day for 90 days, but it has never pumped this much. Saudi output averaged 9.22 million barrels a day from 2006 to 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Most of its oil is exported.

    For the past three years, Saudi domestic energy demand has been rising by about 8% due to an expanding population and new construction and large-scale projects. More than 25% of the country's crude is consumed domestically by cars, planes, homes and businesses, a figure that rises in the summer and is almost double what the kingdom used in the early part of the last decade. The kingdom's population has increased 17% since 2005, faster than most developed countries.

    At this pace, the kingdom would have to start importing oil by 2030, Citigroup Inc. has predicted, a once unthinkable prospect for the linchpin of the world's oil market. Khalid al-Falih, the current chairman and former chief executive of the kingdom's state-owned oil company, Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Saudi Aramco, said in 2011 that, if left unchecked, domestic energy consumption would rise to 8.2 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.

    Link to my comment on BP + EIA data on Saudi Arabia's net exports:

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/bakken-april-production-data/comment-page-1/#comment-521843

    Marcus, 07/02/2015 at 7:21 am
    Whilst the Saudi population in common with the rest of the middle east has grown substantially and its consumption with it in recent years I sometimes wonder if we are dealing with a case of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf aka Baghdad Bob or Comical Ali.
    What I mean by that is that hyping their production level is such an important part of their bragging rights that they are willing to do so even when it is clearly not in their interest. Well before the US shale boom they were apt to do this even when logic would dictate that they talk down their production (obviously the quota system also plays a significant role). When their production finally nose dives I think they will claim the same or higher production while increasing their consumption estimates more and more in fact this will likely be the message that all the last great net oil exporters will give us towards the end.
    Jeffrey J. Brown, 07/02/2015 at 7:28 am
    Interesting admission by Khalid al-Falih:

    Reuters (January, 2015): Saudi Aramco to renegotiate some contracts on low oil price -CEO

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/27/saudi-oil-aramco-idUSL6N0V60Z320150127

    Jan 27 (Reuters) – Saudi Aramco will renegotiate some contracts and postpone some projects due to falling oil prices, the head of Saudi Arabia's state oil company said on Tuesday, stressing the top crude exporter will not single handedly balance the global oil market. . . .

    Saudi Aramco Chief Executive Khalid al-Falih, speaking at a conference in Riyadh, did not specify which projects or contracts would be affected by low prices. . . .

    Falih said the imbalance in the oil market had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, and a fair price is what would ultimately balance supply and demand, a sign Riyadh is sticking to its strategy of allowing the market to stabilise itself.

    "Saudi Arabia has a policy, the policy is set by the government through the Ministry of Petroleum, and they have said that Saudi Arabia will not single handedly balance the market," he said.

    "The math will tell you that our exports are gradually declining. So the reason for the imbalance in the market absolutely has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia."

    old farmer mac, 07/02/2015 at 7:48 am
    The politics of oil prices are complicated indeed.

    While the Saudis have plenty of reasons to want to put the screws to the Russians they can't trust the rest of OPEC to honor the cartel's production sharing decisions.

    But it appears they are willing to cut a deal with the Russians who do have at least ONE thing in common with them. They both want a higher price for their oil.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/saudi-arabia-leaving-u-behind-215428719.html;_ylt=AwrC0F9wMJVVCHUA4SyTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–

    By the way " our" Jeff Brown and host Ron ought to be on the talking head shows. The fact that they aren't proves that the MSM is not really competent, perhaps by choice, when it comes to energy.

    I am an hopeless amateur when it comes to oil compared to the pros who hang out here but to the best of my knowledge the Russians have until recently always done what they promised in terms of delivering oil and gas.

    I predict that if they cut a deal with the Saudis to cut production they will honor it.

    shallow sand, 07/02/2015 at 9:05 am
    Jeffrey, are the other Gulf OPEC states similar to KSA, in that their exported oil is also falling due to rising internal consumption?
    Jeffrey J. Brown, 07/02/2015 at 10:00 am
    I can shoot you the data base for the (2005) Top 33 net exporters. It's only updated through 2013 (still waiting on EIA consumption data), and there have been some revisions since we compiled the data base.

    My email: westexas AT aol Dot com.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out, what almost everyone is missing is the enormous difference between rates of change in production and CNE (Cumulative Net Exports) depletion*. I estimate that we may have already burned through around 30% of post-2005 Global CNE.

    *As combined production from the Six County Case History increased by 2% from 1995 to 1999, they had already shipped 54% of post-1995 CNE (major net exporters, excluding China, that hit or approached zero net exports from 1980 to 2010).

    AlexS , 07/02/2015 at 10:24 am
    the decline in net exports was largely offset by the drop in US net imports
    Jeffrey J. Brown, , 07/02/2015 at 10:42 am
    The decline in US net imports certainly affected the demand for Global Net Exports of oil (GNE*). But within OECD countries, we also had some countries with increasing net imports, e.g., the UK.

    Of course, on the demand side, the key factor has been the ongoing decline in what I define as Available Net Exports (GNE less Chindia's Net Imports, CNI). ANE fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013, and BP/EIA data indicate that the ANE decline probably continued in 2014.

    Based on most recent EIA data, the US is still dependent on net crude oil imports for about 40% of the crude + condensate (C+C) processed daily in US refineries, and a plausible estimate is that our existing C+C production is declining at about 20%/year (we have to run very fast to stay in place production-wise). The US is one of about 157 net oil importing countries in the world.

    Based on current trends (rate of decline in GNE/CNI Ratio), in about 16 years China & India alone would theoretically consume 100% of GNE, leaving no net exports available to about 155 net oil importing countries.

    *Combined net exports from top 33 net exporters in 2005 (EIA)

    Javier, 07/02/2015 at 6:24 pm
    So we have current trends saying that:
    – Saudi Arabia will become a net importer in 15 years.
    – China & India are to consume 100% of net exports in 16 years.

    As those trends become unsustainable, we are going to have lots of interesting things happening during the next decade.

    I am surprised that most people don't seem to notice how things are taking a turn for the worse lately. At the same time the world is radicalizing, (Isis, Syriza, French National Front, Spanish Podemos, etc) and the world economy is worsening (Greek bankruptcy, fake recovery, world commerce diminishing, China growth reducing). To me is like seeing storm clouds approaching.

    Paulo, 07/02/2015 at 8:35 am
    Terrific confirmation, Jeffrey. I have sent your comments on to others many times these past few years. Unfortunately, the confirmation by a major MSM publication is what John Q Public needs to see in order to accept reality. I have already sent it on!!

    [Jul 02, 2015] Shale Drillers About To Be Zero Hedged As Loss Protection Expires

    "...access to cheap cash via capital markets allows otherwise insolvent producers to keep drilling even as prices collapse, creating what are effectively zombie companies (to use Matt King's words) on the way to delaying the Schumpeterian endgame and embedding an enormous amount of risk in HY credit by flooding the market with supply just as demand from investors (who are delirious from hunger after being starved of yield by the Fed) peaks and secondary market liquidity continues to dry up. "
    "...Thanks to SEC rules on how drillers are required to value their reserves, producers are effectively forced to overstate the value of their O&G businesses by nearly two-thirds, which can lead unsophisticated investors who don't bother to read the 10K fine print to believe that the businesses are healthier than they actually are. "
    "...The insurance that producers bought before the collapse in oil -- much of which guaranteed minimum prices of $90 a barrel or more -- is expiring. As they do, investors are left to wonder how these companies will make up the $3.7 billion the hedges earned them in the first quarter after crude sunk below $60 from a peak of $107 in mid-2014."
    "...The hedges staved off an acute shortage of cash for shale companies and helped keep lenders from cutting credit lines, many of which are up for renewal in October. With drillers burdened by interest payments on $235 billion of debt, $89 billion of it high-yield, a U.S. regulator has warned banks to beware of the "emerging risk" of lending to energy companies."
    "...In short, the last line of defense against terminal cash burn for the beleaguered US shale complex is about to fall and when it does, it's going to take bank credit lines down with it. "
    Jul 02, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    In many ways, the US shale industry is emblematic of why failing to normalize monetary policy after seven years of largesse can be extremely dangerous.

    As discussed at length in these pages and then subsequently everywhere else, access to cheap cash via capital markets allows otherwise insolvent producers to keep drilling even as prices collapse, creating what are effectively zombie companies (to use Matt King's words) on the way to delaying the Schumpeterian endgame and embedding an enormous amount of risk in HY credit by flooding the market with supply just as demand from investors (who are delirious from hunger after being starved of yield by the Fed) peaks and secondary market liquidity continues to dry up.

    This dynamic has served to create a supply glut in a number of industries and has suppressed commodity prices in a self-feeding deflationary loop.

    Thanks to SEC rules on how drillers are required to value their reserves, producers are effectively forced to overstate the value of their O&G businesses by nearly two-thirds, which can lead unsophisticated investors who don't bother to read the 10K fine print to believe that the businesses are healthier than they actually are.

    Furthermore, the next round of revolver raids for the industry isn't due until October, meaning investors may also believe the industry has easier access to liquidity than it actually does. As a reminder:

    As if all of the above weren't enough, there's yet another reason why the shale default cascade has thus far been forestalled, giving many the impression that perhaps a "crude" awakening (pardon the terrible pun) has been averted: hedges.

    Here's Bloomberg with more on why some US shale drillers may soon be zero hedged (ahem):

    The insurance protecting shale drillers against plummeting prices has become so crucial that for one company, SandRidge Energy Inc., payments from the hedges accounted for a stunning 64 percent of first-quarter revenue.

    Now the safety net is going away.

    The insurance that producers bought before the collapse in oil -- much of which guaranteed minimum prices of $90 a barrel or more -- is expiring. As they do, investors are left to wonder how these companies will make up the $3.7 billion the hedges earned them in the first quarter after crude sunk below $60 from a peak of $107 in mid-2014.

    "A year ago, you could hedge at $85 to $90, and now it's in the low $60s," said Chris Lang, a senior vice president with Asset Risk Management, a hedging adviser for more than 100 exploration and production companies. "Next year it's really going to come to a head."

    The hedges staved off an acute shortage of cash for shale companies and helped keep lenders from cutting credit lines, many of which are up for renewal in October. With drillers burdened by interest payments on $235 billion of debt, $89 billion of it high-yield, a U.S. regulator has warned banks to beware of the "emerging risk" of lending to energy companies.

    Payments from hedges accounted for at least 15 percent of first-quarter revenue at 30 of the 62 oil and gas companies in the Bloomberg Intelligence North America Exploration and Production Index. Revenue, already down 37 percent in the last year, will fall further as drillers cash out contracts that paid $90 a barrel even when oil fell below $44.

    For SandRidge and other drillers, the hedges, required by some lenders, gave them enough time to cut spending. Costs in shale fields have fallen by 20 to 30 percent and productivity has increased as producers moved rigs to the most prolific regions. Producers were able to raise about $44 billion in equity and debt in the first quarter, according to UBS AG.

    "That postponed the day of reckoning," said Carl Tricoli, co-founder of private-equity firm Denham Capital Management.

    At Goodrich Petroleum Corp., hedges accounted for 35 percent of revenue in the first three months of 2015. Most of its insurance runs out at the end of the year, company records show.

    In short, the last line of defense against terminal cash burn for the beleaguered US shale complex is about to fall and when it does, it's going to take bank credit lines down with it.

    This means October is the expiration date for heavily indebted US drillers and perhaps for HY credit as well, because once the defaults begin in earnest and HY spreads start to blow out, the BTFD-ing retail crowd will head for the exits, triggering a very non-diversifiable, unidirectional flow for bond fund managers who will then be forced to hold their noses and dive into the ever-thinner secondary corporate credit market.

    It is precisely at that point when everyone's worst nightmares about shrinking dealer inventories and illiquid credit markets will suddenly be realized.

    The Shape

    Someone's getting what they want.

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/the-eias-questionable-numbers/

    [Jul 01, 2015] A Short History: The Neocon Clean Break Grand Design The Regime Change Disasters It Has Fostered

    zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Dan Sanchez via AntiWar.com,

    To understand today's crises in Iraq, Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, one must grasp their shared Lebanese connection. This assertion may seem odd. After all, what is the big deal about Lebanon? That little country hasn't had top headlines since Israel deigned to bomb and invade it in 2006. Yet, to a large extent, the roots of the bloody tangle now enmeshing the Middle East lie in Lebanon: or to be more precise, in the Lebanon policy of Israel.

    Rewind to the era before the War on Terror. In 1995, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's "dovish" Prime Minister, was assassinated by a right-wing zealot. This precipitated an early election in which Rabin's Labor Party was defeated by the ultra-hawkish Likud, lifting hardliner Benjamin Netanyahu to his first Premiership in 1996.

    That year, an elite study group produced a policy document for the incipient administration titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." The membership of the Clean Break study group is highly significant, as it included American neoconservatives who would later hold high offices in the Bush Administration and play driving roles in its Middle East policy.

    "A Clean Break" advised that the new Likud administration adopt a "shake it off" attitude toward the policy of the old Labor administration which, as the authors claimed, assumed national "exhaustion" and allowed national "retreat." This was the "clean break" from the past that "A Clean Break" envisioned. Regarding Israel's international policy, this meant:

    "…a clean break from the slogan, 'comprehensive peace' to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power."

    Pursuit of comprehensive peace with all of Israel's neighbors was to be abandoned for selective peace with some neighbors (namely Jordan and Turkey) and implacable antagonism toward others (namely Iraq, Syria, and Iran). The weight of its strategic allies would tip the balance of power in favor of Israel, which could then use that leverage to topple the regimes of its strategic adversaries by using covertly managed "proxy forces" and "the principle of preemption." Through such a "redrawing of the map of the Middle East," Israel will "shape the regional environment," and thus, "Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them."

    "A Clean Break" was to Israel (and ultimately to the US) what Otto von Bismarck's "Blood and Iron" speech was to Germany. As he set the German Empire on a warpath that would ultimately set Europe ablaze, Bismarck said:

    "Not through speeches and majority decisions will the great questions of the day be decided?-?that was the great mistake of 1848 and 1849?-?but by iron and blood."

    Before setting Israel and the US on a warpath that would ultimately set the Middle East ablaze, the Clean Break authors were basically saying: Not through peace accords will the great questions of the day be decided?-?that was the great mistake of 1978 (at Camp David) and 1993 (at Oslo)?-?but by "divide and conquer" and regime change. By wars both aggressive ("preemptive") and "dirty" (covert and proxy).


    "A Clean Break" slated Saddam Hussein's Iraq as first up for regime change. This is highly significant, especially since several members of the Clean Break study group played decisive roles in steering and deceiving the United States into invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam seven years later.

    Perle-Richard-AEI

    The Clean Break study group's leader, Richard Perle, led the call for Iraqi regime change beginning in the 90s from his perch at the Project for a New American Century and other neocon think tanks. And while serving as chairman of a high level Pentagon advisory committee, Perle helped coordinate the neoconservative takeover of foreign policy in the Bush administration and the final push for war in Iraq.

    douglas_feith

    Another Clean Breaker, Douglas Feith, was a Perle protege and a key player in that neocon coup. After 9/11, as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Feith created two secret Pentagon offices tasked with cherry-picking, distorting, and repackaging CIA and Pentagon intelligence to help make the case for war.

    Feith's "Office of Special Plans" manipulated intelligence to promote the falsehood that Saddam had a secret weapons of mass destruction program that posed an imminent chemical, biological, and even nuclear threat. This lie was the main justification used by the Bush administration for the Iraq War.

    Feith's "Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group" trawled through the CIA's intelligence trash to stitch together far-fetched conspiracy theories linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, among other bizarre pairings. Perle put the Group into contact with Ahmed Chalabi, a dodgy anti-Saddam Iraqi exile who would spin even more yarn of this sort.

    news-graphics-2007-_647148a

    Much of the Group's grunt work was performed by David Wurmser, another Perle protege and the primary author of "A Clean Break." Wurmser would go on to serve as an advisor to two key Iraq War proponents in the Bush administration: John Bolton at the State Department and Vice President Dick Cheney.

    The foregone conclusions generated by these Clean Breaker-led projects faced angry but ineffectual resistance from the Intelligence Community, and are now widely considered scandalously discredited. But they succeeded in helping, perhaps decisively, to overcome both bureaucratic and public resistance to the march to war.

    On the second night of war against Iraq, bombs fall on government buildings located in the heart of Baghdad along the Tigris River.  Multiple bombs left several buildings in flames and others completely destroyed.

    The Iraq War that followed put the Clean Break into action by grafting it onto America. The War accomplished the Clean Break objective of regime change in Iraq, thus beginning the "redrawing of the map of the Middle East." And the attendant "Bush Doctrine" of preemptive war accomplished the Clean Break objective of "reestablishing the principle of preemption"


    But why did the Netanyahu/Bush Clean Breakers want to regime change Iraq in the first place? While reference is often made to "A Clean Break" as a prologue to the Iraq War, it is often forgotten that the document proposed regime change in Iraq primarily as a "means" of "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." Overthrowing Saddam in Iraq was merely a stepping stone to "foiling" and ultimately overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in neighboring Syria. As Pat Buchanan put it:

    "In the Perle-Feith-Wurmser strategy, Israel's enemy remains Syria, but the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad."

    Exactly how this was to work is baffling. As the document admitted, although both were Baathist regimes, Assad and Saddam were far more enemies than allies. "A Clean Break" floated a convoluted pipe dream involving a restored Hashemite monarchy in Iraq (the same US-backed, pro-Israel dynasty that rules Jordan) using its sway over an Iraqi cleric to turn his co-religionists in Syria against Assad. Instead, the neocons ended up settling for a different pipe(line) dream, sold to them by that con-man Chalabi, involving a pro-Israel, Chalabi-dominated Iraq building a pipeline from Mosul to Haifa. One only wonders why he didn't sweeten the deal by including the Brooklyn Bridge in the sale.

    As incoherent as it may have been, getting at Syria through Iraq is what the neocons wanted. And this is also highly significant for us today, because the US has now fully embraced the objective of regime change in Syria, even with Barack Obama inhabiting the White House instead of George W. Bush.

    Washington is pursuing that objective by partnering with Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf States in supporting the anti-Assad insurgency in Syria's bloody civil war, and thereby majorly abetting the bin Ladenites (Syrian Al Qaeda and ISIS) leading that insurgency. Obama has virtually become an honorary Clean Breaker by pursuing a Clean Break objective ("rolling back Syria") using Clean Break strategy ("balance of power" alliances with select Muslim states) and Clean Break tactics (a covert and proxy "dirty war"). Of course the neocons are the loudest voices calling for the continuance and escalation of this policy. And Israel is even directly involving itself by providing medical assistance to Syrian insurgents, including Al Qaeda fighters.


    Another target identified by "A Clean Break" was Iran. This is highly significant, since while the neocons were still riding high in the Bush administration's saddle, they came within an inch of launching a US war on Iran over yet another manufactured and phony WMD crisis. While the Obama administration seems on the verge of finalizing a nuclear/peace deal with the Iranian government in Tehran, the neocons and Netanyahu himself (now Prime Minister once again) have pulled out all the stops to scupper it and put the US and Iran back on a collision course.

    The neocons are also championing ongoing American support for Saudi Arabia's brutal war in Yemen to restore that country's US-backed former dictator. Simply because the "Houthi" rebels that overthrew him and took the capital city of Sanaa are Shiites, they are assumed to be a proxy of the Shiite Iranians, and so this is seen by neocons and Saudi theocons alike as a war against Iranian expansion.

    Baghdad is a pit stop on the road to Damascus, and Sanaa is a pit stop on the road to Tehran. But, according to the Clean Breakers, Damascus and Tehran are themselves merely pit stops on the road to Beirut.

    According to "A Clean Break," Israel's main beef with Assad is that:

    "Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil."

    And its great grief with the Ayatollah is that Iran, like Syria, is one of the:

    "…principal agents of aggression in Lebanon…"


    All regime change roads lead to Lebanon, it would seem. So this brings us back to our original question. What is the big deal about Lebanon?

    The answer to this question goes back to Israel's very beginnings. Its Zionist founding fathers established the bulk of Israel's territory by dispossessing and ethnically cleansing three-quarters of a million Palestinian Arabs in 1948. Hundreds of thousands of these were driven (sometimes literally in trucks, sometimes force marched with gunshots fired over their heads) into Lebanon, where they were gathered in miserable refugee camps.

    In Lebanon the Palestinians who had fled suffered an apartheid state almost as rigid as the one Israel imposed on those who stayed behind, because the dominant Maronite Christians there were so protective of their political and economic privileges in Lebanon's confessional system.

    In a 1967 war of aggression, Israel conquered the rest of formerly-British Palestine, annexing the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and placing the Palestinians there (many of whom fled there seeking refuge after their homes were taken by the Israelis in 1948) under a brutal, permanent military occupation characterized by continuing dispossession and punctuated by paroxysms of mass murder.

    This compounding of their tragedy drove the Palestinians to despair and radicalization, and they subsequently lifted Yasser Arafat and his fedayeen (guerrilla) movement to the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), then headquartered in Jordan.

    When the king of Jordan massacred and drove out the PLO, Arafat and the remaining members relocated to Lebanon. There they waged cross-border guerrilla warfare to try to drive Israel out of the occupied territories. The PLO drew heavily from the refugee camps in Lebanon for recruits.

    This drew Israel deeply into Lebanese affairs. In 1976, Israel started militarily supporting the Maronite Christians, helping to fuel a sectarian civil war that had recently begun and would rage until 1990. That same year, Syrian forces entered Lebanon, partook in the war, and began a military occupation of the country.

    In 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon to drive the PLO back and to recruit a proxy army called the "South Lebanon Army" (SLA).

    1101820816_400

    In 1982 Israel launched a full scale war in Lebanon, fighting both Syria and the PLO. Osama bin Laden later claimed that it was seeing the wreckage of tall buildings in Beirut toppled by Israel's "total war" tactics that inspired him to destroy American buildings like the Twin Towers.

    In this war, Israel tried to install a group of Christian Fascists called the Phalange in power over Lebanon. This failed when the new Phalangist ruler was assassinated. As a reprisal, the Phalange perpetrated, with Israeli connivance, the massacre of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Palestinian refugees and Lebanese Shiites. (See Murray Rothbard's moving contemporary coverage of the atrocity.)

    60

    Israel's 1982 war succeeded in driving the PLO out of Lebanon, although not in destroying it. And of course hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees still linger in Lebanon's camps, yearning for their right of return: a fact that cannot have escaped Israel's notice.

    The Lebanese Shiites were either ambivalent or welcoming toward being rid of the PLO. But Israel rapidly squandered whatever patience the Shiites had for it by brutally occupying southern Lebanon for years. This led to the creation of Hezbollah, a Shiite militia not particularly concerned with the plight of the Sunni Palestinian refugees, but staunchly dedicated to driving Israel and its proxies (the SLA) completely out of Lebanon.

    Aided by Syria and Iran, though not nearly to the extent Israel would have us believe, Hezbollah became the chief defensive force directly frustrating Israel's efforts to dominate and exploit its northern neighbor. In 1993 and again in 1996 (the year of "A Clean Break"), Israel launched still more major military operations in Lebanon, chiefly against Hezbollah, but also bombing Lebanon's general population and infrastructure, trying to use terrorism to motivate the people and the central government to crack down on Hezbollah.

    This is the context of "A Clean Break": Israel's obsession with crushing Hezbollah and dominating Lebanon, even if it means turning most of the Middle East upside down (regime changing Syria, Iran, and Iraq) to do it.


    9/11 paved the way for realizing the Clean Break, using the United States as a gigantic proxy, thanks to the Israel Lobby's massive influence in Congress and the neocons' newly won dominance in the Bush Administration.

    Much to their chagrin, however, its first phase (the Iraq War) did not turn out so well for the Clean Breakers. The blundering American grunts ended up installing the most vehemently pro-Iran Shiite faction in power in Baghdad, and now Iranian troops are even stationed and fighting inside Iraq. Oops. And as it turns out, Chalabi may have been an Iranian agent all along. (But don't worry, Mr. Perle, I'm sure he'll eventually come through with that pipeline.)

    This disastrous outcome has given both Israel and Saudi Arabia nightmares about an emerging "Shia Crescent" arcing from Iran through Iraq into Syria. And now the new Shiite "star" in Yemen completes this menacing "Star and Crescent" picture. The fears of the Sunni Saudis are partially based on sectarianism. But what Israel sees in this picture is a huge potential regional support network for its nemesis Hezbollah.

    060731_DOMCNNL1R1

    Israel would have none of it. In 2006, it launched its second full scale war in Lebanon, only to be driven back once again by that damned Hezbollah. It was time to start thinking big and regional again. As mentioned above, the Bush war on Iran didn't pan out. (This was largely because the CIA got its revenge on the neocons by releasing a report stating plainly that Iran was not anything close to a nuclear threat.) So instead the neocons and the Saudis drew the US into what Seymour Hersh called "the Redirection" in 2007, which involved clandestine "dirty war" support for Sunni jihadists to counter Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.

    When the 2011 Arab Spring wave of popular uprisings spread to Syria, the Redirection was put into overdrive. The subsequent US-led dirty war discussed above had the added bonus of drawing Hezbollah into the bloody quagmire to try to save Assad, whose regime now finally seems on the verge of collapse.

    The Clean Break is back, baby! Assad is going, Saddam is gone, and who knows: the Ayatollah may never get his nuclear deal anyway. But most importantly for "securing the realm," Hezbollah is on the ropes.

    shocking-images-iraq-war-001 3.23.13

    And so what if the Clean Break was rather messy and broke so many bodies and buildings along the way? Maybe it's like what Lenin said about omelets and eggs: you just can't make a Clean Break without breaking a few million Arabs and a few thousand Americans. And what about all those fanatics now running rampant throughout large swaths of the world thanks to the Clean Break wars, mass-executing Muslim "apostates" and Christian "infidels" and carrying out terrorist attacks on westerners? Again, the Clean Breakers must remind themselves, keep your eye on the omelet and forget the eggs.

    Well, dear reader, you and I are the eggs. And if we don't want to see our world broken any further by the imperial clique of murderers in Washington for the sake of the petty regional ambitions of a tiny clique of murderers in Tel Aviv, we must insist on American politics making a clean break from the neocons, and US foreign policy making a clean break from Israel.

    [Jun 30, 2015] Russian culture minister calls for tax on Hollywood films

    Jun 30, 2015 | The Guardian

    DavidEG 30 Jun 2015 00:26

    They (Hollywood staple) should be taxed the same way as tobacco or controlled substances. Full of violence, harmful to mental well-being of children an adults alike.

    HollyOldDog wereallfuckedboy 29 Jun 2015 18:54

    The UK government should have given the Hollywood WWW2 films the the J rating for JUNK.

    Doors2distant 29 Jun 2015 18:29

    What an excellent idea, the quality can only improve. No car chases, cop porn, war porn or saccharin sentimentality.

    Ieuan 29 Jun 2015 17:15

    " he wants to introduce a sales tax that will be used to increase funds for local productions."

    In just about every market Hollywood films gross the most. But in many markets (fewer and fewer as US companies take over their own local distribution) they are distributed by local distributors, who then invest some of their profits into local productions - hence some of the Hollywood blockbusters' moneymaking gets routed into supporting the local industry.

    If (as I suspect) the Russian distributors of Hollywood product are owned by Hollywood studios, and do not produce anything locally, then I think it's fair enough that the government steps in and routes some of the money made into local industry.

    olliemaple 29 Jun 2015 16:52

    Exceptionally right decision indeed. It's only fair that whoever watches that Hollywood crap should be extra taxed in favor of positive domestic productions. Not unlike cigarette sales.

    Alderbaran 29 Jun 2015 10:36

    Many Russian films could be considered to be great and to me trump much of what comes out of Hollywood. However, it was a shame that Medinsky saw no merit in Leviathan and I'm probably one of many who see Medinsky's actions as political in nature, especially given the criterea for state funding of films in Russia.

    It is a shame to see the state increasingly policing the film industry in Russia but I'm certain that creative directors will still be able to work within the constraints.

    Tilipon -> dropthemchammer 29 Jun 2015 08:24

    countries who passed through state coup. Look in root but not in a peak...

    [Jun 29, 2015] Russian sanctions blockback

    www.unz.com
    Fern , June 29, 2015 at 3:21 am
    It would take a heart of stone not to laugh. What's the word I'm looking for? Ah yes, schadenfreude:-

    "In 2015, the German economy is estimated to lose up to 290,000 jobs and receive $10 billion less than it could due to restrictive measure imposed on Moscow, the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations told Contra Magazine. German exports to Russia last year fell by $7.2 billion.
    "The current developments exceed our worst fears," committee chairman Eckhard Cordes said.
    This nasty short-term implication of an unreasonable Western policy towards Russia is affecting many European countries, not only the largest economy in the EU. In total, the European Union could potentially lose as much as $110 billion and up to 2 million jobs from the anti-Russian sanctions, according to the committee's estimates.

    But the long-term consequences are far more profound and damaging. German businesses now fear that their reliable and long-time Russian partners have pivoted to Asia, specifically China.

    German businesses are concerned that this shift could be permanent. By the time restrictive measures are lifted, former ties and partnerships could be long gone."

    http://sputniknews.com/business/20150629/1023973728.html

    "Former ties and partnerships could be gone". You bet. What's it gonna take before Europe's so called leaders wake up to the fact that US sanctions aren't just about trying to destroy Russia's economy, but also about doing serious, possibly terminal damage to the European one?

    [Jun 29, 2015] The current round of sanctions, it reports, was designed not to have too much impact on the Russian economy so that a threat of harsher sanctions could be applied.

    "...A good indication that MH17 was made to order by NATO."
    Patient Observer , June 27, 2015 at 6:20 am
    Did we expect anything less?
    http://rt.com/news/251889-us-russia-war-attrition/

    Apparently things went sour with Russia when:

    " US diplomats say Russia changed the cooperative stance it assumed after the collapse of the Soviet Union and is now using force to defend its national interests, the paper said. The change is attributed to the personality of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who, Washington expects, will remain in power until at least 2024.

    The change became apparent with the conflict in Ukraine, but was emerging since at least the 2008 conflict in South Ossetia, when Russia used military force after Georgia sent its army to subdue the rebellious region, killing Russian peacekeepers in the process.

    Washington's solution to the new Russia is keeping sanctions pressure on it while luring its neighbors away with economic aid and investment, La Stampa said. The current round of sanctions, it reports, was designed not to have too much impact on the Russian economy so that a threat of harsher sanctions could be applied. "

    Very fiendish plan indeed except for one small problem – the US economy is floating in the toilet and the Russians and the Chinese are about to pull the lever via dedollarization. Oh well.

    kirill, June 27, 2015 at 6:45 am
    The western media produces nothing but propaganda. The US stages a coup in Ukraine and then has its quislings launch a war of terror in the Donbas where at least 25,000 civilians are dead as a direct, intended result but all we hear is about Putin and his aggression. What sick, delusional shit for "analysis". By helping Donbas residents defend themselves from an obvious ethnic cleansing attempt, Russia is the "aggressor". This is pure 1984 newspeak in action.

    The US is going off the deep end because its economy is going to collapse. All the offshoring of jobs has a price. The trickle down economy of merchant resale of Chinese imports can't really substitute for the original economy since all the good jobs lost.

    marknesop, June 27, 2015 at 4:08 pm
    Yeah, right. We were just kidding about sanctions – those were just the kiddie sanctions. We were hoping not to have to do the real ones.

    In actuality, the USA poured on as much leverage as it could get away with, without its European partners screaming like girl scouts who see a snake. The U.S. government knows that what you need is momentum, so a good hard punch to start things off and then you just wade in swinging until your man goes down. If they didn't follow that pattern it's because they couldn't, not because they didn't want to or felt merciful.

    ThatJ , June 27, 2015 at 5:39 pm
    I agree, the sanctions were no joking matter. The US targeted the energy, arms and finance industries in a single blow after Russia didn't "cooperate".
    marknesop, June 27, 2015 at 8:21 pm
    Precisely. They meant to make Russia stagger, and then to keep up the momentum until it fell over. Not to say they could not have imposed worse sanctions, but not without directly and visibly affecting European economies as well, to a degree the European public would not tolerate.

    Worse sanctions are just bluster – the effort has failed, and keeping the campfire-girls sanctions they have already in effect will constitute a long-term benefit to Russia and long-term damage to the EU, as Russia establishes other markets. Brand loyalty only lasts until customers find something else they like.

    kirill, June 27, 2015 at 9:05 pm
    The really hilarious thing is that it was the US and its propaganda factory media that undermined the sanctions long before they were ever implemented. They scared off investment in Russia and Russian investment in the west. So all the pain they were expecting from "cutting Russia off" never happened. The west is truly led by retards.
    astabada, June 28, 2015 at 3:58 am
    but not without directly and visibly affecting European economies as well, to a degree the European public would not tolerate.

    This is, incidentally, the reason why the US badly needs an open Russian intervention in Ukraine.

    Let's remember once again that the first round of sanctions was passed on the aftermath of MH17. A round of tougher ones would require a bigger tragedy still.

    kirill, June 28, 2015 at 6:53 am
    A good indication that MH17 was made to order by NATO.

    [Jun 29, 2015]Could Armenia Be The Next Ukraine

    Jun 29, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    ...As in other former Soviet countries, the energy behemoth ENA remains a heavily mismanaged enterprise. This was confirmed by a recent probe, in which the energy regulator has found that suppliers and traders often use shady intermediaries to push energy managers to inflate procurement costs or steal electricity. This has led to more than EUR 70 million in losses for the company in just the last three years, according to the energy ministry.

    The company's overall debt has reached $250 million. Initially, ENA has suggested a 40 percent increase in electricity tariffs in order to cover its obligations. The government of the pro-Russian president Serge Sargsyan and the quasi-independent energy regulator initially refused but ultimately had to accept a 16.7 percent rise after a series of high-level visits from Moscow. Although the government has confirmed the results of the regulator's investigation, it has decided to look the other way.

    Even after the hike, power tariffs would still be just EUR 0.11 cents/kWh, or about half of what average EU households pay. At purchasing power parity, though, their impact on household budgets is much greater. According to a World Bank study, Armenians spend around 8% of their income on energy use, while consuming three times less energy per capita than people in Central and Eastern Europe, also a region where energy poverty is a widespread phenomenon.

    In addition, if accepted, this would be the third consecutive power price hike in two years at a time when the economy is facing slow growth and high unemployment rate. The Armenian economy, which is heavily dependent on Russia, has faced a major downturn since the start of economic troubles for its powerful neighbor to the north. Russia is the key destination for labor migrants, who contributed more than 20% of the national income in the form of remittances in 2013 and 11 percent in 2014. In the first five months of 2015, cash transfers have halved.

    The economic link with Russia is most profound in the energy sector. Apart from ENA, the Russian state, through Gazprom, owns 100 percent of the country's wholesale gas supplying company. The bulk of FDI inflows also have Russian origin, and 40 percent of them are targeting the energy sector.

    In addition, Armenia imports almost all of its gas from Russia and natural gas imports comprise around 80 percent of all energy imports. Furthermore, 60 percent of the country's total primary energy supply is derived from natural gas, which is responsible for the majority of residential energy use, especially in big cities.

    However, the increase in gas import prices in 2010 and the subsequent 40 percent hike in household gas tariffs pushed some urban residents to switch from natural gas to electricity for heating, which became comparatively cheaper (about one-fifth of Armenia's electricity is generated from natural gas, with the rest supplied by a number of hydro power plants and a nuclear power plant, which is currently being modernized). Hence, when power prices began to increase, the outrage in the capital, Yerevan, was easy to understand.

    According to the protest leaders, the rallies are not anti-Russian in nature and the main demand of the people is a reversal to the government's power price decision. President Sargsyan seemed have backed down after he told senior officials on 26 June that the government will cover the difference between the old and the new price with budget subsidies until the end of a comprehensive audit of the ENA's activities.

    Protesters, however, seem determined to stay on the streets. Deep-seated mistrust in the government's ability to implement reforms could trigger an impulse for a regime change. This is the biggest fear in Moscow, which sees the current Armenian government as an important ally in its natural backyard. Russia has been able to preserve its influence in the small Caucasian state by expanding its control over key economic sectors. This was done by recruiting senior government officials, who used Russia's influence to limit outside competition and preserve the dominant position of Russian companies in the energy sector.

    If there is a change of guard in Yerevan, the established connections that have served Moscow so well, could crumble. Not surprisingly, similar to the aftermath of Ukraine's Maidan rally in early 2014, Moscow's propaganda has presented the street protests in Yerevan as a Western plot to contain Russia's influence.

    In a sign of full support, Moscow provided the government with $200 million in military aid on 26 June. Armenia relies for its security on the 3,000 Russian troops stationed in the country, which have so far deterred efforts by Azerbaijan to try to reclaim the separatist republic of Nagorno Karabakh, occupied by Armenia during a bloody five-year war in the early 1990s.

    Paradoxically, Russia's attempts to secure its influence and, more importantly, its energy interests in the neighborhood could backfire. While Armenian demonstrators have largely limited, domestic aims, the Russian insistence on turning the protests into an East-West clash could incite protesters to demand that the Armenian government take a sharp turn away from Moscow.

    Faced with such a choice, president Sargsyan might have to abandon his close ties with Kremlin in an attempt to stay in power. This is likely to lead to economic retaliation from Russia such as gas supply cuts. The alternative, though, may be to follow the path of Ukraine's former president, Victor Yanukovych.

    By Martin Vladimirov for Oilprice.com

    [Jun 29, 2015] Everything Russia puts out is actually disinformation, while everything the west puts out, despite being caught lying, is fact

    "... What infuriates me is the assumption that everything Russia puts out as fact is actually disinformation, while everything the west puts out as fact is fact, despite being caught lying again and again and again. Believe us – baby, we've changed."
    "...I also do not really get what the EU is doing. There already exist pro-western propaganda outlets, for example RFE/RL, etc. In Hungary, more than 50% of the media is western owned. So why is more propaganda needed?"
    "...Typical duplication of effort so as to charge the public purse twice over for the same work. The EU produced a marvelous graphic extravaganza intended to lure Ukraine, extolling the virtues of European integration and the salutatory effect it would have on important things like life expectancy, health care, availability of clean water, life expectancy (so important they put it in twice), friendly police instead of extortion-junkies, bla, bla. I encourage everyone to have a look through it from the lens of today, and see how many came true. I especially loved the one about tolerance – mercy, yes; tolerance in Ukraine has certainly taken a leap upward thanks to Europe's beneficial influence. "

    Fern, June 28, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    And the latest news from Inside the Bubble or, the EU as it's sometimes known, is this breathless piece from the Guardian announcing the actions the Bubble leaders are planning to take to counter Russian 'propaganda'.

    "The document, drafted by the EU's diplomatic corps, also calls for efforts to persuade people in countries such as Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova of the benefits of European-style reforms.

    The plan was prepared ahead of the EU summit in Brussels and offers a strategy to provide alternatives sources of information to outlets such as Russia's state-funded RT television, amid an increasingly polarised media environment sparked by the war in Ukraine.

    A communications unit called the East StratCom Team, launched in April, will support EU delegations in the six eastern neighbourhood countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – as well as in Russia itself.

    The main objectives include communicating and promoting "EU policies and values", supporting independent media and increasing awareness of "disinformation activities by external actors".
    The document states that communication towards the east should "first and foremost focus on the development of positive and effective messages regarding EU policies towards the region".
    Brussels needs to spread the message that reforms promoted by the European Union "can, over time, have a positive impact on their daily lives," the action plan says. It stresses that the strategy should highlight the benefits, not the bureaucracy, focusing on clearly explaining the positive effects of EU programmes and policies rather than going into details about the policies."

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/25/eu-russia-propaganda-ukraine

    The author of the paper or report called "The Kremlin's Hall of Mirrors" to which this Guardian article refers is Peter Pomerantsev and everything makes an appearance therein including Putin's troll factory. It goes without saying that everything coming out of Russia is propaganda while everything coming out of the West is the God's Honest Truth. Pure unvarnished facts. Take this snippet where he tells the tale of one Margo Gontar who's involved with StopFake:

    "At times like this, she had always reached out to western media for a sense of something solid, but this was starting to slip too. Whenever somewhere like the BBC or Tagesspiegel published a story, they felt obliged to present the Kremlin's version of events – fascists, western conspiracy, etc – as the other side, for balance. Gontar began to wonder whether her search for certainty was futile: if the truth was constantly shifting before her eyes, and there was always another side to every story, was there anything solid left to hold on to?"

    Yeah, I always reach out to western media for the self-same reasons. And if the BBC's coverage of Ukraine has ever been impartial, well, I must have blinked and missed it.

    In similar vein, Pomerantsev spends a lot of the article ridiculing RT as here:-

    "Presenters rarely challenge the views of "experts" during discussions of subjects such as the Syria conflict – where Moscow has backed President Bashar al-Assad. One regular guest has suggested that the Syrian civil war was "planned in 1997 by Paul Wolfowitz", while another has described the death toll as "a joint production of CIA, MI6, Mossad".

    http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr/09/kremlin-hall-of-mirrors-military-information-psychology

    I take it that Mr Pomerantsev has heard neither of the Yinon plan dating from the 1970's which started that a key part of Israel's foreign policy objectives should be the break-up of the surrounding nation states into mutually hostile ethnic statelets nor the Project for a New American Century, a neo-con outfit in which Wolfowitz played a leading role, that targeted around seven countries, including Iraq and Syria for destruction.

    This is the issue Mr P the EU and NATO are really complaining about – in the past their statements would pass without challenge, but not any longer.

    Pavlo Svolochenko , June 28, 2015 at 7:44 pm
    'Gontar began to wonder whether her search for certainty was futile: if the truth was constantly shifting before her eyes, and there was always another side to every story, was there anything solid left to hold on to?"'

    That's the shreds of your conscience screaming at you to pull your head out of your arse. You know you're full of it – why not quit before you completely damn yourself?

    yalensis , June 29, 2015 at 2:31 am
    Pro-Russian propagandists have found a way to weaponize FACTS. This is the latest form of hybrid warfare. Or maybe multi-brid warfare.

    Anyhow, it gets confusing; on whom can one count on in this post-modernistic world?

    Remember: The Truth is only what Curt says it is, there is your guiding star!

    marknesop, June 29, 2015 at 7:27 am
    What infuriates me is the assumption – as Fern alluded – that everything Russia puts out as fact is actually disinformation, while everything the west puts out as fact is fact, despite being caught lying again and again and again. Believe us – baby, we've changed.
    Cortes, June 29, 2015 at 10:47 am
    Cavour used to say that the surest way to deceive his counterparts was to tell the plain truth.
    Moscow Exile, June 29, 2015 at 11:07 am
    I remember some smart arse on the Guardian CiF commenting after I had posted a lengthy contribution in which I had used Levada sourced statistics: "You do realize that all your sources are Russian?"
    ThatJ, June 28, 2015 at 8:57 pm
    Guardian correspondent "Matt G" commented:

    US government media Radio Liberty reports on "strategic communications action plan" they probably had a pivotal role in writing, about how they plan to pump more money into Ukrainian and other post-soviet media in order to promote Europeanization, which would technically be what RFE would call "propaganda". Both Russian media and Western media especially RFE is complicit in "disinformation propaganda campaigns" and I struggle to understand what quite "EU policies and values" are exactly, other than promoting LGTB rights. Nonetheless, why do we need to promote "EU policies and values" in three Caucasus countries and two European countries one traditionally Russian and the other which will never be integrated into the EU. Is it just me or does this look less about promoting are values and more about turning post-soviet states against Russia? Something which was previously carried out in Ukraine before the coup as highlighted in some Wikileaks documents on Crimea.

    -

    "Lesm" had this to say:

    This article itself is a good example of the kind of propaganda that the EU is thinking of expanding to the East. Rt was itself started by the Russians as an antidote to the relentless Western propaganda contained in the "news" that comes from the Western Controlled wire services and media empires. The thing I find quite funny about the West is their habit of suggesting always that they are simply responding to things being done to them rather than initiating actions that others are responding to. So the West never does "terrorism", it only does "counter-terrorism". Equally it never does propaganda, it only counters propaganda from the "other" side.

    The reality is of course quite different. The West, and in particular the US, the UK and NATO, are the largest and most successful terrorist organisations on the planet. In addition the old USSR acknowledged that it simply could not compete with the propaganda mechanisms of the West as they were so pervasive and so well disguised as to be unbeatable!!!!

    -

    Reader "DomesticExtremist" is unconvinced that the EU is democratic:

    European values = declaring Conchita Wurst the winner of Eurovision 2014 even though the telephone (popular) vote was won by Donatan and Cleo.

    A metaphor for Western democracy if ever there was.

    [ThatJ: I hate it when people speak only of the EU, EU, EU… it's like we're helping to cement the view in the public's mind that the EU is kinda like an "United States of Europe". Distinction between the member countries must be made. I'll try to speak of "Brussels" instead of the European Union, because Brussels belongs to a country only (Belgium), and the message is clear enough: the dictates of Brussels are alien to the European countries.]

    -

    A bigoted homophobe named "Lordoflight23″ thinks US-exported, Brussels-welcomed values are uninspiring:

    The values of supporting moderate opposition and creating extremist, backing all "good regimes" around the world, the two most powerful EU leaders being wiretapped and still do nothing about it, gay parades and bearded women. Some values that is.

    -

    Kremlin troll "Alphysicist" resorts to whataboutism, links to a RT article:

    'Let viewers form own opinions' – German channel probed for airing RT show

    So in Germany Salve.TV took a broadcast from RT.com, and is now under fire from media watchdogs. That is EU pluralism! Real values.

    I also do not really get what the EU is doing. There already exist pro-western propaganda outlets, for example RFE/RL, etc. In Hungary, more than 50% of the media is western owned. So why is more propaganda needed?

    I like RT, because one gets to hear many who are persona non grata in the Western media. John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Gilad Atzmon, Norman Finkelstein, George Galloway, Udo Ulfkotte, and the list goes on and on. And they have many interesting things to say! Also, even if RT is connected to the Kremlin, the persons above are saying their own opinions, regardless of the Kremlin. This is why RT is a really useful supplement to western propaganda.

    Fern, June 29, 2015 at 3:00 am
    ThatJ, thanks for posting those comments from Guardian correspondents, baffling as always that they seem more informed than the journalists paid to write for the paper. Glad to hear it's not only me struggling to understand what 'western values' actually are.
    marknesop, June 29, 2015 at 7:52 am
    Typical duplication of effort so as to charge the public purse twice over for the same work. The EU produced a marvelous graphic extravaganza intended to lure Ukraine, extolling the virtues of European integration and the salutatory effect it would have on important things like life expectancy, health care, availability of clean water, life expectancy (so important they put it in twice), friendly police instead of extortion-junkies, bla, bla. I encourage everyone to have a look through it from the lens of today, and see how many came true. I especially loved the one about tolerance – mercy, yes; tolerance in Ukraine has certainly taken a leap upward thanks to Europe's beneficial influence.

    [Jun 28, 2015] The USA tries to stage a color revolution in Armenia

    Jun 28, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Fern, June 27, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    A very interesting article on the situation in Armenia. I don't agree with everything the writer says but much of it is spot-on:

    Novices to political science and political activism may be lured by the spectre and spectacle of the Color Revolution method that has characterized ostensible movements for radical social change in the last generation. The symbols have become iconic and clichéd: the tent city, the die-in, the girl placing flowers in the gendarme's gun barrels, water cannons and tear-gas, the fist flag.

    What is missing of course from this view is an understanding of the real social forces in a society, class and economic forces. For forty years, genuine activism, labor union militancy, has been marginalized. In place of direct action against the ruling class at the very places that make their wealth, is a strange simulation of late 1960's student activism; shown to us on a never-ending film reel loop.

    http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/electric-yerevan-and-lessons-on-color.html

    Many of the analysts I've read on Armenia – including those quoted above – seem to think it unlikely that this new Maidan will succeed. I'm not so sure. Once it has its hooks into a country, the US is loathe to let go.

    marknesop, June 27, 2015 at 8:32 pm
    Like sanctions, the colour revolutions depend on momentum – getting it, and maintaining it by incremental pressure until the government folds up like a lawn chair. Governments have learned from the Orange Revolution not to let a revolutionary camp get established, and as soon as they see tents they get torn down; if people do not have shelter in which to sleep so they can stay on location, they quickly fragment and drift away.

    But no colour revolution ever again reached the intensity of the Orange Revolution. It was up to the western media to create the appearance of momentum by injecting fake news about the government meeting with rebel leaders and filming the crowds from angles and frames which suggest they were much bigger than they actually are.

    Yanukovych at Maidan is probably the worst possible example, and it gave the west unfounded confidence, because he capitulated in whole in less time than it takes to say it, folding like a steamed tortilla and giving the self-appointed leaders everything they asked for without even putting up a fight.

    In retrospect, they probably could have sent Tetyana Chornovol in alone to beat him up until he wept for mercy and saved a great deal of effort and expense. But other leaders are tougher and smarter than Yanukovych, and are expecting to be colour-revolutioned. The secret is not to lose your head and start bargaining, because that's what the model is calculated to make you do.

    ucgsblog. June 27, 2015 at 11:22 pm
    There's also Russia releasing all of the tactics used in the Orange Revolution for every country's government to study. I doubt that they're will be a repeat, especially in Armenia.
    yalensis , June 28, 2015 at 3:43 am
    The Flores piece that Fern posted makes a really good point, about the difference between REAL activism (e.g., trade union strikes) and fake activism (e.g., student protests, hippie flower children, etc.)

    When a trade union wins a bitter strike and gets a measly raise of, say, $.50 per hour, it is still a significant victory, because the money comes directly out (and in place of) of the capitalist's profits. As Flores notes, this is "direct action" at the very fountain of where wealth is created. As opposed to student protests, which do nothing to change anything at the base of the economic system.

    But it IS notable that the current bunch of goons in charge of the U.S. government – people like Clinton, Nuland, etc., spent some of their student years in the 1960's doing various hippie-dippie protests, and the like. So, they are familiar with this method of protest, and use it as a cover for the actual big-power subversion, which they are doing behind the scenes. Subconsciously, they might even believe that "it's all good", because they have such fond memories of their own student years spent supporting various "good causes".

    Oh, and another reason these "hippie-dippie" type protests are popular with a certain type of gilded youth, is because it allows them to indulge in their own physical narcisissm:
    They get to paint their faces, wear funny costumes, show of their "creativity", preen in front of cameras, etc.
    The sort of thing that many teenagers enjoy doing, but especially the more narcissistic types.

    Fern, June 28, 2015 at 4:56 am
    yalensis, yes, I think that's a really key point – the difference between activism that fundamentally changes or challenges economic relationships in a society and these so-called 'revolutions' which is nearly every state have led to the embrace of neo-liberal policies and worsening of the economic situation of many of its citizens. And, of course, it's a point that's completely missing from any western MSM analysis of what's taken place in Ukraine, Georgia and all the other places with colour or flower 'revolutions'. No questioning at all of why, exactly, the leaders of western countries such as the US or UK are so enthusiastic in supporting these movements abroad when they have done everything possible to destroy or marginalise agents for real change at home.
    yalensis , June 28, 2015 at 3:31 am
    It makes sense that U.S. is targeting Armenian government with color revolution.
    Probably to punish Armenia for joining Eurasian Economic Union.
    Jen, June 28, 2015 at 5:20 am
    There could be many reasons and Armenia's entry into the Eurasian Union could be one of them. The US wouldn't initiate a colour revolution unless it presents an opportunity to kill several birds with one stone. A colour revolution leading to instability or an extremely nationalist government that reignites the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute with Azerbaijan would (supposedly) draw in Russia, to supply Armenia with aid or weapons, and that would open the door to greater US military investment in Azerbaijan on the pretext that Azerbaijan is being threatened. This gives the US an opportunity to go to the next step which would be to plan an invasion of or another Green revolution in Iran next door, or start colour revolutions in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

    Also 2016 is the start of a new election cycle in the US and Washington probably needs to get some action going against Russia and/or Iran to defect public attention away from an uninspiring field of presidential candidates and their lack of meaningful policies.

    yalensis, June 28, 2015 at 4:34 am
    As per the Gene Sharp handbook, Armenian demonstrators are starting to hint at violence, in the next phase or protests. Armenian media caughts shots of some demonstrators starting to wave wooden clubs.

    Yerevan police chief Valery Osipian communicated, that the police have pictures of the people with the wooden clubs, and intend to find them, as this is illegal.

    Osipian also communicated, that the protesters attempts to set up tents and food service have been thwarted. Setting up food and cooking, in particular, requires permits.

    Is perfectly clear that Armenian authorities know exactly what is happening, and what is going to happen next. Probably the next phase is violence. There were some reports of Ukrainian neo-Nazis being flown in, but possibly there are also violent groups within Armenia who could be used as the shock troops.

    But police seem to be savvy, and know what to do. Ukrainian police (=Berkut) were defeated only, because Yanukovych lost his nerve and would not allow them to win.

    Jen , June 28, 2015 at 5:49 am
    Perhaps if the Armenian government declared that anyone attending the demonstrations would not receive any results from end-of-term or end-of-year exams at school or college, and threaten to order educational authorities to withhold school or university graduation certificates and ceremonies as well, the protests might shrink to just the ringleaders and their more fanatical followers.

    The reason that the Umbrella Revolution faltered in Hong Kong last year was that universities had just reopened after term break and exams were about to start, and the Hong Kong authorities only had to wait out the protests.

    likbez , June 28, 2015 at 7:30 am
    Don't be naïve. As Euromaidan had shown University professors, deans, etc themselves are an important part of fifth column supporting the protests. Departments of Economics and similar "social" departments are especially easy and cheap to seduce by grants, foreign trips, etc. and they have natural neoliberal leanings. In case of Euromaidan it was they who, if not asked students to go to the street, at least granted them "amnesty" from missing the classes. And they operated within the larger framework of staging color revolution, being just one element of complex infrastructure. The same was true in Hong Cong: certain professors actively encouraged the events and served as catalyst for students.

    The start of color revolution means just a switch to active stage of of multifaceted, well prepared ongoing intelligence operation using the accumulated in embassies cash and well organized assets in the country such as NGO, journalists, fifth column within the government, etc. Operation which was prepared for long time..

    Those extras that show up on the streets are mostly a stage for public consumption. Real events of infiltration that make color revolution possible happen on higher level and are hidden from the view. The goal is always to paralyze and neutralize both government and law enforcement by finding people who can be bought, coerced into supporting the coup d'état or at least profess neutrality. And without "breakthrough" in this direction the active stage on which protesters suddenly and en mass appear of the streets is never started.

    Nuland and company probably made serious progress in creating the "color revolution infrastructure" and fifth column within the county elite. They probably are now keeping of short leash some corrupt officials both in law enforcement and government. Cash is now dispensed continuously to grease the wheels. "Militant protestor" in Kiev got around $30- $35 a night. Of course some radical nationalist elements participated "for free" but a lot of extras were paid.

    So start of active phase first of all means the level of maturity and readiness of already formed fifth column within the government to topple the current government. In case of Ukraine it was Lyovochkin and elements within SBU and police (remnants from Yushchenko government), Also Nuland kept Yanukovich by the balls be threating to confiscate his assets in the West. I suspect that in some form this is also true the case in Armenia.

    In other words the key feature of color revolution is the "elite betrayal" component. That's why often the actions of the government in "self-defense" are contradictory and inefficient..

    [Jun 28, 2015] Thousands in Armenia protest steep hikes in electricity rates

    WaPo reported initial events using standard "color revolution" template used in Ukraine.
    .
    "..."The society is very polarized. The power is very weak, in terms of its legitimacy. And a significant number of people are not satisfied with the political system," said Alexander Iskandaryan, a political expert and director of the Caucasus Institute in Yerevan. "They are expressing their dissatisfaction, making statements against the president, against the police, against the ruling Republican Party. But in general, this entire complex reveals the total lack of trust in the political system.""
    .
    "...Some Armenian opposition politicians supported the protesters Tuesday. Activists in Russia and Ukraine also cheered the rallies via social media, lauding them as the next generation of demonstrators against Russian President Vladimir Putin's post­-Soviet order. Some Russian media reports seemed to support that view, citing experts warning that the "hands of the USA" were behind the Armenian protests, which had the makings of a "color revolution." "
    June 23, 2015 | The Washington Post

    Thousands of protesters returned to a main thoroughfare of downtown Yerevan, Armenia, on Tuesday evening, facing down riot police to protest steep electricity price increases planned in the economically strapped country.

    Protesters in the capital city marched toward the presidential palace on Marshal Baghramyan Avenue just hours after police had unleashed water cannons to disperse a peaceful overnight sit-in that had taken place in the same spot earlier in the day, detaining more than 230 demonstrators and journalists in the process. The protests, which have been growing over several days, are the most widespread public demonstrations in the Armenian capital since opposition activists rallied thousands against President Serzh Sargsyan's reelection in 2013.

    The demonstrations against electricity prices are less structured than the post-election protests, but they still could resonate widely in the current political climate.

    Armenia's unrest comes as the country is reeling from the protracted effects of the economic crisis that has gripped Russia's economy over the past year - and, in turn, affected the economies of former Soviet states that depend on Russian markets and the value of the ruble. Russia's economic troubles were complicated by pressure from Western sanctions imposed in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea and involvement in eastern Ukraine, punitive measures that the European Union voted Monday to extend for six months.

    Armenia receives more than 20 percent of its national income from Russian remittances and joined the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union earlier this year. It is especially dependent on the ebbs and flows of the Russian economy, and its currency, the dram, has suffered for it.

    The Russia connection is even more acute in the energy sector.

    Armenia's power grid is controlled by the Armenian Electricity Network, a subsidiary of the Russian company Inter RAO UES, whose major shareholders include Russian state-controlled entities. Last month, the Armenian subsidiary announced plans to raise the price of electricity by more than 16 percent beginning in August. The move was described as necessary because of the depreciation of the national currency, but protesters say the increase would be too much for regular people to afford.

    "Spread the word, fill the streets and don't pay your electric bill," one organizer told the crowd gathered in Yerevan's Liberty Square on Tuesday. "If we all don't pay our electric bills, they can't do anything about it."

    But the protests may not have gathered strength absent general dissatisfaction with the economic and political situation in the country.

    "The society is very polarized. The power is very weak, in terms of its legitimacy. And a significant number of people are not satisfied with the political system," said Alexander Iskandaryan, a political expert and director of the Caucasus Institute in Yerevan. "They are expressing their dissatisfaction, making statements against the president, against the police, against the ruling Republican Party. But in general, this entire complex reveals the total lack of trust in the political system."

    Tuesday's protesters were mostly young adults, and word of the demonstrations spread through social media instead of through the political opposition parties. The main group behind the past several days of protests is a civic group called No to Plunder.

    Iskandaryan said it is difficult to predict how the protests will develop, given how relatively decentralized and underfunded they are. The demonstrations could continue, they could fizzle or the government could meet the demonstrators' demands.

    "But whatever scenario will come to be, it will not solve the main problem. The main problems will remain," Iskandaryan said. "And then it will be possible to find another excuse for another rally."

    How the Yerevan protests proceed depends in part on the state's response. Foreign diplomats expressed concern over how police detained journalists Tuesday morning, while angry protesters were likely galvanized by the use of violence and water cannons to quell and disperse the crowd.

    Yerevan police seemed to be restraining themselves Tuesday night. Deputy police chief Valery Osipyan frequently warned protesters to control potential "provocateurs" who might start a confrontation, but he never called out the water cannons.

    What happens next will depend on whether interest groups seize the moment created by the demonstrations.

    Some Armenian opposition politicians supported the protesters Tuesday. Activists in Russia and Ukraine also cheered the rallies via social media, lauding them as the next generation of demonstrators against Russian President Vladimir Putin's post­-Soviet order.

    Some Russian media reports seemed to support that view, citing experts warning that the "hands of the USA" were behind the Armenian protests, which had the makings of a "color revolution."

    But the demonstrations largely avoided any overt political message about aligning with the East vs. the West, and most anti-Russian vitriol was reserved for Yevgeny Bibin, the chief executive of the electricity company instituting the price increases

    Johnny Canuck, 6/25/2015 4:27 PM EDT

    Take at look inside the real Russia outside the Kremlin region. This is what you will find.

    The Kremlin needs money so they, like the USSR they will use whatever means are available to get funds into the Kremlin's Treasury.

    According to data gathered by Bloomberg, the Kremlin has sufficient funds to keep the government budget and financial system relatively stable through 2015. However disagreements over future government spending will continue to divide Russia's elite.

    This year Moscow will have to pay $52.9 billion to the Pension Fund of Russia to cover the shortfall.

    Evidence shows that the government has taken $12.5 billion from the fund, using it for projects such as the construction of the Yamal liquefied natural gas facility and for economic development of Crimea.

    Rosneft, has proposed that the government use the fund to extend credit to replace the company's Western financing, most of which has been cut off because of sanctions.

    Throughout 2015 the Russian Government had numerous discussions, as Russia needs to resolve strong disagreements within its political elite over issues affecting important areas, such as pensions, raising the retirement age from 55 to 65, the defense sector, large firms and regional government spending on medical care, education and infrastructure.

    Russia can draw from the total $508 billion in Reserves, that according to the IMF it stockpiled since 2000. So far this year it had drawn down $100 billion from its Reserve Fund.

    Johnny Canuck, 6/25/2015 4:25 PM EDT

    In the opinion many insiders, the current Kremlin debates have intensified over specific government spending on issues such as taxes, pension, retirement age, defense spending and medical and education expenses. Like most political disagreements between insiders over the divisions of budgets on spending – Putin and his loyal buddies, financial experts and the Federal Security Service – can switch their loyalties in response to both political and economic circumstances.

    Russia's total spending on its military budgets, which includes not only Interior Military Forces but also all military spending, which is more that 45% of its GDP. The Kremlin must now face cuts in spending for the new T-14 Armata tank, defense spending on military exercises along its borders and naval shipbuilding and its space program.

    Russia's regional governments are demanding that more regional revenues stay in the regions. Only 37 percent of the income generated in any given region is required to stay in each region, with the rest going to the federal budget. However the central government never returns more than 20 percent. Over the past 25 years these shortfalls have accumulated into 100 trillion rubbles, which negatively impacted regional health care, education and infrastructure needs. Low wages have forced households into more barter trading for survival.

    The Kremlin knows that regional stability is crucial to the stability of the federal government and the Russian Federation as a whole. The last thing that the Federal Government needs is regional insurrections. This has many Putin supporters worried.

    Axel Rea, 6/25/2015 9:30 AM EDT

    hey washington post why you start the article with the word "Moscow", this is about the Armenia. If you do not have the sufficient knowledge please do not write the article. Armenia is a sovereign country, it dose not even have any border with russia.

    LeonVav, 6/24/2015 6:03 AM EDT

    A group of people on capital's street and THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS UNSTABLE NOW. That's silly. Maybe they're unsatisfied with what their politicians do, but why to tack Russia on this? It's Putin who refuses to give them free electricity? He is guilty again?

    nanari123, 6/23/2015 9:39 PM EDT

    I just don't like it when western media looks at everything wearing this black and white glasses. This is really not about Russia vs US or EU, Armenia's foreign policy has always been the most balanced in the entire post soviet region. Officially it is against the electricity price hike, but in reality, people are trying to show their dissatisfaction with politicians and especially the ruling republican party which has failed to fix the economy as a result of mismanagement and corruption. People there really don't give a hoot about Putin or Obama.

    ANTIPINDOS, 6/23/2015 8:58 PM EDT

    Armenians what are you doing?
    Doesn't allow to manipulate itself
    You want to repeat a mistake of Ukraine?
    The USA prepare orange revolution against you

    [Jun 28, 2015] John McCain The Russia-Ukraine cease-fire is a fiction

    Looks like there was no US war or color revolution Senator McCain did not like. Doe he tries to position himself to the right of Dick Cheney ;-), I like his statement that "might does not make right":
    "...We face the reality of a challenge that many assumed was resigned to the history books: a strong, militarily capable state that is hostile to our interests and our values and seeks to overturn the rules-based international order that American leaders of both parties have sought to maintain since World War II. Among the core principles of that order is the conviction that might does not make right, that the strong should not be allowed to dominate the weak and that wars of aggression should be relegated to the bloody past. "
    What a bloody hypocrite he is... He probably forgot Vietnam, Chili, Nicaragua, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria military adventures due to old age senility. And it was actually State Department and personally Victoria Nuland of "nulnadgate (aka F*ck EU") fame, who was the key instigator of civil war in Ukraine. So this is a classic "The pot calling the kettle black" situation.
    Jun 28, 2015 | The Washington Post

    Last weekend, I traveled with Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to eastern Ukraine to meet with the courageous men and women fighting there for their country's freedom and future. I arrived on a solemn day as Ukrainian volunteers grieved the loss of two young comrades killed by Russian artillery the day before. They had lost another comrade a few days before that, and four more the previous week. Their message to me was clear: The cease-fire with Russia is fiction, and U.S. assistance is vital to deterring further Russian aggression.

    Along the front lines, separatist forces backed by Russia violate the cease-fire every day with heavy artillery barrages and tank attacks. Gunbattles are a daily routine, and communities at the front bear the brunt of constant sniper fire and nightly skirmishes.

    Yet while these low-level cease-fire violations have occurred regularly since the Minsk agreement was signed in February, Ukrainian battalion commanders said the number of Grad rocket strikes and incidents of intense artillery shelling are increasing. Their reports suggest that the separatists have moved their heavy weapons and equipment back to the front lines hoping to escalate the situation. So far, Ukrainian armed forces supported by volunteer battalions have been able to hold their ground, and they have done so largely without the support of Ukrainian artillery and tanks that have been pulled back from the front as stipulated by the Minsk agreement. How long can we expect these brave Ukrainians to abide by an agreement that Russia has clearly ignored?

    It is time that the United States and our European allies recognize the failure of the Minsk agreement and respond with more than empty rhetoric. Ukraine's leaders describe Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategy as a game of "Pac-Man" - taking bite after bite out of Ukraine in small enough portions that it does not trigger a large-scale international response. But at this point it should be clear to all that Putin does not want a diplomatic solution to the conflict. He wants to dominate Ukraine, along with Russia's other neighbors.

    No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War. But we must recognize that we are confronting a Russian ruler who seeks exactly that. It is time for U.S. strategy to adjust to the reality of a revanchist Russia with a modernized military that is willing to use force not as a last resort, but as a primary tool to achieve its neo-imperial objectives. We must do more to deter Russia by increasing the military costs of its aggression, starting with the immediate provision of the defensive weapons and other assistance the Ukrainians desperately need.

    President Obama has wrongly argued that providing Ukraine with the assistance and equipment it needs to defend itself would only provoke Russia. Putin needed no provocation to invade Ukraine and annex Crimea. Rather, it is the weakness of the collective U.S. and European response that provokes the very aggression we seek to avoid. Of course, there is no military solution in Ukraine, but there is a clear military dimension to achieving a political solution. If Ukrainians are given the assistance they need and the military cost is raised for the Russian forces that have invaded their country, Putin will be forced to determine how long he can sustain a war he tells his people is not happening.

    I urge anyone who sees Ukraine's fight against a more advanced Russian military as hopeless to travel to meet those fighting and dying to protect their homeland. These men and women have not backed down, and they will continue to fight for their country with or without the U.S. support they need and deserve.

    During my trip, the Ukrainians never asked for the United States to send troops to do their fighting. Ukrainians only hope that the United States will once again open the arsenal of democracy that has allowed free people to defend themselves so many times before.

    How we respond to Putin's brazen aggression will have repercussions far beyond Ukraine. We face the reality of a challenge that many assumed was resigned to the history books: a strong, militarily capable state that is hostile to our interests and our values and seeks to overturn the rules-based international order that American leaders of both parties have sought to maintain since World War II. Among the core principles of that order is the conviction that might does not make right, that the strong should not be allowed to dominate the weak and that wars of aggression should be relegated to the bloody past.

    Around the world, friend and foe alike are watching to see whether the United States will once again summon its power and influence to defend the international system that has kept the peace for decades. We must not fail this test.

    [Jun 27, 2015] Primakov Would Have Run Russia as Putin Has by Leonid Bershidsky

    Jun 26, 2015 | bloombergview.com

    Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who died Friday, was once Vladimir Putin's most credible rival for the Russian presidency. Had he won, Russia probably would have embarked on its anti-Western course even earlier. His story demonstrates the inevitability of that swing after Boris Yeltsin gave up power in the last minutes of 1999.

    QuickTake Vladimir Putin

    Primakov had a distinguished career as a Soviet academic specializing in the Middle East. By the time the Soviet Union collpased, he ran an important foreign policy research institute, was a top functionary at the Academy of Sciences and a top adviser to President Mikhail Gorbachev. In the summer of 1991, a coup hatched by the KGB temporarily toppled Gorbachev. When he came back, the last Soviet leader attempted to clean up the omnipresent security services by appointing civilian loyalists to top positions. Primakov was tapped to run the foreign intelligence part of the organization, the first civilian to hold the job.

    Less than four months after his appointment, the Soviet Union was dissolved. Almost immediately after taking over at the Kremlin, Yeltsin broke up the KGB. After some hesitation, he kept Primakov on as boss of the newly formed Foreign Intelligence Service, known by the Russian acronym SVR. The academic quickly earned the respect of intelligence professionals by keeping on all the key people and hardly ever pulling rank -- and, not least, by refusing the general's rank that came with the post.

    He lasted four years at the SVR, but he left his mark on the largely unreformed, though somewhat downsized, organization. In 1993, on his watch, SVR published a white paper, "The Prospects of NATO Expansion and Russia's Interests," one of the first documents to reflect Russia's emerging preoccupation with the U.S.'s perceived desire to marginalize it. The intelligence service bombarded Yeltsin with similar classified reports. The Russian president, however, considered Western leaders as allies through most of his first term.

    As the 1996 presidential election drew closer, though, Yeltsin was no longer so sure. Being friendly with the West didn't translate into any particular benefits for Russia. Yeltsin was ready to fire pro-Western Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, and offered Primakov his job. Once in the position, the former intelligence boss made no secret of his sympathies: He set about re-establishing ties with the Soviet Union's longtime allies in the Arab world, such as Syria and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He made no attempt to hide his support for Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia, opposing the U.S. every inch of the way on the independence of Kosovo. "Could one say Primakov was anti-American?" Leonid Mlechin wrote in a biography of Primakov. "It would be more precise to say that the United States' prosperity, luck and assertiveness unconsciously irritated him."

    In part under Primakov's influence, Yeltsin, too, began to stress the need for a "multipolar world" -- a phrase Putin now uses when he talks about the need to curb U.S. dominance.

    Yeltsin respected Primakov enough to install him as prime minister after Russia defaulted on its debt in 1998. That didn't work out too well, though: Primakov clashed with Yeltsin's family, which, together with the oligarchs Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, was trying to run the country as a private fiefdom while Yeltsin had lengthening hospital stays. Primakov's attempts to introduce more government control along familiar Soviet lines irritated Berezovsky, and investigations initiated at Primakov's behest directly threatened the oligarch. In May 1999, Yeltsin fired Primakov, but not before the prime minister, who was flying to Washington to meet with International Monetary Fund officials, ordered his plane to turn back after learning the U.S. had started bombing Serbia.

    The abrupt firing angered Primakov, and he decided to enter politics. He formed a party with then-Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov for the 1999 parliamentary elections. Berezovsky and the Yeltsin family collaborated to thwart him. For example, the oligarch's TV channel, which had the biggest audience in Russia, aired footage of 70-year-old Primakov undergoing leg surgery -- an image intended to suggest that the former intelligence chief was old and infirm. The general message was that Primakov was a Communist sympathizer who would take Russia back to a Soviet-style planned economy and an isolationist foreign policy.

    Ironically, the men portrayed as the modern, dynamic alternative were Putin and Sergei Shoigu, now Putin's defense minister. Primakov's party, Fatherland -- All Russia, lost to their Unity party. After Primakov gave up the idea of running for president, the parties merged, and Yeltsin resigned, bequeathing Russia to Putin.

    This did Berezovsky little good: Soon enough, he was in exile, plotting Putin's overthrow. Yeltsin's wealthy relatives and Abramovich, however, escaped persecution because they bowed to Putin.

    The new president was only 47, and he initially appeared much more progressive and pro-Western: He even talked about the possibility of Russia joining NATO. By his second presidential term, however, Putin was channeling Primakov: vowing to strengthen state control of the economy and setting himself up as a staunch opponent of U.S. expansionism.

    Here's a little test: Does the following quote belong to Putin or Primakov?

    Russia approaches universal human values such as democracy by its own road, taking into account its traditions, history, the multiethnic character of the state, its geographic position. Like many othwer countries, it doesn't accept the groundless, abstract foreign instructions, and it won't have any societal or government models imposed on it.

    (It's from Primakov's 2009 book titled "A World Without Russia," but it could have been from any of a dozen Putin policy speeches).

    In 1999, when Yeltsin's succession was being decided, Primakov could have prevailed, had he been feistier and more willing to take on Berezovsky's media. By 2015, however, Russia's battle lines, and probably its economy, would have been in the same place as they are now. This outcome is not related to Putin's personality, and not even about his foreign intelligence background and the common origins of his and Primakov's worldview. Someone with that ideology was destined to run Russia after Yeltsin. The country's expectations of friendship with the West remained unrealized, and nostalgia for the Soviet Union's might prevailed.

    Primakov died at 85. Putin is only 62. His victory in 1999 ensured that Russia would stay its current course much longer than Primakov could promise.

    [Jun 27, 2015]U.S. Pushes Russia Towards War

    "..."The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price.""
    .
    "...A recent New York Times editorial with the grandiose title, "The Fantasy Mr. Putin is Selling," claimed that president Putin has a "willingness to brandish nuclear weapons." There was no mention of America's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. "
    .
    "...The Obama administration is in the process of killing the Minsk accords which were shepherded by France and Germany. This is the only process which can defang the beast, and that is why it is being sabotaged. The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price. It is like a serial criminal who remains at large and thus thinks of himself as invincible. This county is responsible for carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria and that is the list of victims only since 2001."
    .
    "...Not only does the United States have the most and the biggest guns but it has the corporate media at its disposal, parroting every word as if they were gospel truth. "
    .
    "...The process of marginalizing Russia began as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed."
    June 26, 2015 | Information Clearing House

    "The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price."

    "Information Clearing House" - "BAR" - This columnist recently said that "Russia Wins" in its handling of America's attempt to eviscerate its influence and its economy. At the time those words were written Secretary of State John Kerry met with Vladimir Putin in Sochi, Russia. The meeting appeared to be an admission that the imperial power grab was not working out as Washington hoped. Among other things, Kerry was concerned that the Ukrainian tail was starting to wag the American dog.
    In a public statement he warned Ukrainian president Poroshenko, who threatened to retake Crimea and the Donbass. "We would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk [accords] in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be." Barack Obama promptly tossed Kerry under the bus upon his return home.

    Kerry's subordinate Victoria Nuland and the United Nations ambassador Samantha Power repeated the very words that Kerry warned against and contradicted everything he said. Power went to Kiev to sing the praises of the Ukrainians in person. She didn't have to mention Kerry by name, her presence alone said that he and any talk of diplomacy were on the outs. Of course the meeting between Kerry and Putin had to have been approved by president Obama, but just one month later it appears to have been a figment of the world's imagination.

    "Russia has every right to arm its own territory."

    In the battle to stay on top of the world and remain in control of it, Washington inevitably lurches back and forth in its policy decision making. Now they and their scribes in corporate media have settled back into comfortable territory, simultaneously vilifying the Russian government and endlessly repeating anti-Russian propaganda.

    A recent New York Times editorial with the grandiose title, "The Fantasy Mr. Putin is Selling," claimed that president Putin has a "willingness to brandish nuclear weapons." There was no mention of America's unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002. Not content to tell one lie the Times then criticized Putin for "aggressive behavior, including pouring troops and weapons into Kaliningrad, a Russian city located between NATO members Lithuania and Poland." Of course, Russia has every right to arm its own territory. The Times also neglected to mention that the American military are positioning weapons and holding training exercises in Ukraine, Poland, Romania and the Baltic states that border Russia. It seems that those provocations are not deemed worthy of mention.

    The New York Times and its counterparts always play this role. They cozy up to president Obama as they have with all his predecessors and support any and all of their mischief. Far from being a voice of information for the public, they do the bidding of the powerful and are accessories to their crimes.

    "Antagonizing Russia is riskier than paying jihadists to take over Libya."

    The Obama administration is in the process of killing the Minsk accords which were shepherded by France and Germany. This is the only process which can defang the beast, and that is why it is being sabotaged. The United States has intervened in too many countries without paying a high enough price. It is like a serial criminal who remains at large and thus thinks of himself as invincible. This county is responsible for carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria and that is the list of victims only since 2001.

    One has to ask where and when the straw will break the camel's back. American military power has allowed it to run rough shod over humanity, but antagonizing Russia is riskier than paying jihadists to take over Libya.

    Not only does the United States have the most and the biggest guns but it has the corporate media at its disposal, parroting every word as if they were gospel truth. Americans who think of themselves as well informed will be in for a shock if Moldova turns out to be the flash point for open warfare that was instigated by their government.

    "Russia will never be beholden to America."

    Everyone knows that an assassination in Sarajevo in 1914 pushed the world into war. In 2015 the signs are ominous that something terrible may happen because of an incident in Transnistria or Donetsk or some other locale Americans know nothing about.

    The process of marginalizing Russia began as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed. While the Warsaw Pact disbanded, NATO grew at Russia's expense. But Russia will never be beholden to America. There is no puppet they can place in the Kremlin. These fantasies have put the world on the brink.

    Obama and his friends in NATO may not want to start a war but they may get one all the same. Of course the president is concerned about his legacy. He ought to be. If he continues as he has done since 2009, his legacy may be that he was head inmate in the asylum when the last war began.

    Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com .

    Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com

    [Jun 27, 2015] Obama's Anti-Russia Policy Escalates DoD Tells Congress Nukes Are Still On The Table

    Jun 15, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

    The War Party is a veritable propaganda machine, churning out product 24/7. Armed with nearly unlimited resources, both from government(s) and the private sector, they carpet-bomb the public with an endless stream of lies in order to soften them up when it's time to roll. In the past, their job has been relatively easy: simply order up a few atrocity stories – Germans bayoneting babies, Iraqis dumping over babies in incubators – and we've got ourselves another glorious war. These days, however, over a decade of constant warfare – and a long string of War Party fabrications – has left the public leery.

    And that's cause for optimism. People are waking up. The War Party's propaganda machine has to work overtime in order to overcome rising skepticism, and it shows signs of overheating – and, in some instances, even breaking down.

    One encouraging sign is that the Ukrainian neo-Nazis have lost their US government funding …

    In a blow to the "let's arm Ukraine" movement that seemed to be picking up steam in Congress, a resolution introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Florida) banning aid to Ukraine's Azov Battalion, and forbidding shipments of MANPAD anti-aircraft missiles to the region, passed the House unanimously.

    This is significant because, up until this point, there has been no recognition in Washington that the supposedly "pro-democracy" regime in Kiev contains a dangerously influential neo-Nazi element.

    As I reported early on, Ukraine's ultra-nationalists – who openly utilize wartime Nazi symbols and regalia, and valorize Stepan Bandera, the anti-Soviet guerrilla leader who collaborated with the Third Reich – were the muscle behind the movement that pushed democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich out of power. With the rebellion in the east, the paramilitary militias of the far right have been officially incorporated into the Ukrainian army: Dmytro Yorash, the leader of Right Sector and a member of parliament, is an aide to Viktor Muzhenko, the supreme commander of the Ukrainian military, and Right Sector – an openly neo-Nazi organization – has been officially integrated into the armed forces.

    The Conyers-Yoho amendment won't stop Ukraine's neo-Nazis from feeding at the US-provided trough, but, hey, it's the thought that counts. They'll just abandon their independent existence and blend into the official military, effectively going underground, just as they did in the last Ukrainian elections, where fascists like Yarosh won a seat in the parliament with the tacit support of the "mainstream" parties, which withdrew their candidates in his district: Adriy Biletsky, commander of the Azov Battalion, enjoyed a similar advantage. Open fascists hold prominent positions in the Ukrainian government, the military, and the police.

    Vadim Troyan, the deputy leader of the Azov Battalion, is now the regional chief of the Kiev district police, and fascists have the run of the city. The perpetrators of an arson fire at a Kiev theater that sponsored a gay film festival were charged with "disturbing the peace" and let off with a light sentence – and the theater was held responsible for not providing enough security! "I think the government prosecutor and those who are prosecuted are playing for the same team," says one activist, and this is quite true: the fascists permeate the Kiev regime from top to bottom. When gay activists announced a Gay Pride march, the Mayor of Kiev said he couldn't – or wouldn't – guarantee their safety and asked them to cancel it. What was an open invitation to violent thugs was accepted when dozens of Right Sector stormtroopers attacked the procession, which ended the event after thirty bloody minutes.

    As the Kiev regime shows its true colors, its most fervent backers are forced to acknowledge its shortcomings. Yes, even our UN Ambassador, Samantha "responsibility to protect" Power …

    In a recent speech delivered in Kiev, Ambassador Power made oblique reference to the embarrassing slip ups on the part of our sock puppets in Kiev, gently scolding them to be more … discreet. Citing Abraham Lincoln, she urged Ukrainians to listen to "the better angels of our nature," and averred that "Ukraine is stronger" when it does so:

    "It means that Ukraine should zealously protect freedom of the press, including for its most outspoken and biased critics – indeed, especially for its most outspoken and biased critics – even as the so-called separatists expel journalists from the territory they control, and even as Russia shutters Tatar media outlets in occupied Crimea. It means that politicians and police across the country should recognize how crucial it is that people be able to march to demand respect for LGBT rights and the rights of other vulnerable groups without fear of being attacked."

    Citing Lincoln while calling for press freedom is a bit problematic – Abe shut down "treasonous" newspapers and jailed his more vociferous critics, but, hey, Power probably figured the Ukrainians aren't up on the details of Civil War history, so what the heck. As the US continues to pump money – and weaponry – into the country, they'll listen politely to Power's lectures, and laugh all the way to the bank.

    Amid all the publicity given to ISIS and the rise of its "caliphate," the volatile condition of the Balkans has remained in the shadows. Yet the US, while sending only a few hundred "advisors" to Iraq, is sending a huge shipment of tanks and other heavy weaponry to nearly every country in Eastern Europe – enough to equip 5,000 American troops.

    Ostensibly proposed in response to a nonexistent Russian "threat" to invade its Baltic neighbors, and/or Ukraine, this represents a significant escalation of the new cold war. And if the tanks are already on the ground, you can bet the troops won't be long in coming. As NATO James Stavridis put it: "It provides a reasonable level of reassurance to jittery allies, although nothing is as good as troops stationed full-time on the ground, of course."

    And we aren't just talking about troops here: the Pentagon is also considering stationing nuclear missiles alongside them.

    The US is playing a dangerous game of nuclear brinkmanship. Robert Scher, undersecretary of defense, has even floated the idea of a nuclear first strike against Russia. Claiming that Russia has violated the INF Treaty by testing a banned ground-launched cruise missile, Scher laid out possible options in testimony before Congress:

    "Robert Scher, assistant secretary of defence for strategy, plans and capabilities, told politicians in April that one option could be to beef up defenses of potential targets of the Russian cruise missile.

    "A second option could 'look at how we could go about and actually attack that missile where it is in Russia,' Scher said.

    "And a third option would be 'to look at what things we can hold at risk within Russia itself,' Scher said.

    "His comments appeared to signal employing forces to strike at other Russian military targets - apart from the missiles that allegedly violate the INF accord.

    "Brian McKeon, deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told politicians in December that the United States could consider putting ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe. Such weapons are banned under the INF treaty."

    Yes, that's how crazy the warlords of Washington are: in their demented calculus, nuclear war is just another "option."

    And if that isn't the definitive argument for regime-change in Washington, then I don't know what is.

    [Jun 26, 2015] Can Pepsi, Coke -- Russian MP asks govt to ban US sodas as counter-sanction measure

    "...Last August the Communist Party asked the government to impose sanctions on tobacco, alcohol and carbonated drinks from all countries that support sanctions against Russia, saying that such move would be in the interests of national security. "
    Jun 26, 2015 | RT Russian politics

    The head of Russia's Party of Pensioners is urging sanctions against the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo claiming the soda giants are major sponsors of anti-Russian politicians in US and that the move would boost domestic producers of soft drinks.

    "In support of the president's and government's actions regarding the countersanctions we suggest restricting imports of products made by the Coca-Cola and PepsiCo companies that are the main sponsors of respectively the Republican and Democratic parties of the United States, the active supporters of prolonged sanctions against the Russian Federation," Igor Zotov wrote in a letter to the Russian prime minister, quoted by the Izvestia daily.

    Zotov, an MP in the State Duma representing the Fair Russia Party, noted that according to the information received from open sources the US soda is extremely harmful for human health and therefore its imports are very damaging for the health of the Russian nation.

    He added that under the ongoing import-replacement program it would be logical to legislatively oblige all soft drink producers selling their products within Russia to use only Russian-made ingredients certified by Russian state agencies. Under this condition, the US soda makers could continue their presence on the Russian markets, Zotov wrote in the letter.

    The last suggestion drew bewildered comment from the head of the Union of Soft Drink Producers, Dmitry Petrov, who told Izvestia that Coke and Pepsi sold in Russia were made from Russian water and sugar, but the main flavor came from imported concentrates with a secret composition.

    Petrov added that the ban could lead to a deficit of soft drinks in Russia because Coke and Pepsi together sold about 40 percent of products on this market. Another negative effect would be a decrease in tax revenue and a hike in unemployment, the lobbyist said.


    According to Russian commercial database SPARK the overall revenue of Coca-Cola's Russian branch was 67 billion rubles in 2013 and the company paid 404 million rubles in income tax from this sum ($1.2 billion and 7.34 million respectively at current rate). The figures for PepsiCo's Russian branch are 80 billion and 158 million rubles ($1.45 billion and $2.87 million at current rate). Coca-Cola employs 11,000 workers in Russia and PepsiCo employs 23,000.

    PepsiCo entered the Russian markets much earlier than Coca-Cola – in 1971, back in Soviet times. The drinks produced by this company were scarce at first, but gained more popularity as production was increased ahead of the 1980 Moscow Olympics. After the fall of Communism, PepsiCo's advertising slogan 'Generation Pepsi' became so well-known it became eponymous with young people who had not got the taste for the Socialist lifestyle.

    Coca-Cola first came to Russia before the 1980 Olympics but only produced and sold its orange drink Fanta until the Perestroika years under Gorbachev in the late-80s.

    This is not the first time foreign soda producers have been the target of Russian politicians. Last August the Communist Party asked the government to impose sanctions on tobacco, alcohol and carbonated drinks from all countries that support sanctions against Russia, saying that such move would be in the interests of national security. Before that the Communists had sought an additional tax on sugar-containing drinks quoting concern over national health.

    [Jun 25, 2015] Putins protection of compatriots problem

    "...They would have conquered a large, desperately poor country for which they would have assumed responsibility, conveniently identifying Russia as the international pariah the west paints it into the bargain."
    .
    "...I have agreed any number of times that it was a mistake for Putin to say that Russia would protect Russian-speakers, and he acknowledged it was a mistake by asking the Duma to revoke the authority to use the Russian military to do so in hope that it would avert violence."
    .
    "...i think part of the problem is that the fate, even the lives of those in the northern hemisphere, could be decided by how the us vs russia standoff is resolved. both an article at the saker that i believe i linked here once (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-russia-ideal-enemy-for-western.html) and one at fortruss (http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html) deal with the underlying dynamic succinctly. big war is on the menu and only the elites want it."
    .
    "...How pissed off the engineers of the "western " strategy must be to have their expectations re Russian responses to having their latest Baldrick like "cunning plans" confounded time and again. "
    Jun 25, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    karl1haushofer , June 23, 2015 at 1:31 pm

    Putin's childhood friend (at least he claims to be one) who now lives in Gorlovka says that Putin is a traitor and has abandoned eastern Ukrainians.

    Reply

    karl1haushofer says:

    June 23, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    What he says is that
    – He used to still like Putin a year ago and most of the Donbass residents considered Putin as a "god" a year ago.
    – Now all of this has changed. Donbass people are cursing Putin at the moment. Putin provoked a war in Donbass as a cover for his Crimean operation.
    – Putin's "loud promises" (Russian parliament authorized Putin to use military force in Ukraine in the spring of 2014) encouraged Donbass residents to an armed rebellion but Putin never delivered his promises and in fact the law of using military force in Ukraine was withdrawn after Crimea was securely with Russia.. Donbass people were simply used as a cannon fodder to secure Crimea for Russia.
    – Every morning the Donbass people wake up hoping that Russia has finally started sendings its troops to Donbass (as was promised in the spring of 2014) but it is never going to happen. People of Donbass have finally realized this and now "they spit when they even hear a word Russia".
    – Russia has betrayed Donbass. In a year Russia's rhetoric has changed dramatically. A year ago Russia was saying that Russia will never abandon their compatriots. They will be protected. Now Russia is just silent and says nothing as Kiev bombards Donbass.

    He may be fake but I think he sounds sincere in this video. And I share his thoughts. I think Donbass was used as a cover to make the West "forget" about Crimea. Crimea was all that Russia ever wanted and Donbass people were made out to be the fools who spilled their blood for Russian ambitions in Crimea.

    This is why I think Donbass should now surrender to Kiev. Not because it is a honorable thing to do. Not because I like the Kiev junta (I hate them). It needs to be done to teach Russia a lesson. Russia did the dishonorable thing for the Donbass people and this is why Donetsk should host a NATO military base.

    marknesop , June 23, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    I realize this is a popular theme for you, that Putin should place himself at the head of the Russian army and lead them in a lunge for Kiev – one which would unquestionably succeed, as all of Ukraine would fall to the Russians in a week if they chose to take it. But then what? They would have conquered a large, desperately poor country for which they would have assumed responsibility, conveniently identifying Russia as the international pariah the west paints it into the bargain.

    I have agreed any number of times that it was a mistake for Putin to say that Russia would protect Russian-speakers, and he acknowledged it was a mistake by asking the Duma to revoke the authority to use the Russian military to do so in hope that it would avert violence. But who, really, could have foreseen that not only would the Ukrainian state use its military to butcher and slaughter civilians in a determined effort to force their servitude to the state, but that the western world – supposed sympathetic defender of rebel movements and unilateral declarations of independence, let freedom ring, bla, bla – would stand quietly by and make no effort to stop it. Moreover, would encourage it.

    Your solution would punish the Donbas and reward the junta with success, and at the same time blame Putin for causing the whole thing in the first place. Elegant. It is not Russia's fault that Ukrainians are slaughtering their brothers next door, and not only is it not Russia's responsibility to stop it, Russia is under strict orders from western leaders not to intervene in any way, shape or form, while every day there are more accusations that Russia is interfering because the Ukrainian army didn't win that day. Yet somehow, your pick for blame in the whole thing is…Russia. Not Kiev, for doing the unthinkable – no! they should be rewarded with capitulation. Not the west for encouraging the continued slaughter, in which they have to make up crazy stories that Putin is burning his thousands of dead soldiers in mobile crematoriums to cover the fact that no Russian dead have been found and the greatest proportion of casualties are civilians, many of them women and children. No; it's Russia's fault, for not launching an armed intervention to put right a wrong Russia had no part in causing, in the process risking the destruction of the Russian people as a whole.

    bolasete, June 23, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    i think part of the problem is that the fate, even the lives of those in the northern hemisphere, could be decided by how the us vs russia standoff is resolved. both an article at the saker that i believe i linked here once (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-russia-ideal-enemy-for-western.html) and one at fortruss (http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html) deal with the underlying dynamic succinctly. big war is on the menu and only the elites want it.

    marknesop, June 23, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    Yes, Washington will happily drive Europe into a disastrous recession in its efforts to have its own way. The best chance of averting something really nasty is in Europe realizing that and refusing to go along.

    was reminded of that while reading this counterclaim to Curt's blithe declaration that Russia's reciprocal sanctions were of no consequence and that such a massive economy could easily absorb them.

    They're looking at a half-million job losses in Germany alone. I don't think job losses figured in his calculation at all, and he gave some comical figure like $100 Million. This study was not done by the low-trust liars with no credibility because of their Mongol roots, either.

    Cortes, June 23, 2015 at 3:05 pm
    How pissed off the engineers of the "western " strategy must be to have their expectations re Russian responses to having their latest Baldrick like "cunning plans" confounded time and again.

    Almost as if those retard Moskal scions of Mongol/Tatar/random bearers of epicanthic folds and Mongol birthmarks were real human beings. damn their evil souls.

    marknesop, June 23, 2015 at 9:59 pm
    Oh, I love Blackadder!! Rowan Atkinson is one of the world's few naturally funny people.
    yalensis, June 24, 2015 at 2:46 am
    Baldrick's cunning plan:

    Fern , June 24, 2015 at 5:34 pm
    This gentleman – Putin's childhood friend – may be sincere but so what? A lot of people sincerely believe the earth is flat but that doesn't make it so. It simply isn't correct to say that Putin provoked a war in the Donbas to secure Crimea. Does Putin control the Kiev government (I'm using that term loosely) because it was their actions, particularly in Mariupol and Odessa against protestors who'd been mirroring the Maidan – occupying government buildings and so on – which lead to a violent reaction from people in Lugansk and Donetsk. Kiev could have stopped this assault on the East at any time – is it Russia that's been preventing them from doing so?

    The Crimeans secured Crimea for Russia so, again, it's simply incorrect to say that people of the Donbas were used as canon-fodder to achieve reunification. We know now that Russia undertook covert opinion polls to determine whether a majority of Crimeans would support re-joining Russia. Personally, I don't believe Russia would have gone ahead if there had not been overwhelming support, it would have been just too difficult with an at best indifferent or, at worse, an actively hostile population. Crimea was secured pretty much without a shot being fired – so why did securing it require Putin to begin a war in the Donbas? The argument makes no sense.

    That said, I think Putin can be legitimately be criticised for his apparent promise to protect civilians in the East – this may, indeed, in the early stages of the conflict, have encouraged some people to take up arms. But not now though and not for some considerable time. And we don't know his motives for saying what he did – maybe he thought that fear of provoking a Russian military response would deter Kiev in the way that Georgia has been deterred from military adventures against South Ossetia.

    Russia's been providing food, shelter and jobs to a huge number of refugees; its humanitarian aid deliveries are the one thing that's stood between a dire situation for the people of Lugansk and Donetsk and a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale not seen in Europe since WW2. And Russia is not silent about the situation in Ukraine – it's mentioned every time Putin, Lavrov, Churkin and other members of Russia's political elite speak. Russia has always been clear that its preferred solution is for Lugansk and Donetsk to remain part of Ukraine under some sort of federal structure. Putin's never held out the hope of incorporation into Russia or of supporting Novorossiya's path to a new, independent state so cries of 'betrayal' are not warranted.

    marknesop , June 24, 2015 at 7:36 pm
    We are on completely the same page on this; well said. Speaking of Russian aid and humanitarian crises, has anyone heard any news on the water situation in Lugansk?

    [Jun 25, 2015] A primer of Western MSM trolling published

    Kulobi , April 15, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    A primer of Western MSM trolling published

    I noticed that good folks on Flibusta had made this little book available in HTML and a bunch of e-book formats: Marcus S. King, The War Against Putin: What the Government-Media Complex Isn't Telling You About Russia.

    http://flibusta.net/b/401092

    It's a self-published tome as far as i could see, and is inclined too much towards various conspiracy theories at the expense of proper scholarly analysis. However, as a collection of common tropes and narratives in Western trolldom it's OK.

    I'm also delighted that Tsygankov's superb book Russophobia is now available for free here http://bookfi.org/book/1308392

    I wish David Foglesong's The American Mission and the 'Evil Empire' had been made readily accessible.


    Russophobic trolling has a long historical pedigree indeed.

    [Jun 25, 2015]Europe's Enlightened Order

    "...The central insight that animated the Congress of Vienna is that order, like liberty, is fragile. It is contingent on political institutions and social norms and cultural prejudices and a hundred other variables that, if undermined, lead to chaos. Order is easy to break, yet hard to build. But if peace depends on it, then a politics grounded in prudence, caution, and realism is necessary. To live through the traumatic experience of state failure-as all of the Congress's authors did, and as many in the Middle East and North Africa do today-is to recognize that, in comparison to the anarchy and chaos of a civil war, order is an enlightened principle too."
    Jun 25, 2015 | The American Conservative

    ...The Congress of Vienna reminds us that not one but two traditions of cosmopolitan thought trace their roots back to the 18th-century Enlightenment. One is a moralizing, militant worldview that seeks peace by toppling despotic regimes in the name of liberty. It supposes that a new world order, underwritten by an enlightened hegemon, can be crafted in the wake of these conquests. This was the dream of the French revolutionaries, of Napoleon, of Woodrow Wilson. And to a large extent, it remains the dream of today's foreign-policy establishment in Washington. In the past few decades America has "liberated," in Napoleon's sense of the term, countries across the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe. Whether through the hard power of military force (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) or the soft power of moral cajoling and economic pressure (Egypt, Syria, Ukraine), our hope has been that regime change will produce stable liberal democracies and lead to peace. But as the litany of failed states in our wake suggests, this approach tends to undermine the very order it seeks to moralize.

    The second legacy of Enlightenment, the one witnessed in 1815, is more promising. It recognizes that if peace depends on order and order on stability, then the moralizing power of a hegemon will not of itself lead to a peaceful world. The central insight that animated the Congress of Vienna is that order, like liberty, is fragile. It is contingent on political institutions and social norms and cultural prejudices and a hundred other variables that, if undermined, lead to chaos. Order is easy to break, yet hard to build. But if peace depends on it, then a politics grounded in prudence, caution, and realism is necessary. To live through the traumatic experience of state failure-as all of the Congress's authors did, and as many in the Middle East and North Africa do today-is to recognize that, in comparison to the anarchy and chaos of a civil war, order is an enlightened principle too.

    Jonathan Green is a doctoral student at the University of Cambridge.

    [Jun 25, 2015] Russia experience in 1991 and Armenian color revolution

    Russian neoliberal revolution of 1991 was possible because the current system "of developed socialism" was rotten to the core and elite of the country decided switched sides to find an exist from the dismal economic situation. Moreover communism as an ideology became dead after the WWII and existed in zombie state since then: even "poor" Western countries manage to provide higher standard of living for thier people then Central European countries which were at approximately the same starting level of economic development. Completion in technology was irrevocable lost. Science in the USSR fossilized with real scientists displaced by 'scientific bureaucrats" and ruthless careerists, despite some bright sport (mainly connected with military industrial complex). Backwardness in computer technology was noticeable to everybody. The same with software. Power of the West played the role (drop of oil priced was engineered by Reagan administration; also the USSR got into Afghanistan trap with gentle encouragement of Kissinger and friends) Without that all those attempts by CIA and other Western three letter agencies to distribute money and form fifth column would end with "dissidents" exited and money confiscated. So it was conscious decision of KGB brass that the current system has no chances and the country need to adopt neoliberal model instead. That advantages of socialism over capitalism as an economic system are a myth.

    Many complaining about Yerevan color revolution do not understand that we ourselves live in the country of victorious neoliberal color revolution on 1991?

    Which day in the media and blogs - the perplexity and dissatisfaction of the Maidan in Armenia. People are annoyed: Why the Armenians do not see that they are manipulated? Then dubious persond like in Kiev are handing out cookies/lovasik. They just sweep the area. Read the Sharp's book( p. 33): "In places of demonstrations you should behave complementary to local residents to be careful and smiling". And the same attempt to play thr dystnfsr color revolution card : "children beaten by police" (as in the photo of the girl from Yerevan).

    Still. Some Armenians became blind. Even the local scientist told me that in Yerevan there are hundreds of American NGOs, now blinkered: "That's the people's protest." No American influence, no?.

    And were we not eaully blong in 1991? Aren't we now spitting at our own mirror? How many people understand that we live in a country of victorious neoliberal color revolution of 1991?

    Then also everything was staged exactly like prescribed in Sharp textbook. Five-year plan the preparation of public consciousness (1985-1991), the decomposition and bribering with hard currency of the ruling class rod (In the USSR "everything is rotten" memo became popular), then a reason. In Armenia the reason could be the increase of tariffs and poverty; in Ukraine - cancel signing something with the EU and instillation of hatred for Russia (instillation of hatred for Russia was their key method of preparation of the public consciousness, the decomposition of will to resist to color revolution)... And in Moscow the was infamous putsch.

    Pitiful attempt of the old regime to stop already speeding the train of the collapse of the USSR.

    Vasya, you need to strike first

    Instantly out of nowhere, "peaceful" barricades near the White house, and grandmothers wore tea, Yes, and machines with pies, and the drugs, and the flowers on the tanks (love bombing, sectarian trick: make friends with the men of law, then they couldn't batons you , plus work on the photo, the frame of Western agencies, textbook Sharpe, p. 56).

    And sacred lamps: three boys who perished under the tank tracks....

    And gynatic tricolor flags with the length in Manezhnaya square, which were carried at their funeral? Well, nobody asked the question where it came from. Of course, this symbolism was not prepared in advance for us by our forends from the USa State Department.

    We chanted: "RA-si-ya! RA-si-ya!", - and let's monument to Dzerzhinsky fell. And Ukrainians are such fools. Those fools tried to push Lenin statues from the postaments. We were smarter then them ;-).

    And then American advisers sat on the sixth floor of the Ministry of Finance, and the budget was approved at the IMF. And then agreements on division of production for multinations, when our natural resources were simply given as a present to forein multinatins. And lice started crawling in the grandmother of Yeltsin home, in the village Booth, and all of grandmother's family eat on one grandma's pension, and Yeltsin was shaking hands with the incarnation of Christ Myung moon in the Kremlin, and of the sects became proligic in the the country without any control: "Jesus-us! Appeared to me-e!" (said in a singsong voice, twitching on the stage, the microphone and with an American accent).

    Oh... And books with Nazi crosses was freely displayed on the stalls in the center of Moscow, and strormtroopers of RNE were wandering along the streets. Yes exactly like in Ukraine. Please give me pop-corn. Ukraine is just re-incarnation of our ghosts of 90th...

    As it is obvious that all color revolution are done with huge support from the foreign powers. Let's remember Lenin in the sealed train... Looks like marriages are made in heaven, but color revolutions are made from the outside. Amen.

    ...Then, of course, the USA burned with Napalm most of Russian industry in 90s. And only then started forming new anti-Us vertical of power, and the rebuilding of order and the country started in full force, and even later started the defense of our interests in the international arena. which in understanding of puppeteers of color revolutions was counterrevolution. anti-Maydan.

    But, frankly, we manage to correct and eliminated not everything that foreign power brought into the country in and stuck us in 1991. "Liberators" managed to burn our territory with the democracy to the extent that it will take for us a half a century or more to recover. Such is the power of one successful color revolution. after one such fire, nothing grows on the ground for a long, long time.

    MEANWHILE

    Rebels in Yerevan to the correspondent of "KP": "Please say to the Russians that we are not against them"

    Yeah they us got! Just got! Raised again the price of electricity - that why people rebelled! 'says the taxi driver who takes me from the airport to the street of Marshal Baghramyan Avenue in Yerevan, where already the fourth day of rioting crowd of about five thousand people. Officially - against rising electricity tariffs. "There's the street blocked off, there you should go (details)

    SEE ALSO

    When the "electroMaydan" wins, Yerevan will host Makarevich

    Our columnist tries to understand the causes of the riots in Armenia (details)

    AND HERE WAS A CASE

    Paul Craig Roberts: "If Victoria Nuland visited Armenia, then Armenia will have a coup!"

    This is how this winter warned the Armenian American journalist, economist, one of the principal architects of the "Reagan economic miracle" (details)

    Guest No. 5057, 26.06.2015, 7:01

    Well, I remember that articles about how good is that fact that the Soros Foundation reached out and provides the aid to Russia. And how that ended with promotion of prostitution among young girls and lads for boys. In Russian Newspapers by Russian journalists! It is interesting to me still, is they have any moral consciences and is not what they did bothering any of the those Newspapers presstitutes fed by Soros money for feeding people with all this sh**t on the silver spoon?

    [Jun 25, 2015] Who is That Trip-Trapping on my Bridge – the Fable of Putin's Troll Army by marknesop

    April 11, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    I was thinking, a few days ago, that I might do a post on the bellyaching and caterwauling from the Russophobes about Moscow's supposed army of "paid trolls", who are reimbursed by the Russian government for clogging western comment threads with fallacious arguments and childish insults which detract from – or derail entirely – thoughtful and informative commentary, often ridiculing the post itself into the bargain. As I made my daily round of certain publications, including Russia Insider, I saw that I had been trumped in that intention by the inimitable Patrick Armstrong with "The West Throws a Temper Tantrum". There is no besting Patrick, with his enviable background in Russian affairs, his diplomatic experience and his pungent vocabulary – and even if there were, he references a story by Mark Ames of The eXile fame, who has traced the provenance of the "Russian Trolls" theme and found it to be a recurring wet dream of the Russophobes as far back as 2013.

    The Incredible Human Smarm Generator, Max Seddon, England's answer to beefcake magazines (I'm assuming here that he is from England because such an insufferable twit really could not have come from anywhere else, but please correct me if I am wrong and I will have the guilty location pulled down and sown with salt and dragon's teeth) did it back in 2014, basing his breathless report on "Plans attached to emails leaked by a mysterious Russian hacker collective", although the location is the same one as that described in more recent scoops – the Internet Research Center on 55 Savushkina St., St Petersburg. According to Ames' story, Seddon's source and the furthest back we can easily trace the story is – surprise – Novaya Gazeta, The Little Newspaper That Could; employer of the martyred Anna Politkovskaya, circulation about 184,000 copies (many, like The Moscow Times, giveaways in hotels and train stations). Partly owned by Russian oligarch and former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev and former jilted President Mikhail Gorbachev, Novaya Gazeta now distinguishes itself by publishing the hoarse grunting and screaming of Yulia Latynina, who wrote that poor people should not be allowed to vote because they are hungry and will vote for any prospective leader who promises them food, and who caught on before anyone else that the Chel'yabinsk meteorite was a secret government missile test that got away from them. She retracted that story shortly after it was released, but was unrepentant – she was wrong this time, but make no mistake, that did not mean the Kremlin was not up to devilish experiments. Oh, all right; one more. She announced in 2012 that Putin would use distractions in the Middle East to "stage his long-awaited attack on Georgia". There were clear signs of the contingency planning for this, she confided, in another advertisement for the wisdom of wearing a helmet when playing contact sports.

    Anyway, now that I have hopefully established for you the provenance – to say nothing of the credibility – of the source of this latest nutty obsession, we don't want to make this about the source. The droll droolery of this unbridled foolishness has been exposed, and done to death.

    And yet. I decided to go ahead with it, because there is an entire fundamental in this story that I did not see covered to my satisfaction.

    Neoconservative warhag Annie Applebaum was quite wound up with outrage over the Russian troll issue last winter, penning a crie-de-coeur to a democracy in its death throes because of fake, bought-and-paid-for comments on Internet forums. The very bedrock of democracy is cracking, she tells us, because "…[o]nce upon a time, it seemed as if the Internet would be a place of civilized and open debate; now, unedited forums often deteriorate to insult exchanges. Like it or not, this matters: Multiple experiments have shown that perceptions of an article, its writer or its subject can be profoundly shaped by anonymous online commentary, especially if it is harsh. One group of researchers found that rude comments "not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself." A digital analyst at Atlantic Media also discovered that people who read negative comments were more likely to judge that an article was of low quality and, regardless of the content, to doubt the truth of what it stated. "

    Oddly enough, she did not speculate on what lying does to the credibility of a story, despite her track record as the kind of from-the-hip liar who lies just to keep in practice even when the truth would serve just as well. Astoundingly, in the very same post, she cites Michael Weiss and Peter Pomerantsev – of the partisan hack journal Interpreter Mag – as competent authorities to "distinguish truth from state-sponsored fiction".

    But never mind that for now. Our old friend Catherine Fitzpatrick – also of Interpreter Mag comments in a story for The Atlantic, by Daisy Sindelar; " …trolls inhibit informed debate by using crude dialogue to change "the climate of discussion."If you show up at The Washington Post or New Republic sites, where there's an article that's critical of Russia, and you see that there are 200 comments that sound like they were written by 12-year-olds, then you just don't bother to comment," she says. "

    However, that emphasizes a point that everyone seems to be missing: comments which are supportive of Russia's view, but are crudely formatted or in which the commenter appears to struggle with English, especially if they are angry or insulting – are almost never deleted in moderated forums. In fact, such forums appear to deliberately leave them, as punching bags for enthusiastic and righteous rebuttals as well as examples of what unlettered savages and dropout dolts "Kremlin supporters" are, in much the same way a lioness will hamstring a gazelle and leave it for her cubs, so they will learn to kill. Also, such comments rarely inspire the accusation that the commenter is a paid troll – who would pay anyone for such an inept performance?

    No, the "paid Putin troll" label is far more commonly awarded to commenters whose native language is English or who are highly competent second-language speakers – and Russians with the language skill of a Leonid Bershidsky or a Vladimir Kara-Murza are rare – and who defend their viewpoint with patient elaboration supported by verifiable references. More often, in moderated forums, such comments (if they contradict the editorial line of the forum) are quickly deleted with a minimum of fuss, before most of the readership can even see them. The Guardian is legendary for deleting anything positive written about Russia in the commentary to its articles, and what remains where it once was is the maddeningly self-righteous message, "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs."

    Allow me to offer an instructive example: through the magic of Disqus, I recovered these comments from the Kyiv Post. Mine was marked as "spam" and deleted. See what you think.

    Here's the original comment, by an academic bright spark who calls himself Mr. RainbowBotox:

    "First of all, around 2008, they quietly changed the law allowing them to use nuclear weapons first. Therefore they will be able to use it first. there is also the so-called "strategic use" of these weapons, if things get worse and they decided to drop one on Talin, Estonia, or any other of these countries, there is no way in which the UK, France or the US are going to respond with nuclear weapons, risking the feared wide scale mutual destruction. Therefore it is a real danger that they can actually use them and believe not be at risk of receiving a similar strike."

    Here's my reply, which stayed up no more than an hour before a moderator removed it as spam.

    "Is that so? Actually, no; it's not. Russia dropped the no-first-use policy in 1993, and there was nothing sneaky about it at all – what's the sense of changing a policy in private? How does that have any global effect?

    http://www.nti.org/country-pro

    Analysts at the time speculated the reasoning behind it was not a Russian eagerness for nuclear war, but a policy change which recognized a new role for the nuclear component – deterrence of limited conventional war. The probable reason for that was the steady erosion of Russia's conventional forces, and a need to keep NATO off them until they could regroup. Since 2010 Russia has steadily reduced its reliance on the nuclear deterrent and has drawn down the Strategic Rocket Forces significantly, preferring to beef up the seaborne component.

    Anybody who seriously thinks they would nuke one of the Baltic states needs a psychiatric examination, or knows nothing of nuclear weapons. They are too close to Russia, and even though the prevailing winds are generally westerly it is not worth the risk. None of the Baltics would be able to stand against a conventional attack at much less risk. But why? Russia is not remotely interested in subjugating the yappy Baltics, despite what Edward Lucas tells you – when was he ever right about anything? Are they rich, or something? Russia spent more preparing for the Olympics than the GDP of the wealthiest of them."

    A little of my reply is opinion, such as where I suggest Russia is not interested in subjugating the Baltics. I don't see any evidence of it, but the Russian government obviously does not consult me on its plans. But most is factual, and supported by references. Mr. RainbowBotox's comment was allowed to remain although it contained factual errors and they were pointed out. It's still there now.

    Similar shenanigans go on all the time in The Guardian, and thoughtful comments which appear to be the result of careful research are summarily deleted because they clash with the paper's editorial stance, and because they show up the original commenter as a fool. Some of these authors are simply filtered out after they have had a couple of comments deleted, so that nothing authored by them will be accepted. Occasionally they inspire grudging admiration for the author's command of English – several such were directed at our own Moscow Exile, which made me laugh, because he is as English as the crumpet.

    This kind of high-handedness, resulting in a complete inability to have one's opinion heard, are beginning to inspire alternative sites which are not moderated; in The Guardian's case it is mirrored by the brilliant OffGuardian, and there are many other great ones such as Russia Insider, Danielle Ryan's Journalitico and Paul Robinson's Irrusianality. They rarely seem to attract trolls (except for Russia Insider, which does), and on the occasions they show up the comment sections eat them alive.

    Just a couple more points before I hand over the floor to you. One, for what it's worth, the "Kandid Konfession" of alleged Russian blogger and former paid Russian troll Marat Burkhard is alleged by this German site to have been a hoax perpetrated by Jürg Vollmer's "Troll Factory" in Frankfurt, allegedly the same outfit that perpetrated the "Gay Girl In Damascus" scam. The west was quite angry to discover the supposed 25-year-old lesbian in Syria was actually a 40-year-old straight man in Edinburgh.

    Two; the scenario "Burkhard" describes, in which trolls act in teams of three, makes no sense. According to him, one person provides the original comment, the second plays the "villain" and disagrees with him (ostensibly to provide the appearance of balanced opinion), while the third affirms the rightness of the first person's opinion. He agrees all three sit together, agreeing on who is going to answer who, but then says they do not talk much because everyone is busy.

    There's no need for them to talk at all; allegedly, each operator controls ten Twitter accounts; presumably they each also supplied ten fake email addresses to get the accounts. Why would one operator not fulfill all three roles, playing the parts of initial commenter, villain and collaborator? If it is possible to tell that all three were generated by the same individual, so they must do it in teams of three, why would each need ten Twitter accounts?

    Three, the exchange the alleged troll defector describes – initial commenter, villain and collaborator – neatly captures just about every comment-forum disagreement ever written. It is therefore easy to characterize any exchange in which the commenter is hammering the editorial policy of the site as having come from a "professional paid troll".

    We are being set up. While Applebaum plants the suggestion that you should not read comment forums any more because they are dominated by Russian trolls, Fitzpatrick backs her up that you should just read the article and not pay attention to comments. Applebaum chimes in that research has shown that negative comments can affect your opinion of both the article and its author – far better to just read the article and internalize its truths, rather than confuse yourself. Meanwhile comments in which the author struggles with English and is insulting ("Obama is a monkey, Putin good") are allowed to remain, to serve as an example of how poorly-educated and bigoted Russians are. Anything which argues for fairness and substantiates that Russia is being unfairly criticized, using established and respectable academic or media references, is deleted with some excuse that it is spam, or violates some arbitrary community guidelines.

    Once upon a time, not so very long ago, comment forums in English-speaking sources were almost overwhelmingly in support of articles extolling the goodness of westerners and their policy and the evil of the barbarian hordes who dwell between the Baltic and the Sea of Okhotsk. This is so no longer, and articles which try to draw Manichean comparisons have to fly through a cloud of flak. The western ideologues don't like that. Hence, the cloaking device of "Russian trolls". Anyone arguing against stereotyping of Russia, its leader and its policies, who substantiates his or her argument with solid reasoning and historical or contemporary fact, must be paid by the Russian government. Paid to lie, of course, which is why they must get rid of your argument before it dawns on readers that it is true.

    Unless, of course, you use all the same devices as a troll – an assumed name, profane and opinionated commentary, statements which assume facts not in evidence – but support the western agenda. Then, it's enough that you say you're not a troll; you "try not to lie (according to your own beliefs, which you do not challenge with research) and nobody's paying you". Then, like "Adolfych" in the Sindelar piece, you can troll to your heart's content and never get anything more negative than "an opinionated mischief-maker". You'll benefit from much the same double standard which calls a Moscow billionaire an "oligarch", and a Kiev billionaire a "tycoon".

    You always know you're winning when the other side feels like it has to change the rules.

    [Jun 24, 2015] Russia overtakes Saudi Arabia as largest supplier of oil to China

    Jun 24, 2015 | The Guardian

    Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the largest supplier of oil to China for the first time, sending almost 930,000 barrels a day last month – up 21% on April.

    China imported 3.92m tonnes of crude oil from Russia in May. In comparison, oil imports from Angola and Saudia Arabia totalled 3.26m tonnes and 3.05m tonnes respectively.

    Popeyes 24 Jun 2015 16:33

    Just another example of Russia and China working together at the expense of the U.S. Currency swaps between Russia (ruble) and China (yuan) for an initial US$ 25 billion equivalent have already been implemented, to allow direct transactions between the two countries. Similar swaps are under way between China and Russia with other countries, primarily the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

    In other words, a large junk of hydrocarbons are no longer being traded in US (petro) dollars, but in rubles and yuans and their partners respective local currencies, thus reducing worldwide demand for the petro dollar.

    PlatonKuzin -> 6i9vern 24 Jun 2015 16:28

    True. And what the US is now doing - to prevent the above said from happening - is preparing a war against Russia in Europe by proxy, using the same Europe. There is only one, but very important aspect crossing its dirty criminal intentions.

    And that is that, if the US wages a war in Europe, this time, number one target of Russia will be the United States and the war will go on its territory. The States will not survive this time overseas. It must keep it in mind all the time.

    6i9vern 24 Jun 2015 15:09

    "Russia now accepts yuan for oil payments"

    And so it begins - the end of the petro-dollar, the end of virtually all international trade being mediated in dollars.

    And when that ends, the ability of the USA to run trillion dollar deficits at minimal cost goes. The state will have to shrink. The military industrial complex and entitlements will be radically cut.

    70 million lower middle-class Americans will cease having First World lifestyles.

    Kaiama -> sasha19 24 Jun 2015 15:04

    Actually, I am aware that a deal was signed by Tsipras in St Petersberg to construct a gas pipeline to carry Russian gas from Turkey. But, and this is the crucial point, Russia's trade with China is growing: goods, energy and military technology. In the future, I would expect most of the petrochemicals and natural resources to be redirected to Asia rather than Europe. Yes, the Russians are trying to keep their European Business, but they are also developing the Asian alternative where people aren't trying to screw Russia at the same time. Long term, I suggest that trade with Europe, including gas, will decline permanently or at least for a generation until people have forgotten about everything.

    Petar -> Peter iangio 24 Jun 2015 14:58

    You probably meant ukrainian fascist butchering innocent children and women in Novorossia..but not for long .Russia is redirecting its exports to Asia to break independence on corrupt western money..once it is done..ukraine is doomed.

    BMWAlbert -> Chirographer 24 Jun 2015 14:55

    I think the 'out-of-ground' price in RU is Globally speaking, very low, but China tends to low-ball producing of all energy and materials with a provision of large volume and importantly, high reliability. It was the same with the NG, it was priced something like 30USD below the Euro-rate mean.

    tiojo 24 Jun 2015 13:43

    One of the expected consequences of US and EU economic sanctions on Russia. It finds other partners with which to trade. With the NATO sabre rattlers doing their best to keep themselves and their armed forces in employment combined with economic sanctions that build barriers rather than ties any thought of constructive dialogue seems to have gone out of the window. A pity that Ms Merkel seems to be sidelined in Greece. She seemed to be the only one who saw a future in a positive relationship between Europe and Russia.

    MaoChengJi 24 Jun 2015 13:27

    Calculations at the time shows Russia needs an oil price of $105 a barrel for its budget to break-even

    Well, of course the budget is not sent down by God. They planned for $105/barrel, and now they'll have a different budget. Or they'll compensate by selling more oil. Or they'll use a part of their large rainy-day fund.


    Phil_Paris -> oleteo 24 Jun 2015 12:52

    It is not a coincidence that the huge increase of production of gas thanks to fracking has the consequence of lowering the sales of oil from the Saudi Arabia to the US.
    Now China is buying a lot of oil from a Saudi Arabia.

    Then the USA is not as dependant of Saudi Arabia, which is a reasonnable move after 9/11, but undoubtebly must retain good connections in the oil industry there which can be usefull when China is highly dependant on imported oil.

    Phil_Paris -> quarrytone 24 Jun 2015 12:38

    China doesn't "cement ties in South America", China for example makes agreements with Brasil to build a railway across the Amazonia to carry GM soya and cut the forest to export logs to China, and eliminate indigenous tribes if necessary
    It's colonial.
    As regards China and Russia, Russia has signed an agreement whereby it will sell gas to China with Chinese financing through a pipeline (built by Chinese firms, Chinese workers probably too as it would be naive to think that China will pay to employ Russians) not connected to the grid to Europe ie for the sole destination of China, hence China will hold Russia by the b....
    In the South China Sea China is violating the International Law of the Sea and occupies islands and islets included in the EEZ of states thousands of km from its own shores.

    quarrytone -> Phil_Paris 24 Jun 2015 11:49

    However the biased press likes to dress it up, China does have a historic claim to uninhabited islands and reefs, however tenuous in Western law. Comparing that old KMT claim to a sudden annexation across a long settled border is faintly hysterical.

    And no, there are not millions of Chinese on Russia's border. Clearly geography isn't your strong point. There are one or two cities with a couple of million doing well thanks through trade with Russia, and Russians doing very well in trade with China. If China wants farmland produce then that will only cement ties with Russia, as it does with South America.

    [Jun 24, 2015] NYT's Orwellian View of Ukraine

    "...As the Times has degenerated from a relatively decent newspaper into a fount of neocon propaganda, its editors also have descended into the practice of simply inventing a narrative of events that serves an ideological purpose, its own version of "Two Minutes Hate." "
    June 22, 2015 | Consortiumnews

    Exclusive: In the up-is-down Orwellian world that is now The New York Times' editorial page, there was no coup in Ukraine in 2014, no U.S.-driven "regime change," no provocation on Russia's border, just Moscow's aggression - a sign of how propaganda has taken over mainstream U.S. media, writes Robert Parry.

    By Robert Parry

    In George Orwell's 1984, the leaders of Oceania presented "Two Minutes Hate" in which the image of an enemy was put on display and loyal Oceanianians expressed their rage, all the better to prepare them for the country's endless wars and their own surrender of freedom. And, now, in America, you have The New York Times.

    Surely the Times is a bit more subtle than the powers-that-be in Orwell's Oceania, but the point is the same. The "paper of record" decides who our rotating foreign enemy is and depicts its leader as a demon corrupting whatever he touches. The rest of us aren't supposed to think for ourselves. We're just supposed to hate.

    As the Times has degenerated from a relatively decent newspaper into a fount of neocon propaganda, its editors also have descended into the practice of simply inventing a narrative of events that serves an ideological purpose, its own version of "Two Minutes Hate." Like the leaders of Orwell's Oceania, the Times has become increasingly heavy-handed in its propaganda.

    Excluding alternative explanations of events, even if supported by solid evidence, the Times arrogantly creates its own reality and tells us who to hate.

    In assessing the Times's downward spiral into this unethical journalism, one could look back on its false reporting regarding Iraq, Iran, Syria or other Middle East hotspots. But now the Times is putting the lives of ourselves, our children and our grandchildren at risk with its reckless reporting on the Ukraine crisis – by setting up an unnecessary confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, the United States and Russia.

    At the center of the Times' propaganda on Ukraine has been its uncritical – indeed its anti-journalistic – embrace of the Ukrainians coup-makers in late 2013 and early 2014 as they collaborated with neo-Nazi militias to violently overthrow elected President Viktor Yanukovych and hurl Ukraine into a bloody civil war.

    Rather than display journalistic professionalism, the Times' propagandists ignored the evidence of a coup – including an intercepted phone call in which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussed how to "mid-wife" the regime change and handpick the new leaders. "Yats is the guy," declared Nuland, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who emerged as prime minister.

    The Times even ignored a national security expert, Statfor founder George Friedman, when he termed the ouster of Ukraine's elected president "the most blatant coup in history." The Times just waved a magic wand and pronounced that there was no coup – and anyone who thought so must reside inside "the Russian propaganda bubble." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]

    Perhaps even more egregiously, the Times has pretended that there were no neo-Nazi militias spearheading the Feb. 22, 2014 coup and then leading the bloody "anti-terrorist operation" against ethnic Russians in the south and east who resisted the coup. The Times explained all this bloodshed as simply "Russian aggression."

    It didn't even matter when the U.S. House of Representatives – of all groups – unanimously acknowledged the neo-Nazi problem when it prohibited U.S. collaboration in military training of Ukrainian Nazis. The Times simply expunged the vote from its "official history" of the crisis. [See Consortiumnews.com's "US House Admits Nazi Role in Ukraine."]

    Orwell's Putin

    Yet, for an Orwellian "Two Minute Hate" to work properly, you need to have a villain whose face you can put on display. And, in the case of Ukraine – at least after Yanukovych was driven from the scene – that villain has been Russian President Vladimir Putin, who embodies all evil in the intense hatred sold to the American public.

    So, when Putin presents a narrative of the Ukraine crisis, which notes the history of the U.S.-driven expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders and the evidence of the U.S.-directed Ukrainian coup, the Times editors must dismiss it all as "mythology," as they did in Monday's editorial regarding Putin's remarks to an international economic conference in St. Petersburg.

    "President Vladimir Putin of Russia is not veering from the mythology he created to explain away the crisis over Ukraine," the Times' editors wrote. "It is one that wholly blames the West for provoking a new Cold War and insists that international sanctions have not grievously wounded his country's flagging economy."

    Without acknowledging any Western guilt in the coup that overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in 2014, the Times' editors simply reveled in the harm that the Obama administration and the European Union have inflicted on Russia's economy for its support of the Yanukovych government and its continued backers in eastern and southern Ukraine.

    For nearly a year and a half, the New York Times and other major U.S. news organizations have simply refused to acknowledge the reality of what happened in Ukraine. In the Western fantasy, the elected Yanukovych government simply disappeared and was replaced by a U.S.-backed regime that then treated any resistance to its rule as "terrorism." The new regime even dispatched neo-Nazi militias to kill ethnic Russians and other Ukrainians who resisted and thus were deemed "terrorists."

    The upside-down narrative of what happened in Ukraine has become the conventional wisdom in Official Washington and has been imposed on America's European allies as well. According to The New York Times' Orwellian storyline, anyone who notes the reality of a U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine is engaging in "fantasy" and must be some kind of Putin pawn.

    To the Times' editors, all the justice is on their side, even as Ukraine's new regime has deployed neo-Nazi militias to kill eastern Ukrainians who resisted the anti-Yanukovych coup. To the Times' editors, the only possible reason to object to Ukraine's new order is that the Russians must be bribing European dissidents to resist the U.S. version of events. The Times wrote:

    "The Europeans are indeed divided over the extent to which Russia, with its huge oil and gas resources, should be isolated, but Mr. Putin's aggression so far has ensured their unity when it counts. In addition to extending existing sanctions, the allies have prepared a new round of sanctions that could be imposed if Russian-backed separatists seized more territory in Ukraine. …

    "Although Mr. Putin insisted on Friday that Russia had found the 'inner strength' to weather sanctions and a drop in oil prices, investment has slowed, capital has fled the country and the economy has been sliding into recession. Even the business forum was not all that it seemed: The heads of many Western companies stayed away for a second year."

    An Orwellian World

    In the up-is-down world that has become the New York Times' editorial page, the Western coup-making on Russia's border with the implicit threat of U.S. and NATO nuclear weapons within easy range of Moscow is transformed into a case of "Russian aggression." The Times' editors wrote: "One of the most alarming aspects of the crisis has been Mr. Putin's willingness to brandish nuclear weapons."

    Though it would appear objectively that the United States was engaged in serious mischief-making on Russia's border, the Times editors flip it around to make Russian military maneuvers – inside Russia – a sign of aggression against the West.

    "Given Mr. Putin's aggressive behavior, including pouring troops and weapons into Kaliningrad, a Russian city located between NATO members Lithuania and Poland, the allies have begun taking their own military steps. In recent months, NATO approved a rapid-reaction force in case an ally needs to be defended. It also pre-positioned some weapons in front-line countries, is rotating troops there and is conducting many more exercises. There are also plans to store battle tanks and other heavy weapons in several Baltic and Eastern European countries.

    "If he is not careful, Mr. Putin may end up facing exactly what he has railed against - a NATO more firmly parked on Russia's borders - not because the alliance wanted to go in that direction, but because Russian behavior left it little choice. That is neither in Russia's interest, nor the West's."

    There is something truly 1984-ish about reading that kind of propagandistic writing in The New York Times and other Western publications. But it has become the pattern, not the exception.

    The Words of the 'Demon'

    Though the Times and the rest of the Western media insist on demonizing Putin, we still should hear the Russian president's version of events, as simply a matter of journalistic fairness. Here is how Putin explained the situation to American TV talk show host Charlie Rose on June 19:

    "Why did we arrive at the crisis in Ukraine? I am convinced that after the so-called bipolar system ceased to exist, after the Soviet Union was gone from the political map of the world, some of our partners in the West, including and primarily the United States, of course, were in a state of euphoria of sorts. Instead of developing good neighborly relations and partnerships, they began to develop the new geopolitical space that they thought was unoccupied. This, for instance, is what caused the North Atlantic bloc, NATO, to go east, along with many other developments.

    "I have been thinking a lot about why this is happening and eventually came to the conclusion that some of our partners [Putin's way of describing Americans] seem to have gotten the illusion that the world order that was created after World War II, with such a global center as the Soviet Union, does not exist anymore, that a vacuum of sorts has developed that needs to be filled quickly.

    "I think such an approach is a mistake. This is how we got Iraq, and we know that even today there are people in the United States who think that mistakes were made in Iraq. Many admit that there were mistakes in Iraq, and nevertheless they repeat it all in Libya. Now they got to Ukraine. We did not bring about the crisis in Ukraine. There was no need to support, as I have said many times, the anti-state, anti-constitutional takeover that eventually led to a sharp resistance on the territory of Ukraine, to a civil war in fact.

    "Where do we go from here?" Putin asked. "Today we primarily need to comply with all the agreements reached in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. … At the same time, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of all our partners to the fact that we cannot do it unilaterally. We keep hearing the same thing, repeated like a mantra – that Russia should influence the southeast of Ukraine. We are. However, it is impossible to resolve the problem through our influence on the southeast alone.

    "There has to be influence on the current official authorities in Kiev, which is something we cannot do. This is a road our Western partners have to take – those in Europe and America. Let us work together. … We believe that to resolve the situation we need to implement the Minsk agreements, as I said. The elements of a political settlement are key here. There are several."

    Putin continued: "The first one is constitutional reform, and the Minsk agreements say clearly: to provide autonomy or, as they say decentralization of power, let it be decentralization. This is quite clear, our European partners, France and Germany have spelled it out and we are quite satisfied with it, just as the representatives of Donbass [eastern Ukraine where ethnic Russians who had supported Yanukovych have declared independence] are. This is one component.

    "The second thing that has to be done – the law passed earlier on the special status of these territories – Luhansk and Donetsk, the unrecognized republics, should be enacted. It was passed, but still not acted upon. This requires a resolution of the Supreme Rada – the Ukrainian Parliament – which is also covered in the Minsk agreements. Our friends in Kiev have formally complied with this decision, but simultaneously with the passing by the Rada of the resolution to enact the law they amended the law itself … which practically renders the action null and void. This is a mere manipulation, and they have to move from manipulations to real action.

    "The third thing is a law on amnesty. It is impossible to have a political dialogue with people who are threatened with criminal persecution. And finally, they need to pass a law on municipal elections on these territories and to have the elections themselves. All this is spelled out in the Minsk agreements, this is something I would like to draw your attention to, and all this should be done with the agreement of Donetsk and Luhansk.

    "Unfortunately, we still see no direct dialogue, only some signs of it, but too much time has passed after the Minsk agreements were signed. I repeat, it is important now to have a direct dialogue between Luhansk, Donetsk and Kiev – this is missing."

    Also missing is any objective and professional explanation of this crisis in the mainstream American press. Instead, The New York Times and other major U.S. news organizations have continued with their pattern of 1984-ish propaganda.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

    Abe

    June 22, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    we hear ever-shriller charges that Moscow has mounted a dangerous, security-threatening propaganda campaign to destroy the truth-our truth, we can say. It is nothing short of "the weaponization of information," we are provocatively warned. Let us be on notice: Our truth and our air are now as polluted with propaganda as during the Cold War decades, and the only apparent plan is to make it worse.

    O.K., let us do what sorting can be done.

    […]

    Details. The Times described "Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine" as "an independent report." I imagine [New York Times' State Department correspondent Michael] Gordon-he seems to do all the blurry stuff these days-had a straight face when he wrote three paragraphs later that John Herbst, one of the Atlantic Council's authors, is a former ambassador to Ukraine.

    I do not know what kind of a face Gordon wore when he reported later on that the Atlantic Council paper rests on research done by Bellingcat.com, "an investigative website." Or when he let Herbst get away with calling Bellingcat, which appears to operate from a third-floor office in Leicester, a city in the English Midlands, "independent researchers."

    I wonder, honestly, if correspondents look sad when they write such things-sad their work has come to this.

    One, Bellingcat did its work using Google, YouTube and other readily available social media technologies, and this we are supposed to think is the cleverest thing under the sun. Are you kidding?

    Manipulating social media "evidence" has been a parlor game in Kiev; Washington; Langley, Virginia, and at NATO since the Ukraine crisis broke open. Look at the graphics included in the presentation. I do not think technical expertise is required to see that these images prove what all others offered as evidence since last year prove: nothing. It looks like the usual hocus-pocus.

    Two, examine the Bellingcat web site and try to figure out who runs it. I tried the about page and it was blank. The site consists of badly supported anti-Russian "reports"-no "investigation" aimed in any other direction.

    We are the propagandists: The real story about how The New York Times and the White House has turned truth in the Ukraine on its head
    By Patrick L. Smith
    http://www.salon.com/2015/06/03/we_are_the_propagandists_the_real_story_about_how_the_new_york_times_and_the_white_house_has_turned_truth_in_the_ukraine_on_its_head/

    Peter Loeb, June 23, 2015 at 11:36 am
      THANKS TO R PARRY…AGAIN!

      With no substantive points to add to your article I can only mourn that I wish I had written it myself.

      In addition to NYT, NPR has taken the same line with proofs of Russian evil and in the same spirit as the NYT totally fails to address any other points such as the coup, the increasing US bases and so forth. And all in the name of their so called "ballanced", "objective" journalism.

      (This was on NPR's national radio broadcast for "All Things Considered" which might be renamed "Not Very Much Considered". I felt like screaming except that on topics I
      care about deeply I have come to expect this kind of reporting from NPR).

      --Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    Abe, June 22, 2015 at 11:22 pm
    now, finally, Ukraine's Constitutional Court is faced with the shocking predicament of Ukraine's own President, who won his post as a result of this coup, requesting them to "acknowledge" that it was a coup, much as the founder of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor had even called it, "the most blatant coup in history."

    Ukraine's Pres. Poroshenko Says Overthrow of Yanukovych Was a Coup
    By Eric Zuesse
    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/ukraines-pres-poroshenko-says-overthrow-of-yanukovych-was-a-coup.html

    abbybwood, June 23, 2015 at 2:51 am
    And take note how Nuland got Saakashvili appointed as head of Odessa:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/30/ukraine-appoints-georgia-ex-president-mikheil-saakashvili-governor-of-odessa

    The ex-president of Georgia and a criminal who was holed up in NYC prior to taking off for Ukraine:

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/mikheil_saakashvili/index.html

    Let's see, we also got an American citizen to be the new "Foreign Minister" in Ukraine.

    The New York Times has lost ALL credibility.

    JA, June 23, 2015 at 2:57 am
    It is not just English language media. In Sweden, both the main national dailies, Dagens Nyheter and Svenska Dagbladet run with the same propaganda about Russian aggression and Putin's expansionist plans. Both are also stridently calling for Sweden to join NATO, damning 200 years of Swedish neutrality and in a belligerant tone of faux outrage at anyone who suggests this is not a good idea as it would further antagonise relationships across the Baltic, 'how dare Putin (aks Hitler II) interfere in Swedish politics'.

    As Russia is strengthening its naval port defences in Kaliningrad, probably also a NATO target like Crimea, the US/NATO must be licking its lips at taking over the Swedish naval base at Karlskrona, pretty much opposite Kaliningrad on the Baltic.

    Abe

      June 23, 2015 at 2:19 pm

      On June 13, NATO conducted a preliminary amphibious landing exercise at Ravlunda, Sweden as part of BALTOPS 2015.

      Video of the Ravlunda landing includes aerial support by two B-52 bombers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qq9HHQ22jW4 (see minutes 26:34 – 27:40)

      On June 17, Swedish troops participated in the major landing exercise at Ustka, Poland, 300 kilometers east of Kaliningrad oblast.

      On June 18, in an interview with the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, Viktor Tatarintsev, Russian ambassador to Sweden, criticized the "aggressive propaganda campaign" by Swedish media.

      "Russia is often described as an attacker who only thinks of conducting wars and threatening others. But I can guarantee that Sweden, which is an alliance-free nation, is not part of any military plans by Russian authorities. Sweden is not a target for our armed troops," he said.

      However, he underlined that "consequences" if Sweden were to abandon its alliance neutrality and join NATO.

      "I don't think it will become relevant in the near future, even though there has been a certain swing in public opinion. But if it happens there will be counter measures. Putin pointed out that there will be consequences, that Russia will have to resort to a response of the military kind and re-orientate our troops and missiles. The country that joins NATO needs to be aware of the risks it is exposing itself to" he said.

      A ballyhooed October 2014 weekend survey conducted by pollsters Novus for TV4, Sweden's largest commercial television channel, showed 37% of Swedes were in favor of joining NATO with 36% of Swedes against. This was the first time that more Swedes have favored joining the alliance than not.

    Stef, June 23, 2015 at 4:36 am

    I was in Ukraine for 18 months before and after the overthrow of Yanukovych. The reason why he was overthrown is simple . . . people were upset at the corruption and string of broken promises. Many people believe a shift toward Europe will force the government to make structural economic reforms that will reduce corruption and improve efficiency and competitiveness. One main reason SOME people in the east are pro-Russian is because of the strong economic ties with Russia; Russia is the only country that will buy Ukrainian goods because they are of better quality in many cases (and less expensive) than Russian produced products.

    Varenik

      June 23, 2015 at 4:38 pm

      You might be glossing over the fact that most of them are ethnically Russian, born on land of their ancestors that did not belong to Ukraine until Lenin gave it. AND that they know what western Ukrainians are capable of. And that those western Ukrainians were the the stormtroopers that, with the help of US, violently overthrew the elected government. And that the austerity that will come, imposed by IMF and European Bank along with de-industrialization of Ukraine will make any and all imaginable "abuse" by Russia pale in comparison.

      Just a few of reality bites you chose to skip over. Unless those 18 months in Ukraine were in employ of some "freedom and democracy" promoting NGO's.

    Helge

      June 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm

      If Yanukovich was corrupt then it would appear likely that all those working as ministers for his government were corrupt as well, wouldn't you agree? No have a look who was Ukraine's minister of economy from December 2012 until February 2014? So what has changed then since Feb. 2014? Obviously, absolutely nothing, and if then, only for the worse because the current regime appears more repressive than Yanukovich ever was.

    Joe Wallace

      June 23, 2015 at 10:04 pm

      If Ukrainian goods "are of better quality in many cases (and less expensive) than Russian produced products," why would Russia be "the only country that will buy them?"

    Drew

      June 24, 2015 at 2:46 am

      Steph- so the 5 Billion the US spent on Maiden had nothing to do with it? How about the propaganda? Prior attempts at color revolution? The paramilitaries? A deal was brokered to let the president stand a little longer with a new election around the corner. After this, the protesters (a minority in Ukraine, by the way) appeared content & started home. It was at this point that paramilitaries kicked in & the US officials did nothing to stop it, nor invalidate the coup. It does not seem that you understand what is going on, here,

    Dahoit

      June 24, 2015 at 10:46 am

      Yeah, my toaster has made in Ukraine. Sheesh. The only products Ukraine sells are weapons, from factories probably left over from the SU. The Russians seem to have rockets and many other weapons that are modern and formidable, and effective, so they must make some good stuff, eh?

    Bianca

      June 24, 2015 at 5:42 pm

      You are mixing up the reasons for protest and the reasons for overthrow of elected president. There is no doubt that the economy was bad, and people had reasons to be unhappy. But the protests - no matter how large, are still representing a tiny portion of the country's population. Kiev had already had a pro-Western revolution, "Orange" as it was called.

      Yet, the country fell apart during the rule of pro-western politicians, and Yanukovich inherited the mess. The reason for coup was external intelligence meddling, busing in thousands of openly and proudly Nazi groups from the Western Ukraine, primarily from Lvov. And the key reason for coup was the false agreement that the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Poland struck between the President and the "opposition". The President agreed to elections, and to withdraw police from the streets. The Europeans barely left the airport, when the armed coup perpetrators started shooting into police and protesters. They pushed in with iron bars and Molotov coctails into Rada, and blocked those parliamentarians that tried to flee - forcing them to stay inside and "vote". They went immediately to the homes of politicians, president and other leaders of the regime, and killed many in the process. The President fled. In Rada, the vote was forced that appointed the new government, and the old one was disbanded. All of this evidence is recorded - including violence against delegates of Yanukovic party that were forced to vote for the coup. Thousands upon thousands of recorded evidence exists of the violence against Russians, Jews, Bulgarians, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and Tatars. Yet, all it was cleaned up for the Western audience, and even Jewish leadership in US declared that Jews are not threatened in Ukraine. Thousands have however, fled the country. OPEN and RECORDED debate was held on what to do with the Russian population in Ukraine. "Yatz's" boss, Yulia Tymoshenko recommended "nuking them", while more practical Right Sector Leadership, and the leadership of Svoboda (nowdays in deep hiding, getting ready to be transformed into legitimate party of the right) recommended giving authority to local military commanders to round up all prominent Russians - businessmen, lawyers, doctors, teachers, engineers - and killing them WITHOUT requiring a prior approval from the authorities. Tymoshenko, being the head of a large political party with presence throughout Ukraine, offered her offices for such initiative. Now, which one of the options is West subscribing to? Looks like it could be both: first they declare Russian population "terrorists", then launch indiscriminate bombing campaign against their cities and villages. The "nuking" option may be needed in the end, as the "response" to "Russian aggression". Even though US Congress prevented arms to go to neo-Nazis - it is merely a shell game. Training centers and arming is happening in Lvov region. That is where the core Nazi elements are. US is thus training Nazis in order to create "National Guard". Why is this "Guard" needed when Ukraine has military? Because US and West do not trust military - they are unfortunately still guided by professional military training and code of conduct. What is needed is army of head-choppers and people-burners, those that will have no emotional barriers to committing heinous crimes. This is why Georgian Saakashvili has been put in charge of Odessa - as this is a region full of Russians and other "non loyal" minorities. Besides Odessa, such "punitive" squads will be dispatched to: Zaporozye, Kharkov, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, and Mikolayev.

      Just because people are unhappy with their lives, it does not entitle them to change government by force, and to trash institutions upon which ordinary people rely in their daily lives. Such "revolutions' usually bring scum to power, and the suffering of people is invariably greater. We have to stop believing in revolutions, supporting them, and recognizing their ill gains. Political process may be slow, but it is up to people to organize and build political parties that will do better job. I hope that if ever any revolutionary comes to my streets that my country will do everything in its power to destroy them. As much as I do not approve of many things in politics, I am - like most people, and I am sure majority of Ukrainians, grateful for the order that allows us to lead normal life and our children to grow up in peace. No revolution is worth one child's tear.

    Brad Owen, June 23, 2015 at 5:38 am

    This is all completely Wall Street/City-of-London vs. BRICS. The City and the Street are on the verge of bankruptcy. Greece has until the end of June to make an impossible payment for a fraudulent debt, and The Western Empire's own financial shenanigans have "checkmated" them. BRICS is the obvious alternative for World development & progress, which has driven The Western Empire MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction…"if we can't reign, nobody will"). I've read where powerful, institutional forces are pushing back against this madness…it's going to be a long, dreadfully hot, summer.

    Tom, June 23, 2015 at 5:47 am

    Here are the facts on the last 100 years of ukrainian and russians relations. Ukraine was conquered and incorporated into the russian empire in the late 1700's. After the Russian revolution, soviet troops made sure a puppet government was established and exterminated any opposition creating the soviet republic of Ukraine. In the 30's accused Ukraine farmers of stealing food supplies and not distributing through Moscow. Took all their food for a few years and created a man made famine that killed 6 million Ukrainians. Skipping the war atrocities stuff in ww2, which russians do not call ww2 bevause the were allies with hitler for the first part. They then expanded ukraines border into poland, deported all the polish creating a ukrainian west and encouraged russian migration to the east and made russian compulsory everywhere. Fast forward to now. The russians invade ukraine openly and anex crimea. They deny invading the other parts for now but are doing it anyway. They blame all the other soviet block coutries which they forcibly occupied for 50 years as being under some duress from the west to join them. Geopolitical theories might be true, and newspapers can be biased, but the ukraines arent russias brothers. And if they are they need to flee the domestic violence and get a step family.

    Anonymous

      June 23, 2015 at 7:47 am

      You may want to submit this to the NY Times for publishing as it conspicuously lacks any mention of the US engineering the 2014 coup as well as the fact that NATO has repeatedly violated the agreements that ended the Cold War.

      Seems that Russia learned its lessons from the Cold War while the US never stopped trying to "win" the original Cold War by overthrowing anyone that puts their own interests and sovereignty in front of the Wests neocon/banking cabal just as the Ukraine did before the 2014 US engineered coup.

    Joe, June 23, 2015 at 9:09 am

      Why this nonsense about "russians invade ukraine openly and anex crimea"? We all know that this is propaganda for which zero evidence has emerged. If you have an historical point it is lost in this plain attempt to deceive. There often are historical trends which may continue, but causes in the present must be argued: it is careless to assert that there is such a thing as "the russians" over such a long period.

      Factional grievances are solved only by recognizing the legitimate interests and rights of all factions, not by looking for devils and refusing to see faults on other sides. This balance is clear in the Putin remarks. Opposition requires good reasoning and evidence.

    Zerge

      June 23, 2015 at 9:45 am

      You really should try to learn history more ant stop tear facts from a context. For example, Ukraine didn't actually exist like a state before 1918. By centuries modern Ukraine's territories were included into Lithuania, Poland, Moldavia, Hungary. Russian Empire not the only one here, you know.

      About famine just wiki's quote: "The Soviet famine of 1932–33 affected the major grain-producing areas of the Soviet Union, leading to the deaths of millions in those areas and severe food insecurity throughout the USSR. These areas included Ukraine, Northern Caucasus, Volga Region and Kazakhstan, the South Urals, and West Siberia". I don't really understand why famine in Ukraine more tragic and more terrible than famine in Mordovia or Ural.

      By the way, new family doesn't rush to hug and love new step kid. More likely it enjoys watching kid's suicide.

    Ptaha, June 23, 2015 at 11:03 am

      Your post is sadly funny – such a crazy interpretation on Russian- Ukrainian history. Are you really "Tom" or you "Tom from west Ukraine"? Who occupied Ukraine in 1700????!!!!!! Ukraine was straggling to survive from Polish and Turkish aggression and asked Russia to take Ukraine as a part of Russia in order to be protected. Under Polish-Turkish occupation they were not allowed to speak Ukrainian language and get married without permission. When it comes to that " cry" about Ukrainian farmers who died without food that was taken forcefully or were sent away from home, why you do not mention that the same situation was over all Soviet Union? How about Povolzh'e https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921 ? Who "forcefully" occupied other Soviet Union Republics?.All of them were in Russian borders before 1917. What about England who occupied Ireland and Scotland or US occupied Texas and so on? One more thing – we are brothers and sisters and it is not your business to decide identification of our ethnicity. We all have mixed blood and we do not deny any part of it.

    Abe

      June 23, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      "Skipping the war atrocities stuff" is a popular pastime in Ukraine. Unless, of course, one is enthusiastically commemorating the 1941 liberation of Lviv by the "heroic" Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), the 1943 liberation of Volhynia and Eastern Galicia by the "heroic" Ukrainian insurgent Army (UPA), the 1944 exploits of the "heroic" Waffen-SS Galicia Division, or the 1945 exploits of the "heroic" Ukrainian National Army (UNA).

    Abe

    June 23, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    Not to mention the 2014 exploits of the "heroic" Ukrainian territorial defense battalions and special police battalions. In November 2014, all 37 volunteer battalions to be integrated into Ukraine's regular forces, thus they were officially inducted into the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Minister of Internal Affairs and National Guard of Ukraine as National Guard battalions.

    We'll just skip the "heroic" exploits of Azov, Aidar, and Tornado battalions.

    A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh? Know what I mean? Say no more.

    Abe

      June 23, 2015 at 1:03 pm

      "Geopolitical theories might be true, and newspapers can be biased, but the ukraines arent russias [sic] brothers. And if they are they need to flee the domestic violence and get a step family."

      Sure, just like in 1941, Ukraine can get a Nazi step family (NATO) and reenact the "Battle of the European SS".

      'Cause crazy uncle Adolf's got this great plan for Ukraine's future https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Generalplan_Ost

    Oleg

      June 23, 2015 at 2:56 pm

      Dear Tom, you probably meant to leave your comment at a different site (like Euromaidan, Mirotvorec, etc). Here you're facing a different kind of audience. It does not take a rocket scientist to go to the wiki and find that you wrote blatant lies. E.g. that Bohdan Khmelniskiy asked for Russian protection and Tsar's favours in 1654 after he had been annihilated by the Poles. And it went on from there. For instance, Stalin gave parts of Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia to Ukraine, Khruschev donated Crimea, etc. such that Ukraine actually has grown a lot under the Soviet rule.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine-growth.png
      Not to mention that many USSR leaders were Ukranian.

    Drew

      June 24, 2015 at 3:06 am

      Tom- your knowledge of history is lacking, somewhat. Might I point out that the eastern portion of what you call Ukraine historically belongs to Russia? That Ukraine has been more of a middle ground and borderland between for East & West Europe for centuries, continually being carved up & never really becoming a nation until recently. While I do not approve of Stalin's modernization programs in Ukraine and purges & other acts of violence, you leave out the growth of the OUN-B, the nazi-like nazi collaborators who were trained by both British & Germany to attack Russia/Soviets. Then there is the genocide the Ukranian nationalists participated in and with such a ferocity, the Nazis were ashamed….post-WWII: Bandera OUN to the US, largely working in CIA and Washington….1991& on: back to Ukraine to help foment a break from Rusdia & color revolution….,

      Odessa- Putin was in his legal rights to bring a force that size, where the port is controlled by Russia. Moreover, repeated poling by independent sources reveal 90+% of Crimeans residents want to be part of Ukraine…. Condortium and other award winning independent outlets have already turned the "Russia invasion" mythology of its head.
      "Ukrainian's aren't Russia's brothers" …sorry, but at least half of Ukraine would disagree, especially those fighting for agency in Donbass. You really can't peddle that stuff here.

    Bianca

      June 24, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      This creative "history" will do well for New York Times - it is so biased and untrue, that it will take pages to get the lies covered. As for your concluding thought - that Ukrainians need another family, you may have a point. It is very important that a country grows up. Ukraine has been on a crossroads of many battles, and was source of slaves for hundreds of years before Russia put an end to this lucrative "business". Those that hunted slaves and those that then sold them making hefty profits - until today feel some sort of superiority over those Slavs. Ukraine must grow up, and what it does not kill it, will make it stronger. Its people will go through horrendous pains as the new relations will take all they can carry out of the country, and what cannot be carried, will be destroyed. But it must be so. Some will discover that they are Russians after all, while others will gravitate to the world that they were most familiar with - such as Galicia gravitating to Poland. What this country called for a long time is an amicable divorce. Now, it will happen anyway, but after much suffering.

      As you chose to start your twisted history full of lies and innuendos in 1700 - you may have mentioned that Kiev was capital of Russia before Mongol invasion, and it is because of the invasion of Mongols and Tatars that the capital was moved to Moscow.

      Also, West has not shown itself to be CAPABLE of offering any path, any successful economic model for all the countries they happen to bestow their "love" upon. There is no country in Eastern Europe that is successful, contrary to propaganda. Most are in fact in horrible shape, and its population fled to other countries in search of jobs or just to save themselves from bank imposed slavery. Check out Baltic countries, as an example. Countries like Poland are tired as well - the theme of the latest elections was "we look good on paper". That is what Europe is - good on paper. Most countries of the former Eastern block are now economically depressed, their education and health care decimated. Life in countries like Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Moldavia, etc. is well below their former socialist existence. Yet, they MUST implement "reforms" that harm them, they must fulfill all the orders from their European masters, yet year after year they are poorer. Masses od emigrants are flooding Europe - from the regions were Western wars destroyed entire countries, Middle East, Central and North Africa, and now from poor European countries. Greece has not caused its own misery - no matter what White West has to say about it. Loans have been forced down their throats for "reforms", that nobody ever knew how exactly will those "reforms" work. The banks just wanted politicians to take loans, White West companies were in line to get the money for various "needs", and in the end, instead of punishing the greedy bankers that had no business giving loans to feather western companies pockets - all the loans have been magically transferred to Greek taxpayer, and if they do not pay, to European taxpayer - as the utterly incompetent EU Bank and politically motivated IMF managed to fool the European public. Ukraine is quite welcome to this mess - for as long as they remember not to blame Russia. People must be allowed to make their mistakes. And if some regions of Ukraine are not eager to go there, why force them? After all - what is wrong with some competition. Let pro-Russian regions stay to trade with Russia, and pro-Western go to EU, and build their fortune there.

    Abe

    June 23, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    Shout, shout…

    shout out his name!

    Putin!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvvPZd6_D8

    Mulegino1

    June 24, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    As far as those so called "Neo -Nazi" battalions are concerned, they appear to be criminal gangs who have adopted Waffen S.S. insignia as their symbols.
    And, judging by whose side they are fighting on, they appear to be quite kosher "Nazis" indeed.

    Abe

      June 23, 2015 at 3:57 pm

      One of Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltration trolls assigned to Consortium News takes a break from porn surfing to chime in. Gotta keep earning that guv'mint paycheck.

      Mulegino1

      June 24, 2015 at 4:14 pm

      It is quite perceptive of you to say so – that is indeed what is really at play here.
      The BRICS are a direct threat to Atlanticist Zionist financial hegemony in the same way that National Socialist Germany was.

      Long before Germany invaded Poland, the war parties in Britain and the F.D.R. administration had decided that the German nation had to be destroyed; the issue of currency backed only by the productive power of physical labor – much like Lincoln's "Greenbacks" – was a huge blow against the central banks, and the barter trade – the exchange of German industrial goods in exchange for raw materials – was a potential fatal blow to the hegemony of Wall St. and the City of London. A "Barter Bloc" of nations including the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and much of Latin America would have obviated the need for an international reserve currency.

      We're seeing much the same situation here. The difference, of course, is that Putin has time and space on his side, not to mention the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

    Abbybwood

    June 23, 2015 at 1:49 pm

    U.S. is ratcheting up the rhetoric now with talk of Putin being Hitler and the times now feeling like the 1930's:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/unite-against-moscow-aggression-us-nuclear-missile-commander-says-vladimir-putins-actions-echo-those-of-nazi-germany-in-the-1930s-10337983.html

    Time for Robert Parry to get his journalist friends together (Scheer, Hedges etc.) for a little "show and tell" at the National Press Club.

    This is all getting waaaayyy out of hand.

    Saner heads must prevail and simply "writing" about all this isn't cutting it.

    Abbybwood

    ptaha

    June 23, 2015 at 2:28 pm

    Proud father teaches his daughter to "cut Russians" and after that slogan she says: Sieg Heil

    http://news-front.info/2015/06/23/ya-budu-rezat-rusnyu-papa-uchit-dochku-zigovat-i-rezat-russkix/

    Is there no fascism in Ukraine?

    Ptaha

    June 23, 2015 at 2:37 pm

    Small mistake – not her father – her brother. There is his personal "page" on some sort of Russian "Facebook": https://vk.com/slava_banderi

    Caf

    June 23, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    It is singularly amazing me, the degree to which the Times has descended into sheer propaganda. Even during the run-up to the Iraq War, which was an absolute low point in Times' history, the editorial board was not as over-the-top propagandistic as it is today. As it stands now, the Times really has no credibility on Russia or Ukraine, nothing published on these matters by the Times can really be taken seriously.

    dahoit

      June 24, 2015 at 10:52 am

      They and our puppeticians have gotten everything wrong about everything,and still spew their swill with no pushback.Revolting!

    F. G. Sanford

    June 23, 2015 at 4:04 pm

    Propaganda can hide the means and the motives. It can obfuscate the ideology that informs the strategy. It can parade a figurehead and disguise the prime movers. It can deflect attention from incompetent blunders and lionize the perpetrators. But in the end, it cannot hide utter failure. Every thinking General Officer – and despite the best efforts of military indoctrination there are always a few – is by now having grave doubts. We have seen purges of late based on dubious charges. Experts have been replaced by political hacks, and resignations have been tendered out of a clear blue sky. Months ago, there was talk of a 5,000 strong "rapid reaction force" in the Baltics. Then, it was upped to 10,000. Now, we are hearing of prepositioned war materiel, and a force of 40,000. In terms of a conventional force deterrent, this is laughable. A real conventional threat from Russia would require a counterforce of 10,000 tanks and 250,000 troops. Nobody is tossing around those numbers, but there must be a few realistic analysts who realize they are accurate. So…what's the game afoot? In the absence of defections from the current lunatic cabal, it's hard to know for sure. But it certainly seems likely that there must be some dissenters. Hollywood versions of reality aside, there were on the order of 27 plots against Hitler, and Admiral Canaris's was among the least ambitious. (I believe some are still classified.) It is not difficult to imagine that there is currently a crisis of loyalty in the halls of power. In order to generate propaganda effectively, one must also have a grasp of the truth. Even among sycophants, complete reversal of the truth is sometimes abhorrent. In this 'Alice in Wonderland' reality, it is tempting to speculate that the plan is to "lose" with as small a force as possible in order to create a new strategic reality. If it goes wrong, there's always the 'nuclear option'. Propaganda will not be able to hide that.

    Abe

    June 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    The reality today is that the NSA operates a global surveillance apparatus undreamed of even by Abwehr chief Admiral Canaris' rival, SS-Obergruppenführer Heydrich of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt.

    Even without a Führer oath, the Empire of Chaos is no less prepared to battle all "enemies of the Reich", both foreign and domestic.

    After the 193 Dutch airline passengers, surely no one will mind if the Empire sacrifices a few hundred Lithuanians and Estonians on the altar of "collective security". Heck, why not throw in a few Swedes. Europe will remain snug as a bug beneath its "Iron Dome" without the need for American troops, sure as hot summer and hotter autumn is followed by nuclear winter.

    Abe

    June 23, 2015 at 6:55 pm

    Reinhard Heydrich also was the coordinator of the Endlösung der Judenfrage (the Final Solution of the Jewish Question) which meant the systematic extermination of the Jews living in the European countries occupied by the Third Reich during the Second World War.

    The plans for the Final Solution were outlined by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference in January 1942. Later in 1942, Heydrich was assassinated by British-trained Czechoslovak agents in Prague in Operation Anthropoid.

    Heydrich's death led to a wave of merciless reprisals by German SS troops, including the destruction of the villages of Lidice and Ležáky, and the killing of civilians.

    In January 1943, Himmler delegated the office to SS-Obergruppenführer and General of Police Dr. Ernst Kaltenbrunner, who headed the RSHA for the rest of World War II.

    During the The International Military Tribunal at Nuremburg, Kaltenbrunner argued in his defense that his position as RSHA chief existed only in title. He claimed that all decrees and legal documents which bore his signature were "rubber-stamped" and filed by his adjutants.

    Kaltenbrunner maintained that SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler, as his superior, was the person actually culpable for the atrocities committed during his tenure as chief of the RSHA.

    The IMT noted that Kaltenbrunner was a keen functionary in matters involving the sphere of the RSHA's intelligence network, but the evidence also showed that Kaltenbrunner was an active authority and participant in many instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    The IMT found Kaltenbrunner not guilty of crimes against peace. However, Kaltenbrunner was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and sentenced him to death by hanging.

    Abe

      June 23, 2015 at 7:29 pm

      Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, was originally founded in 1923 as the International Criminal Police Commission (ICPC). Its headquarters were in Vienna.

      Following Anschluss, the invasion and forced incorporation of Austria in 1938, the organization fell under the control of Nazi Germany. Its headquarters were eventually moved to Berlin in 1942.

      Between 1938 and 1945, the organization's presidents included Reinhard Heydrich and Ernst Kaltenbrunner. All were generals in the SS, and Kaltenbrunner was the highest ranking SS officer executed after the Nuremberg Trials.

      After the end of World War II in 1945, the organization was revived as Interpol by officials from Belgium, France, Scandinavia and the United Kingdom. The new Interpol headquarters were established in France.

      Until the 1980s, Interpol did not intervene in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in accordance with Article 3 of its Charter, which prohibited intervention in "political" matters.

    Helge

    June 23, 2015 at 5:16 pm

    The NYT writes: "If he is not careful, Mr. Putin may end up facing exactly what he has railed against - a NATO more firmly parked on Russia's borders - not because the alliance wanted to go in that direction, but because Russian behavior left it little choice." Not because the Alliance wanted to go in that direction???? Well, how did Russia "provoke" NATO expansion then in the last 15 years? How then? Usually the NYT and others make the claim that any free country is free to join whatever alliance it wants to, on a sudden Poland, Latvia etc. have been driven in NATO by Russian threats? Which threats? How has the Russian sphere of influence then expanded in the last 20 years? And the US had to place the missiles officially aimed at Iran in such a way that they also aim at Russia? And now after the Iranian agreement there is not even remotely any suggestion that perhaps they are redundant and could be removed? How is the Kremlin to understand that? There is obviously something the NYT knows which we don't know….

      ltr

      June 23, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      Terrific comment.

    abbybwood

    June 23, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    "U.S. to E.U.: Sanctions Are For Suckers!":

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42225.htm

    Abe

      June 23, 2015 at 7:09 pm

      quoting the article:

      The unprecedented militarisation of international relations and the standoff with Russia has proven to be an absolute boon for Washington's military-industrial complex. To be sure, the Americans are not defending Europe and the other NATO members out of chivalry.

      Each new expenditure by NATO states – under the impetus of an alleged "threat of Russian expansion" – is a boost for sales of US-made fighter jets, missiles, tanks, warships and much else.

    george mcglynn

    June 23, 2015 at 7:14 pm

    Excellent analysis of the blatant ideological nonsense and misinformation that is coming from the editorial page of the Times. Their foreign desk has been pedaling the same lies from the beginning of the orchestrated coup, by the U.S., in the Ukraine.

    George McGlynn

    Abe

    June 24, 2015 at 1:25 am

    Kiev is still a coup that has not really consolidated its power. The people trust this government less than the former. They know they were sold a bill of goods. Most are powerless but not all, like Kiev's Deputy Minister of Defense, Major-General Alexander Kolomiets who defected to Donbass this week. He has this to say:

    "The potential of the Ukrainian army is at a very low level. From a moral point of view, all the generals and officers who understand that the government's actions are criminal, don't want to fight. Only volunteers from nationalist troops are fighting. In the near future the Armed forces of Ukraine will be rocked by uprisings. Officers do not understand the commands to kill civilians. We will see it sometime in the fall. Everything will change very soon."

    While Kiev plays its waiting game, it is somewhat tied to that of the US and NATO, where the 6,000-man ready reaction force could be increase to 40,000 at the NATO conference next week. Four divisions is a major offensive move. Much of this force is headed to the Baltic States who have made a huge strategic blunder by offering themselves up for Western cannon fodder. The citizens there need some new and better leadership, and quickly, like most of the rest of us do.

    Moscow is also buying time to complete its military modernization and to complete building with China and India the Eurasian integrated economic and military defensive Great Wall of Asia that will be able to defend itself via mutually assured destruction. Yes, the Western leaders are taking us backwards to that situation.

    The Western Coup in Ukraine May Self Destruct Yet
    By Jim Dean
    http://journal-neo.org/2015/06/24/the-western-coup-in-ukraine-may-self-destruct-yet/

    abbybwood

    June 24, 2015 at 4:07 am

    Apparently New York Times staffers are too busy pulling pranks regarding mass shootings and mass death events to bother doing serious, hard-hitting and objective journalism:

    http://rt.com/usa/269233-nyt-joke-mass-killings/

    Mark Thomason

    June 24, 2015 at 2:53 pm

    "there was no coup in Ukraine in 2014, no U.S.-driven "regime change," no provocation"

    And anyone who reminds readers of reality is called wild names, "Putinbot" or "comrade" and the like. It is no different from the treatment of any critics of Israeli right wing policy being called anti-semites or self-hating. This has grown so obnoxious in the NYT comments that it has become a large proportion of comments.

    [Jun 22, 2015] The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard

    nationalinterest.org
    Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:36 am
    Hasn't even registered on European economies.

    Können Sie Deutsch?

    Sanktionen kosten Europa bis zu 100 Milliarden Euro, Freitag, 19.06.2015, 10:09

    Russlands Wirtschaftskrise hat verheerende Folgen für Europa. Zu diesem Ergebnis kommt eine Studie aus Österreich. Besonders betroffen ist Deutschland. Die Krise könnte das Land mittelfristig eine halbe Million Arbeitsplätze und Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung kosten.
    Die Wirtschaftskrise in Russland hat weitaus schlimmere Konsequenzen für die Länder der Europäischen Union (EU) und die Schweiz als bislang erwartet. Nach einer Berechnung des Österreichischen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (Wifo), die der europäischen Zeitungsallianz "Lena" exklusiv vorliegt, sind europaweit weit mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze und rund 100 Milliarden Euro an Wertschöpfung in Gefahr.

    Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 10:44 am
    The Boomerang Effect: Sanctions on Russia Hit German Economy Hard – Der Spiegel, July 21, 2014
    Moscow Exile, June 22, 2015 at 11:32 am
    No, it's not what I maintain, it's what these people report is happening:

    German businesses suffer fallout as Russia sanctions bite (Financial Times)

    http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/9a620f0c-73fc-11e4-82a6-00144feabdc0.img

    German Businesses Urge Halt on Sanctions Against Russia – Wall Street Journal

    In most countries, it would be highly unusual for corporate executives to inject themselves into geopolitics and matters of national security with the forcefulness that a number of German business leaders have. But many of Germany's largest companies have substantial Russian operations, built in some cases over decades, and worry that tough economic sanctions would rob them of a key growth market when their home market-Europe-is stagnant.

    Germany's economy hit by trade sanctions on Russia – FT

    The sanctions being placed on Russia by Europe are having a negative impact on the bloc, experts have said.

    European countries have implemented a series of trade embargoes as a punishment for Russia's moves to annex Crimea and for its ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

    Rowan Dartington Signature's Guy Stephens said the eurozone had been "rife" with weak economic data and one of the biggest concerns was Germany because of its relationship with Russia.

    "Sanctions against key trading partner Russia, coupled with declining demand from China, have begun to take their toll on Europe's largest economy," he said.

    "Business confidence is also waning and GDP growth for next year has been downgraded to just 0.8 per cent, well below the government's forecast of 1.3 per cent. All in all, the decline of Europe's powerhouse could just turn out to be the ammunition that European Central Bank president Mario Draghi needs to begin a prolonged quantitative-easing campaign."

    Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said Europe's share of global profits had "collapsed".

    "And complicating the immediate path of liquidity and corporate earnings in Europe is the ongoing collapse in the Russian rouble," he said.

    [Jun 22, 2015] The Russian Pipeline Waltz

    Jun 22, 2015 | naked capitalism
    Gaylord June 20, 2015 at 3:47 am

    Does anybody know what Russia's plans are to try to prevent runaway climate change? Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions? Their aggressive plans for oil drilling in the Arctic indicate the latter.

    Barry Fay June 20, 2015 at 6:33 am

    "Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions?" Sounds like a typical cheap shot against Russia to me. The country most oblivious to the catastrophic effects, and one of the two the biggest contributors (with China), is the good ole USA. Russian is at 6%, USA at 20%! Your propaganda driven prejudice is showing!

    Macon Richardsonn June 20, 2015 at 7:35 am

    Thank you Barry Fay! Well said.

    Nick June 20, 2015 at 9:06 am

    With Russia's utter dependence upon oil and gas, plus lack of FDI, they have no alternative but to drill baby drill. Eventual regime change may increase their long term prospects.

    Gio Bruno June 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    Careful now. This could encourage blow-back from Barry Fay.

    Let me just say that Russia is not a static society (education is prized). They can, and likely will, create a more diversified/un-stratified economy going forward. As for regime change, that's an habitual fantasy of folks who read only MSM propaganda. Putin, despite the grandstanding of American representatives (98% return rate) has the support of 80% of the Russian population. Russians are not stupid (See USA for comparison.)

    Steve H. June 20, 2015 at 9:21 am

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/naomi-oreskes-the-hoax-of-climate-change-denial.html#comment-2458611

    Externality June 20, 2015 at 12:28 pm

    1. Russian- – unlike some Western nations – has submitted a detailed carbon-reduction plan to the upcoming climate conference. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/russia-submits-its-climate-action-plan-ahead-of-2015-paris-agreement/

    2. At a time when China and parts of Eastern Europe remain dependent on highly polluting coal-fired power plants, Germany is returning to coal following its phase-out of nuclear power, cash-strapped EU countries are phasing out renewable energy subsidies, and many Eastern European nuclear plants are overdue for retirement, natural gas remains a necessary – and environmentally friendly – energy alternative. The only question then is where the gas to come from. The UK's oil and gas industry is in terminal decline, large-scale imports from North America and the Middle East are a decade or more away, and efforts to promote fracking-related gas production in Europe has failed for a variety of reasons. To borrow a favorite line of the neo-liberals, "there is no alternative" (TINA) to Russian gas.

    3. Since the end of the Cold War, the West has aggressively used the WTO, investor-state dispute tribunals, sanctions, propaganda campaigns, and "regime change" to punish resource-exporting nations who limit, or attempt to limit, exports for environmental reasons. To the WTO, for example, environmental laws in countries outside of Western Europe, the US, and Canada are illegal "non-tariff trade barriers." Russian attempts to protect its old growth forests against timber exporters and Chinese attempts to limit the environmentally disastrous (and often illegal) mining of rare earth ores were both struck down by the WTO at the request of the West. If Russia were to limit oil and gas exports for environmental reasons, the resulting legal, political, and military confrontation with the West would dwarf the Cuban missile crisis.

    Rex June 20, 2015 at 1:33 pm

    Burning any hydrocarbon produces carbon dioxide, so natural gas is not "environmentally friendly." There is clear evidence, too, that natural gas exploration and production release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed rules on that for producers (late and weak, of course). Methane in atmosphere is over 20X as damaging as CO.

    Russian scientists contribute much to Climate Mayhem knowledge, especially in the rapidly changing arctic and on the threat of methane release.

    Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43 Baltiiskaya Street, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
    Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov, Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach & Denis Chernykh

    Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Institute of Chemistry, 159, 100-Let Vladivostok Prospect, Vladivostok 690022, Russia
    Valentin Sergienko

    To name a few.

    One wonders if Russian climate scientists are censored and hounded as much as are U.S. and U.K. researchers, especially in the US government (USGS, NOAA, NASA, etc.). Persecution and censorship of US scientists is above McCarthey-esque proportions today.

    Ian June 20, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    What about thorium reactors. I am aware that at least China is investing in the technology.

    Lune June 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    Just like the War on Drugs is most successful when it focuses on reducing demand (drug users) rather than fighting/bombing the suppliers (Mexico, Colombia, etc), the War on greenhouse gases is best fought by reducing demand. If the Europeans find a way to no longer need so much natgas, then Russia wouldn't be selling it to them. Otherwise, someone else will sell it to them regardless.

    That doesn't completely exonerate Russia, of course, and given their history with the Aral Sea, I'm not sure that they would put environmental concerns very high on their list of priorities (certainly not higher than their economic security). But right now, the problem with greenhouse gases is on the other end of all these pipelines.

    Otter June 20, 2015 at 8:15 am

    The abandonment of South Stream was not much of a surprise to anybody with even a passing interest in the energy politics.

    Brussels and Washington were both adamant that it would never pass through Bulgaria.
    I suppose some people were surprised at how quickly negotiations progressed with Turkey. Possibly there is some quid pro quo regarding Iranian and Kurdish hydrocarbons.

    Serbia and Hungary are anxious for access. The Austrians are even talking money. Greece of course needs gas and transit fees. Italia, Slovakia, Czech would welcome shares. The only problem is some people have suddenly taken an interest in organizing a colour revolution in Makedonia.

    Jackrabbit June 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    I questioned the author's perspective as soon as I saw this (in the second sentence) :

    Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the energy world by dismissing the long-prepared South Stream project in favour of Turkish Stream.

    Russia re-routed South Stream to Turkey (now called "TurkStream") because Bulgaria rejected South Stream under pressure from US/EU. OIFVet, a frequent commentator at NC, has written loads of good and inciteful comments with respect to this farce (he is Bulgarian).

    The author refers to a "Russian Waltz" which casts aspersions on Russian intentions. Their intentions are clear. To by-pass a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia. Period. Their efforts to do so are being blocked (first by pressuring Bulgaria, now with a color revolution in Macedonia). Russia's 'waltz' partner is the EU which created the rule that pipeline ownership must be independent of supplier. This rule has dubious value when applied to large suppliers like Russia/Gazprom.

    The author artfully guides us to three possibilities but ignores the most logical and intuitive one. Russia is likely to be taking this move now to hedge against the developing brinkmanship whereby Russia is blamed for causing European suffering by refusing to transit gas through Ukraine – despite the US/EU's irresponsible blocking of South Stream / Turk Stream as a delivery platform.

    =

    I believe that one must be very careful about sources when dealing with issues that are sensitive to the US/EU establishment.

    Brugel is nominally an independent think tank but it is governed by, led by, and staffed with establishment figures and technocrats. From their annual report:

    The idea to set up an independent European think tank devoted to international economics stemmed from discussions involving economists, policymakers and private practitioners from many European countries. The initiative subsequently found support from 12 EU governments and 17 leading European corporations, who committed to the project's initial funding base and participated in the election of its first Board in December 2004. Operations started in 2005 and today Bruegel counts 18 EU governments, 33 corporations and 10 institutions
    among its members.

    It is difficult to trust "experts" that have a vested interest in culling favor with the establishment. This article proves that such skepticism is very much warranted.

    David in NYC June 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

    Putin's plan, to maintain a chokehold of the distribution of gas, mimics John Rockefeller's strategy for Standard Oil to control the distribution of oil in the late 19th century.

    susan the other June 20, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Syria has really taken a hit for Russia. Until the conflict there is resolved the the Saudis/Arab natgas cannot build their pipeline. And by the time it is resolved Russia will have already established its network. It looks like this leaves the Saudis and other MidEast natural gas suppliers at the mercy of China and India. The BRICS.

    Raj June 20, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    You already know this, but Israel wants to send the gas production from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market and Assad stands in the way for the time being. Once Assad is toppled and a new puppet regime is put in place, I think we'll see the construction of the pipeline through Syria. Qatar & Saudi Arabia will connect through the same artery to reach the Europe market…and then Russia finds itself with competition. This is the key for the West to gain greater control of the Russian economy, and eventually profit from Russia's resources. So, in the short term (~10 yrs), Russia may have its infrastructure in place (whether via Nord, Turkish or South stream), but in the long term (~20+ yrs), we'll see Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar enter the Europe market and Russia will no longer be the only game in town. We think we're seeing the squeeze put on Russia now, but it will only get worse with time. The West looks at Russia's resources and sees dollar signs.

    Gerard Pierce June 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    In the current political situation, there should be a natural alliance between Russia and Greece, but it can't be a declared alliance – that leads to retaliation that neither one wants to deal with right now.

    A covert alliance with Russia could put Greece in a position to obtain finance through China. Without any overt declarations, the European countries might figure out "on their own" that continued sanctions against Russia are counter-productive.

    Even in default, if Greece can maintain any kind of economy, the wily Varoufakis gets to sit back and smile while the EU ministers try to explain to southern Europe why their policies are necessary and correct.

    The US gets to continue with its unprofitable wars in the mid-East while trying to avoid major embarrassment from the fascists in DonBass. The major problem for the Russians is watching as Russians in Ukraine are ethnically cleansed.

    If the Russians can avoid a military response all that is needed is someone to maintain the body count. The overall death count would probably be a lot less than a military response.

    Susan Pizzo June 20, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    An MOU with Greece has been signed, providing significant investment funds, a route around Ukraine, and a potential clinker in the Russian sanction vote on Monday. Further complications for debt negotiations? Greece is also reportedly "drawing up a default plan, which would see the country institute capital controls and nationalize its banking industry" (ibtimes). It ain't over till it's over…

    http://www.ibtimes.com/greece-russia-reach-preliminary-gas-pipeline-deal-greek-debt-woes-continue-1976077

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/greece-russia-gas-deal/index.html

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-18/russia-greece-ink-pipeline-deal-gazprom-boosts-ukraine-bypass

    [Jun 22, 2015] Some interesting stuff on the far-right in Ukraine

    jeremn, June 22, 2015 at 2:19 am
    Some interesting stuff on the far-right in Ukraine:

    http://defendinghistory.com/category/ukraine

    Including this article on Bandera:

    http://defendinghistory.com/distorted-nationalist-history-ukraine/65887

    "Ultranationalist and revolutionary Ukrainians like Bandera dreamt in the 1930s of becoming leaders of fascist states like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The Ukrainian equivalent to duce and Führer was vozhd' or providnyk. In the late 1930s and early 1940s the generation born around 1910 took the initiative and continued elaborating Ukrainian fascism on their own. They invented the Ukrainian fascist salute "Glory to Ukraine!" while answering "Glory to the Heroes!"; wanted to take care of the "Ukrainian race" and claimed that Ukraine needed a fascist state without national minorities – in particular without Jews, Poles and Russians. They wanted to be a part of the new fascist Europe like Ante Pavelić's Croatia or Josef Tiso's Slovakia. Bandera was supposed to become the leader of a Ukrainian fascist state after Ievhen Konovalets' was assassinated in 1938 in Rotterdam and his follower Adrii Melnyk was considered inappropriate for the position."

    European values (of 1941)!

    [Jun 22, 2015] There is a strong ground-roots level hostility against Russia in Finland

    karl1haushofer, June 22, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    "Those who pose these questions are not US citizens, it seems. He tells me most are Swedes and Finns"

    This is not surprising. Based on what I have read in different message boards and forums the Americans are not that hostile towards Russia. Finns and Swedes on the other hand are. There is a strong ground-roots level hostility against Russia in Finland that is lacking in the Anglosaxon countries.

    Humans creating sixth great extinction of animal species, say scientists

    "...There's no way creative thinking and awareness can help unless humankind pulls together - cooperates. Given that those of a certain political persuasion (particularly in the U.S. but increasingly in Australia and everywhere else) have used a divide-and-conquer strategy, enlisting irrational members of all description, it is difficult to see us responding in a way proportionate to the crisis."

    Study reveals rate of extinction for species in the 20th century has been up to 100 times higher than would have been normal without human impact

    ... ... ...

    Previous studies have warned that the impact of humans taking land for buildings, farming and timber has been to make species extinct at speeds unprecedented in Earth's 4.5bn-year history.

    Walsunda hmmm606 21 Jun 2015 22:49

    "Africa especially being by far the fastest growing region population wise."

    At 28 people per square kilometre, has a long way to go to catch up with Eurasia with 84 people per square kilometre. Where do you live?

    Jeff Young -> SvenNorheim 20 Jun 2015 20:04

    Agree Sven and one other thing. There's no way creative thinking and awareness can help unless humankind pulls together - cooperates. Given that those of a certain political persuasion (particularly in the U.S. but increasingly in Australia and everywhere else) have used a divide-and-conquer strategy, enlisting irrational members of all description, it is difficult to see us responding in a way proportionate to the crisis.

    HelgiDu -> timotei 20 Jun 2015 13:04

    Losing the climate of the polar regions redraws the biodiversity of the regions. Polar bears are one species. The nutrient rich waters of the cool polar summer support many, many more species all along the food chain (up to - and including- us).

    The collapse of the Grand Banks off Canada could be surpassed (but with differing underlying reasons).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery

    [Jun 22, 2015] EU extends sanctions against Russia as Ukraine conflict rumbles on

    "... Cui bono?"
    "...And Russia? I think it will still be there in a few years, with its resources and markets, its new-found anger against Western hypocrisy and new-found pride.
    Great job, Madames Nuland and Merkel, and above all the esteemed Nobel Peace Price winner, you have delivered, you will be rewarded."
    Jun 22, 2015 | The Guardian

    Beckow 22 Jun 2015 20:26

    Extending sanctions

    • without a discussion
    • simply means that EU doesn't know what to do next. What will happen?
    • Ukraine will either collapse economically in a default, or EU will have to spend literally tens of billions annually to keep it minimally stable
    • Russia will turn its economy to other regions (China, Turkey, Latin America,...) slowly freezing out EU exporters and farmers
    • EU will lose Russian market at a cost of roughly 1% of its GNP and a few hundred billions in sales
    • not fatal, but also not good given very slow EU economic growth
    • In 3-4 years Russian gas, oil, minerals, raw materials will mostly be sold east and south, with EU either paying a lot more to Russia or switching to more costly alternatives; again probably costing a few % points of potential growth
    • Ukrainians will be very, very angry
    • they got screwed by the crisis and it will take them a generation to recover; there will be more refugees, more instability, more bloodshed
    • US will sell more arms through Nato
    • a lot more.

    The winners are US and its arms industry, comprador bourgeois in Kiev who will move West and will be well compensated, and China, Turkey, etc... who will gain huge business benefits in Russia.

    The losers will be EU economy, but above all the Ukrainian common people.

    And Russia? I think it will still be there in a few years, with its resources and markets, its new-found anger against Western hypocrisy and new-found pride.

    Great job, Madames Nuland and Merkel, and above all the esteemed Nobel Peace Price winner, you have delivered, you will be rewarded.


    HauptmannGurski sashasmirnoff 22 Jun 2015 21:28

    Good post. I would like to add that the cut-off (from some international financial markets) is the best thing that could have happened to Russia. It is always better to do things with your own resources, even if that means a slower pace.

    Russia is spared the fate of Greece where the loan sharks pushed the money onto them and now what? They only have to follow what the IMF and the EU tells them - and everything will be roses in Greece?

    If the West is happy with the experiences in Argentina, Greece, and Ukraine (in the making) that's their problem.

    Russia is spared the temptation to take the easy way out by accepting a loan and waking up with fleas.

    HollyOldDog ID5589788 22 Jun 2015 21:25

    All this is in the past just like Poland attacking Russia with the help of the Cossaks ( until the Cossaks switched sides - they were only regarded as useful barbarians by the Poles).
    Now the Barbarian hordes ( butchers of the American 1st People's ) are resident in the USA and are trying to subjugate the Planet as their plaything. This Horde nation is trying to use the same strategy as the Old Polish empire by employing local European citizens to act as their Cannon Fodder against those who oppose them - like the Cossaks the new cannon fodder will turn against their masters. WE are waiting....

    HauptmannGurski Chiselbeard 22 Jun 2015 21:20

    Depends on the money. Ukraine needs a lot of money for many years to keep her afloat and that does not include modern (NATO compatible) weaponry which, like in Greece, would probably have to be supplied on credit. I have read the figure of 2 billion $ annually for about 20 years, but of course these things are not easy to verify. The debt forgiveness for Ukraine has not been going well; their Finance Minister (what's her name) has been travelling for weeks/months for new money and simultaneous debt cancellation - with zero result. Soros has urged the EU to provide the money.

    When the money runs out, loyalties fade. Having said that, the activities of the rebels in E Ukraine are sheer lunacy. If they want to speak Russian maybe they should go to Russia. Why Russia is bothered with such a capricious people like the Ukrainians is really strange. It won't be that long until they can disconnect the gas pipe and be rid of this and other issues.

    HollyOldDog ID5589788 22 Jun 2015 21:01

    You are an idiot, Putin has nothing to gain by the USA selling more arms to the EU. I am happy to see that more senior Ukrainian officers joining the East Ukraine seperatists movement, junior officers will follow and probably taking their loyal men with them. Eventually only the most extreme Right Wing extremists will be left. What will happen then, will NATO forces attack and how would the world view this development? America, NATO and their puppets in the EU barely have a brain cell between them.

    sashasmirnoff Omniscience 22 Jun 2015 20:59

    Motivation! (necessity being the mother of invention, all that stuff)
    I take no pleasure in conflict, adversarial positions, and I'm sure I'm in the vast majority. I hope (for the first time in recorded history) that one day the so-called democratic process will prevail, and that the aspirations of people rather than business interests will guide the relationship between States. Isn't idealism quaint?

    Chiselbeard centerline 22 Jun 2015 20:46

    You will note that the Russian economy is in recession. You will also note that, prior to their involvement in Ukraine, this was not the case. You can try to distract from the real damage resulting from Russia's aggression, but it sounds to me like a recent convict claiming "now I have time to catch up on my reading".

    sashasmirnoff -> LiberalinCalif 22 Jun 2015 20:42

    I see that the majority of anti-Russia posts are penned by (you guessed it) ...dumb-asses. If you could think clearly for a moment, you'd see that sanctions are actually a great impetus for diversifying the economy. Bankruptcy? I think that might be Ukraine, and your ilk will be holding the bag!

    Any rain yet?

    centerline 22 Jun 2015 20:34

    I see Ukraine officials and military officers are starting to defect to the other side. Soon the trickle will become a flood and that will be the end of the US government in Kiev.

    [Jun 22, 2015] Carter -- We will stand up against Russia

    "..."Carter was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as an advocate of preventive wars against North Korea and Iran.[40][41][42] Carter is considering deploying ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons" ( Virtually guaranteeing a full scale nuke exchange)."
    "...Ash Carter -- Another psychopath at the helm of the American ship of state…!!!!!"
    Northern Star, June 22, 2015 at 3:12 pm
    http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/06/u-s-to-stop-russia-from-recreating-soviet-era-control/

    "The United States does not want to make Russia an enemy. It is not seeking to have another Cold War or a hot battle with the Russian government. However, the United States will not allow Moscow to re-create a Soviet-era control in Europe, according to Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

    During his speech in Berlin on Monday, Carter said, "We do not seek a cold, let alone a hot war with Russia. We do not seek to make Russia an enemy. But make no mistake; we will defend our allies, the rules-based international order, and the positive future it affords us."

    Carter added, "We will stand up against Russia's actions and their attempts to re-establish as Soviet Era sphere of influence."

    (From Wiki):

    "Carter was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as an advocate of preventive wars against North Korea and Iran.[40][41][42] Carter is considering deploying ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy the Russian weapons" ( Virtually guaranteeing a full scale nuke exchange).

    Another psychopath at the helm of the American ship of state…!!!!!

    [Jun 22, 2015] Newsflash, America Ukraine Cannot Afford a War with Russia

    Jun 22, 2015 | The National Interest

    Historically, great powers-including the United States, as a cursory look at its history demonstrates-have resisted their rivals' attempts to extend influence into areas deemed vital for national security and standing. But this observation cuts no ice with those who regard Moscow's behavior as nothing more than an amalgam of mendacity and Machtpolitik.

    They dismiss the proposition that Russia might have been unsettled by the prospect of a Ukraine integrated into the EU. The EU, they point out, is an economic entity, not an alliance, and the Kremlin knows this full well. Hence, its supposed apprehension about the strategic consequences of Kyiv's alignment with the EU is bogus-another instance of Putinist propaganda-and those who give it credence are either misinformed or dupes. Besides, they say, Ukraine has no chance of joining the EU anytime soon.

    That the EU, by virtue of its Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP), has a military element-no matter how inchoate-seems to have gone unnoticed by this group. The same goes for the near-total overlap in membership between the EU and NATO.

    Those who believe that Russia alone bears the blame for the Ukraine crisis insist that NATO had no plans to bring Ukraine into its ranks in the run-up to the 2014 crisis and that Moscow's apprehensions on this score amount to little more than propaganda.

    But back in the early 1990s, the chances that Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic trio would join both coalitions seemed remote, and Ukraine's membership in NATO was in fact under discussion during the tenure of President Leonid Kuchma. These, it seems, are inconvenient facts to be forgotten because only lies emanate from the Kremlin.

    Russia certainly sought, in multiple ways, to shape Ukraine's internal and external policies-and well before Putin came on the scene, by the way. Yet it did not attempt to annex Crimea or to sponsor secessionist statelets in Ukraine's east prior to 2014. On February 21 of that year, the Kremlin teamed up with the EU to help forge a February 21, 2014 political settlement between Yanukovych and the opposition that called for forming a national unity government, pruning the powers of the presidency (by reverting to the 2004 constitution) and holding early (not later than December) presidential elections.

    To be fair, there are, on the other side of the Ukraine debate, those who have also succumbed to hyperbolic simplemindedness. For example, the insistence that the conflagration in Ukraine stems from NATO's expansion pure and simple represents a classic example of the single-factor fallacy. The contention that Ukraine's own politics are fascist in a fashion or that anti-Semitism represents a rising trend in Ukrainian society is no less inaccurate, and anyone who has spent time recently in various parts of Ukraine and met its officials (in Kyiv and the outlying areas), leaders of civic organizations, journalists and academics can attest that it is baseless. As all countries do, Ukraine has its extremists, but they are scarcely the prime movers of its politics and remain a fringe element. While there are sound reasons not to flood Ukraine with American weaponry, the supposed extremism of Ukrainian politics is not among them.

    As a sop to those who have pushed for arming Ukraine, the Obama administration has begun training Ukraine's National Guard-regrouped private militias that, at least in an administrative, if not substantive, sense are overseen by the defense and interior ministries. (Canada and Britain are also providing training.) The White House has also allocated some $118 million for "nonlethal" equipment to bolster Ukraine's defenses.

    Meanwhile, the creaky Minsk II ceasefire could well collapse. Shelling across the line of control remains routine. Moreover, the Kyiv leadership and the Donbas separatists both have reason to torpedo Minsk II-the former to force Obama's hand, the latter to prevent Putin from abandoning them for a deal with the West that lifts economic sanctions on Russia.

    [Jun 22, 2015] Russia does not accept the jurisdiction of Hague arbitration court

    yalensis June 21, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    Putin says that Russia does not accept the jurisdiction of Hague arbitration court, which ruled in favor of Khodorkovsky:

    Putin suggested that part of Russia's legal strategy will be to deny the jurisdiction of the international arbitration court in The Hague that last year awarded shareholders of the defunct Yukos oil company $50 billion in damages because Russia in 2004 illegally dismantled the company and auctioned off its assets.

    The French and Belgian asset freezes are aimed at enforcing that court judgement.

    "The Hague Court is competent to decide on such cases only in respect of those countries that are signatories of the European Energy Charter," Putin said.

    "Russia has not ratified this charter, so we do not recognize the jurisdiction of this court."

    Hence, Khodorkovsky is not going to see $50 billion dollars of Russian taxpayer money pass into his slimy pockets. Not even one dollar, I would hope.

    NATO "two-track" policy toward Russia

    Fern , June 22, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    In the light of today's announcement from NATO head-honcho Stoltenberg that the Rapid Response Force parked in eastern Europe might reach 40,000 troops instead of the original number of 4,000,(and you wouldn't want that guy estimating numbers for catering a party would you?) this article dating from 1996 is well worth reading. Its focus is NATO's involvement in Bosnia and the factors underpinning its out-of-area missions. Its author has subsequently died but he was remarkably prescient about what was, at the time of writing, the shape of things to come. It's long and heavy on fact but worth sticking with. The emphasis is mine.

    NATO had never carried out a formal study on the enlargement of the alliance until quite recently, when the Working Group on NATO Enlargement issued its report. No doubt there were internal classified studies, but nothing is known of their content to outsiders.

    Despite the lack of clear analysis, however, the engines for moving things forward were working hard from late 1991. At the end of that year, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. NATO member nations then invited 9 Central and East European countries to join the NACC in order to begin fostering cooperation between the NATO powers and former members of the Warsaw Pact.

    This was a fìrst effort to offer something to East European countries wishing to join NATO itself. The NACC, however, did not really satisfy the demands of those countries, and in the beginning of 1994 the US launched the idea of a Partnership for Peace. The PFP offered nations wishing to join NATO the possibility of co-operating in various NATO activities, including training exercises and peacekeeping. More than 20 countries, including Russia, are now participating in the PFP.

    Many of these countries wish eventually to join NATO. Russia obviously will not. join. It believes that NATO should not be moving eastwards. According to the Center for Defense Infromation in Washington, a respected independent research center on military affairs, Russia is participating in the PFP "to avoid being shut out of the European security structure altogether."

    The movement toward the enlargement of NATO has therefore been steadily gathering momentum. The creation of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council was more or less an expression of sympathy and openness toward those aspiring to NATO membership. But it did not carry things very far. The creation of the Partnership for Peace was more concrete. It actually involved former Warsaw Pact members in NATO itself.

    It also began a "two-track" policy toward Russia, in which Russia was given a more or less empty relationship with NATO simply to allay its concerns about NATO expanslon.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/why-is-nato-in-yugoslavia/21008

    [Jun 20, 2015]Jeb Bush - Profile

    "...No Republican will enjoy credibility as a deficit hawk unless he or she acknowledges that George W. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited. "
    .
    "...The National Review piece went on: "Adelson sent word to Bush's camp in Miami: Bush, he said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson as "rips***"; another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor 'a lot of money.'" (At around the same time the rupture with Adelson was reported, Bush publicly disavowed Baker, saying that he would not be a part of his foreign policy team.)"
    .
    "...In March 2014, Bush and several other potential candidates were also received by Adelson at a Republican Jewish Coalition gathering at a Las Vegas hangar owned by Adelson's Sands Corporation, which papers dubbed the "Adelson primary." According to attendees, Bush gave a speech largely focused on domestic issues but also criticized the Obama administration's foreign policy-a key issue for Adelson, who is fiercely "pro-Israel." In his foreign policy remarks, Bush warned about the dangers of "American passivity" and, according to Time, "cautioned the Republican party against 'neo-isolationism' … a line universally understood as a shot at [libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand] Paul. Bush also pushed back on Democratic attacks that whenever a Republican calls for a more activist foreign policy that they are 'warmongering.'"
    Jun 20, 2015 | Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies
    Foreign Policy Views and Clues

    Although he rarely comments on foreign policy, Bush has appeared to embrace neoconservatives who supported his brother's administration, inviting them to serve as his advisers, parroting their complaints about the Obama administration, promoting their current policy objectives, and defending many of their past debacles, like the Iraq War.

    He has said that he does not think that "the military option should ever be taken off the table" with respect to Iran and that Obama administration policies on Iran had "empower[ed] bad behavior in Tehran."[8]

    Bush has repeatedly defended the decision to invade Iraq. He told CNN in March 2013: "A lot of things in history change over time. I think people will respect the resolve that my brother showed, both in defending the country and the war in Iraq."[9]

    More recently, in May 2015, when asked by Fox News pundit Megyn Kelly if he would have authorized the Iraq War "knowing what we know now," Bush replied: "I would have [authorized the invasion], and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody. And so would almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got."[10] This statement spurred widespread criticism, including among conservatives. Radio host Laura Ingram, arguing that Bush's weakness on this issue could be exploited by an election opponent, quipped: "We can't stay in this re-litigating the Bush years again. You have to have someone who says look I'm a Republican, but I'm not stupid." She added: "You can't still think that going into Iraq, now, as a sane human being, was the right thing to do. If you do, there has to be something wrong with you," she added.[11]

    Many writers have argued that Bush's national ambitions will inevitably suffer from his association with his brother, whom Jeb has pointedly refused to criticize. Saying he didn't believe "there's any Bush baggage at all," Jeb Bush predicted in March 2013 that "history will be kind to George W. Bush." This led The Daily Beast's Peter Beinart to quip, "Unfortunately for Jeb, history is written by historians," who have generally given the Bush administration poor reviews. "That's why Jeb Bush will never seriously challenge for the presidency," Beinart concluded, "because to seriously challenge for the presidency, a Republican will have to pointedly distance himself from Jeb's older brother. No Republican will enjoy credibility as a deficit hawk unless he or she acknowledges that George W. Bush squandered the budget surplus he inherited. No Republican will be able to promise foreign-policy competence unless he or she acknowledges the Bush administration's disastrous mismanagement in Afghanistan and Iraq. … Jeb Bush would find that excruciatingly hard even if he wanted to."[12]

    Bush has made several explicit gestures indicating his commitment to continue his brother's track record, particularly on foreign policy. In February 2015, his campaign announced 21 foreign policy experts who will guide him on foreign policy issues. The vast majority were veterans of the George W. Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Michael Chertoff, John Negroponte, Otto Reich, and [13] George W. Bush Deputy National Security Adviser Meghan O'Sullivan has been mentioned as a possible "top foreign-policy aide."[14]

    "Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush … is seeking to distinguish his views on foreign policy from those of his father and brother, two former presidents," reported the Washington Post, "but he's getting most of his ideas from nearly two dozen people, most of whom previously worked for George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush."[15]

    Many observers have surmised that Bush's emphatic support for his brother is the result of him attempting to win the support of Sheldon Adelson. Bush is believed to have received the ire of Adelson after he included in his list of foreign policy advisers former Secretary of State James Baker, a realist who has been critical of Israel on several occasions.

    "The bad blood between Bush and Adelson is relatively recent," wrote the conservative National Review in May 2015, "and it deepened with the news that former secretary of state James Baker, a member of Bush's foreign-policy advisory team, was set to address J Street, a left-wing pro-Israel organization founded to serve as the antithesis to the hawkish American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)."[16]

    The National Review piece went on: "Adelson sent word to Bush's camp in Miami: Bush, he said, should tell Baker to cancel the speech. When Bush refused, a source describes Adelson as "rips***"; another says Adelson sent word that the move cost the Florida governor 'a lot of money.'"[17] (At around the same time the rupture with Adelson was reported, Bush publicly disavowed Baker, saying that he would not be a part of his foreign policy team.[18])

    During the April 2015 Republican Jewish Coalition-hosted "Adelson primary" in Las Vegas, Salon reported, Adelson "devoted a night to honoring Bush's brother George W. for all he'd done for Israel and the Middle East." Salon added: "The Las Vegas mogul and Israel hawk thus took Bush's biggest political problem-his brother-and made him an asset."[19]

    In May 2015, at a meeting with wealthy investors hosted by "pro-Israel" billionaire Paul Singer, Bush unequivocally expressed his attention to follow his brother's advice on issues related to Israel and the Middle East. "If you want to know who I listen to for advice, it's him," Bush said at the event.[20]

    In March 2014, Bush and several other potential candidates were also received by Adelson at a Republican Jewish Coalition gathering at a Las Vegas hangar owned by Adelson's Sands Corporation, which papers dubbed the "Adelson primary." According to attendees, Bush gave a speech largely focused on domestic issues but also criticized the Obama administration's foreign policy-a key issue for Adelson, who is fiercely "pro-Israel." In his foreign policy remarks, Bush warned about the dangers of "American passivity" and, according to Time, "cautioned the Republican party against 'neo-isolationism' … a line universally understood as a shot at [libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand] Paul. Bush also pushed back on Democratic attacks that whenever a Republican calls for a more activist foreign policy that they are 'warmongering.'"[21]

    The remarks-which the Washington Post described as "muscular if generic"[22]-appeared to be well received by the attendees and seemed to demonstrate that Bush identified more with the party's interventionist wing than with its rising libertarian faction on foreign policy.[23]

    At one point in the late 1990s, Bush seemed to have been considered a potentially more influential political ally than his brother by the neoconservatives who founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Commenting on the signatories to PNAC's 1997 founding statement of principles, Jim Lobe and Michael Flynn wrote: "Ironically, virtually the only signatory who has not played a leading role since the letter was released has been Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who in 1997 apparently looked to [William] Kristol and [Robert] Kagan more presidential than his brother George."[24]

    [Jun 19, 2015] The Undiplomatic Diplomat

    Since the fall of the Soviet Union liberated Americans from our fear of nuclear Armageddon, the foreign policy of the United States has come to rely almost exclusively on economic sanctions, military deterrence, and the use of force. Coercion replaced diplomacy and for some reason several female psychopaths was selected to implement this policy. all of them were single trick ponies: "my way or highway" was the only method they have in their arsenal. For a while it produced results because dominance of the USA after 1991, but since 2008 with crisis of neoliberalism, it started to produce the level hate which became a became factor limiting possibilities of the USA to conduct foreign policy. As the result, as Chas Freena noted in The American Conservative, "The United States has forfeited its capacity to pursue American interests through negotiated solutions." Andrew Bacevich promoted the same thesis even earlier in his book The Limits of Power The End of American Exceptionalism
    "...This significant level of autonomy has led her interlocutors to fixate on her as a driving force of hawkishness within the Obama administration, whether fairly or not."
    "..."Many Europeans, and certainly Moscow, hate Nuland, which is just one more reason why her political base on Capitol Hill adores her," said a congressional aide familiar with the issue."
    "...While policy differences like this one account for some of the bad blood between Nuland and her European counterparts, her tough style clearly plays a role as well."
    Jun 19, 2015 | Foreign Policy

    ...In interviews with Foreign Policy, her European colleagues have described her as "brash," "direct," "forceful," "blunt," "crude," and occasionally, "undiplomatic." But they also stressed that genuine policy differences account for their frustrations with her - in particular, her support for sending arms to Ukraine as the country fends off a Russian-backed rebellion, a policy not supported by the White House.

    "She doesn't engage like most diplomats," said a European official. "She comes off as rather ideological."

    While European complaints about Nuland's diplomatic style are genuine and fairly ubiquitous, she has also been dealt an incredibly difficult hand.

    Nuland frequently meets with senior European leaders who outrank her and delivers messages they often don't want to hear.

    In a crisis of this magnitude, many of these delicate tasks would traditionally get kicked up to Nuland's boss, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, Wendy Sherman. But Sherman has been saddled with the momentous job of leading the U.S. negotiating team in the Iran nuclear talks, giving Nuland an unusual degree of latitude and influence for an assistant secretary.

    This significant level of autonomy has led her interlocutors to fixate on her as a driving force of hawkishness within the Obama administration, whether fairly or not.

    "Many Europeans, and certainly Moscow, hate Nuland, which is just one more reason why her political base on Capitol Hill adores her," said a congressional aide familiar with the issue.

    In Europe, Nuland is widely presumed to be the leading advocate for shipping weapons to Kiev - a proposal bitterly opposed by the Germans, Hungarians, Italians, and Greeks who fear setting off a wider conflict with Moscow.

    The White House has also argued against providing lethal assistance to Kiev because Moscow enjoys what's known as "escalation dominance," or the ability to outmatch and overwhelm Ukrainian forces regardless of the type of assistance the United States would provide.

    Nuland is not the only Obama administration official who has supported arming Ukraine, but in Europe, she has become the face of this policy, thanks to a pivotal event that occurred in February during the annual Munich Security Conference.

    At the outset of the forum, Nuland and Gen. Philip Breedlove delivered an off-the-record briefing to the visiting U.S. delegation, which included about a dozen U.S. lawmakers in the House and Senate. Unbeknownst to Nuland and Breedlove, a reporter from the German newspaper Bild snuck into the briefing room and published a report that reverberated across Germany but gained little to no traction in English-language media.

    The report said Nuland and Breedlove were pressing U.S. lawmakers to support the shipment of defensive weapons to Ukraine and belittling the diplomatic efforts German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande were making in Russia.

    "We would not be in the position to supply so many weapons that Ukraine could defeat Russia. That is not our goal," Breedlove was quoted as saying. "But we must try to raise the price for Putin on the battlefield."

    Nuland reportedly added, "I would like to urge you to use the word 'defensive system' to describe what we would be delivering against Putin's offensive systems," according to a translation.

    ... ... ...

    In December, Democrats and Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly passed legislation authorizing the president to provide lethal aid to Ukraine, including ammunition, troop-operated surveillance drones, and antitank weapons. The president agreed to sign the legislation only because it did not require him to provide the aid, which he has yet to do. Trying a new tactic this week, the Senate included a provision in its military policy bill that would withhold half of the $300 million for Ukrainian security assistance until 20 percent of the funds is spent on lethal weaponry for Kiev. The provision is opposed by the White House for fear that lethal assistance would only serve to escalate the bloodshed in Ukraine and hand Putin an excuse for further violent transgressions.

    While policy differences like this one account for some of the bad blood between Nuland and her European counterparts, her tough style clearly plays a role as well.

    "Some tend to perceive Nuland's assertiveness as a bit too over the edge, at least for the muffled European diplomatic environment," said Federiga Bindi, a senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.

    ... ... ...

    Despite the fact that Nuland is not outside the mainstream of many State Department views on the Ukraine crisis, her reputation as the most pugnacious of hawks isn't likely to subside in the minds of Europeans anytime soon. In many ways, that's because she'll never live down the moment that made her famous: the leaking of a private phone call of her disparaging the European Union in 2014 as the political standoff between the Ukrainian opposition and former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych unfurled.

    [Jun 19, 2015] Angry Russia Will Respond In Kind To Europes Asset Seizures

    Looks like checkmate for Putin from the USA geopolitical chess players...
    .
    "...New cold war. Only this time it's the West that is banging the heel of its shoe on the podium and screaming incoherently."
    Jun 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    On Thursday, nearly 50 Belgian companies were told to disclose their Russian state assets, setting the stage for the seizure of Russian property in connection with the disputed $50 billion Yukos verdict.

    In short, Russia was required to submit a plan for a €1.6 billion payment by June 15 pursuant to the 2014 arbitration court decision which found in favor of Yukos shareholders who the ECHR ruled were treated unfairly when Moscow seized the company amid allegations of fraud and other crimes. Russia appealed the ruling and lost.

    Because Russia does not look set to comply, Belgium is effectively moving to enforce the ruling itself. Austria and France also moved to freeze Russian assets on Thursday.

    It now appears the timing of the asset freezes was designed to stir controversy in St. Petersburg where Russia is hosting an annual business forum (described by some as a "Russian Davos) and where Greece is executing the first stages of the dreaded 'Russian pivot.'

    Now, Russia looks set to retaliate, threatening to freeze Belgian, Austrian, and French assets until such a time as the countries' "illegal" actions are reversed. RT has more:

    Moscow will take reciprocal action in response to the seizure of its foreign assets, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has warned.

    "Our response would be in kind. This is inevitable. This is the only way of acting in international affairs," he told RBK-TV in an intervew.

    Lavrov was commenting on the seizure in Belgium and France of Russian state-owned assets. The arrest were made on request of beneficiaries of the now-defunct oil giant Yukos, who were awarded damages from Russia by an arbitration court in The Hague. Russia is in the process of challenging the ruling.

    The minister added that his priority in this situation now is to unfreeze the accounts of the Russian Embassy in Belgium.

    The freezing of diplomats' accounts "absolutely goes against the Vienna accords on foreign relations that guarantee the immunity of diplomatic assets, real estate and corresponding things. Belgian foreign ministry officials are indicating to us that they were not aware of it," Lavrov said. "We don't accept these explanations."

    And here's FT with the opposing viewpoint...

    Tim Osborne, director of GML, the former Yukos holding company, told the Financial Times he was aware of the French and Belgian moves but could not confirm exactly what had been frozen.

    The assets had been "attached" to GML's claim to get the Yukos ruling enforced, to ensure they could not be moved abroad before legal hearings expected within the next year.

    "We still have to convince a legal court [in these countries] that our arbitration award should be recognised as the equivalent of a judgment in their court, so they can enforce it," he said.

    "We remain confident that we will win, and that we will collect if not all, then a substantial part, of the award - but it will take time."

    Mr Osborne said GML had started similar steps to get the UK and US to recognise the arbitration panel award but other countries had different asset seizure rules.

    Andrei Belousov, an economic aide to Vladimir Putin, Russian president, told the St Petersburg forum that the country planned to appeal against the award. "We are concerned. We expect a number of countries to take similar measures," he said.

    ...and here's a bit more from Bloomberg (note the bit about holding Russian reserves outside of US and EU assets):

    Russia is bracing for more foreign asset seizures in a clash over the defunct Yukos Oil Co. after France and Belgium began enforcing a $50 billion damages award.

    The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled last July that Russia is liable to pay almost half of the $103 billion plus interest sought by GML Ltd., a holding company belonging to four former owners who don't include Khodorkovsky.

    Russia's appeal of the decision may be heard in November, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told reporters, while Ulyukayev ruled out paying the damages. Lawyers and government agencies are studying the Belgian ruling, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

    While the asset freezes are unlikely to affect the Bank of Russia's international reserves, keeping the cash pile outside of U.S. or EU assets is under consideration, Siluanov said. "No such decision has been taken so far, we believe that we can keep the existing structure for now," he said.

    The Yukos plaintiffs are targeting Russian government assets in France and Belgium that aren't protected by diplomatic immunity in a process that could take years to resolve, GML Director Tim Osborne said by phone from London.

    "We are not in this for a Pyrrhic victory," he said. "We haven't ruled out other jurisdictions, but they will be more difficult" because of local laws on asset seizure.

    Given the timing (see above) and given the situation in Ukraine and Moscow's rapidly deteriorating 'relationship' (if you can call it that) with Washington and NATO, one cannot help but wonder if Europe is set to use the Yukos case as yet another tool for applying political pressure to the Kremlin. After all, the stage is already set for stepped up economic sanctions and the EU has filed anti-trust charges against Gazprom (even as the energy giant inked an MOU in St. Petersburg on Thursday to double the capacity of what is effectively a Ukraine bypass line). Needless to say, if GML is successful at convincing the US and/or the UK to enforce the ECHR ruling via similar confiscations, things could get very interesting, very quickly.

    NoDebt

    New cold war. Only this time it's the West that is banging the heel of its shoe on the podium and screaming incoherently.

    Latina Lover

    The western banksters are getting increasingly desperate. Stealing Russia's assets in Europe via a EU kangaroo court will further increase Putins support, as even more Russians realize they are at war with the USSA/EU.

    The actions was launched to piss on Putin at the Russian Economic Forum, but also to distract the sheeple from the Grexit.

    froze25

    Bilderberg just finished up, the bankster troops have their marching orders. Let the games begin. I would stock up on canned goods and water quickly. Ammo too.

    Truthseeker2

    Anglo-American Axis Wages Financial/Economic War Against Russia

    froze25
    This really does suck, economic war almost always proceeds a shooting one.
    eclectic syncretist
    One has to wonder if the banksters have completely forgotten how vilified thier brethen have been historically. Do they really suppose that they can use media control and propaganda to hide all the crimes they are committing to try and retain and expand their power?
    Latina Lover
    Stealing Russia's assets is a desperate move to prop up the failing central bankster ponzi system. Without new assets, the ponzi scheme will collapse.

    Savyindallas

    They have no choice. They have pretty much looted and stolen all there is to steal from their own people.


    the phantom

    After the Hague judgement, Putin's close advisor said," There is a war coming in Europe, do you think this matters?"

    Latina Lover

    The USSA and her EU puppet are already at war with Russia. Sanctions are an act of war.

    Savyindallas

    They have no choice. They have pretty much looted and stolen all there is to steal from their own people.


    Save_America1st

    Then WWIII has really already started...started back in 2008 maybe??? But what's going to happen after WWIII?

    Remember what Einstein said?:
    "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
    He may have been one war off...we now know WWIII is a financial/economic/currency war. Looks like the West is going to lose it badly, too.

    If we're driven into WWIV after that with full on nukes and everything else, then WWV (5) will be fought with sticks and stones...if there's even a world left after that.

    Man Who Was Thursday

    Anyone read the Vienna Convention on Foreign Relations? The freezing "diplomats' accounts" is prohibited but "State assets" is not explicity prohibited.

    Maybe they did freeze diplomat's accounts and spin it to "State assets".

    Fri, 06/19/2015 - 09:54 | 6213669 Brazen Heist

    Even a 15 year old can see this was a politicized move made in distaste. So far I see its the Western governments that are the offensive ones, the ones losing control, the ones having a go and playing with fire...they are desperate for conflict....Russia, China just react defensively to this shit-slinging, and get lambasted by the "free" press for standing up to the shit show narrative most sheeple are expected to swallow.

    Fri, 06/19/2015 - 10:15 | 6213743 Savyindallas

    As can be seen here on ZH, more and more people in the West are siding with Russia, as we see the insanity of Western governments that are acting against the best interests of their own people. Here in America we are saddled with tens of trillions of debt that eventually must be repaid -all for the benefit of billionaire Oligarchs who have been looting this country. Same goes for Europe. And what is the Oligarchs solution? -massive third world immigration to balkanize the western nations in their strategy of divide and conqu -and the establishment of a Police State to control the civil unrest which is to come. .

    Augustus

    The western banksters are getting increasingly desperate. Stealing Russia's assets in Europe via a EU kangaroo court will further increase Putins support, as even more Russians realize they are at war with the USSA/EU. The actions was launched to piss on Putin at the Russian Economic Forum, but also to distract the sheeple from the Grexit.

    More of the same horse shit from a Moscow based Puutie Paid Puppy.

    If Puutie wants to respond in kind, he will first need to get an international court to rule in his favor.

    That seems unlikely as the thieving communist has screwed international investors time after time and time again. It is not stealing from Russia when the different countries take action to enforce a court ruling awarding compensation for the takings of this kleptocrat totalitarian. His screaming about havving to pay for what he has stolen is the normal response of a thief facing consequences. Russia is the land of kangaroo courts with all major rulings being dictated by Moscow. It is the land where defense attorneys are jailed and left to die without medical care.

    All crooks squeal like pigs when apprehended. Puutie is following the normal pattern.

    Stumpy4516

    From Latina: "The western banksters are getting increasingly desperate"

    Replace confident with desperate. Maybe overconfident. The firm slaps across Putin's face have gotten more frequent and more obvious. This is occuring because Russia has been unwilling to take a stand since Cuba. The only credit I will give Russia is that they supported the Viet's and even piloted some of their jets. Other than that Russia has been bullied and pushed around, Russia has not only allowed it's allies to be destroyed but has assisted in their destruction.

    The lack of action and the actions of cooperation tend to indicate there is a Russian elite that has mixed loyalties. Including Putin.

    tmosley

    I wonder how much French, Belgian, and Dutch money is in Russia? Probably more than $51.5 billion, I would think.

    youngman

    I would think there are far more Russian assets in the Western world than there is Western assets in Russia...anyone with money in Russia...takes it out...Putin has to many times just taken your assets...this oil company is just one example....let alone the Corrupt government employees will take you assets until you pay them off....So i think the west wins this fight...

    This is one big reason Russia is still a third world country..all of the wealth leaves....if they were encouraged to reinvest i Russia..it would be a much better country....more jobs and better quality of life

    TahoeBilly2012

    Yea but when the SHTF the only thing that counts is water, food and oil, of which Russia has PLENTY and Europe and the US are missing a few items, unless the US is hiding oil discoveries, which we may be.

    samjam7

    Check out this link that's where you can see that there is way more European investment in Russia than vice versa. This shows you FDI stock originating from the EU-27 to various countries when looking at 'outward' and looking at 'inward' you see what other countries have invested in the EU-27. It is in billions of Euros.

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/4/48/Top_10_cou...

    Impoverished Ps...

    This is a dollar war, the power of the almighty $ is being challenged by the BRICS and the $ regime will ALWAYS retaliate.

    [Jun 19, 2015] Resistance of suvereign state or rebellion of a vassal of the USA

    tertiaroma.livejournal.com
    Article of P. Akopova contains interesting thought, You need to read it fully to appreciate them.

    The goal of the West disclosed correctly, but can the Russian Federation in the current form confront a new "crusade"?

    After all, if the Russian elite has positioned the West as the enemy, as it in reality is to the Russian state, bothe the current contnt and the vector of the Russian economy would be quite different. In a condition, which would at least make the economic and financial arsenal of the West less effective.

    But in reality Russian ruling nomenclature suffering from pro-Western mentality tried to srengthen their defences indiscriminatly in all directions, including to the military (while the main blow that are coming are financial), and to increase the patriotism of the population by the projection of the President as an indepencent political figure fighting dictat of the West. While in reality Putin is the politician who underestimated the antagonism of the West and after first negative raction from the West fell into what can be called the "Ukrainian prostration"?

    If so, then there are only two ways out of this situation: either the delivery of the fiefdom to ht eUSA as a king, or the transformation of a fiefdom in the sovereign state.

    [Jun 19, 2015] Confiscation of Russian state property in West has hidden goals

    Jun 19, 2015 | vz.ru

    No matter how successful would be the attempts to seize Russian property in Belgium, it is clear that begins a new stage of Western attack on Russia. The state arrested during the war, but we are in a state of geopolitical conflict. The excuse now selected for arrest, completely unimportant to block Russia will use any reasons.

    Dismantle the legal niceties of what happened in Belgium and in France, but for trees it is important to see the forest. The problem is not that, most likely, the current attempt of arrest of property of Russia on the claim of Yukos, based on last year's decision of the arbitration court in the Hague, will not be successful, but more important is that the topic of confiscation of Russian property in the West has moved from the theoretical to the practical.


    "The attempted arrest of the Russian property pursued a number of important goals"

    The coincidence of this event with the launch of the St. Petersburg economic forum by accident, but more than symbolic. While the political and business elite of most European countries are looking for ways of combining Atlantic solidarity and national interests, that is, sanctions against Russia and preserving relations with her, supranational, Atlantic forces are at work on the widening gap between Europe and Moscow, creating new obstacles to save their relationship.

    Another piece of information that appeared simultaneously with Belgian history, gives an idea about the next steps to isolate Russia from Europe – New York Times talks about the contents of the new package of sanctions against Moscow, agreed by the EU and the USA. It will be adopted much faster previous, report sources – in the case of the Ukrainian separatists by Moscow and the rebel advance into Ukraine". Considering that the continuing civil war in Ukraine is, unfortunately, only a matter of time, we can say that these sanctions will inevitably be introduced against Russia.

    The contents of the new package is known in General terms, but it is impressive – the sanctions "can lead to restriction of export of fuel from Russia", "Russian banks will lose the opportunity to conduct a number of international financial transactions", and "some businesses will not be able to participate in transactions abroad." And in the case of "serious breaches" will be imposed tough financial sanctions, including the shutdown of a number of Russian banks from the SWIFT system. In addition, the U.S. insists on the adoption of restrictive measures against foreign subsidiaries of Russian companies, and also against new sectors of the economy (including against the mining industry and mechanical engineering). Restrictions in the energy sector include sanctions against businesses engaged in the exploration for gas or the production and commissioning of equipment for production and transportation of shale oil, reports RBC with reference to AP.

    But if new sanctions require still agreeing on the level of heads of governments of all European countries and the USA will not be so easy to achieve that even in case of resumption of war in Ukraine measures, similar to the arrest of the Russian property in Belgium, do not require such extensive work. Enough to use a few European countries – and the effect will be huge. Moreover, the attempted arrest of the Russian property pursue several objectives.

    • First, of course, to exert psychological pressure on the Kremlin – Atlanticists still do not exclude that the increased pressure on Russia will lead to changes in our Ukrainian politics, to put it simply, to the fact that Moscow will agree to atlantisal of Ukraine. The fact that it is impossible in principle for Russia, I understand not all supporters of the isolation of our country. And if so to press – maybe it will be last drop, after which Putin will decide that enough is enough: such considerations seem delusional, but actually exist in Atlantic elite.
    • Secondly, the threat of arrest jeopardizes any economic ties between Europe and Russia – both existing and future. What contracts, what supplies (in both directions), if tomorrow in Holland or Germany would be arrested accounts or products paid by Russia or from Russia. What then accounts will be unlocked, and the property is released, not a comforting thought – who would want to risk, to bear the loss and nervous? The claim of Yukos – a convenient excuse to arrest in France, Germany, not to mention the UK or the USA. It's like a minefield, you never know, pass it or not – it is important to make any Western businessman to be afraid to even step on it. And to remove it from Russian, and so it is of limited sanctions.
    • Thirdly, it is an attempt to provoke Russia to retaliate. That is, for the arrest or even the confiscation of the property of those Western countries which will decide on the arrest of the Russian property. This would be a major step towards the ultimate isolation of Russia from Europe – and it is clear that Moscow is well aware. But while it would be assumed that until when will the first real case of arrest of the Russian property with counter no need to hurry in order not to be consumed.

    You can, of course, wonder, and a large Western business that wants to work with Russia, how his interests? Did he not will to protest against the attempt to deprive him of favorable contacts and profits? It is not only national business from individual European countries, but also the largest supranational corporations, like BP, have large interests in Russia.

    The answer is very simple – in the era of globalization, as indeed in any other, is not ruled by big money, and not even the lust for profit, and the elite of geopolitics, people who have strategic power, those who are planning for a long time, and doing it from generation to generation. The Atlanticists, the backbone of the supranational Western elites, understand the seriousness of the challenge posed by Russia of their global project. Yes, now Russia is still weak in order again, as a century ago, to become an alternative to them, but have the audacity to stifle in the Bud – that's why none of "having the right" by and large does not care about the profits, lost on the Russian direction of any Bank or Corporation.

    After all, if now not to return Russia to the bullpen, then the losses will be much greater – the changed geopolitical situation will inevitably lead to loss of control of the commodity and money flows, and hence to financial losses. And what is money in comparison with the power, the more global. Especially in the West know Russia must be very careful.

    Many in the West are very sorry that we failed to strangle the Communist project in the Bud, during the civil war – and then had 70 years to suffer. With the current "Putin's Russia" they don't want a repeat of those mistakes. Intervention is not possible now, but the economic war will gain momentum. In war as in war you have to be ready for anything.

    [Jun 18, 2015]Russia might once again lose

    Jun 17, 2015 | inosmi.ru / Reflex, Czech Republic

    She might exhaust itself, and it will only exacerbate her problems

    The days of the old cold war back.

    ...Despite the fact that Putin constantly talks about how strong the military forces of Russia, and what they can do in the encounter with the West, Russia will once again lose because they can't match the Western power, neither economically, nor scientifically, nor technologicaly. She just does not have enough resources in order to gain strategic advantage. In addition to West Russia should pay attention to the East, because China is arming itself with such a speed that Putin can't dream about.

    ... China has increased its military budget is already $ 216 billion. And Saudi Arabia invested almost the same amount as Moscow (almost 81 billion dollars). And another comparison that should be alerted Russia: if the US 610 billion dollars in weapons is 3.5% of GDP, the Russian 84,5 billion of 4.5% of the GDP of this country. Financial burden for Russian is much more tangible.

    ...the West still has the NATO Alliance. which today it is the main military force of the world, despite the fact that sometimes it seems that NATO members can't agree on some important issues.

    ... ... ...

    Original publication: Rusko svůj souboj se Západem opět nevyhraje, bude uzbrojeno a prohloubí tím své problémy

    Posted: 17/06/2015 16:11

    [Jun 18, 2015] Russia promises tit for tat punishment against Belgium, if the latter carries through with its threats

    "... the problem here is that the West has already claimed use of the national security get out clause to put sanctions on Russia in the first place, which Russia can of course claim too."

    Jun 18, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Fern, June 18, 2015 at 6:09 am

    Following on from the posts on page 1 of this thread concerning Russian assets in Belgium being seized on behalf of those poor Yukos shareholders, money has also been frozen in French banks. This is nothing more than outright theft – quite shocking. Western values in action.

    ThatJ, June 18, 2015 at 6:59 am

    Khodorkovsky is a Rothschild protégé:

    But there was more. Khodorkovsky built some impressive ties in the West. With his new billions in effect stolen from the Russian people, he made some powerful friends. He set up a foundation modeled on US billionaire George Soros' Open Society, calling it the Open Russia Foundation. He invited two powerful Westerners to its board-Henry Kissinger and Jacob Lord Rothschild.

    Khodorkovsky, Soros, Kissinger and Rothschild are all God's Chosen People.

    During the ensuing Russian state prosecution of Yukos, it came to light that Khodorkovsky had also secretly made a contract with London's Lord Rothschild not merely to support Russian culture via the Open Russia Foundation of Khodorkovsky. In the event of his possible arrest (Khodorkovsky evidently knew he was playing a high-risk game trying to create a coup against Putin) the 40% share of his Yukos stocks would pass into the hands of Lord Rothschild.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article168007.html

    Russia is playing with fire and considering the players in question she will most likely get burnt. The central role played by the Rothschilds in the banking sector, that most parasitic but profitable business, for the last two centuries is well known. They are an energic bunch and their agents of influence are everywhere. Orders can be given from the above - starting from the highest ranks - until the "message" reaches the unsuspecting subordinates, which it invariably does. After all, these are the people who bought the elections of an American president who dutifully kept his part of the bargain by granting the Rothschilds & fellow travellers the Federal Reserve that they have long dreamed.

    They have money. They have the proverbial "printing press". Together, they have a bottomless pocket to fund political opponents, NGOs and back them with a servile media. In short, they have a myriad of options to threaten one's political career.

    Terje , June 18, 2015 at 7:15 am

    Looking at the Khodorkovsky Twitter account I see he has a gap between the 11 and 15 of June, coinciding with the Bilderberg meeting in Austria. The rest of the year there is normally at least one post every day. A not unreasonable guess would be that he was at the conference without being announced.

    Fern , June 18, 2015 at 10:10 am

    Terje, great detective work! I suspect you're right – wow, what a future is being planned for Russia.

    marknesop , June 18, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Seconded – that was pretty clever. Doesn't rise to the level of proof, of course, but it is a step away from the pattern and might be more than coincidence. I would not be at all surprised if your guess is accurate.

    karl1haushofer , June 18, 2015 at 1:24 pm

    Russians, read this:
    Rule #1. Don't you put money to western banks.
    Rule #2. Don't buy property from the West.

    Problem solved.

    yalensis, June 18, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    Russia promises tit for tat punishment against Belgium, if the latter carries through with its threats.

    On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister called Belgium Ambassador Alex Van Meeuwen to the carpet and berated him.
    Russia threatenend to confiscate Belgian property in Russia, in retaliation.

    Meanwhile, France is acting in tandem with Belgium to attack Russia. There were reports that France has gone after the offices of "Russia Today" and the TV channel for RT.

    Analysts say there is plenty of Belgium property in Russia, which could be confiscated in retaliation, and that Belgium could feel significant pain, if they don't back off.

    Ditto goes for French property.

    Furthermore, Article 8, Paragraph #1 of Russian law on foreign investments, foresees the possibility, under exceptional conditions, of nationalising and confiscating property of foreign companies.

    Russia has the ability to freeze foreign accounts and also freeze the flow of profits to the host country, from companies that operate on Russian soil.
    To get the biggest bang for the buck, Russia would focus on companies which have billions of dollars invested in the Russian economy.

    Examples of possible targets:

    Other Belgian companies which invest in Russia includes pharmaceuticals, chocolate, construction, etc.

    French business is even more widespread in Russia, and there is a lot of money at stake.
    For example, the French bank Societe Generale is a main shareholder in Rosbank.

    Other major French companies include Renault and Peugeot-Citroen (automobiles).
    Also Dannon yogurt, L'Oréal cosmetics, and other big names.

    Analysts warn, that the freezing of French assets in Russia could lead to the loss (by the French) of several tens of billions of euros.

    Bring it on, Frenchies….

    et Al, June 19, 2015 at 6:47 am

    euractiv: France, Belgium seize Russian assets to compensate Yukos shareholders
    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/france-belgium-seize-russian-assets-compensate-yukos-shareholders-315550

    …In France, accounts in around 40 banks were frozen along with eight or nine buildings, Tim Osborne, executive director of the main shareholder GML, told AFP.

    "It's bank accounts and real estate," Osborne explained…

    …In Belgium, the Russian embassy in Brussels and representative offices at the European Union and NATO headquarters were among those affected, the Russian foreign ministry said….

    …GML's Osborne said that proceedings were "already underway in Britain and the United States and further countries will follow"….

    …Despite not being involved, Khodorkovsky welcomed the move in relation to the Russian assets in Belgium….

    …The Belgian foreign ministry said the seizures had been conducted by bailiffs without the involvement of the Belgian government.

    "It's a legal decision which was executed by bailiffs. We were not informed by the bailiffs' office, we do not intervene," ministry spokesman Hendrik Van de Velde told AFP.

    The Permanent Court of Arbitration declined to comment on the issue…
    ####

    Convenient timing, no? I think the calculus here is that the West sees Russia bending over backwards to accommodate ongoing business and investments in Russia, so any Russian counter action that hits western business assets in Russia would directly affect the business climate and direct investment in Russia. A game of chicken if you will.

    Russia has no choice (ok, well it does) but to hit back, but I think it should hit back very hard and very selectively, particularly the big western corporations that have sunk large captial in to Russia and can weather the impact over the short term. Targeting western corporations that compete with domestic Russian industry would make sense too. You can bet though that the West will quickly go squealing to the WTO – the problem here is that the West has already claimed use of the national security get out clause to put sanctions on Russia in the first place, which Russia can of course claim too.

    The problem here is that the West would argue that this is a purely commercial dispute, even though the court ruled Russia was acting politically. This is short-sighted (aka standard western policy) as it would damage the credibility of the WTO as an global organization that is supposed to be even handed (and one that the West created in its own image to maintain their dominance through globalization). The thing is that it doesn't matter if the West says the WTO is independent and impartial (yup, the Ukraine joined long before Russia was allowed to), but how everyone outside the West thinks it is behaving. That's one big nail in the WTO.

    Over all, it looks like the West's traditional methods of carrot and stick are becoming less and less effective and it is increasingly resorting to more desperate measure that ultimately undermine the West's own carefully crafted system. We see this militarily with NATO and the US generals talking about returning IRBMs and nukes to Europe, politically with 'casting Russia out of the International community', and of course economically in this and other cases. These elites never pay for their failures unfortunately and just quite politics and go in to consultancy for business…

    [Jun 17, 2015] Washington Prepares to Fight for Donetsk

    "...There are valid arguments on both sides but you don't get to walk this back. Once we have done this we become a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on earth that can destroy the United States. That's why this is a big deal." "
    Jun 17, 2015 | The American Conservative
    Washington Prepares to Fight for Donetsk (and Ignore Baltimore) The American Conservative

    Jacob Heilbrunn has an extremely suggestive article in the latest National Interest which reminds readers that neoconservatives essentially began as critics of Great Society liberalism and elite reluctance to defend bourgeois standards and law and order in the 1960s. Heilbrunn has written one of the finest books about neoconservatism, and is generally a nuanced critic of the group. But one need not go full bore with Norman Podhoretz-type linkages between homosexuality, cultural decay, and Munich to recognize that the neocons were right about many things, and law and order in American cities was one of them. In any case, Heilbrunn reminds us that Bill Kristol (son of Irving, founder of The Public Interest, a magazine devoted to domestic policy) tweeted out in the aftermath of the Ferguson riots (the second set, not the first) that it felt like 1968 all over again and some politician would do well to speak, a la Richard Nixon, for the silent American majority which was not anti-cop. In this case, Kristol was probably right.

    It is also is apparent that no major politician right, center, or left has yet risen to take the bait. Of course they all want to be "tough"-but always somewhere else in the world. Neoconservatism has prevailed, but only in foreign policy. Today the target is Vladimir Putin and Russia, and everyone in Washington agrees he needs to be taught a lesson. Congress voted last week voted to compel the administration to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine, including offensive weapons-against the administration's judgment. The Times story noted that the arms shipments would open a rift between the Washington and France and Germany, which are hesitant about any measure which would escalate the fighting. It would seem that Congress has bought whole hog into the Wolfowitz doctrine, widely derided as extremist when it was leaked in 1992, according to which the United States should maintain dominance in every region of the world, and that no other nation should aspire to a greater role, even in its own geographic area.

    Major European governments are now doing their best to circumvent anti-Russian sanctions which they themselves instituted. European publics make it clear that they are not willing to fight Russia over the disposition of the territories of the former Soviet Union. The cease-fire between Ukraine and its rebellious Russian-backed eastern provinces that was negotiated last February has been violated repeatedly, and Putin has called openly for the West to persuade Ukraine's central government to follow its provisions. It's not clear how many American congressmen voting for giving Ukraine offensive weapons understand the implications of their weapons policy, which were spelled out by the Kennan Institute's Matthew Rojansky:

    There are valid arguments on both sides but you don't get to walk this back. Once we have done this we become a belligerent party in a proxy war with Russia, the only country on earth that can destroy the United States. That's why this is a big deal.

    A proxy war with Russia, over Russian borderlands not one American in a hundred could locate on a map-it's really the full triumph of Wolfowitz. Not to be outdone by Congress, the Obama administration is now floating plans to deliver tanks and other heavy weapons, along with token numbers of American troops, to several of our new NATO "allies," the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Those governments will inevitably conclude that Washington has their back in any conflict with Russia and act accordingly. See Georgia, 2008, for an example of how this might play out.

    There is something about Ukraine and the other Russian border regions which Europeans seem to understand and Americans don't. Much of the "Maidan Revolution" was driven by ethnic Ukrainian nationalists with deep hatred for Russia; while it's not a universal sentiment, many Ukrainians despise all things Russian, including their own compatriots who identify with Russia. They want nothing more than to draw the West into a war against their ancestral enemy. The newly minted anti-Russian regime in Kiev is the fruit of American "pro-democracy" meddling involving billions of dollars of payouts to private groups and individuals, the kind of thing the CIA used to do during the Cold War. Of course because of its proximity to an unsettled region, the new Ukrainian government can find endless ways to keep the pot boiling–shelling their own civilians in Donetsk, or instituting a blockade against Transnistria , a pro-Russian breakaway province of Moldova. The average American may not know much about Transnistria-or indeed likely has never heard of it at all-but you can be assured that Putin does care about keeping the small Russian garrison stationed there supplied.

    This is neoconservatism's triumph: the creation of an entire Beltway industry, honeycombed through Congress and largely bipartisan, which finds political life not worth living without the prospect of confrontation with a distant enemy. The notion of treating Russia as a great power, acknowledging that Russia has serious security interests on its borders and treating those interests respectfully, does not occur to its members. Detente for them is a dirty word, akin to appeasement.

    [Jun 15, 2015] Snowden, Putin, Greece It's All The Same Story

    "...In short, the propaganda we should be worried about is not Russia's, it's our own. And it comes from just about every news article we're fed. We're much less than six degrees removed from Orwell."
    .
    "...Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it's hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they've learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets "report," especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials – laundered through their media – as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting."
    Jun 15, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

    Through the last decades, as we have been getting ever more occupied trying to be what society tells us is defined as successful, we all missed out on a lot of changes in our world. Or perhaps we should be gentle to ourselves and say we're simply slow to catch up.

    Which is somewhat curious since we've also been getting bombarded with fast increasing amounts of what we're told is information, so you'd think it might have become easier to keep up. It was not.

    While we were busy being busy we for instance were largely oblivious to the fact the US is no longer a beneficial force in the world, and that it doesn't spread democracy or freedom. Now you may argue to what extent that has ever been true, and you should, but the perception was arguably much closer to the truth 70 years ago, at the end of WWII, then it is today.

    Another change we really can't get our heads around is how the media have turned from a source of information to a source of – pre-fabricated – narratives. We'll all say to some extent or another that we know our press feeds us propaganda, but, again arguably, few of us are capable of pinpointing to what extent that is true. Perhaps no big surprise given the overdose of what passes for information, but duly noted.

    So far so good, you're not as smart as you think. Bummer. But still an easy one to deny in the private space of your own head. If you get undressed and stand in front of the mirror, though, maybe not as easy.

    What ails us is, I was going to say perfectly human, but let's stick with just human, and leave perfection alone. What makes us human is that it feels good to be protected, safe, and prosperous. Protected from evil and from hard times, by a military force, by a monetary fund, by a monetary union. It feels so good in fact that we don't notice when what's supposed to keep us safe turns against us.

    But it is what happens, time and again, and, once again arguably, ever more so. What we think the world looks like is increasingly shaped by fiction. Perhaps that means we live in dreamtime. Or nightmare time. Whatever you call it, it's not real. Pinching yourself is not going to help. Reading Orwell might.

    The Sunday Times ran a story today -which the entire world press parroted quasi verbatim- that claimed MI6 had felt compelled to call back some of its operatives from the 'field' because Russia and China had allegedly hacked into the encrypted files Edward Snowden allegedly carried with him to Russia (something Snowden denied on multiple occasions).

    Glenn Greenwald's take down of the whole thing is – for good reasons- far better than I could provide, and it's blistering, it leaves not a single shred of the article. Problem is, the die's been cast, and many more people read the Times and all the media who've reprinted its fiction, than do read Greenwald:

    The Sunday Times' Snowden Story Is Journalism At Its Worst

    Western journalists claim that the big lesson they learned from their key role in selling the Iraq War to the public is that it's hideous, corrupt and often dangerous journalism to give anonymity to government officials to let them propagandize the public, then uncritically accept those anonymously voiced claims as Truth. But they've learned no such lesson. That tactic continues to be the staple of how major US and British media outlets "report," especially in the national security area. And journalists who read such reports continue to treat self-serving decrees by unnamed, unseen officials – laundered through their media – as gospel, no matter how dubious are the claims or factually false is the reporting.

    We now have one of the purest examples of this dynamic. Last night, the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times published their lead front-page Sunday article, headlined "British Spies Betrayed to Russians and Chinese." Just as the conventional media narrative was shifting to pro-Snowden sentiment in the wake of a key court ruling and a new surveillance law, the article claims in the first paragraph that these two adversaries "have cracked the top-secret cache of files stolen by the fugitive US whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing MI6 to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries, according to senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services."

    Please read Greenwald's piece. It's excellent. Turns out the Times made it all up. At the same time, it's just one example of something much more expansive: the entire world view of the vast majority of Americans and Europeans, and that means you too, is weaved together from a smorgasbord of made-up stories, narratives concocted to make you see what someone else wants you to see.

    Last week, the Pew Research Center did a survey that was centered around the question what 'we' should do if a NATO ally were attacked by Russia. How Pew dare hold such a survey is for most people not even a valid question anymore, since the Putin as bogeyman tale, after a year and change, has taken root in 99% of western brains.

    And so the Pew question, devoid of reality as it may be, appears more legit than the question about why the question is asked in the first place. NATO didn't really like the results of the survey, but enough to thump some more chests. Here's from an otherwise wholly forgettable NY Times piece:

    Poles were most alarmed by Moscow's muscle flexing, with 70% saying that Russia was a major military threat. Germany, a critical American ally in the effort to forge a Ukraine peace settlement, was at the other end of the spectrum. Only 38% of Germans said that Russia was a danger to neighboring countries aside from Ukraine, and only 29% blamed Russia for the violence in Ukraine. Consequently, 58% of Germans do not believe that their country should use force to defend another NATO ally. Just 19% of Germans say NATO weapons should be sent to the Ukrainian government to help it better contend with Russian and separatist attacks.

    Do we need to repeat that Russia didn't attack Ukraine? That if after all this time there is still zero proof for that, perhaps it's time to let go of that idea?

    Over the past week, there have been numerous reports of NATO 'strengthening' its presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltics. Supposedly to deter Russian aggression in the region. For which there is no evidence. But if you ask people if NATO should act if one of its allies were attacked, you put the idea in people's heads that such an attack is a real risk. And that's the whole idea.

    This crazy piece from the Guardian provides a very good example of how the mood is manipulated:

    US And Poland In Talks Over Weapons Deployment In Eastern Europe

    The US and Poland are discussing the deployment of American heavy weapons in eastern Europe in response to Russian expansionism and sabre-rattling in the region in what represents a radical break with post-cold war military planning. The Polish defence ministry said on Sunday that Washington and Warsaw were in negotiations about the permanent stationing of US battle tanks and other heavy weaponry in Poland and other countries in the region as part of NATO's plans to develop rapid deployment "Spearhead" forces aimed at deterring Kremlin attempts to destabilise former Soviet bloc countries now entrenched inside NATO and the EU.

    Warsaw said that a decision whether to station heavy US equipment at warehouses in Poland would be taken soon. NATO's former supreme commander in Europe, American admiral James Stavridis, said the decision marked "a very meaningful policy shift", amid eastern European complaints that western Europe and the US were lukewarm about security guarantees for countries on the frontline with Russia following Vladimir Putin's seizure of parts of Ukraine. "It provides a reasonable level of reassurance to jittery allies, although nothing is as good as troops stationed full time on the ground, of course," the retired admiral told the New York Times.

    NATO has been accused of complacency in recent years. The Russian president's surprise attacks on Ukraine have shocked western military planners into action. An alliance summit in Wales last year agreed quick deployments of NATO forces in Poland and the Baltic states. German mechanised infantry crossed into Poland at the weekend after thousands of NATO forces inaugurated exercises as part of the new buildup in the east. Wary of antagonising Moscow's fears of western "encirclement" and feeding its well-oiled propaganda effort, which regularly asserts that NATO agreed at the end of the cold war not to station forces in the former Warsaw Pact countries, NATO has declined to establish permanent bases in the east.

    It's downright borderline criminally tragic that NATO claims it's building up its presence in the region as a response to Russian actions. What actions? Nothing was going on until 'we' supported a coup in Kiev, installed a puppet government and let them wage war on their own citizens. That war killed a lot of people. And if Kiev has any say in the matter, it ain't over by a long shot. Poroshenko and Yats still want it all back. So does NATO.

    When signing a post-cold war strategic cooperation pact with Russia in 1997, Nato pledged not to station ground forces permanently in eastern Europe "in the current and foreseeable security environment". But that environment has been transformed by Putin's decision to invade and annex parts of Ukraine and the 1997 agreement is now seen as obsolete.

    Meanwhile, Russia re-took Crimea without a single shot being fired. But that is still what the western press calls aggression. Russia doesn't even deem to respond to 'our' innuendo, they feel there's nothing to be gained from that because 'our' stories have been pre-cooked and pre-chewed anyway. Something that we are going to greatly regret.

    There are all these alphabet soup organizations that were once set up with, one last time, arguably, good intentions, and that now invent narratives because A) they can and B) they need a reason to continue to exist. That is true for NATO, which should have been dismantled 25 years ago.

    It's true for the IMF, which was always only a tool for US domination. It's true for the CIA and FBI, which might keep you safe if that was their intent, but which really only function to keep themselves and their narrow group of paymasters safe.

    It's also true for political unions, like the US and EU. Let's leave the former alone for now, though much could be said and written about the gaping distance between what the Founding Fathers once envisioned for the nation and what it has since descended into.

    Still, that is a story for another day. When we can find our way through the web of narratives that holds it upright. Like the threat from Russia, the threat from China, the threat from all the factions in the Middle East the US itself (helped) set up.

    The EU is much younger, though its bureaucrats seem eager to catch up with America in fictitious web weaving. We humans stink at anything supra-national. We can have our societies cooperate, but as soon as we invent 'greater' units to incorporate that cooperation, things run off the rails, the wrong people grab power, and the weaker among us get sacrificed. And that is what's happening once again, entirely predictably, in Greece.

    That Spain's two largest cities, Barcelona and Madrid, have now sworn in far-left female mayors this week will only serve to make things harder for Athens. Brussels is under siege, and it will defend its territory as 'best' it can.

    What might influence matters, and not a little bit, is that Syriza's Audit Commission is poised to make public its findings on June 18, and that they yesterday revealed they have in their possession a 2010 IMF document that allegedly proves that the Fund knew back then, before the first bail-out, that the Memorandum would result in an increase in Greek debt.

    That's potentially incendiary information, because the Memorandum -and the bailout- were aimed specifically at decreasing the debt. That -again, allegedly- none of the EU nations have seen the document at the time -let's see how the spin machine makes that look- doesn't exactly make it any more acceptable.

    Nor of course does the fact that Greece's debt could and should have been restructured, according to the IMF's own people and 'standards', but wasn't until 2012, when the main European banks had been bailed out with what was subsequently shoved onto the shoulders of the Greek population, and had withdrawn their 'assets' from the country, a move that made Greece's position that much harder.

    The narrative being sold through the media in other eurozone nations is that Greece is to blame, that for instance German taxpayers are on the hook for Greek debts, while they're really on the hook for German banks' losing wagers (here's looking at you, Deutsche!). And that is, no matter how you twist it, not the same story. It's again just a narrative.

    Once more, and we've said it many times before, Brussels is toxic -and so is the IMF- and Greece should leave as soon as possible, as should Italy, Spain, Portugal. And we should all resist the spin-induced attempts to demonize Putin, Athens and China any further, and instead focus on the rotten apples in our own basket(s).

    In short, the propaganda we should be worried about is not Russia's, it's our own. And it comes from just about every news article we're fed. We're much less than six degrees removed from Orwell.

    [Jun 15, 2015]Bilderberg 2015: TTIP and a travesty of transparency

    "...This makes perfect sense since the mainstream media gives us no real news. Just the news they are given."
    .
    "..."The way Bilderberg hide is stupid, like naughty children." I would suggest it is more like organised criminals - naughty children tend not to have armed guards and private aircraft, in my experience."
    .
    "...is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."
    .
    "...Western leaders and their media mouthpieces continually brandish the hooray term "Western liberal democratic capitalism" as a stick with which to beat China and Russia."
    .
    "..."The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. " -Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws" "
    .
    "...This is no joke kidz. The more we remain ignorant of these globalist oligarch think tanks, the closer we get to a fascist police state. "
    Jun 14, 2015 | The Guardian
    Christopher Mark Wingate 14 Jun 2015 20:17

    Those of us who have actually been in the front lines of government know there is zero accountability, transparency or democracy. I feel ashamed to have ever trusted our western systems of democracy. No wonder there has been disgust at USA Foreign policy.

    DrBill 14 Jun 2015 19:37

    I counted eight attendees from news organizations, ten if you include Google. This makes perfect sense since the mainstream media gives us no real news. Just the news they are given.

    Metreemewall DT48 14 Jun 2015 17:01

    How do you think a mediocre Portuguese politician became Prime-Minister and then, EU Commissioner?

    Celtiberico 14 Jun 2015 15:24

    "The way Bilderberg hide is stupid, like naughty children."

    I would suggest it is more like organised criminals - naughty children tend not to have armed guards and private aircraft, in my experience.

    franklin100 -> Pazoozoo 14 Jun 2015 15:15

    A Britsh MP has a salary of about £85k plus expenses...large corporations have the cash to buy hundreds at a time directly and indirectly with promises of positions once they leave parliament.

    Alienated Electorate -> ChrisRust 14 Jun 2015 15:03

    Both Labour and the Conservatives support the EU, the fee market, and corporate business. Both will therefore back the trade deal.

    Marty Wolf -> kerjrk 14 Jun 2015 14:37

    Bilderberg makes it obvious that the one percent are only about power and money. The hell with what's right for the world of the rest of us. This kind of privilege is a contemptible hangover from the time of "we know best: just be quiet and trust us."

    siff Pazoozoo 14 Jun 2015 14:30

    '' is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "

    That is why Government attend. Do try to keep up.

    siff 14 Jun 2015 14:14

    A very short article because you can't write about what you don't know about. A secret and sneaky bunch of people having a secret and sneaky meeting about a secret and sneaky trade deal.

    Democracy does not get any better than this.

    And as for 'Transparency International', once you stick the letters 'USA' on the end we know just how much that is worth.

    monsieur_flaneur 14 Jun 2015 12:46

    Western leaders and their media mouthpieces continually brandish the hooray term "Western liberal democratic capitalism" as a stick with which to beat China and Russia. But the only purpose of these erroneously described "trade deals" (TPA, TTIP and TISA) is to permanently remove any democratic obstacles to corporate profit.

    The hypocrisy is glaring and shameless, and nowhere more so than in the silence of those who endlessly fulminate about EU intrusions on UK parliamentary sovereignty.

    DT48 -> Triple750 14 Jun 2015 12:43

    Barroso is there also. I wonder what for?

    DT48 14 Jun 2015 12:31

    Here is the full list of attendees. http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2015.html

    Including our very own technocrat Chancellor.

    14Juillet 14 Jun 2015 12:05

    This is government of, for and by the rich and powerful in action. Corporate power and profit runs governments all around the globe. This is the essence of fascism as described by FDR.

    Democracy is dead.

    "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. "

    -Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws"

    Walter Alter 14 Jun 2015 11:30

    Google criticisms of the Bilderberg Society, Council on Foreign Relations, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, The Coefficient's Society, Mt. Perelin Society, Club of Rome, The 40's Committee, Cecil Rhodes "Round Table".

    Then put it all in perspective with this YouTube video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq9yjt_JbWs.

    This is no joke kidz. The more we remain ignorant of these globalist oligarch think tanks, the closer we get to a fascist police state.

    [Jun 15, 2015] Five Reasons the MI6 Story is a Lie

    June 14, 2015 | Craig Murray

    by craig on 10:06 am in Uncategorized

    The Sunday Times has a story claiming that Snowden's revelations have caused danger to MI6 and disrupted their operations. Here are five reasons it is a lie.

    1) The alleged Downing Street source is quoted directly in italics. Yet the schoolboy mistake is made of confusing officers and agents. MI6 is staffed by officers. Their informants are agents. In real life, James Bond would not be a secret agent. He would be an MI6 officer. Those whose knowledge comes from fiction frequently confuse the two. Nobody really working with the intelligence services would do so, as the Sunday Times source does. The story is a lie.

    2) The argument that MI6 officers are at danger of being killed by the Russians or Chinese is a nonsense. No MI6 officer has been killed by the Russians or Chinese for 50 years. The worst that could happen is they would be sent home. Agents' – generally local people, as opposed to MI6 officers – identities would not be revealed in the Snowden documents. Rule No.1 in both the CIA and MI6 is that agents' identities are never, ever written down, neither their names nor a description that would allow them to be identified. I once got very, very severely carpeted for adding an agents' name to my copy of an intelligence report in handwriting, suggesting he was a useless gossip and MI6 should not be wasting their money on bribing him. And that was in post communist Poland, not a high risk situation.

    3) MI6 officers work under diplomatic cover 99% of the time. Their alias is as members of the British Embassy, or other diplomatic status mission. A portion are declared to the host country. The truth is that Embassies of different powers very quickly identify who are the spies in other missions. MI6 have huge dossiers on the members of the Russian security services – I have seen and handled them. The Russians have the same. In past mass expulsions, the British government has expelled 20 or 30 spies from the Russian Embassy in London. The Russians retaliated by expelling the same number of British diplomats from Moscow, all of whom were not spies! As a third of our "diplomats" in Russia are spies, this was not coincidence. This was deliberate to send the message that they knew precisely who the spies were, and they did not fear them.

    4) This anti Snowden non-story – even the Sunday Times admits there is no evidence anybody has been harmed – is timed precisely to coincide with the government's new Snooper's Charter act, enabling the security services to access all our internet activity. Remember that GCHQ already has an archive of 800,000 perfectly innocent British people engaged in sex chats online.

    5) The paper publishing the story is owned by Rupert Murdoch. It is sourced to the people who brought you the dossier on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, every single "fact" in which proved to be a fabrication. Why would you believe the liars now?

    There you have five reasons the story is a lie.

    Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.

    [Jun 14, 2015] Ukraine: agony of the regime continues

    Jun 09, 2015 | youtube.com

    Over the past year we have often heard: "the President of Ukraine", "Ukraine's President promised, "the President went"... Experts of the program "The Point of View" believe that such assertions grossly distort reality. Ukraine has no President. The so-called "President" is merely the President of the company "Roshen", the profits of which for the last year, thanks to the indefatigable cares of its owner, has increased several times.

    As to poor statehood of Ukraine, it beats in a protracted agony. And the end of her suffering is not visible. The so-called "friends of Ukraine" in the US is not interested to help the Ukrainians to get out of the crisis or to build a normal life. They even do not care, if and when Ukraine join the coveted European Union.

    "The worse – the better" is the motto of those who enjoys pulling the strings of Kiev puppets. Recently in this puppet theatre received another character is Mikhail Saakashvili. Once it too was called "President", but now he is afraid to appear in his native Georgia, in order not to be arrested and put to trial.

    In the Studio "perspective" a new act of the Ukrainian tragedy discussed by the Deputy Director of the Institute of CIS countries Vladimir ZHARIKHIN, political scientist Sergey MIKHEYEV, Deputy of the V–VII Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Volodymyr Oliynyk and political analyst Bogdan BEZPALKO.

    [Jun 14, 2015] Most members of the Russian elite have lost all faith in Western politics and seem to be determined to use force to teach their partners to respect Russia's interests

    davidt, June 13, 2015 at 5:52 pm
    Sergei Karaganov has another serious article on global politics. He sees Europe as heading towards strategic degradation and sees the US of A as receding into semi-isolation. He also states "Most members of the Russian elite have lost all faith in Western politics and seem to be determined to use force to teach their partners to respect Russia's interests." I am not trying to summarize him, but, I think, that his articles are always insightful and worth reading. (At least they are a relief from being reminded of the antics of that flibbertigibbet Sobchak that, unfortunately, still sits at the top of this page.)
    http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/pubcol/Eurasian-Way-Out-of-the-European-Crisis-17505

    [Jun 14, 2015]Pew Survey On Ukraine

    Jun 14, 2015 | M of A

    The PEW Research Center has a new opinion survey of several NATO countries and Russia with regards to the Ukraine conflict:

    Publics of key member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) blame Russia for the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Many also see Russia as a military threat to other neighboring states. But few support sending arms to Ukraine. Moreover, at least half of Germans, French and Italians say their country should not use military force to defend a NATO ally if attacked by Russia.

    ... the opinion Ukrainians have about the Nuland installed puppet government:

    Ukrainians give both their president and prime minister negative marks. A plurality disapproves of President Petro Poroshenko's job performance (43%), while just a third approves. A majority (60%) is unhappy with the way Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk is handling his job. Roughly half or more of eastern Ukrainians give Poroshenko (49%) and Yatsenyuk (66%) negative reviews. Western Ukrainians also give Yatsenyuk bad marks (55%) but are divided on Poroshenko (39% approve, 39% disapprove).

    PEW did not survey the people in the federalist held areas in the east. With those included the numbers for the Ukrainian government would be considerably worse. Given that the media in Ukraine are mostly in the hands of pro-western oligarchs these results are really quite bad. There was speculation some time ago that Nuland had planned to replace Poroshenko with the Scientology follower Yatsenyuk but given these numbers there is no longer a chance for such a move.

    Meanwhile the conflict in east Ukraine is flaring up again with Donetsk city again being under daily artillery fire from the Ukrainian government side. The summer in east Ukraine will likely get hot again.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Harold | Jun 10, 2015 11:42:00 AM | 1

    Is there any real evidence that Yatsenuk is a Scientologist beyond Wayne Madsen, who is not very believable?

    Oui | Jun 10, 2015 12:06:04 PM | 4

    Piece by Tony Ortega on Scientology and Yats. Yatsenyuk has also been linked to Obama follower Soros.

    Scientology and Soros don't mix, different sets of assets. ;-)

    thepanzer | Jun 10, 2015 1:20:09 PM | 7

    "But a war on Russia could become nuclear and then all bets are off even for those living on the western side of the Atlantic. Did no one tell them?"

    Americans are idiots. Even if someone did tell them I doubt it would register.

    bjorn richter | Jun 10, 2015 3:06:20 PM | 14

    Why are we not told ? Only 3% use of nuclear arsenal will create a global winter. No light, no growth, freezing temperatures. No way to hide. We would all starve or freeze to death. So simple. Check on the information while you are alive.

    Wayoutwest | Jun 10, 2015 3:57:27 PM | 15

    Reading polls is boring but setting off unstable Dynamite is fun and entertaining and surprisingly easy.

    psychohistorian | Jun 10, 2015 4:02:03 PM | 16

    If you are a current oligarch/plutocrat that is connected to family that has been in control of finance for centuries you know what is at stake and are probably willing to go nuclear to maintain the status quo. The oligarchs/plutocrats might even be willing to go nuclear as a first strike measure as the cumulative effects of Fukushima become apparent and retribution pressure starts to build.

    Russia , China and their friends are organizing to stand up to the oligarchs/plutocrats controlling bully America. The kabuki in the Ukraine is part of that stand up.

    The current global oligarchs and plutocrats are not necessarily American. The empire that America represents is the transnational power base of the Western world controlled by private finance which is owned by the oligarchs/plutocrats. Any country that deems itself beholding to the IMF and World Bank are puppets of empire.

    Life is short, eat dessert first. I thought for a while in my life that space exploration could be the growth frontier to keep the capitalist myth going but we seem to be despoiling ourselves and our home in a manner that reeks of extinction.

    Anonymous | Jun 10, 2015 4:05:08 PM | 17

    Must read:

    Western propaganda against Russia
    http://www.thenation.com/article/207689/neo-mccarthyism-and-us-media

    Laguerre | Jun 10, 2015 4:16:11 PM | 18

    You lot have forgotten what it might be like to to be nuked. I posted The "http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1kwz5u_the-war-game-peter-watkins-1965_tv"

    The War Game the other day. But that might be too British for you. I've ordered "Failsafe", more American, but haven't seen it yet. I don't think that "Dr. Strangelove" is ever likely to discourage US nuclear ambitions.

    Fran | Jun 10, 2015 4:26:17 PM | 21

    Scary!

    Obama Supporters Sign Petition to NUKE RUSSIA so America will Stay World's Superpower - YouTube

    Media analyst Mark Dice asked beachgoers in San Diego, California to sign a petition supporting President Obama's supposed plan to launch of preemptive nuclear attack against Russia to help keep the United States of America the world's leading superpower.

    The results are disturbing.

    tom | Jun 10, 2015 4:51:24 PM | 22

    The idea that those poll numbers against intervention would stay the same after a military attack is just silly.

    Support for intervention, more sanctions, political isolation from the west etc, would all rise highly In the polls of the people in such circumstances.

    Most of the people's fear and hate complex would immediately rise, and in the example of the Western people's concern against the Russians generally, they are ready to, if not already, think of Russia as the USSR.

    rufus magister | Jun 10, 2015 10:45:03 PM | 32

    Here's a gob of paste from which no one will learn anything, myself included.

    Some know-nothing college type says Obama Sacrifices Integrity Over Maidan Ukraine. This presumes he had any credibility after letting the banks off before he was even in office.

    You'll have to see for yourself what he says about our Beloved Nobel Laureate, but here's a teaser on Maidan.

    By no stretch of any reasonable imagination can it be considered that the imposition of new leadership in Kyiv was either democratic or constitutional.

    So if there was not a legal transition, what happened?

    If you examine the facts you will find it hard to disagree that a complete constitutional collapse occurred. The president was forced under threat of death to leave the country, and the democratically installed constitution was nullified.

    And what do you know, I didn't cut myself with the scissors! Well, this time, anyway....

    rufus magister | Jun 10, 2015 10:56:01 PM | 33

    Let's see if I can go two for two with the scissors.

    From The Daily Beast via New Cold War, Will Cathcart and Joseph Epstein ask, How many neo-Nazis is the U.S. backing in Ukraine?.

    For the Azov, it's not just a matter of the occasional very confused kid hung up on some twisted variant of the Nazi ideology who wants to enlist.... [T]here is a recurring history of Nazi ideology in the battalion that goes back to its founder, Andriy Biletsky, who pulled together the neo-Nazi group called the Social-National Assembly (SNA) in 2008.

    Last year, Biletsky and the SNA created the Azov Battalion as a volunteer militia. Both the battalion and the SNA sport what is essentially a crude swastika on their logo, although they publically deny that it is a swastika. Some members of the Azov Battalion even wear the swastika symbol against a yellow background as armbands. A significant portion of the Azov Battalion denies, at least publicly, that it has any neo-Nazi or white supremacist beliefs. Instead these members claim that the swastika-ish symbol on their flags and logo is not a swastika but an N and an I combined to mean "national identity."

    This is a hard sell considering the ideology of Biletsky, their founder and military commander. Also, the numerous swastika tattoos of different members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations.

    This creates a problem for those members of the battalion like Kharkiv who are clearly not neo-Nazis. But it creates a far larger problem for the Ukrainian government, which relies immensely on the group, as one of its most effective fighting forces, to defend the city of Mariupol and 100 kilometers of the front line. Last summer it was the Azov brigade, led by Biletsky, that liberated Mariupol from the Russian-backed separatists. Azov is completely entrenched in the power structure of the country. "We work with all defense systems of the Ukrainian government," Kharkiv says.

    The Ukrainian government isn't the only government that should be concerned. The United States government at this moment is training parts of the Azov Battalion along with other Ukrainian National Guard battalions near the city of Lviv in western Ukraine. This unfortunate reality gives what Kharkiv calls "Putin TV" and the rest of the Kremlin propaganda machine everything it needs to portray the Ukraine government as fascist and the Americans as backing crypto-Nazis

    Oui | Jun 11, 2015 1:00:47 AM | 35
    "Poland's Government in Chaos as Ministers Resign Amid 'Secret Tape' Investigation Leak"

    CIA Man, Former FM Radek Sikorski's Fall from Grace In Poland

    Follow the story here via InsidePoland.com

    rufus magister | Jun 11, 2015 1:25:14 AM | 37
    @rufus magister, 50:

    "Instead these members claim that the swastika-ish symbol on their flags and logo is not a swastika but an N and an I combined to mean 'national identity.'"

    The symbol is a simple bind rune, an old Scandinavian magical glyph. The thing about putting runes together is getting as many meanings into one bind rune as possible.
    Remember whose symbol this is now, and who they took it from. They might go on in public about the N and I, but amongst themselves it is an SS.

    Vintage Red | Jun 11, 2015 1:03:56 AM | 36

    VR at 53 -- The volkisch movement that was a key breeding ground for the Nazis was into runes and pseudo-feudal symbolism and ideology.

    Himmler and the SS were particularly keen on it, with the Wewelsburg Castle facility devoted to their peculiar interpretation.

    Bill | Jun 11, 2015 4:04:23 AM | 40

    The latest attempt at another Maidan resulted in a man who was photographed with John McCain being beaten by 'unknown assailants'. This encapsulates Washington's hypocrisy perfectly.

    http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2228560.html

    Chipnik | Jun 11, 2015 4:33:52 AM | 41 b

    PEW also released a report on USAian various legislative polls through the years, compared to Congressional voting records, and found no statically significant trace from a informatics POV that Congress pays the slightest attention to what USAians say in the polls or at the ballot booth.

    H-1B Hindustanis are flying over the borders by the 787 load, now, taking 98% of new high-tech jobs, and continuing the riff-down of USAian WASPs for Hindustanis, while birthing Ms of future Anchor Babus, leaving USAians in the same boat as the disenfranchised, de-stated Ukrainians.

    And in one year, 13,000,000 Califucian's will be on the road as climate refugees, in search of water, 8a-EBT welfare, fighting those very same Hindustanis for housing, jobs and the green, green grass of home.

    So much for your Hope is Chains.

    Piotr Berman | Jun 11, 2015 8:51:36 AM | 46
    It is a little funny how the opinions that are skeptic toward NATO policies can be dismissed as results of Russian dangerous propaganda machine.

    Pew did not ask if the respondents watched RT, but my bet is that few did, and even fewer as the main news source.

    Western media is dominated by the output of western corporate groups: kind of by definition, if you do not own TV network with wide viewership, you are not a major corporation.

    So if there is a perception that USA is arrogant and untrustworthy, this cannot be explained by Russian propaganda alone, given its relatively minor reach.

    Perhaps, unlikely as it may seem, the perception is grounded in "grains of truth" of various sizes (see http://knsgeo.ukw.edu.pl/wyjazdy/grodek_2009.jpg for an example.

    PhilK | Jun 11, 2015 4:38:20 PM | 52

    There's quite a bit of data online that casts doubt on Pew's alleged non-partisanship.
    The PEW Charitable Trusts were established by the surviving sons and daughters of Joseph N. Pew, founder of the Sun Oil Company, known today as Sunoco. The founding fortune of PEW's trusts came from the often brutal tactics of the early American oil industry. By the end of fiscal year 2008, the total assets of PEW Charitable Trusts had grown to over $5 billion. When your independent public charity corporation is worth over $5 billion, it takes a lot of moxy to call yourself a "non-profit" organization.
    . . .
    PEW also has a history of investing in companies its alleged "principles" are in direct contrast with. For example, PEW has for years made sizable donations to environmentally conscious groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund. In spite of this, one of the seven PEW trusts, Pew Memorial Trusts, contains over $24 million worth of purchased stock in Exxon-Mobil, one of the premier faces of the fracking industry that is destroying eco-systems throughout the US.

    Another member of the PEW trusts, J.N. Pew Jr. Trust, has over $9 million invested in 12 different oil ventures, including Chevron, Marathon Group, and Phillips Petroleum. Unbelievably, the PEW Charitable Trusts formed a joint trust with 6 other "non-profit foundations" that included the Rockefeller Foundation, bringing its total assets to over $21 billion, in order to form the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation is the main financial supporter of the most prominent anti-Exxon Mobil activist group, the Texas Fund for Energy and Environmental Education.

    PEW Data On Public Perception Of Intelligence Agencies Is Biased And False

    An apparently right-wing org called "Ron Arnold's Left Tracking Library" seems to thinks that PCT is a devilish left-wing outfit devoted to bringing down capitalism by funding environmental groups:

    A non-profit conglomerate of epic size and ambition, operating many projects, all designed to reduce the power of the for-profit sector and increase government power over all aspects of American life.
    . . .
    Transparency is not a Pew virtue. Even the basic 2008 income and asset information above is so puny compared to the real money behind the organization that it stirs mistrust.
    Pew Charitable Trusts

    This page lists Pew's gifts in year 2001 to environmental organizations. This list can't be cut-and-pasted, so I have manually typed just a few of the ones over a million dollars:

    (2001) Clear the Air Campaign, $4,997,00 (funded through a grant to Pace University)
    (2001) National Forest Planning Public Education, $3,475,000 (funded through a grant to US Public Interest Research Group Education Fund)
    (2001) Farmed Salmon Contaminant Study, $2,530,000 (funded through a grant to Research Foundation of State University of New York)
    (2001) The Columbia and Snake Rivers Campaign, $1,375,000 (funded through a grant to Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition)

    This same Ron Arnold page lists the disclosed assets of some of the trusts with the PCT. This is the list for one them, the Pew Memorial Trust:

    Corporation # of Shares Value (in 2008?)
    Burlington Resources 38,300 $1,934,150
    Coastal Corporation 40,654 $3,590,256
    Exxon Mobil Corporation 97,641 $8,488,664
    Kerr McGee Corp 27,222 $1,822,173
    Occidental Petroleum Corp 159,800 $3,875,150
    MCN Energy Group Inc 69,400 $1,921,513
    Helmerich & Payne Inc. 44,700 $1,961,213
    Occidental Petroleum Corp 295,100 $7,156,175
    Ocean Energy Inc 132,000 $2,293,500
    Pittston Brink's Group 30,800 $612,150
    Swift Energy Co 128,986 $4,853,098
    Vintage Petroleum Inc 41,850 $899,775
    Southern Energy Inc. 37,500 $1,061,719
    Energy East Corp 16,430 $3,234,656
    Burlington Resources 24,725 $1,248,613
    Chevron Corp 9,100 $768,381
    Coastal Corporation 18,800 $1,660,275
    Exxon Mobil Corporation 50,895 $4,424,684
    Kerr McGee Corp 18,150 $1,214,916
    Occidental Petroleum Corp 34,125 $827,531
    Schlumberger Ltd 16,325 $1,304,980
    MCN Energy Group Inc 62,525 $1,731,161
    Chevron Corp 40,600 $3,428,163
    Exxon Mobil Corporation 53,700 $4,668,544
    Schlumberger Ltd 46,600 $3,725,088
    Transocean Sedco Forex 6,800 $2,152,800
    Duke Energy Corp 29,400 $2,506,350
    Burlington Resources 59,550 $3,007,275
    Coastal Corporation 62,300 $6,902,838
    Exxon Mobil Corporation 79,400 $6,902,838
    Kerr McGee Corp 41,950 $2,808,028
    Occidental Petroleum Corp 241,525 $5,856,981
    Duke Energy Corp 31,550 $2,689,638
    MCN Energy Group Inc 10,4200 $2,885,038

    It seems obvious to me that the value of these stocks is far more important to the people running PCT than the values of the enviro orgs that they throw a few million bucks to, and that these donations are not intended to bring down capitalism, but to undercut and to neuter the recipient organizations.

    Noirette | Jun 14, 2015 11:08:24 AM | 61

    One of Pew's functions is to track opinion to inform how well the Media Power is doing. This alerts pols. and others on public sentiment, etc. It keeps away from really serious or revealing questions, on the whole.

    Note in this poll (top part) very innocuous and vague questions are posed, sending economic aid to Ukraine (which is already taking place…) is a kind of no-brainer, economic aid is a 'good thing' for 'poor countries / ppl' and happens all the time.

    Support will be high, all responders want to be decent ppl - though there may be some country differences, they will be meaningless as based on all kinds of 'other' considerations.

    Ukraine joining NATO / EU are hypotheticals, and generally 'positive sounding' and don't inform about attitudes towards Russia or war.

    A little more specific is 'sending arms to Ukraine' (err.. which Ukr? To whom? To what purpose? Too ambiguous…) Here though we might imagine finding some 'meat' as any mention of 'arms' makes ppl consider the question more seriously.

    For the countries listed, one can forget Poland (in a way, 50% for is low?), we see that Spain, Germany, Italy, are not keen (25, 19, 22 % for respectively), which when you substract margin of error plus saying yes to something vague, amounts to very low support. France, on the other hand, at 40% for is a good notch above and creeps very close to joining the 5-eyes (Canada and the US being the only ones in the poll, here at 44 and 46 % for.) Which we knew already, France has turned hyper-atlanticist and the media have done a fantastic job.

    The part on 'should or should not use force to defend allies' within NATO is more interesting, as it shows that public support for NATO pact is barely a majority, and nationalistic attitudes are probably playing a role. Pew thereby sends a message ..

    Note that there will have been few respondents who could actually quote who the NATO countries are, what the pact is, and so forth. So the pollsters and the polled are talking past each other, it is a kind of fake discourse.

    [Jun 14, 2015] Snowden files read by Russia and China: five questions for UK government

    The Guardian

    The government has an obligation to respond to the Sunday Times report that MI6 has been forced to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries

    The Sunday Times produced what at first sight looked like a startling news story: Russia and China had gained access to the cache of top-secret documents leaked by former NSA contractor turned whistleblower Edward Snowden.

    Not only that, but as a result, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the Secret Intelligence Service, better known as MI6, had been forced "to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries".

    These are serious allegations and, as such, the government has an obligation to respond openly.

    The story is based on sources including "senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services". The BBC said it had also also been briefed anonymously by a senior government official.

    Anonymous sources are an unavoidable part of reporting, but neither Downing Street nor the Home Office should be allowed to hide behind anonymity in this case.

    1. Is it true that Russia and China have gained access to Snowden's top-secret documents? If so, where is the evidence?

    Which cache of documents is the UK government talking about? Snowden has said he handed tens of thousands of leaked documents over to journalists he met in Hong Kong, and that he has not had them in his possession since. Have Russia and China managed to access documents held by one of the journalists or their companies?

    In addition, if agents had to be moved, why? Which Snowden documents allegedly compromised them to the extent they had to be forcibly removed from post?

    2. Why have the White House and the US intelligence agencies not raised this?

    Snowden is wanted by the US on charges under the Espionage Act. The White House, the US intelligence agencies and especially some members of Congress have been desperate to blacken Snowden's reputation. They have gone through his personal life and failed to come up with a single damaging detail.

    If the UK were to have evidence that Russia and China had managed to penetrate his document cache or that agents had been forced to move, London would have shared this with Washington. The White House would have happily briefed this openly, as would any number of Republican – and even Democratic – members of Congress close to the security services. They would not have stinted. It would have been a full-blown press conference.

    Related: UK under pressure to respond to latest Edward Snowden claims

    The debate in the US has become more grownup in recent months, with fewer scare stories and more interest in introducing reforms that will redress the balance between security and privacy, but there are still many in Congress and the intelligence agencies seeking vengeance.

    3. Why have these claims emerged now?

    Most the allegations have been made before in some form, only to fall apart when scrutinised. These include that Snowden was a Chinese spy and, when he ended up in Moscow, that he was a Russian spy or was at least cooperating with them. The US claimed 56 plots had been disrupted as a result of surveillance, but under pressure acknowledged this was untrue.

    The claim about agents being moved was first made in the UK 18 months ago, along with allegations that Snowden had helped terrorists evade surveillance and, as a result, had blood on his hands. Both the US and UK have since acknowledged no one has been harmed.

    So why now? One explanation is that it is partly in response to Thursday's publication of David Anderson's 373-page report on surveillance. David Cameron asked the QC to conduct an independent review and there is much in it for the government and intelligence services to like, primarily about retaining bulk data.

    Anderson is scathing, however, about the existing legal framework for surveillance, describing it as intolerable and undemocratic, and he has proposed that the authority to approve surveillance warrants be transferred from the foreign and home secretaries to the judiciary.

    His proposal, along with another surveillance report out next month from the Royal United Services Institute, mean that there will be continued debate in the UK. There are also European court rulings pending. Web users' increasing use of encryption is another live issue. Above all else though, there is the backlash by internet giants such as Google, which appear to be less prepared to cooperate with the intelligence agencies, at least not those in the UK.

    The issue is not going away and the Sunday Times story may reflect a cack-handed attempt by some within the British security apparatus to try to take control of the narrative.

    4. Why is the Foreign Office not mentioned as a source?

    It seems like a pedantic point, but one that could offer an insight into the manoeuvring inside the higher reaches of government. The Foreign Office is repsonsible for MI6, but the Home Office is quoted in the story. Is it that the Home Office and individuals within the department rather than the Foreign Office are most exercised about the potential transfer of surveillance warrant approval from the home secretary, the proposed scrapping of existing legislation covering surveillance and other potential reforms?

    5. What about the debatable assertions and at least one totally inaccurate point in the Sunday Times piece?

    The Sunday Times says Snowden "fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, after mounting one of the largest leaks in US history". In fact he fled Hong Kong bound for Latin America, via Moscow and Cuba. The US revoked his passport, providing Russia with an excuse to hold him in transit.

    The Sunday Times says it is not clear whether Russia and China stole Snowden's data or "whether he voluntarily handed over his secret documents in order to remain at liberty in Hong Kong and Moscow". The latter is not possible if, as Snowden says, he gave all the documents to journalists in Hong Kong in June 2013.

    The Sunday Times also reports that "David Miranda, the boyfriend of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 'highly-classified' intelligence documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow".

    This is inaccurate. Miranda had in fact been in Berlin seeing the film-maker Laura Poitras, not in Moscow visiting Snowden. It is not a small point.

    The claim about Miranda having been in Moscow first appeared in the Daily Mail in September under the headline "An intelligence expert's devastating verdict: Leaks by Edward Snowden and the Guardian have put British hostages in even greater peril". It was written by Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the centre for security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, and has never been corrected. Maybe the Sunday Times can do better.

    [Jun 12, 2015] IMF to Alexis Tsipras: Do you feel lucky, punk?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". ..."
    "... If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. ..."
    "... What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table... ..."
    "... The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them! ..."
    "... Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers? ..."
    "... A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. ..."
    "... "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU. What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU) ..."
    "... Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts. ..."
    Jun 12, 2015 | The Guardian

    Hristos Dagres 12 Jun 2015 11:50

    Basically, the IMF should officially admit their fatal errors in the development of the first MoU that "saved" Greece [well, we all know now that the first plan was nothing more than an attempt to save euro and the French-German banks that was cunningly presented as a token of "European solidarity" - in reality, they didn't give a sh..t about Greece].

    These "errors" were immediately identified by other members of the IMF board, like Brazil, Argentina, China and .... Switzerland, according to the IMF documents presented by WSJ

    [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/07/imf-document-excerpts-disagreements-revealed/ ]

    I believe that Christine should pick up her pieces and crawl back to the table - and this time she should present a plan that will restore the damage done.

    Or else, they should not get a single euro back - and we should start negotiating with the BRICS for a fair plan to restructure our economy.

    MachinePork 12 Jun 2015 11:30

    Make no mistake about it a Greek default is a calamity for the global financial system. Debt on the periphery is in the trillions. It is carried on the books in banks and treasuries at face value only because national administrators understand – with the blessing of the automatons at BIS -- what it would mean if this crap was subjected to a proper stress test or marked-to-market.

    At stake in this battle is the entire global financial system. Should a NATO government summon the cheek to opt out of the prevailing international credit system, issue debt-free capital, invest in its people, grow exports and prove to succeed; the entire compound interest earning, system of rent-making privilege would collapse. My sense is the kingdom of Finance, its banking lords and its lickspittles in policy will never let this happen.

    God bless the Greek people. This is going to get messy. They should be commended for their bravery in the face of endless threats of financial serfdom for intransigence.

    The international debt monkey is a doppelgänger. He looks so inviting at first glance but is more than prepared to reach back and lob a compound interest bearing shit bomb your direction in a bid to save privilege in the global financial zoo.

    Maria Christoulaki 12 Jun 2015 10:43

    Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". What do you think that Greeks are? all these articles except of bulling show a racism against us. You must ask an excuse for this article which offends both our prime minister and the Greek people, who voted him.

    mgtuzairodtiiasn asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 09:08

    It is funny! The German bankers stole your money, and you still believe that all this money went to the Greeks. This money went from the German banks to the German enterprises. Because they gave bribes to win contracts for useless military equipment. For example, Greece bought 4 submarines that doesn't need. Even today, only one has been delivered, because there were major design faults, although the German company has received the money. Regarding the loans of the previous years, do you believe that the total amount of the Greek debt was to expire in just 3 years? Obviously, the gang that rules EU today, gave 240 bn Euros to banks of Germany, France, Netherlands etc, and used Greece as a scapegoat to hide this fraud. Wake up!

    mgtuzairodtiiasn Angkor 12 Jun 2015 08:55

    Firstly, negotiation is not that you agree to what the institutions require. Secondly, you are right. The Greek economy and society have been carried many parasites until now.

    Remember the German companies like Siemens, Ferrostaal, ThyssenKrupp which gave bribes to many politicians and Media owners. Or Hochtief, which still has not paid 500 mn Euros of VAT to the Greek state. It is time to get rid of all this parasites.

    elenits -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 07:57

    "Loans" imposed by IMF against its mandate = Odious debt.

    Greeks shouldering 340 bn of EU, ECB, IMF "loans" to shore up foreign malinvesting banks = Odious debt

    Loans to Greece that were not used by Greeks = Odious debt

    IMF breaking its own rules to loan without debt restructure = Odious debt

    This is without considering ECB acting outside its mandate, i.e. politically, from Feb 2015 by illegally cutting Greece from bond markets and out of QE.

    elenits -> asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 07:49

    If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. The 10% Greece was allowed to keep paid for the interests on these "loans" - topped up with money screwed out of the Greek taxpayers.

    Apropos the IMF they acted illegally against their own rules by lending to a first world country [not a "developing" country] and by accepting a greek program that did not include debt restructure, i.e. the same German, French and Dutch banks having to accept some losses.

    There is no such thing as "risk" anymore for banks, corporations or the 1%. Risk and poverty is only for ordinary people like yourself.

    dawisner -> Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 07:30

    Constantine, as an American expat living in Greece for the past 21 years now (I was married in Thessaloniki in 1988), I, too, have frequently lamented how many armchair experts appear in these chat rooms. I published an e-book last year (Still at Aulis) with a view toward trying to explain to the casual observer how complex the local situation can be, and how worthy and hard-working my Greek peers often are. Keep up the good work.

    seaspan -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 05:50

    French and German banks were generously bailed out of any risk by "taxpayers" from the EU, including Greeks.

    And Greek leverage is honesty: they have a clear understanding of current economic reality, and a better plan to payback their debts to Euro taxpayers. Anyone who says different is suspect as to their interests and intentions.

    It isnt Syriza you should be questioning if you are sincere about your concern for the taxpayer. It is the financial advisers and ideologues backing austerity you should question. Are they merely driven by their egos and reputations as pro austerity hawks? Afraid for their secure positions as Yes Men in financial institutions?

    And anyone in the negotiating process who has loyalties to Russia should be severely scrutinised, since Putin's interests are for a failure in negotiations, for a Grexit, all toward a long term desire of an EU breakup.

    It could come down to questions of treason why there is no negotiated settlement,,, if such a word is applicable to the EU project...

    Constantine Alexander -> Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 05:43

    My life's experiences - including beginning work at 8 years of age; 3 years military service; professional activities including U.S. investment banking, employment development in Eastern Europe (e.g. job creation at a Belarus agricultural production facility which is still thriving), 10 years devoted to my passion for wildlife conservation projects with worthy BirdLife Int'l NGO partners (not as you coyly suggested as a result of "untoward" behaviour); and having a doctor threaten to refuse to perform my father's surgery unless he receives a 10,000 euro cash bribe in addition to his customary doctor's fee and the hospital costs - have shaped my perspective on the factors that contribute to or undermine civil society.

    If Greece exits the euro, the resulting cost of vital goods will soar due to the country's heavy reliance on imports. This will hit the middle class and the poor much harder than the current austerity measures -- most of which have not been implemented by any Greek gov (e.g. opening up business sectors to competition, privatization of debt-ridden public institutions, tax collection which has for decades suffered due to customary and widespread bribery demanded by tax officials, privatization of public assets).

    The long term solution lies in the govt starting to do what most of us have to do - we prioritize spending based on worthiness and needs (food, health, education, etc), keep a reserve for contingencies, and spend in relation to our incoming revenue. But rather than contributing to long term stability and security for the country which benefits everyone's work activities, the society insists upon short term benefits (e.g. public sector hiring for my children, tax evasion) that it clearly cannot afford. The broader issue is not lender's conditions vs. austerity relief, but rather a way of organizing govt and society which, in the Greek model, has gotten way out of hand due to low interest rates for excessive borrowing by a series of governments. We'll see how the story unfolds.

    PyrosT -> Enoch Arden 12 Jun 2015 05:32

    destroyed economy was not an alternative to the IMF "help", it was its result, carefully planned and systematically implemented. It was in a way a remarkable achievement of IMF: to inflict a greater damage to the Soviet economy than WW2, with the help of the local compradors.

    IMF will not do anything about your or anyone elses local corrupt elites or lack of governance. That is not within their mandate or nature.

    If you think that it is possible to convert a centrally planned soviet style (the core of it to boot) to anything resembling a market economy without major disruption.

    Even East Germany, despite the endless billions thrown into it, went through a period of high unemployment and hardships.

    But I guess it is easier to "blame the IMF". Yes the interventions will almost always lower your GDP - for a quite simple reason that the previous GDP is probably bloated with G (government spending) and any significant restructuring always causes some depression. And yes, it typically isn't a "walk in the park". And some measures are probably misguided, inadequate or ineffective.

    But...

    Why does a country asks for the IMF help in the first place? Because it is sporting unsustainable policies? Sometimes it could even correct itself, but having an outside partner makes some policies easier to deploy.

    DANIELDS 12 Jun 2015 05:10

    Yesterday briefing by G.RICE of IMF

    ...Greek pension system is unsustainable. The Greek pension funds receive transfers from the budget of about 10 percent of GDP annually. Now, this compares to the average in the rest of the Euro zone of two-and-a-half percent of GDP. The standard pension in Greece is almost at the same level as in Germany and people, again on the average, retire almost six years earlier in Greece than in Germany. And GDP per capita increase, of course, is less than half that of the German level.......Terrible errors? reported to justify killing policies of troica and imf......Here is Greek butjet.

    http://www.minfin.gr/?q=en/content/state-budget-execution-january-march-2015

    ......For pensions 6,3 billion eur.GDP OF 2014 179 bill euros and for pensions goes ONLY 3.5% OF IT.

    This the big obstacle of negotiations.10% of GDP is 18 billion euros .3.5% is only 5.4 billions.They are killers of a country with false reports.

    Angkor Renato -> Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 04:53

    Renato on your checklist for Greece's solution to its current problems, a few questions:

    1. Default. Well that's a given. It's going to happen anyway whether the Greeks want it to or not.

    2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency
    How will Greece secure Russian and Chinese support for its new currency? Aren't they going to do a credit check and find out that the Greeks don't honour their loans? They're bound to find out and its pretty unlikely that they'd be silly enough to line themselves up to be stiffed by the Greeks. They are not mugs you know.

    3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments. Why stop at Germany and Luxembourg? Poland was part of Germany (the Governor Generalate) during WWII. As were Austria (the Anschluss), and the Czech Republic and Slovakia (the Munich Agreement). Why not seize all of the property owed by the nationals of those countries as well? It only seems fair. Also Italy had a role in the invasion of Greece in WWII. In fact the Germans would never have invaded but for the Italians botching the job. Shouldn't you be stiffing the Italians as well?

    4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece. A few questions here. First the Russians. Where will their tourists come from given the parlous state of their economy? And why would they go to Greece now that they have lovely Crimea, the Pearl of the Black Sea, back in their hands? Now for the British. What has Greece got that a British tourist would want that Magaluf doesn't have? Don't say culture because Greece has little of it (and the Italians do it better anyway) and British tourists don't want it. If they wanted Greek culture they'd go to the British Museum where it's been sitting for the last 200 years.

    5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup. Don't you think that the SCO's dialogue partners, Turkey, may have something to say about that? Nothing kind, of course. That would be a bit too much to expect of the Turks when talking about Greek matters.

    zchabj6 -> JimVxxxx 12 Jun 2015 04:37

    The debt jubilee is a very old idea, mentioned in biblical times, but has also had plenty of implementation in medieval and later times where every 10 years or so all debt is wiped out and debt issuing starts again.

    This was essentially to stop debt slavery where one class monopolizes resources and lends it out to others to do work for the asset owners to do nothing but live off of the interest on the loans, which is caustic to society.

    As for no compound interest. It essentially is my own idea, based on say religious texts that ban interest or usury on loans because of the negative debt slavery consequences.

    But the question is, who would then lend to business and people, where is the incentive? So there could be fixed interest on the original sum and no more, unlike today where you pay interest on the intiial sum and the interest on that.

    And if you miss payments and there are delays to paying, interest breeds interest, rather than having a known fixed sum of interest to pay back which is much more just.

    AER and other formulas are really eating up the entire economic structure, it seems to me there is merit to justice and prosperity too from religious texts, they seem to have a lot of experience in unseating entrenched oligarchs.

    REDLAN1 12 Jun 2015 04:29

    What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table...

    We are meant to presume that this is a negotiating tactic, and that the IMF is Dirty Harry? In the final scene, Dirty Harry goads the perp into going for his gun so that he can legally kill him in self-defence. Although in the first scene where this is used Dirty Harry's gun is empty. So which is it?

    Have they got an empty gun, or are they trying to goad Greece into defaulting, so they can blow them away?

    REDLAN1 -> galava 12 Jun 2015 03:52

    You can do the math yourself for the UK...

    http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html

    I assume UK public spending on pensions at 8.6% of GDP. This 2% average sounds like nonsense.

    Scipio1 -> Angkor 12 Jun 2015 03:27

    In terms of purchasing power parity China does have the largest economy in the world. The US GDP is roughly $17 trn and China's is roughly $8trn, but a dollar in China goes twice as far as a $ in the US. Moreover China does not have the same debt levels as the US. US public debt is over 100% of GDP. When you count how rich a country is remember to factor in the LIABILITIES as well as the assets. The US is the world's biggest debtor country and China is the biggest creditor.

    The US only enjoys (if this is the right word) its current living standards since it controls the world currency. But this is coming to and end as the BRICS nations are de-dollarizing and setting up their own institutions which circumvent the dollar. Institutions such as the AIIB and the BRICS investment bank.

    The world is changing old chap, and of course the Americans don't like it; their dominant position is under threat which is why they are trying to arrest this development by any means - financial, economic, political and military - at their disposable.

    Hypatia415 -> Quaestio 12 Jun 2015 03:07

    Yes, Greece has been fleeced of so many of its assets. Prescient warnings over time of the world's anarchic banking system wreaking havoc and yet never held to account:
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/18/goldman-sachs-regulators-civil-charges
    http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-goldman-sachs-may-provoke-yet-another-major-financial-crisis

    PeregrineSlim 12 Jun 2015 02:47

    Leaving the negotiation table is negotiation.

    The IMF are not going anywhere. They are just negotiating.

    Greece can take heart. They'll do anything for a deal.

    ShiresofEngland 12 Jun 2015 02:35

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11654639/IMF-has-betrayed-its-mission-in-Greece-captive-to-EMU-creditors.html

    This is the real problem. The IMF should never have been involved in the first place. They should stick to their mandate of only ever loaning money where that debt is sustainable.

    For the IMF to walk out that might not be a bad thing, but they should walk out on Merkel and the EU for refusing an OSI, the debt writedown which Greece needs.

    It has always been a solvency issue and not a liquidity issue. Until the Troika accept that then no progress can be made.

    JimVxxxx -> madrupert 12 Jun 2015 02:35

    The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them!

    The IMF would argue that they do put people before money; by increasing the competitiveness of a country they are ultimately benefiting everyone who lives there.

    JimVxxxx -> zchabj6 12 Jun 2015 02:28

    Some interesting points there... the IMF is a bank, just like any other, with a mandate to encourage free-market policies (as far as I know).

    The ECB are far better positioned to provide tools which would lessen the impact for individual EU countries facing sovereign debt funding issues, however, it is not explicitly mandated to do so.

    I have never come across the term 'debt jubilee' but it sounds fun; perhaps you could explain what it is? Also, how would abolishing compound interest help?

    hermanmitt -> piper909 12 Jun 2015 02:22

    This entire situation is a foreshadowing of what's to come in a world that allows international banking cabals and corporate investors to dictate policies to sovereign states, regardless of the will of the people as expressed in open elections.

    "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

    This is just the money phase of a process that takes power away from elected government and hands it to a few bankers. The next stage is to hand the management of that power to the few who run the corporations.

    That process is now well under way in the form of TTIP.
    Q: Ever wondered how something this important could be discussed in secret?
    A: Because these elites do not consider ordinary people to be part of the process, so why would they need to consult us.

    Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 02:16

    It is very obvious that many of you who have commented have never lived in Greece. Although I have lived and worked in 5 countries, I was born, raised, served my military service and have returned to work in this country that I have always loved but ... the daily corruption, tax evasion on a massive scale, refusal to honour the terms of ordinary contracts that Greeks willingly sign only to later cherry-pick the terms by which they wish to abide and the inherent sense of always feeling victimized by the rest of the world are not productive features in civil society. Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers?

    That figure does not include the tax evasion by the rest of (and the majority of) Greek working people. I am disappointed in the educational system that is ranked lowest in the EU and, most of all, in my fellow citizens who cling to this system of daily corruption and bribe-taking but refuse to recognise this behaviour in themselves. Please stop blaming financial creditors who have a right to request loan conditions (just as we have home loan conditions) that the Greeks could have declined. The financial mismanagement in this country is staggering, so, for those of you who criticize the lenders - don't forget there are two sides to every story and you may not be seeing everything that goes on here.

    Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 02:13

    I think the solution for Greece is becoming clearer by the day.
    1. Default.
    2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency for a period of 2 years or so.
    3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments (yes, Luxembourg was a part of Germany in WWII, so it too owes reparations, and many Luxembourg-registered companies have assets in Greece).
    4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece.
    5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup.

    eastofthesun -> Faith Puleston 12 Jun 2015 02:07

    it is a country that thinks the EU is a source of income to make up for them not doing their sums at home

    I'm thinking that if lenders have the right to enforce policy decisions, then maybe they ought also to bear a share of responsibility. By which I mean that when the IMF was busy throwing money at Greece's erstwhile administrations it must have been well aware of what was happening with its money (including that bled away into corruption), yet it tolerated it; certainly the IMF had more potential say in Greek policy at the time than the current administration.

    If the politicians of earlier administrations abused their access to EU funding, they did so knowing that it would ultimately not be them to pick up the bill. Like most elected politicians they needed only a short-term perspective. The lenders indulged this when the money was being spent in the first place, now they're cracking down on the people who inherited the debt - not those who ran it up. (Of course, the lenders inherit the debt too.)

    That's the nature of long-term debt. We need to learn that this lending process is dysfunctional - but both parties to the debt are complicit in that. This is why it is incumbent on the lenders to negotiate.

    AlexLeo 12 Jun 2015 01:33

    A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. Holding a gun to his head - are you speaking to a juvenile delinquent trying to get a message across? Pathetic, Cannot see anyone paying money to read this analysis.


    Chris Hindle 12 Jun 2015 01:23

    IMF to Alexis Tsipras: 'Do you feel lucky, punk?'

    Good to see this 'economist' sitting astride the neutral position

    I thought everyone realised the Greek people are innocent in all this - that the debts were accrued illegally and probably only as little as 5-10% actually benefitted the Greek people - the rest, inevitably, benefitting Greek bent banksters and politicians.
    I wonder if this 'economist' was trained in the dreamworld of neo-classical economics

    To put it clearly - Bollox to the IMF -- People first!

    Notaterrorist 12 Jun 2015 01:00

    The best writing on this subject (not just a regurgitation of "she said, he said" like the above useless piece of "journalism") is by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph. Below is what he writes today.

    If he is correct, I finally understand Schauble - and to my astonishment agree. Neither Greece nor the Eurozone can function while Greece remains in the Euro. It's time for Grexit and a Marshall Plan.

    "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU.

    What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU)

    Mrs Merkel appears to have concluded that "Grexit" is fraught with risk and would inevitably be blamed on Germany, leaving a toxic political and emotional legacy."

    Quaestio -> MikeBenn 11 Jun 2015 23:00

    Why? Because US investment banks were involved in the Greek debt.

    Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe's Crisis

    By LOUISE STORY, LANDON THOMAS Jr. and NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
    Published: February 13, 2010
    The New York Times

    Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.

    As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street's help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

    Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November - three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety - a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.

    The bankers, led by Goldman's president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece's health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

    It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe's monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe's deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.

    Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Street's role in the world's latest financial drama.

    As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

    In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

    Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country's liabilities.

    Glen Killoran -> Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:49

    Based upon what?

    Tourism? Tried that, it allowed the 1950 Greek economy to rocket into the 20's.

    Shipping? Too late, that ship has already sailed.

    Manufacturing, yeah, Greece will be #1, right after Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia.

    Agriculture? Equipment bought with what money, the Drachma? Hmm, that'll be a competitive business model.

    Real-estate? Just how expensive do you think homes will be when the local populace is cash poor, in debt, and has no access to credit? Can you say buyers market? It will be the foreign fire sale buyer that buys low, sells high, not the Greeks.

    And, all of this assumes the Greek economic model is reformed, and that is what the troika is trying to do right?

    Seems to me default is really just the long hard road to reform, if it ever gets there because, there surely no demand for it now.

    Mark Richardson 11 Jun 2015 22:46

    It is kind of difficult for the new Greek government to give the IMF and its other creditors anything in new austerity measures considering that the Greek unemployment rate is over 25% and the youth unemployment rate is 60%. How much more pain would you be willing to force on your own people if you were a new reform leader considering that this entire crisis was caused when the previous conservative Greek government hid and failed to report half of its entire deficit? I don't see a viable future for Greece that includes having to repay the IMF and other major lenders as any more reforms will just drive the jobless rate and their GDP loss rate higher too.

    Basically either the IMF and Germany agree to restructure the Greek debt or Greece will pull-out of the Eurozone, and right after that happens Italy and Spain will be next, which will cause another Great Depression in the major lending countries.

    Andrew Paul -> Wood Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:16

    There probably won't be a tourism boom if Grexit triggers a global recession when the EU markets spin into chaos. So why can't they collect tax revenues from the wealthy now and clear up all their problems in the first place?

    fflambeau -> Glen Killoran 11 Jun 2015 22:01

    I agree that past Greek governments have made huge mistakes. But the main problem is not in pension funds, as you claim, but in military spending. In the 1980's the Greek government spent 6% of its GDP on military expenditures. That is now about 2% of GDP but that is still the second highest of all NATO countries, second only to America.

    You seem to miss the point that the current Greek government had nothing to do with the mistakes made by former governments and has done a noble job of righting the ship.

    As for your comments about the overly generous nature of Greek pensions, you are off base. Maybe that was the case many years ago, but not in the past couple of years.

    fflambeau 11 Jun 2015 21:42

    Let's compare the "bailouts" that President Obama worked out with huge Wall St. companies and corporations that failed in 2007-2009. They got enormous funding, trillions of dollars, at virtually no interest and no oversight.

    General Motors took $6 billion of its $50 billion bailout and built an automobile manufacturing plant (in Thailand, no less!).

    What did the USA's taxpayers make off the billions of dollars it gave GM, at the time the largest corporation in the world? Nothing. In fact, they LOST money.

    Reuters and Time both report that the US government LOST money, $11.2 billion, by loaning $50 billion to GM. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430

    Did the US government put pressure on GM to make them pay back the lost $11.2 billion? Nope.

    So those complaining here about giveaways to a lazy Greek people should look at what is really happening in their countries and what the IMF and other international organizations are really doing.

    AnhTay 11 Jun 2015 19:10

    One possibility is obvious. Greece is prepared to default. They are, quite rationally, waiting to see if they can get a deal with the IMF that would be acceptable as an alternative to default. Even if they cannot, what is the harm in playing out their hand to see if it is possible? There is no point in getting childish about the issue. Negotiations are about business. If Greece chooses to default, so be it. No reason for the IMF to get all gnarly on the point.

    fceska -> Bowhill 11 Jun 2015 19:07

    That's not the only thing that's wrong. The whole article is completely one-sided. This paragraph for instance:

    Up until now, the view in Athens has been that the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more haggling, always time to cut a better deal that would avoid the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining being demanded in exchange for fresh financial assistance.

    could be rewritten as:

    Up until now, the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been of the view that Athens has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more arm-twisting, always time to force a tougher deal that would ratify the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining which they were demanding in exchange for yet more unsustainable financial assistance.


    aretzios -> mariandavid 11 Jun 2015 18:37

    You have it all wrong. You should read the IMF reports. The IMF actually urged the EU to write-off part of the Greek debt. The IMF felt that it was put in a bad situation, brought in by the EU to manage the problem without any of the tools usually allowed in these situations, such as debt write-off and devaluation. In its 2014 report, the IMF stated that the whole "bailout" deal was not to rescue Greece but to rescue the Euro. Now, knowing that it is not going to get any assistance from the EU, it is putting the pressure on Greece to get its funds from there. I think that the IMF feels trapped in a situation that it was not of its making.

    The issue of the pensions is the most galling one. During the 2012 write-down, the EU protected all its assets; the 50 billion euros in Greek bonds held by the ECB were not subject to the write-down. However, all Greek pensions funds were forced (literally forced) to participate. They collected just 17 cents to the Euro (or thereabouts) in the bond exchange. Of course, now the EU claims that there is no money to service the current pensions, thus the pensions need to be reduced! Considering that the average pension is about 600 euros (and living costs in Greece are very much the same as in the UK), one can see how galling this is (and they already have gone down by 40% in the last five years). If you add to this the demanded tax increases, the whole thing almost sounds like a Mafia protection racket.

    Even though the IMF is not "impressed" with the concessions that the Greek government has made thus far, this government would not really survive if it brings this package to the parliament. A good number of its MPs would not vote for it and many of its ministers would resign. The resulting turmoil would only deepen the political crisis.

    At the end, the EU will find a very anti-EU militant country in its southeast corner with more to follow. Not really good for anybody

    [Jun 12, 2015] The "Nation Interest" erupted with this article several days ago -- Russia and America: Toward a New Détente

    Many within the Russian elite just eat up every morsel of the idea that someone, somewhere in the West wants to treat Russia as an equal. The old convergence meme, along with plenty of time for Italian villas and French wine, women, and song. So it behooves Western operatives to create some stories like that. Sure, it was the EU's fault. Yep. To me, this is more like factions within the Nazis debating what kind of post-war scenario would work for the USSR. How many should be deported to Brazil, how many should be sterilized, that kind of thing. Russia should spend more time on getting rid of the huge and powerful fifth column and improving industrial production, and less time on partnership discussions.
    .
    "...Like you say, for a few glass beads, Putin is supposed to pretend that all is okey-dokey and go back to the era when Russia and America were pretending to fight "terrorism" together. Overlooking the fact that the "terrorists" are all paid for and trained by America."
    Jun 12, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Lyttenburgh, June 11, 2015 at 5:22 pm
    The "Nation Interest" erupted with this article several days ago:

    Russia and America: Toward a New Détente

    The "meat" of this long article boils down to the following:

    For this new diplomatic partnership to be effective, both parties must enter into it with a realistic mind-set. That is the first step. The United States has to accept the fact that Russia is a great power and treat it that way. Washington has to be sensitive to Moscow's perspectives and interests, particularly on its borders. The Kremlin has to realize that to receive great-power treatment, it's got to behave far more responsibly and accept responsibility for joint solutions. Putin can't go on trying to dominate and intimidate his neighbors, just as the U.S. president can't be seen as seeking to pull these neighbors out of the Russian orbit.

    Second, both sides have to recognize their very real complementary interests. That's perfectly obvious now when it comes to regional issues, fighting terrorism and nuclear proliferation. There's no denying that there are serious conflicts on Russia's western border or that Russia has clear military superiority there. Russia can cause real turmoil for Europe, which is why both parties have got to understand that the solution lies in diplomatic sensitivity and compromise, rather than fighting. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the present mutual hostility imperils the interests of both sides.

    How would Détente Plus work in practice?

    First, both sides have to commit to diplomacy at the highest levels. Particularly in the initial years, there would have to be annual presidential summits and semiannual meetings of foreign and defense ministers. Only top-level political leaders can make the decisions required of Détente Plus.

    Second, these joint ventures must be given high visibility. Optics are critical both to reestablish Russia's status as a great power, and for the United States to gain more restrained and cooperative Russian behavior in return. Kremlin leaders are surely realistic enough to see this trade-off and curb themselves. Until this mountaintop diplomacy begins to produce, Western nations are fully justified in sustaining sanctions and continuing to build a more credible military presence eastward.

    Third, Détente Plus has to progress on two fronts: maintaining the basic integrity and independence of countries on Russia's borders while being attentive to Russian interests there; and fashioning joint action on broader issues such as Middle East instability and terrorism.

    Well, what did you expect? Of course, in our time any "meaty" part will turn out to be just "vegetarian" one!

    Our good and knowledgeble Leslie H. Gelb – a "president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, a former columnist for the New York Times, and a former senior State and Defense Department official" – basically suggests, that some shiny glass beads and a great priviledge to be treated like a White Man US of A's equal is sufficient to placate Kremlin's ego, and afterwards Putin (whom our good author blames for all crisises and setbacks that ever happened in the region – hell, he even claims that Putin artificially keeps Azeri-Armenian conflict burning!) will gladly become reasonle and abandon all Russia's foreign interests. Huzzah!

    What this shizofrenic article doesn't answer, however, is some very nasty and down to earth questions:

    1) New "detente+" (ugh!) strategy suggested here presumes that the US must "be sensetive to Moscow's perspectives and interests, particularly on its borders" and "maintaining the basic integrity and independence of countries on Russia's borders".

    2) Then what are good mister Gelb's thought on Crimea? Did he really, honestly presumes that Russia will just hand over a peninsula with 3 mlns of Russian citizens "back" to the Ukraine in the name of "maintaining the basic integrity… of countries on Russia's borders"?

    3) Or maybe mister Gelb suggests that despite the fact that both UkrArmy and the NatzGuard suffered humiliating defeats in the past Russia should allow "just for lulz" the Ukrainian border guards to resume their work in eastern parts of the People Republics?

    4) Did he really think that a couple of glass beads will make Putin look the other way, when NATO pimped-up NatzGuard and whoever they managed to grab during the "5th wave of Mobilization" descends upon People Republics?

    And the icing on the top – well, you gonna laugh! Our good mr. Gelb blames the EU going full Nuland!

    Alas, the European Union has demonstrated the wrong way to proceed in the last two years. It essentially proposed to incorporate the Ukrainian economy into Europe's and leave Russia behind. It pursued a Europe-win/Russia-lose approach rather than the win-win policy argued for here. Obviously Moscow couldn't accept this and turned the competition to its strength - stirring up Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine and sending in Russian arms and men.

    Did I mention the self-delusion of "Murica did no wrong here" exposed on every single page of this article? Well, pardon me – I thought it was self evident!

    P.S. Are there still people interested in hearing some of my accounts about being a soldier in Russian Army? Pavlo?

    marknesop, June 11, 2015 at 9:48 pm
    Yes, that is a thing of beauty – I liked your analogy of the shiny glass beads, like the trade with the Indians in which they gave away furs worth a fortune for cheap baubles. Everything old is new again, because this sort of soul-searching (Russia has been wronged, we must stop treating it like a child) has been done before, and far better, by former U.S. Defense secretary Robert McNamara in "Out of the Cold – New Thinking for American Foreign and Defense Policy in the 21st Century". I've added it to the library – just the picture, I'll add the text tomorrow if I have time – but from memory, Mr. McNamara blamed much of the cold war on America and its intransigence, and lamented the many, many misunderstandings that caused both sides to misinterpret the other's motives. He was quite candid (so far, I just started it) that the USSR behaved exactly as any nation in its position would have done given the same circumstances, that it was only safeguarding its regional interests and was not remotely interested in a war with Europe or with America when it had just lost millions of its people to war and seen its industrial production reduced by something like two-thirds. But even then the west treated the USSR as if it was a naive tribesman who could be bought off with a shiny tin hatchet because he does not recognize what has true value.

    The USA had plenty of opportunity to act on his advice (it was published in 1989) and lead the effort to find common ground. But it was having too much fun making an enemy of the Soviet Union and undercutting every effort it made to develop itself.

    Lyttenburgh, June 11, 2015 at 10:03 pm

    Correct me if I'm dead wrong, Mark, but wasn't one of the reasons for McNamara's dismissal (whatever fanciful term they used doesn't matter) some fears by the glorious administration of LBJ that "Goddamit, we have another Forrestal in the making here! Quick, remove him before he goes nuts completely!" which might somehow have influenced the consequent perception of everything said and written by the former Sec. of Defense McNamara?
    marknesop, June 11, 2015 at 10:21 pm
    That's very possible – I'm afraid my knowledge of his career is woefully incomplete and I mostly remember him as a tricky dissembler in the famous Gulf of Tonkin Incident which lit off America's military participation in the Vietnam War. It was fairly evident from declassified records that McNamara wanted America actively involved in the war rather than just in an advisory capacity, and those records show he withheld advice of military commanders from the President because those commanders argued against overt action until more facts were known. He would later argue that he supported the Vietnam War out of loyalty to administration policy rather than being drunk with power, although his initial management of it suggested he wanted to run it personally. As president of the World Bank, he stated that countries permitting access to birth control would get preferential treatment. Although I agree that countries have to permit that choice, thorny an issue as it is – because plenty of history shows that making a woman bear an unwanted child is not going to force a positive change in her attitude and a subsequent responsible raising of the child – it is not the kind of thing you announce publicly. He was a little erratic, to put it mildly, but he also served as Defense Secretary for 7 years, which I believe is a record.

    It will make more sense when I post a couple of excerpts; his advice on treatment of Russia (which was still the Soviet Union then) was eminently sensible because it argued the Russians only wanted to be treated as equals and for genuine dialogue to take place rather than a quick meeting of the Old Boys Club followed by a group gang-bang of Russia with everyone pointing accusing fingers. But it's easy to say something makes sense when you agree with it, so I'll let readers decide for themselves. There's no arguing that he knew a great deal and that his experience of current events far exceeds ours, by the simple virtue of his having been present at so many high-level planning sessions and gatherings. But his matter-of-fact recounting of historic events such as Churchill's bargaining with Stalin on spheres of influence suggests he had an inquiring mind and a good memory for history, since the famous deal written on a scrap of paper, offering division of influence in various eastern-European countries by percentages (and which Stalin approved with a simple check mark) is not well-known. That was a huge betrayal as well since – for example – the Soviet Union was offered "90% influence" in Romania, and the west set to meddling in it with no delay and now it is a NATO member.

    yalensis, June 12, 2015 at 3:14 am
    From what I have read about McNamara and the Vietnam war:
    McNamara screwed up badly, and knew it. His hubris and hunger for power caused untold destruction of lives and a geo-strategic defeat for America.

    The thing is, that McNamara was that rare type (in his position) who actually had a conscience. He was not a psychopath. He had a logical mind, was eventually able to analyze his own mistakes, and in later life sought redemption by telling the truth.

    An interesting if highly flawed individual. Shakespeare could have written a play about him.

    Paul II, June 11, 2015 at 11:25 pm
    Many within the Russian elite just eat up every morsel of the idea that someone, somewhere in the West wants to treat Russia as an equal. The old convergence meme, along with plenty of time for Italian villas and French wine, women, and song. So it behooves Western operatives to create some stories like that. Sure, it was the EU's fault. Yep. To me, this is more like factions within the Nazis debating what kind of post-war scenario would work for the USSR. How many should be deported to Brazil, how many should be sterilized, that kind of thing. Russia should spend more time on getting rid of the huge and powerful fifth column and improving industrial production, and less time on partnership discussions.
    yalensis, June 12, 2015 at 3:16 am
    Hear hear!
    yalensis, June 12, 2015 at 3:04 am
    Frankly, I would rather see bitter conflict than the kind of "detente" that Gelb is proposing.

    LIke you say, for a few glass beads, Putin is supposed to pretend that all is okey-dokey and go back to the era when Russia and America were pretending to fight "terrorism" together. Overlooking the fact that the "terrorists" are all paid for and trained by America.

    In any case, realistically speaking, Russia and America do not have any interests in common. Not one single one that I can think of. The divorce should be finalized.

    [Jun 12, 2015] IMF to Alexis Tsipras: Do you feel lucky, punk?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". ..."
    "... If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. ..."
    "... What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table... ..."
    "... The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them! ..."
    "... Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers? ..."
    "... A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. ..."
    "... "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU. What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU) ..."
    "... Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts. ..."
    Jun 12, 2015 | The Guardian

    Hristos Dagres 12 Jun 2015 11:50

    Basically, the IMF should officially admit their fatal errors in the development of the first MoU that "saved" Greece [well, we all know now that the first plan was nothing more than an attempt to save euro and the French-German banks that was cunningly presented as a token of "European solidarity" - in reality, they didn't give a sh..t about Greece].

    These "errors" were immediately identified by other members of the IMF board, like Brazil, Argentina, China and .... Switzerland, according to the IMF documents presented by WSJ

    [http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/10/07/imf-document-excerpts-disagreements-revealed/ ]

    I believe that Christine should pick up her pieces and crawl back to the table - and this time she should present a plan that will restore the damage done.

    Or else, they should not get a single euro back - and we should start negotiating with the BRICS for a fair plan to restructure our economy.

    MachinePork 12 Jun 2015 11:30

    Make no mistake about it a Greek default is a calamity for the global financial system. Debt on the periphery is in the trillions. It is carried on the books in banks and treasuries at face value only because national administrators understand – with the blessing of the automatons at BIS -- what it would mean if this crap was subjected to a proper stress test or marked-to-market.

    At stake in this battle is the entire global financial system. Should a NATO government summon the cheek to opt out of the prevailing international credit system, issue debt-free capital, invest in its people, grow exports and prove to succeed; the entire compound interest earning, system of rent-making privilege would collapse. My sense is the kingdom of Finance, its banking lords and its lickspittles in policy will never let this happen.

    God bless the Greek people. This is going to get messy. They should be commended for their bravery in the face of endless threats of financial serfdom for intransigence.

    The international debt monkey is a doppelgänger. He looks so inviting at first glance but is more than prepared to reach back and lob a compound interest bearing shit bomb your direction in a bid to save privilege in the global financial zoo.

    Maria Christoulaki 12 Jun 2015 10:43

    Mr Eliot how you dare to call our prime minister a "punk"? Who do you think you are you or other journalist around the world? Why you don't write the truth that the hard working Greeks have lost the 60 % of their income and they can't live with less money. Your article as well as other around the world is called "bulling". What do you think that Greeks are? all these articles except of bulling show a racism against us. You must ask an excuse for this article which offends both our prime minister and the Greek people, who voted him.

    mgtuzairodtiiasn asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 09:08

    It is funny! The German bankers stole your money, and you still believe that all this money went to the Greeks. This money went from the German banks to the German enterprises. Because they gave bribes to win contracts for useless military equipment. For example, Greece bought 4 submarines that doesn't need. Even today, only one has been delivered, because there were major design faults, although the German company has received the money. Regarding the loans of the previous years, do you believe that the total amount of the Greek debt was to expire in just 3 years? Obviously, the gang that rules EU today, gave 240 bn Euros to banks of Germany, France, Netherlands etc, and used Greece as a scapegoat to hide this fraud. Wake up!

    mgtuzairodtiiasn Angkor 12 Jun 2015 08:55

    Firstly, negotiation is not that you agree to what the institutions require. Secondly, you are right. The Greek economy and society have been carried many parasites until now.

    Remember the German companies like Siemens, Ferrostaal, ThyssenKrupp which gave bribes to many politicians and Media owners. Or Hochtief, which still has not paid 500 mn Euros of VAT to the Greek state. It is time to get rid of all this parasites.

    elenits -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 07:57

    "Loans" imposed by IMF against its mandate = Odious debt.

    Greeks shouldering 340 bn of EU, ECB, IMF "loans" to shore up foreign malinvesting banks = Odious debt

    Loans to Greece that were not used by Greeks = Odious debt

    IMF breaking its own rules to loan without debt restructure = Odious debt

    This is without considering ECB acting outside its mandate, i.e. politically, from Feb 2015 by illegally cutting Greece from bond markets and out of QE.

    elenits -> asiancelt 12 Jun 2015 07:49

    If you had read even the anti-greek newspapers in the last 5 years you would understand that 90% of the "loans" Greece "took" - i.e. had imposed on them - went directly to German, French and Dutch banks. The 10% Greece was allowed to keep paid for the interests on these "loans" - topped up with money screwed out of the Greek taxpayers.

    Apropos the IMF they acted illegally against their own rules by lending to a first world country [not a "developing" country] and by accepting a greek program that did not include debt restructure, i.e. the same German, French and Dutch banks having to accept some losses.

    There is no such thing as "risk" anymore for banks, corporations or the 1%. Risk and poverty is only for ordinary people like yourself.

    dawisner -> Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 07:30

    Constantine, as an American expat living in Greece for the past 21 years now (I was married in Thessaloniki in 1988), I, too, have frequently lamented how many armchair experts appear in these chat rooms. I published an e-book last year (Still at Aulis) with a view toward trying to explain to the casual observer how complex the local situation can be, and how worthy and hard-working my Greek peers often are. Keep up the good work.

    seaspan -> Anton Brasschaat 12 Jun 2015 05:50

    French and German banks were generously bailed out of any risk by "taxpayers" from the EU, including Greeks.

    And Greek leverage is honesty: they have a clear understanding of current economic reality, and a better plan to payback their debts to Euro taxpayers. Anyone who says different is suspect as to their interests and intentions.

    It isnt Syriza you should be questioning if you are sincere about your concern for the taxpayer. It is the financial advisers and ideologues backing austerity you should question. Are they merely driven by their egos and reputations as pro austerity hawks? Afraid for their secure positions as Yes Men in financial institutions?

    And anyone in the negotiating process who has loyalties to Russia should be severely scrutinised, since Putin's interests are for a failure in negotiations, for a Grexit, all toward a long term desire of an EU breakup.

    It could come down to questions of treason why there is no negotiated settlement,,, if such a word is applicable to the EU project...

    Constantine Alexander -> Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 05:43

    My life's experiences - including beginning work at 8 years of age; 3 years military service; professional activities including U.S. investment banking, employment development in Eastern Europe (e.g. job creation at a Belarus agricultural production facility which is still thriving), 10 years devoted to my passion for wildlife conservation projects with worthy BirdLife Int'l NGO partners (not as you coyly suggested as a result of "untoward" behaviour); and having a doctor threaten to refuse to perform my father's surgery unless he receives a 10,000 euro cash bribe in addition to his customary doctor's fee and the hospital costs - have shaped my perspective on the factors that contribute to or undermine civil society.

    If Greece exits the euro, the resulting cost of vital goods will soar due to the country's heavy reliance on imports. This will hit the middle class and the poor much harder than the current austerity measures -- most of which have not been implemented by any Greek gov (e.g. opening up business sectors to competition, privatization of debt-ridden public institutions, tax collection which has for decades suffered due to customary and widespread bribery demanded by tax officials, privatization of public assets).

    The long term solution lies in the govt starting to do what most of us have to do - we prioritize spending based on worthiness and needs (food, health, education, etc), keep a reserve for contingencies, and spend in relation to our incoming revenue. But rather than contributing to long term stability and security for the country which benefits everyone's work activities, the society insists upon short term benefits (e.g. public sector hiring for my children, tax evasion) that it clearly cannot afford. The broader issue is not lender's conditions vs. austerity relief, but rather a way of organizing govt and society which, in the Greek model, has gotten way out of hand due to low interest rates for excessive borrowing by a series of governments. We'll see how the story unfolds.

    PyrosT -> Enoch Arden 12 Jun 2015 05:32

    destroyed economy was not an alternative to the IMF "help", it was its result, carefully planned and systematically implemented. It was in a way a remarkable achievement of IMF: to inflict a greater damage to the Soviet economy than WW2, with the help of the local compradors.

    IMF will not do anything about your or anyone elses local corrupt elites or lack of governance. That is not within their mandate or nature.

    If you think that it is possible to convert a centrally planned soviet style (the core of it to boot) to anything resembling a market economy without major disruption.

    Even East Germany, despite the endless billions thrown into it, went through a period of high unemployment and hardships.

    But I guess it is easier to "blame the IMF". Yes the interventions will almost always lower your GDP - for a quite simple reason that the previous GDP is probably bloated with G (government spending) and any significant restructuring always causes some depression. And yes, it typically isn't a "walk in the park". And some measures are probably misguided, inadequate or ineffective.

    But...

    Why does a country asks for the IMF help in the first place? Because it is sporting unsustainable policies? Sometimes it could even correct itself, but having an outside partner makes some policies easier to deploy.

    DANIELDS 12 Jun 2015 05:10

    Yesterday briefing by G.RICE of IMF

    ...Greek pension system is unsustainable. The Greek pension funds receive transfers from the budget of about 10 percent of GDP annually. Now, this compares to the average in the rest of the Euro zone of two-and-a-half percent of GDP. The standard pension in Greece is almost at the same level as in Germany and people, again on the average, retire almost six years earlier in Greece than in Germany. And GDP per capita increase, of course, is less than half that of the German level.......Terrible errors? reported to justify killing policies of troica and imf......Here is Greek butjet.

    http://www.minfin.gr/?q=en/content/state-budget-execution-january-march-2015

    ......For pensions 6,3 billion eur.GDP OF 2014 179 bill euros and for pensions goes ONLY 3.5% OF IT.

    This the big obstacle of negotiations.10% of GDP is 18 billion euros .3.5% is only 5.4 billions.They are killers of a country with false reports.

    Angkor Renato -> Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 04:53

    Renato on your checklist for Greece's solution to its current problems, a few questions:

    1. Default. Well that's a given. It's going to happen anyway whether the Greeks want it to or not.

    2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency
    How will Greece secure Russian and Chinese support for its new currency? Aren't they going to do a credit check and find out that the Greeks don't honour their loans? They're bound to find out and its pretty unlikely that they'd be silly enough to line themselves up to be stiffed by the Greeks. They are not mugs you know.

    3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments. Why stop at Germany and Luxembourg? Poland was part of Germany (the Governor Generalate) during WWII. As were Austria (the Anschluss), and the Czech Republic and Slovakia (the Munich Agreement). Why not seize all of the property owed by the nationals of those countries as well? It only seems fair. Also Italy had a role in the invasion of Greece in WWII. In fact the Germans would never have invaded but for the Italians botching the job. Shouldn't you be stiffing the Italians as well?

    4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece. A few questions here. First the Russians. Where will their tourists come from given the parlous state of their economy? And why would they go to Greece now that they have lovely Crimea, the Pearl of the Black Sea, back in their hands? Now for the British. What has Greece got that a British tourist would want that Magaluf doesn't have? Don't say culture because Greece has little of it (and the Italians do it better anyway) and British tourists don't want it. If they wanted Greek culture they'd go to the British Museum where it's been sitting for the last 200 years.

    5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup. Don't you think that the SCO's dialogue partners, Turkey, may have something to say about that? Nothing kind, of course. That would be a bit too much to expect of the Turks when talking about Greek matters.

    zchabj6 -> JimVxxxx 12 Jun 2015 04:37

    The debt jubilee is a very old idea, mentioned in biblical times, but has also had plenty of implementation in medieval and later times where every 10 years or so all debt is wiped out and debt issuing starts again.

    This was essentially to stop debt slavery where one class monopolizes resources and lends it out to others to do work for the asset owners to do nothing but live off of the interest on the loans, which is caustic to society.

    As for no compound interest. It essentially is my own idea, based on say religious texts that ban interest or usury on loans because of the negative debt slavery consequences.

    But the question is, who would then lend to business and people, where is the incentive? So there could be fixed interest on the original sum and no more, unlike today where you pay interest on the intiial sum and the interest on that.

    And if you miss payments and there are delays to paying, interest breeds interest, rather than having a known fixed sum of interest to pay back which is much more just.

    AER and other formulas are really eating up the entire economic structure, it seems to me there is merit to justice and prosperity too from religious texts, they seem to have a lot of experience in unseating entrenched oligarchs.

    REDLAN1 12 Jun 2015 04:29

    What I found entertaining, was the statement by Rice, which went "As our managing director has said many times, the IMF never leaves the table," except of course when the entire team gets called back to Washington, and errr... leaves the table...

    We are meant to presume that this is a negotiating tactic, and that the IMF is Dirty Harry? In the final scene, Dirty Harry goads the perp into going for his gun so that he can legally kill him in self-defence. Although in the first scene where this is used Dirty Harry's gun is empty. So which is it?

    Have they got an empty gun, or are they trying to goad Greece into defaulting, so they can blow them away?

    REDLAN1 -> galava 12 Jun 2015 03:52

    You can do the math yourself for the UK...

    http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_welfare_spending_40.html

    I assume UK public spending on pensions at 8.6% of GDP. This 2% average sounds like nonsense.

    Scipio1 -> Angkor 12 Jun 2015 03:27

    In terms of purchasing power parity China does have the largest economy in the world. The US GDP is roughly $17 trn and China's is roughly $8trn, but a dollar in China goes twice as far as a $ in the US. Moreover China does not have the same debt levels as the US. US public debt is over 100% of GDP. When you count how rich a country is remember to factor in the LIABILITIES as well as the assets. The US is the world's biggest debtor country and China is the biggest creditor.

    The US only enjoys (if this is the right word) its current living standards since it controls the world currency. But this is coming to and end as the BRICS nations are de-dollarizing and setting up their own institutions which circumvent the dollar. Institutions such as the AIIB and the BRICS investment bank.

    The world is changing old chap, and of course the Americans don't like it; their dominant position is under threat which is why they are trying to arrest this development by any means - financial, economic, political and military - at their disposable.

    Hypatia415 -> Quaestio 12 Jun 2015 03:07

    Yes, Greece has been fleeced of so many of its assets. Prescient warnings over time of the world's anarchic banking system wreaking havoc and yet never held to account:
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/18/goldman-sachs-regulators-civil-charges
    http://www.alternet.org/economy/how-goldman-sachs-may-provoke-yet-another-major-financial-crisis

    PeregrineSlim 12 Jun 2015 02:47

    Leaving the negotiation table is negotiation.

    The IMF are not going anywhere. They are just negotiating.

    Greece can take heart. They'll do anything for a deal.

    ShiresofEngland 12 Jun 2015 02:35

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11654639/IMF-has-betrayed-its-mission-in-Greece-captive-to-EMU-creditors.html

    This is the real problem. The IMF should never have been involved in the first place. They should stick to their mandate of only ever loaning money where that debt is sustainable.

    For the IMF to walk out that might not be a bad thing, but they should walk out on Merkel and the EU for refusing an OSI, the debt writedown which Greece needs.

    It has always been a solvency issue and not a liquidity issue. Until the Troika accept that then no progress can be made.

    JimVxxxx -> madrupert 12 Jun 2015 02:35

    The IMF is not only about money. They have an ideological mandate too. Now, you may agree with this ideological mandate or not. However, if you do not, then it is best to not borrow money from them!

    The IMF would argue that they do put people before money; by increasing the competitiveness of a country they are ultimately benefiting everyone who lives there.

    JimVxxxx -> zchabj6 12 Jun 2015 02:28

    Some interesting points there... the IMF is a bank, just like any other, with a mandate to encourage free-market policies (as far as I know).

    The ECB are far better positioned to provide tools which would lessen the impact for individual EU countries facing sovereign debt funding issues, however, it is not explicitly mandated to do so.

    I have never come across the term 'debt jubilee' but it sounds fun; perhaps you could explain what it is? Also, how would abolishing compound interest help?

    hermanmitt -> piper909 12 Jun 2015 02:22

    This entire situation is a foreshadowing of what's to come in a world that allows international banking cabals and corporate investors to dictate policies to sovereign states, regardless of the will of the people as expressed in open elections.

    "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" - Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

    This is just the money phase of a process that takes power away from elected government and hands it to a few bankers. The next stage is to hand the management of that power to the few who run the corporations.

    That process is now well under way in the form of TTIP.
    Q: Ever wondered how something this important could be discussed in secret?
    A: Because these elites do not consider ordinary people to be part of the process, so why would they need to consult us.

    Constantine Alexander 12 Jun 2015 02:16

    It is very obvious that many of you who have commented have never lived in Greece. Although I have lived and worked in 5 countries, I was born, raised, served my military service and have returned to work in this country that I have always loved but ... the daily corruption, tax evasion on a massive scale, refusal to honour the terms of ordinary contracts that Greeks willingly sign only to later cherry-pick the terms by which they wish to abide and the inherent sense of always feeling victimized by the rest of the world are not productive features in civil society. Did you know that 29 billion (yes - Billion) euros of income tax were not paid by Greek professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in 2009 according to Univ of Chicago researchers?

    That figure does not include the tax evasion by the rest of (and the majority of) Greek working people. I am disappointed in the educational system that is ranked lowest in the EU and, most of all, in my fellow citizens who cling to this system of daily corruption and bribe-taking but refuse to recognise this behaviour in themselves. Please stop blaming financial creditors who have a right to request loan conditions (just as we have home loan conditions) that the Greeks could have declined. The financial mismanagement in this country is staggering, so, for those of you who criticize the lenders - don't forget there are two sides to every story and you may not be seeing everything that goes on here.

    Renato Timotheus 12 Jun 2015 02:13

    I think the solution for Greece is becoming clearer by the day.
    1. Default.
    2. Secure Russian and Chinese support for the new currency for a period of 2 years or so.
    3. Requisition all German and Luxembourg-owned property/assets in Greece in lieu of WWII reparation payments (yes, Luxembourg was a part of Germany in WWII, so it too owes reparations, and many Luxembourg-registered companies have assets in Greece).
    4. Massive drive to attract British and Russian tourists to a cheaper Greece.
    5. Threaten to join the SCO, if NATO starts conspiring for a military coup.

    eastofthesun -> Faith Puleston 12 Jun 2015 02:07

    it is a country that thinks the EU is a source of income to make up for them not doing their sums at home

    I'm thinking that if lenders have the right to enforce policy decisions, then maybe they ought also to bear a share of responsibility. By which I mean that when the IMF was busy throwing money at Greece's erstwhile administrations it must have been well aware of what was happening with its money (including that bled away into corruption), yet it tolerated it; certainly the IMF had more potential say in Greek policy at the time than the current administration.

    If the politicians of earlier administrations abused their access to EU funding, they did so knowing that it would ultimately not be them to pick up the bill. Like most elected politicians they needed only a short-term perspective. The lenders indulged this when the money was being spent in the first place, now they're cracking down on the people who inherited the debt - not those who ran it up. (Of course, the lenders inherit the debt too.)

    That's the nature of long-term debt. We need to learn that this lending process is dysfunctional - but both parties to the debt are complicit in that. This is why it is incumbent on the lenders to negotiate.

    AlexLeo 12 Jun 2015 01:33

    A very irresponsible and simplistic, really sensationalistic summary. The hallmark of a pseudointellectual, a journalist who has never held a real job and seen how money is made and value is created and lives in the imaginary world of movie one liners and simple messages. Holding a gun to his head - are you speaking to a juvenile delinquent trying to get a message across? Pathetic, Cannot see anyone paying money to read this analysis.


    Chris Hindle 12 Jun 2015 01:23

    IMF to Alexis Tsipras: 'Do you feel lucky, punk?'

    Good to see this 'economist' sitting astride the neutral position

    I thought everyone realised the Greek people are innocent in all this - that the debts were accrued illegally and probably only as little as 5-10% actually benefitted the Greek people - the rest, inevitably, benefitting Greek bent banksters and politicians.
    I wonder if this 'economist' was trained in the dreamworld of neo-classical economics

    To put it clearly - Bollox to the IMF -- People first!

    Notaterrorist 12 Jun 2015 01:00

    The best writing on this subject (not just a regurgitation of "she said, he said" like the above useless piece of "journalism") is by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Daily Telegraph. Below is what he writes today.

    If he is correct, I finally understand Schauble - and to my astonishment agree. Neither Greece nor the Eurozone can function while Greece remains in the Euro. It's time for Grexit and a Marshall Plan.

    "Mr Schauble is the proponent of a "velvet divorce" for Greece: an orderly exit from the euro and a return to the drachma, with the ECB playing a crucial role in stabilizing the new currency. Germany and other creditors would then step in with a "Marshall Plan" to put the country back on its feet within the EU.

    What Mr Schauble is not prepared to accept is a breach of contract by Greece on the terms of its previous "Troika" rescue, which he fears would lead to moral hazard and the collapse of fiscal discipline across Southern Europe. He is backed by much of the ruling Christian Democrat party (CDU) and its Bavarian allies (CSU)

    Mrs Merkel appears to have concluded that "Grexit" is fraught with risk and would inevitably be blamed on Germany, leaving a toxic political and emotional legacy."

    Quaestio -> MikeBenn 11 Jun 2015 23:00

    Why? Because US investment banks were involved in the Greek debt.

    Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe's Crisis

    By LOUISE STORY, LANDON THOMAS Jr. and NELSON D. SCHWARTZ
    Published: February 13, 2010
    The New York Times

    Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.

    As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street's help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

    Even as the crisis was nearing the flashpoint, banks were searching for ways to help Greece forestall the day of reckoning. In early November - three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety - a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills, according to two people who were briefed on the meeting.

    The bankers, led by Goldman's president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece's health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

    It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe's monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe's deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means.

    Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Street's role in the world's latest financial drama.

    As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

    In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities then left off the books. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come.

    Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country's liabilities.

    Glen Killoran -> Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:49

    Based upon what?

    Tourism? Tried that, it allowed the 1950 Greek economy to rocket into the 20's.

    Shipping? Too late, that ship has already sailed.

    Manufacturing, yeah, Greece will be #1, right after Bangladesh, Vietnam and Cambodia.

    Agriculture? Equipment bought with what money, the Drachma? Hmm, that'll be a competitive business model.

    Real-estate? Just how expensive do you think homes will be when the local populace is cash poor, in debt, and has no access to credit? Can you say buyers market? It will be the foreign fire sale buyer that buys low, sells high, not the Greeks.

    And, all of this assumes the Greek economic model is reformed, and that is what the troika is trying to do right?

    Seems to me default is really just the long hard road to reform, if it ever gets there because, there surely no demand for it now.

    Mark Richardson 11 Jun 2015 22:46

    It is kind of difficult for the new Greek government to give the IMF and its other creditors anything in new austerity measures considering that the Greek unemployment rate is over 25% and the youth unemployment rate is 60%. How much more pain would you be willing to force on your own people if you were a new reform leader considering that this entire crisis was caused when the previous conservative Greek government hid and failed to report half of its entire deficit? I don't see a viable future for Greece that includes having to repay the IMF and other major lenders as any more reforms will just drive the jobless rate and their GDP loss rate higher too.

    Basically either the IMF and Germany agree to restructure the Greek debt or Greece will pull-out of the Eurozone, and right after that happens Italy and Spain will be next, which will cause another Great Depression in the major lending countries.

    Andrew Paul -> Wood Pomario 11 Jun 2015 22:16

    There probably won't be a tourism boom if Grexit triggers a global recession when the EU markets spin into chaos. So why can't they collect tax revenues from the wealthy now and clear up all their problems in the first place?

    fflambeau -> Glen Killoran 11 Jun 2015 22:01

    I agree that past Greek governments have made huge mistakes. But the main problem is not in pension funds, as you claim, but in military spending. In the 1980's the Greek government spent 6% of its GDP on military expenditures. That is now about 2% of GDP but that is still the second highest of all NATO countries, second only to America.

    You seem to miss the point that the current Greek government had nothing to do with the mistakes made by former governments and has done a noble job of righting the ship.

    As for your comments about the overly generous nature of Greek pensions, you are off base. Maybe that was the case many years ago, but not in the past couple of years.

    fflambeau 11 Jun 2015 21:42

    Let's compare the "bailouts" that President Obama worked out with huge Wall St. companies and corporations that failed in 2007-2009. They got enormous funding, trillions of dollars, at virtually no interest and no oversight.

    General Motors took $6 billion of its $50 billion bailout and built an automobile manufacturing plant (in Thailand, no less!).

    What did the USA's taxpayers make off the billions of dollars it gave GM, at the time the largest corporation in the world? Nothing. In fact, they LOST money.

    Reuters and Time both report that the US government LOST money, $11.2 billion, by loaning $50 billion to GM. Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430

    Did the US government put pressure on GM to make them pay back the lost $11.2 billion? Nope.

    So those complaining here about giveaways to a lazy Greek people should look at what is really happening in their countries and what the IMF and other international organizations are really doing.

    AnhTay 11 Jun 2015 19:10

    One possibility is obvious. Greece is prepared to default. They are, quite rationally, waiting to see if they can get a deal with the IMF that would be acceptable as an alternative to default. Even if they cannot, what is the harm in playing out their hand to see if it is possible? There is no point in getting childish about the issue. Negotiations are about business. If Greece chooses to default, so be it. No reason for the IMF to get all gnarly on the point.

    fceska -> Bowhill 11 Jun 2015 19:07

    That's not the only thing that's wrong. The whole article is completely one-sided. This paragraph for instance:

    Up until now, the view in Athens has been that the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more haggling, always time to cut a better deal that would avoid the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining being demanded in exchange for fresh financial assistance.

    could be rewritten as:

    Up until now, the troika – made up of the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European commission – has been of the view that Athens has been bluffing. The view has been that there is always room for a bit more arm-twisting, always time to force a tougher deal that would ratify the need to make the changes to pensions, VAT and collective bargaining which they were demanding in exchange for yet more unsustainable financial assistance.


    aretzios -> mariandavid 11 Jun 2015 18:37

    You have it all wrong. You should read the IMF reports. The IMF actually urged the EU to write-off part of the Greek debt. The IMF felt that it was put in a bad situation, brought in by the EU to manage the problem without any of the tools usually allowed in these situations, such as debt write-off and devaluation. In its 2014 report, the IMF stated that the whole "bailout" deal was not to rescue Greece but to rescue the Euro. Now, knowing that it is not going to get any assistance from the EU, it is putting the pressure on Greece to get its funds from there. I think that the IMF feels trapped in a situation that it was not of its making.

    The issue of the pensions is the most galling one. During the 2012 write-down, the EU protected all its assets; the 50 billion euros in Greek bonds held by the ECB were not subject to the write-down. However, all Greek pensions funds were forced (literally forced) to participate. They collected just 17 cents to the Euro (or thereabouts) in the bond exchange. Of course, now the EU claims that there is no money to service the current pensions, thus the pensions need to be reduced! Considering that the average pension is about 600 euros (and living costs in Greece are very much the same as in the UK), one can see how galling this is (and they already have gone down by 40% in the last five years). If you add to this the demanded tax increases, the whole thing almost sounds like a Mafia protection racket.

    Even though the IMF is not "impressed" with the concessions that the Greek government has made thus far, this government would not really survive if it brings this package to the parliament. A good number of its MPs would not vote for it and many of its ministers would resign. The resulting turmoil would only deepen the political crisis.

    At the end, the EU will find a very anti-EU militant country in its southeast corner with more to follow. Not really good for anybody

    [Jun 12, 2015] The West opens a second front against the Russian elite in Ukraine - Fort Russ

    June 12, 2015 | Pravoye Delo

    Translated by Kristina Rus

    In addition to sanctions, Western-controlled Ukraine increases pressure on the Russian elite, by going after their property.

    We already wrote about the Ukrainian junta making moves primarily, legal, on the seizure of Russian state property in Ukraine - http://pravoe-org.livejournal.com/521470.html
    Perhaps the most serious take over was a pipeline in Western Ukraine of the Russian state corporation "Transneft".

    Now, however, the situation has changed. Ukraine started seizing the property of the Russian oligarchs. The hype just increased in the last few days, especially on June 10 and 11, when it became clear that the Minsk-2 is going down the drain. Basically, the flood gates had opened.

    In the period from June 8 to 11 a process of requisition of property of the Russian oligarchs began in Ukraine. First of all, Oleg Deripaska lost (in favor of the state) the Zaporozhye Aluminum plant, and Viktor Vekselberg, with a combination of pressure from the Prosecutor's office and an armed takeover, is losing the Pobuzhsky Ferronikel plant.

    However, ukies honestly warned about such scenario by the raider №1 in Ukraine - Gennady Korban (a person close to "Benya" Kolomoisky [Korban is former deputy governor of Dnepropetrovsk region - KR], and Korban had the experience of seizing the Russian property in the pre-Maidan era). At the end of May, Korban announced his plan on how to repossess the Russian property:

    "Russian banks on the territory of Ukraine shall be confiscated in the first place. They can affect both the exchange rate and loan servicing and property of state corporations. Today a number of Ukrainian state corporations just service the enemy credits".

    "If these or other capitals, originating from Russia, are related to specific individuals, directly or indirectly involved in the funding or facilitating terrorism, separatism and the war in our country, then, on the basis of this law, their property on mainland Ukraine must be confiscated," - said Korban, and as an example, listed a number of large Ukrainian enterprises, owned by Russian oligarchs:

    • Nikolaev Alumina refinery and ZAlK [Zaporozhye Aluminum plant] of Oleg Deripaska
    • Pobujsky Ferronickel plant of Viktor Vekselberg
    • Coal coke enterprises, the "South" mine and Dnepropetrovsk Petrovsky metallurgical plant, belonging to the group "Evraz"
    • Purchased by VTB group, assets of the Industrial Union of Donbass
    http://dnpr.com.ua/content/korban-potreboval-konfiskovat-rossiyskie-banki-i-sobstvennost-rossiyskih-oligarhov

    Today, the "Cunning Plan of Korban", unlike the CPP [the Cunning Plan of Putin], is being implemented. Actively implemented. Here are the facts:

    First, nationalization

    On June 9, junta has completed the process of "nationalization" of Zaporozhye Aluminium plant: ZALK was adjudged from the holding "RUSAL" of Russian Oleg Deripaska. The controlling stake, which is 68.01% of the total number of shares was credited to the account of the State Property Fund of Ukraine. State raiding by the junta became possible after March 11, when the supreme court upheld the "legitimacy" of demands for the return of shares to the state due to the failure by the investor (Deripaska's holding company) to fulfill obligations (formally, the Russian "AVTOVAZ-Invest" and Cyprus company Velbay Holdings could not settle a debt). The official message of junta Prosecutor General can be found here: http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=157430

    It's also important to note that Korban's gang set its sights on ZALK since the end of last year:

    "In early November, the plant (ZALK) came under the cross-hairs of fighters of battalion "Aidar", the financing of which is connected to the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, Igor Kolomoisky. On the night of November 9, 2014 the fighters of Aydar barricaded themselves in the building of Zaporozhzhye Aluminium plant, allegedly "to prevent looting". Zaporozhye police had to aid in liberating the plant from the patriots.

    http://rian.com.ua/analytics/20141113/359497708.html

    But it was too rough, now they decided to maintain the facade of legitimacy.


    Second, revocation of licenses and liquidation


    On June 11, in the afternoon, the National Bank of Ukraine adopted the decision on revocation of the banking license and liquidation of "Energobank", according to the resolution of the board of the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU) No. 370, dated June 11.

    http://bank.gov.ua/control/uk/publish/article?art_id=18299746&cat_id=55838

    Formally "Energobank" is owned by a Russian businessman, Anatoly Danilitskiy. Previously, it belonged to the group of oligarch Alexander Lebedev, the one who likes to engage in publishing activity in London. However, two years ago information surfaced, that there is a written obligation of the new owner Anatoly Danilitsky on reissuance of shares of the bank to the "National Reserve Company" (NRK) of Lebedev. Thus, Danilitsky owns "Energobank" nominally, but the real owner is still Alexander Lebedev. Security services of Ukraine considered the bank a financial "wash" of the Russian oligarchs.

    http://sled.net.ua/kievskiy/energobank/kak/moyka/rossiyskogo/oligarkha/2013/06/02 )

    But now the bank is liquidated.

    Third, a take over with a shoot out

    June 11, in the evening. A capture of Pobujsky Ferronickel plant (PFC). This is the only enterprise in Ukraine and the former Soviet Union, producing ferronickel on an industrial scale from poor oxidized nickel ores. Located on the territory of Kirovograd region, on the border with Nikolaev region.

    Here is the sequence of events:

    1. In Golovanevsk district, Kirovograd region, at around 21:00 a group of armed men tried to enter the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant, at the moment they were negotiating with the administration, reported the head of the village council of Dolgaya Pristan of the Nikolaev region, Sergey Titarenko (this settlement is adjacent to the Kirovograd region). "About an hour ago armed men tried to enter the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant. Our town is a mile from the plant. We could hear shooting. At the moment there is information on negotiations between the invaders and the administration, " said Sergey Titarenko.

    In Pobuzhye, the village head, Sergey Slobodyanyuk explained: "Even this morning the representatives of the prosecutor and tax authorities of Kirovograd region, accompanied by the detachment of police, tried to enter the territory of the enterprise, but only a tax investigator went into the plant. At 9 p.m. about 50 people with guns in black uniforms arrived on buses. They failed to get inside, facing resistance from the staff and the guards. Meanwhile, armed men accompanied the man, who declared that according to the decision of the court, he is the new owner of the Ferronickel plant", - said Sergey Slobodyanyuk. He also added that tomorrow morning, to avoid bloodshed a meeting for the employees, the current administration and the alleged new owner of the enterprise will be held in Pobuzhye House of Culture to determine the fate of the plant.

    http://nikvesti.com/news/incidents/70619

    2. In the evening, at a press conference in Kiev, the CEO of the Pobuzhsky Ferronickel plant, Oleg Bespalov has informed that on June 11, unknown persons were trying to block the products of Pobujsky Ferronickel plant in Kirovograd region, the investor of which is Solway Investment Group:

    "Actions by unknown persons to block the import of a large batch of nickel ore and ferronickel and the prosecutor's office of Kirovograd region conducting simultaneous search actions, we consider as an attempt of illegal seizure of the property of the group"

    Deputy director of the PFC on legal affairs, Rustam Dzhamgurov, in turn added that accusations towards PFC are absurd, because PFC provides processing services and does not produce the product, and added that enforcement proceedings opened against PFC were opened due to a claim of a physical person, who has no relation to the company. Dzhamgurov clarified that this individual has never appeared in court and did not provide explanatory materials on the case:

    "In this case we are talking about an organized judicial arbitrariness and lawlessness ... 72 thousand tonnes of ore and 7 thousand tons of ferronickel were arrested. The company is carrying huge losses."

    http://comments.ua/politics/517228-rukovodstvo-pfk-zayavilo-zahvate.html

    3. The products of PFC are shipped through the port of Ilyichevsk, and there it was detained. (Ilyichevsk - is Odessa region, where Saakashvili is now governor). It is important that on June 8 a scandal was raised claiming the products of PFC are used for defense purposes and are illegally shipped to Russia:

    "Press service (of the port) stated that on Monday, June 8, false information was circulated about the alleged illegal shipment of ferronickel products used in the defense industry, in particular, in the production of alloy steel for armored vehicles. At the port this media campaign to discredit the head of the enterprise, Yury Kruk, was connected to the search for the position of director of the Ilyichevsk Commercial Sea Port, conducted by the Ministry of Infrastructure. On June 8, some online media, indeed, reported that allegedly the arrested batch of 7 thousand tons of ferronickel was being loaded on the ship "Seldonis" at terminal 4 of Pier 18 of the Ilyichevsk port. ... The shipment of ferronickel is allegedly owned by "Bowring Trading", and it was going to be transported to Russia."

    http://www.04868.com.ua/article/851529

    Oh, and by the way, who is watching TV? Is there anything on Russia-24 or the Channel 1 on the an armed seizure of a Ferronickel plant, which essentially belongs to Russian investors? And on the liquidation of a Russian Bank? Nothing? Let's pretend, it's not ours?... Oh, well...

    And more. Such an attack on the property of the Russian oligarchs (Deripaska, and most importantly, Vekselberg, and the attack will likely continue) is going on with the full support of the state - Prosecutor General. Therefore, it is planned. Consequently, it's a part of a master plan. A plan of pressure on their property, in addition to the sanctions of the West against Russia, which were largely intended to cause discontent in the Russian oligarchy. Today, yesterday, the day before yesterday a second front was opened in this direction.

    [Jun 12, 2015] American Congress bullish on stoking Ukrainian civil war

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    yalensis, June 12, 2015 at 4:20 pm

    American Congress bullish on stoking Ukrainian civil war.
    marknesop, June 12, 2015 at 5:18 pm
    "The push by lawmakers to arm Ukraine's beleaguered armed forces threatens to open a rift between the United States and key allies, especially Germany and France, at a time when the Obama administration has been working to demonstrate unified support for extending European economic sanctions against Russia that are scheduled to expire at the end of July."

    In what way are Ukraine's armed forces "beleaguered"? The word means "besieged, under siege, blockaded, surrounded, encircled, beset, hemmed in, under attack". In fact, it is the eastern regions they are attacking which are blockaded and under siege. Before the war it was a net exporter of weaponry. "Arming Ukraine" would just be the thin edge of the wedge; then it would transpire – when the state still did not manage to get the business done – that Ukraine needed "more help". In retrospect it was clever planning that the only air component is Ukrainian, because the No-Fly Zone is a tried and true vector for mission creep. The Ukrainian armed forces in fact has no military victories to its credit at all unless you count Slaviansk, and its modus operandi is parking outside city limits and shelling the city day in and day out. Dead accurate, too; a city is hard to miss with artillery.

    If the shoe were on the other foot, though, and a rebel army was shelling Kiev, the screaming and wailing from the western media, the "Oh, the Humanity!!!" pieces, would be something to behold. Then every western journalist would be as conversant with international humanitarian law as they are with a street map of their home town.

    Fern , June 12, 2015 at 7:33 pm
    Seems Ukraine and the US have got some sort of bizarre exchange programme going on. While Washington has been hosting Yatsenyuk (whose visit could be summed up by endless reiterations of 'Russian aggression blah, blah', interspersed with the occasional 'gimme me the money'), Kiev has been honoured by a visit from none other than Samantha Power, yes, Ms Responsibility to Protect (but not folk living in the Donbas).

    "Power maintains a crass double standard where the crimes of US allies are concerned (to say nothing of the crimes of US imperialism itself in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries). She has shown no outrage over mass slaughters by Israel in Gaza or by Egyptian military dictator al-Sisi, and she supports the ongoing campaign of starvation and bombing by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

    Even by these standards, Power's speech in Kiev Thursday was remarkable for its duplicity and hypocrisy. She denounced as "myths" the well-grounded contention of Russian officials that "the Maidan protesters were pawns of the West," and that "Euromaidan had been engineered by Western capitals in order to topple a democratically-elected government."……

    Power declared that the Maidan movement was directed against "the concentration of power in the hands of a few oligarchs," while avoiding any mention of the Ukrainian president who came to power as a consequence: billionaire Petro Poroshenko, known as the "chocolate king," who personifies the corrupt oligarchy whose grip on Ukraine has only been strengthened.

    Turning to the current political crisis in Ukraine, provoked by massive cuts in social spending and living standards demanded by the country's creditors, including the IMF, EU and United States, Power declared that this was the fulfillment of the Maidan movement of 2013-2014. "It is about moving from demanding change to actually making change," she declared. "You are still living in the revolution."

    Thousands dead in the East, many thousands more injured, many with life-changing conditions like amputations, a million plus refugees, massive destruction of property, an economy in the toilet, people all over Ukraine struggling to cope with declining incomes and ever-increasing prices and they're "still living in the revolution"? The western political class is just irredeemably depraved.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/human-rights-imperialism-in-ukraine/5455253

    [Jun 11, 2015] Thrown under a bus?

    Moscow Exile , June 11, 2015 at 11:36 am
    Karlin:

    Novorossiya Sitrep June 5, 2015

    The plan now, as it has been since April 2014, is to federalize Ukraine through the Minsk process, guaranteeing the East wide autonomy which would serve to complicate Ukraine's integration with the EU and make NATO membership essentially impossible. Like it or not, but Novorossiya is superfluous to this. This is not a "victory," but nor is it a betrayal. It's an acknowledgement of today's realities.

    Thrown under a bus?

    [Jun 11, 2015] For all the conspiracy theorist fruitcakes, it really does still matter which side of the bread is buttered

    et Al, June 11, 2015 at 9:23 am
    You didn't get him mixed up with the Chief Rabbit of Ukraine per chance?

    Thanks for that though.

    I'm not surprised by the paranoia, but what is evident is that he lacks political nous. When the shit gets funky, European Jews usually go schtum and head for the nearest bunker, something which is entirely the opposite habit in the US. The only open comments that I have heard was when Kiev was being accused of being russophobic and anti-semitic, Kiev's response was to have (probably the same guy) say it isn't true, which of course he would say, otherwise he would be considered a traitor and thus a target.

    Either way, Ukrainian banderites have all had their media training drummed in to them and have stopped openly saying anything anti-semitic in public so as not to embarrass their western sponsors who continue to peddle that Kiev is all milk and honey.

    The same happened during the Balkans wars where Zagreb & Sarajevo were protected despite the antisemitism & Holocaust revisionism of Tudjman and the World War II record of Izetbegovic and his Islamic Declaration. Tudjman even got invited to the inaugural opening of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum (Jews were never ignorant of who did what during WWI in the Balkans) yet the silence from the top Jews in the US about this was deafening, some even openly siding with the administration (thanks also to PR firm Rudder-Finn) – was somewhat confusing for the rank an file who knew better.

    So, for all the conspiracy theorist fruitcakes, it really does still matter which side of the bread is buttered. If you don't agree with state policy or won't publicly go along with it, STFU. It's not a request. You also saw this difference clearly between Israel & the US, with Israel being staunchly pro-Serb and helping out.

    [Jun 10, 2015] Paul Krugman Fighting the Derp\

    "..."Derp" is a term borrowed from the cartoon "South Park"...: people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much evidence accumulates that it's completely wrong. ..."
    Jun 8, 2015 | Economist's View

    Paul Krugman: Fighting the Derp

    "How can you protect yourself against derpitude?":
    Fighting the Derp, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: When it comes to economics - and other subjects, but I'll focus on what I know best - we live in an age of derp and cheap cynicism. ...

    What am I talking about here? "Derp" is a term borrowed from the cartoon "South Park"...: people who keep saying the same thing no matter how much evidence accumulates that it's completely wrong. ...

    And there's a lot of derp out there. Inflation derp, in particular, has become more or less a required position among Republicans. ... And that tells you why derp abides: it's basically political. ...

    Still, doesn't everyone do this? No... There's also plenty of genuine, honest analysis out there - and you don't have to be a technical expert to tell the difference.

    I've already mentioned one telltale sign of derp: predictions that just keep being repeated no matter how wrong they've been in the past. Another sign is the never-changing policy prescription, like the assertion that slashing tax rates on the wealthy, which you advocate all the time, just so happens to also be the perfect response to a financial crisis nobody expected.

    Yet another is a call for long-term responses to short-term events – for example, a permanent downsizing of government in response to a recession. ...

    So ... how can you ... protect yourself against derpitude? The first line of defense, I'd argue, is to always be suspicious of people telling you what you want to hear.

    Thus, if you're a conservative opposed to a stronger safety net, you should be extra skeptical about claims that health reform is about to crash and burn, especially coming from people who made the same prediction last year and the year before (Obamacare derp runs almost as deep as inflation derp).

    But if you're a liberal who believes that we should reduce inequality, you should similarly be cautious about studies purporting to show that inequality is responsible for many of our economic ills, from slow growth to financial instability. Those studies might be correct - the fact is that there's less derp on America's left than there is on the right - but you nonetheless need to fight the temptation to let political convenience dictate your beliefs.

    Fighting the derp can be hard, not least because it can upset friends who want to be reassured in their beliefs. But you should do it anyway: it's your civic duty.

    anne said...

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/i-do-not-think-that-derp-means-what-you-think-it-means/

    June 8, 2015

    I Do Not Think That Derp Means What You Think It Means
    By Paul Krugman

    Continuing on the theme of derp in policy discourse: * Vox coincidentally has a post ** about Hillary Clinton's proposal for automatic voter registration noting that signing up less informed voters isn't necessarily a bad thing, because "informed" voters mainly seem to be informed about the party line. In effect, they know which derp they're supposed to repeat.

    Indeed, regular viewers of Fox are worse at answering simple questions about reality than people who watch no news at all.

    Meanwhile, however, I'm getting a lot of people saying "Oh yeah? You do derp more than anyone!"

    No, I don't. You may believe that I am evil or stupid, or evil andstupid. But derp means something specific: it means always saying the same thing, regardless of circumstances, and regardless of past errors. Declaring that the Federal Reserve's policies are going to cause hyperinflation, year after year, when it keeps not happening is derp. Declaring that we need aggressive fiscal and monetary expansion when the economy is depressed isn't. It's not an invariant claim - in fact, I get accused (stupidly) of some kind of inconsistency because I thought deficits were bad under Bush but good under Obama. And it's not a prediction that has repeatedly proved false.

    What the accusers really mean here is that I keep saying things they dislike and dispute. But that's not derp, that's just disagreement. There's a difference, and only the derpy fail to grasp that difference.

    * http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/paul-krugman-fighting-the-derp.html

    ** http://www.vox.com/2015/6/8/8740897/informed-voters-may-not-be-better-voters

    Peter K. said in to EMichael... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 09:14 AM
    It's a lefty version of Republican derp. They know Obummer is a centrist sellout, ergo Obamacare is bad.

    I just think the stats speak for themselves and will so increasingly as times go by.

    With inflation and monetary policy, the derp is strong even on the left. It's harder to argue conclusively about macro which is why it's so vulnerable to derp.

    Brian said in to DrDick... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 11:57 AM

    The president who protected the culprits who made the 2008 banking crash is center-left? The president who then protected the felonies of robo-signing is center-left? The president whose policy caused the destruction of half of black American net worth is center-left? The president who prosecuted more whistleblowers more aggressively than any in history is center-left?

    The president who continues to maintain classified state secret status of a trade treaty that he is pushing through Congress is center-left?

    This is not a center-left administration.

    pgl said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 10:27 AM

    Dean Baker on the Deflation Cultists at the NYTimes:

    http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/deflation-nonsense-in-nyt

    It starts with our something our gold bug cultist (JohnH) should read:

    It is amazing how economic reporters continue to repeat nonsense about deflation. As fans of arithmetic and logic everywhere know, deflation is bad for the same reason a lower rate of inflation is bad. It raises the real interest rate at a time when we want a lower real interest rate and it increases the real value of debt when we want to see the real value of debt reduced. (The real interest rate is the nominal interest minus the inflation rate.)

    JohnH said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 10:49 AM
    Well, I finally caught pgl in a lie. He has not read Piketty! If he had read Piketty he would understand what he said about inflation. It's all over the book.

    Piketty said, "inflation in France and Germany averaged 13 and 17 percent a year, respectively, from 1913 to 1950. It was inflation that allowed both countries to embark on reconstruction efforts of the 1950s with a very small burden of public debt," (because they had effectively eliminated the public debt via inflation.)

    Regarding Britain, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the British monarchy chose to borrow without limit to finance wars. "it would take a century of budget surpluses to gradually reduce Britain's debt to under 30 percent of national income in the 1910s."

    During the 20th century "in Britain, things were done differently [from France and Germany:] more slowly and with less passion. Between 1913 and 1950, the average rate of inflation was a little more than 3 percent a year...Britain was fully mobilized to pay for the war effort without undue dependence on the printing press, with the result that by 1950 the country found itself saddled with a colossal debt, more than 200 percent of GDP, even higher than in 1815. Only with the inflation of the 1950s (more than 4 percent a year) and above all of the 1970s (nearly 15 percent a year) did Britain's debt fall to around 50 percent of GDP." This experience helps explain why British politicians are more sensitive to a high structural deficit (5.7% of GDP) than liberal economists, who could care less about such things.

    pgl (and many liberal economists) think that massive debt levels are a free lunch, and that there are no consequences! However, as interest rates, as eventually they must, and governments must roll over debts, debt service impinges on the government budget, necessitating increases in taxes or decreases in investments and services. Alternatively, governments can choose to just inflate away their debts, as France and Germany did, something that liberal economists do not seem to particularly concerned about, despite the adverse impact on significant portions of society.

    JohnH said in to JohnH... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 02:47 PM
    correction: "as interest rates rise, as inevitably they must..."
    JohnH said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 05:58 PM
    And just what did pgl see in Piketty? Surely not that France and Germany used it to wipe out the public debt. And surely not that Britain soldiered 25 years under the burden of its public debt after WWII rather than resorting to inflation.

    I guess pgl conveniently skimmed over a lot of things that he disagreed with, even though this was repeated several times in the book.

    pgl said in to JohnH... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 07:18 PM
    "Only with the inflation of the 1950s (more than 4 percent a year) and above all of the 1970s (nearly 15 percent a year) did Britain's debt fall to around 50 percent of GDP."

    This is funny because you earlier said the UK did not use inflation to lower its public debt. I and Anne noted that its inflation rate since 1955 has been higher than that of France, Germany, and the UK. And Piketty notes it was high too.

    Do make up your mind someday - please. Every one has noticed how much your fact free rants contradict each other. It is getting really embarrassing.

    pgl said in to JohnH... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 06:01 PM
    JohnH has figured out that there was a lot of inflation in Germany between World War I and World War II. Wow! The economic issues for the Weimer Republic have been long discussed. The Treaty of Versailles and its war reparations was the subject of Keynes first important thesis, which has been widely discussed but I guess JohnH missed that discussion and its importance for the Greek situation. It was this issue that the government used as its excuse for excessive monetary growth and the resulting hyperinflation. But that ended and the 1924-1929 Golden Era followed. I guess JohnH missed that too.

    But the real crisis – which is what led to Hitler displacing this regime – was when they listened to gold bug idiots like JohnH, PeterK has reminded us of Brüning's policy of deflation which led to a massive recession. I guess JohnH has chosen to ignore this. But Piketty noted in his book. Funny that JohnH never mentions the disaster that listening to his gold bug stupidity led to.

    JohnH said in to pgl... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 06:24 PM
    pgl still thinks that high public debt is a free lunch...I mean, what could go wrong? The experiences of Germany, France and Britain mean nothing to him.

    Now, pgl, can you tell me exactly why Piketty doesn't like inflation? And can you tell me the only thing that Piketty thinks is worse than inflation?

    Now we'll see if pgl has read Piketty, as he claims.

    Sandwichman said... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 07:21 PM
    "But if you're a liberal who believes that we should reduce inequality, you should similarly be cautious about studies purporting to show that inequality is responsible for many of our economic ills, from slow growth to financial instability."

    Following up on that point, Sandwichman has a comment on Dean Baker's response to Krugman's blog post, "Musings on Inequality and Growth"

    "Inequality, Growth and Leisure"

    http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2015/06/inequality-growth-and-leisure.html

    In response to musings by Paul Krugman on inequality and growth, Dean Baker asks whether taking more of the benefits in leisure time might skew the appearance of the data. That is to say if the value of leisure wasn't excluded from GDP, those countries that took more leisure -- and, incidentally, are relatively more equal -- would have higher growth rates.

    Ironically, Dean doesn't have the time just now to check that one out. Sandwichman has time but not Dean's virtuosity with data.

    As Krugman argues, "there just isn't a striking, simple relationship between inequality and growth; all the results depend on doing fairly elaborate data massaging..." There isn't a striking result to be had from the data for a good reason. There isn't a single relationship in the underlying reality. The results are also constrained by what questions are being asked.

    The presumptive question seems to be whether inequality is good or bad for growth. Is that the only question worth asking? Is it the best question? Dean framed his question about leisure as a supplement. He remarks, mock apologetically, "there is nothing wrong with taking the benefits of higher productivity in the form of leisure rather than income."

    Wanna bet?

    There must indeed be "something wrong" with taking the benefits of higher productivity as leisure. Otherwise, why would economists echo, decade after decade, the lump-of-labor refrain against the "fallacy" of reducing working time? If there really was nothing wrong with taking the benefits of productivity as leisure, then, hey presto, that boilerplate injunction would be superfluous -- inappropriate, even.

    Are economists ignoring the obvious?

    Sixty years ago, Simon Kuznets -- who won the Sveriges Bank ("Nobel") Prize for his pioneering work in national income accounting -- was puzzled by his finding that for a limited sample of industrially-advanced countries, inequality didn't increase with growth. He was puzzled, in part, because ceteris paribus, "the cumulative effect of such inequality in savings would be the concentration of an increasing proportion of income-yielding assets in the hands of the upper groups." This was the famous inverted "U"-shaped Kuznets curve. Subsequent research by Thomas Piketty has shown the curve to be an anomalous statistical artifact of the periodization and country selection.

    There are a multitude of factors that could explain the Kuznets curve anomaly and it is doubtful that knot could ever be untangled. But let me suggest a factor candidate. The period in which the Kuznets curve prevailed was the period in which the eight-hour day became standardized in the industrially-advanced countries. Instead of looking exclusively at the relationship between growth and inequality, might there not be greater insight gained from investigating the triad of growth, inequality and leisure?

    anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:15 PM
    http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/krugman-inequality-and-growth

    June 8, 2015

    Krugman, Inequality, and Growth

    Paul Krugman questions * whether there is an existence of positive relationship between equality and growth. He rightly cautions those on the left against being too quick to accept the existence of such a relationship.

    He uses a simple graph showing the relationship between inequality and growth per working age person in the years 1985 to 2007. His takeaway is that there is not much a positive relationship, but there clearly is no negative relationship between equality in growth. In other words, the people who are that we need to have more inequality to support stronger growth have a hard case to make using this simple comparison.

    I would suggest taking the analysis one step further. One big difference between countries over this period is the extent to which they opted to take the benefits from growth in more leisure time. There are large differences in the decline in the length of the average work year across countries.

    Using the OECD data ** (which is not perfect for international comparisons) we find that relatively equal France saw a decline in average work hours of 10.2 percent over this period. Denmark had a decline of 5.3 percent, and West Germany had a drop of 15.9 percent. These would translate into annual increases in GDP per potential work hour of 0.5, 0.2, and 0.8 percentage points, respectively.

    By contrast, in the relatively unequal U.K. the drop in average hours was 4.7 percent, in Canada 3.1 percent, and in the U.S. 2.2 percent. These translates in gains in annual GDP per potential hour worked of 0.2, 0.1, and 0.1 percentage points, respectively.

    Would looking at GDP per potential hour worked strengthen the positive correlation between equality and growth? I don't have time to check that one just now, but a quick eyeballing of the data suggests that it is possible. This still would not be conclusive evidence that equality is good for growth, but it would be interesting. And, it is an important reminder that there is nothing wrong with taking the benefits of higher productivity in the form of leisure rather than income. The planet will thank you for it.

    * http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/musings-on-inequality-and-growth/

    ** https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

    -- Dean Baker

    anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:27 PM
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/musings-on-inequality-and-growth/

    June 8, 2015

    Musings on Inequality and Growth
    By Paul Krugman

    I've been using the case of research on inequality and growth as an example of an issue where liberals need to be careful not to let wishful thinking drive their conclusions; it would fit perfectly with our world view if inequality were not just a bad thing but also bad for the economy, which is a reason to bend over backwards to avoid accepting that conclusion too easily. But what do we really know?

    Well, there have been a number of studies that seem to find a negative relationship, all based on some kind of international cross-section approach (some with time-series aspects too). So what is my problem? In general, I have doubts about the whole growth regression methodology, which has lots of problems in identifying causation (remember, that's the methodology behind the Reinhart-Rogoff debt-threshold paper). Beyond that, there just isn't a striking, simple relationship between inequality and growth; all the results depend on doing fairly elaborate data massaging, which might be right but might also be teasing out a relationship that isn't really there.

    Let me give you a picture showing what I think we know. It compares inequality with growth; I've made some data choices that others may wish to do differently, so let me explain those details. First, instead of raw Ginis I use the new Gornick-Milanovic numbers * for households without members over 60. Second, I measure growth in real GDP per working-age adult (15-64), because raw GDP per capita is significantly affected by demographic divergence. Third, I look at the period 1985-2007 - essentially, the Great Moderation - because I'm not talking about macroeconomic policy. Oh, and finally I exclude both transition economies (which went from Communist to very poor capitalist circa 1990, and have very different stories) and Ireland, which grew so fast that it's hard to see anything else.

    Here's what I get:

    [Growth in GDP per working-age adult, 1985-2007]

    If you squint, maybe you see a very slight negative relationship here (R-squared of 0.02, if you care), but it's not much. Basically, there isn't much difference in growth rates overall; the low-inequality northern Europeans have a range of outcomes not noticeably different from the high-inequality Anglo-Saxons.

    I might also note that low inequality is no protection against financial crisis - the Nordics had some major ones in the early 1990s. Also Denmark and the Netherlands have very high levels of household debt.

    It's important to realize that the absence of any clear relationship is a big win for progressives: right-wingers always claim that any attempt to reduce inequality will hurt the feelings of job creators and kill growth, but there's not a hint of that problem in the data. But not much evidence that failure to reduce inequality kills growth, either. And I personally am making an effort not to be greedy - not to claim that a drive against inequality, which I view as crucially important for social and political reasons, is also the cure for lots of other things.

    * http://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/LIS-Center-Research-Brief-1-2015.pdf?ext=.pdf

    anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:28 PM
    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1dLF

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland, 1985-2007

    (Percent change)

    anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:31 PM
    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1dLH

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States, United Kingdom, Germany and France, 1985-2007

    (Percent change)

    anne said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:32 PM
    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1dLL

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece, 1985-2007

    (Percent change)

    Dorian Cole said... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:32 PM
    There have been a number of studies done on this, including the fact that arguing with "Derps" makes them go to ridiculous logical extremes to justify their beliefs. It's counterproductive to argue with them. I cover this in this article:

    http://onespiritresources.com/articles/influence.php

    Sandwichman said in to Dorian Cole... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:27 PM
    Yes, there is no chance of persuading with facts someone whose mind is made up. One would have a better chance with a fence post. The only point to such an argument is for the sake of the spectators -- if there is an undecided audience.
    EMichael said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:46 PM

    I much prefer liberal applications of prozac and/or a baseball bat to those people. Far more effective than a fence post. And in the case of the drug they may actually become human.

    EMichael said in to Sandwichman... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 01:15 PM

    Ohh,

    And you can get a better grip on a baseball bat. Bat speed is real important in this area.

    Sandwichman said in to EMichael... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 12:57 PM
    Not to mention the splinters you get from fence posts!
    Sandwichman said in to Dorian Cole... Monday, June 08, 2015 at 01:45 PM

    See also: "Why We Ignore the Obvious: The Psychology of Willful Blindness"

    http://www.brainpickings.org/2014/08/27/willful-blindness-margaret-heffernan

    [Jun 10, 2015]Pope Francis urged to take tougher stance against Vladimir Putin

    "...A fantastic bit of writing irrelevance based on hearsay and speculation as non important filler to shape opinion. God against Putin is the message, well done Guardian, following orders again, brown nosing in case those nasty GCHQ people will come and threaten you again. "
    .
    "...The headline does not read 'Pontiff Meeting with Putin', which would confirm that Russia is not as isolated as the Guardian would want, but 'Pope Urged to Take Stance against Putin' which confirms the Guardians prejudice on all issues Russian."
    .
    "...Some one clearly earning their Agent of influence bonus."
    .
    "...Since the US has the EU firmly under its heel it's now moving on to bullying the Pope to further the geopolitical goals of American hegemony? No doubt they threatened to sanction the Pope if he doesn't fall into line."
    .
    "...Just another US stupidity. Hasn`t anyone the peace-nobel-prize-drone`s administration how much Yanks are hated in South and Central America? Especially Argentina has suffered a lot because of the US initiated coups and military goverments. ALL juntas, the one here in La Paz as well, were run by the American Embassies. A lot of priests were tortured and killed as well. Hugo Chavez once said, that the only goverment in the Western Hemisphere which doesn`t have to worry about a coup is the one in the USA, because there is no American Embassy in Washington."
    .
    "...Many bureaucrats and politicians in the U.S. want to restart the Cold War with Russia as a means of keeping the bloated U.S. military-industrial budget intact. Pope Francis appears to be an impediment in this effort, as he is talking to everyone with some weird Christian notion about making peace with one's enemies - he must be a communist, right?"
    .
    "...Hopefully, the Pope is intelligent enough to understand that the Ukraine crisis was provoked by the US-backed removal of a democratically elected government. What has happened subsequently in the country is the result of the coup. Moreover, behind the US backing for the coup, is its desire to continue NATO's expansion on Russia's western border. Too many people today are confusing the original action, i.e. the coup, with the reaction!"
    .
    "...The fact that the Pope elected to meet Putin means that he is completely disregarding the ugly and meaningless blather coming from the neocon/neoliberal/neoevangelical/neofascist quarters and is guided by the divine wisdom alone. Clearly, the neoconservatism has lost its global mojo and is now reduced to vile global intrigue and worse."
    .
    "...When is Vatican going to start the process of excommunication of the pious catholic Tony Blair, a self-serving politician that made the UK join the US in the illegal wars in the Middle East? Hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, including children and pregnant women. Hundreds of thousands became handicapped. Millions are displaced. The western atrocities and politicking in ME have created a monster of ISIS. Where is the voice of Church? Vatican is amazingly lenient towards the war criminal."
    .
    "...Well, whataya want: the Pope gets his daily news and instructions directly from God, while the others get it from the US embassy."
    Jun 10, 2015 | The Guardian

    Elena Hodgson 10 Jun 2015 14:53

    The title of the article is very misleading. "Pope Francis WAS urged (by Hackett -surprise, surprise!) to take tougher stance against Vladimir Putin". I am worried about the fact that the relationship between the US and Russia are back to the hostility level of the pre-Gorbachev era of Cold War, but without the red lines that had been understood between the United States and the USSR. The communication lines are not in place any more either, and any accident could easily escalate into Hot War, and then we are all toast...Nice of Obama to take the Global Warming seriously, but what about the threat of Global Nuclear Annihilation???

    RayJosephCormier Roger Tidy 10 Jun 2015 14:50

    One of the 1st acts of the new Coup Leaders was to pass legislation removing Russian as an Official Language in Ukraine, as it always had been up to that point in the majority Russian speaking Eastern parts of Ukraine closest to Russia.

    I expect other Western Leaders got to the new "appointed President" to have him VETO the legislation. But it was too late to put the genie back in the bottle!

    That singular action by the new Coup Leaders caused the rebellion more than anything else. That happened before Russia re-claimed Crimea before the Americans got control in Ukraine.

    Nolens 10 Jun 2015 14:49

    It's Pope Francis task to be a mediator. He will not be stopped by instructions from whatever corner. It's also important that Orthodox Christians and Catholics (like myself)keep on speaking terms.

    That doesn't mean the Pontiff should not address the situation in the Ukraine and appeal to Russia to seek peace, truth and justice. In my opinion Russia is threatening the sovereignty of the Ukraine and is waging war by proxy but the EU and the US have also share the responsibility for this awful bloody conflict as it acted in a dangerous and irresponsible way by meddling in the internal affairs of the Ukraine by supporting the removal of the elected president.

    Maybe i'm naive but I really would like to see the EU, the Ukraine and Russia sit together and try to make a peace deal. I would prefer a deal where the Crimea is officially handed over to Russia and the Eastern oblasts remains an integral part of the Ukraine with safeguards for the Russian speaking population. The severe issue of the MH17 should also be on the agenda. It must be absolutely clear who was responsible. So, all the crimes committed in the Ukraine by whatever side should be addressed including the downing of flight MH17. Like South-Africa and Northern Ireland a truth and reconciliation commission could clear what was done and by whom. This will also mean that those responsible will be brought to justice but will not serve any jail time as it only would lead to another conflict. A UN force assembled from Asian and South-American nations like Thailand and Brazil could keep the peace.


    TiredOfBS_2015 chulumani 10 Jun 2015 14:41

    Especially Argentina has suffered a lot because of the US initiated coups and military governments.
    --
    Ah, they've moved far beyond that... introduced themselves in Ukraine now.
    Different continent, you know..

    EightEyedSpy nishville 10 Jun 2015 14:37

    My respect for Pope Francis would grow if he ordered the RCC in the US not to claim tax-exempt status on the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in revenue the RCC generates in the US, including by ownership of residential and commercial rental properties.

    Did you know the RCC is one of, if not the, biggest, property owners in NYC?

    Roger Tidy Cedrins 10 Jun 2015 14:36

    Let's not forget that the Ukraine is in crisis now because of AMERICAN interference, i.e. Washington's support for the Kiev coup against a democratically elected government. Without that coup, there would have been no rebellion by the people in the east of the country and no threat to Russia's lawful military presence in Crimea. Russia, with the overwhelming backing of Crimea's predominantly Russian population, had to act to ensure the continuation of Crimea as a base for its fleet and to prevent the further provocative expansion of NATO on its borders. It could all have been so different if, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO had been abolished at the same time as the Warsaw Pact.


    RayJosephCormier Cedrins 10 Jun 2015 14:33

    And the US has overturned Democracies and installed, armed and supported many proxy Dictators. The US has no problems with Dictatorships as long as they are friendly to US Business interests.

    He who is without sin cast the 1st stone applies to Nations and Individuals.

    Since WWII, the US has invaded and bombed only poor, backward, undeveloped, 3rd world Nations.

    In a display of Divine Justice, most often the US ran away with their tails between their legs, not able to get out fast enough. That's why they use remote controlled drones to attack people without indoor plumbing or electricity for the most part. There are still those Americans who maintain the US could "win" if they were more brutal in terrorizing the people, dropping more bombs, Death and Destruction on them. The US is the only Nation to burn people alive in the other, never discussed, nuclear holocaust of WWII.


    ID9492736 Cedrins 10 Jun 2015 14:24

    Who says that Serbia "lost its rights" on its territory and sovereignty? . United Nations Security Council certainly did not (au contraire, UNSC resolution 1244 specifically says otherwise). United Nations General Assembly did not. The International Court of Justice did not. Nobody but Bill and Hillary Clinton said so.

    And how is Serbia's "barbaric" (sic) behavior, which killer some 1,200 islamic terrorists on its own soil any worse than the wholesale slaughter of nearly a million of Iraqi and more than quarter million Aghan civilians?

    There are no brutal tyrants in Serbia. The country is an open, transparent and democratic society and a recognized regional ally of both US and Russia. If you don't believe me, ask the State Department.


    sensitivepirate 10 Jun 2015 14:13

    With regard to Putin, the US wants to destabilize Russia and hopefully move in and grab the vast resources of the RF. The first and major goal is to remove Crimea from Russian control.

    Going back a year and a half, in preparing the program for the overthrow of Yanukovich, the US Dept. of Defense had fully developed plans, timetables, and logistics, and blueprints were drawn up for new US military bases, air fields, and ports in Crimea. These plans were in 'ready mode' and included the immediate cancellation of lease agreements between the RF and Ukraine, and of course it included the immediate removal of the Russian fleet from Crimea.

    The US Dept. of Defense is frustrated that their massive preparations for Crimea could not be immediately implemented. It has lost its strategic plan to build a ready-military force for clandestine incursions into Turkey, Syria, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Belarus, Lebanon, Gaza, etc.. This was the biggest prize in the plan to overthrow the government of Ukraine.

    Everything is on hold until Crimea is extricated from Russia, and the US now is begging Pope Francis to help it in destabilizing Russia.


    Botswana61 Solongmariane 10 Jun 2015 14:11

    Indeed, USA supporting Maggie Thatcher's operation in the Falklands and supplying British troops with the actionable info through its recon sats.

    With Argentina being today a veritable economic basket case.
    [2nd only to Greece]


    MahsaKaerra kowalli 10 Jun 2015 13:59

    Oh that one. Translated as "Kiev holds Russia responsible for the violation of any articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in the area of ​​the ATO".

    Meaning Ukraine isn't going to enforce ECHR decisions on territory over which it has no control.

    If you ask Slovenia to make such decisions on Italian territory you will get the same answer. OMG, Slovenia is quitting the ECHR!!!1!

    foolisholdman 10 Jun 2015 13:43

    Kenneth Hackett, the US ambassador to the Holy See, said the Vatican "could say more about concerns on territorial integrity".

    Another US "statesman" who does not see the irony of what he is saying! Is he blissfully unaware of how many countries the USA has violated the "territorial integrity" of ? Does he want the Pope to criticise all countries that violate other countries' territorial integrity Or does it only apply to Russia?

    Oh! Silly me!! Of course it is all right for The USA to violate other countries' territorial integrity, because they are exceptional !!! How could I forget?

    geedeesee EightEyedSpy

    Well, I've read extensively about the period in question to understand the circumstances as Nazism developed, and though while reading different books I wasn't looking exclusively for the views of the pope of the day, I did have an appreciation of the decline in the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Vatican. Though your comments didn't ring true , I have checked with my books and they've confirmed my understanding.

    Not only did the Pope write several protests against the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1936, he also delivered three papal encyclicals challenging the new creeds: against Italian Fascism Non abbiamo bisogno (1931; 'We do not need (to acquaint you)'); against Nazism "Mit brennender Sorge" (1937; 'With deep concern') and against atheist Communist Divini redemptoris (1937; 'Divine Redeemer'). He also challenged the extremist nationalism of the Action Française movement and anti-Semitism in the United States.

    'Mit brennender SorgeIt' concerned Nazi Germany. It condemned "pantheistic confusion", "neopaganism",and "the so-called myth of race and blood", and the idolising of the State.

    To ensure it had the maximum effect, he had it translated into German and copies smuggled into Nazi Germany so that they be secretly printed and distributed to all the Catholic churches of Germany for reading from the pulpits Catholic parishes on Palm Sunday throughout the country in 1937.

    The Nazis saw it as "a call to battle against the Reich", and Hitler was furious after it happened and "vowed revenge against the Church". Churches were raided across the country and hundreds of priests arrested. The Catholic church were seen as the major resistance and opposition to the nazi regime at the time.

    Over the years until the outbreak of war Catholic resistance stiffened until finally its most eminent spokesman was the Pope himself with his encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge' ... of 14 March 1937, read from all German Catholic pulpits... In general terms, therefore, the churches were the only major organisations to offer comparatively early and open resistance: they remained so in later years.

    Extract from 'The History of the German Resistance 1933–1945' by Peter Hoffmann.

    Once again you reveal your tendency to chip-in with your own version of history, disregarding what actually happened, due either to your ignorance or malevolence. In other words, you've been caught out again.

    Michael West Joe King 10 Jun 2015 13:21

    Again, this is another biased comment from you. Are you even from America?

    The U.S. is one of the least religious countries on this planet. In fact, atheism is the fastest growing demographic in the U.S. today.

    More than 20% of Americans have "no faith".

    Here is a Guardian article about the rise of atheism in America.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/01/atheism-america-religious-right

    Here is another Guardian article about the rapid rise of atheist churches in America.

    As for Fox News, it is not a religious channel. Fox has a weekly libertarian show hosted by John Stossel where he talks about legalizing drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, and polygamy.

    Here is a video of him talking about legalizing brothels -- which is already in sone states.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rPxIWjR3Zg&app=desktop

    Fox's sister channel, FX, airs some of the moat violent & erotic shows on television.

    Fox News is not a religious channel -- not even close.


    kowalli 10 Jun 2015 13:17

    Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjorn Jagland confirmed that he had received notification from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine in Kiev on the retreat from the European Convention on Human Rights.


    robertthebruce2014 10 Jun 2015 13:16

    The Guardian suffering from confirmation bias?

    The headline does not read 'Pontiff Meeting with Putin', which would confirm that Russia is not as isolated as the Guardian would want, but 'Pope Urged to Take Stance against Putin' which confirms the Guardians prejudice on all issues Russian.

    If ever there was a vassal state or satrapy more obedient to its master than Britain is to America someone inform us please. India's Victorian relationship to the British Crown was less submissive than Britain's obedience to American rule today.


    EugeneGur MahsaKaerra 10 Jun 2015 13:10

    You have trouble with memory? I can appropriate recommend medication.
    Borders in Europe changed a lot before Putin had a chance to do anything or even came to the scene. The reunification of Germany did not require border change in your view? The breakup of the Soviet Union is not border change enough for you? The breakup of Yugoslavia? Kosovo rings a bell?

    Crimea is sacred for the Russians, not just Orthodox but for every Russian because of its cultural and historical significance. Ukrainians declared themselves to be not Russians but something quite the opposite. If you must refer to someones statement, please, reproduce it accurately.


    Babeouf 10 Jun 2015 13:10

    How was the US suppose to know the Guardian would make such a big splash over this non event.

    US ambassador, who knows diddly, gives advice to the Pope.

    Yes its a funny story but that is not how the Guardian is playing it. Some one clearly earning their Agent of influence bonus.

    OneTop 10 Jun 2015 13:07

    Since the US has the EU firmly under its heel it's now moving on to bullying the Pope to further the geopolitical goals of American hegemony?

    No doubt they threatened to sanction the Pope if he doesn't fall into line.


    nnedjo 10 Jun 2015 13:03

    Now what? If Pope Francis would now really started to criticize Putin "for the violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine," then everyone would say, "You see, Pope Francis receives orders from the US ambassador to the Vatican!" So, it would seem as if the US ambassador to the Vatican is pontiff, and not that it is Pope Francis himself.

    All in all, it was a very stupid public statement by the US ambassador in Vatican.


    charrette 10 Jun 2015 13:01

    "It shows the ignorance of the pope about the situation in Ukraine."

    Perhaps, on the contrary, it shows that the Pope has done his homework and read, for example, the recent excellent account by Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine : crisis in the borderlands. I recommend it to anyone who thinks the Russian stance is to be merely demonised. Sakwa deals particularly well with decay of diplomatic protocols.


    RayJosephCormier AbsolutelyFapulous 10 Jun 2015 12:55

    No one was killed when the Russian troops, already in Crimea, came out of their barracks, compare to millions killed in US invasions of other Nations so far from the continental US.


    chulumani 10 Jun 2015 12:53

    Just another US stupidity. Hasn`t anyone the peace-nobel-prize-drone`s administration how much Yanks are hated in South and Central America? Especially Argentina has suffered a lot because of the US initiated coups and military goverments. ALL juntas, the one here in La Paz as well, were run by the American Embassies. A lot of priests were tortured and killed as well. Hugo Chavez once said, that the only goverment in the Western Hemisphere which doesn`t have to worry about a coup is the one in the USA, because there is no American Embassy in Washington.

    So this freaky US troll tries to tell the Pope about the right thing to do? The Pope should have told him tell that joker in the White House to stop invading other countries, torturing innocent people, instigating terrible civil wars and financing as well as arming islamic terrorists.

    nnedjo 10 Jun 2015 12:51

    If the US ambassador to the Vatican dares to command the Pope what he has to say to Putin, then imagine what the US ambassador to Ukraine was ordered to their President Yanukovych, before he was deposed by violent coup.

    And then they have the nerve to talk about "respect for the integrity and sovereignty of other countries."


    photosymbiont 10 Jun 2015 12:48

    Many bureaucrats and politicians in the U.S. want to restart the Cold War with Russia as a means of keeping the bloated U.S. military-industrial budget intact.

    Pope Francis appears to be an impediment in this effort, as he is talking to everyone with some weird Christian notion about making peace with one's enemies - he must be a communist, right?

    Roger Tidy 10 Jun 2015 12:47

    Hopefully, the Pope is intelligent enough to understand that the Ukraine crisis was provoked by the US-backed removal of a democratically elected government. What has happened subsequently in the country is the result of the coup. Moreover, behind the US backing for the coup, is its desire to continue NATO's expansion on Russia's western border. Too many people today are confusing the original action, i.e. the coup, with the reaction!

    Albatros18 caliento 10 Jun 2015 12:46

    It is called state visit, and when he does he achieves things. You remember what Abbott said he would do to Putin when he met him? Abbott was shitting his pants. G7? They met, and what did they achieve other than confirming that the EU is being hurt by the anti-Russian sanctions.

    Jeffrey_Harrison jezzam 10 Jun 2015 12:46

    Well, there's Libya; no boots on the ground but we bombed the shit out of them and there's Yemen and Pakistan where we have ongoing drone wars. I'll grant you that Obama has mostly continued the wars of his predecessor but now they're his. I would also point out that the Russian troops that acted in Georgia were not invaders but were there as a peacekeeping force and the Russians in Crimea were there in the Russian base in Sevastopol which was by arrangement with Ukraine. While the US tries to make everybody look the other way, we send troops into Ukraine under the guise of trainers. If we can send troops halfway around the world, why can't Russia send troops across their border?

    AngrySkeptic 10 Jun 2015 12:42

    Kenneth Hackett, the US ambassador to the Holy See, said the Vatican "could say more about concerns on territorial integrity".

    I am always amused by anyone from the New World being serious about "territorial integrity". All of those countries exist because they ignored the territorial integrity of the people who were already living there. It was an American president who decided after WW1 to give a part of Austria to Italy. It was an American president who took Kosovo away from the Serbs. "Territorial integrity" mattered not a jot in the adjustments made after WW2, in Europe as much as in the Middle East. What has this got to do with the Pope, whose main concern is with the spiritual welfare of Catholics?

    TiredOfBS_2015 10 Jun 2015 12:41

    Pope Francis has been encouraged by a top American diplomat to take a tougher stance against Vladimir Putin when he meets the Russian president

    ---
    Wow...
    So US "apparatchik" is patronizing Pope himself now...?
    This is just marvellous..

    So is it really works like this? US fella coming to all EU government officials and Telling them what to do?

    For a moment (long time ago), I've thought we have a representative democracy.
    Apparently, by the actions taken by Brussels recently I can tell – Commission represents USA, not me.

    My opinion is surely ignored.

    Actually nobody even bothers about my opinion. US is dictating how we are living now here, in Europe. Just great.


    secondiceberg Alessandro De Sando 10 Jun 2015 12:27

    When a group of people, geographically, culturally, and political united, decide that they want to pursue self-determination (a stated Western value once upon a time), that does not exactly fit the definition of terrorism. We might call them freedom fighters. By your reckoning, Mandela was a "terrorist".


    ID9492736 jezzam 10 Jun 2015 11:43

    This is not even hypothetically possible. Russian GDP is a fraction if American, roughly one eighth of it (Russian $ 2.1 trillion, American about $17 trillion). For American corruption to be lesser than Russian in absolute terms, American corruption would have to be lesser than 1/8th of what is currently going on in Russia.

    Anyone who has ever done business with an American corporation (be it private or government-owned), or - heavens forbid - the City of New York - knows that such statements belong in science-fiction.


    geedeesee annamarinja 10 Jun 2015 11:42

    "war criminals among the flock. Blair is the prime example."

    And Blair was re-elected in 2005. Popes have to have some contact with leaders of different countries.


    annamarinja Skallior 10 Jun 2015 11:39

    No, he is not. Obama is a clever and loyal servant to the Plutocracy. He is own by the global financial system and he has been doing everything in his power to please the system.


    ID9492736 10 Jun 2015 11:34

    The fact that the Pope elected to meet Putin means that he is completely disregarding the ugly and meaningless blather coming from the neocon/neoliberal/neoevangelical/neofascist quarters and is guided by the divine wisdom alone. Clearly, the neoconservatism has lost its global mojo and is now reduced to vile global intrigue and worse.

    With Pope as brilliant and as likable as this, I could easily become a Catholic myself (well, perhaps for an hour or two). I am concerned, however, that the Vatican bankers and their City of London bosses may not quite like the idea of Pope meeting Putin.

    Habeas Papam, indeed. Bless ya, Frankie!

    annamarinja cherryredguitar 10 Jun 2015 11:31

    When is Vatican going to start the process of excommunication of the pious catholic Tony Blair, a self-serving politician that made the UK join the US in the illegal wars in the Middle East? Hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, including children and pregnant women. Hundreds of thousands became handicapped. Millions are displaced. The western atrocities and politicking in ME have created a monster of ISIS. Where is the voice of Church? Vatican is amazingly lenient towards the war criminal.


    nobledonkey -> Alderbaran 10 Jun 2015 11:30

    Who cares about Western Liberal Democracy in Russia? That's a purely western conceit.

    The Pope's main concern here is peace and the long efforts to reunite the Catholic and the Orthodox, something much, much more important than silly notions that the Americans are pushing.

    secondiceberg -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 11:25

    If Putin had the slightest interest in re-establishing control over the former USSR countries, he had a long time to do it, but he turned his attention to rebuilding the country he is president of, with a lot of success until the U.S. recognized it might have to deal with another significant economic entity.

    We are left with the fact that it is the U.S. that now has de facto control over those countries, through its apparent dictatorial power over the E.U. and its military arm, NATO. Maybe it is too simplistic, but if you want to establish who desired control over those countries, it might be well to look had who has control.

    secondiceberg -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 11:19

    For someone who has no influence, Putin seems to be the constant focus of anguish and attention by politicians and media in the West. Another day, another column, another wild-eyed speech about Putin. Even Forbes once again names him as the most powerful person in the world (albeit after a short introduction denouncing his "sins", with a list of transgressions that must surprise Putin.) As for more positive influence that Putin possesses, you left off Brazil, India, China, South Africa, a number of countries in Latin America, even Greece, Turkey, etc. This positive influence is not gained by Western style bullying, but old-fashioned goodwill negotiation that seeks compromises that recognize the interests of all countries involved.

    Bogdanich 10 Jun 2015 11:18

    The Pope will do no such thing and all this represents is a suggestion by an enormously corrupt US administration about talking points they would like to see included when he speaks before the US Congress in September 2015. Yes that idiot Bonyer invited the pope to speak as cover for inviting Netenyahu against the wishes of the administration and so now they have a problem as they already know what he is likely to say.

    As an aside if you substitute the word "Fuhrer" for "Administration" it makes the point clearer but then you get in trouble with the thought police.


    Profhambone FallenKezef 10 Jun 2015 11:13

    Absolutely! And the Pope should be wary of taking US advice. While our moderate republican President Obama rails at Russia for interfering in the Ukraine (whose democratically elected President was ousted in a US supported coup) we support countries with "great" human rights' records such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, Communist China and Egypt while using drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Iraq.

    Hell, we even lost one to Iran when it flew "accidentally" over the Iraq-Iran border. Intact....

    At one time the USSR was described as "the Evil Empire". The people who pointed and quoted that forgot that there were 3 fingers pointing back at them.....The Pope should remember that.....

    StatusFoe -> Expats10 10 Jun 2015 11:11

    1) Oil and gas reserves off the coast
    2) To kick the Russian Navy out of the most strategic port on the northern side of the Black Sea.
    3) To block planned Russian pipelines under the Black Sea.

    All very plausible for US energy and, by extension, military interests.


    ConradLodziak 10 Jun 2015 10:58

    Being Argentinian the Pope will be very familiar with US ignorance. Furthermore Francis does not need 'advice' from an unqualified lightweight. He is perfectly capable of detecting western propaganda in relation to Ukraine, Russia and Putin.

    The latter has consistently demonstrated a strong stance against US hegemony and EU and eastern European states willingness to tolerate neo-nazism. This stance has won Putin the respect of most of the world. The US should be advised to mind their own business and focus their energies on trying to become a civilised society.


    Joe King 10 Jun 2015 10:40

    As much as that tool Putin deserves an endless waterfall of cold criticism poured over his head -

    In this case, the Pope might also blast America for its newfound Christian fundamentalism that's attacking its poor and marginalised, the wholescale militarisation of the US police into a violent above-the-law force attacking its own people, how America's self-serving overseas wars and tinkering has stirred up all kinds of trouble for Catholics/Christians in those countries, and so on.

    Putin is a puffed-up little thug, so I'd wholeheartedly support the pope in criticising him - just as, to be fair, I'd also want to see him criticising America for the many, many awful things that It has done, and that are happening there.

    Someone might tell the ambassador that the Pope's searing criticism of America would be true fairness and equality before God. (Even if an atheist like me says so.)


    VengefulRevenant -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 10:32

    Could this change of mind to 97% in favour of joining Russia be due to the fact that the Crimea referendum was organised by the Russian army at gunpoint?

    Or could it have had more to do with the right-wing/neo-fascist coup in Kiev that took place between those polls you cite and the poll, the one where Crimeans officially expressed their desire to leave Ukraine and join Russia? The latter obviously, because their change of mind has subsequently been reflected in every poll taken since, even those conducted by US regime agencies. Crimean support for Russia is genuine.

    Jezzam, you're just making a dick of yourself here. "Forgetting" the US-backed coup is just ridiculous, and nobody honest and informed believes that the people of Crimea want to be part of Ukraine. Nobody.


    Dani Jenkins jezzam 10 Jun 2015 10:31

    Perhaps you could point me towards ANY democracy....

    I see a light over my Greek border, but not equal representation of women in the London and Zuerich elite echelons of the corporate class.

    In case you had not noticed the exodus from the corrupt practice of empires, the wave of feudalism and diseased minds , is heading your way. It looks to me like you have sucked the Hack(ett) job, hook line and sinker.... look too at the article for the Congo and Soco's corruption of said "military" and get back to me with any queeries:-)

    You should be worried about your state, as it seems to me , Vlad has his well under control....you on the other hand NOT....stop closing your eyes to corrupt practices that have corrupted the world today, far more than Putin.... yermelai's comment holds credibility, yours a complete joke.

    I see no sign of democracy whatsoever yet (Iceland excepted)....you are surely a man, well out of Africa!


    chulumani 10 Jun 2015 10:30

    It just beggars belief. The rogue state USA which has been since decades going over this planet with a flame thrower, initiating coups, installed bloody, military regimes, financed and created terrorism and terrorist groups at will and financed civil wars whenever it helped their own agenda, tries now to tell the Pope what to do and what not. After getting ready for a hostile takeover of the FIFA, they seem to aim now for the Vatican as well.

    Not even the Nazis dared that.


    johnbonn 10 Jun 2015 10:27

    This Pope has shown that he can think, speak and act for himself.

    The CIA now wants the Pope to go against the largest Christian country. Isn't geo politics entertaining.

    On the other hand the CIA always goes around the world telling people what to think and what to do. The CIA would even tell God to sanction the RF, so Hunter Biden doesn't lose his job.

    If Pope Francis doesn't listen to the CIA /ambassador, he could be in trouble. Reports of his Vatican enemies are already circulating. Cardinal John Law is the chief of suppressing criminal behavior in all church affairs. He never saw a pedophile he didn't like.

    Now the CIA is streaming anti Russia messages through the Internet into Crimea, to turn Crimeans.

    Russians will never allow Crimea to be occupied by the west.


    RayJosephCormier Alessandro De Sando 10 Jun 2015 10:26

    Does Obama think about the terrorism he is supporting in Syria, half way across the world from the US, but Russia cannot do anything when the US engineers a Coup d'Etat on Russia's border? Such hypocritical, double standard BS will not cultivate a more peaceful world, but the opposite!

    Is it right for Obama to change the regimes in other Nations so far from the US? Iraq was an illegal invasion since the only world body that could have given permission for the invasion, denied the permission. The US setting the example, broke International Law, but demands other Nations follow it or be punished, Israel being the exception.


    geedeesee -> jezzam 10 Jun 2015 10:22

    Not when you look at the survey. 68% had warm attitude towards Russia; only 14% to EU. And only 14% consider themselves Ukrainian; the vast majority Russian/Crimean. No doubt their position shifted further after they witnessed the coup in Kiev.

    Full survey:
    http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/2013%20October%207%20Survey%20of%20Crimean%20Public%20Opinion,%20May%2016-30,%202013.pdf

    laticsfanfromeurope 10 Jun 2015 09:54

    Pope Francesco and Putin-probably the two most wise, intelligent and carismatic leaders on earth!
    They are the defensors of christians, unlike the west, which send weapons to anti-christian terrorist groups, for example in Syria.
    Up the Pope!
    Up Putin!
    Up the Catolics and the Ortodoxs!


    VengefulRevenant 10 Jun 2015 09:11

    The pontiff has chided world leaders for seeking to diminish anti-Christian violence and the topic is likely to be raised on Wednesday.

    Actually the pope would be pleased and grateful if world leaders would take action to "diminish anti-Christian violence."

    The literal meaning of "diminish" - to reduce - overpowers the writer's apparent intended meaning - to discount - creating another absurdity in this rubbish article.


    SHappens 10 Jun 2015 09:02

    What a delirious article. Putin pariah on the world's stage is risible. The World does not resume the US and its poodles. The symptom of a European order, [or] European architecture, which has not found its stability at the end of the cold war has all to do with NATO's aggressive expansion towards Russia's borders.

    Putin and the Pope already shared the same views about Syria thus it is not excluded that they might also have the same view about the fratricide war in Ukraine, brought to you by the US. Unless the next US coup will be to oust the Pope since he doesnt comply with their hegemony's plans and resist to their pressures.

    MaoChengJi -> HollyOldDog 10 Jun 2015 08:57

    Well, whataya want: the Pope gets his daily news and instructions directly from God, while the others get it from the US embassy.

    AnimalFarm2 10 Jun 2015 08:53

    Why? because you don't like Putin? Well I can list a whole load of Americans the Pope should ex-communicate, starting with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice. To name a few!

    philbo 10 Jun 2015 08:52

    "The presidential visit underscores Russia's cosy relationship with Italy at a time when Putin is otherwise being treated as a pariah on the world stage."

    the world stage -- you mean by world the US and its poodles in Europe but that doesn't include China, India, Brasil and all the rest of the countries that don't have a voice on the global stage. As Usual Imperial US has to bully other countries who dare to think differently and it can't bear dissent from some of its allies.


    Justin Thyme 10 Jun 2015 08:47

    A fantastic bit of writing irrelevance based on hearsay and speculation as non important filler to shape opinion. God against Putin is the message, well done Guardian, following orders again, brown nosing in case those nasty GCHQ people will come and threaten you again.

    Andrew Morten was the death knell for investigative journalism in the UK as the unreported is hidden with crap like this. Infotainment sols as information and knowledge.

    VengefulRevenant 10 Jun 2015 08:28

    The presidential visit underscores Russia's cosy relationship with Italy at a time when Putin is otherwise being treated as a pariah on the world stage.

    What an extremely stupid, ignorant thing to write. It's deranged.

    Putin is not a pariah by any objective standard. The only countries treating him as such are the NATO imperialist regimes and a smattering of other US satellites, i.e. a tiny minority of the world's states including an even tinier minority of the world population.

    This is the absurdity of atavistic Eurocentrism in a world that has definitively stopped revolving around the white empires. It smacks of "Heavy Fog in Channel, Continent Cut Off."

    MaoChengJi 10 Jun 2015 08:19

    In February, the pontiff referred to the bloodshed in the Ukrainian conflict as "fratricidal", a comment seen as controversial in Ukraine, where the violence is viewed as a direct consequence of Russian aggression.

    Obviously, the Pope is a separatist and FSB agent. 7 years. Next!

    [Jun 10, 2015] Obama Is Destroying Europe, Dragging It Into A Crusade Against Russia Former French PM, German Banker Admit

    One robin does not make a spring. But still the USA elite behave pretty recklessly in Europe...
    "..."European countries with strong business in Russia, including Finland and Austria, are economically hit very hard. These countries consequently place fewer orders from Germany. Moreover, considering that European corporations will circumvent the sanctions, to create production facilities at the highest efficiency level in Russia, we lose this potential capital stock, which is the basis of our prosperity. Russia wins the capital stock," at the EU's expense, even though the sanctions are targeted against Russia. "
    "..."For the future, Germany and the EU place their economic reliability into question with Russia. The relationship of trust is broken by Germany and the EU. In order to build such confidence, it takes several years. Between signature and delivery are up to five years. ... Siemens is now thrown out from a major project for this reason [i.e., because the requisite predictability has been lost]. Alstom has likewise lost the contract for the railway line from Moscow to Beijing. Consequently, the potential for damage is much more massive than the current figures show, not only for Germany, but for the entire EU.""
    "...The fact is that by the coup in the Ukraine, an oligarchy friendly towards Moscow was replaced by an oligarchy now oriented toward the United States. It's geopolitics, which benefits third forces, but definitely not Germany, not the EU, not Russia, and not Ukraine."
    Jun 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    While on the surface the European leaders of G-7 nations are all smiles in their photo-ops next to US president Barack Obama, there is an unmistakable tension and simmering resentment at the US for forcing Europe into America's personal crusades.

    "Today, Europe is not independent… The US is drawing us [the EU] into a crusade against Russia, which contradicts the interests of Europe," said the former French Prime Minister Fillon while the chief economist at Bremer Landesbank adds that as a result of US policies "unmeasurable damage lies in an elevated geopolitical risk situation for the people in the EU."

    * * *

    German Banker: Obama Is Destroying Europe, submitted by investigative historian Eric Zuesse

    Interviewed on June 6th by German Economic News, the chief economist at Bremer Landesbank, Folker Hellmeyer, says that because of Obama's sanctions against Russia, German exports declined year-over-year by 18% in 2014, and by 34% in the first two months of 2015 (no later figures), but he asserts that "The damage is much more comprehensive than these statistics show," because those are only the "primary losses," and there are in addition "secondary effects," which get even worse over time.

    For example:

    "European countries with strong business in Russia, including Finland and Austria, are economically hit very hard. These countries consequently place fewer orders from Germany. Moreover, considering that European corporations will circumvent the sanctions, to create production facilities at the highest efficiency level in Russia, we lose this potential capital stock, which is the basis of our prosperity. Russia wins the capital stock," at the EU's expense, even though the sanctions are targeted against Russia.

    But the nub is this:

    "For the future, Germany and the EU place their economic reliability into question with Russia. The relationship of trust is broken by Germany and the EU. In order to build such confidence, it takes several years. Between signature and delivery are up to five years. ... Siemens is now thrown out from a major project for this reason [i.e., because the requisite predictability has been lost]. Alstom has likewise lost the contract for the railway line from Moscow to Beijing. Consequently, the potential for damage is much more massive than the current figures show, not only for Germany, but for the entire EU."

    Then, he says: "More [projects] still in planning include the axis from Peking to Moscow as part of the Shanghai Corporation and the BRIC countries, the largest growth project in modern history, the construction of the infrastructure of Eurasia, from Moscow to Vladivostok, to Southern China and India. How far the EU and Germany's sanctions-policy regarding Russia figures in these developing-countries' mega-projects will depend upon whether we'll be seen as hostile in other emerging countries than Russia. [NOTE from Eric Zuesse: Obama speaking 28 May 2014 to graduating West Point cadets:

    'Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.'

    His attitude toward developing countries is clear - they are enemies, to be dealt with via the military, not economic partners to advance with us in economic cooperation.] But, obviously, there is a lack that some participants in European politics [and inside the White House!] have in their abilities to think abstractly on our behalf."

    Asked who will be paying the price for this, he says:

    "The measurable damage is loss of growth, in lost wages, losses in contributions to the social system and in tax revenue. This is true for the past 12 months, and it is valid for the years ahead. The people in Germany and the EU will pay the price through lost prosperity and stability. The unmeasurable damage lies in an elevated geopolitical risk situation for the people in the EU."

    Asked about the situation in Ukraine, Hellmeyer says:

    "It is indeed irritating. People who are focused not only on Western 'quality media' are amazed at those media hiding the aggression of Kiev and the discriminatory laws implemented by the Government in Kiev, which constitute a serious challenge to the claim that Western values and democracy are being supported by the West. I believe, to Mr Steinmeier's credit, that he is in fact talking plainly about these matters behind closed doors. The question is whether the behavior of the Atlantic alliance supports Mr. Steinmeier. I refer in this regard especially to Victoria Nuland.

    The fact is that by the coup in the Ukraine, an oligarchy friendly towards Moscow was replaced by an oligarchy now oriented toward the United States. It's geopolitics, which benefits third forces, but definitely not Germany, not the EU, not Russia, and not Ukraine."

    So, he sees U.S. as having gained at the expense of every other country, but especially at Europe's expense.

    Asked about the future, Folker Hellmeyer says:

    "For me, the conflict has already been decided. The axis Moscow-Beijing-BRIC wins. The dominance of the West is through.

    In 1990 those countries accounted for only about 25% of world economic output. Today, they represent 56% of world economic output, and 85% of world population. They control about 70% of the world's foreign exchange reserves. They grow annually by an average of 4% - 5%. Since the United States were not prepared to share power internationally (e.g., by changing the voting-apportionments in the IMF and World Bank), the future rests with those countries themselves, to build in the emerging markets sector on their own financial system. There lies their future. The EU is currently being drawn into the conflict, which the United States caused because she did not share power and want to share. The longer we pursue this [mono-polar, hegemonic, Imperial, supremacist, internationally dictatorial, aggressive] policy in the EU, the higher the price [to Europe will be]."

    He goes on to say:

    "The fact is that the emerging countries emancipate themselves from US control. This is evident in the creation of competitive institutions of the World Bank (AIIB) and the IMF (New Development Bank) by the axis of the emerging countries. This displeases the still prevailing hegemon. The current international hot spots of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, to the Ukraine, are an expression of this, in the background, as a clearly identifiable power-confrontation [between the U.S. and every other country]. If we were there intending to establish democracy and freedom, let's look at the success in achieving those goals. [His implication: it's failure.]"

    German Economic News asks:

    "The contempt with which the US government deals with the Europeans is remarkable, such as the NSA tapping the Chancellor's phone, and Nuland's famous 'Fuck the EU' statement. Have European politicians no self-respect, or are they just too cowardly?"

    Hellmeyer responds: "The person who is a true democrat takes seriously his duties as a politician for the public's well-being, and does not allow his nation's self-determination to be so contemptuously trampled underfoot, such as has followed from that remark. The person who is not a true democrat, has with respect to the above values and canon, severe deficits."

    CLOSE from Zuesse:

    • Why is there not, in Europe, a huge movement to abandon NATO, and to kick out the U.S. military? Whom is the U.S. 'defending' Europeans from, after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991?
    • Why did not Gorbachev demand that NATO disband when the Warsaw Pact did - simultaneous (instead of one-sided) disbanding of the Cold War, so that there would not become the foundation for international fascism to arise to conquer Russia (first, to surround it by an expanding NATO - and ultimately via TPP & TTIP), in the aftermath?
    • Why is there not considerable public debate about these crucial historical, cultural, and economic, matters?
    • Why is there such deceit, which requires these massive questions to be ignored so long by 'historians'?
    • How is it even possible for the world to move constructively forward, in this environment, of severe censorship, in the media, in academia, and throughout 'the free world'?
    • Why is there no outrage that the Saudi and other Arabic royals fund islamic jihad (so long as it's not in their own countries) but America instead demonizes Russia's leaders, who consistently oppose jihadists and jihadism?
    • Why are America's rulers allied with the top financiers of jihad? Why is that being kept so secret? Why are these injustices tolerated by the public?
    • Who will change this, and how? When will that desperately needed change even start? Will it start soon enough?

    Maybe WW III won't occur, but the damages are already horrible, and they're getting worse. This can go on until the end; and, if it does, that end will make horrible look like heaven, by comparison. It would be worse than anything ever known - and it could happen in and to our generation.

    * * *

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.


    And then, here is former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon who told RT that the "US is drawing Europe into crusade against Russia, against our interests"

    The US is drawing European states into a "crusade" against Russia, which goes against Europe's interests, former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon has said. Speaking to French media, he stressed that Europe now is dependent on Washington.

    "Today, Europe is not independent… The US is drawing us [the EU] into a crusade against Russia, which contradicts the interests of Europe," Fillon told the BFMTV channel.

    The ex-French prime minister, who served in Nicolas Sarkozy's government from 2007 till 2012, lashed out at Washington and its policies.

    Washington, Fillon said, pursues "extremely dangerous" policies in the Middle East that the EU and European states have to agree with.

    He accused German intelligence of spying on France "not in the interests of Germany but in the interests of the United States."

    Fillon pointed out that Washington is pressuring Germany to concede to Greece and find a compromise.

    He noted the "American justice system" often interferes with the work of "European justice systems."

    "Europe is not independent," the ex-PM said, calling for "a broad debate on how Europe can regain its independence."

    This, however, would not be possible if Europe goes ahead and signs the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a proposed EU-US treaty, which has drawn much criticism for its secretiveness and lack of accountability.

    "I am definitely against signing this agreement [TTIP] in the form in which it is now," he added.

    [Jun 09, 2015] G7 Summit Without Russia Problem for the West, But Not for the Kremlin

    Russian situation became worse became the power of West is considerable and even enforced unity of G7 can hurt Russian economy more then it will hurt G7. Technological superiority of the West is also a factor.
    "...The days when the Russian President wanted to just stand next to his Western colleagues are over," the newspaper wrote."
    "...Russia became disillusioned with Europe and the United States due to their hypocrisy and indecisive policies, the article said."
    Jun 09, 2015 | Sputnik International

    The days when the Russian President wanted to just stand next to his Western colleagues are over," the newspaper wrote.

    The proximity to the Western world is no longer an absolute value for modern Russia, the German newspaper wrote.

    Moscow seeks to follow a sovereign foreign policy and is not willing to impose itself on Western countries, the article said, referring to the upcoming G7 summit, which will be held in Germany on Sunday without the participation of the Russian leader.

    "Will the Russian President sit on Sunday in the Kremlin and grieve about the fact that the G7 leaders met in the Elmau castle without him? Unlikely. The days when the Russian President wanted to just stand next to his Western colleagues are over," the newspaper wrote.

    According to die Zeit, for Russia, the Western world has lost its 'absolute brilliance' that was so evident after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia became disillusioned with Europe and the United States due to their hypocrisy and indecisive policies, the article said.

    ...

    Russia is also expanding its contacts within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and maintains fruitful cooperation with Asian countries. With this regard, the Kremlin's non-participation in the G7 summit is just a little episode in its foreign policy activities, Die Zeit noted.

    The newspaper also stressed that the current situation could be beneficial for the Kremlin as the latter will gain more freedom in conducting its own independent policy.

    [Jun 09, 2015] West to Russia: you are guilty by the fact that I am hungry

    Jun 09, 2015 | seva-riga.livejournal.com

    About extension of sanctions and harmful illusions...

    ... ... ...

    The West is in such a position that even the total subjugation and looting of Russia will not save him from bankruptcy - too many freeloaders sitting on his neck, too great an imbalance between the manufacturing and distribution sector is present in the economy. Out of 500 million population, only 10 million are in manufacturing sector. But others also want to eat delicious food and sleep in good apartments or houses. That means that any reduction of their standard of living might provoke social tensions. And strategy "smathh old world to peaces uptto fundament" is well known and might be adopted again the day after the reduction misallocat the resources because they no longer are availble.

    And the secret weapon of Russia is its amazing ability to survive in mobilization mode, when one boots and one trnch coat is all the person has. And in Russia this is not a cause for sadness, but only under one condition - the elite live about the same way as well, and if they are allocated more, it is done for specific and measurable achievements that are socially approved. One problem - the current elite with its orientation on the Western Europe strongly disagree, and therefore looks wishfully to the West "Take us back please. We are good and will behave"

    What to do about this alarming situation is start to prepare yourself to a long cold winter of Cold War II. The enthusiasm with which this year seeds and gardening tools were bought, demonstrates complete understanding of the Russians of the inevitability of such a long winter. Be it from actions of the West, or some other reasons - what's the difference? If we discard the illusions of accommodation with the West and work to overcome the difficulties things might work out. Without dramatic drop of standard of living of the elderly and children. Chances that sanctions are temporary measure are slim. Those 25 years with Russia as the sex slave of the West ended. Now the West want to see Russia (again) in the form of steak on it table. He rallied for war (no matter if they talk about peace) and confident in his abilities to wage it against Russia. And we?

    [Jun 08, 2015] Washington's Great Game and Why It's Failing

    et al, June 8, 2015 at 4:50 am
    Antiwar.com – Alfred McCoy and Tom Engelhardt: Washington's Great Game and Why It's Failing
    http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2015/06/07/washingtons-great-game-and-why-its-failing/

    …Yet even America's stunning victory in the Cold War with the implosion of the Soviet Union would not transform the geopolitical fundamentals of the world island. As a result, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Washington's first foreign foray in the new era would involve an attempt to reestablish its dominant position in the Persian Gulf, using Saddam Hussein's occupation of Kuwait as a pretext.

    In 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, imperial historian Paul Kennedy returned to Mackinder's century-old treatise to explain this seemingly inexplicable misadventure. "Right now, with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in the Eurasian rimlands," Kennedy wrote in the Guardian, "it looks as if Washington is taking seriously Mackinder's injunction to ensure control of 'the geographical pivot of history.'" If we interpret these remarks expansively, the sudden proliferation of U.S. bases across Afghanistan and Iraq should be seen as yet another imperial bid for a pivotal position at the edge of the Eurasian heartland, akin to those old British colonial forts along India's Northwest Frontier…

    …Instead of focusing purely on building a blue-water navy like the British or a global aerospace armada akin to America's, China is reaching deep within the world island in an attempt to thoroughly reshape the geopolitical fundamentals of global power. It is using a subtle strategy that has so far eluded Washington's power elites.

    After decades of quiet preparation, Beijing has recently begun revealing its grand strategy for global power, move by careful move. Its two-step plan is designed to build a transcontinental infrastructure for the economic integration of the world island from within, while mobilizing military forces to surgically slice through Washington's encircling containment…
    ####

    It can't be much clearer than that. Re-balancing to land based infrastructure reduces China's exposure to the USA's control of the seas. All they need to to is push back the USA little by little, regularly to change the risk equation. Russia, the shortest route for goods from Asia to Europe is also fundamental to this. Instead of sending massive cargo ships to Europe, go by rail & Russia is putting the Trans-siberian railway through a deep upgrade. The US is then just left with drones & air power, one single arm of the pincer and also quite vulnerable.

    jeremn, June 8, 2015 at 6:38 am
    US supplies defensive sniper arms to Ukraine. But uses Bulgaria as an intermediate destination to hide what it is doing?

    I can't decide whether these were weapons used to train the National Guard, which just happened to pass through Bulgaria, or if the US has been gun running arms into Ukraine (using Bulgaria) as the article suggests.

    http://fortruss.blogspot.ch/2015/06/leaked-documents-expose-american-scheme.html?m=1

    [Jun 07, 2015] We are the propagandists The real story about how The New York Times and the White House has turned truth in the Ukraine on it

    "...The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic. It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. "Unprecedented" is considered a dangerous word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration's furious efforts to manufacture a Ukraine narrative and our media's incessant reproduction of all its fallacies."
    Jun 03, 2015 | salon.com

    A sophisticated game of manipulation is afoot over Russia: power, influence and money. U.S. hands are not clean

    A couple of weeks ago, this column guardedly suggested that John Kerry's day-long talks in Sochi with Vladimir Putin and his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, looked like a break in the clouds on numerous questions, primarily the Ukraine crisis. I saw no evidence that President Obama's secretary of state had suddenly developed a sensible, post-imperium foreign strategy consonant with a new era. It was force of circumstance. It was the 21st century doing its work.

    This work will get done, cleanly and peaceably or otherwise.

    Sochi, an unexpected development, suggested the prospect of cleanliness and peace. But events since suggest that otherwise is more likely to prove the case. It is hard to say because it is hard to see, but our policy cliques may be gradually wading into very deep water in Ukraine.

    Ever since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, reality itself has come to seem up for grabs. Karl Rove, a diabolically competent political infighter but of no discernible intellectual weight, may have been prescient when he told us to forget our pedestrian notions of reality-real live reality. Empires create their own, he said, and we're an empire now.

    The Ukraine crisis reminds us that the pathology is not limited to the peculiar dreamers who made policy during the Bush II administration, whose idea of reality was idealist beyond all logic. It is a late-imperial phenomenon that extends across the board. "Unprecedented" is considered a dangerous word in journalism, but it may describe the Obama administration's furious efforts to manufacture a Ukraine narrative and our media's incessant reproduction of all its fallacies.

    At this point it is only sensible to turn everything that is said or shown in our media upside down and consider it a second time. Who could want to live in a world this much like Orwell's or Huxley's-the one obliterating reality by destroying language, the other by making historical reference a transgression?

    Language and history: As argued several times in this space, these are the weapons we are not supposed to have.

    Ukraine now gives us two fearsome examples of what I mean by inverted reason.

    One, it has been raining reports of Russia's renewed military presence in eastern Ukraine lately. One puts them down and asks, What does Washington have on the story board now, an escalation of American military involvement? A covert op? Let us watch.

    Two, we hear ever-shriller charges that Moscow has mounted a dangerous, security-threatening propaganda campaign to destroy the truth-our truth, we can say. It is nothing short of "the weaponization of information," we are provocatively warned. Let us be on notice: Our truth and our air are now as polluted with propaganda as during the Cold War decades, and the only apparent plan is to make it worse.

    O.K., let us do what sorting can be done.

    Charges that Russia is variously amassing troops and materiel on its border with Ukraine or sending same across said border are nothing new. They are what General Breedlove, the strange-as-Strangelove NATO commander, gets paid to put out. These can be ignored, as most Europeans do.

    But in April a new round of the escalation charges began. Michael Gordon, the New York Times' reliably obliging State Department correspondent, reported in a story with a single named source that Russia was adding soldiers and air defense systems along its border.

    The sources for this were Marie Harf, one of State's spokespeople, and the standard variety of unnamed officials and analysts. Here is how it begins:

    In a sign that the tense crisis in Ukraine could soon escalate, Russia has continued to deploy air defense systems in eastern Ukraine and has built up its forces near the border, American officials said on Wednesday.

    Western officials are not sure if the military moves are preparations for a new Russian-backed offensive that would be intended to help the separatists seize additional territory.

    "Could," "has continued," "not sure," "would be." And this was the lead, where the strongest stuff goes.

    Scrape away the innuendo, and what you are reading in this piece is a whole lot of nothing. The second paragraph, stating what officials are not sure of, was a necessary contortion to get in the phrase "new Russian-backed offensive," which was the point of the piece. As journalism, this is so bad it belongs in a specimen jar.

    Context, the stuff this kind of reporting does its best to keep from readers:

    By mid-April, Washington was still at work trying to subvert the Minsk II ceasefire, an anti-Russian assassination campaign was under way in Kiev and the Poroshenko government, whether or not it approved of the campaign, was proving unable, unwilling or both to implement any of the constitutional revisions to which Minsk II committed it.

    A week before the April 22 report, 300 troops from the 173rd Airborne had arrived to begin training the Ukrainian national guard. The Times piece acknowledged this for the simple reason it was the elephant in the living room, but by heavy-handed implication it dismissed any thought of causality.

    Given the context, I would not be at all surprised to learn that Moscow may have put air defense systems in place. And I am not at all sure what is so worrisome about them. Maybe it is the same reasoning Benjamin Netanyahu applied when Russia recently agreed to supply Iran with air defense technology: It will make it harder for us to attack them, the dangerous Israeli complained.

    Neither am I sure what is so worrisome about Russians training eastern Ukrainian partisans-another charge Harf leveled-if it is supposed to be a mystery why American trainers at the other end of the country prompt alarm in Moscow.

    Onward from April 22 the new theme flowed. On May 17 Kiev claimed that it had captured two uniformed Russian soldiers operating inside Ukraine. On May 21 came reports that European monitors had interviewed the two under unstated conditions and had ascertained they were indeed active-duty infantry. This gave "some credence" to Kiev's claim, the Times noted, although at this point some is far short of enough when Kiev makes these kinds of assertions.

    On May 30-drum roll, please-came the absolute coup de grâce. The Atlantic Council, one of the Washington think tanks-its shtick seems to be some stripe of housebroken neoliberalism-published a report purporting to show that, in the Times' language, "Russia is continuing to defy the West by conducting protracted military operations inside Ukraine."

    Read the report here. It's first sentence: "Russia is at war with Ukraine."

    "Continuing to defy?" "At war with Ukraine?" If you refuse to accept the long, documented record of Moscow's efforts to work toward a negotiated settlement with Europe-and around defiant Americans-and if you call the Ukraine conflict other than a civil war, well, someone is creating your reality for you.

    Details. The Times described "Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine" as "an independent report." I imagine Gordon-he seems to do all the blurry stuff these days-had a straight face when he wrote three paragraphs later that John Herbst, one of the Atlantic Council's authors, is a former ambassador to Ukraine.

    I do not know what kind of a face Gordon wore when he reported later on that the Atlantic Council paper rests on research done by Bellingcat.com, "an investigative website." Or when he let Herbst get away with calling Bellingcat, which appears to operate from a third-floor office in Leicester, a city in the English Midlands, "independent researchers."

    I wonder, honestly, if correspondents look sad when they write such things-sad their work has come to this.

    One, Bellingcat did its work using Google, YouTube and other readily available social media technologies, and this we are supposed to think is the cleverest thing under the sun. Are you kidding?

    Manipulating social media "evidence" has been a parlor game in Kiev; Washington; Langley, Virginia, and at NATO since the Ukraine crisis broke open. Look at the graphics included in the presentation. I do not think technical expertise is required to see that these images prove what all others offered as evidence since last year prove: nothing. It looks like the usual hocus-pocus.

    Two, examine the Bellingcat web site and try to figure out who runs it. I tried the about page and it was blank. The site consists of badly supported anti-Russian "reports"-no "investigation" aimed in any other direction.

    I look at this stuff now and think, Well, there may be activity on Russia's borders or inside Ukraine, but maybe not. Those two soldiers may be Russian and may be on active duty, but I cannot draw any conclusion.

    I do not appreciate having to think this way-not as a reader and not as a former newsman. I do not like reading Times editorials, such as Tuesday's, which institutionalizes "Putin's war" and other such tropes, and having to say, Our most powerful newspaper is into the created reality game.

    A few things can be made clear in all this. Straight off the top it is almost certain, despite a logical wariness of presented evidence, that Russia has personnel and weapons deployed along its border and in Ukraine.

    I greatly hope so, and whether they are on duty or otherwise interests me not at all.

    First of all, it is a highly restrained approach to a geopolitical circumstance that Moscow recognizes as dangerous, Washington does not seem to and Kiev emphatically does not. In reversed circumstances, a troubled nation would have long back turned into an open conflict between two nuclear powers. Fig leafs have their place.

    I have written before on the question of spheres of influence: They are to be observed if not honored. Stephen Cohen, the Russianist scholar, prefers "spheres of security," and the phrase makes the point plainly. Russia cannot be expected to abandon its interests as Cohen defines them, and considering what is at issue for Moscow, the response is intelligently measured.

    Equally, Moscow appears to recognize that without any equilibrium between the Russian-tilted east and the Western-tilted west, Ukraine will be a bloodbath. Irresponsible as it has proven, and with little or no control over armed extreme rightist factions, Kiev cannot be allowed even an attempt to resolve this crisis militarily.

    One has to consider how these things are conventionally done. I had a cousin who piloted helicopters in Vietnam long ago. When we spread the conflict to Laos and Cambodia he flew in blue jeans, a T-shirt, sneakers and without dog tags. "If you go down, we don't know you," was the O.D.

    A directly germane case is Angola in the mid-1970s. When the Portuguese were forced to flee the old colony, the CIA began supplying right-wing opportunists in the north and south with weapons, money, and agency personnel. Only in response did Cuba send troops that quickly proved decisive. I remember well all the howls of "aggression"-all of them hypocritical rubbish: American efforts to subvert the movement that still governs Angola peaceably continued for a dozen more years.

    advertisement


    The Times editorial just noted is headlined, "Vladimir Putin Hides the Truth." This is upside-down-ism at its very worst.

    It is not easy to put accounts of the Ukraine crisis side by side to compare them. Think of two bottles of unlabeled wine in a blind taste test. Now read on.

    I do not see how there can be any question that Moscow's take on Ukraine and the larger East-West confrontation is the more coherent. Read or listen to Putin's speeches, notably that delivered at the Valdai Discussion Club, a Davos variant, in Sochi last October. It is historically informed, with a grasp of interests (common and opposing), the nature of the 21st century environment and how best outcomes are to be achieved in it.

    Altogether, Moscow offers a vastly more sophisticated, coherent accounting of the Ukraine crisis than any American official has or ever will. This is for one simple reason: Neither Putin nor Lavrov bears the burden American officials do of having to sell people mythical renderings of how the world works or their place in it.

    Russia's interests are clear and can be stated clearly, to put the point another way. America's-the expansion of opportunity for capital and the projection of power-must always remain shrouded.

    The question of plausibility is a serious imbalance, critical in its implications. In my view it accounts for that probably unprecedented propaganda effort noted earlier. It has ensued apace since Andrew Lack, named in January as America's first chief propaganda officer (CEO of the new Broadcasting Board of Governors), instantly declared information a field of battle. A war of the worldviews, we may call it.

    This war grows feverish as we speak. In the current edition of The Nation, a journalist named James Carden publishes a remarkable piece detailing the extremes now approached. I rank it a must read, and you can find it here.

    Carden's piece is called "The New McCarthyism," and any reader having a look will know well enough why our drift back toward the paranoid style of the 1950s is something we all ought to guard against. A great deal of this column would be banned as "disinformation." Whatever your stripe, I urge you to recognize this as serious.

    The focus here is on a report called "The Menace of Unreality: How the Kremlin Weaponizes Information, Culture and Money." It is written by Peter Pomerantsev and Michael Weiss. It is published by an Internet magazine called The Intepreter, as a special report sponsored by the Institute for Modern Russia.

    Credential problems galore. Weiss is an "expert" on flavors of the month, a main-chancer who sat at the late Christopher Hitchens' feet and inhabited a think tank in London before taking the editor's chair at The Interpreter. Pomersantsev was a TV producer in the most decadent corners of the Russian media circus, wheeling against it all only when he lost out. Now he is a darling of our media, naturally.

    Both, most important, seem to carry water for Michail Khodorkovsky, the oligarchic crook whom Western media, from the Times on down, now lionize as a democrat because he and Putin are enemies. Khodorkovsky funds the Institute for Modern Russia, based in New York. The IMR, in turn, funds The Interpreter.

    Got the fix? Ready to take this report seriously, are we?

    Astonishingly enough, a lot of people are. As Carden reports, Weiss and Pomerantsev cut considerable mustard among the many members of Congress nursing the new Russophobia. Anne Applebaum, the prominent paranoid on all questions Russian; and Geoffrey Pyatt, Obama's coup-cultivating ambassador in Kiev: Many weighty figures stand with these guys.

    Carden lays out his thesis expertly. Putin's weaponization of news makes him more dangerous than any communist ever was, "The Menace of Unreality" asserts, and he must be countered. How? With "an internationally recognized ratings system for disinformation."

    "Media organizations that practice conscious deception should be excluded from the community," Weiss and Pomerantsev write-the community being those of approved thought.

    No, Carden is not kidding.

    It may seem odd, but I credit Weiss and Pomerantsev with one insight. The infection of ideology now debilitates us. Blindness spreads and has to be treated. But there agreement ends, as I consider their report to be among the more extreme cases of the disease so far to show itself.

    You can follow the internal logic, but I would not spend too much time on it because there is none once you exit their bubble. There is only one truth, the argument runs, and it just so happens it is exactly what we think. There is no other way to see things. All is TINA, "there is no alternative."

    It would be easy to dismiss Weiss and Pomerantsev as supercilious hacks, and I do. But not the stance. They say too clumsily and bluntly what is actually the prevalent intellectual frame, a key aspect of the neoliberal stance. TINA, the argument Thatcher made famous, applies to all things.

    To say "The Menace of Unreality" advocates a kind of intellectual protectionism is not strong enough. Their idea comes to the control of information, which is to say the control of the truth. And if you can think of a more efficient way to define the production of propaganda, use the comment box.

    Fighting alleged propaganda with propaganda: This is upside down for you. It is what we get when people make up reality for us.


    Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.


    More Patrick L. Smith.

    [Jun 06, 2015] World War III will start with Pentagon bombing of RT – Kusturica

    "...The RT network, Kusturica says, is destroying the "Hollywood-CNN stereotype of the good and bad guys, where blacks, Hispanics, Russians, Serbs are the villains"
    " ...."[US Secretary of State] Kerry and the congressmen are bothered by the fact that RT sends signals that the world is not determined by the inevitability of liberal capitalism, that the US is leading the world into chaos, that Monsanto is not producing healthy food, that Coca-Cola is ideal for cleaning automobile alloys and [is] not for the human stomach, that in Serbia the percentage of people who die from cancer has risen sharply due to the 1999 NATO bombings ... that the fingerprints of the CIA are on the Ukrainian crisis, and that Blackwater fired at the Ukrainian police, and not Maidan activists," the filmmaker wrote. "
    "...CNN in direct transmissions assures that since the 1990s America has been leading humanitarian actions, and not wars, and that its military planes rain angels, not bombs! "
    "...RT will ever more demystify the American Dream and in primetime will reveal the truth hidden for decades from the eyes and hearts of average Americans"
    Jun 06, 2015 | RT News

    ...The RT network, Kusturica says, is destroying the "Hollywood-CNN stereotype of the good and bad guys, where blacks, Hispanics, Russians, Serbs are the villains, and white Americans, wherever you look, are OK!"

    "[US Secretary of State] Kerry and the congressmen are bothered by the fact that RT sends signals that the world is not determined by the inevitability of liberal capitalism, that the US is leading the world into chaos, that Monsanto is not producing healthy food, that Coca-Cola is ideal for cleaning automobile alloys and [is] not for the human stomach, that in Serbia the percentage of people who die from cancer has risen sharply due to the 1999 NATO bombings ... that the fingerprints of the CIA are on the Ukrainian crisis, and that Blackwater fired at the Ukrainian police, and not Maidan activists," the filmmaker wrote.

    ... ... ...

    RT is a real threat to US state propaganda as it reaches Americans "in their own homes, in perfect English, better than they use on CNN." And that is why, according to the director, Washington could get fed up and seek to silence RT by force – much like NATO did to Serbian state TV in April 1999.

    ...CNN, which he considers the flag-bearer of pro-American propaganda: "CNN in direct transmissions assures that since the 1990s America has been leading humanitarian actions, and not wars, and that its military planes rain angels, not bombs!"

    ...Kusturica believes, "RT will ever more demystify the American Dream and in primetime will reveal the truth hidden for decades from the eyes and hearts of average Americans."

    Born in what is today Bosnia-Herzegovina, Emir Kusturica is a 60-year-old Serbian filmmaker, actor and musician. He has won numerous international awards for his films, and was appointed Serbia's ambassador to UNICEF in 2007.

    Read also

    [Jun 05, 2015]A story from the past shows why neocons are dangerous for the global peace and security

    Jun 02, 2015 | the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    Nixon's and Kissinger's dangerous games in the Vietnam War – The Madman strategy

    Recent documents show that the hardcore branch of the US policy during the Vietnam war, was playing dangerous games with North Vietnam and the Soviets, in order to drag the other side to negotiations.

    We see today a similar game played by the neocons in Ukraine and Asia-Pacific. In the new Cold War, neocons are playing more dangerous games with Russia and China, as they try to persuade that they will not hesitate to proceed in a nuclear strike against both their rivals, because they see that the Sino-Russian bloc threatens the US global sovereignty.

    From National Security Archive:

    "Nixon's and Kissinger's Madman strategy during the Vietnam War included veiled nuclear threats intended to intimidate Hanoi and its patrons in Moscow. The story is recounted in a new book, Nixon's Nuclear Specter: The Secret Alert of 1969, Madman Diplomacy, and the Vietnam War, co-authored by Jeffrey Kimball, Miami University professor emeritus, and William Burr, who directs the Archive's Nuclear History Documentation Project. Research for the book, which uncovers the inside story of White House Vietnam policymaking during Nixon's first year in office, drew on hundreds of formerly top secret and secret records obtained by the authors as well as interviews with former government officials."

    "With Madman diplomacy, Nixon and Kissinger strove to end the Vietnam War on the most favorable terms possible in the shortest period of time practicable, an effort that culminated in a secret global nuclear alert in October of that year. Nixon's Nuclear Specter provides the most comprehensive account to date of the origins, inception, policy context, and execution of 'JCS Readiness Test' -the equivalent of a worldwide nuclear alert that was intended to signal Washington's anger at Moscow's support of North Vietnam and to jar the Soviet leadership into using their leverage to induce Hanoi to make diplomatic concessions. Carried out between 13 and 30 October 1969, it involved military operations around the world, the continental United States, Western Europe, the Middle East, the Atlantic, Pacific, and the Sea of Japan. The operations included strategic bombers, tactical air, and a variety of naval operations, from movements of aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines to the shadowing of Soviet merchant ships heading toward Haiphong."

    "The authors also recount secret military operations that were part of the lead-up to the global alert, including a top secret mining readiness test that took place during the spring and summer of 1969. This mining readiness test was a ruse intended to signal Hanoi that the US was preparing to mine Haiphong harbor and the coast of North Vietnam. It is revealed for the first time in this book."

    "Another revelation has to do with the fabled DUCK HOOK operation, a plan for which was initially drafted in July 1969 as a mining-only operation. It soon evolved into a mining-and-bombing, shock-and-awe plan scheduled to be launched in early November, but which Nixon aborted in October, substituting the global nuclear alert in its place. The failure of Nixon's and Kissinger's 1969 Madman diplomacy marked a turning point in their initial exit strategy of winning a favorable armistice agreement by the end of the year 1969. Subsequently, they would follow a so-called long-route strategy of withdrawing U.S. troops while attempting to strengthen South Vietnam's armed forces, although not necessarily counting on Saigon's long-term survival."

    "In 1969, the Nixon's administrations long-term goal was to provide President Nguyen Van Thieus government in Saigon with a decent chance of surviving for a reasonable interval of two to five years following the sought-after mutual exit of US and North Vietnamese forces from South Vietnam. They would have preferred that President Thieu and South Vietnam survive indefinitely, and they would do what they could to maintain South Vietnam as a separate political entity. But they were realistic enough to appreciate that such a goal was unlikely and beyond their power to achieve by a military victory on the ground or from the air in Vietnam."

    "Giving Thieu a decent chance to survive, even for just a decent interval, however, rested primarily on persuading Hanoi to withdraw its troops from the South or, if that failed, prolonging the war in order to give time for Vietnamization to take hold in order to enable Thieu to fight the war on his own for a reasonable period of time after the US exited Indochina. In 1969, Nixon and Kissinger hoped that their Madman threat strategy, coupled with linkage diplomacy, could persuade Hanoi to agree to mutual withdrawal at the negotiating table or lever Moscows cooperation in persuading Hanoi to do so. In this respect, Nixon's Nuclear Specter is an attempt to contribute to better understanding of Nixon and Kissinger's Vietnam diplomacy as a whole."

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb517-Nixon-Kissinger-and-the-Madman-Strategy-during-Vietnam-War/

    These materials are reproduced from www.nsarchive.org with the permission of the National Security Archive.

    [Jun 05, 2015] The nature of the war in Donbass seems to have changed lately, and not in a good way for Novorossiya

    "...The nature of the war in Donbass seems to have changed lately, and not in a good way for Novorossiya."
    .
    "...The latest battle in Marinka was a good demonstration. The Kiev junta used Marinka as a base for shelling other parts of Donetsk. The junta also fortified Marinka well with the help of their US advisers. As the civilian casualties started to mount the NAF had no other options than to start an offensive against Marinka. The NAF suffered heavy losses (hundreds of KIA according to pro-Novorossiyan sources) and managed to capture only a small part of Marinka. The Kiev junta considered the outcome as a victory since they managed to inflict heavy losses for the NAF and keep most of Marinka."
    .
    "...Yes, I think you're right, and the days of cheap victories – relatively speaking, I don't mean to trivialize NAF losses and civilian casualties, but I'm talking about victories like Ilovaisk and Debaltseve – are over for Novorossiya. The new strategy does appear to be to draw the NAF in and make them commit to an offensive which will give Kiev's forces a chance, an excuse, to strike.
    Jun 5, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    karl1haushofer, June 5, 2015 at 8:26 am
    The nature of the war in Donbass seems to have changed lately, and not in a good way for Novorossiya.

    Instead of suicidal offensives and going into cauldrons the Ukrainian military is staying put and shelling both the military and civilian targets in Donbass. In this week hundreds of civilians in different parts of Donbass have been killed by the shelling of Kiev. I'm sure the American advisers have played their part in this change of strategy.

    What does this mean? The NAF (Novorossiyan Armed Forces) have to go for an offensives against well fortified junta positions. This will

    1. cause great losses in manpower and arms for the NAF
    2. give Kiev and the West a good pretext to blame the NAF for escalation and breach of Minsk agreement (as they ignore the previous shelling of Kiev and only take notice when the NAF goes for an offensive) and extend the sanctions on Russia.

    The latest battle in Marinka was a good demonstration. The Kiev junta used Marinka as a base for shelling other parts of Donetsk. The junta also fortified Marinka well with the help of their US advisers. As the civilian casualties started to mount the NAF had no other options than to start an offensive against Marinka. The NAF suffered heavy losses (hundreds of KIA according to pro-Novorossiyan sources) and managed to capture only a small part of Marinka. The Kiev junta considered the outcome as a victory since they managed to inflict heavy losses for the NAF and keep most of Marinka.

    I'm afraid that outcomes like happened in Ilovaysk and Debaltsevo are not going to happen anymore. The Ukrainian military is simply better than it was then. They have become wiser. They "bait" the NAF to attack by killing scores of civilians and then repel these attacks while inflicting heavy losses for the NAF.

    The current standings in the war are in favor of Kiev, since Novorossiya is in a constant survival mode. The war has been going on for a year and the enemy has not even been driven out of Donetsk yet. In order to do so Donbass needs increased Russian help which may not be coming. Expect this war to continue for at least two or three more years with thousands of more civilians dying.

    marknesop, June 5, 2015 at 9:47 am
    Yes, I think you're right, and the days of cheap victories – relatively speaking, I don't mean to trivialize NAF losses and civilian casualties, but I'm talking about victories like Ilovaisk and Debaltseve – are over for Novorossiya. The new strategy does appear to be to draw the NAF in and make them commit to an offensive which will give Kiev's forces a chance, an excuse, to strike.

    But what then? Have the UAF grown mighty and skilled in their idleness, with battalions of crack troops and tactics up the wazoo? Hardly. A major lunge at Novorossiya will likely end the way the other attempts have, and Ukraine cannot really afford to lose another major battle. So if the NAF will not be drawn, it's a grinding war of attrition that holds no promise of a blinding victory for Kiev, which must keep its troops deployed in the field while the NAF is at home. The recent curtailment of water and food supplies suggest Kiev is getting impatient, but those measures only make the state look heavy-handed and oppressive as well as a violator of international law – and while there will be no punishment, naturally, make no mistake; people notice – and are most unlikely to break Novorossiya's will as Ukraine does not control the border.

    The constant shelling is just Porky's way of being seen to do something, but it is unlikely to produce any tactical successes unless the NAF lunges for the bait and the two sides commit to a major battle. And in that case, unless Kiev can get heavy weapons to the front in a hurry, it is likely to lose again and perhaps the demarcation of Novorossiya will expand again.

    ThatJ, June 5, 2015 at 10:30 am

    In this week hundreds of civilians in different parts of Donbass have been killed by the shelling of Kiev.

    Aren't you exaggerating? That's awful if true.

    kat kan, June 5, 2015 at 3:01 pm
    The NAF suffered heavy losses (hundreds of KIA according to pro-Novorossiyan sources)

    I think he exaggerates in both cases. The only figure into 100s I've seen was something about 200 KIA from Kiev-1 which is a Right Sector force. And something about 2 Ural trucks of bodies. Now that would not be truckloads of bodies picked up (UAF is not good about taking their dead especially in mid-battle) but sounds more like 2 truckloads of arriving soldiers killed before getting out, ie the trucks were blown up. The "200 KIA" is a translation error, ie 200(KIA) meaning they "became 200s (dead)" explaining what the 200 code means.

    Civilian deaths for the whole past week I think are around 20 but a lot of wounded, many not directly shot but by collapsing walls etc. About 100 were evacuated from a Donetsk hospital, including sick people, not freshly wounded. For Maryinka NAF admitted to about 30 KIA and 90 wounded, only a few seriously; I've seen video showing some with single bandages on what seem to be single shrapnel wounds.

    Oh for the good old days of Minsk1, when many areas were just holding the line, no advance possible, so they didn't try very hard. "Hey! we're trying to cook breakfast here" "Oh sorry, we'll give you half an hour" before desultory shelling starts.

    [Jun 04, 2015] How to succeed in Iran: lessons from Russia and China by Tehran Bureau correspondent

    Notable quotes:
    "...Money money money, grab grab grab. The opening up of Iran is all about western companies making money and peace may be a fortunate side effect."
    "...But maybe it's just reputation. The USA has been partying in the Middle East for decades, so people there already know who Americans are and what to expect from them. Russians and Chinese are involved too, but ways they use to achieve an agreement are not so... insolent, I'd say."
    "...Against crippling sanctions they've achieved what the vast majority of countries in the region could only have dreamt of"
    "...Resistance against what? Oh, you must mean the Western steam roller that crushes all life in countries that wish to follow their own destiny. Why would Iran want to join the 'Also Rans' who are only allowed the scraps thrown from the Western Oligarch Table?"
    "...I'm not sure why state ownership of certain assets and industries is presented as a bad thing, in Guardian of all places. This is how governments pay for high standard of education, healthcare and strong defence. This is how governments avoid the debt trap and compounded interest charges creeping into the tax bill"
    "...Wow, you must think that the rest of the world is truly as gullible as those in Canada and Australia when the USA once again stirs the shit at the bottom of the West Ukrainian pond."
    "...They also have 81% home ownership as against The US and UK on about 65%. Education is valued and they have a high rate of women accessing tertiary education."
    "...It's this kind: we, the westerners, are the most advanced civilization! The proof: our economies are all privatized, not government-run! The Iranians Russian, and Chinese are still savages! They have a long way to go to achieve our advanced level of civilization! "
    "...US expert don't really understand that state capitalism is not a communist theory. Majority of Asian nations had practiced state capitalism.

    Even British regime do practiced state capitalism till private liberalization been pushed by Margaret Thatcher."

    Jun 04, 2015 | The Guardian

    bcnteacher 4 Jun 2015 08:17

    Money money money, grab grab grab. The opening up of Iran is all about western companies making money and peace may be a fortunate side effect.

    BabyLyon 4 Jun 2015 08:14

    Russia and China are more eastern, than western. It's easier for Iran to communicate with them, I think this may be a reason too.

    But maybe it's just reputation. The USA has been partying in the Middle East for decades, so people there already know who Americans are and what to expect from them. Russians and Chinese are involved too, but ways they use to achieve an agreement are not so... insolent, I'd say.

    abdur razzak 4 Jun 2015 07:38

    Good, more power to them. This is a much more efficient way to use resources for the benefit of the whole population than anything the west ever tried.
    http://www.latestdatabase.com/

    1DrSigmundFraud -> JoePope 4 Jun 2015 07:22

    The US probably won't be doing business there for obvious reasons. Iran wants to protect it's industries if sanctions are lifted for obvious reasons. You only need to look at the UK for reasons as to what happens if you don't while the US for instance now has only 3 levels of classes

    • Poor
    • Extremely poor
    • Extremely wealthy

    Iran does have a healthy middle class one the downtrodden US labor force would die for. Their Oil wealth has been put to good use check out the Tehran Metro for instance

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tehran+metro+images&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=8jJwVYu9GOqt7Aas5IHoBw&ved=0CCQQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

    Or their Ski Resorts

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ski+resorts+iran+images&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=QTNwVarOC-HC7gbUwYDYCQ&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=667

    Top Hotels

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=top+hotels+in+iran+images&es_sm=93&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=fDNwVeoNxZruBtLngvgI&ved=0CCAQsAQ

    Education one of the better Middle east countries

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Iran

    Against crippling sanctions they've achieved what the vast majority of countries in the region could only have dreampt of

    normankirk -> LoungeSuite 4 Jun 2015 06:47

    And neo liberalism delivers such a great standard of living for ALL Americans and Brits does it?

    HollyOldDog -> LoungeSuite 4 Jun 2015 06:27

    Resistance against what? Oh, you must mean the Western steam roller that crushes all life in countries that wish to follow their own destiny. Why would Iran want to join the 'Also Rans' who are only allowed the scraps thrown from the Western Oligarch Table?

    MaoChengJi -> LoungeSuite 4 Jun 2015 06:21

    Sort of like in Putin's Russia.

    Yeah, exactly. Like Putin's Russia compared to Yeltsin's Russia. Like China.

    LoungeSuite -> MaoChengJi 4 Jun 2015 06:08

    Neoliberalism will fail soon, but state-controlled economies will survive,

    Sort of like in Putin's Russia. And now in Venezuela. Oh. And the Cuban is a supreme example of socialism. (Gone wrong of course. Somehow, it always goes wrong. Oh! And America is to blame. Standard Guardian discourse).


    HollyOldDog -> Luminaire 4 Jun 2015 06:01

    Swimming against the tide again is your speciality. Plus you just love throwing nonsense around. I have noticed that the Far Right Ukrainian punishers are up to their nasty tricks again just before a G7 meeting.

    Wow, you must think that the rest of the world is truly as gullible as those in Canada and Australia when the USA once again stirs the shit at the bottom of the West Ukrainian pond.

    HollyOldDog -> normankirk 4 Jun 2015 05:48

    It's a pity that successive British Governments were not better disposed to hanging on to British State assets rather than selling off the family jewels.

    JoePope 4 Jun 2015 05:15

    I'm not sure why state ownership of certain assets and industries is presented as a bad thing, in Guardian of all places. This is how governments pay for high standard of education, healthcare and strong defence. This is how governments avoid the debt trap and compounded interest charges creeping into the tax bill -- it is difficult to support the welfare system in any populous country purely through tax collection. One would have to have perfect conditions of natural resources/reserves, high technology, innovation and diversification, favourable geopolitical environment & export ability, stable and predictable population levels AND the lack of short term electioneering and corruption to achieve that. Even then, it is debatable whether private ownership and capital especially foreign capital in the case of strategic assets (energy, defence) is justified or needed.

    Of course a fully centrally planned economy has been proven to be inefficient and uncompetitive when met with open/free markets -- the "greed is good" mantra, profit seeking motive and consumerism trumps the desire to empower and care for the wider population and more worryingly the need to maintain social cohesion, independence and security. Therefore, a balance should be sought through bilateral or regional deals with economies which are at a similar developmental level, to ensure healthy competition exists and drives improvements in labour productivity, product quality and technology.

    This analysis gives some interesting information on Iran but reads as sour grapes and profiteering attempt by western investment funds and corporations. I hope Iranians keep the family jewels in their hands and allow external trade and investment only on terms favorable to their people and their economy.

    normankirk -> MaoChengJi 4 Jun 2015 04:13

    Good shit, I agree. Must be how come they can afford a good public health system, their primary health care network is acclaimed. They also have 81% home ownership as against The US and UK on about 65%. Education is valued and they have a high rate of women accessing tertiary education.

    All of the above is how they have been so resilient in the face of pretty brutal sanctions.

    But of course these days, having national assets is akin to being a dictatorship in the eyes of corporatocracies.

    MaoChengJi Dmitry Berezhnov 4 Jun 2015 03:26

    It's this kind: we, the westerners, are the most advanced civilization! The proof: our economies are all privatized, not government-run! The Iranians Russian, and Chinese are still savages! They have a long way to go to achieve our advanced level of civilization!

    Yes, you can make money trading and making deals with savages, but you need to understand their savagery ways and be careful.

    allowmetosayuarefool 4 Jun 2015 02:50

    US expert don't really understand that state capitalism is not a communist theory. Majority of Asian nations had practiced state capitalism.

    Even British regime do practiced state capitalism till private liberalization been pushed by Margaret Thatcher. Private liberation had its own disadvantages.

    look at HK economic - largely been controlled by few family of tycoon. Today, UK election result had been determined by UK BANKER.

    MaoChengJi 4 Jun 2015 02:42

    The economy in the Islamic republic is still largely state-owned, with much of its 'privatised' capital in the hands of regime-affiliated organizations

    Good, more power to them. This is a much more efficient way to use resources for the benefit of the whole population than anything the west ever tried.

    Neoliberalism will fail soon, but state-controlled economies will survive, if they are isolated enough from the failing neoliberal environment. Sounds like the Iranian economy is, and good for them.

    Dmitry Berezhnov 4 Jun 2015 00:14

    Could not figure what kind of article that is, either:

    - In case we are not going to sign a nuclear deal, please note that there's no democracy and we will have to invade them.

    or:

    - Iran is kind of not bad for investments, look how China and Russia make money on cooperation while we cannot due to sanctions implied by ourself.

    'Found' letters of love and poetry by Chechen fighters in Syria posted online

    Notable quotes:
    "...- that it's enacting violence as a yearning to return to Islam's most primitive and literal beliefs, an attempt to time travel, per se, to a medieval past, and in so doing, an attempt to excise modernity itself from the world (hence its ferocious attacks on other Muslims who have overwhelmingly abandoned those archaic beliefs and teachings) -- equal parts enlightening and chilling. "
    "...The Soviets were fighting on the side of those Afghans echo wanted to rid their country of such scum. The seppos with their British and Saudi running dogs were the ones who helped these scum win on Afghanistan. They got a thank you on 11/9/01."
    "...ISIL remind me of USA from history books. A lot of people unite under an idea, take over land, wipe history and population to a maximum possible extent in order to create a new nation. Ironically it was US idea to give ISIL (or ISIS) a kick start."
    "...This piece of non-news from Washington's official propaganda machine RFERL comes across as a thinly vieled attempt to humanize and romanticize the brainwashed ISIS terrorists, who according to the piece are now militants - essentially a neutral term). Will RFERL again relabel them "freedom fighters" if they return to wage Jihad in Chechnya? Most definitely I say. The recently leaked DIA documents revealing that the US financed jihadi-crazed extremist groups in Syria, knowing full well the likelihood they would attempt to declare a caliphate, clearly exposes the cynicism of the US in the Middle East and their plan to create chaos in order to maintain hegemony in the region, prevent Iran and the Shia's from gaining strength, and no matter how many lives and destruction it costs - remove Assad so the Qutari gas pipeline can finally be built through Syria to Europe. Sickening"
    "...Yeah, but they need the single evil mastermind responsible for all the evil in the world. They need him in order to scare their rubes, to distract them from real problems, to re-focus their anger. They need Emmanuel Goldstein. Obama bin Laden is dead, so now it's Putin. Obviously he's responsible for ISIS, who else."
    "...Attempting to forge a public perception link between Russia and IS ? The White House press Dept have been doing that for quite a while now. Strange then that IS is basically a gang of US originated, trained, armed, and funded attack dogs?"
    Jun 04, 2015 | The Guardian

    dyst1111 -> StatusFoe 4 Jun 2015 08:39

    As my comment was removed I will post again:

    "ISIS terrorists, who according to the piece are now militants"

    The term "ISIS militant" has been in use for years in British press. Russia Today uses it as well. So your theories are not confirmed by facts. Unless RT is really a part of "Washington's official propaganda machine".

    dyst1111 -> Luminaire 4 Jun 2015 08:33

    USA created ISIS, NATO, Bolsheviks, Hitler etc...but it were the British who created the USA. So it is the Brits' fault really.

    AhBrightWings 4 Jun 2015 07:35

    I've rarely seen a greater need for air quotes. There is no "poetry" to be had here, none; not a line or image quoted here rises to poetry's exacting metrics (oddly, the most moving line was about the stove).

    I do think the author is right to note the similarities to romanticized chivalry. The Atlantic has a superb, recent article about what "Isis wants." I found its main premise -- that it's enacting violence as a yearning to return to Islam's most primitive and literal beliefs, an attempt to time travel, per se, to a medieval past, and in so doing, an attempt to excise modernity itself from the world (hence its ferocious attacks on other Muslims who have overwhelmingly abandoned those archaic beliefs and teachings) -- equal parts enlightening and chilling.

    These written records -- whether propaganda or legitimate letters -- offer glimpses into the mentality that gives rise to these terrible acts, and so have value, but none of the lines quoted rise to poetry in the way the famous Sullivan Ballou Civil War letter does (though, maybe something is lost in translating Arabic to English).

    6i9vern psygone 4 Jun 2015 07:29

    The Soviets were fighting on the side of those Afghans echo wanted to rid their country of such scum.

    The seppos with their British and Saudi running dogs were the ones who helped these scum win on Afghanistan. They got a thank you on 11/9/01.

    6i9vern -> Aritra Gupta 4 Jun 2015 07:23

    The Graun/RFE/Soros have a soft spot for these types. They did a similar piece on the women of one of the Ukrainian Nazi militias.

    HollyOldDog -> Luminaire 4 Jun 2015 07:13

    There is no relationship between Putins Russia and ISIS as its a contradiction in terms as Russia favors its relationship with the Syrian Government. Jordan ( who's representatives now want to lead FIFA - payment for services rendered) trained (with the assistance of the USA) the Syrian militants who became ISIS. There are several fractions within Chechnya, some who oppose the countries leader Kadyrov while the majority support him. A few Chechens were 'bused' from ISIS earlier this year to assassinate Kadyrov but they failed and were mostly wiped out.

    dyst1111 -> InShockAndAwe 4 Jun 2015 05:42

    I know. Just a few examples of this change of tone:

    http://rt.com/news/165044-militants-seize-mosul-iraq/ june 2014
    http://rt.com/news/210315-isis-militants-casualties-kobani/ june 2014 http://rt.com/news/174480-isis-ransack-monastery-iraq/ july 2014
    http://rt.com/news/180712-isis-massacre-village-iraq/ august 2014

    I see RT changed the tone a year ago.

    warehouse_guy 4 Jun 2015 05:39

    ISIL remind me of USA from history books. A lot of people unite under an idea, take over land, wipe history and population to a maximum possible extent in order to create a new nation. Ironically it was US idea to give ISIL (or ISIS) a kick start.

    StatusFoe 4 Jun 2015 04:47

    This piece of non-news from Washington's official propaganda machine RFERL comes across as a thinly vieled attempt to humanise and romanticise the brainwashed ISIS terrorists, who according to the piece are now militants - essentially a neutral term). Will RFERL again relabel them "freedom fighters" if they return to wage Jihad in Chechnya? Most definitetly I say. The recently leaked DIA documents revealing that the US financed jihadi-crazed extremist groups in Syria, knowing full well the likelyhood they would attempt to declare a caliphate, clearly exposes the cynicism of the US in the Middle East and their plan to create chaos in order to maintain hegemony in the region, prevent Iran and the Shia's from gaining strength, and no matter how many lives and destruction it costs - remove Assad so the Qutari gas pipeline can finally be built through Syria to Europe. Sickening...

    normankirk 4 Jun 2015 03:53

    Seems there are chechens and chechens, those who are loyal to Russia and those who would still be doing Beslan type massacres if they could. Incidentally those were always referred to as militants, not terrorists by the US. Chechens who fight in Syria also fight in Ukraine against the eastern Ukrainians. There are two excellent articles in The Intercept about the Chechen Extremists fighting alongside the Ukrainian army.

    Maxstoic -> Corsair1972 4 Jun 2015 03:31

    There once was a Chechen named Sam
    Who listened to his fanatic Imam
    So full of hysteria
    He pissed off to Syria
    And blew himself all over the sands.

    Sam's wife left her home and her kids
    And headed south to pick up the bits
    Of her dead husband's remains
    (Though he had little brains
    His head filled up with myths and shit)

    MaoChengJi -> Chris Hindle 4 Jun 2015 02:54

    Yeah, but they need the single evil mastermind responsible for all the evil in the world. They need him in order to scare their rubes, to distract them from real problems, to re-focus their anger. They need Emmanuel Goldstein. Obama bin Laden is dead, so now it's Putin. Obviously he's responsible for ISIS, who else.

    Chris Hindle 4 Jun 2015 02:17

    Attempting to forge a public perception link between Russia and IS ?
    The White House press Dept have been doing that for quite a while now

    Strange then that IS is basically a gang of US originated, trained, armed, and funded attack dogs?

    [Jun 03, 2015]Ex-Ukrainian President Yanukovych Tried to Bargain with Puppet Master and Lost

    Jun 3. 2015 | russia-insider.com

    Viktor Yanukovych tried to play both EU and Russia but the US had already decided his fate. Rostislav Ishchenko argues that:

    • Yanukovych attempted to use Russia's resources to pay for the integration with the EU
    • He was naïve enough to believe that just because he is presenting the West with the whole of Ukraine he will be allowed to stay president
    • US and EU wanted free trade agreement with Ukraine to act as the "wormhole" from the US directly into the CIS and make Eurasian Customs Union worthless, thus negating all integration plans of Russia in Eurasia

    The text below is an excerpt from a longer essay from Rostislav Ishchenko, a prominent Russian commentator.

    This article originally appeared at the Russian website Odnako. It was translated by Eugenia at The Vineyard of the Saker.


    At that time [end of 2010], the oligarchic-nationalistic block believed that Russia should be treated as a source of all possible economic preferences, whereas the policy should be geared towards the West. By 2010, the "orange" Maidan team was completely discredited and lacked significant public support. Furthermore, the team had demonstrated total inability to create an acute conflict with Russia (like the one with Georgia) that would have tied up the Russian resources at the Ukrainian direction preventing Russia from interfering with the global affaires.

    For that reason, the US did not object against the election of Yanukovich as President in 2010. Washington knew that Yanukovich would try to return to the Kuchma-style policy of multi-vector that presupposed the use of Russia's resources to pay for the integration with the EU.

    At the beginning of 2000s, such policy no longer suited the US, and that was what prompted the coup of 2004. Then Washington no longer needed allies (no matter how loyal and dependent); it needed executors of already made decisions. But in 2010 the situation has changed: the US was pushed to support the Ukrainian multi-vector stance by the general weakening of its global geopolitical position as well as by the growing problems in the American economy. The US no longer had money to support its allies. Now the voiceless vassals were expected to pay for the American policy out of their own pocket.

    In the situation of 2010, Yanukovych was the only Presidential candidate suitable for the US. The Yushchenko team (including the present day "heroes" Yatsenyuk and Poroshenko) was completely discredited, and it would require time to restore its image. Timoshenko earned the reputation of been unpredictable and prone to constantly cheat her partners. The only dirt the US had on her (her cooperation with Lazarenko) has already been presented in the Ukrainian media and produced minimal effect. On the contrary, Yanukovych was not only under control of the American agents (the group of Levotchkin-Firtash) but sincerely wanted to "integrate into the EU" by signing the association agreement. Apparently Victor Feodorovitch decided to prove to all who deposed him in 2004 that he was the only one who could "unite Ukraine" reconciling the East and the West. In reality it meant the refusal to honor his election promises and the beginning of the pro-Western policies.

    Yanukovych was expected to sign the association agreement that would destroy the Ukrainian industry, completely discredit himself, concentrate everything negative on his own persona and then lose the 2015 elections to the American protégée. To make sure this scenario is followed (in case Yanukovich refuses to go peacefully), another Maidan was being prepared for 2015.

    Yanukovych was naïve enough to believe that just because he is presenting the West with the whole of Ukraine, he would be allowed to get reelected in 2015. To that end, he and his surrounding actively financed and supported Nazi organizations (not only "Freedom" but also "Ukraine Patriot", UIA-OUN and others). "Dander of fascism" was supposed to unite around Yanukovych the anti-fascist voters from the South-East.

    For moderate nationalists and "eurointegrators", the signed association with the EU was expected to serve as the incentive. Finally, to preserve the loyalty of the majority of the population, particularly those concerned exclusively with their economic wellbeing, it was planned under the pretext of the association to obtain a 15-20 billion credit from the EU, which would be enough, according to Azarov's calculations, to keep up or even improve the living standards until the 2015 elections.

    The plan of Yanukovych was logically perfect. The EU getting its hands on Ukraine – an assest worth trillions – was expected to open up its wallet for a mere twenty billions. Yanukovych and Azarov thought that if Greece received 200 billions, then Brussels could find 20 billions for Ukraine.

    The problem was that the US did not plan on keeping in power Yanukovych, who represented the interests of the national industry, and those interests would sooner or later collide with the abstract but unprofitable "European values". He was supposed to be replaced by completely tame comprador, and the national Ukrainian business was supposed to die out replaced by the European companies.

    Maidan instead of the golden key

    As result of that 5-year operation, the US would have established in Ukraine by early 2015 perfectly tame and legitimate Russophobic regime. The EU would have the free trade zone with Ukraine, which, first, after the demise of the Ukrainian industry, provided Europe with the 45 million-strong Ukrainian market (albeit with the decreasing buying power but still able to last a while longer), but, most importantly, via the free trade zone within the CIS the EU should obtain the access to the market of all CIS countries, particularly that of Russia. That would have minimized the European losses from the planned free trade agreement between the EU and US that was disadvantageous for the EU. Europe hoped to cover the losses form the free trade zone with the US at the expense of Russia and CIS.

    Obviously, the US cared not about the compensation of the European financial and economic losses but about its own geopolitical interests. Most importantly, that free trade agreement acting as the "wormhole" from the US directly into the CIS made the Custom Union [Eurasian Customs Union] worthless and negated all integration plans of Russia in Eurasia. In one hit, the US would restore its political and economic dominance in the world, and the most dangerous American rival – Russia – was expected to pay for it.

    That was a very elegant plan, and I can imagine how mad the Washington politicians were when that lummox Yanukovych finally realized that he would never see the European billions to support the social stability and suddenly only three months before the signing of the association agreement postponed the event. Yanulovych thought that he would bargain, get the money, and then sign. To make the EU more amenable, he went to Moscow, in accordance with the old Ukrainian tradition, where the coveted billions were promised to him on much easier terms. Putin tried at the last moment to play the Ukrainian cards he was dealt, that was why the decisions were made quickly and big money was given freely.

    In contrast to Yanukovych, people in Washington know full well what the window of opportunities is. All interconnected elements – from the signing of the association Ukraine-EU agreement to Maidan-2015, including the free trade agreement the US-EU – were built into a rigid scheme and coordinated in time. Taking out one block made the whole building come down. As a result, Yanukovych got himself Maidan as early as the end of 2013.

    [Jun 02, 2015] Tumbleweed Town: Kiev Post-Gas Transit

    In Western MSM the 17.6% year on year GDP drop in Ukraine is mentioned as a just a number without any context. But during the Great Depression the US GDP contracted "only" 25%. In any given year of that depression it did not drop 17%. Also, in the case of Ukraine, it has already underwent its first Great Depression, which was worse than the US depression during the 1990s. So we are looking at The Second Great Depression in Ukraine. This is the meaning of this 17.6 drop. Ukrainian pensioners are brought by brave Western neocons with the help of local fifth column to the real starvation level. This is an important story and yet Western MSM ignore it much like they ignore now flight MH17. Instead we have overoptimistic "confidence enhancing" forecasts from Moody's, the World Bank, the IMF, and other western agencies. Which are pure political fluff. when in reality we need to state that USA neocons (see Nulandgate) destroyed the Ukraine economics and plunge the country into another Great Depression.
    Ukraine earns around $3 Billion a year from gas transit fees. How is the loss of this income going to impact Ukraine, in view of its medium-term economic forecast?
    Jun 01, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Anyone who has not sleepwalked through the gas-price squabble between Russia and Ukraine since the Great Freedom Jubilee known as EuroMaidan is aware that Russia has grown fed up with Ukraine's posturing and loose grip on reality – neither being a quality that is endearing or inspirational of confidence in its reliability as a gas-transit country for Europe. Russia has had projects underway for some time to gradually reduce its reliance on Ukraine as a gas-transit corridor for Russian gas since the stand-off in 2009, in which Ukraine was siphoning off gas intended for Europe for its own use free of charge, while Russia was expected to just make up the difference – Ukraine was confident Russia was without alternatives, since it would not dare shut off Europe's gas. Which it did, of course, initiating a panic and a lasting reputation for Russia as an unreliable energy partner. Nothing much was ever said about Ukraine stealing gas; Europe made a few comments to the effect that there was wrong on both sides, and left it at that, and ever afterward the narrative was that they knew Russia accused Ukraine of stealing gas, but where was the evidence?

    Russia constructed the Nord Stream pipeline, and partially completed South Stream, the two of which together would handle the entirety of gas shipped to Europe, without going through Ukraine. The EU dug in its heels, and went on about how everyone needs rules and Russia would have to abide by the Third Energy Package which said the same company cannot own both the gas and the pipeline, and lots of other twaddle although it simply hands out exemptions to its own suppliers, and Russia canceled South Stream. The EU was jubilant – it had put those Russkies in their place, by God!

    Which brings us, skipping over many other details which are of great import but not germane to the gas situation, to where we are now. Russia has announced it will construct Turkish Stream instead, delivering the same amount forecast for South Stream – 63 BCm – to the Turkish/Greek border. If Europe wants gas, it can build pipeline infrastructure to take it from that point. If not, fine – start busting up Granny's piano for firewood. And none – as of 2019 at the latest but probably around 2017 – will go through Ukraine.

    Ukraine earns around $3 Billion a year from gas transit fees. How is the loss of this income going to impact Ukraine, in view of its medium-term economic forecast?

    As a starting point, it would be hard to envision a more dramatically effective program of economic ruin than what has been done to Ukraine by its western friends. The currency has fallen off a cliff, averaging 7.29 to the U.S. dollar between 2002 and 2015, spiking to a record low value of 33.5 to the dollar in February of 2015 and currently at a ruinous 20.44. Whoever wrote the summary apparently wanted to camouflage the moment of disaster by averaging the value of the hryvnia from 2002 to 2015, because the value declined steadily throughout 2014 and can be traced almost to the minute to the Euromaidan demonstrations, accelerating to a screaming power dive after they turned violent and cratering with the collapse of the Debaltseve cauldron. The stock market has fallen to a quarter of its value in 2008. The most recent GDP Growth Rate is a contraction of 3.8% in the final quarter of 2014 – certainly worsening since then – and annually is a jaw-dropping contraction of 17.6%. Helpfully – I meant that sarcastically – the official unemployment rate has soared to 9.7% over 2013's low of 7.6%, and has been over 9% since the beginning of 2014, while inflation has bulleted its way up to 60.9%. All these are figures the state statistics service will admit to. Meanwhile, its hapless government merrily enacts a debt moratorium, authorizing itself to put a hold on payments to its creditors, even as it doubles "defense spending".

    Anyway, on to the sometimes comical dynamics of the European gas business. I think my favourite is the smirking strut executed by various countries as they claim to be "weaning themselves off of Russian gas" by importing gas from some other European country that is a net importer of Russian gas. Like Poland, for example. Kiev was quite proud of itself when, in 2012, it reduced its imports of Russian gas by taking delivery of gas from RWE in Poland on a trial basis. These imports continued into 2013 – a year in which Poland (which is also "weaning itself off of Russian gas") took 60% of its gas from Russia. They've wised up now, though, and plan to import significantly more gas from Germany…which gets 38% of its gas from Russia. Oh, and they're building an LNG terminal into which they plan to import LNG from Qatar via tankers. More expensive than pipeline gas, of course, which is just good economics by European standards, but at least they can fly a Polish flag on the LNG terminal. You just can't put a price on national pride, can you? And they'll be able – in their dreams – to say goodbye to gas imports someday from that evil undemocratic Stalin dictatorship of Russia in favour of freedom gas from the smiling Qataris, ruled through a constitutional monarchy in which the Emir exercises absolute power and whose heirs come from the male branch of the al-Thani family.

    Meanwhile, Ukraine itself remains the fifth-heaviest consumer of natural gas in Europe, at some 55 BCm annually. Mind you, it should realize significant savings in consumption by the almost-complete loss of its heavy industry sector, most of which is in the east – every cloud has a silver lining, what? But Ukraine's domestic production peaked at 68 BCm forty years back, has been in decline since then and now amounts to about 20 BCm – less than half its current consumption. So in order for Ukraine to wean itself off of Russian gas, it is going to have to either cut its consumption in half or buy reverse-flowed gas from other European countries – using mostly handout money, since it is going to lose $3 Billion off the top of its GDP which is currently contracting at a rate of more than 17% per year. Put that way, it doesn't sound too hopeful, does it? Mind you, the EU is doing its bit to help by insisting on reforms which have doubled the price of gas for household use, even as the currency has shrunk to about a third of its previous value.

    kirill , June 1, 2015 at 7:05 pm

    Good article. It is peculiar how the 17.6% year on year GDP drop in Ukraine is mentioned as a ho-hum statistic without any context. The US GDP contracted 25% during the Great Depression. In any given year of that depression it did not drop almost 18%. Also, in the case of Ukraine, it has already underwent a Great Depression worse than the original during the 1990s and has *not* fully recovered. So we are looking at an epic economic contraction since 1990. This is a big story and yet there is no spotlight on it whatsoever. Instead we have those retarded "forecasts" from Moody's, the World Bank, the IMF, and other western agencies which are pure political fluff.

    On another forum a well informed poster was confused by what year on year meant. As you correctly note in your article it is basically a measure of the relative change in the GDP after one year. The only way Ukraine's GDP could hit those western "forecasts" in 2015 would be if it had a surge of growth in the second half of the year. This ain't gonna happen. In fact the decline will continue into the second quarter and the rate of decline will decline in the second half due to the fact that it is compared to the second half of 2014 which was already in full bore recession. The first quarter of 2015 dropped almost 7% compared to the fourth quarter of 2014. I expect there to be quarter to quarter drops in Ukraine's GDP during all of 2015. This translates into a GDP drop in 2015 of between 20% and 30% depending on how rapidly the collapse slows later this year.

    As for the EU and its racist, delusional hate aimed at Russia. It will reap what it has sown. For some reason some analysts think that if Iran is allowed to ship gas to the EU this will undermine Russia. They are missing the mark. Russia will be happy to have the EU supplied with its gas from the Middle East. Everyone with a clue will see the implications. Russia's own production will decline in the long run as is inevitable and Russia has now the access to the huge Chinese market at a reasonable price. The stooges in Brussels will be remembering the good old days of Russian supply.

    [Jun 01, 2015] Kiev Big Lie on Ending Donbas Conflict in Two Weeks

    Jan 13, 2015 | veteranstoday.com

    Washington runs things in Ukraine. It newest colony. Kiev's illegitimate puppet government serves its interests. Ruthlessly exploiting its people in the process. America wants unchallenged control over Ukraine's entire land mass. As a dagger pointed at Russia's heart.

    Ukraine is a pretext. Regime change in Russia the objective. Gaining another US colony. Eliminating a major rival. Stealing its vast resources. Exploiting its people. Turning them into serfs. Isolating China. Repeating the process against Beijing. Transforming nations into a ruler/serf societies. More unfit to live in than ever. Coups, assassinations, false flags and permanent wars its tactics of choice.

    No nation in world history reflects more pure evil than America. Wrapped in the American flag. People manipulated to believe destructive US policies benefit them. Governments lie about everything. Media scoundrels repeat Big Lies like gospel. No one can possibly understand world events by watching mainstream television. BBC is as bad as Fox News. Owned and operated by Britain's government. Its propaganda bullhorn. So-called US public radio and broadcasting are government and corporate controlled. Qatar's despotic monarchy runs Al Jazeera. The New York Times and other major publications are instruments of state propaganda.

    Try finding a single MSM report explaining Ukraine's coup. Instituted by Washington. Ousting a democratic government. Replacing it with illegitimate fascist thugs. Systematically destroying human and civil rights. Eliminating opposition elements. Prohibiting a free press. Instituting total control over all information disseminated. Attacking independent journalists. Shutting down Russian language print and electronic media. Calling them "security threats." In bed with Western financial interests. At the expense of their own people. At war with them in Donbas. Dirty war. Without mercy. Using chemical and other illegal weapons. Conflict continues daily despite illegitimate/oligarch president Petro Poroshenko's "regime of silence." More on this below.

    On January 12, he lied. Saying war in Donbas will be over in two weeks. Ending it requires "simply fulfill(ing) the Minsk agreements signed in September." Like Hitler declaring peace in Europe before launching WW II.

    Fact check

    Last April, Washington, EU nations, Russia and Ukraine agreed to end violence. Deescalate tensions. Restore peace and stability. Kiev violated the four-party agreement straightaway. Escalated war. Blamed it irresponsibly on Donbas freedom fighters.

    On September 5, Kiev agreed to Minsk protocol provisions. Plus additional ones in a follow-up September 19 memorandum. Calling for ending hostilities. Banning all offensive operations. Withdrawing Kiev troops and foreign mercenaries from conflict areas. Dialoguing for peace, security and stability.

    Fighting never stopped. Shelling continues. Including throughout the holiday period. Into January. Kiev bears full responsibility for naked aggression. Since last April. With Washington's full support and encouragement. Kiev agreements aren't worth the paper they're written on. According to Donetsk People's Republic (DRP) deputy legislative speaker Denis Pushlin:

    Poroshenko's posturing "is pure bluff…He controls nothing in Donbas. Ukraine does not fulfill the Minsk agreements, and this is a fact." "What we are talking about? We see that they are shelling our settlements. Commanders of Ukrainian battalions openly say they are not obeying Poroshenko's orders."

    "How can he fulfill the Minsk agreements then? How can he be so definite about these two weeks?"

    He's a serial liar. Notoriously saying one thing. Doing another. Taking orders from Washington. Wanting Donbas democracy entirely crushed. Fascist rule replacing it. What area freedom fighters won't tolerate. Nor should anyone. On Monday, the Kiev Post headlined "Ukraine seals off roads to Donbas as fighting escalates."

    DPR leader Oleksandr Zakharchenko was quoted saying: "Honestly speaking I'm tired of all these negotiations. People who don't keep their words…well, I don't know." ... "We are ready for any talks. But in case it would be impossible to solve the conflict peacefully, we are ready to fight."

    Kiev intends greater conflict ahead. Stop NATO reported increased Ukraine military spending. During economic crisis conditions. Potential bankruptcy. Ukraine unable to operate without significant financial aid. It plans increasing its armed forces this year. To 250,000. "(A)s well as six mechanized brigades, a mountain infantry regiment, three artillery brigades and two army brigades," said Stop NATO. Why when Ukraine's only enemies are ones it invents. Its own Donbas citizens.

    Russia despite Moscow's all-out efforts for responsible dialogue. Diplomacy. Peaceful conflict resolution. Strict observance of international law. Washington systematically spurns it. So does Ukraine. Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff expressed justifiable concern. Something has to give. East/West confrontation assures trouble. Possible "nuclear war," he warned. On Monday, the reliable Vineyard of the Saker web site headlined "Je suis Ukraine. I fight terror. Yats (Yatsenyuk) is Charlie." Ukraine's "junta…dramatically stepped up shelling of Novorossiya (its Donetsk and Lugansk territories). "(T)ypical terror strikes…randomly aimed at the civilian sectors…(Most) worrisome…is confirmation by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that (Moscow has) intelligence showing (Kiev plans) a full scale assault…"

    On the one hand, extending peace overtures. On the other, intending escalated conflict. Blaming its aggression on Donbas victims. US and rogue NATO partners echo its Big Lies. Media scoundrels repeat them. When anything about Ukraine is reported.

    Propaganda substitutes for hard truths. Readers and viewers are systematically lied to. MSM scoundrels are a machine for the manufacture of Big Lies. It bears repeating. Ignore them. Nothing they report should be believed. Voice of Sevastopol (VoS) is a reliable source of Ukrainian news and information. Kiev's "so-called silent mode (was) accompanied by heavy artillery shelling of settlements of Donbas and active hostilities," it reported. Kiev junta attacks continue. Much like summer fighting. Ignored by media scoundrels. Kiev murdering civilians doesn't matter. Or destroying their homes and other property. Or causing hundreds of thousands to flee for their lives.Seeking safe havens. Many finding them in Russia. An oasis of stability amidst neighboring hostility.

    One of last year's key Maidan demands was ending corruption. Today it's greatly increased, said VoS. "Almost 80% of Ukrainians (say) over the last year…corruption became more spacious."

    On Monday, German, French, Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers met in Berlin. The so-called Normandy Quartet. Established last June. In Normandy, France. Seeking solutions to Ukrainian crisis conditions. Monday's talks resolved nothing. Nor will future ones. Kiev deplores peace. Washington won't tolerate it. Conflict wasn't initiated to resolve things diplomatically. Fascist regimes don't operate this way.

    Sergey Lavrov said "the political process can be successful only when you start a direct dialogue, in this case between the representatives of the Ukrainian government and the proclaimed DPR and LPR, and they should feel fully involved in the political process as equal partners." Nothing remotely close to this exists. Nor will it ahead. Washington rules apply. Kiev intends crushing Donbas resistance. Wants despotism replacing democracy. Wants human and civil rights eliminated altogether.

    Its dirty war without end continues. Ceasefire is pure fantasy. None whatever exists. Nor will Kiev tolerate one. Short of unconditional surrender. What Donbas freedom fighters won't ever agree to. Nor should they. Freedom is too precious to sacrifice. Kiev blocked seven entry corridors to Donbas. A DPR Foreign Ministry statement accused it of violating fundamental free movement rights. "Additional restrictions…will only exacerbate the catastrophic humanitarian situation that our people have faced," it said.

    Kiev wants Donbas residents isolated. Starved to death. Total MSM silence on what demands headlines. Since April, Kiev committed continued high crimes against peace. They remain ongoing daily. Vauro Senesi is an Italian journalist. On January 1, he headlined "Non è possibile non scorgere un disegno pianificato di pulizia etnica." Senesi toured Lugansk. Impossible not to see ongoing ethnic cleansing, he said. Kiev-instituted slow-motion genocide. Targeting defenseless civilians. "(T)he local population, is being, on a daily basis, killed by battalions of the extreme right in the service of the puppet state of Kiev," said Senesi. "All this in the most absolute silence of the Italian (and other Western) media." "(F)ollowing the United States in this mad rush to the abyss against Russia." Donbas conditions are deplorable. A shell-caused breach in one apartment building reflects similar damage throughout the area. It's "so big you can see the other side of the building. (A) wall burned by fire…A mother lived there with her three kids." "There's nothing left of her or her children. The explosion blew everything to bits." "Grief, pain, fear – maybe all her emotions have been burned, reduced into rubble like the city she continues to live in."

    Pre-war, the area had 25,000 residents. Less than 8,000 remain. Most others fled to Russia. Where else could they be safe? "There is no electricity, no running water. The power plants, the water treatment plants, all destroyed by the bombardment," said Senisi. Artillery fire is constant. Senesi quoted a young man named Roman. Fighting for Donbas freedom. Unsure how much longer war will last. "We want peace," he said. "(B)ut on our bit of land." "Becoming part of Ukraine again is no longer a possibility. The Army of Ukraine has fired on its own people." "There's nothing for us but to resist to the end. Against the Nazis" representing Kiev. "They have swastikas on their uniforms. How is it possible that Europe supports them?" And America. "No Pasaran," said Roman! With raised fist. The salute of Spanish Civil War republicans. Committed to continue fighting.

    Senisi went from Lugansk to Stakanov, Pervomaisk and other areas. Everywhere he went he saw "schools, hospitals, factories, power plants, water pumping stations, all destroyed." "(S)corched earth," he said. Wanting an entire population eliminated. By slaughter or ethnic cleansing. Few people remain in Novosveltovka, he said. An old man took refuge in a basement. For days in the dark without food or water. Hungry dogs are dangerous. They attack people like beasts. Ukraine is Obama's war. LIke ongoing Afghan conflict without end. Iraq war III.

    Libya. Syria. Yemen. Somalia. Partnered with Israel against Palestine. Homeland wars against Blacks, Muslims and other targeted Americans. Wars without mercy. Permanent ones. Continued mass slaughter and destruction. It bears repeating. No nation in world history reflects more pure evil than America. No time more perilous than now. More urgent than ever for resistance. World peace hangs in the balance.

    Stephen Lendman is a writer, syndicated columnist, activist, News TV personality, and radio show host.He currently writes for MoneyNewsNow.com and VeteransToday.com and hosts, since 2007, a progressive radio show at The Progressive Radio News Hour on The Progressive Radio Network.

    Stephen Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA, raised in a modest middle income family, attended public schools, received a Harvard BA in 1956 and a Wharton MBA in 1960. After six years as a marketing research analyst, Lendman became part of a new small family business in 1967, remaining there until retiring in 1999.

    Since then, he has devoted his time to progressive causes, extensive reading, and since summer 2005 writing on vital world and national topics, including war and peace, American imperialism, corporate dominance, political persecutions, and a range of other social, economic and political issues.

    He is also author of the celebrated books "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity" and "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War".

    [May 31, 2015]Why the US is Finally Talking to Russia

    May 31, 2015 | Sputnik International
    So a woman walks into a room… That's how quite a few jokes usually start. In our case, self-appointed Queen of Nulandistan Victoria "F**k the EU" walks into a room in Moscow to talk to Russian deputy foreign ministers Sergei Ryabkov and Grigory Karasin.

    A joke? Oh no; that really happened. Why?

    Let's start with the official reactions. Karasin qualified the talks as "fruitful", while stressing Moscow does not approve of Washington becoming part of the Normandy-style (Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France) negotiations on Ukraine. Not after the relentless demonization not only of the Kremlin but also of Russia as a whole since the Maidan coup.

    Ryabkov, for his part, made it known the current state of the US-Russia relationship remains, well, corrosive.

    It's crucial to remember the Queen of Nulandistan went to Moscow only after meeting with certified Washington vassal President Poroshenko and her own, hand-picked Prime Minister, "Yats"; and that was before accompanying Secretary of State John Kerry on the full regalia State Department trip to Sochi on May 12.

    The Minsk-2 agreement – the actual product of the Normandy-style negotiations – directly involved Berlin and Paris, who finally saw the realpolitik on the wall and were compelled to divert from Washington's monomaniac antagonistic approach.

    Inside the EU, chaos remains on the key subject of sanctions. The Baltics and Poland toe the "Russians are coming!" Cold War 2.0 hysteria line, while the adults in Brussels are represented by Italy, Greece, Spain and Hungary.

    So Germany and France are already in deep trouble keeping the messy EU house in order. At the same time Berlin and Paris know nothing the self-described "Don't Do Stupid Stuff" Obama administration pulls off will mollify Moscow to abandon its precise red lines.

    Watch Those Red Lines

    It's crucial to notice that Crimea does not seem to be on the table anymore; it's a fait accompli. But then there are those U.S. "military trainers" who have been deployed to western Ukraine only for a "six-month mission" (historical reminder; this is how the Vietnam war started). For Moscow, expansion of this "mission" is an absolute red line.

    And then there's the ultimate red line; NATO expansion, which remains unabated in the Baltics, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. That won't stop; it's part of NATO's obsession in solidifying a new Iron Curtain from the Baltics to the Black Sea.

    Thus, beyond all the talking, the next step to watch is whether the Obama administration will really refrain from weaponizing Kiev.

    Ukraine for all practical purposes is now a massively indebted failed state turned into an IMF colony. The EU does not want it – although NATO does. For Moscow, the – ghastly – show will only be over when Ukraine, with or without the people's republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, is neutral, and not part of a NATO strategic threat.

    I have examined here the possibility that the Obama administration's strategic shift towards talking instead of cursing/threatening may signify that the real Masters of the Universe have finally understood the emerging New (Silk) World Order is bound to leave them behind.

    ... ... ...

    Strategy? What Strategy?

    The Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski-style strategy has always been to lure Russia into another Afghanistan in Ukraine, leading to a collapse of the Russian economy with the Big Prize being a Western takeover of Russia's oil and natural gas wealth, and by extension Central Asia's. Ukrainians would be used as cannon fodder, as were Afghans since the 1980s Arab-Afghan jihad.

    Yet the Obama administration overplayed its hand, and realpolitik now spells out the deepening of the Russia-China strategic partnership across the entire Eurasian land mass; Eurasia as a prospective, massive commercial emporium stretching from Beijing to Berlin, or from Shanghai to St. Petersburg and beyond towards Rotterdam and Duisburg.

    Without the exceptionalist obsession of some key Beltway factions, none of the elements of Cold War 2.0 would be in play, as Russia is a natural ally of the US in many fronts. That in itself reveals the state of "strategic thinking" by the current US administration.

    Moscow, anyway, won't be caught off-guard by the current, barely disguised, charm offensive, because Russian intelligence knows that may well veil a "Grand Chessboard"-style tactic of two steps back to regroup for a massive advance later.

    Moreover, nothing has basically changed other than the original, dissuasive Cold War era MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction – doctrine being over.

    The US still retains PGS (Prompt Global Strike) capability. Ukraine is just a detail. The real game-changer will happen when Russia is able to seal its whole territory, via the S-500s, against PGS. That will happen sooner than anyone thinks. And that's why the real Masters of the Universe – via their emissaries – feel compelled to talk.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    See also

    Western Isolation of Moscow Helps Putin, Opens New Opportunities for Russia

    [May 30, 2015] Rand Paul declares surveillance war and hints at filibuster for NSA reform

    "By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists," Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed by a judge just like the constitution says."
    Spiegel said it is Expired.... And they are a NSA Fish Wrap..... http://m.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/a-1036475.html
    Notable quotes:
    "... With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory. ..."
    "... "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it." ..."
    "... Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized". ..."
    "... By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in. ..."
    "... politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens. ..."
    "... Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands. ..."
    "... "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws." ..."
    May 29, 2015 | The Guardian

    Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.

    With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.

    ... ... ...

    "By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists," Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed by a judge just like the constitution says."

    ... ... ...

    "Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest of them – or a lot of the rest of them."

    ... ... ...

    In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.

    While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.

    ... ... ...

    The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.

    Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.

    James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.

    "At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.

    At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another 9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.

    "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."

    Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.

    Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would resolve.

    But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise on Friday.

    "Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

    See also:

    Trenton Pierce -> phrixus 30 May 2015 21:18

    He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police. He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches. He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?

    Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14

    Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get ready for your Democrat rule.

    Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20

    The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.

    ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47

    Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires. Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".

    seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20

    New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see these changes happening. Keep up the good work.

    AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12

    By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.

    Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44

    politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.

    Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow in line.

    I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.

    EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22

    Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.

    Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.

    Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13

    "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws."

    This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say! They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong! Awesome!

    [May 29, 2015] Michael Klare Delusional Thinking in Washington, The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower naked capitalism

    May 29, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

    By Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. Originally published at TomDispatch

    Take a look around the world and it's hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington's dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?

    This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, "We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, 'Superpower Lives Here,' no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe."

    Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington

    Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington's power brokers assumed that there would always be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance. In the wake of the utterly unexpected Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a "sole superpower" (aka Rome on the Potomac). In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it declared: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union."

    H.W.'s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he told military cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be

    "to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity - given few nations in history - to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future. A chance to project America's peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years."

    For Bush, of course, "extending the peace" would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after it began, he did not doubt - nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight) does he today - that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted status as the world's sole superpower.

    The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed "imperial overstretch." As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which "the sum total of the United States' global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country's power to defend all of them simultaneously."

    Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What's curious, however, is just how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the planet's first "hyperpower," a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.'s miscalculation in Iraq and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying, in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas - among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the South China Sea - but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.

    Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington's power elite - Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule - seems to have the slightest urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country's strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision. "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation," he told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. "That has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come."

    How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment to global supremacy?

    The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire circus act. It involves the constant juggling of America's capabilities and commitments, with its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration. Call it the Obama Doctrine.

    After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers decided to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in the western Pacific. Announcing this shift in 2011 - it would first be called a "pivot to Asia" and then a "rebalancing" there - the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.

    "After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region," he told members of the Australian Parliament that November. "As we end today's wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority. As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not - I repeat, will not - come at the expense of the Asia Pacific."

    Then, of course, the new Islamic State launched its offensive in Iraq in June 2014 and the American-trained army there collapsed with the loss of four northern cities. Videoed beheadings of American hostages followed, along with a looming threat to the U.S.-backed regime in Baghdad. Once again, President Obama found himself pivoting - this time sending thousands of U.S. military advisers back to that country, putting American air power into its skies, and laying the groundwork for another major conflict there.

    ... ... ...

    But however risky juggling may prove, it is not nearly as dangerous as the other strategic response to superpower decline in Washington: utter denial.

    For those who adhere to this outlook, it's not America's global stature that's eroding, but its will - that is, its willingness to talk and act tough. If Washington were simply to speak more loudly, so this argument goes, and brandish bigger sticks, all these challenges would simply melt away. Of course, such an approach can only work if you're prepared to back up your threats with actual force, or "hard power," as some like to call it.

    Among the most vocal of those touting this line is Senator John McCain, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a persistent critic of President Obama. "For five years, Americans have been told that 'the tide of war is receding,' that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values," he typically wrote in March 2014 in a New York Times op-ed. "This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative." The only way to prevent aggressive behavior by Russia and other adversaries, he stated, is "to restore the credibility of the United States as a world leader." This means, among other things, arming the Ukrainians and anti-Assad Syrians, bolstering the NATO presence in Eastern Europe, combating "the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses," and playing a "more robust" role (think: more "boots" on more ground) in the war against ISIS.

    Above all, of course, it means a willingness to employ military force. "When aggressive rulers or violent fanatics threaten our ideals, our interests, our allies, and us," he declared last November, "what ultimately makes the difference… is the capability, credibility, and global reach of American hard power."

    A similar approach - in some cases even more bellicose - is being articulated by the bevy of Republican candidates now in the race for president, Rand Paul again excepted.

    ... ... ...

    However initially gratifying such a stance is likely to prove for John McCain and the growing body of war hawks in Congress, it will undoubtedly prove disastrous in practice. Anyone who believes that the clock can now be turned back to 2002, when U.S. strength was at its zenith and the Iraq invasion had not yet depleted American wealth and vigor, is undoubtedly suffering from delusional thinking. China is far more powerful than it was 13 years ago, Russia has largely recovered from its post-Cold War slump, Iran has replaced the U.S. as the dominant foreign actor in Iraq, and other powers have acquired significantly greater freedom of action in an unsettled world. Under these circumstances, aggressive muscle-flexing in Washington is likely to result only in calamity or humiliation.

    Time to Stop Pretending

    Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of this predicament?

    Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it's not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie of other major powers - none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power, Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers - Russia, China, and Iran among them - and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous regional firestorms.

    If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this country's "war capital," this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global superpower status and, "rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis… should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion." Layne and others have spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge to garrison the planet, reduced military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.

    But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower - and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it's already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality.


    voxhumana, May 29, 2015 at 4:58 am

    An interesting read. Would have been far better without the Democratic partisanship:

    "Whatever her personal views, Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate, will be forced to demonstrate her backbone by embracing similar positions."

    forced?

    "American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower - and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow."

    oh, I see… only certain Republican candidates' political aspirations are premised on war and global hegemony but poor Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton will be "forced" to go along if she wants to be elected.

    Klare makes many good points but suggesting that Hillary Clinton will be forced to be a war monger, forced to promote her well established neocon foreign policy bona fides, is absurd


    Katniss Everdeen, May 29, 2015 at 6:36 am

    My thoughts exactly.

    And just as bogus as the knee-jerk, neanderthal "republicans bad, democrats good" grunting is the characterization of gwb's middle east policies as "missteps" and "miscalculations."

    They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew how it would turn out. It made a few people tremendously wealthy, and justified the apparatus of population surveillance and control which is fast becoming necessary for maintaining the illusion that the us is anything more than a shadow of its former self.

    weinerdog43, May 29, 2015 at 8:33 am

    Seriously? Please show me exactly where 'republicans bad; democrats good' is located. The reason it looks bad if you are a republican partisan, is because most of the problem lies there. Yes, Obama has been a colossal disappointment, but he campaigned as a Liberal but has governed as a moderate/conservative republican.

    To this day, over 60% of republicans think the Iraq war was a good thing. While I'll agree that the 'power elite' in Washington love them some war, to argue that democrats in the street think the same is grossly unfair.

    lylo, May 29, 2015 at 10:54 am

    I would object to the idea that he has governed as a Republican.
    I mean, prior to the more recent Republican presidents, it wasn't that bad of a party: they didn't like to spend money on anything, represented small towns and business owners. Which went pretty well with the Democrats prior to our more recent crop: they liked to spend on the people and represented the more urban populations. See? This is a decent argument worth having. And the one that the "people on the street" represent, both sides.

    Recent Republican presidents are neoconservatives–they love war and enriching the elite, preferring to represent big finance and corporations. Recent Democrat presidents are neoliberals–they love war and enriching the elite, preferring to represent big finance and corporations.

    Unsurprisingly, Obama is a neoliberal. (BTW: it's all just code for fascist!)

    You've roped yourself hard into the very paradigm that the guy was lamenting, and in a way, proved his point. You seem to imply that average democrats are so much less tribal and more enlightened, yet the majority of democrats polled support our actions in Libya.
    You seem to think the problem is republicans, and it's not: it's fascism and blind party loyalty.


    steviefinn, May 29, 2015 at 6:20 am

    Not to mention that the US appears to be rotting from within in terms of debt, corruption etc, within a world where resources that supported an earlier lifestyle are becoming ever scarcer. I seem to remember that the decline of Rome was similar in some details with this, but at least you guys don't have millions of desperate Huns, Visigoths etc threatening your Northern border.

    I remember at a pretty rough school I once attended how the long ruling school yard bully ended up being abandoned by his cohorts & losing his power. As was his habit he picked on a much smaller new kid who just happened to be a southpaw who also just happened to know how to deliver a single very effective liver punch.

    Doug, May 29, 2015 at 6:40 am

    Klare's assessment is correct that US super power delusions outstrip US resources (not to mention woefully ignorant yet arrogant office holders in both parties). However, he misses the mark in naming the counter parties with whom the US government must deal.

    Finding a path forward has far more to do with reclaiming hegemony over the likes of Halliburton, JPMorganChase, ExxonMobil, Blackstone, and so on than it does with diplomacy etc respecting Russia, China, Iran and any number of other so-called nations that, in turn - like the US - are mere partners/puppets serving the corporations - the real superpowers in a world of 'free markets'.

    Carla, May 29, 2015 at 6:57 am

    Agreed. Wonder if you have read "National Security and Double Government" by Michael J. Glennon. Or for that matter, if Klare has.

    MikeNY, May 29, 2015 at 7:03 am

    It would mean accepting that "American Exceptionalism" is and always has been a fiction. We are neither humble nor wise enough to do that.

    Jim Haygood, May 29, 2015 at 9:17 am

    'No one in Washington's power elite seems to have the slightest urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way,' writes Klare.

    Down the road, this means that the vast value-subtraction scheme of U.S. global supremacy will fold the same way the gold-backed dollar did in 1971: with an anticlimactic, out-of-the-blue weekend executive order announcing 'we're done with all that.'

    To paraphrase Emperor Hirohito's surrender speech, 'the global supremacy situation has developed not necessarily to America's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interests.'

    Why do bad things happen to good superpowers?

    Whine Country, May 29, 2015 at 10:20 am

    "good superpowers"…add that to George Carlin's list of famous oxymorons. How about right next to "military intelligence"?

    TedWa, May 29, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    As soon as Obomba said that I had to laugh. If you have to tell everyone you're cool – as soon as you say it, you're not. If you have to tell everyone that you're the best at something, as soon as you say it, you're not. It's that moment of claiming in public what everyone knew in secret that makes it not true, and a good joke in the making. It's taking serious respect in private and turning it into something else (pride maybe) that's deserving of open ridicule.

    American exceptionalism is a joke and Obomba's playing checkers. We're no different than anyone else in this world.

    Nick, May 29, 2015 at 7:41 am

    In the post-globalized world we now find ourselves in, the US may not be the supreme actor it once was, rather it will lead the world's democracies in a grand coalition – this is perhaps Obama's greatest legacy. It's particularly odd India is classified as an adversary, as they are not only the largest democracy on the planet, but a newly minted key US trade partner. Similarly, Saudi Arabia has finally grown up, after decades of reliance on the US for military protection; however they are still indisputable American allies.

    Things can change very quickly, Syria is on the brink of collapse and an Iran deal is within sight. China's economy is fragile, while the US economy is stabilizing. Even given DC disorganization, this is much too pessimistic I'd say, the next few decades will see many unimagined positive developments for the US (forefront of renewable energy, breadbasket of the world, 3D printing revolution, resurgence of domestic space industry, energy independence, cutting edge drones and AI, to name but a few).

    Ignim Brites, May 29, 2015 at 8:33 am

    Leader of a grand coalition of the world's democracies is the essence of the neo-con vision of the US "universal" and indispensable role. Obama pays lip service to this idea but his intention is to destroy it and he is succeeding. It's all over now baby blue.

    OIFVet, May 29, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    "it will lead the world's democracies in a grand coalition – this is perhaps Obama's greatest legacy."

    Step away from the blue pill, Nick. What "democracies" are these where the governments go against popular will to impose austerity, where corruption in the form of campaign fundraising and lobbying is legalized, and where the government of lesser members of the "grand coalition" get their marching orders from Washington, often against the best interest of the nation and the will of its people? Obama helped to expose the meaningless of the term, to a greater extent than even Bush did, because he managed to bring Bush's "Old Europe" to heel too – quite a legacy indeed. The less "freedom and democracy" there is the more and louder the US and its "allies" shout it from the mountaintops. It's a sham.

    As for your second paragraph: wow! Some questions: For whom is "America's economy" stabilizing? How does one survive in this stabilized economy of crappy McJobs? Have you asked the considerable FF lobby about whether it will permit a move to the "forefront of renewable energy"? How do you square the imagined lead in renewables with the very real strategy of energy independence based on fossils, particularly fracked fossils? "Will America be the "breadbasket of the world" after Monsanto grabs Ukraine's chernozem or before? In either case, is it even possible to be the breadbasket given less water in California to water the Inland Empire? I can go on, the point is, your entire comment was a rah-rah USA!USA! cheer that relies on wishful thinking. And that's pretty much America's problem: cheerleading has replaced sober thinking. We have cheerleaders for politicians, cheerleader press, and cheerleader Nicks.

    It's effing scary to the rest of us that the entire strategy seems to be wishful thinking firmly rooted in exceptionalism and delusions about what is freedom and democracy, with the latter having been reduced to a competition of who amongst corporate-sponsored candidates can offer more exceptionalism and promise to drop more bombs someplace we don't like so that General Dynamics can either increase its stock dividends or do some stock buy backs.

    sleepy, May 29, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    @hatti552

    Since the drive for US global hegemony probably had more advocates among postwar dem internationalists–many of whom were New Deal holdovers–as it did among the traditionally isolationist repubs, I'm not sure if your neat little left/right dichotomy works.

    In any case, aside from labeling, do you care to give any reasons for your support of US global hegemony? Do you think it's not working because Obama hasn't tried hard enough (basically the repub position) and you favor doubling down a'la McCain?

    Jesper, May 29, 2015 at 8:58 am

    My take is that if there had been a long-term strategy for the US good that its government was following/implementing then it is almost impossible to detect and decipher for people outside of the power-centers in DC. And if there is no long-term strategy, be it to keep the US as the sole superpower or to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, then the explanation must be something different.

    Maybe another angle might help in describing the situation?

    Is the US government (and the power-brokers in DC) acting to keep the US strong or to keep themselves (personally) powerful?

    NotTimothyGeithner, May 29, 2015 at 10:36 am

    The U.S. government needs a powerful figurehead/central authority to control the bureaucracy and to wrestle control, the Federalist papers made note of this even before the imperial presidency, but there hasn't been a powerful democrat since LBJ. Obama, Clinton, and Carter were right wing leaders of nominally lefty parties, and the result was they spent much of their Administrations browbeating their own party to maintain control or push their legislation instead of cleaning the Pentagon or Wall Street. Obama's ideas and personality don't control members of Congress. It's Wall Street money. If a popular Obama walked into a random state and ignored an incumbent Senator in favor of a challenger, the incumbent would never r have the money to overcome one soundbite which would be carried by the news as a free spectacle. The result is an open season for everyone else's pet project because no one can stop them and two they might get lost or fired when the next strong center arrives.

    The U.S. government is responding to every mouth at the trough. Gore couldn't have invaded Iraq not because he wouldn't have but because he wouldn't have the political support from his own party to shutdown other pet projects to prepare the MIC and population for it. Dubya didn't fight his party back benchers until 2005. After he moved on SS, Dubya became irrelevant because he was no longer popular enough to be feared.

    It's not just Goldman Sachs. It's everyone who works in Nuland's office. They don't want to be part of a failed program or a public embarrassment. Because Obama is weak, he can't move on obvious stains such as Nuland because she represents a supporter in DC. Without many of these clowns, he would be alone because he's lost much of his popularity, did nothing for down ticket races, and threatened many members into submission.

    While a person is popular, they can walk in and tell the baron class how things will be or they won't be barons. If they align themselves with the barons, they cease to be popular and rely on the barons who more autonomy and options than the 99% and have to acquiesce. Not every baron has the exact same goal. If they get too uppity, the king will act, but they can get away with a great deal if the king irritates the masses because his strength comes from above not below. It's really that simple. If the Obots had made demands of Obama, every other article in print would be why can't he have a third term. Republican Presidential candidates would be terrified of his successor instead of racing to sign up supporters.

    Ignoring the GOP and long term problems with Team Blue recruitment, much of the Obama mess goes tend his own standing goes back to his decision to be President on TV and rely on experts from the previous two administration's who had just been rejected. Hillary in '08 never discussed Bill's record because it would hurt her with her more ignorant supporters who projected onto Hillary.

    DJG, May 29, 2015 at 9:14 am

    The symptoms have been in evidence for a long time, and it isn't clear to me that we have reached the moment when collapse will happen or when even John McCain will recognize that something has gone wrong. McCain and Obama, being all tactics and no strategy, have yet to figure out that U.S. supply lines for the military and for our decadent corporations are way overstretched. Has either proposed closing a military base? Has either advised food purveyors to stop importing garlic (garlic!) from China?

    Not even the evidence of continuing U.S. defeats–in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya–elicits an appropriate response from the elites. So they venture into Ukraine, the next failure.

    Unlike Rome, though, I'd venture to say that the USA has chosen some particularly pernicious "allies," such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and England (soon to be detached from Scotland). Each of these so-called allies is more than self-serving. The U.S. elites, though, rather than showing any skepticism, have been craven in dealing with the big four. Our relation to England seems to be to conduct their foreign policy and protect the illegality of the City of London in exchange for some nostalgia about Toad in a Hole.

    hemeantwell, May 29, 2015 at 9:31 am

    Klare, whose work over the years has been largely useful, is a lazy writer when it comes to the Cold War. To simplistically talk about it as "resisting Soviet expansionism around the world" ignores how US expansionism, aka imperialism, conditioned Soviet policy. As a professor of peace studies he must certainly be familiar with the substantial body of work by authors such as Williams, Alperovitz, Cohen and others who show that the US did nothing to allay Soviet security concerns and instead adopted an offensive posture that, to the Soviets, recommended ensuring friendly neighbors by whatever means necessary. What is disgusting about Klare now is that, by casually repeating formulaic ideological themes, he only adds to the ignorance regarding the current mess in the Ukraine, a mess that in my view basically reprises the late 1940s. Sure, he does talk about "sharing the planet with other powers," but he seems unwilling to say what that means. In that sense this professor of peace falls behind murderers like Kissinger, who has been critical of NATO efforts to turn the Ukraine into a launchpad on Russia's doorstep.

    OIFVet, May 29, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    +100

    sufferin'succotash, May 29, 2015 at 9:40 am

    HW Bush's pronouncement that "the American Way of Life is non-negotiable" around the time of the Gulf War more or less let the cat out of the bag.

    Neocon delusions of grandeur aside, much of the US interventionism over the past several decades has been driven by the need to keep the Cheap Oil flowing in. That is, if one assumes that the AWL depends on cheap oil.

    knowbuddhau, May 29, 2015 at 11:45 am

    Thanks to the others who take Klare to task for lazy rhetorical shortcuts that only serve to further bury the truth of our times. I agree that we're in a period of imperial decline. But "missteps"?! "Miscalculations"?! The phrase you're looking for, professor, is "war crimes." Calling our wars of aggression by their true name is still a step too far, eh?

    One measure of our hubris is the inability of "serious" and "respectable" critics to openly proclaim that we've been serial war criminals since the days of the Indian Wars. Our continental empire was built by making treaties at gun point, without much intent to honor them, as a means to grab the land. (ISTM General Sherman made remarks to that effect, but I can't find the quote.) Our global empire hasn't been much different.

    I suppose Indian Removal and wiping out the buffalo, and the continuing efforts to undermine tribal sovereignty today, were, and are, likewise "missteps" and "miscalculations" we can somehow blame on Republicans exclusively.

    NotTimothyGeithner, May 29, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    I think you may be thinking of Grant not Sherman, but both would be denounced by Team Blue as pinko commies. One of Grant's SOTU's included a call for universal, public education and not one dollar for sectarian schools. The charter movement would be appalled.

    Amazingly enough, Grant and Sherman are oozing intelligent sound bites which proves the modern Democrats don't have a messaging problem as much as a message problem.

    OIFVet, May 29, 2015 at 12:27 pm

    I suppose Indian Removal and wiping out the buffalo, and the continuing efforts to undermine tribal sovereignty today, were, and are, likewise "missteps" and "miscalculations" we can somehow blame on Republicans exclusively

    Of course not! Stalin! Golodomor! Outside enemies and justifications are the norm, it's just that from time to time we have to engage in intramural squabbling just to perpetuate the myth that there is a qualitative difference between the two wings of the Corporate Party and thus we have a democracy with a real choice of parties and ideas.

    Code Name D, May 29, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    One who makes no mistakes is incapable of learning from them.

    Steven, May 29, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    (I can't seem to manage a concise response to Naked Capitalism's postings. What follows is just the last couple of paragraphs of what I hope will be a (mercifully) short posting on OpEdNews.)

    Klare needs to take that last step. It isn't about 'peak oil' or 'peak everything' so much as 'peak debt' or 'peak money', i.e. a world awash in money and in mad pursuit of ever more of it. There are indeed physical limits. But with a little luck the world (of humans) may still have the resources to right-size itself to fit within them. However that won't happen until the greed of the world's plutocracy and the ambitions of their psychopathic servants in the political class are controlled.

    80 years ago the Nobel Prize winning chemist explained where oil DOES come into the picture:

    Though it was not understood a century ago, and though as yet the applications of the knowledge to the economics of life are not generally realised, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally a struggle for energy, …

    Soddy, Frederick M.A., F.R.S.. Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (Kindle Locations 1089-1091). Distributed Proofreaders Canada.

    The 'backing' for the petrodollar now includes the monetized value of Chinese and third world labor and natural resources as well as OPEC oil. But controlling the outcome of life's "struggle for energy" is still the crumbling cornerstone of both US foreign and domestic economic policies:

    • control the world's access to energy and it has no choice but submitting to the hegemon's will

    • the U.S. political system is now owned lock, stock and barrel by a financial / military industrial / fossil fuels complex (am I forgetting anybody?). The powers that be are trying to preserve the existing status quo by insuring that life remains a "struggle for energy".

    The denizens of Wall Street and Washington can perhaps be forgiven for believing they were the "masters of the universe" at the conclusion of WWII. What they can NOT be forgiven is their belief – then or now – is that "the end of history" had arrived (unless they cause it).

    fresno dan, May 29, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    I don't know if I buy the premise that the US was ever as powerful as it proclaims itself to be. I remember when guys in black pajamas, with no navy or air force defeated the "most powerful nation on earth"

    Fifty years later, when the US is supposedly the "Sole superpower" on earth, a bunch of guys with no air force or navy defeated us in Afghanistan….

    I will concede we did no "lose" in Iraq….although I will NOT concede that we won either…
    and I will say we won unequivocally in Grenada.

    Am I seeing a pattern?

    sleepy, May 29, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    At least in Vietnam, it was the policy that lost. As far as I recall, the military won every battle.

    I think the same can be said, more or less, about Iraq and Afghanistan. It's difficult for the military to sustain and fulfill stupid policy.

    They all show the limits of military force in the pursuit of idiocy. Garbage in, garbage out.

    If the US wants to hang on to some sort of international influence, it needs to hone up on its diplomatic skills and downplay its sabre-rattling.

    NotTimothyGeithner, May 29, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    The military won every battle based on our count. Cornwallis won every battle against continentals, but he was forced to flee because he couldn't supply his army without splitting it and letting his baggage train and foraging parties come under fire. The whole we won every battle mantra is propaganda to avoid holding many of the generals and the MIC accountable for their lies and mistakes. When a platoon was massacred on patrol, it wasn't a "battle." I guess there was no honor in shooting guys in the back unlike say a drone strike. When the military was in a position to launch a massive aerial counter attack, then we won and temporarily planted a flag while the position grew weaker. But hey we won the battle. Did we have a great record without the air power which limited how the various enemies could move troops?

    Air power made battles impossible in many ways. The Tet Offensive was everywhere all at once which means there were no reserves or occupation forces ready. The goal was to spur uprisings and force the Americans to redeploy which is what happened, and the costs of defending urban areas skyrocketed as the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forced the U.S. and it's puppets out of the country side. Oh sure, the enemy was forced to flee the cities they attacked, but they didn't bring the forces needed to occupy or destroy the U.S. and South Vietnam forces. Did we win that battle? No, they were completely unprepared for a multi-city assault. It was beneath the notice of the Pentagon brass, so they cooked up an excuse to call it a win.

    sleepy, May 29, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    So, we just need to beef up our military, retrain the troops, have smarter generals, and our empire can continue on into the indefinite future, policy be damned!

    The US public ultimately saw Vietnam as a complete policy failure preserving a corrupt local government, and the US withdrew. There was no Dien Bien Phu. Domestic opposition forced the US out.

    As soon-to-be-disciplined General Shinseki said to Congress prior to the invasion of Iraq, that the Iraqis would not welcome us with flowers and it would take 500,000 troops to occupy the nation for years for the policy to be successful.

    susan the other, May 29, 2015 at 2:46 pm

    If the TPP is just an attempt to make the ASEAN countries militaristic enough to give us some breathing room, then that's pretty interesting. They can come together under the TPP umbrella and form a quiet military coalition to relieve the world's only superpower. Think of us as a senile superpower. John Foster Dulles wanted the ASEAN countries to all have the bomb. Why should we be the only bomb droppers? The only totally absurd country. The greater question has evolved finally. Why can't we all function rationally? And with a dedication to the environment.

    I've been wondering how we were going to pay Russia for helping us thru this mess. Crimea was one payment. But Russia has given us much more than we have given her, so other payments might include some of our bases around the world. A great gift to an almost superpower. And an agreement that we will only bluster about China's islands in the South China Sea but we won't really do anything. Bluster is how you wind down from being a super killer because you got too old and fat.

    [May 28, 2015] Ukraine financial catastrophe of 2014 2015

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day. ..."
    "... So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty". ..."
    "... "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," ..."
    "... Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day. ..."
    foreignpolicy.com

    According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day.

    So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty".

    "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," stressed Shipko.

    According to the Deputy, the minimum wage in Ukraine at the current exchange rate of the national Bank should be approximately 3750 UAH - the only way the Ukrainians will be able at least get requred $5 a day.

    Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day.

    Ukrainian women do not want to bear children through insecurity and inability to pay for the hospital and diaper.

    [May 28, 2015]Moscow's account of Nato expansion is a case of false memory syndrome

    May 24, 2015 | The Guardian

    VladimirM 27 May 2015 09:39

    It's all water under the bridge now whether assurances were made or not. Nato expanded, Russia saw the threat in it and we have arrived to where we are now.

    If this bitter experience is anything to go by, Nato would better stop where it is at the moment and not 'invite' new members, such as Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.

    From the military point of view, and what well known events have proven, both Georgian and Ukrainian armies (do not know about Moldova) do not meet and unlikely will soon meet requirements needed, from the financial point of view neither Europe nor those countries can afford full-scale refurbishment of their military capabilities. Is it worth pushing any further?

    Cooperation implies communication and dialogue and listening to each other, it's about time, I believe.

    Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 08:49

    Can you explain it?

    How come Russia is the second destination country in the World after the US? How about you get the facts straight before commenting?

    Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 08:39

    wasn't it pres. Putin who has recently changed Moscow's military doctrine…

    You're wrong. It was Medvedev in 2010. "Prevention of a nuclear conflict, as well as any other military conflict is the most important task of the Russian Federation".

    "Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened".

    Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 08:11

    cannot be held responsible for its deeds

    I perfectly understand Russians. You see I've inherited all the property and debts of my grandad. I've paid all his liabilities existed. I continue to execute his contracts. But don't you dare to make me responsible for what that old hag says he did to her in college! I AM his successor but I'm not responsible for his deeds. Period.

    assets a little east of the Urals … not being formally in Europe anymore

    That's exactly what the Treaty says. Anyway it doesn't matter anymore as Russia completely halted its participation in the Treaty.

    Iran has also signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. And?

    And the US of A do anything it can to encumber Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

    Alexander S -> Botswana61 27 May 2015 05:28

    Ukraine never had any nuclear arsenal at the first place, USSR did. The Russian Federation is one and only USSR's successor state. Ukraine was pushed by Russia and US to give back or destroy any nuclear weapon happened to be on its soil after the fall of the Soviet Union.

    And yeah, Ukraine has given up any rights to have a nuclear arsenal by signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty not the "Budapest Memorandum" as some imply.

    Czechlander 26 May 2015 23:47

    None of this chatter matters; let those that clamor for NATO enjoy their imagined security. Of course, by joining NATO, a country like Estonia is at a risk from all NATO potential enemies. Not a wise choice. But never mind. The greatest danger to us all are the risks associated with the undeniable fact that huge swathes of Russia are under foreign occupation because of Bolshevik treason of the Russian people. Let's face it, only Russia was made smaller and weaker within the framework of the Soviet Union by the egregious Bolsheviks; it's easy to figure out how much Bolsheviks "loved" the Russian nation.

    The Russian people resident in the territories fraudulently taken away from Russia have full rights to do anything to change the illegal status quo and return to Russia's bosom. One doesn't have to be an oracle to see that Ukraine is going down the drain, what with all the fascists in its government, the failed economy, the exodus of its young to Russia and the EU, and so on. When the people in the Russian regions under illegal occupation become fed up with their bleak lot within the chauvinist Ukraine, and a standard of living akin to that of the Indian unclean caste, they will be in position to simply and easily say Good Bye to it. There won't be anybody around to take on the unenviable task of stopping them. Nothing I or anyone else says about it here is going to alter one iota of this geopolitically inevitable future.

    AnimalFarm2 26 May 2015 23:08

    What utter rubbish! Guardian was once respected. The author has done very little homework!

    U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev on February 8, 1990 that "NATO's jurisdiction will not shift one inch eastward."

    The next day, German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl told Gorbachev that "naturally NATO could not expand its territory" into East Germany.

    On the same day Germany's Minister for Foreign Affairs Hans-Dietrich Genscher said the following to Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze: "For us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand to the East."

    On this basis the whole article is codswallop!

    The author should retract and apologise!

    MysticMegsy -> Ivan Daraktchiev 26 May 2015 21:46

    "With the collapse of Soviet Union NATO's raison d'être disappeared and it should have disbanded itself exactly the way the Warsaw Pact did"

    Fair point, can't argue with that. Your user name had me worried at first, but you seem to be a rational thinker.

    "Instead, it continues to serve as a vehicle for conducting USA's proxy wars, each part of its 70 years long bellicose campaign for the immense Russian resources."

    Hmmm, are you sure? and which proxy wars (relating specifically to Russian resources) might those be? I could list dozens, but none to do with Russian sovereign territory. In fact most proxy wars I can think of were backed by the US and USSR on opposing sides.

    "There's nothing to discuss here, especialy after US Congress' vote for Resolution 758 on Dec. 4th 2014 thus legalizing the war against Russia - including approval of a preemptive (nuclear) strike."

    OK, it's clear now - you are a paranoid lunatic. You almost had me hoodwinked there for a moment.

    desconocido 26 May 2015 19:51

    The claim that the west gave no guarantees against Nato expanding eastwards may be literally true but is nevertheless misleading. As Clark and Spohr write, "these developments belonged to a future that was not yet in sight".

    Having freed eastern Europe and dissolved the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet leadership trusted that the west would reciprocate by respecting Russian interests, and was repeatedly reassured by western leaders in this respect.

    As a member of the European parliament delegation to the Supreme Soviet in 1989, I witnessed this trust and later the increasing bewilderment of the Soviet/Russian participants in various conferences at the arrogant triumphalism of Nato and even EU speakers. "But I thought communism had lost and we had all won?" complained one.

    Many Soviet leaders responsible for the "miracle of 1990" – like the former Soviet ambassador to Bonn, Valentin Falin – have complained bitterly that Mikhail Gorbachev naively trusted the west and gave away so much for so little.

    So the attitude of the revived Russia of today should not come as a surprise.

    Jakob von Uexkull
    Former MEP, German Greens

    desconocido -> Metronome151 26 May 2015 19:41

    So yes it is just Russian hysteria, wishful thinking and false memory syndrome.

    More to the point is EugeneGur's comment:

    But the memory of Nato's broken promises also matters because it touches on the legitimacy, in Russian eyes, of the international settlement established during the German unification process and the European order that emerged in its wake.

    The west always considers Russia's action in isolation from everything else. The narrative is rather simple, not to say primitive: Russia is inherently bad, aggressive, totalitarian (feel free to add whatever additional derogatory adjectives you can come up with). So, whatever the West does against Russia must be good. The West never considers the impact its own actions have on the Russian perception of the situation and Russian actions. The expansion of NATO were bound to elicit Russia's reaction at some point, regardless whether any promise was made and whether it was binding or not. It doesn't really take a genius to predict what that reaction would be, which is a good thing, because NATO is rather short on geniuses.

    People, you were given a gift, a gift the West did not in the least deserve. The Soviet Union peacefully withdraw from Eastern Europe. Germany, in particular, was given a gift , which was no less than magnificent considering what Germany did in Russia. And how did the West use that gift? It grabbed and grabbed, and grabbed. Finally, it bit off more than it could chew with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, particularly, Ukraine.

    desconocido -> Chirographer 26 May 2015 19:28

    nobody in NATO, Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova has been planning an attack on Russia.

    Really? What do you call that Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeeping force (don't sneer, official OSCE title) in South Ossetia? And if I was in Russia, looking at NATO's track record, I wouldn't believe for a minute that NATO wasn't planning an attack on me.

    Alexander S -> SonnyTuckson 26 May 2015 19:27

    "The Budapest Memorandum" is a perfect case of false memory syndrome as stated in this article. At no time did anybody, including US and Russia, offer a binding commitment to respect and/or protect Ukrainian borders.

    Nevertheless as Russia stated on many occasions it upholds the international law and supports both the integrity of Ukrainian territory and the right of people of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to self-determination.

    Ivan Daraktchiev 26 May 2015 17:32

    With the collapse of Soviet Union NATO's raison d'être disappeared and it should have disbanded itself exactly the way the Warsaw Pact did. Instead, it continues to serve as a vehicle for conducting USA's proxy wars, each part of its 70 years long bellicose campaign for the immense Russian resources.

    There's nothing to discuss here, especially after US Congress' vote for Resolution 758 on Dec. 4th 2014 thus legalizing the war against Russia - including approval of a preemptive (nuclear) strike.

    Volkovolk -> silvaback 26 May 2015 17:08

    Bla-bla-bla, russian occupants, agression, occupation... Tell me better how you have an UNA-UNSO ultaright party led by son of UPA leader Shushevich.

    The guy who led the Volin Slaughter and served in SS punitive batallion Nachtigall. How you have this abomination of a party and dare accuse us in anything, Bizarro?)

    MaoChengJi 26 May 2015 15:36

    I must say: the authors of letters you published are too nice to this truly disgusting lying and racist piece.

    Duncan Frame -> psygone 26 May 2015 13:14

    I agree but, you can see US doing almost exactly the same thing with any country that embraces socialism in the Americas. Had Russia extended its hegemony, insofar as it exists these days, there is no doubt the US would use the most effective tools at it's disposal (powerful economic sanctions) to destabilize or otherwise nullify the political power of that country.

    The difference between Russia and the US is that Russia cannot control the economic climate anywhere as near as effectively as the US so it uses more direct methods.

    FromVolga 26 May 2015 13:13

    http://nato.int/docu/speech/1990/s900517a_e.htm

    The Atlantic Alliance and European Security
    in the 1990s

    Extract:
    This will also be true of a united Germany in NATO.
    The very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops
    beyond the territory of the Federal Republic gives
    the Soviet Union firm security guarantees.
    Moreover we could conceive of a transitional period
    during which a reduced number of Soviet forces could
    remain stationed in the present-day GDR.
    This will meet Soviet concerns about not changing
    the overall East-West strategic balance.
    Soviet politicians are wrong to claim that German
    membership of NATO will lead to instability.
    The opposite is true.
    Europe including the Soviet Union would gain stability.
    It would also gain a genuine partner in the West ready to cooperate.

    And could you listen the words of Germany Foreign Minister Genscher in 1990?
    Please use link below at 7:50
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfZmPnJbCkI

    Do you realy think all of these is a case of false memory syndrome ?

    vlad day -> Botswana61 26 May 2015 11:47

    How smart. Really being curious or just used to be noisy? Relax. A year has passed, and so far Russia has not recognized the two Republics. Today, nobody speaks in Chechnya or Dagestan about independence; hope the botswana man's being outdated has an excuse. The problem of these territories was not separatism but terrorism. When Russians and other non-Chechens started leaving Chechnya, big banners appeared in the streets reading "Russians, do not leave, we need slaves and prostitutes". As for independence, poorly educated mountain folk whose best skill was using a gun and explosives, had a special idea of it.

    When told about the need to buy a visa for every crossing the border once independence is established, they would jump: "Why should I?.. I don't want any visa!!!" – "But you have to…" – "No! No visa!"

    I guess the botswana man was already born to the world when Kosovo tragedy started unfolding. Was he asking NATO American guys who were shelling Kosovo and Belgrade (with the words "Still willing to be a Serb?" and "Easter Greetings!" on the shells and rockets) if they were ready, for instance, to grant independence to Texas populated mainly with Mexicans? To all appearance, no.

    BradBenson -> alpamysh 26 May 2015 07:41

    That is insane. Hitler was always hell-bent on expansion to the East for Lebensraum. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact bought time for both countries to prepare for the conflict that both knew was coming. Stalin was always paranoid and, having killed off his officer corps in the 30's, he was well aware that Russia was not prepared for war.

    Unfortunately for Stalin, he began to believe that the treaty would hold, especially since he did not think that the Germans would risk a two-front war again. As a result, he was initially caught off guard and didn't want to believe that the Germans were actually attacking Russia on June 22, 1941. As history has proven, he quickly came to his senses.

    BenAris 26 May 2015 07:40

    there was a promise of no nato expansion:

    On January 31, 1990 West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher publicly declared that there would be "no expansion of NATO territory eastward" after reunification. Two days later, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker met with Genscher to discuss the plan. Although Baker did not publicly [8] endorse Genscher's plan, it served as the basis for subsequent meetings between Baker, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. During these discussions, Baker repeatedly underlined the informal deal on the table, first telling Shevardnadze that NATO's jurisdiction "would not move eastward" and later offering Gorbachev "assurances that there would be no extension of NATO's current jurisdiction eastward." When Gorbachev argued that "a broadening of the NATO zone" was "not acceptable," Baker replied, "We agree with that." Most explicit was a meeting with Shevardnadze on February 9, in which Baker, according to the declassified State Department transcript, promised "iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward." Hammering home the point, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl advanced an identical pledge during meetings in Moscow the next day.

    refn to archive notes on Bakers comments

    http://www.2plus4.de/USA/chronik.php3?date_value=25.02.90&sort=001-000

    the prob was because Soviets didnt explicit accept the terms of this informal offer the US felt justified changing it later and eventually included E Germany in NATO.

    its not clear cut like Putin suggests but there was an offer even if Soviets fluffed the diplomatic close of the deal.

    brianfp -> Polvilho 26 May 2015 07:34

    The double standard I refer to is the attitude, prominent in mainstream media, of tremendous hand-wringing over Russia's actions in Ukraine by the same people who either or laud or ignore much worse acts of aggression or terrorism carried out by the US with far less plausible pretext.

    I disagree with you on the matter of US actions in the region also but that wasn't what I was walking about.

    BradBenson -> SanDiegoGuy 26 May 2015 07:30

    I didn't mention the Czars. What I said above is exactly what happened in Georgia.

    I was living as an expatriate in Germany at the time and the German Newspapers carried daily maps showing the locations of the pipelines and the location of the fighting. They didn't cover any of that in the US.

    Nor did any US Newspaper mention the involvement of the US Military by airlifting the Georgian Afghanistan War Contingent from Afghanistan back home to Georgia virtually over night. Nor did the American News Reports cover the Russian Claims of US Special Forces Involvement and that they found dead black soldiers in Georgian Uniforms. Maybe they were from Atlanta or Resaca.

    In any case, I have provided my sources in my other response to your posts. Therefore, I will not repost them here. Suffice to say, if you feel my sources are flawed, you are always welcome to present your own, which you haven't by the way.


    BradBenson SanDiegoGuy 26 May 2015 07:13

    Well that's all fine and dandy that you have reviewed all of these links and found the arguments, the supporting links in the articles, and the knowledge base of so many different analysts to be flawed. Yet you present an equally flawed history without so much as a supporting source. Whom do you think has made the more cogent argument here?

    As for my comments to AstarSoldier, if he's such a "star soldier" let him speak for himself. To me, there are no "star soldiers" and I don't care about his physical stature. The term "little man" referred to his intellect and was a direct reference to yet another sophomoric comment by someone who doesn't know what he is talking about...sort or like your comment above.

    Here is the history on Georgia. Educate yourself.

    Georgia accused of targeting civilians.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm

    I survived the Georgian war. Here's what I saw.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1008/p09s02-coop.html

    Revisiting the "Battle of Tskhinvali"
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/16/revisiting-the-quot-battle-of-tskhinvali-quot/

    The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
    https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

    Plucky Little Georgia? No, the Cold War Reading Won't Wash
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/09/georgia.russia1

    Tbilisi Admits Misjudging Russia
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0d8beefe-6fad-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c,Authorised=false.html?nclick_check=1&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F0d8beefe-6fad-11dd-986f-0000779fd18c.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1%26siteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz3a7HUGsQv

    'Poor Little Georgia'–Not!
    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2008/08/13/poor-little-georgia-not/

    Saakashvili "planned S. Ossetia invasion": ex-minister
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/14/us-georgia-russia-opposition-idUSLD12378020080914

    Did Saakashvili Lie? The West Begins to Doubt Georgian Leader
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/did-saakashvili-lie-the-west-begins-to-doubt-georgian-leader-a-578273.html

    Accounts Undercut Claims by Georgia on Russia War
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E5DF1130F934A35752C1A96E9C8B63


    Aleksander Trebunskikh Matthew Reynolds 26 May 2015 05:10

    According to your logic, USA is the biggest empire nowadays and ever been in history, because: "exercise authoritarian control over it's satellite nations" - but, in case you love USA and hate USSR - which doesn't exist for more then 25 years, you wont see this.


    Dmitry Fedotov alpamysh 26 May 2015 05:04

    For the first time in 20 years in the Chernobyl forest appeared bear, and it was captured at the camera. In Chernobyl, for the first time in 20 years. And then there is a war for a year! tanks, jets! bombs! and no photographs of Russian troops in Ukraine. Hows that? Maybe they are not there? Maybe your media epidemic of idiocy? Remember, your media did not show you all the people killed in Iraq. And them there were more than 200,000. Maybe they're lying to you again?


    Botswana61 Kiselev 26 May 2015 04:12

    Sea tranport of bulk is the cheapest one by far. With air transport being the best for perishable goods and merchandize (e.g. machine tools, plane parts, etc.) which have to make it to their final destination literally over night.

    Sorry ,but Trans-Siberian express types of trains belong to XIX century; while gas-guzzling and heavily polluting Diesel-powered, road-clogging 18-wheelers will largely disappear before the end of the next decade.


    Botswana61 Laurence Johnson 26 May 2015 03:52

    'The US is isolated geographically from the core global markets of trade.'

    What a patent nonsence! If you followed the trends you would have noticed that while Europe (currently in recession) is stagnating - the obvious area of a dynamic economic development is PACIFIC RIM!

    The biggest trade association in the world by far is APEC, which includes such countries like Chile, Peru, Costa Rica, Mexico, United States, Canada, Russia, China, Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, to mention just a few.

    More&more Americans think of themselves as Pacific nation rather than Atlantic one.

    US's business with Pacific Rim countries is brisque and growing fast. So is American export to other APEC member states.

    So nice try, but no cigar.


    Volkovolk AlfredHerring 26 May 2015 03:45

    Yes, that was 70-90% of [all] ordinary people including ukrainians, belarus, kazachs and all other nations with some Batlic and georgian exceptions) What's interesting is that geogians had another exception - Osetian autonomous soviet republic. They - osetians - decided that they wanna stay in USSR and had their autonomous referendum.

    The situation in Ukraine (where 70% of people voted for preserving and 28% againsts) changed for now because, you see, ukrainian leaders decided that's the best way to validate independence of Ukraine is to create artifical hatred towards past in USSR and by extension because of galicial lobby towars Russia and russians-moscals.

    Now this 25 years of propaganda brought fruits and Ukraine is tearing itself apart in civil war.


    SidSpart EugeneGur 26 May 2015 03:21

    don't act surprised by the Russia's reaction and the measures Russia takes to counter what it sees as a threat.

    I am not surprised by Russia's reaction to N.AT.O expansion .

    Even if there was no formal agreement for N.A.T.O not to expand ,it must have been obvious after the collapse of the U.S.S.R that Russians would not want N.A.T.O on their doorstep .

    At the time when the old Warsaw pact countries were joining N.A.T.O I felt it was sending the wrong message to the Russians - basically saying - "We Do Not Trust You " especially the talk about setting up the missiles shield .

    The question is would the people living in those East European which are now members of N.A.T.O feel safer if they had remained non-members in the light of what has happened in the Ukraine ?

    (Even though I think the Ukraine situation is a different case.)

    It is not only Russians who worry about their Security and Safety, after all Latvia and Poland have never occupied Moscow or St Petersburg - but Russians have occupied Warsaw and Riga .


    Laurence Johnson 26 May 2015 02:31

    The problem is simple. The US is isolated geographically from the core global markets of trade. Europe united with Russia and Asia in trade would be a disaster for the US and as such must never happen.

    The bridge between Asia and Europe is Russia and its clear that all options are on the table to prevent that link from becoming a reality. Its simple good business sense on the part of the US to protect its markets, which is Europe.

    Laurence Johnson 26 May 2015 02:31

    The problem is simple. The US is isolated geographically from the core global markets of trade. Europe united with Russia and Asia in trade would be a disaster for the US and as such must never happen.

    The bridge between Asia and Europe is Russia and its clear that all options are on the table to prevent that link from becoming a reality. Its simple good business sense on the part of the US to protect its markets, which is Europe.

    TecchnoExpertThanx 26 May 2015 00:08

    What concerns me is that both the authors Christopher Clark (a Regius Professor of History at Cambridge and the author of The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 ) and Kristina Spohr (a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics and Political Science), carry with them significant title, and responsibility to educate and ultimately influence the next generation of political analysts, historians and policy makers.

    This research and amateurish conclusions, resembles more like an essay written by a first year 'Poly Science' student with a score of 'F'.

    The problem with many of our educators (amongst other things) is laziness.

    Hey, I personally subscribe and listen to LSE (and similar) lectures, debates and PR book releases/reviews... but whether a student or professor, being overexposed to liberal dissidence that are well funded for their 'expert' analysis, will not make you in return an 'Expert', historian, or have you any nearer to understanding fact from fiction.

    Its time to break away from the the bubble that includes free lunches and coffee, supplied by government and non government think tanks, and go out and do some real research and analysis that people can learn and benefit from.

    AssameseGuy87 -> Bangorstu

    I think, after forty years of independence, many of those nations need to start taking some responsibility for themselves.

    Yes, there has to be some progress. For example, in India, there has been a furore over colonial-era laws that remain in practice. There really shouldn't be any excuses as to why these laws remain in place and haven't yet been repealed. But the fact remains the Empire did engage in widespread economic exploitation of the colonies that the successor nations were still reeling under after decades after independence. It's easy for some Britons to ask that question ('What have they been doing these past 50-70 years') but I don't think they can ever imagine the mess the Empire had left some of their erstwhile colonies in (in many cases, after more than a century of rule).

    Most of the British Empire was conquered for somewhat less than a century....

    The bulk of its colonies were acquired in the period from 1815 to 1896 (almost all of them achieved independence after the end of the WW2). One more things needs to be said. In many of these colonies, the formal incorporation of the territory into the British Empire came later; for decades (and in one particular case, up to a century) prior to that, the British were by and large the de facto rulers. Also, some of these colonies were initially British protectorates where the rulers of these states were mere figureheads.

    But we never did - the indigenous languages weren't suppressed and they still survive.

    The British didn't overtly have to; just one interesting policy was that they just preferred those with English education over those with vernacular language education for posts. It was largely due to the efforts of the indigenous people in many places that their languages survive today. In some places, the British favoured one ethno-religious group over the other for consideration for posts. But then, that comes under divide and rule policies implemented by most colonial powers. I would like to say that in many of these places it wasn't all peace and harmony before the colonial-era; there were indeed bloody conflicts. But then rarely were they along ethnic/religious lines. Divide and rule undoubtedly deepened the divisions between ethnic/religious groups in many former colonies.

    And note many of the issues are due to arbitrarily drawn borders which can of course be changed if the countries concerned wish them to be.

    And how exactly do you think we should do that??. I actually do know of a war fought over an arbitrarily drawn border. In that case, the British signed an unequal treaty which incorporated that territory into the British Raj (that was in the early 20th century). After independence, it's successor state inherited the territory. The state from which the British had gained the territory (when it's rule was weak and the might of the British was at their highest) considered that border drawn under an unequal treaty to be illegal. The successor state should just hand over the territory and the people living there, right (after 100 years of rule)??.
    The Empire did good in many cases (very few dispute these). But what irritates people from places which were formerly part of the British Empire is the tendency of some Britons to simply wish away the problems faced by some of it's former colonies ('Oh, they have been independent for 50-70 years, what's stopping them') without understanding the complexity of the problem and dismissing anyone critical of some policies of the Empire as someone having a 'chip on their shoulder'.
    Even worse are of course the shameless, despicable Empire apologists ('Oh, but, but the Spanish were much worse', 'Oh, but, but massacres were the norm back then', 'Oh, but, look at the ones firing the guns'; if only the Nazi war criminals used that last one as an excuse at Nuremberg). Thankfully, you do say this though:

    I didn't say that did I? I said being colonized was a mixed blessing which is somewhat different.

    Btw, It's a very much more complex situation and set of relationships
    Yes, indeed (I agree). The Empire did much good (very few dispute that) and the Empire did much wrong too, many of which have consequences today (and out come all the apologists; I'm not saying you are one though). Many Britons take pride in the Commonwealth (the Army traditions, the language etc) but I sadly doubt many Britons can truly (or more unfortunately, even wish to) understand the negative effects some of the Empire's policies have had on its former colonies.

    hermanmitt -> Matthew Reynolds 25 May 2015 20:20

    If you really want to sustain this notion that the US is this covert empire, then you have to eventually get around to some sort of Phantom Menace conspiracy theory...

    Once there was gold backing the U.S. Dollar. Then there was oil which turned the dollar into the world reserve currency. That and WW11. Now there is nothing backing the dollar, which is now a totally fiat currency backed solely by the U.S. military industrial complex.

    The U.S. has established its Empire through the financial system by creating debt, backed at present by absolutely nothing, except the U.S. Military which needs to be pervasive around the globe in order to maintain that status quo.

    When a country, Iraq, chooses to start selling its oil in Euros, it gets invaded. When a country starts to sell its oil in 'gold backed Dinars', Libya, it gets toppled. When there is a country the U.S. does not wish a direct military confrontation with, Russia, the war footing moves to a proxy, Ukraine, and the war is escalated on a financial front. Russia kicked out the Rothschilds, paid off their interest owed from oil revenues and banned them from returning to Russia. Now, Russia and China trade for oil and gas in local currencies, cutting out the dollar middle-man, and are creating a new global reserve currency based on the Chinese Yuan coupled to a new gold standard. That makes Russia a legitimate target for both a proxy war, via Ukraine, and a financial war, through sanctions. China cannot be directly confronted because China owns too much US debt, which they can call in at any time, and bankrupt the FED. The same pattern of financial aggression applied, until recently, to Iran. However the mood has changed since the U.S. need Iran to help deal with ISIS in the region in order to keep the dollar-based oil flowing.

    The pattern of military and financial aggression is now so blatant it's impossible to hide, and with the rise of the Chinese who have a financial and military pact with Russia, the writing is on the wall for the fall of the dollar, possibly this year. Even the City of London has recognized this and is trading the Yuan in London, with the UK effectively joining the BRICS alliance.

    It's time to start recognising the very obvious pattern that has been clearly revealed over the past decade and a half. The U.S. has buried the world in debt through the Federal Reserve System and is desperately trying to keep itself afloat. It has no real friends left, apart from perhaps Britain, but that is also a bit questionable. Everyone has just done as they are instructed, until recently, but of late, and due to the huge shift in trade and energy supply eastwards, U.S. influence is fast on the wane, and the only thing they have left is the MIC.

    We are witnessing the last desperate gasps for breath of the U.S. Empire, and it could get a lot more dangerous for everyone on this planet as the inevitable day approaches where the, mathematically certain, collapse of the dollar finally occurs.

    Does that go some way to filling in a few of the gaps for you?


    Volkovolk -> Will Hay 25 May 2015 20:17

    You are really ignorant.

    Firstly "soviet invasion" started two weeks after the german. Secondly the goal of this invasion was to put border away to west before inevitable war with Germany. Read about Brest Fortress then understand that before that invasion Brest was on Poland territory. And thirdly to blame Stalin "as much as Hitler" is kinda the same as to blame jews for Holocoust.


    Volkovolk 25 May 2015 19:49

    Oh, and by the way i feel that i shall ask you western people one question. Have you ever wondered what Russians are thinking about Gorbachev, Yeltsin and about nearly all of their decisions? Have you ever wondered what Russians are feeling towards them? Not pro-western sectant Russians and not some successful businessmen who used the opportunity to became oligarchs, but ordinary people? Hint: this emotion has much, much common with despise and hatred.


    vlad day 25 May 2015 18:09

    False logic enveloped into quasi-academic wording.

    "There was no commitment to abstain in future from eastern NATO enlargement". Yes, there was; a western politician who used to communicate with Gorbachev's team over German matters etc., speaking to reporters: "We didn't put it on paper." A girl journalist happily smiled and nodded her little head on those wise words. So, there was a pledge, though not "put on paper". A nice way of cheating.

    "…a mythical sequence of unmediated aggressions whose ultimate purpose was to justify current Russian policy in the Ukraine". And where is a formulation of "Russian policy in Ukraine"?

    Here, I guess, the author's knowledge approximates zero. No Western (and no Ukrainian) reporters in the area of conflict, except for a couple of freelancers, one of which is Graham Phillips, a classical black sheep (white crow, as we put it in Russian) of the highly hypocritical journalist community in Britain.

    Radical Ukrainian nationalists commit violence all over Ukraine (not only in the two "pro-Russian" regions trying to get out of Kiev's deadly grip), killing politicians, bloggers, writers in broad daylight. Every time no investigation follows. "People being tortured and murdered, oh, really?" Who cares.

    The Ukrainian topics have disappeared in the western media except for some half-abstract "academic" contexts like the one above.

    EugeneGur 25 May 2015 16:15

    But the memory of Nato's broken promises also matters because it touches on the legitimacy, in Russian eyes, of the international settlement established during the German unification process and the European order that emerged in its wake.

    The west always considers Russia's action in isolation from everything else. The narrative is rather simple, not to say primitive: Russia is inherently bad, aggressive, totalitarian (feel free to add whatever additional derogatory adjectives you can come up with). So, whatever the West does against Russia must be good. The West never considers the impact its own actions have on the Russian perception of the situation and Russian actions. The expansion of NATO were bound to elicit Russia's reaction at some point, regardless whether any promise was made and whether it was binding or not. It doesn't really take a genius to predict what that reaction would be, which is a good thing, because NATO is rather short on geniuses.

    People, you were given a gift, a gift the West did not in the least deserve. The Soviet Union peacefully withdraw from Eastern Europe. Germany, in particular, was given a gift , which was no less than magnificent considering what Germany did in Russia. And how did the West use that gift? It grabbed and grabbed, and grabbed. Finally, it bit off more than it could chew with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, particularly, Ukraine. Because, you see, Russia is in a way.

    Here everything goes: Nazis - no problem; civilian deaths - regrettable but for the good cause; political repressions, torture, murders - can happen to the best of us. With Ukraine even that stand by excuse that the country wanted to join NATO doesn't cut it, because a good half of the country wanted nothing to do with NATO, and NATO knows. But who cares? If necessary, we'll organize a coup, buy off the elites, instigate a civil war, destroy the country - do what it takes but we'll drag whatever is left of it into NATO.


    hermanmitt Matthew Reynolds 25 May 2015 15:00

    Thank-you for proving my point.

    Russia currently has a total of 13 military bases, most of which are in fairly close proximity.

    According to a statement Ron Paul, the U.S. currently has 900 military bases stationed in 130 countries around the globe.

    That is a difference of 878


    AGLiakhov 25 May 2015 14:47

    I was a member of various Soviet delegations in these and other talks in the late 80s. I am prepared to sign an affidavit setting out at least 3 occassions when non expansion assurances were given by US and NATO officials of different seniority. I was present when President Bush Sr. Personally promised President Gorbachev that there would be no Eastern expansion. Unfortunately Gorby believed that the world is run by gentlemen and "my word is my bond". He refused to allow us to commit this undertaking to paper. Dear researchers - please research well and maintain your integrity. However I doubt that my comment will be allowed in.

    Bardamux -> Chirographer 25 May 2015 14:08

    As long as Ukraine does not control all of its territory it can not become a member of NATO. Same with Georgia. The Russian action, while illegal and wrong, is quite understandable. They do not want Ukrain/Georgia to become part of a possibly hostile military alliance. Thus they take a small piece of land and prevent these countries from becoming members.

    This would of course be completely unnecessary if the Russians could trust the promises that Ukraine and Georgia will never, ever become members of NATO. But surprise they do not believe this pledge.

    ' pledge not to violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine' - After there was a deal by with the Western-powers to keep Yanukovich in power until new elections. Which was ripped up barely after the ink dried.

    Please try to understand this, right or wrong, Russia might risk nuclear war over Ukraine and Georgia. Much like America risked and threatened this over the Cuban missiles.

    Dmitry Fedotov 25 May 2015 14:00

    Europe and America turned flourishing Libya to hell. The endless civil war, half the population are refugees in their own country. The number of victims is unknown. Democracy level has not increased. You poured into the Iraq more than 300 tons of depleted uranium which is horrendous toxin. children will die from it for generations. You turned Fallujah into radioactive hell. And you call Assad's chemical? All your weapons containing depleted uranium - the chemical.

    Chemical Britain, chemical United States and chemical Europe.

    When you will realize that you are guilty, when you will repent, remember what else do is your fault, understand how much blood on your hands, then you will have the right to judge someone. Now it's just the arguments of a maniac who sagely condemns others and chews human heart same time.


    Bardamux -> Grishnakh 25 May 2015 13:37

    Please learn how to read. I stated many times it was not a binding agreement. It was a promise, not a binding agreement. Still upset the Russians though. Well now Russia knows that it can not trust any promise by the US/NATO. And since it is nearly impossible to make a binding agreement that can not be changed it means they will remain distrustful. And might use force if they feel it is necessary. I.e. Georgia and Ukraine. Perhaps even in the Baltics. Which would be a disaster. Congratulations on making a dunce out of Russia. But do not blame them for their lack of trust now.

    US can block access of countries if they want. Has there ever joined nation without American approval ?


    EugeneGur 25 May 2015 12:36

    Amid recriminations over US and western European interventions in Kosovo, Libya and Syria, the Russian leadership has begun to question the legitimacy of the international agreements on which the current European order is founded.

    Isn't that rather natural? Nobody certainly signed up for that, for the US or, more broadly, the West, single-handedly deciding what is "the European order" or any other "order", for that matter. It may sound naive, and definitely was extremely naive, but at the time of the Germany reunification agreement the Russian leadership and Russian people could not have imagined in their worst nightmares that the West, including Germany, of all countries (!), would instigate a coup in Ukraine, support neo-Nazis, a civil war, killing and starving of civilians. The West, it seems, like Bourbons, have learned nothing and forgot nothing".

    I do hope that the Russian have learned something useful from this development: that the West is never ever to be trusted. If you have to deal with the West at all, get everything in righting three times over, and support that by a good number of judiciously placed military bases.

    sambeckett2 -> Renato Timotheus 25 May 2015 11:56

    Let's imagine, for a moment, that the you and I go out for dinner and we talk about a lot of things, but we don't discuss me having sex with your wife.
    Does that mean that you have acquiesced to me doing it?

    The countries in question are not the 'wife' of Russia - they do not belong to Russia. The break up of the Eastern Bloc was more akin to a divorce. If your wife chooses to sleep with me after that divorce it is none of your business - you do not 'acquiesce' to me doing it because you have no say.

    Not discussing something does not amount to acquiescence to it.

    And it doesn't amount to you having a right to prevent it either.

    When G. says that NATO expansion was not discussed, I think he clearly means it was not even countenanced.

    They did not have a right to 'countenance' it. If Russia did not consider the possibility at the time, that was their misfortune. To quote Gorbachev:

    So don't portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West's finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

    the Germans - e.g. Kohl and Genscher -- knew full well that they would never get their precious reunification if there was any hint of a NATO eastward expansion.

    So the implicit and explicit assurances they gave -- the latter in the form of a gentlemanly agreement -- were very real ones.

    in 1990-1, there was no assurances of any kind, except with regards to the GDR. Again, Gorbachev clearly states this, and he also states that the assurances with regards to the GDR were kept. You have not pointed out a single instance in which such assurances were made in 1990-91. Gorbachev clearly states that the matter was not discussed and that the examples you have given relate to to GDR alone.

    how can Russia's current leadership have any trust in Merkel's pronouncements --

    And, as the article suggests, how can anyone trust Russia when they falsely claim they were given assurances about NATO expansion when they weren't? Their own leader at the time affirms this - I cannot see how the sentence "The topic of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years" could be any clearer.

    Without some level of trust between Germany and Russia, we will see increasing tensions between them and in the part of Europe that lies between the two countries.

    That does not give Russia a free pass to claim that something happened when it simply didn't.

    GuardianFearless 25 May 2015 11:23

    Another NATO fairy tale. Don't you think it's doesn't matter now what exactly West thinks about it, all European decisions already were made and nothing can be done now to change the outcome. The more important part what Russia thinks of that events, and what will be the consequences now, just because Russia thinks that there was a betrayal.

    You can try to justify actions that was taken in the past in this case only for your own people, but if you can't convince Russia (and, by the way, the rest of non USA-oriented world), that will not delay or spare consequences. West will have a problem with Russia in future, it's inevitable, and a big one (looks like even nuclear one), because Russia makes reality in the world on her own, that West has to check, so if Russians thinks there was something wrong with NATO actions in 90-th it's totally 100 percent real for the rest of the world. So, author, please check your reality detector, looks like a battery fails in it, and write again!

    EugeneGur 25 May 2015 11:06

    The miracle of 1990 is that one of the greatest transformations of the international system in human history was achieved without war, in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation.

    And then this miracle was used up ill by the West to expand east without any spirit of dialog or cooperation. Even assuming no promises were made, the actions themselves were hardly friendly, and that's precisely how they are perceived in Russia. The usual argument that the Eastern European countries fell over themselves to join NATO is faulty. First, correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall a single referendum about joining NATO in any of them, so how the people of these countries felt remains unknown.

    Second, even assuming they were anxious to join NATO, NATO could've predicted the Russian reaction, could it not, if the NATO commanders had any brains at all? You want to please Estonia and annoy Russia - that's what you have achieved.

    So, don't act surprised by the Russia's reaction and the measures Russia takes to counter what it sees as a threat. Regardless of what the Eastern Europe wants, Russia remains within its right to protect itself, and it will. Trying to present it as something totally unreasonable, Russian "paranoia", is the usual deceit tactics the West is so good at. This always amuses me to no end: Russia feeling apprehensive at being encircled by something that represents itself as the strongest military alliance in the wold is paranoia, but the US representing North Korea as existential threat is reality. Fantastic.

    Алексей Кузнецов -> AbsolutelyFapulous 25 May 2015 10:48

    What did NATO do to Russia that is not a product of Russia paranoia?

    1. Yugoslavia
    2. Iraq
    3. Afghanistan
    4. Libya
    5. Syria

    Who's next? What about missile defense system in Europe?

    TecchnoExpertThanx 25 May 2015 10:41

    8

    9

    If the Russians are constantly guilty of 'whataboutism', then unfortunately for us in the west, we are guilty of 'Double Speak' (having this pointed out to us, is commonly referred to as 'whataboutism').
    Whether it is deliberate or not, it is about time we stop using this technique to hide behind our false justifications and need for 'action'.

    Courtesy of our propagators, their media poodles and sock puppets, people actually believe that the 'Ends justify the means' and that the ends is 'Freedom' and the means is 'Democracy Building', and everything in between is 'Good'.
    And sure, we may 'torture some folks', but how dare anyone question intent!!!
    Bin Laden? Why am i not surprised to have read only last week that Bin Laden must be conspiracy theorist because seals found amongst other novels, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man?
    Here are some quotes from a Guardian article in 2004. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/11/iraq.usa

    ....the hallmark of Reagan's presidency was anti-communist cynicism, masked by phoney rhetoric about freedom. In his first press conference as president he used quasi-biblical language to claim that Soviet leaders "reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat". It was one of the most extraordinary cases of the pot calling the kettle black...

    ...In the name of anti-communism everything was possible. Reagan invaded Grenada on the false premise that US students who had been there safely for months were suddenly in danger. Reagan armed thugs to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, even after it won internationally certified free elections in 1984....

    Reagan armed and trained Osama bin Laden and his followers in their Afghan jihad, and authorised the CIA to help to pay for the construction of the very tunnels in Tora Bora in which his one-time ally later successfully hid from US planes. On the grounds that Nelson Mandela's African National Congress was pro-communist, Reagan vetoed US congress bills putting sanctions on the apartheid regime the ANC was fighting.

    His policies towards the Soviet Union were hysterical and counter-productive. He put detente into deep freeze for several years with his insulting label "the evil empire". It led to overblown outrage over the downing by Soviet aircraft of a South Korean airliner that intruded into Russian air space. Moscow's action was inept, but if Reagan had not put the superpowers in collision, the Kremlin might have treated the wayward plane more calmly.

    It further goes onto conclude;


    Reagan's Star Wars project did not bankrupt the Soviet Union into reform, as his admirers claim. In repeated statements as well as his budget allocations Gorbachev made it clear Moscow would not bother to match a dubious weapons system which could not give Washington "first-strike capability" for at least another 15 years, if ever.

    But hey, all this is a distraction. Rather than bickering around 'he said, she said', Ambassador to the .S.S.R. from 1987 to 1991, Jack F. Matlock does an excellent job in readdressing one of Russia's biggest concerns. Now irregardless of a promise or lost in translation, who in their right mind would think that expanding NATO (even if countries BEG to join), would be in the in the best interest for global security??????
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-is-the-bully-the-united-states-has-treated-russia-like-a-loser-since-the-cold-war/2014/03/14/b0868882-aa06-11e3-8599-ce7295b6851c_story.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwj8T34v6hM


    Report


    StephenKMack 26may1989 25 May 2015 10:40

    Thank you for your comment. For those of us who came of age during the last Cold War we don't need a 'report' to inform us of the fact that a 'New Cold War' is in full swing! The attacks on those who dissent as 'dupes' and/or as 'paid agents of Putin' hinting at the notion of 'Quislings' are all familiar territory.

    It smacks of the Nixon/McCarren/Mundt/McCarthy political axis of the late forties in America:' a generation of treason' to describe The New Deal! Always the same screeching hysteria, although Mr. Clark in his search for 'reasons', while he carefully diagnosis Russian paranoia, and the self-identification as victim of Western mendacity, tries to mute the tone of that hysteria, by providing plausible historical antecedents, in a carefully massaged exercise in empiricism, and he acquits himself with a kind of confident ease.

    To provide one salient example of the same old faces, the same old rhetoric, from the last 'Cold War', we see Strobe Talbott of Brookings, or RussiaHand as he dubbed himself, one of the architects of the transition of the Soviet Union from command to a 'free market' economy, that required the 'strong medicine' of the 'shock doctrine' to make that transition. That transition led to the rise of The Oligarchs equaling former KGB thugs like your arch-enemy Putin.

    After that ignominious policy failure, hailed by the Western Media as a necessity for the transition to Democracy, that caused untold suffering on the Russian people: the triumph of the misery producing Neo-Liberal Dogma in it's squalid infancy , or nearly that.

    Regards,
    StephenKMackSD

    Кирилл Олейник 25 May 2015 10:26

    After all these events since the bombing of Yugoslavia it is obviously that Gorbachev had made mistake.

    The West is not able to appreciate the concessions, West doesn`t know what means gratitude. And such demagogic articles are just another proof.

    When Soviets had stopped meaningless Cold War the West had dared to call itself the winner. So there is no reason to have a dialogue with the West, because it can understand only the language of strength. Well, this is a good remark, Russians will remember this. If you prefer the language of strength then you`ll have it.

    Don`t cry then.

    Z'ing Sui AbsolutelyFapulous 25 May 2015 10:16

    From what I read, Russians are angry for a number of reasons, here's approximate list
    1. Expansion - "our anti-Western alliance is over, your anti-Russian alliance is growing", the broken promise to Gorby, etc.

    2. Bombing Russia's allies. - Russia had very few of them as it was, and the Serbia thing being done without engaging Russians is something they can't forgive. Destroying Libya and threats to bomb Syria pale in comparison (Russians don't see the distinction between NATO countries and NATO)

    3. "We helped you, you didn't help us" - Russia's provided logistics to NATO in Afghanistan, but they say NATO has never done anything meaningful in return

    4. Training troops that fight Russia - that's something spanning from Soviets fighting in Afghanistan to Georgia, they aren't specific. But training Georgia troops and then having them shell Russian positions in South Ossetia is something that actually seems to have happened

    Alexander Bach Artusov 25 May 2015 10:06

    There was NO written agreement as I understand it.

    True. Russians have never claimed there was a written agreement. They claim that was alluded in spoken words and they believed it as at that time they trusted the West much more than today. Anyway, today they don't use this issue as a justification of everything. They only give it as one example of the West's behaviour. There were many other things later on. So there's no point in focusing on this particular one. The fact is that today Russia has no trust towards the West whatsoever, not only because of the cheats, but mostly because the West continuously refuses to admit any Russia's interests.

    Putin is KGB trained and probably shares some ideas of Russian expansion [ or perhaps not - who knows ? ]

    I don't think so. Putin has given a hint a few times that he treats the ex-USSR splinters as a burden for Russia, so he prefers them to pay for themselves. Crimea is an easily explainable exclusion: 1) it's very Russian (full of Russians) 2) it's very pro-Russian (people there want to be in Russia) 3) it has very high strategic value (having it gives control over the whole Black Sea).

    As per other regions (South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Novorossia), as you see Putin doesn't take them into Russia although he could apparently do so with ease.


    Ieuan Tintenfische 25 May 2015 10:00

    Tintenfische said: "As for Iran, well yes we did invade together with you, but the SHah had declared war on the UK"

    If you're talking about 1941, no the Shah had not declared war on anybody. Iran had declared itself neutral.

    The Brits used as their excuse for invasion that Iran was under Nazi domination and 'full of German advisers'. In turns out that the only Germans in the country were a couple of hundred employees of the German embassy, who had every right to be there.

    The UK occupied the country until 1946.

    Interestingly enough the Shah of 1941 had been supported by the UK in the 1920's when he was no more than a junior army officer and marched on Tehran to overthrow the new Iranian Parliament (There had been an Iranian constitutional revolution which had overthrown the current Shah and set up a democratic parliament).


    Z'ing Sui AbsolutelyFapulous 25 May 2015 09:57

    Would have been a great move 20-25 years ago, when Russians removed their boots from Europe, their people hailed western values and their politicians weren't former KGB. Now, with NATO disregarding Russia for 20 years basically just because Russia was too concerned with not falling apart to do anything about it, and Russians going on a rampage in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, with Putin having almost 90% ratings for opposing NATO, it's just too late.

    Why would they trust NATO after all these years? I sure wouldn't, not until NATO undoes whatever Russians consider NATO's wrongdoings, which is not really possible too.

    Z'ing Sui 25 May 2015 09:46

    Almost every politician who was privy to the process of negotiations with the Russians or had anything to do with foreign policy towards USSR at the time has at least expressed sentiment that Russians would of course not expect NATO expansion and would consider it a hostile move after they've remove their troops from Europe.

    A number of people confirm that the assurances were in fact given to the Russians, and here's a great article that actually relies on the documents of the time, and not on some ww1 history lessons

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/opinion/30sarotte.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    "What would Mr. Gorbachev demand in return? To learn the answer, Mr. Baker and Mr. Kohl journeyed to Moscow within a day of each other. On Feb. 9, 1990, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Gorbachev, "Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?"

    Mr. Gorbachev, according to Mr. Baker, answered that "any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable." Their meeting ended without any final deals made. Mr. Baker left behind a secret letter, detailing what he had said, for Mr. Kohl in Moscow."
    It seems clear that although Kohl obviously negotiated mostly concerning East Germany's future, Russians were talking about any sort of NATO expansion, into East Germany and otherwise, and Kohl and Baker at the very least, knew it when they made their assurances to the soviets.

    Yes, there was no binding agreement, but Gorby's trust was obviously betrayed. "False memory syndrome" is what authors suffer from. You can't fight Putin's lies with lies of your own.


    PixieFrouFrou Alexander Bach 25 May 2015 09:43

    'In a recent atricle (8 of March 2015) the Guardian writes (see http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/08/nato-is-misquoting-mikhail-gorbachev)'

    The item you quote is a letter to the Guardian from a reader, not an article in the Guardian.


    BradBenson Steely1 25 May 2015 08:43

    Yes indeed. That was an excellent article which, although written six years ago, is more accurate and true to the facts than the above opinion piece.

    These two authors want to blame something that happened at the beginning of the 20th Century for Russian mistrust of the West in the 21st. I would suggest that, if they want to go back that far in history to find a reason for Russian mistrust of the West, they should not overlook the Western MILITARY INTERVENTION in Russia during the civil war, which followed the revolution--to which US Military Units were also dispatched. Perhaps the Russian Memory is better than ours here in the West.


    Ian56789 DHMeyer 25 May 2015 08:24

    The Ukraine economy is in the midst of collapse - GDP fell by 17.6% in Q1.

    This was the highly predictable outcome (as was the civil war) of the US engineered Coup in Kiev.

    The IMF loans will do absolutely nothing to help Ukraine. They will go on bailing out Templeton, Soros and other US hedge funds that hold Ukraine debt (about $23bn in total).

    The IMF loans will go on increasing military spending up from $1.5bn in 2013 to $3.8bn in 2015. A fair amount of it will be used on buying US made weapons (quelle surprise!).

    A billion or so will go in the pockets of Poroshenko, Yatsenuk & other Ukrainian Oligarchs. Yatsenuk is already accused of embezzling $325m.

    The IMF imposed "austerity" will further depress Ukraine's economy. Private fuel bills have increased by 300% and overall inflation is running at something like 60%.

    The EU co-operation agreement was discussed at a meeting in Yalta in September 2013 attended by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, Poroshenko and representatives of the IMF, German and Russian foreign ministries.

    It was later reported that Hillary Clinton had taken an $8m bribe from the host - Ukrainian Oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.


    Susan O'neill alpamysh 25 May 2015 08:22

    What an utterly ridiculous claim. The nazi Kiev regime has outlawed Russian speech, legal representation of Russian speaking peoples and the Lugansk and Donetsk peoples wanted to survive. They are fighting for their lives under an oppressive regime who has promised them suffering beyond belief. They asked to be recognized as a federation, which Putin has acknowledged but the US wants a deal on that "bread basket" land and will support the Kiev war in order to get it. This war is about power to those who have it and can wield it. The only "ideals" are those of the nazi ideology. There is real conviction on the part of the Donbass civilian population. It's called survival.

    It was also later reported (in the Telegraph) that the EU trade agreement up for consideration would cost the Ukraine economy something like $160bn over 10 years, which was the reason that Yanukovich eventually rejected it.

    You should also look into Kolomoyski, Burisma Holdings (Ukraine's largest private fracking company), Hunter Biden (son of VP Joe) and John Kerry's investments in Burisma through the Heinz Family Trusts.


    hermanmitt 25 May 2015 08:06

    Try asking yourself one question:
    How many Russian 'military bases' are there around the globe?

    It perhaps needs to be pointed out that, in reality, there is no such thing as NATO. NATO, as it exists, is merely the European military arm that enforces the current 'western occupation' by the U.S. Empire, which relies exclusively on its Military Industrial Complex to hold the empire together.

    When you look at it in this way, to get the full picture, one needs to add into the mix all the other U.S. military bases around the globe, which tells you that the entire planet is held under a threat of U.S. aggression. It's the reason that U.S. military spending is more than the next 26 countries combined. A strategy first widely employed in the building and maintenance of the British Empire, this is really nothing more than an extension of 'gunboat diplomacy' - a global example of a military backed empire, but done in a more cover way.

    The Russians may, diplomatically, be pointing out some very salient facts, for those of us who prefer the macro, as opposed to micro, view of the geo-political map.

    Anyone who supports the current corrupt and disastrous, heavily Fascist orientated, regime in Kiev is no friend of Ukrainians, nor friends of Europe (or ordinary Americans).

    Putin has repeatedly tried to have civilized discussions with the West and sought to de-escalate the situation at every opportunity. It just hasn't been reported in Western mainstream media - it has been reported in numerous Western alternative media outlets. Just about all of the Western alternative media directly contradicts the false Neocon propaganda pushed in Western Corporate media.


    DHMeyer SHappens 25 May 2015 07:59

    1. Expansion of NATO was the choice of the independent countries which applied to join the organisation. They wouldn't have done so if Russia was indeed a peaceful and helpful neighbour, but sorry, history of the region proves they are not interested in that sort of role.

    2. Do you really believe that Russia wouldn't demand written guarantees "because it would have seemed indecent"? Since when Russian diplomats are sentimental fools and since when Russia is overly concerned with decency?

    Steely1 25 May 2015 07:58

    A real article on the subject: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

    [May 28, 2015] Yats bleat about Tatar rights in Crimea before the Maidan events

    kirill, May 28, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    Next time western "human rights lovers" bleat about Tatar rights in Crimea, show them what their darling Yatz was spewing before the Maidan events.

    Tim Owen , May 28, 2015 at 5:10 pm
    I think something was lost in translation. He certainly sounds and looks like a loon. There's the moment where he basically suggests that any other group existing in the country are thereby trampling the writes of the presumably chosen who do not belong to that group… Presumably Ukrainians, whatever tf that means…

    Never mind. I think I figured it out.

    [May 27, 2015] Ukraine is now problem for both Russian and West, but West managed to score several points against Russia and do it relatively cheaply

    The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
    Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary 4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
    The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
    One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine. Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened... Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup, and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
    Notable quotes:
    "... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
    "... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
    "... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
    "... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
    "... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
    "... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
    "... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
    "... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
    "... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
    "... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
    "... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
    "... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
    "... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
    "... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
    "... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
    "... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
    "... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
    "... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
    "... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
    "... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
    "... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
    "... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
    "... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
    "... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
    "... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
    "... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
    "... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
    "... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
    "... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
    "... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
    "... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
    "... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
    "... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
    "... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
    "... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
    "... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
    "... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
    "... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
    "... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
    "... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
    "... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
    "... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
    "... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
    May 26, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Paul, May 25, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved?
    • For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
    • Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
    • Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts at once.
    • Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.

    Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of the Kremlin's approaches.

    They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.

    People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow. It was fairly obvious.

    karl1haushofer, May 26, 2015 at 2:02 am
    I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond.
    • Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
    • Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious Putin would never do.
    • Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
    • Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist attacks against Macedonian authorities.
    • NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
    • Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
    • NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

    If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat.

    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:17 am
    Yes, 'If'.
    • Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
    • The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
    et Al , May 26, 2015 at 6:12 am
    Here's my take for what it is worth:

    The West plays the short game, so initially it may look like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.

    1: ..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented towards Russia. This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia.

    2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. True, but again a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters, but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That is where they started.

    3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the plug

    NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible. It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late 1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.

    4: the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term.

    This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage, but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment.

    As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical.

    Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so that they can just have a look around?

    To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done.

    In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!

    Paul, May 26, 2015 at 8:37 am
    No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly stupid.

    As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.

    If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria. What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously better today.

    As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does.

    et Al, May 26, 2015 at 9:35 am
    Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially.

    The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar.

    And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage?

    I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and one they are very careful in making.

    As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon. The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot cheaper.

    In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread it far and wide:

    marknesop, May 26, 2015 at 7:38 am
    Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.

    NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage.

    I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.

    NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was.

    Paul, May 26, 2015 at 8:20 am
    That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some black earth to expropriate.

    My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake.

    marknesop, May 26, 2015 at 10:17 am
    That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.

    The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west. Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.

    The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.

    There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy; however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.

    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 1:57 am

    A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:

    "This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened in this conflict and it will not be the last.

    The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle.

    The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children. I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death? He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.

    Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg.

    The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either individual or mass atrocities.

    To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed? Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
    girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They are known.

    I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold.

    As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember, but don't complain, it's useless."

    karl1haushofer, May 26, 2015 at 2:07 am
    Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:11 am
    Never is a strong word.
    karl1haushofer , May 26, 2015 at 2:22 am
    Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
    kat kan, May 26, 2015 at 4:54 am
    He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."

    I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known anyway..

    The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal. But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.

    marknesop , May 26, 2015 at 7:45 am
    I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN.
    Moscow Exile, May 26, 2015 at 6:02 am
    From the Brain-Dead Centre of the International Community:

    Some comments:

    • – russians are very friendly people this story is all fake
    • – Yeah! And we'll kill anyone who disagrees!
    • – Russians ARE the blacks of europe. (no offense to russians, blacks, or eurpeans ofc)
    • – The scariest white people are Americans who make fictional Russian accents
    Lyttenburgh, May 26, 2015 at 12:27 pm
    Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia
    Tim Owen, May 26, 2015 at 2:03 pm
    Yeah that's laughable. On the other hand

    The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.

    http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/05/polands-new-president-demands-ukraine.html

    Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:

    Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately, what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other parts of Western Ukraine?

    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 26, 2015 at 2:19 pm
    This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?

    [May 27, 2015] Andrzej Duda victory in Polish presidential election signals shift to right

    See also Far-right politics in Poland - Wikipedia and 'Polish far-right nationalists serve as instruments of US, EU policy'
    May 27, 2015 | The Guardian

    The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors.

    Law and Justice presents itself as a protector of those who have not benefited from the capitalist transformation and as a defender of national interests abroad. It is staunchly pro-US, but has a sometimes defiant stance towards other European partners, which has created tensions in the past with the EU and neighbouring Germany.

    Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control.

    [May 25, 2015] Andrzej Duda victory in Polish presidential election signals shift to right

    Notable quotes:
    "... The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors. ..."
    "... Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control. ..."
    "... Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday. They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors.

    Law and Justice presents itself as a protector of those who have not benefited from the capitalist transformation and as a defender of national interests abroad. It is staunchly pro-US, but has a sometimes defiant stance towards other European partners, which has created tensions in the past with the EU and neighbouring Germany.

    Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control.

    Jacek Kucharczyk, president of the Institute of Public Affairs, an independent thinktank in Warsaw, said Poland's relations with other European powers would now depend on whether Duda sticks to the relatively moderate agenda he campaigned on or embraces his party leader's more combative foreign policy stance.

    "That would be a nightmare scenario for Polish foreign policy, because it would mean getting into conflicts with Germany and anti-EU stunts and aggressive rhetoric towards Russia," Kucharczyk said. "We are in for a bumpy ride. The only question is how bumpy it will be."

    Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday. They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad.

    [May 25, 2015] "Moldova Eyes Russia's Embrace as Flirtation With Europe Fades"

    "...Russian propaganda aside, however, Moldovans say they have more than enough reasons - not least widespread corruption here, the shadowy power of business moguls, and the war next door in Ukraine - to look askance at the European Union"
    "...Today, Moldova's feuding pro-European politicians, like their counterparts in Ukraine, are so tainted by their failure to combat corruption and create a functioning state that, to many here, Russia looks appealing."
    "...The Transdniester blockade is tit for tat for Russia cancelling USA's access to Afghanistan. concessions. Apparently access to the high seas is some kind of universal human right, based on which there are UN conventions for landlocked states to have rights to transit neighbouring countries to get to the sea. So it's not entirely a matter of next door liking to let you through. I am not sure if "trade" includes weapons. "

    ..."We go to a place for an hour or so, and then we leave and they all go back to watching Russian television," Ms. Morari said.

    Russian propaganda aside, however, Moldovans say they have more than enough reasons - not least widespread corruption here, the shadowy power of business moguls, and the war next door in Ukraine - to look askance at the European Union, which Ms. Morari fears is losing out to Russia in the struggle for hearts and minds in this former Soviet land.

    ...

    Instead of enjoying a new European dawn, the prospective partners are deeply mired in their own troubles. Or they are veering closer toward Moscow, swayed by a contrasting combination of a Brussels bureaucracy focused on technical minutiae and President Vladimir V. Putin's far more clear and assertive effort to return former Soviet satraps to Moscow's fold.

    ...

    It is the kind of waffling that has left many former Soviet subjects less than enchanted by European entreaties. "Russia doesn't have to do anything," said Yan Feldman, a member of a Moldovan government council set up to combat discrimination. "It just has to wait. The idea of Europe has discredited itself."

    Indeed, there is little to show from the six years of courtship of the former Soviet republics. Ukraine aside, Georgia is stuck in limbo amid fierce political infighting, and three other partnership countries - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus - have rebuffed Brussels's inducements and moved closer to Moscow.

    But nowhere is the gap between expectation and reality bigger than in Moldova, which last year secured visa-free travel to Europe for its citizens after being trumpeted by Brussels as the Eastern Partnership's "top reformer."

    Today, Moldova's feuding pro-European politicians, like their counterparts in Ukraine, are so tainted by their failure to combat corruption and create a functioning state that, to many here, Russia looks appealing.

    A recent opinion poll carried out by the Institute for Public Policy, a Moldova research group, found that only 32 percent of those surveyed would support joining the European Union - an option that Brussels has no intention of offering - while 50 percent said they would prefer to join a customs union promoted by Mr. Putin. Over all, support for the European Union in Moldova has plummeted to 40 percent this year from 78 percent in 2007, according to the group's figures, which were based on what it called a representative sample of Moldovans.

    "We cannot live without the Russian market," said Igor Dodon, the Socialist Party leader, as he sat in an office bedecked with photographs of himself meeting Mr. Putin in Moscow. Mr. Putin, he said, told him that Russia wants to revive trade and political ties with Moldova, but only if the country avoids moving toward NATO.

    The European Union, Mr. Dodon said, "needed a success story and chose us. But now everyone sees this was all an illusion."

    (4 Comments |Comment on this)
    Selected Skeptical Comments from NezNotes

    Kat Kan, May 24, 2015

    The Transdniester blockade is tit for tat for Russia cancelling USA's access to Afghanistan. concessions. Apparently access to the high seas is some kind of universal human right, based on which there are UN conventions for landlocked states to have rights to transit neighbouring countries to get to the sea. So it's not entirely a matter of next door liking to let you through. I am not sure if "trade" includes weapons.

    Nothing too sinister in this, and fixable with a little diplomatic horse-trading maybe. If they won't start WW3 over Ukraine they certainly won't over Transdniester.

    While they don't run out of food or ammunition,. the Russian troops in Transdniester are in a good pincer position if any more come across from, say, Novoazovski, towards Odessa. So they're better off being nice to them.

    Many in Romania would like Moldova reattached, but nobody in Moldova wants this, except a few who think unification would be a good backdoor into EU membership. This won't fly with the EU, I am sure.

    Moldova doesn't really want Transdniester because it is a very poor and very mixed ethnicity region, but they don't want to let it go, either. It is actually another Crimea situation, having voted for autonomy/independence a year before the Soviet breakup.

    I get dizzy just thinking about it, so I hope "they" get dizzy enough to not do anything silly.

    [May 25, 2015] Great work from Dr Nafeez Ahmed and I hope Off-Guardian.org support his report by reposting it at their site.

    marknesop , May 23, 2015 at 3:54 pm

    Fantastic. And the west was still unable to topple Assad, while Syria's only ally in the whole world was the barbaric tinker-toy nation that doesn't make anything and is isolated from the global community. Heckuva job, Putin.

    Jen , May 23, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Great work from Dr Nafeez Ahmed and I hope Off-Guardian.org support his report by reposting it at their site.

    james , May 23, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    yea – this has been out for the past week or so – as if anyone with a fucking brain couldn't figure out isis is another creation of the same maniacs funding shit around the mid-east – usa/saudi arabia and israel.. moa had a good post up may 19th which also highlights a perceptive comment " The pictures ( see link here) show a bright and sunny blue sky. No U.S. air interdiction was seen. Remarks one knowledgeable tweep looking at those pictures:

    The Islamic State in Ramādī yesterday. Quite amazing the coalition didn't take them out actually. Makes one wonder about the coalitions rules of engagement. Now it "looks" as if Ramādī was offered to them on a silver plate …"

    Fern , May 23, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    That the 'international community' aka the US and its friends are behind the creation of ISIS/ISIL/IS has been hidden in plain sight for a number of years now. The arming of the unreliable Iraqi military with a phenomenal amount of US hardware which then somehow or other find their way into IS hands – and God forbid the US military with its awesome air power should, you know, like bomb the weapons' stores when they're abandoned by the military to prevent their take-over by the jihadists – added to the funding and arming (with US supplied weapons) of IS by US ally Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States along with yet more weapons and fighters being moved into Iraq and Syria through US ally and NATO member, Turkey, clearly point to the source of IS. A US foreign policy wonk, for example, wrote the following in 2012 – it comes with a health warning – reading it is likely to adversely affect your blood pressure:-

    "For the foreseeable future, however, Iran constitutes a far greater and more immediate threat to US national interests. Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people, any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime….So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies, we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict that's going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."

    Massacres and ethnic cleansing – it's all good. Afghanistan redux. The utter destruction of Afghanistan at the hands of western funded and backed jihadis is one of the great tragedies of the 20th century – a tragedy dismissed by one of its main architects, Zig Big, as a "bunch of stirred up muslims'.

    And that's the thing – these folk know what they're doing. The US does not end up backing the most regressive and violent groups in targeted countries and societies because of some tragic 'mistake' or 'misunderstanding' of their motives, they back whosoever is violent enough to get the job done. And they care not one iota for the fate of peoples in those places. This is what I find impossible to understand about the Russian US worshipping 'liberals' – it's not like evidence the US doesn't give a flying f**k about target populations is somehow hidden or unobtainable. And yet the Kreakly still don't get they're being used?

    marknesop , May 23, 2015 at 10:25 pm

    There will be plenty of time to tame the beast after the dust has settled. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of what I despise about American foreign policy, and its cavalier assumption that it will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear – that sometime in laterland its vicious killers will turn into butterfly-collecting free marketeers with a pro-western bent and a yen for democracy and the rule of law. All courtesy of American Exceptionalism. Like those blackboard drawings which feature skeins of equations all flowing into a single box inside which is written "Here a miracle occurs", followed by an equals sign and the correct answer.

    The Great American Approach To Meddling is perhaps most chillingly summed up in neocon high priest William Kristol's remark during an interview on NPR in 2003.

    "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni, and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

    [May 23, 2015] Ukraines Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

    Notable quotes:
    "... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
    Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

    The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.


    The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

    Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

    ... ... ...

    Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

    ... ... ...

    Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

    This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass - despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

    James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.

    Igor

    Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple things...

    Imba > Igor

    Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West, while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
    Please respect him ;)

    Dima Lauri > Imba

    I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.

    folktruther

    a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq. Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe, especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.

    [May 23, 2015] Ukraines Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

    Notable quotes:
    "... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
    Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

    The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.


    The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

    Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

    ... ... ...

    Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

    ... ... ...

    Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

    This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass - despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

    James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.

    Igor

    Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple things...

    Imba > Igor

    Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West, while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
    Please respect him ;)

    Dima Lauri > Imba

    I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.

    folktruther

    a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq. Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe, especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.

    [May 23, 2015] Failure of the US coup in Macedonia by Thierry Meyssan

    www.voltairenet.org

    Macedonia has just neutralised an armed group whose sponsors had been under surveillance for at least eight months. By doing so, it has prevented a new attempt at a coup d'État, planned by Washington for the 17th of May.

    The aim was to spread the chaos already infecting Ukraine into Macedonia in order to stall the passage of a Russian gas pipeline to the European Union.

    Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 23 May 2015

    The Kumanavo affair

    On the 9th of May, 2015, the Macedonian police launched a dawn operation to arrest an armed group which had infiltrated the country and which was suspected of preparing a number of attacks.

    The police evacuated the civilian population before launching the assault.

    The suspects opened fire, which led to a bitter firefight, leaving 14 terrorists and 8 members of the police forces dead. 30 people were taken prisoner. There were a large number of wounded

    Not a terrorist act, but an attempted coup d'État

    The Macedonian police were clearly well-informed before they launched their operation. According to the Minister for the Interior, Ivo Kotevski, the group was preparing a very important operation for the 17th May (the date of the demonstration organised by the Albanophone opposition in Skopje).

    The identification of the suspects has made it possible to determine that they were almost all ex-members of the UÇK (Kosovo Liberation Army) [1].

    The headquarters of the armed group in Kumanovo, after the assault.

    Among them were :
    • Sami Ukshini, known as " Commandant Sokoli ", whose family played a historic rôle in the UÇK.
    • Rijai Bey, ex-bodyguard of Ramush Haradinaj (himself a drug trafficker, military head of the UÇK, then Prime Minister of Kosovo. He was twice condemned for war crimes by the International Penal Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia, but was acquitted because 9 crucial witnesses were murdered during the trial).
    • Dem Shehu, currently bodyguard for the Albanophone leader and founder of the BDI party, Ali Ahmeti.
    • Mirsad Ndrecaj, known as the " NATO Commandant ", grandson of Malic Ndrecaj, who is commander of the 132nd Brigade of the UÇK.

    The principal leaders of this operation, including Fadil Fejzullahu (killed during the assault), are close to the United States ambassador in Skopje, Paul Wohlers.

    Fadil Fejzullahu, one of the leaders of the armed group, killed during the assault, with his boss, the United States ambassador in Skopje, Paul Wohlers.

    Paul Wohlers is the son of US diplomat Lester Wohlers, who played an important part in Atlantist propaganda, and directed the cinematographic service of the U.S. Information Agency. Paul's brother, Laurence Wohlers, is presently an ambassador in the Central African Republic. Paul Wohlers himself, an ex-Navy pilot, is a specialist in counter-espionage. He was the assistant director of the United States Department of State Operations Center (in other words, the service for the surveillance and protection of diplomats).

    Although Macedonia is not a member of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg was " following " the police operation in Kumanovo.

    To eliminate any doubt about the identity of the operation's sponsors, the General Secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, intervened even before the assault was over - not to declare his condemnation of terrorism and his support for the constitutional government of Macedonia, but to paint a picture of the terrorist group as a legitimate ethnic opposition : " I am following the events in Kumanovo with deep concern. I would like to express my sympathy to the families of those who were killed or wounded. It is important that all political and community leaders work together to restore order and begin a transparent investigation in order to find out what happened. I am calling for everyone to show reserve and avoid any new escalation of violence, in the intersts of the nation and also the whole region. "

    You would have to be blind not to understand.

    When he was the governor of the Stroumitsa region, Zoran Zaev was accused of having favoured the construction of a commercial centre, and arrested for corruption. His party left the Parliament as a show of support for him. Finally, he was pardoned by the President of the Republic, Branko Crvenkovski, who then took leadership of his party. He was elected President of the SDSM in June 2013.

    In January 2015, Macedonia foiled an attempted coup d'état organised for the head of the opposition, the social-democrat Zoran Zaev. Four peole were arrested, and Mr. Zaev had his passport confiscated, while the Atlantist press began its denunciation of an " authoritarian drift by the régime " (sic).

    Zoran Zaev is publicly supported by the embassies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Holland. But the only trace left of this attempted coup d'état indicates the repsponsibility of the US.

    On the 17th May, Zoran Zaev's social-democrat party (SDSM) [2] was supposed to organise a demonstration. It intended to distribute 2,000 masks in order to prevent the police from identifying the terrorists taking part in the march. During the demonstration, the armed group, concealed behind their masks, were supposed to attack several institutions and launch a pseudo-" revolution " comparable to the events in Maidan Square, Kiev.

    This coup d'État was coordinated by Mile Zechevich, an ex-employee of one of George Soros' foundations.

    In order to understand Washington's urgency to overthrow the Macedonian government, we have to go back and look at the gas pipeline war. Because international politics is a huge chess-board on which every move by any piece causes consequences for all the others.

    The gas war

    The gas pipieline Turkish Stream was intended to pass through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia and Serbia in order to supply the European Union with Russian gas. On the initiative of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of each of the countries concerned met on the 7th April in Budapest to coordinate their position facing the United States and the European Union.

    The United States have been attempting to sever communications between Russia and the European Union since 2007. They managed to sabotage the projet South Stream by obliging Bulgaria to cancel its participation, but on the 1st December 2014, to everyone's surprise, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a new project when he succeeded in convincing his Turkish opposite number, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to sign an agreement with him, despite the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO [3]. It was agreed that Moscow would deliver gas to Ankara, and that in return, Ankara would deliver gas to the European Union, thus bypassing the anti-Russian embargo by Brussels. On the 18th of April 2015, the new Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsípras, gave his agreement that the pipeline could cross his country [4] . As for Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, he had already conluded discrete negotiations last March [5]. Finally, Serbia, which had been a partner in the South Stream project, indicated to the Russian Minister for Energy Aleksandar Novak, during his reception in Belgrade in April, that Serbia was ready to switch to the Turkish Stream project [6].

    To halt the Russian project, Washington has multiplied its initiatives :
    in Turkey, it is supporting the CHP against President Erdoğan, hoping this will cause him to lose the elections;
    in Greece, on the 8th May, it sent Amos Hochstein, Directeur of the Bureau of Energy Ressources, to demand that the Tsípras government give up its agreement with Gazprom;
    it plans – just in case – to block the route of the pipeline by placing one of its puppets in power in Macedonia;
    and in Serbia, it has restarted the project for the secession of the small piece of territory - Voïvodine - which allows the junction with Hungary [7].

    Last comment, but not the least: Turkish Stream will also supply Hungary and Austria, thus ending the alternative project negotiated by the United States with President Hassan Rohani (against the advice of the Revolutionary Guards) for supplying them with Iranian gas [8].

    Thierry Meyssan

    Translation
    Pete Kimberley

    [May 23, 2015] Geopolitical war: Country at the crossroads of cultures – "bargaining chip" of big politics

    Mar 12, 2015 | youtube.com

    March 4, 2015 in Chisinau held an open meeting with Yakov Kedmi, military and political expert, former head of the Israeli secret service, "Nativ". The theme of the meeting: "Geopolitical war. Country at the crossroads of cultures – "bargaining chip" big politics".

    The event was organized by the Institute of diplomatic studies and security issues (IDPS), Moldova.

    Details on the website of the Institute - idps.md

    The first part of the meeting by reference http://youtu.be/3eNakx0-8iI

    [May 23, 2015] Я. Кедми. США боятся убрать Порошенко.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuzfX2ttEmw

    Павел Ариец

    Я доверяю лиш этому аналитику, хоть он и экс... Посмотрите сколько экс- специалистов стремятся высказать никому не интересное мнение, каждый стремится напомнить всем о себе незаменимом, а вот Яков Кедми это глыба знаний и глубокий аналитический ум. БРАВО Яков.

    Victor Zeleniy

    Не пойму, почему Яков придаёт такое значение словам Меркель? Для политиков соврать - что через два пальца плюнуть.

    Там более что пример уже есть: год назад министры иностранных дел Германии, Франции и Польши поставили подписи под соглашением Януковича с оппозицией.

    А уже на следующий день, когда киевская оппозиция нарушила это соглашение и захватила власть, то эти самые страны признали хунту законным правительством.

    василий кузнецов

    имхо: нестыковки в договоренности заложены были специально, как со стороны запада, так и России, чтобы при возобновлении конфликта можно было с легкостью осудить противника. конфликт затих, но не прекратился и не прекратится. яков должен знать менталитет тех "украинцев", что сейчас у власти в Киеве. вся их логика сводится к : назло бабушке отморожу себе уши. если бы америка не присутствовала своими интересами в украине, то все соглашения были бы " по якову"( изменения-федерализация; признание незаконными военнизированных формирований и т.д...).

    сейчас втихую будут готовить украинскую армию к "стремительному броску и молниеносной-победоносной войне - блицкриг". это нужно нынешним властям украины(другого способа сохранить головы и капиталы у них нет) и американским властным и коммерческим стуктурам(уничтожение и полное ослабление России и приведение Европы в полную зависимость от америки).

    Нынешней власти России, затишье так же необходимо, т.к. страна не готова к ведению широкомасштабных войн. широкомасштабных - потому, что в них не применут возможностью "поучаствовать" страны Азии: Япония и Китай

    Виталий Валиев 2 months ago

    Печально.Помогали Вьетнаму Афганистану Осетии .А наших мочат мы терпим. Был референдум. Лавров высказался.

    Народ обнадежил.И потом полная жопа.И вопрос Донбасса - за что? Крым наш .Но и Донбасс тоже наш.Не ценично ли корабли самолёты а они наших убивают.А мы с ружьём в руках смотрим.Это не побожески.

    Леонид Бейзерман 2 months ago

    Яков,не напрягайся,ни будут эти соглашения соблюдаться,по той причине,что нет там статуса Донбасса.И Яценюк об этом сегодня сказал.

    [May 23, 2015] The video purportedly depicting the hanging of a Novorossiyan militant and his pregnant wife

    marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 5:43 pm
    Re: the video purportedly depicting the hanging of a Novorossiyan militant and his pregnant wife – I have come around to thinking that it is a fake. Please see my comments for explanation, at the original site which reported it, to save me copying and pasting.
    Drutten, May 22, 2015 at 6:17 pm
    Yeah, your comments sound absolutely reasonable and I'm inclined to agree.
    astabada, May 22, 2015 at 7:03 pm
    Mark, I will suspend judgment, but to add to the discussion, the angle at which the body leans from the rope means nothing. For reference, here's a hanged person hanging vertically (Viewer discretion is advised).

    The execution seems botched (intentionally or not) in that they did not allow for enough acceleration to break the neck. Nevertheless it shows the body is hanging vertically.

    Here you see bodies hanging obliquely instead of vertically. No doubts this is another real execution.

    Because I am a physicist, let me comment on the acceleration problem too. A car of mass M_car undergoing an acceleration a_car is subject to a force F = M_car * a_car.
    When the rope goes into tension, the neck is subject to the same force M_car * a_car = F = m_body * a_neck, so the acceleration on the neck is a factor M_car/m_body higher than that you see on the car, so let's say a factor between 10 and 20 higher.

    A final note (for now) is that the place has been clearly used for several executions (real or fake, I don't know).

    marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 8:01 pm
    Thanks for the input! The clip you have included is apparently a real execution, and the behavior is what you would expect in a case of asphyxiation. Little to no movement at first, as the victim is holding his breath for as long as he can; if his arms were not bound his hands would be clawing at the rope. The first time he tries to draw breath and cannot, just as if he drew in water when drowning, the body takes over and fights for life. The slow kicking, drawing the legs up above the waist, is what I would expect to see. In looking at the suspected fake again, the woman's legs are not bound. If the neck was broken there might not be much movement, except for tremors in the extremities that are not bound, as the man does with his legs. However, if his neck was broken he would not hang as he does – what I am talking about, if you look even at the still photo, is that the center of balance for his hanging body appears to be somewhere on his upper back rather than his neck, his body hangs at an angle.

    In the still photo, some of the bodies are bent at the middle or have their legs at an angle – there's no way to know, but I suspect some of these people may have still been alive when the photo was taken, and were struggling. They were likely just standing on something which was kicked or pulled out from under them, so it is likely that all choked to death. But if you look again at the still photo of the supposed militant, he is up nearly as high as he can go without being pulled over the pole, and the rope does not appear to be leading to his neck. In this still photo, also from the Biskupia Gorka executions, the man's body hangs at an oblique angle, but it is plainly because it is swinging. In the case of the alleged Novorossiya militant, he is right up against the pole rather than hanging at the full extent of the rope, and his body is not swinging.

    You can't tell what happens after the vehicle pulls them off the ground, because the clip ends – but in the case of snuff souvenirs, people usually want to capture the death agonies, which leads me to believe all the exciting stuff was over. Then there's the timing; the Kiev regime needs a distraction because it has run into a spot of negative publicity over Porky's recognition of Nazi collaborators as heroes. At the same time, he does not dare rescind the law because it is pandering to his base. However, it is difficult to imagine someone would carry that around on their phone if it was a fake, knowing what would be the likely reaction if it were found. Which leads me to suspect the individual did not know it was there.

    Once again, it could be a real execution, but if so there is a lot of unusual behavior. I certainly believe the fascist Kievan forces capable of it, but there have been a number of fakes which were used by Kiev to say "See? The separatists constantly make up stuff about us to discredit us! Really we are just regular guys". It pays to be suspicious. There is also someone in front of the couple, conspicuously recording the execution on his phone, so the point will not be lost on the finder of the clip. Obviously not the same phone that captured the clip, since it is featured in the video.

    Jen, May 22, 2015 at 8:52 pm
    I finally decided to watch that video of the militias hanging the couple. The two people seem unusually still before the hanging. The bodies don't move much at all after the hanging and I would have expected also that there would be pelvic spasms from both couples. The pregnant woman's body would have started to expel the baby some time after her hanging yet the soldier holds onto her legs and nothing much happens. It reminds me of that fake crucifixion scene we were discussing in the forums before.
    marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 9:16 pm
    Also, the guy off to the side is not even watching. He walks back from the truck as if it is all routine and does not even look at the couple. Either they execute people all the time, or it is something they practiced and practiced.

    I initially thought the clip cut off early, but in fact it runs for some time and after the couple of little kicks from the man, he does not move at all. It seems very unlikely that they would both be dead so quickly. But maybe I am just looking for things wrong.

    astabada, May 22, 2015 at 9:24 pm
    Also, the guy off to the side is not even watching.

    This could be because it is a fake, but it could also be because it is not the first execution. As I have written above, there is clear evidence that the site has been used for several hangings – even though I cannot say whether they were real or fake.

    marknesop , May 22, 2015 at 9:56 pm
    What is the clear evidence that it has been used several times for hangings?
    astabada , May 22, 2015 at 10:20 pm
    On second thought, I am not so sure anymore. Anyway my evidence is:
    – the gallows is remarkably well built for a single execution
    – the horizontal beam has several marks in the section between the two trees, but there are no marks on the section to the left (hard to judge on the short right section)
    – such marks are also present where the ropes are

    So earlier I had concluded that the ropes had been placed in different points of the beam (this would be normal if you were throwing a heavy knot over it, because it is rather hard to hit always the same spot). Then a weight has been tied to the ropes (to generate the needed tension) and finally the ropes have been pulled, thus leaving marks on the beam.

    At the end of the video there is a close-up where the beam is seen better. I'm curious to know whether it's just my imagination shooting a movie from random tree marks.

    marknesop, May 22, 2015 at 10:55 pm
    I agree that it's hard to say. But the "gallows" is just a simple crossbeam, no great engineering skill required to throw it up. Whether the hanging is a fake or whether they do this all the time for real, they would have to practice a couple of times; really all you need to do to hang a person is lift them until their feet are off the ground, but the vehicle takes them in one smooth lift right to the bottom of the crossbeam, but not over it. Practice, and I imagine they have a guide mark for the vehicle driver so he does not overshoot. rope marks in the bark are conceivably from practice. They could move the vehicle forward two feet and those hanged would be just as dead.

    Everybody involved seems very casual, there is no evidence of tension or of anticipation on the part of the captors. The prisoners do not struggle, but stand passively and appear almost relaxed. There's no sound, so no way to tell if anything is said, but that forces observers to rely on body language, and it looks odd.

    The woman's movements bother me, though. That does look real. But she does not draw up her legs at all or kick, and although it does not look like either of their necks were broken (from the lack of change in position of their heads, although admittedly it is hard to tell with a hood on), they seem to die in less time than you could hold your breath.

    kat kan , May 22, 2015 at 10:17 pm
    HUH??? a womb has to do a lot of serious contracting to expel the contents. If she's dead there is no muscular contraction. All the muscles going floppy won't do it. Even bowel and bladder control is not lost immediately; it may be hours.
    yalensis , May 23, 2015 at 3:39 am
    Dear katkan:
    I just saw your comment, only after I had already written mine.
    So bowel/bladder control is not lost necessarily? I did not know that.
    That is one of the things I dread most about dying myself – that I will make a mess that others have to clean up.
    Jen , May 23, 2015 at 5:30 am
    @ Kat Kan: Well I assumed that in this particular situation, the pregnant woman looked as if she was about to have the baby very soon so I thought the body would start to expel the baby with blood supply being cut off to the womb and placenta while the mother was dying. If the woman had been in an earlier stage of pregnancy then things would be different.
    yalensis , May 23, 2015 at 3:34 am
    I didn't watch the video, I am too squeamish and can't bring myself to watch it, in case it is real. Which I have a feeling it is. Just based on the meta-data of how the video was found. There have been quite a lot of examples recently of people leaving trophey photos and vids on their cellphones. It's the modern way. Just think back to 2008 and all the tropheys captured by the Russian army in Gruzia, when they gathered up the cellphones of dead American mercenaries.

    Anyhow, I read all the comments, and I think that one guy makes a good point, that the victims would have lost bowel functions, which happens in real deaths. Although, if the victims were starving and dehydrated, maybe not.

    As for the pregnant woman expelling the baby, I don't think that happens right away.
    I read about an American murder case where a pregnant woman was drowned by her husband. It was only after several days of floating around in the ocean, the gases built up inside her corpse and expelled the foetus from her womb. The foetus floated away and was found by divers, which helped to solve the case. But they believe it didn't happen right away, the foetus stayed inside her womb until the gases built up sufficiently to expel it. Once the victim is dead, she is unable to push it out using her own muscles.
    Sorry for being so graphic…

    kat kan , May 22, 2015 at 8:18 pm
    DPR spokesman said it was found on the dead infiltrator.
    (a) he is lying and it is a DPR fake
    (b) he is saying what he was told but whoever brought the phone was lying, and it was a DPR fake done without the spokesman's knowledge, and not found on the dead body
    (c) it was found on the body but didn't belong to him and the video is fake
    . (i) every infiltrator has such a fake image, in case they're killed/caught with it
    .(ii) only this one had a fake, in the hope he gets killed and the phone found, and they're so lucky that the one carrying the phone gets killed
    .(iii) one of the 2 surviving infiltrators (still being sought) planted the phone on the body before himself running away
    (d) the infiltrator took the video and it's fake (then there should be other copies around, to be released anonymously)
    (e) the infiltrator took the video and it is real, and just bad lock he got killed and the video released

    No previous atrocity video was released by the authorities; they've all shown up anonymously on youtube, so could have been directly from the faker.

    Placing fakes on random soldiers, hoping one gets killed and the phone found, is a very hit and miss method of distributing propaganda that took some considerable work to set up. It can't be placed on hundreds of phones, as if 2 copies are found at once that betrays the fakery.

    The Donbass side has no need of such a fake; the West is not looking and everyone else already knows these guys are very bad and don't need further proof.

    In WW2 the Brits did once send fake documents to the Germans by attaching them to a dead body, to be washed up on a beach, to make it look authentic. But that was an important misdirection of where a big attack was going to happen, not a low-value propaganda film.

    marknesop , May 22, 2015 at 8:37 pm
    Yes, all good points. I initially thought it was real, but a combination of things now makes it seem like a fake to me. If two copies were found it might not necessarily expose it as a fake unless they were identical; so long as they were not obviously from the same vantage point, but of the same execution, one would likely tend to validate the other. However, something I did not think about was the likelihood of such a clip being on someone's phone and them not knowing, probably because I am emphatically not part of the cellphone-geek craze – how likely is that, really? People are browsing through the stuff on their phones all the time. And it is hard to imagine someone would carry around such incriminating evidence willingly, knowing it depicted a faked execution.

    Does it look real to you?

    yalensis , May 23, 2015 at 3:45 am
    Dear Mark:
    Without having watched the video, for which I am too squeamish, I believe that we have to approach this more scientifically, the way katkan does.
    I think asking "Does it look real to you?" is not the right question. We are used to things looking a certain way from watching movies; and sometimes when we see real life it looks fake to us. So that's not the right way to approach this.

    Not in terms of our own knowledge of executions and physics and whatnot, of which most of us have no specialized knowledge; but in terms of the evidence itself and how it is authenticated.

    I think the logical points that katkan raises about the actual way the video was obtained, pretty much convinces, and I think a court of law would accept that it was authentic, just based on those points, and how the vid was found. Regardless of whether we think we know what it looks like to die in this manner.

    Jen , May 23, 2015 at 6:10 am
    Real or not, the question remains as to why this video was placed on the dead soldier's cellphone, and if there was deliberate intent behind the placing. Is the video intended to be screened publicly in Russia with the aim of enraging the public enough to put pressure on Moscow to invade the Donbass region or, if Moscow resists, to start Maidan-style demonstrations against Putin?

    The video seems to be of a piece with the fake crucifixion video: in each, something that is supposedly considered sacred in Russian or East Slavic culture generally (whether it actually is or not) is being violated. In one video, the central tenet of Christianity is being upended and in the second, the sanctity of the family and motherhood is the subject of attack.

    [May 23, 2015] The Failures of Putin's Ukraine Strategy

    Neocons are always neocons... They are becoming more reckless with time. The key problem for Washington with Russia position (which is no doubt pretty costly for Russia itself) is that it enable and encourage to say No to Washington's demands other countries making geopolitical domination for the USA a lot more costly. Something like small scale revolt against the USA post-war domination. It also catalyze economic ties of Russia and China (and by extension other BRICs members), making the situation with dollar as world reserve currency and status of IMF more fuzzy...
    May 23, 2015 | The American Interest
    Nevertheless, Russia failed to deliver the knockout blow last spring, allowing Kyiv to recover and establish firm control throughout most of the country, even its Russophone portions. Moscow retains the military upper hand as the two countries settle into a protracted stalemate in the Donbass, but the Kremlin's strategy must take into account a number of factors that bode ill for Russia in the longer run.

    Ukraine has stumbled upon a most improbable ally-Saudi Arabia. In a stark example of the law of unintended consequences, the Russian economy has sustained heavy collateral damage from the Saudi campaign against North American shale-oil production (and secondarily, against Iran). The war of attrition in the Donbass is in large measure hostage to the economic war of attrition in the Bakken formation. This situation, unanticipated by Russia (or anyone else, to be fair) when it invaded Ukraine, appears likely to depress energy prices for years to come, sapping the strength of Russia's economy and hence the country's ability to wage war. A major cataclysm in the Middle East could turn energy prices around, of course, but it is instructive that oil prices have plummeted even in the face of Islamist depredations in Iraq and chronic chaos in Libya-and the loosening of sanctions on Iran would bring even more oil and gas onto the market.

    If the Saudi factor was unforeseeable, the Western response to the invasion of Ukraine appears to represent an actual miscalculation by Moscow. The Kremlin no doubt expected something akin to the reaction over Georgia in 2008-some harsh Western rhetoric, a few pro forma sanctions, and, six months later, a proffered reset button and the resumption of business as usual. Instead, Western governments have imposed fairly extensive sanctions and have thus far stuck to them. Sanctions against individuals are largely symbolic, but restrictions on lending are a genuine hardship to Russian companies, especially in the current economic downturn.

    The Kremlin has naturally responded with a variety of tactics to undermine Western unity and determination. Above all, Moscow has tried to demonize the United States and present Europe as a co-victim of sanctions imposed by Washington. The Maidan, in the Kremlin's creative retelling, was not about Ukrainian disgust with corruption or a yearning for European standards, but was just cynical American manipulation in order to strike a blow against Russia. The Russian narrative about the U.S. puppet master, of course, glosses over the enormous role played by Europeans in nurturing Ukrainian institutions and civil society over the years, and the influence on Ukrainians of the sheer example set by the transformation of Ukraine's erstwhile socialist neighbors. If Poles, Balts and Romanians can enjoy a modicum of prosperity and good governance by joining Europe, then why shouldn't Ukrainians move in the same direction?

    ... ... ...

    Besides vilifying Washington as the bogeyman, Moscow is understandably hard at work mobilizing any and all European governments and groups that can be used to undermine sanctions. Putin has found a worthy acolyte in Hungary's Viktor Orbán, the man who would be Magyarbashi, and can count on a degree of sympathy from a variety of European leaders ranging from Slovakia's Robert Fico to the new Syriza government in Greece. However, Putin has struck out completely with the individual who matters more than any other: Angela Merkel. If there were any question about the impact of individuals on the course of history, one need only ponder how different the European reaction to Russia's invasion of Ukraine would be if Gerhard Schröder were sitting in the German chancellor's office rather than on the board of Gazprom.

    Besides working sympathetic European leaders, Moscow has also cultivated a motley array of right- and left-wing extremists, people often of diametrically opposed political orientations united only by their hatred of Washington and Brussels. However, even where such groups attract a stable portion of their national electorates and can reasonably aspire to enter governing coalitions, they tend to have only a marginal influence on policy, particularly foreign policy. Electoral surprises can happen, of course, but Moscow is unlikely to see much return on its investment in these European groups.

    ... ... ...

    May 23, 2015 at 4:12 am

    Russian Fifth Columnists working with Brown Moses and NATO .

    Apparently the Fifth Columnists have taken to snooping around graveyards, looking for evidence to hand over to NATO, of Russian servicemen dying in Ukraine civil war.

    [May 23, 2015] M of A - Open Thread 2015-22

    "...I believe the Sochi meeting occurred because of the price of oil. The US has realized that with Petrodollars being repatriated to the Middle East and the fracking companies going bankrupt due to their inability to pay the interest on their junk bonds, the US economy was going to go into a nosedive and the "too big to fail" banks holding fracking company paper would be looking for a government bailout repeat in a Tea Party environment. "
    harry law | May 23, 2015 7:15:44 AM | 3

    An excellent article in Salon on John Kerry going to meet Lavrov and Putin at Sochi and having to admit US failure in the Ukraine.

    "The Americans were excluded from Minsk-point blank, so far as one can make out. And I love the Times sentence on this in Monday's paper: "Russia, Germany and France previously made it clear that they did not necessarily welcome the Americans at the negotiating table…" It reminds me of Hirohito announcing the surrender on Japanese radio: "The war has not necessarily proceeded to our advantage."

    http://www.salon.com/2015/05/19/john_kerry_admits_defeat_the_ukraine_story_the_media_wont_tell_and_why_u_s_retreat_is_a_good_thing/

    Albertde | May 23, 2015 9:19:09 AM | 5

    I believe the Sochi meeting occurred because of the price of oil. The US has realized that with Petrodollars being repatriated to the Middle East and the fracking companies going bankrupt due to their inability to pay the interest on their junk bonds, the US economy was going to go into a nosedive and the "too big to fail" banks holding fracking company paper would be looking for a government bailout repeat in a Tea Party environment.

    The question then becomes which part of the "Deep State Blob" would be dominant, i.e., who really rules the roost? A question the Deep State Blob does not want a public answer to.

    Jackrabbit | May 23, 2015 10:23:30 AM | 8

    @3 and @5

    Lots of false hope about Sochi.

    If there had really been serious discussion about a rapproachment in the weeks before Sochi then the West would not have snubbed Russia so completely refusing to join in the Victory Day celebrations.

    Also, whether the US was "excluded" from Minsk2 is best surmised from the purpose of Minsk2 and what followed. The US puppet regime got beat badly (again). They needed a halt in hostilities to regroup. Enter Merkel and Hollande with a "European plan" for peace which played on Putin's hopes of creating a wedge between the US and Europe. But Merkel's follow-thru was lackluster.

    And, did ANYONE expect that the US would publicly say anything other than "we support peace in Ukraine?" Newsflash: we support peace in the middle east too. And motherhood and apple pie.

    As for the substance of the meeting, I think the US wants two things: Russian gas flowing thru Ukraine and to nix the delivery of S-300/S-400 to Iran. The former is a financial lifeline for Ukraine, the later is because neocons (and the corrupt regimes that love them) want to maintain the option of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities.

    Q: What was offered in return? (end of sanctions?)

    rufus magister | May 23, 2015 11:46:17 AM | 12

    Re: guest77 | May 23, 2015 11:07:34 AM | 11

    Any discussion of the living dead has to include the corpse of the Ukraine. The NAZombIeS in charge continue to suck the lifeblood out of Banderastan. Aleksandr Rodzhers offers A Few Thoughts About Tomorrow.

    In order to avert a default and hryvnia collapse, Ukraine somehow has to obtain $40 billion in order to maintain the convertibility of the current hryvnia supply and another $40 to pay its debts... [The] de-facto insolvent entities include Ukraine's Pension Fund, Ukrainian Railroads, the city of Kiev, Oshchadbank, Ukrainian Export-Import Bank, and so forth.

    In order to avoid boring you with calculations, I'll sum up by saying that Ukrainian economy's stabilization requires something on order of $180-200 billion. That's just to keep the economy afloat in its current state. No way would it be sufficient to promote growth....

    The country is in default, there are millions of unemployed, while those still working receive miserly wages (I won't even mention the retirees, once there's a default they'll get nothing at all). Officially the crime rate grew by a factor of 6-8. The banking system is collapsing. Production is collapsing and export is dropping by a factor of 2-3. Ukraine imports 42% of its food and moreover the planting season is an outright failure, which implies the threat of starvation....

    He goes on to note that insolvency will threaten the purchase of fuel supplies and threaten the movement of goods, further aggravating the economic slide. The junta, instead of fixing these severe difficulties, is "babbling about the visa-free regime, joining the EU... and are preparing to launch another round of fighting on the Donbass."

    Think about it hard. You have children who need a future. A future not in an impoverished "not-quite-Third-Reich" which forbids you to think and forcing everyone to wear embroidered shirts, jump, and write assignments on the topic of "how I hate the Moskals"....

    Think about it very hard. Do you want your family to live in a country where "heroes" can beat, kidnap, torture, and kill anyone they consider "insufficiently patriotic"?... Do you want to live in a country where more than half the population wants to leave forever (all the while waving yellow-blue rags?). And, finally, do you want to live the greater part of your lives in poverty so that a bunch of fat scumbags could tell you how to correctly love the Motherland?

    Ukraine is gone.... One should not revive a corpse, it will only be a parasite consuming its Soviet inheritance, incapable of creating anything new. It's time to create something new, on a new foundation.

    He sees three possible futures. "A real revolution... with a complete break with the past and "rebranding" the state in another form, with a revamped Constitution..." Or, the secession of other regions, leaving on the rump of Kiev. And finally, "await the default.... [with] 15-20 years of poverty are guaranteed." He sees the second as the best option. "In any event, as long as Ukraine is being governed by complete failures and criminals of the puppet occupation administration under full control of the US, nothing will change."

    But let's not forget our own Congress of the Living Dead. In an ironically fitting metaphor on how the TPP can't stand the light of day, the Senior Corpses of the Upper Chamber apparently passed the Fast Track to Hell legislation last night. It now moves on to the House of Zombies and then to the Zombie-in-Chief.

    It's the leaders who are the zombies, bound to the vampires of finance. A few semi-sentient Zombie Masters seem aware we Cogs are More Human than Human. Love that slide gee-tar!

    ToivoS | May 23, 2015 12:33:18 PM | 15

    Harry Law #3. That is correct, Kerry's comments in Sochi are very significant. It does appear that the US is backing down from it's foolish policy in Ukraine. Not just that but it was accompanied by Kerry's warning to Poroshenko to forget about trying to retake the Donetsk airport. This has to be a major slap down considering that Kerry made the statement in Russia after meeting with Putin and Lavrov.

    Ukraine simply cannot continue the civil war without the support of either the EU or the US. This was one of those totally unexpected changes that it has left nearly all analysts in the West mostly speechless and the many of voices sympathetic to Russia unable to accept what happened there. The Saker is an exception to this since he immediately called this out a major retreat by the US. Stephan Cohen also seems to understand it's significance.

    This makes it look like there will be a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine crisis. This is not to say the resolution will be orderly for the Ukrainians will have to find a way to defang the neo-Nazi forces unleashed by the Maidan. I suspect Obama himself will have very little to say until the Iranian negotiations are completed. He certainly should not want to stir up the neocons any more than they are now. All in all there is much to optimistic about.

    guest77 | May 23, 2015 3:22:12 PM | 20

    A criticism of the British NGO "Iraq Body Count", an organization that puts out an extremely low count of the deaths related to the US-UK invasion of Iraq.

    http://rt.com/shows/going-underground/260797-iraq-nsa-uk-google/

    james | May 23, 2015 3:40:29 PM | 23

    @8 jackrabbit.. i agree your viewpoint re the comments @3, 5 and additionally @15..

    rufus magister | May 23, 2015 4:00:57 PM | 24

    Sadly, Russia Insider confirms the very bad news at 17. From their report:
    Of all the rebel leaders, Mozgovoy knew what this war was really about: The gladiator ring; the rich vs. the poor. Until the very end, he advocated for reconciliation between West and East Ukrainians - and putting the oligarchs who ruined their country up against a wall.

    May he rest in peace.

    I hope this is not Novorossiya's Luxemburg/Liebknecht moment, where the proto-fascist Freikorps removed the most capable of the German proletariat's leaders. Let's hope its more a Benigno Acquino moment, where the Marcos' assassination of their strongest critic lead to their downfall. And that the murderers have sowed dragons teeth among Mozgovoy's lieutenants stepping forward to finish the fight.

    An aside to MRW & en1c -- I don't think I'll have much time to play in the tar sands sand box for a bit. Too bad, I was having a grand time.

    Noirette | May 23, 2015 5:46:36 PM | 29

    Ukraine. Following on from Dener at 17 and others,

    Mozgovoy killed (if true): report:

    Russia insider http://tinyurl.com/nn5cn9f

    His last piece trans. to Eng. at Slavyangrad (May 6, 2015)

    In this war there will be no victory. Worthwhile read.

    http://tinyurl.com/ofrfp5v

    jfl | May 23, 2015 6:16:35 PM | 31

    How Russian Industry is Coping with the Crisis

    Keep in mind that the main thing our government is doing is organize access to rubles. The US closed our major enterprises' access to dollar credits, and it will pay for it by losing the Russian financial market. Credits will now be issued in rubles, with all the massive benefits to our country that the switch entails. It seems that Washington expected our economy will be "torn to shreds" before de-dollarization progresses too far:

    http://ruxpert.ru/Дедолларизация

    But now it is wholly apparent that Uncle Sam was slightly naive.

    As usual, the neo-con brain trust's lack of a long term prognosis of the effects of its quick fixes results in unintended consequences - which often (always?) are the opposite of their intentions. The split between the ideological clique and the financial clique is responsible for whipsaw effects like 'John Kerry Admits Defeat on Ukraine'.

    I imagine that as times get tougher the neo-cons will be the first to go, followed by the military - once the revenue stream there has been completely diverted to drones, to the NSA, and to 'security' from 'internal' enemies.

    Chipnik | May 23, 2015 6:57:11 PM | 34

    US tracking has peaked since drilling activity is collapsing, and I $I $ success in Iraq and Syria has reduced Iraq (and Libya) oil production, North Sea continues to decline and Russia and Iran production is shut in by Zio-style Long Talks, so all is right is the US/UK/Sunning Axis of power. Greece will default and EUROPE get bailed out by Draghi;, Ukraine will default and I FEEL get bailed out by Kerry; TPP will go through, with 40,000,000 Blue Visa second-Clas servant class and unlimited H-1st Hindu technobots, yes, all is right in the world for Petroshska and Gladtoast.

    Anunnaki | May 23, 2015 7:17:28 PM | 36

    A great hero fighting against Ukrainian Neo Nazi was killed today

    http://thesaker.is/alexei-mozgovoi-has-been-murdered/

    RIP

    [May 23, 2015] The Original Chechnya Bombers - The CIA, The Saudis And Bin Laden

    Zero Hedge
    Authored by F. William Engdahl via New Eastern Outlook,

    What if Putin is Telling The Truth?

    On April 26 Russia's main national TV station, Rossiya 1, featured President Vladimir Putin in a documentary to the Russian people on the events of the recent period including the annexation of Crimea, the US coup d'etat in Ukraine, and the general state of relations with the United States and the EU. His words were frank. And in the middle of his remarks the Russian former KGB chief dropped a political bombshell that was known by Russian intelligence two decades ago.

    Putin stated bluntly that in his view the West would only be content in having a Russia weak, suffering and begging from the West, something clearly the Russian character is not disposed to. Then a short way into his remarks, the Russian President stated for the first time publicly something that Russian intelligence has known for almost two decades but kept silent until now, most probably in hopes of an era of better normalized Russia-US relations.

    Putin stated that the terror in Chechnya and in the Russian Caucasus in the early 1990's was actively backed by the CIA and western Intelligence services to deliberately weaken Russia. He noted that the Russian FSB foreign intelligence had documentation of the US covert role without giving details.

    What Putin, an intelligence professional of the highest order, only hinted at in his remarks, I have documented in detail from non-Russian sources. The report has enormous implications to reveal to the world the long-standing hidden agenda of influential circles in Washington to destroy Russia as a functioning sovereign state, an agenda which includes the neo-nazi coup d'etat in Ukraine and severe financial sanction warfare against Moscow. The following is drawn on my book, "The Lost Hegemon" to be published soon…

    CIA's Chechen Wars

    Not long after the CIA and Saudi Intelligence-financed Mujahideen had devastated Afghanistan at the end of the 1980's, forcing the exit of the Soviet Army in 1989, and the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself some months later, the CIA began to look at possible places in the collapsing Soviet Union where their trained "Afghan Arabs" could be redeployed to further destabilize Russian influence over the post-Soviet Eurasian space.

    They were called Afghan Arabs because they had been recruited from ultraconservative Wahhabite Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia, the Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and elsewhere in the Arab world where the ultra-strict Wahhabite Islam was practiced. They were brought to Afghanistan in the early 1980's by a Saudi CIA recruit who had been sent to Afghanistan named Osama bin Laden.

    With the former Soviet Union in total chaos and disarray, George H.W. Bush's Administration decided to "kick 'em when they're down," a sad error. Washington redeployed their Afghan veteran terrorists to bring chaos and destabilize all of Central Asia, even into the Russian Federation itself, then in a deep and traumatic crisis during the economic collapse of the Yeltsin era.

    In the early 1990s, Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, had surveyed the offshore oil potentials of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and the entire Caspian Sea Basin. They estimated the region to be "another Saudi Arabia" worth several trillion dollars on today's market. The US and UK were determined to keep that oil bonanza from Russian control by all means. The first target of Washington was to stage a coup in Azerbaijan against elected president Abulfaz Elchibey to install a President more friendly to a US-controlled Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, "the world's most political pipeline," bringing Baku oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean.

    At that time, the only existing oil pipeline from Baku was a Soviet era Russian pipeline that ran through the Chechen capital, Grozny, taking Baku oil north via Russia's Dagestan province, and across Chechenya to the Black Sea Russian port of Novorossiysk. The pipeline was the only competition and major obstacle to the very costly alternative route of Washington and the British and US oil majors.

    President Bush Sr. gave his old friends at CIA the mandate to destroy that Russian Chechen pipeline and create such chaos in the Caucasus that no Western or Russian company would consider using the Grozny Russian oil pipeline.

    Graham E. Fuller, an old colleague of Bush and former Deputy Director of the CIA National Council on Intelligence had been a key architect of the CIA Mujahideen strategy. Fuller described the CIA strategy in the Caucasus in the early 1990s: "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power."6

    The CIA used a dirty tricks veteran, General Richard Secord, for the operation. Secord created a CIA front company, MEGA Oil. Secord had been convicted in the 1980s for his central role in the CIA's Iran-Contra illegal arms and drugs operations.

    In 1991 Secord, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, landed in Baku and set up the CIA front company, MEGA Oil. He was a veteran of the CIA covert opium operations in Laos during the Vietnam War. In Azerbaijan, he setup an airline to secretly fly hundreds of bin Laden's al-Qaeda Mujahideen from Afghanistan into Azerbaijan. By 1993, MEGA Oil had recruited and armed 2,000 Mujahideen, converting Baku into a base for Caucasus-wide Mujahideen terrorist operations.

    General Secord's covert Mujahideen operation in the Caucasus initiated the military coup that toppled elected president Abulfaz Elchibey that year and installed Heydar Aliyev, a more pliable US puppet. A secret Turkish intelligence report leaked to the Sunday Times of London confirmed that "two petrol giants, BP and Amoco, British and American respectively, which together form the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium), are behind the coup d'état."

    Saudi Intelligence head, Turki al-Faisal, arranged that his agent, Osama bin Laden, whom he had sent to Afghanistan at the start of the Afghan war in the early 1980s, would use his Afghan organization Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) to recruit "Afghan Arabs" for what was rapidly becoming a global Jihad. Bin Laden's mercenaries were used as shock troops by the Pentagon and CIA to coordinate and support Muslim offensives not only Azerbaijan but also in Chechnya and, later, Bosnia.

    Bin Laden brought in another Saudi, Ibn al-Khattab, to become Commander, or Emir of Jihadist Mujahideen in Chechnya (sic!) together with Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev. No matter that Ibn al-Khattab was a Saudi Arab who spoke barely a word of Chechen, let alone, Russian. He knew what Russian soldiers looked like and how to kill them.

    Chechnya then was traditionally a predominantly Sufi society, a mild apolitical branch of Islam. Yet the increasing infiltration of the well-financed and well-trained US-sponsored Mujahideen terrorists preaching Jihad or Holy War against Russians transformed the initially reformist Chechen resistance movement. They spread al-Qaeda's hardline Islamist ideology across the Caucasus. Under Secord's guidance, Mujahideen terrorist operations had also quickly extended into neighboring Dagestan and Chechnya, turning Baku into a shipping point for Afghan heroin to the Chechen mafia.

    From the mid-1990s, bin Laden paid Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab the handsome sum of several million dollars per month, a King's fortune in economically desolate Chechnya in the 1990s, enabling them to sideline the moderate Chechen majority.21 US intelligence remained deeply involved in the Chechen conflict until the end of the 1990s. According to Yossef Bodansky, then Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in "yet another anti-Russian jihad, seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces."

    Bodansky revealed the entire CIA Caucasus strategy in detail in his report, stating that US Government officials participated in,

    "a formal meeting in Azerbaijan in December 1999 in which specific programs for the training and equipping of Mujahideen from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon, culminating in Washington's tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US 'private security companies'. . . to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing Jihad for a long time…Islamist Jihad in the Caucasus as a way to deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiraling violence and terrorism."

    The most intense phase of the Chechen wars wound down in 2000 only after heavy Russian military action defeated the Islamists. It was a pyrrhic victory, costing a massive toll in human life and destruction of entire cities. The exact death toll from the CIA-instigated Chechen conflict is unknown. Unofficial estimates ranged from 25,000 to 50,000 dead or missing, mostly civilians. Russian casualties were near 11,000 according to the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers.

    The Anglo-American oil majors and the CIA's operatives were happy. They had what they wanted: their Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline, bypassing Russia's Grozny pipeline.

    The Chechen Jihadists, under the Islamic command of Shamil Basayev, continued guerrilla attacks in and outside Chechnya. The CIA had refocused into the Caucasus.

    Basayev's Saudi Connection

    Basayev was a key part of the CIA's Global Jihad. In 1992, he met Saudi terrorist Ibn al-Khattag in Azerbaijan. From Azerbaijan, Ibn al-Khattab brought Basayev to Afghanistan to meet al-Khattab's ally, fellow-Saudi Osama bin Laden. Ibn al-Khattab's role was to recruit Chechen Muslims willing to wage Jihad against Russian forces in Chechnya on behalf of the covert CIA strategy of destabilizing post-Soviet Russia and securing British-US control over Caspian energy.

    Once back in Chechnya, Basayev and al-Khattab created the International Islamic Brigade (IIB) with Saudi Intelligence money, approved by the CIA and coordinated through the liaison of Saudi Washington Ambassador and Bush family intimate Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Bandar, Saudi Washington Ambassador for more than two decades, was so intimate with the Bush family that George W. Bush referred to the playboy Saudi Ambassador as "Bandar Bush," a kind of honorary family member.

    Basayev and al-Khattab imported fighters from the Saudi fanatical Wahhabite strain of Sunni Islam into Chechnya. Ibn al-Khattab commanded what were called the "Arab Mujahideen in Chechnya," his own private army of Arabs, Turks, and other foreign fighters. He was also commissioned to set up paramilitary training camps in the Caucasus Mountains of Chechnya that trained Chechens and Muslims from the North Caucasian Russian republics and from Central Asia.

    The Saudi and CIA-financed Islamic International Brigade was responsible not only for terror in Chechnya. They carried out the October 2002 Moscow Dubrovka Theatre hostage seizure and the gruesome September 2004 Beslan school massacre. In 2010, the UN Security Council published the following report on al-Khattab and Basayev's International Islamic Brigade:

    Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was listed on 4 March 2003. . . as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for "participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf or in support of" Al-Qaida. . . The Islamic International Brigade (IIB) was founded and led by Shamil Salmanovich Basayev (deceased) and is linked to the Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs (RSRSBCM). . . and the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR). . .

    On the evening of 23 October 2002, members of IIB, RSRSBCM and SPIR operated jointly to seize over 800 hostages at Moscow's Podshipnikov Zavod (Dubrovka) Theater.

    In October 1999, emissaries of Basayev and Al-Khattab traveled to Usama bin Laden's home base in the Afghan province of Kandahar, where Bin Laden agreed to provide substantial military assistance and financial aid, including by making arrangements to send to Chechnya several hundred fighters to fight against Russian troops and perpetrate acts of terrorism. Later that year, Bin Laden sent substantial amounts of money to Basayev, Movsar Barayev (leader of SPIR) and Al-Khattab, which was to be used exclusively for training gunmen, recruiting mercenaries and buying ammunition.

    The Afghan-Caucasus Al Qaeda "terrorist railway," financed by Saudi intelligence, had two goals. One was a Saudi goal to spread fanatical Wahhabite Jihad into the Central Asian region of the former Soviet Union. The second was the CIA's agenda of destabilizing a then-collapsing post-Soviet Russian Federation.

    Beslan

    On September 1, 2004, armed terrorists from Basayev and al-Khattab's IIB took more than 1,100 people as hostages in a siege that included 777 children, and forced them into School Number One (SNO) in Beslan in North Ossetia, the autonomous republic in the North Caucasus of the Russian Federation near to the Georgia border.

    On the third day of the hostage crisis, as explosions were heard inside the school, FSB and other elite Russian troops stormed the building. In the end, at least 334 hostages were killed, including 186 children, with a significant number of people injured and reported missing. It became clear afterward that the Russian forces had handled the intervention poorly.

    The Washington propaganda machine, from Radio Free Europe to The New York Times and CNN, wasted no time demonizing Putin and Russia for their bad handling of the Beslan crisis rather than focus on the links of Basayev to Al Qaeda and Saudi intelligence. That would have brought the world's attention to the intimate relations between the family of then US President George W. Bush and the Saudi billionaire bin Laden family.

    On September 1, 2001, just ten days before the day of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Saudi Intelligence head US-educated Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud, who had directed Saudi Intelligence since 1977, including through the entire Osama bin Laden Mujahideen operation in Afghanistan and into the Caucasus, abruptly and inexplicably resigned, just days after having accepted a new term as intelligence head from his King. He gave no explanation. He was quickly reposted to London, away from Washington.

    The record of the bin Laden-Bush family intimate ties was buried, in fact entirely deleted on "national security" (sic!) grounds in the official US Commission Report on 911. The Saudi background of fourteen of the nineteen alleged 911 terrorists in New York and Washington was also deleted from the US Government's final 911 Commission report, released only in July 2004 by the Bush Administration, almost three years after the events.

    Basayev claimed credit for having sent the terrorists to Beslan. His demands had included the complete independence of Chechnya from Russia, something that would have given Washington and the Pentagon an enormous strategic dagger in the southern underbelly of the Russian Federation.

    By late 2004, in the aftermath of the tragic Beslan drama, President Vladimir Putin reportedly ordered a secret search and destroy mission by Russian intelligence to hunt and kill key leaders of the Caucasus Mujahideen of Basayev. Al-Khattab had been killed in 2002. The Russian security forces soon discovered that most of the Chechen Afghan Arab terrorists had fled. They had gotten safe haven in Turkey, a NATO member; in Azerbaijan, by then almost a NATO Member; or in Germany, a NATO Member; or in Dubai–one of the closest US Allies in the Arab States, and Qatar-another very close US ally. In other words, the Chechen terrorists were given NATO safe haven.

    [May 23, 2015] L. TODD WOOD Russia still angry about Serbia

    The NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia is the genesis of Mr. Putin's power. This article is not meant to comment on the morality or appropriateness of NATO's actions, only the consequences within Russia.
    May 22, 2015 | Washington Times
    L. Todd Wood - - Friday, May 22, 2015

    The West frequently asks itself, "Why is Russian President Vladimir Putin so popular? He has harmed their economy. He has stifled the free press. He has destroyed the political opposition. We don't get it." Anyone asking this question exposes themselves to the criticism of short term thinking and a lack of appreciation, or ignorance, of history, even though the root cause of Mr. Putin's popularity happened only 16 years ago.

    The NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia is the genesis of Mr. Putin's power. This article is not meant to comment on the morality or appropriateness of NATO's actions, only the consequences within Russia. Slobodan Milošević presided over a reign of terror in several of the Yugoslav provinces; that is a fact. He used mass media to delegitimize certain ethnic groups and accused them of fascist tendencies, setting up justification for military action. Sound familiar? He turned a blind eye to genocide, especially in Kosovo, and supported ethnic cleansing of Kosovo for Serbia. He was eventually extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and died in prison of a heart attack before the trial was concluded in 2006. In 1999, NATO initiated a 2-1/2-month-long, high-altitude bombing campaign of Serb military targets in Kosovo in an attempt to halt the Serbian ethnic cleansing and mass killings of non-Serbs in the region.

    However, under President Boris Yeltsin, Russia vehemently opposed NATO's actions. In fact, Russia vetoed approval for NATO intervention at the U.N. Security Council, to no avail. The Kosovo campaign was the first time NATO had acted unilaterally without U.N. approval. Mr. Yeltsin even leaked that he had ordered Russian Strategic Rocket Forces to retarget their missiles against countries that were involved in the NATO bombing of Serb forces in Kosovo.

    "I told NATO, the Americans, the Germans, don't push us towards military action. Otherwise there will be a European war for sure and possibly world war," Mr. Yeltsin barked on Russian state television.

    But alas to Russia, she was humiliated as NATO acted with impunity in a former Soviet satellite state. Russia could do nothing; its military at the time, during the economic upheavals of the 1990s, was too weak. Multiple NATO countries, using more than 1,000 aircraft from bases mainly in Italy and Germany, as well as naval forces, NATO flew 38,000 bombing missions over Kosovo. The Serbian forces were forced to withdraw from the breakaway region. Russians have long memories and they never forgot this. This new assertive alliance, acting on their border in any fashion it desired, unnerved the Kremlin.

    Many times over dinner with Russian friends in Moscow, the conversation inevitably turns to politics and how NATO acted unilaterally on Serbia. The morality of the question aside, that point of view is right.

    Mr. Putin learned from this lesson. When the war in Chechnya flared up, Mr. Putin was quick to take advantage of the situation. He won the war, as well as the second Chechen conflict, brutally and effectively. He understood that Russians want a strong leader, someone who will convey strength to the world and regain Russia's role as a great world power. Mr. Yeltsin's actions to pick Mr. Putin as his predecessor is history.

    Now let's fast-forward to the future, to NATO expanding into Eastern Europe, the Baltics and the Balkan states. This action further humiliated the Russian security establishment and the Russian people in general. The tipping point was the threat of Ukraine joining the alliance and the European Union. Mr. Putin had rebuilt the Russian military and was ready for the opportunity and he seized it, Crimea, or Krim, as the Russians call it.

    In this one well-thought-out and efficient operation, Mr. Putin touched the humiliated soul of the Russian people and they will never forget it. That is why Mr. Putin enjoys 80 percent-plus approval ratings. That is why Russians will forgive and endure any short-term economic hardship Mr. Putin's Ukraine adventures will cost them. That is why Russians will let go of any democratic leanings they had in the past. Democracy was not pleasant for Russia. Russians would much rather have a leader who makes the trains run on time and can stand up to perceived Western aggression. For as they say in Russia, anyone who wants democracy left a long time ago.

    [May 22, 2015] Is It Too Early To Just Call The Game For Putin?

    May 22, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop, May 21, 2015 at 10:22 pm
    Oh, dear; violent clashes in Odessa and Kharkov, as The Grauniad admits that those two cities "are deeply divided along political lines, with large numbers opposed to the government in Kiev and in favour of closer ties with Moscow."

    Hostility grows toward Kiev; you don't say. They're coming for your fat ass, Porky. Maybe not tonight – just as well, since you're not there – but soon.

    Of course The Grauniad loyally announces that all the destabilization efforts originate in Russia, and that bombers and partisans who were captured confess that they were paid. The only true patriots, who don't do it for the money, are honest pro-Kiev Ukrainians. I guess you better crank on some more sanctions against Russia, because they obviously still have too much money.

    Meanwhile, in central Kiev, the air is once again perfumed with burning rubber – one of Ukraine's few growth industries – as activists of the "Financial Maidan" protest the plummeting currency and skyrocketing utility costs and lay siege to the Parliament again. The crowd demands Parliament "approves the law on restructuring private loans in foreign currency, which would convert people's debts into national currency at pre-crisis levels." Good luck with that, it sounds like you have a great chance.

    The country is coming apart; it's just a matter of time. And not very much time, by the look of things.

    yalensis, May 22, 2015 at 2:47 am
    The reaction to this Grauniad propaganda was swift and merciless:

    http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/thread/1432279960.html

    Commenters also pointed out that Grauniad knowingly lied just by posting that starting photo (showing allegedly a nasty and violent looking masked "pro-Russian activist" swinging his pistol in front of Odessa Trade Union building). Commenters quickly pointed out the Odessan Chief of Police, whose face can just be discerned peering over the shoulder of the "pro-Russian activist". In other words, the photo shows the opposite of what it purports, and the Grauniad editor knows this perfectly well, but decided to lie, hoping there are some newbies on their forum, who don't know the story.

    PaulR, May 22, 2015 at 5:38 am
    Except that there is some reasonable evidence that the then Chief of Police was in cahoots with the anti-government forces, and the people in the photo are wearing St George ribbons, so one cannot say that the Guardian 'knowingly lied' by posting the photo and caption.
    yalensis, May 22, 2015 at 3:04 pm
    Are you talking about Dmitry Fuchedzi ?
    The patsy whom Anton Herashchenko helped to escape?

    Please don't make me laugh too much.
    The Grauniad author, Howard Amos knows the whole story better than anyone else.
    If he thinks those guys standing around Fuchedzi are "pro-Russians", then let him make that claim. He also has to explain his theory of why Fuchedzi was there, and what he was up to.

    Jen, May 22, 2015 at 5:39 am
    You have to wonder why The Giardia keeps printing propaganda long after commenters have either exposed the lies or migrated to other websites and blogs. The Giardia would be better off turning itself into a British version of the Australian Women's Weekly or UFO Chronicles than continuing to be a front for neofascists while pretending to be something else. New readers probably won't notice much difference.

    [May 22, 2015]Ukraine fears spread of separatist conflict amid hostility towards Kiev

    Notable Quotes: " I have argued all along that Ukraine's best hope is to smartly play EU and Russia against each other. By passionately siding with EU (that doesn't really want them) they are making a strategic blunder. That's what we are observing." ... "Russia didn't start this crisis, it was started by geo-political morons from EU (Sikorski, Bildt) with assistance from Washington neo-cons. Ukrainians will pay a huge price for allowing themselves to act as extras in other people's geo-political games. And they deserve it." ... 'Russia doesn't want Ukraine. They want the US and EU to pay for that bastardly thing they broke. "...
    .
    Usual crowd of Jezzam, havingalarov, botswans61, Metronome151, Robert Looren de Jongare, Alderbaran, alphmysh, BMWAlbert and several other bots including a couple of newcomers ( AbsolutelyFapulou) are on duty today.
    May 22, 2015 | The Guardian

    SouthAsianObserver, 22 May 2015 15:02

    The Guardian kindly needs to first explain why inflation and utility prices have risen in Ukraine, when:

    a) deflation has taken over most of Ukraine's European partners, and indeed much of the world economy; and

    b) utility prices tend to move with oil and gas prices, which are one-half of what they were last year.

    Both inflation and utility prices should therefore be considerably lower, unless someone in the Ukraine Government (or their pals elsewhere) gets to pocket the benefits that should be coming to the Ukrainian people, and moreover load on another bunch of inflation and utility prices.

    Who is pocketing all the money? Once we know that, we may have an inkling of why people in Odessa or Kharkiv are pissed off at the Ukraine Government. Hopefully, The Guardian would do some of its homework. Naughty child.

    Beckow -> Jonathan Stromberg 22 May 2015 14:52

    "EU are for a large variety of reasons a better place to live"

    Sure, I agree. But Ukraine is not in EU. I can equally say that Beverly Hills is a "better place to live", wishes are not reality.

    The GDP loss due to Donbass and Crimea cannot exceed 30% since they were less than 15% of GDP before the crisis. So most of the collapse is due to Kiev's policies, loss of trade with Russia and continued corruption.

    Since 1991 Ukraine has had 5 governments, most leaning west. Yanukovitch rules for 4 years and was the most pro-Russian, yet even he was pissing of Russia, negotiating with EU and IMF, he saw himself as neutral. What made Yanuk different that he represented Donbass industry. But most of the time Ukraine has been ruled by pro-Western governments, some radically so: Yushenko, Tymoshenko.

    You seem to be upset at Russia's policy to protect its own interests and willing to go quite far in getting its way. Well, that's what countries do: US does it all the time. Russia didn't start this crisis, it was started by geo-political morons from EU (Sikorski, Bildt) with assistance from Washington neo-cons.

    Ukrainians will pay a huge price for allowing themselves to act as extras in other people's geo-political games. And they deserve it.

    John Smith -> atozed 22 May 2015 14:25

    The Ukrainian parliament has backed a decree allowing the country to rescind its commitments outlined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Social Charter.

    Thursday's second reading of the decree was passed by 249 votes in the Verkhovna Rada, 23 more than the minimum required.

    John Smith -> Craig Axon 22 May 2015 13:57

    No, I am a Humanist and a Paifist so I dont believe in any form of violence or discrimination towards anyone or anything.

    If you are what you're claiming how can you support this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTbRfkSOYi0

    This started a war together with the Odessa massacre. That happened in Mariupol a year ago, nazi battalions shooting at unarmed civilians on a Victory Day.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HZlaXOJhHY

    John Smith -> Havingalavrov 22 May 2015 13:05

    Yanukovich took a better deal, presented by Russia.

    A better deal for who ? For Ukrainians ? ha ha ha ha ha ha......

    How things are in Ukraine? Do you know?
    I heard that average wage is 120$, it was 300-400$ under Yanukovich.
    All bills skyrocketed.

    This is from Reuters report:

    But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, herself brought up in Communist East Germany, was clear, telling parliament in Berlin before leaving: "We must not create false expectations."

    EU chief executive Jean-Claude Juncker said "they are not ready, we are not ready", but added "the process is on its way".

    Bummer.

    annamarinja -> jezzam 22 May 2015 12:53

    Has not Ukraine got notoriety recently for the number of political prisoners? There was also a wave of violence and murder against Ukrainian journalists and opposition leaders. Could you enlighten us what was wrong with the murdered journalist Buzina? And how touching of you to mention the "freedom of discrimination" in Ukraine. Perhaps you have some explanation for the parades of neo-Nazis in Ukraine during the celebration of the Day of Victory in WWII and the harassment of the old soldiers that fought that war against the Nazi collaborators...

    EugeneGur -> jezzam 22 May 2015 12:51

    No doubt there are equally heartrending stories on the Kiev side.

    Why don't you tell us one? I seem to have missed the moment when Kiev was fired upon by the Donbass militia.

    Beckow -> Jonathan Stromberg 22 May 2015 12:28

    Ukraine has been independent since 1991, so much for your "clutches". They have had pro-West leaders (Yushenko, Tymoshenko, now Poroshenko) for most of the last 15 years. At what point are they going to be responsible for themselves?

    The economic trouble is only partially caused by Donbass, the rest of Ukraine is not exactly booming. Maybe 30% Donbass?

    Russia is not "Uzbekistan". Actually Ukraine is much, much closer. And so is Bulgaria and Romania. Compare GNP and living standards before sharing your views.

    You seem to be an ideologue disconnected from reality. Get over your biases and do some number crunching....

    sutjeska -> jezzam 22 May 2015 12:27

    You mock Russians for wounded pride, and then move straight into rationalising the Germans murdering their way across Europe for the same? I thought I'd have to scroll further down to find a blatant Nazi apologist. Seems like there's a lot of that going around now.

    The thing is, Russians remember what happened when they tried to join Europe - they got NATO breathing down their neck and their country went into an economic and demographic nosedive that they're only just now recovering from.

    Beckow -> Alderbaran 22 May 2015 12:23

    Yes, it is going Putin's way.

    But it was also predictable and thus easily avoidable. I have argued all along that Ukraine's best hope is to smartly play EU and Russia against each other. By passionately siding with EU (that doesn't really want them) they are making a strategic blunder. That's what we are observing.

    Beckow -> NoOneYouKnowNow 22 May 2015 12:18

    The people in EU are externally represented by their politicians and media - one can only assume that "people" either agree or don't care enough to object.

    I have always said that it takes two to lie: the liars and the ones who agree to be lied to. Lying has consequences, this could get really ugly for all of us.


    Dannycraig007 jezzam 22 May 2015 11:38

    Russia doesn't want Ukraine. They want the US and EU to pay for that bastardly thing they broke. If Russia wanted it they could have easily taken it last year in less than two weeks. The have the best part, Crimea. Those people voted wisely to secede from the new fascist Kiev regime.

    Had they not voted in such a manner it is very likely that they too would have been killed like the 7,000 innocent civilians the Kiev regime bombed in Donbass.

    Beckow -> Alderbaran 22 May 2015 11:37

    "There was no anti-Russian genocide and in general there were few tensions"

    Hmm, they are fighting a bloody civil war. I don't think anybody has called it a "genocide". Yet. But "few tensions"?...how about the massacre of Russians in Odessa? How about bombing Donetsk? What exactly is "tension" in your book? You must live in a rough neighborhood.

    "I feel that my rights are more likely to be respected under European law than under Russian law"

    How is that relevant? My point is that EU needs to respect Russian minorities as much as they respect Catalans, Albanians, etc... If they don't - as they clearly don't - they have no standards, just favorites and enemies. Pretty much any system in history had that, that's tribalism, not human rights.

    midnightschild10 22 May 2015 11:03

    I wonder if the writer forgot about the separatists being burned to death in Odessa, or the bombings of homes, hospitals, and infrastructure in Southeastern Ukraine cities. Perhaps some of the people realized that when Crimea held its referendum to join Russia, and Russia annexed Crimea no one died. Since Nuland spent 5 billion tax paper dollars on Kiev and the West put in Yatsy and Poroshenko over 5,000 have died and counting. Just a few things to mention to balance the article.

    BorninUkraine -> Dannycraig007 22 May 2015 10:44

    Welcome to the club! I voted for Obama twice, and I am ashamed of it. As the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

    Compared to the blatant lies spewed by Western propaganda, even Soviet newspapers look truthful, and that's saying something. Unfortunately, there is a clear pattern.
    About 90% of official US statements regarding Ukraine in 2014-15 are blatant lies, and the remaining 10% have the facts twisted beyond recognition. Several thousands died, and counting.

    The claims that Iraq had WMDs were blatant lies, and the tube Colin Powell shook at the UN was a fake, containing laundry detergent or something. More than 150 thousand died, and counting.

    Alleged by the US government genocide of Albanians by Serbs in Kosovo, used as a pretext for its occupation by NATO and separation from Serbia, was also a blatant lie, as further investigation established. Several thousands were killed by NATO bombing of Serbia.

    Tonkin incident used by the US government as a pretext for Vietnam war was a lie. More than 2 million Vietnamese were killed by the US troops.

    The statements by US government and media reports about Russian-Georgian war in 2008 were lies. Funnily, on day one the media did not have proper instructions, and reported the reality: Georgia shelled peacekeepers and civilians in Tskhinval, killing quite a few. Then the instructions came and the story was turned around 180 degrees. A couple of years later EU reluctantly "found" that the original story was true, but did not advertise its "findings".

    I can continue this list, but what's the point? Any sensible person knows that you can't believe anything US government says. On the other hand, every person paid by said government will try to prove otherwise to justify his/her/its salary.

    [May 20, 2015]Video raises concerns over Ukraine's treatment of Russian prisoners

    May 20, 2015 | The Guardian

    aLLaguz 20 May 2015 11:48

    Ukraine war is becoming the new Syria ...
    What is it with that part of the world..!? ALL that region is in chaos, from northern Russia-Baltic States, passing from Ukraine, Turkish PKK, to southern Syria - Irak - Palestine - Yemen, even Somalia and Eritrea.... and why ?!
    Why ALL that part of the world is always in conflict ?!?!
    Is it because is the border of East-West sides of the world ?! That's lame...
    Is it because there is SO much money in resources in those parts ?!? That's greed
    Is it because a cultural clash ?! That's lame...
    Is it because goverments bloody and corrupt regimes ?!
    Most important of all, WHEN will it be peace in that part of the world.? What does it take ?! What it needs to be done, we MUST do it ?!
    The world is tired of conflicts in that zone, imagine how the people living there feel, its deperate ..

    childofmine 20 May 2015 11:47

    Is any informed person really surprised by this?

    Sund Fornuft -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 11:44

    How about reasoning like this: In the city we have two types of foreigners. Ones that kill us and the other type that kills our killers. Who should go home? Use that math for every city and you will get the right answer. This is how your holly partiotic war looks like in the eyes of the ordinary europeans. This is why you will never become part of Europe in your current mental tune.

    aLLaguz -> TOR2000 20 May 2015 11:34

    What the E.U. is saying is: Where is the decentralization? Where is the commitment? Where are the reforms?"

    So, what i have learned from this is that, in international politics, there is no such thing as a inconditional help ....
    I'll will help you mantain your territory if you help me opening the business from my companies...
    If there were good will, EU, US, etc. will be helping Ukraine with no conditions.
    Violations of POW's are in both sides, and will not finish, as sad as that sounds ...

    anarxist -> careforukraine 20 May 2015 11:33

    This is not a line. Russians can be freely discriminated against. All rules have exceptions, well Human Rights and laws against discriminations do not apply to: 1) Russian citizens, 2) Russian sympathisers, 3) Russian backers, 4) Russian anything.

    careforukraine 20 May 2015 11:28

    Its great that western media are starting to show the true kiev but seriously how many "lines" can kiev cross before the west takes action?
    Poroshenko has proven to be untrustworthy at all times,both to the west and to the people of ukraine.
    Was killing civilians not a line?
    Censoring political beliefs
    Banning languages
    Banning freedom of speech
    Etc etc........
    How many lines can one man cross before he is condemned?


    BunglyPete -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 11:20

    As Foreign Policy reports the CIA is in the "killing business" and "effectively answers to no one except the president".

    If these are 'spies' working for the CIA, then they could well be involved in such activities.


    BunglyPete -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 11:09

    So there is no possibility that the US could use a person masquerading as an aid worker as a spy? This is completely impossible?

    Why should we trust the US after Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm not saying trust Russia mind you, I don't doubt there are Russian soldiers in the Donbass. This doesn't mean the US are suddenly wholesome and trustworthy though.


    TOR2000 20 May 2015 11:00

    From euphoria to reality: a year after Ukraine remains in political and economic chaos and frustration is brewing. Here are some excerpts from the article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/world/europe/in-ukraine-corruption-concerns-linger-a-year-after-a-revolution.html):

    "Poroshenko, whether you like him or not, he's not delivering," said Bruce P. Jackson, the president of the Project on Transitional Democracies, an American nonprofit group. "The Ukrainian government is so weak and fragile that it is too weak to do the necessary things to build a unified and independent state."

    The continuing disarray is becoming a source of friction between the Ukrainian government and its European allies, especially Germany and France, whose leaders helped broker the cease-fire and are increasingly frustrated with the slow pace of change.

    "We don't have simply Russian aggression against the victim Ukraine," Mr. Jackson said. "We have a predictably aggressive Russia against an unpredictable and unreliable Ukraine. Ukraine is now seen as not to be trusted. What the E.U. is saying is: Where is the decentralization? Where is the commitment? Where are the reforms?"

    Chiselbeard -> Andrey Andreevich K 20 May 2015 10:57

    Until the separatists or their Russian masters capture US combat forces from battles in eastern Ukraine your argument is baseless. Nobody disputes Russian logistical and intelligence support of the rebels. Allowing "soldiers of fortune" to freely come and go from Russia to combat roles in eastern Ukraine is a different matter entirely. We're the west to match this in earnest we would see this conflict change from a proxy Cold War to a proxy War. If this is a civil war than it should be fought by Ukrainians. If Russian citizens should be allowed to support a side of their choosing then so too should citizens of NATO member states be allowed to participate. And the EU.


    Chiselbeard -> BunglyPete 20 May 2015 10:45

    You seem to be confused Pete. Allow me to endevour to enlighten you. "Spies" are associated with espionage, or the covert acquisition of data. They are typically directed by intelligence agency's like the CIA or Mosad.

    Special forces are elite soldiers, usually hand picked by their superiors from different branches of the armed forces. They are directed by their ministries of defense.

    While, often times, so called "spec' ops" forces are used to achieve goals set out by intelligence services, they are not employed in the collection of data as that is within the purview of the intelligence agency.

    They are different tools for different jobs. The Russians caught inside Ukranian territory were soldiers. They are unrelated to perceived "spies" imbedded within aid organizations. You are connecting dots that aren't on the same page.

    BorninUkraine 20 May 2015 10:44

    Amazing!
    After Ukrainian Nazis burned people alive in Odessa last year, shot civilians en mass in Mariupol last May, murdered thousands of civilians in Donbass by indiscriminate shelling for a year now, tortured thousands of political prisoners (Ukraine has more political prisoners than Soviet Union ever had in Brezhnev period), murdered numerous political opponents and opposition journalists all over the country, the Western media found an instance when Ukraine violated Geneva conventions? It's like blaming A-bomb for damaging a flower in Hiroshima.

    Is there any limit to hypocrisy? Or does anything go, as long as it's paid for?

    anarxist -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:43

    Wasn't Angela Merkel just in Russia on a visit? Why don't you feel Germany will be first to lift the sanctions?

    Some EU countries have expressed desire to lift sanctions, such as Greece, Italy, Austria, etc... But they are not allowed to. Kerry stated that if EU lift sanctions it would jeopardise the entire concept of sanctions, basically not allowing EU to do this. On the other hand, rules that America imposes on the rest of the world are not necessarily rules they follow themselves. Time will tell, but this is my prediction.

    Simultaneously their government protects a violent dictator in Syria

    Don't believe everything you are being told by the western media. He was branded evil during the colour revolution season in the middle east. He was fighting against islam extremists. This conflict is more related to Saudi Arabia, gas, energy, money, greed - as usual.

    Middle East in general - most countries in the Middle East have better relations with Russia than they do with US. Russia has a lot of influence in this region. As BBC mentions: Ukraine is important, but Iran is more important. US needs Russia to resolve these conflicts.


    Solongmariane -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:38

    This is an attack of Washington (and NATO), and Moscow counter-attacked. Both, sent their people. What makes Russia more sympathic, it's the fact that most of the East Ukrainians are "Russ" and neighbours. Even some cupid politicians decided to seccede in 1991, a lot of people of these regios still get Russian-feelings.


    anarxist -> BunglyPete 20 May 2015 10:34

    I wonder why this article is not available in BBC English

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/international/2015/05/150518_us_russia_diplomacy_experts

    Дипломатия США-Россия: Украина важна, но Иран важнее

    title roughly translated: Diplomacy USA-Russia: Ukraine is important, but Iran is more important


    Andrey Andreevich K -> Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:33

    If Russia is providing troops to the seperatists in eastern Ukraine by simply allowing them an honorable discharge as they cross the border, are they not just as guilty of interference in this "civil war"

    US sends their instructors and arms to Ukraine. Does it mean that US has conflict with DPR and LPR?
    I believe that Russian soldiers should be there in order to control and keep balance. So that neither Ukr forces nor rebels could win. Poroshenko should understand that it's impossible to win by bombing own citizens. He should follow agreements signed in Minsk. And mainly the term concerning federalization of the country and autonomy to East regions


    Chiselbeard 20 May 2015 10:14

    What do want to bet their service "ended" in the last six months. If Russia is providing troops to the seperatists in eastern Ukraine by simply allowing them an honorable discharge as they cross the border, are they not just as guilty of interference in this "civil war". They are trained in combat tactics by Moscow and then turned loose on a neighboring country's military.

    If they had no affiliation to the Russian government whatsoever their sheer numbers alone would be enough to consider them "foreign hostiles". How many Frenchmen do you think could attack members of the German armed forces before serious diplomatic chaos insued? How long could France hide behind the lazy excuse of "we didn't send them"? If Russia wishes the world to believe they aren't a major instigator in this conflict, they need to publicly condemn participation in the fighting by Russian citizens, especially those with recent military experience. Until such time as the Kremlin sees fit to take this minimal step the rift between them and the developed world will widen and the sanctions will only increase.

    anarxist 20 May 2015 10:14

    My prediction: The US press is changing its tactics toward Russia, as they need Russia to solve their problems in the middle east. Europe is now confused, not sure how to interpret these signs. The US will be first to lift its sanctions on Russia, which will follow by Russia lifting sanctions on US. Europe will be slow to react. US will start benefiting economically, while Europe gets stuffed...


    BunglyPete 20 May 2015 10:07

    Nice to see both sides being reported on.

    What has been missed by even Russian media for some reason is this from Bloomberg,

    Kerry Helped Free U.S. 'Spies' Trapped in Ukraine

    The US and the leader of the IRC claim they aren't spies. The problem for me is the leader of IRC is David Miliband, who I don't trust at all.

    The timing is very interesting, as it came just as 2 alleged Russian agents were arrested by Ukrainian services, and just before Kerry made the visit to Sochi. My best guess is some deal was made whereby Putin agreed to not make a scene about the alleged US spies. You would certainly expect this to be a big scoop bannered all over RT and Sputnik, but it isn't.

    I am noticing a change in the way things are being presented. Here is another Bloomberg article from yesterday,

    Nazis Triumph Over Communists in Ukraine

    Whatever you think of the article/statement, it's a clear shift in direction from 'Its all Russia guv'. Good to see.


    MaoChengJi 20 May 2015 10:03

    Ha, RFE/RL goes concern-trolling. Who cares about a stupid video, when neonazi thugs of the pro-Washington regime in Keiv are indiscriminately shelling cities and towns on a daily basis.


    Andrey Andreevich K SHappens 20 May 2015 10:02

    2 prisoners for more than a year of war. That's a prove of Russian army massive invasion

    Babeouf 20 May 2015 10:01

    You see this is the trouble with Ukrainian fictions their plots are predictable. Why not try 'Ukraine captures Russian Colonel' or even Russian General or Putin's brother. All you need is someone lying in a bed claiming to be Colonel Youri Popov from Omsk and it will sell to the West's MSM. Who cares if he is tortured can he twirl his mustache.

    Andrey Andreevich K 20 May 2015 09:58

    Wandering plaster on Yerofeyev's hands
    1) http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/610x385/1626299.jpg
    2) http://kor.ill.in.ua/m/400x253/1625646.jpg

    SHappens 20 May 2015 09:57

    Oh finally. Ukraine needs a closer look at what they are up to. After all the atrocities they already committed which are carefully hidden to the public, it was time for a concern. Impunity has its limits.


    OldStickie 20 May 2015 09:56

    RT has shown their identity documents as policemen from Lugansk. The Kiev militias' use of torture, indiscriminate murder of prisoners and even crucifixion is well documented.

    Виталий Седин 20 May 2015 09:46


    "Video raises concerns over Ukraine's treatment of Russian prisoners"(c)

    Halleluiah! The blind can see the lame can walk!

    [May 20, 2015] How Isis is recruiting migrant workers in Moscow to join the fighting in Syria Discussion by Daniil Turovsky

    Quote: "Soros & Oligarchy Graun now so desperate as to conflate ISIS with Moscow! You could not but marvel at the timing of it - while ISIS is now de facto Saudi military outlet in Yemen, conflating them with Russia is like claiming SNP is a British unity party."
    May 20, 2015 | The Guardian

    Marina Fitzpatrick 6 May 2015 03:20

    It's funny, when Russians were fighting islam ppl in chechenia we all have been told that russians are evil and those poor chechenian terrorists are freedom fighters. I remember they were bombing subway cars and houses in Moscow and we all have been told that it is a great thing they are doing. So why it's suddenly not so great? Wouldn't it be better if all countries would unite to fight ISIS and Boko Haram instead of quarrelling with each other. And after those two horrid groups will have been dealt with everyone can go back to hating each other like normal again.

    Luschnig -> jezzam 6 May 2015 02:39

    You seem to know a lot about the private thoughts of the Kremlin . . . truth is all American presidents are war mongers, it's part of the American DNA that developed from a two century plus genocidal war against the independent countries (nations) that stood between White America and its Empire. Very few Americans, especially politicians, are sane enough to live at peace in a non-American world.

    ID5868758 6 May 2015 01:44

    What's the point of this article? Is it to tell us that the monsters of ISIS have a fertile recruiting ground among the radical Islamic terrorists who hide out in Chechnya? After the massacre in Beslan, I hardly need reminding of the evil residing among the Chechen people, the evil that the US refused to acknowledge as Islamic terrorism because it was the Russian government fighting it, and Saudi Arabia supporting it.

    HauptmannGurski -> caliento 6 May 2015 01:16

    The gas deals go way back to before the EU. We had Russian gas connected in Germany in about 1970. German policies have always had that component that Russia/Soviet Union must not be brought to her knees for fear of millions of refugees/asylum seekers. As we can see in Ukraine, you can change the regime but you can still end up in s#*t.


    hydroxl -> BigBadAmerican 5 May 2015 20:58

    Why are these Chechens waging Jihad in Syria rather than Chechnya?

    I was wondering that too, Syria is a client state of Russia, so for Russia to allow jihadis to join forces trying to overthrow the Syrian government seems odd. My best guess is that Russia has no more ability to stop people from its territory joining the jihadis than the British, Americans, or French.

    The main thing that all four countries should be doing is to never under any circumstances allow them to return.


    Rozina 5 May 2015 20:50

    This whole article by Daniil Turovsky (who works for an anti-Russia media outlet) lacks analysis and in most parts looks as if it was made up of various anecdotes and interviews all woven into something with a very different purpose from what most interviewees might have desired. Plus it is so long that most people would hardly bother reading further than the first few paragraphs of fluff – which I suspect is part of its purpose.

    normankirk -> BigBadAmerican 5 May 2015 20:49

    Russia has suffered plenty from those Chechen extremists.. the Moscow theatre siege, the Beslan school massacre. The Americans described these same Islamic chechen terrorists as "rebels" in Time magazine., the "rebels " later bit them in the bum at Boston.

    Vaska Tumir -> WishesandHorses 5 May 2015 14:07

    Good question, that: who's bankrolling ISIS?

    This very newspaper gave us a very clear hint about that in May 2013 when it informed us that the EU had just rescinded its ban on buying oil from Syria.

    By May 2013, all of the Syrian oil wells and its few refineries were in the hands of Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria) and ISIS/Daesh. This was common knowledge, a matter of public record.

    Thus, at the time the EU allowed its member states to start buying oil from Syria, it did so pressured by those EU countries whose aim was to contribute to the bankrolling of both Al Nusra and ISIS. Since the EU could not have done this without Washington's explicit approval -- most of EU being in NATO -- part of the answer to the question you posed is quite clear, I think.

    We still don't know precisely which EU member states have been financing ISIS and Al Nusra by buying Syrian oil from them only because our press has not gone after the EU to find out and inform us of those specific details.

    Vaska Tumir -> jezzam 5 May 2015 13:57

    A lot of the Nazis were "good Protestants". Hitler has never been excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and only one tiny Protestant church in Germany ever opposed Nazism as an inherently anti-Christian ideology (which it was and is).

    A lot of Nazi collaborationists (Croatia, Slovakia, Latvia, Estonia, Belguim, Denmark, the so-called neutral Sweden, etc.) were either Catholics or Protestants.

    The only branch of Christianity which staunchly resisted and opposed Nazism were the Christian Orthodox Churches. The case of the Orthodox church in Bulgaria is particularly instructive in this respect. Although the state had allied itself with Nazi Germany -- Bulgaria was officially a Nazi ally -- the Orthodox Church protected the country's Jews and forbade the handing over of even one of them to the Nazis.

    vr13vr -> clashcr 5 May 2015 13:17

    Why did you assume that guy meant Turkey? Maybe he meant Italy? Or maybe he didn't know geography and didn't mean anything that just a somewhat cool sounding phrase without much of the meaning.

    vr13vr -> geedeesee 5 May 2015 13:12

    Russia would prefer that the US doesn't create another hot spot, it's just a little too close to Russia. The US has already created enough mess.

    vr13vr 5 May 2015 13:04

    Reading this article, it looks like the dissolution of the former Soviet Union, which we all cheer so happily, wasn't such a great thing after all. It's hard to imagine any of those former Soviet members would have become ISIS recruiting targets and potentially attack targets under the Soviet Union.

    Besides, I need to point out that before the dissolution, there wasn't such a huge economic crisis in those cities, nor there were cruel yet appealing market for migrant workers in Russia.

    vr13vr -> Ilja NB 5 May 2015 13:00

    And back then, in 2000s and earlier, it was the US and the West that started public campaign and tried to hamstring Russia.

    RonBuckley 5 May 2015 12:55

    The reverberations of the collapsed empires of the 20 century will be globally felt long into the 21st 22nd and so on. Now to present, first abroad, exactly what prevents US ally Turkey from cutting off everything that sustains ISIS? Surely a few strings could be pulled by the west to force Turkey to blockade ISIS hellhole to finish it off. But no sir. Now domestically, why not shut mosques, ban Islam and deport Muslims to their beloved Caliphate? Nope again. Why? Any guesses anyone?

    The clue would be understanding the inner workings of the neocon brain on foreign and domestic policies.


    SHappens -> normankirk 5 May 2015 08:59

    Glad you could read the article, anyway it will be aired on tv as below.

    BROTHERS, a documentary film being developed for Germany's broadcaster WDR – Die Story and Autentic, produced by Propellerfilm, broadcast date May 18th, 10pm (MET).

    Jeff1000 -> Ikinmoore 5 May 2015 08:57

    The Iraq war had nothing to do with religion. Neither did the Vietnam war. Both World wars, the Crimean war. The American revolutionary war. The Spanish civil war. The Mexican-American war. The war of 1812. The Greek civil war. The Boer war. The Korean war. The American civil war. Religion hasn't been the main cause of a large-scale conflict in centuries. And even in the small ways "religion" was the given reason - like in Northern Ireland or Israel - the real reasons were poverty, cultural oppression and imperialism.

    The idea that we'd all live in peace if not for religion is a preposterous fiction touted by aggressive atheists like Richard Dawkins. The only cause of war is power, money and Imperial ambitions - the fact the sometimes the people in power use religion as an excuse means nothing.

    nishville -> vorpalblade99 5 May 2015 06:54

    Soros & Oligarchy Graun now so desperate as to conflate ISIS with Moscow!

    You could not but marvel at the timing of it - while ISIS is now de facto Saudi military outlet in Yemen, conflating them with Russia is like claiming SNP is a British unity party.


    Goodthanx -> Jeff1000 5 May 2015 06:44

    I was wondering when ISIS was going to become Russia's fault.

    Ive heard Obama use ISIS and Russia used in the same sentence that many times, i just assumed the leader of ISIS is Putin and Al-Baghdadi is the Russian revanchist, revisionist homophobe, that has invaded the Euro patriots of Ukraine, with ambitions of forming an 'Anti-U2 Caliphate' in Vilnius.

    I should stop listening to the BBC..


    WishesandHorses 5 May 2015 06:28

    The comments to thus article are so ridiculous that I have given up reading them.

    What we should be asking is who is bankrolling isis? If it is the Saudis then we should stop playing silly buggers. How can we be such good friends with the most extremist and dangerous country in the middle east? A good enough reason to drastically decrease our dependence on fossil fuels!

    The young men who join isis are mostly very poor and desperate to prove themselves. They make great cannon fodder. Isis can't be stopped by attacking them. They are just patsies. Follow the money!


    geedeesee 5 May 2015 05:49

    Russia should just let US and UK deal with the problem. Let them foot the bill. Let ISIS get bigger. The more that leave, the better. Russia can sit it out and benefit from the ongoing arms sales to Syria - and soon arms sales to Iran. The West only has a few unresolved conflicts on its hands - Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan. Let them squander more money on intelligence-gathering and drones and interventions. Poland and Lithuania are demanding European countries spend more on defence to protect them anyway. There's lots of lobbying going on in UK as well to increase defence spending.

    Let UK divert funds from the NHS. Let USA divert funds from cities such as Baltimore.

    Corkboard Smith Mike_UK 5 May 2015 05:44

    Thankfully ISIS are not in Africa

    Yes they are, but the name ISIS is specific to Iraq & Syria/al-Sham, so they wouldn't call themselves that.

    where it appears the whole population is getting on boats to come to Europe for work.

    A few thousand out of hundreds of millions. Most of them from a handful of failed states.

    Luckily EU MEPs and left wingers are on top of the ISIS threat and not just jumping on the babies are drowning line!

    At this point you're just rambling incoherently away to yourself so I'll leave you to it

    DIPSET 5 May 2015 05:44

    Hmmmmm.........

    ISIS are also recruiting in America. Using American citizens at that.

    Seattle to be exact is where some of their recruiters are based.

    Channel 4 just did a huge expose on this. And have the wholse sordid, inconveniant truth, on their UK website.


    Goodthanx clashcr 5 May 2015 05:42

    Interesting that the article is copied directly from a publication based in Riga, who's editor does will not disclose who her financial backers are for her venture.

    Since when does a western/anglo saxon newspaper, publish blogs as news from eastern european publications without applying so called western journalistic checks and balances to validate the story?

    Forget it. who was i kidding.


    MaoChengJi QueenElizabeth 5 May 2015 05:31

    Western involvement - idiotic though it is - merely hastened the process.

    No, I disagree. It's not idiotic at all. The American formula was (and still is) based on igniting and aggravating sectarian hatred, steering sectarian troubles. Then siding with one side or the other, offering support, maneuvering.

    Divide and rule, the oldest trick in the book. There is an alternative: national unity of all sects or religions, but it doesn't have a chance when a superpower is working hard deliberately inflaming sectarian tensions.


    Olcan85 -> Kaiama 5 May 2015 05:30

    1 million Tajik immigrants in Russian. 2000-4000 of whom have travelled to Syria. The problem of Islamist radicalisation is clearly been blown out of proportion


    stewfen -> Mike_UK 5 May 2015 05:22

    Actually Russia has done a great deal to counter ISIS. They trained Iraq fighter pilots and supplied them with 80 Sukhoi fighter jet aircraft to fight ISIS. Here is a BBC news link where Nouri Maliki Iraq president thanks Russia for their support and says they were delude by American contracts to sell them F35 fighter jets. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28042302


    Kaiama 5 May 2015 05:10

    I would bet that if Russia cracked down on this migration it would be accused of discriminating against the Tajiks. Central Asia has provided construction labour to Moscow for the last 25 odd years. A great deal of the migration is not legally done and it is easy to see where the attraction of money figures. The real question is where the money comes from. And I doubt that Russia really cares if the Tajiks (or any other Central Asian immigrants disappear off somewhere else).

    normankirk -> jezzam 5 May 2015 04:52

    oh Jezzam, you're such a bore. Hit me with some facts you're all hot air and insult and no substance.

    Yes, I think the US is irrational. how many fronts are they fighting on now?How many unarmed black men are they killing every week?How many people do they incarcerate and execute every year?Drone killing , half the time not even knowing who the victims are. Exceptional?Yeah, exceptionally irrational.

    You harp on about Crimea, how much bloodshed?How many deaths?And despite the privations brought about by sanctions, the Crimeans are still happy to be back in Russia. Puyin this, Putin that as if he's some god, give it a break

    istanbul11 5 May 2015 04:35

    Poverty is the main issue here. People who have no hope for the future being told come and live in Syria promised regular income. Probably they feel being valued and they think that someone realise they exist.

    Economic sanctions on Russia, because of the way they handled Ukraine crisis, does not help. It will make Russia weak to deal with IS. Europe should revise this sanction. If IS gets stronger it will not make big difference in America but it will in Europe as IS is able recruit in Turkey.


    SoiledNappy16 -> 6i9vern 5 May 2015 04:14

    An interesting comment. I also think that The West has little to fear from a resurgent China until China stops sending its brightest to the best universities in the world. Almost entirely the USA and Europe. (But, (gasp!), Israel too.) China cannot develop good universities until it frees its population in the same way that western liberal democracy has freed the peoples of Europe, America and some previous British colonies. (Gasp!). In those WLD, nothing is holy, nothing is above criticism, (Well, maybe Kate's new baby), no limits on offending people either.

    Arab and Muslim countries must reform Islam. There is no other way. Arabs/Muslims must realize that when mankind leaves the Earth for the stars, they will remain on backward Earth. Mankind will pass them by. They will remain planet bound to mould on Earth with their allies on the self-hating morally inverted radical extreme left.


    PlatonKuzin -> Mike_UK 5 May 2015 04:11

    The US, UK, EU do all their best to crash Russia in all respects - sanctions, arms race, info wars etc - not to let it breathe freely and now you ask what Russia is doing to counter ISIS.

    You are a VERY VERY interesting guy, Mike_UK. Your logic is beyond any competition!

    MaoChengJi 5 May 2015 04:09

    ...as for Islamic State, let's be clear: this is a direct result - pure and simple, and easily predictable - of the American and NATO meddling in the Middle East in the last dozen years.

    Iraq, Libya, Syria - all the same simple schema: crushing the secular government, igniting and aggravating sectarian hatred. So, now we have Islamic State, and yes, it's a problem for Russia, and other countries in the region. Less so for the US and Western Europe. Mission accomplished?


    6i9vern -> dropthemchammer 5 May 2015 04:07

    There is a link in my post above, but since I'm always accommodating of those with special needs, here it is again:

    http://www.indexmundi.com/russia/net_migration_rate.html

    rmdashrf -> RobinGoodfellow 5 May 2015 03:50

    Don't get me wrong, having a great dislike is too much of an understatement of what I feel for those IS idiots.

    But indiscriminate attacks on the local population will not improve things. Apart from the fact that those actions are considered war crimes by civilised people.

    Someone civilised, should not stoop to barbaric measures to stop barbarians. That's what created the barbarians in the first place.

    Luschnig 5 May 2015 03:29

    ISIS is recruiting not only in Russia but everywhere where there are Muslims. Thankfully the majority of Muslims in Russia like in other countries turn a deaf ear to the recruiters. But enough, poor and rich, educated and ignorant, are tempted by the promises of the Caliphate that ISIS has become a real danger to most countries.

    Unfortunately the thug president in Washington, instead of wholeheartedly fighting ISIS, is waging a stupid neocon vendetta against Moscow and Damascus therefore weakening the struggle against the Caliphate.

    plasticsurgery -> Mr_Mouse 5 May 2015 03:24

    Who opened up the physical space that IS operate in by fatally undermining the security and infrastructure of Iraq - a major and important regional state?

    Where is the money and logistics coming from to prosecute such high intensity warfare and for what strategic end?

    And this is just the basic obvious stuff - it gets much more complicated than this if you spend some time on the subject - so please - be off with your simplistic nonsense.


    oleteo -> Mr_Mouse 5 May 2015 03:23

    Lybia was a prosperous islamic state. Now there are gangs of terrorists fighting for power.Citizens are trying to rescue themselves in Europe. The state was destructed under the flag of democracy and freedom

    MaoChengJi 5 May 2015 03:19

    Should Russia take a cue from Europe and start drowning immigrants in the sea somewhere?


    6i9vern 5 May 2015 03:08

    Since the fall of the USSR literacy levels in Tajikistan have fallen from around 90% to below 50% - from near European to Indian levels, and heading for Pakistani and, perhaps, Afghan levels.

    It is a rare thing in human history for literate parents to raise illiterate children. It happened when the Western Roman Empire fell, during the Islamic and Mongol conquests of Persia and India. That tells us something of the scale of the catastrophe.


    ID1387159 5 May 2015 02:47

    Why did the Guardian mistranslate the headline of the Paik newspaper in the illustration? It does NOT say 'Nursat Nazarov calls on Tajik religious figure Hoji Mirzo to come to Syria'. The headline says 'Terrorists ask Hoji Mirzo to come to Syria.' The story might have explained more, and the translation might be from the story (too small to read) but it is not the headline.

    normankirk 5 May 2015 01:35

    Maybe now its time for Washington to realise that Russia should be an ally instead of attempting to weaken it and go for regime change. A weakened or worse, destabilised Russia would not be able to deal with extreme elements and control vulnerable borders

    There are also Chechens fighting for the Ukrainian army, 2 recent articles by the Intercept report, veterans of the war against Russia, armed by Kiev and funded by the likes of Kolomoisky.

    These same Chechens have also fought in Syria, according to Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Intercept who spent time with this group in Ukraine.

    [May 20, 2015] Russia bans undesirable international organisations ahead of 2016 elections

    May 20, 2015 | The Guardian

    Russia's parliament has passed a law banning "undesirable" international organisations, raising fears of a further crackdown on voices critical of the Kremlin.

    According to the legislation, the prosecutor general and foreign ministry can register as undesirable any "foreign or international organisation that presents a threat to the defensive capabilities or security of the state, to the public order, or to the health of the population".

    Blacklisted groups will be forbidden from operating branches or distributing information in Russia and banks will have to notify the prosecutor general and justice ministry of any financial transfers involving them. Although the language of the threat posed was vague, the bill's authors suggested that international NGOs often work in the interests of foreign intelligence agencies.

    [May 19, 2015] The Worrying Rise of Anti-China Discourse in the US By Dingding Chen

    May 16, 2015 | The Diplomat

    Forget U.S. patrols in the South China Sea. This is the real threat to U.S.-China relations.

    There is no doubt that U.S.-China relations are entering a new period of tensions given reports that the United States is considering the possibility of sending naval ships and planes to challenge China's sovereignty in the South China Sea. This U.S. move, if realized, is certainly provocative and has the potential to lead to a clash with Chinese ships and planes.

    So far a lot of analysis has focused on the possible motivations behind the U.S. move and the possible consequences thereof for China-U.S. relations and Asian security. Almost all would agree that this move, whether right or wrong, is a risky one and worrying indeed.

    To better understand this particular military move, one has to understand the larger background for all of the current developments in China-U.S. relations. This larger background is the new, rising anti-China discourse in various circles of the United States, including the government, academic, policy, and certainly military spheres. Three types of anti-China discourses stand out.

    • First, there is the new 'China collapse' theory. This theory is not totally new and largely came to the fore after Gordon Chang popularized it in his 2001 book. This new round of 'China collapse' discourse, however, is led by an influential China expert, David Shambaugh of George Washington University. In his March article published in the Wall Street Journal, Shambaugh predicted that the end game of the Chinese Communist Party has already begun. What is most interesting about Shambaugh's new prediction is his past praise of the CCP and China as a resilient power. Later, Shambaugh argued that he was disappointed by a series of CCP moves, particularly under Xi Jinping's leadership. He was expecting a more liberal and democratic China, but he obviously does not think that is possible anymore. Of course, there are other types of 'China collapse' theory, focusing on different aspects of China's pressing problems such as social grievances, environmental pollution, inequality, corruption, and so on.
    • Second, there is lots of talk about China as a regional bully and how China is trying to push the United States out of East Asia. As a big country, it is natural for China to be viewed as a big bully in Asia in the eyes of smaller nations. And China's territorial disputes with some of them certainly do not help. All these concerns on the part of smaller nations are understandable. Although the U.S. has repeatedly emphasized that it maintains a neutral position with regard to the territorial disputes, China does not buy it. And despite China's repeated pledge that it is not trying to push the U.S. out of Asia, the U.S. simply remains unconvinced. This is truly unfortunate - the lack of trust between the two has prevented them from assuming the best of each other. From the U.S. perspective, a growing China and a stable authoritarian regime cannot be a good thing for U.S. leadership in Asia. Many U.S. policymakers simply do not believe that an authoritarian regime can maintain peace and stability; worse, an authoritarian China might be an expansionist power after all.
    • The third and most disturbing new discourse is the 'punishing China' discourse. It comes in various forms. One recent report from the Council of Foreign Relations argues that China needs to be balanced. Perhaps the message is that China, after all, is just another Soviet Union and it is now time for the U.S. to face the reality by firmly balancing China. Otherwise, China will dominate Asia one day. Another more radical report by two right-wing leaning scholars calls for a new 'peaceful evolution' approach to China. These scholars Dan Blumenthal and William Inboden, argue that the U.S. should actively assist those Chinese people who fight for democracy and freedom and in so doing the CCP would be brought down - hence, peace and stability for Asia.

    One can debate how much real policy influence such radical discourses have on U.S. government policy toward China. Judging by recent tough comments by U.S. military officials, things do not look good. Maybe this is indeed a 'tipping point' for China-U.S. relations, after more than 30 years of engagement. Is the U.S. adopting a containment strategy toward China now? One cannot say that with confidence. But if this radical anti-China discourse is allowed to grow, we might enter a new era of containment politics in China-U.S. relations. That, as John Mearsheimer famously put it, is indeed a tragedy in great power politics.

    Liars N. Fools

    I occasionally attend academic conferences in which there are Chinese participants. And usually some if not all of the theories about China -- collapse, Asia for Asians, balancing, punishing-- are discussed. One feature has been free wheeling, transparent discussions by all non-Chinese participants and only rigid presentations by the Chinese.

    My advice to Chinese participants in international conferences is that if you do not want to be laughed at, do not make laughable arguments. "The nine dashed line is a valid assertion of sovereignty because nobody objected when it was published by the Republic of China. There is no need for discussion because it is our territorial sea, reflecting our presence since time immemorial." Puh-leez. Low quality argumentation is low quality argumentation and becomes worse when China acts provocatively on its dubious claim. China makes America a lot more friends when China acts this way and its scholars look like stooges when most are in fact pretty smart people.

    Then there is the ASEAN-related code of conduct in the South China Sea. China agreed to it before, but does not like it now. What is the explanation? From Chinese scholars, one gets prevarication and avoidance. This is hardly a stance that raises China's credibility as a rule abider. What about a multilateral approach to disputed territory? China once said that was OK but now says that all such issues are bilateral only. When parties want to invoke international legal mechanisms, China becomes belligerent and threatening. Does this attitude enhance its reputation as a promoter of the commons or does it paint China as a bully? We are not a bully, says China's hapless conference participants only to then recite a bully's argument of principled core interests.

    Xia > Alexandre Charron-trudel

    Let's not forget that it was the ROC under KMT that introduced the dash lines in South China Sea, and back in the days of Roosevelt proposing the "Four Policemen" it was still 11 dash lines. If the CCP fails to project itself in front of the Chinese public as a power that is capable of defending the Chinese territory that the ROC once held, then it would loose out popularity to the KMT on Taiwan and see its grassroots support base threatened.

    ltlee1 > James Sword

    Actually, the more they know, they more they realize Western democracy is an inferior good. You could ask me for details.

    Mishmael > James Sword

    Oh good.

    "We are right because the people who disagree with us are not capable of being right."

    Ive always suspected Americans of limited argumentative skills, and here is the proof.

    Malaysian Expat > James Sword • a day ago

    Not all of them went abroad get enlightened.

    In fact, the process of self radicalization to Han Chauvinism happens to many overseas born Chinese.

    A Chinese > Alexandre Charron-trudel

    Chinese puts the American hypocrisy into test as every nation with integrity and critical thinking should do by pointing out the obvious of the American fallacies.

    It is shameful that Canadian is flattering American megalomaniac and suppressing the freedom of speech, it demonstrates Canada is a USA lackey that is proud of licking USA's behind by ignoring freedom of speech and democracy, Canada is not trustworthy and a warmonger accomplice,

    The world despise Canada's hypocrisy, and they exclude Canada from UNSC for the last thirty years as punishment; the world should also exclude Canada from any meaningful international forums for good, the world does not need such lackey to pollute the freedom of speech environment that dares to expose the ugly face of the Empire of Chaos and shame it publicly like the Chinese did.


    [May 19, 2015] US Taxpayer On The Hook As Ukraine Prepares Moratorium On Debt Repayments, Increases Military Spending

    Zero Hedge
    It appears, thanks to the generous backing of US taxpayers, Ukraine is about to get its cake and eat it too. On the same day as Ukraine's government unleashes a bill enabling a moratorium on foreign debt repayments - implicitly meaning default "in case of an attack from dishonest lenders" - the defense ministry unveils a plan to increase military spending by 17 billion hryvnia this year statuing that will "make efforts to find possibilities to finance needs" to secure country's defense. Ukraine bonds are tumbling.

    Military Spending is set to surge...

    10 agencies, including Defense Ministry, that oversee defense and law enforcement asked Finance Ministry to increase defense spending by 17b hryvnia this yr, ministry in Kiev says on its website.

    Finance Ministry will "make efforts to find possibilities to finance needs" to secure country's defense.

    Higher spending is needed because of increased army personnel.

    But foreign debtors are set to lose... (as RT reports)

    Ukraine's government has submitted to parliament a bill that allows the introduction of a moratorium on foreign debt payments. The moratorium is to protect the assets of the state and the state sector in case of an "attack" from dishonest lenders.

    "To protect the interests of the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian government today has introduced to the Rada a bill that would give the government the right to suspend payment on Ukraine's external debts and publicly guaranteed debts. In case of an attack from dishonest lenders on Ukraine this moratorium will protect the assets of the state and the state sector," a statement on the Cabinet website said Tuesday.

    The moratorium "will not affect domestic payments and will not affect the stability of the banking system," the UNIAN news agency said citing s source. In also said the moratorium does not include debt to the IMF, the EBRD and other institutional creditors.

    The Cabinet said the moratorium will not affect the bilateral and multilateral obligations of Kiev.

    And Ukraine bonds are tumbling...

    Specifcally (as Bloomberg reports),

    The eastern European nation is seeking permission to hold off on paying coupons, the first of which coming due is a May 21 payment of $33 million on a $1 billion note maturing in November 2016, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Ukraine said cutting its debt burden is a question of justice, according to an e-mailed statement on Tuesday.

    "This is a logical next step to show people they are serious," Dray Simpson, the London-based managing director of emerging markets at Cantor Fitzgerald Europe, said by e-mail on Tuesday. "Up to now there has been a lot of talk and very little action and any confrontations have been won by creditors. If Ukraine are going to reverse that trend they need to be firm."

    Time is running out for the country and its bondholders to reach an agreement as a June 15 International Monetary Fund deadline for the restructuring approaches. Failure to strike a deal puts the next tranche of a $17.5 billion IMF loan at risk for Ukraine as it struggles to keep the economy afloat following a yearlong conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the nation's east.

    STP

    Funny, Nuland actually in Russia!

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/18/us-russia-usa-nuland-idUSKBN0O30RQ20150518

    "A visit to Moscow by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is a sign that relations between Russia and the United States may be improving, the Kremlin said on Monday.

    Nuland's trip comes days after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry discussed the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi.

    Asked if Nuland's visit was a sign of improving ties, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: "Yes, when President Putin was meeting with Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Kerry ... it was mentioned that a closer dialogue ... was needed."

    Nuland, who was holding talks in Moscow with two Russian deputy foreign ministers, has been strongly criticized in Russia in the past over her support for pro-democracy activists in Kiev during mass street protests that toppled Ukraine's pro-Moscow president Viktor Yanukovich in February 2014.

    Nuland was expected to explore ways of bolstering a fragile ceasefire in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists and of implementing other aspects of a peace agreement forged in Minsk several months ago.

    Russia blames the crisis in Ukraine on what it sees as heavy-handed meddling by the United States in a region Moscow has traditionally seen as its sphere of influence.

    The West, in turn, accuses Russia of backing the separatists with weapons and troops, charges Moscow denies. More than 6,100 people have been killed in the conflict since April 2014.

    The Ukraine crisis has plunged relations between Russia and the West into their worst crisis since the end of the Cold War, but the United States needs Russian cooperation to tackle a host of other global issues including Iran and the Syrian conflict."

    Maybe she brought some cookies with her too.

    farflungstar
    I bet she feels like a fat stupid cunt with egg on her face. I wonder if the Russians could keep from laughing at her. Another AmeriKan fantasist, operating from the playbook in her head, where reality only intrudes sporadically, usually with the aid of a monster vibrator ya gotta kickstart.

    Looks like a bunch of sissy twats saw the V-Day parade in Moscow and realized the Russians weren't fucking around.

    HowdyDoody
    Yet another source of victimhood for Nudelman.
    Freddie
    Oh this is also Soros, Crown-Krinsky, Bloomturd, the Neo Cons like McCain and Neo Liberals like Schumer.

    The US Govt is totally Z-evil and Z-owed.


    Anglo Hondo

    "moratorium on foreign debt repayments". Is this what Greece should be doing? And why not?

    mog

    It is also holding two Russian ex military who are apparently being brutally tortured.

    It has reneged on Minsk 2.

    It has resumed shelling on Denesk civilans killing anf injuring.

    Where is the outrage in the Western media?

    The west has now lost any moral authority it may ever have had.

    Its a bully, a liar, murderous and thieving, pouring out propaganda and poison.

    That we have sunk to that?

    Most of the third world is better than this.

    Winston of Oceania

    Funny they did not mention quitting the Russian special forces when questioned and are being visited by the Red Cross...

    http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-russia-soldiers-captur...

    HowdyDoody

    Russian special forces using a rifle? Sure.

    oudinot

    ZH is behind on this: the US has given up on their Ukranian military adventure.

    http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/obama-gave-up-on-ukraine-press-simply-...

    Mike Masr

    Thanks to "Fuck the EU" Nuland and Obama's neocon pals, in the Ukraine we have another Iraq and Libya on our hands! This time ISIS hasn't taken over but Banderist Nazi's. And this time we are openly committing US tax dollars to fund the evil fucking jerks.

    On February 22nd, 2014, Euromaidan kicked out not only a democratically-elected president, but a democratically-elected government. It waited three months before holding elections for a new president and 8 months for parliamentary elections. By that time the extremist Dmitry Yarosh Nazi element had already taken a stake way beyond electoral control – neo-Nazi Svoboda Party, despite scoring less than 5% in the parliamentary elections sits in the Ukraine's parliament and regularly sends fighters to the front. The leader of the neo-Nazi terrorist group Pravy Sektor Dmitry Yarosh who polled less than 1% in the presidential election and on Interpol's wanted list is now an official aide to to the Ukrainian military.

    The Ukraine is DEAD and there is absolutely nothing that the US Government can do to change this.

    http://novorossia.today/10-reasons-ukraine-is-dead/

    And, we are now doing a rerun of Ukraine's Maidan in Macedonia to stop Gazprom's Turkish Stream project! More US Tax dollars hard at work!!!

    http://rt.com/op-edge/259541-macedonia-unrest-west-russia-pipeline/


    Freddie

    Donetsk heroes victory parade with Motorola (1:20) and Givi (at 2:09). Zakarchenko was there as well.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwAhyBJiag8

    Compare thesse heroes to NeoCons like McCain who with his dad killed more American sailors on the USS Forrestal and USS Liberty than the Russians ever did. The Russians were the first to arrive on scene to try to save dying sailors on the USS Liberty. McCain's old man and zip LBJ told F4 Phantoms to return to carriers and sailed SLOW to the aid of the USS Liberty hoping all survivors were dead.

    My only complaint with Donetsk (DPR), LPR and Russia - get rid of that Stalin and communist imagery. Stalin was a mass murderer Georgian and stooge along with Lenin. They both worked for the Bolsheviks of the New York City, london and German bankster red sheild zios plus American elites who back ed the commies and nazis for $$$$$ and power.

    oudinot

    Well reasoned Mike Masr, thank you.

    HowdyDoody

    Borislav Bereza, a leader of the Far right neo-nazi Pravi Sektor is Jewish and proud of it.

    http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/187217/borislav-bereza

    gcjohns1971

    When Obama said, "Yes we can" he proposed that as an answer to many questions...

    Like "Can we end corporate welfare?", "Can we end foreign wars?", "Can we close Guantanamo and once again respect human rights?"

    Not surprisingly they were all lies.

    Of course, being politicians, there are always the unspoken, yet constant, eternal questions that apply:

    "Can we extinguish your retirement on Hookers and Blow?"

    Yes we can.

    "Can we fool you stupid fuckers one more time with outrageous claims of Nirvana following our election?"

    Yes we can.

    "Can we buy ourselves international money, power, and influence with your children's milk money?"

    Yes we can.

    Winston of Oceania

    Because Russian taxpayers are financing the Russian's slow invasion of Ukraine...

    http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-russia-soldiers-captur...

    Mike Masr

    Russia's invasion of the Ukraine is laughable. What about the regime change orchestrated by Washington?

    If I lived in Donetsk and spoke Russian why would I want to be controlled by the illegal, U.S.-funded junta in Kiev, instituted by political organizations given five billion dollars by Washington, as revealed by "fuck the EU" Victoria Nuland.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

    Ukraine was broke, and political parties and organizations were vastly financed by foreign nations, (US & EU) which then encouraged them to foment a coup.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&x-yt-ts=1422503916...

    The junta in Kiev then illegally deposed the democratic president, and then illegally deposed all of its governors.

    Russia's slow invasion of Ukraine is a joke. It's Russian speaking Ukrainian people in Eastern Ukraine not wanting any part of the Junta in Kiev!

    farflungstar
    It's so laughable. The NPR slurping idiots always seem to forget that convenient fact when they sputter about the USSA being "obligated" by treaty to keep the Ukrainian "territorial integrity" intact.

    Once you violently chase the democratically elected President from office and put on a show election with your puppets who glorify people like Bandera, threaten to nuke the Eastern Moscals and take out Russian as one of the main languages, all bets are off.

    And if Russia REALLY invaded the Ukraine, we would all know about it without MSM gossipy bullshit:

    Top Ten Telltale Signs Russia Has Invaded the Ukraine

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.ru/2014/08/how-can-you-tell-whether-russia-has...

    farflungstar

    Reasonable, considering what the US and her EU pups are doing on the other side. AmeriKan arms and trainers, foreign mercenaries filling out the ranks of Ukrainian army because everyone else is leaving the country to avoid conscription.

    The Ukraine - overhyped and grabby fascist faggots with no economy. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian junta shells civilian areas and where is the LA Times then? One-sided lying MSM pukes. Drugs aplenty to make people think the Ukraine would be allowed to evict the Russian navy from Crimea, or join NATO and threaten Russia from the Black Sea. More Obama-inspired wishful thinking: We do not see things as they are, but how we wish them to be.

    Enjoy your debt colony.

    Youri Carma

    U.S. provides $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine
    18 May 2015, by Greg Robb - Washington (MarketWatch)
    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-provides-1-billion-in-loan-guarantees-to-ukraine-2015-05-18

    The United States on Monday gave the green light to a new $1 billion loan guarantee agreement for Ukraine.

    In a statement, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said that Ukraine continues along the path of economic reform and that the loan deal is designed to support the war-torn country.

    "Ukraine has taken critical reforms already, and its commitment to making a decisive break with the corruption and stagnation of the past is clear," Lew said.


    Mike Masr

    MORE U.S. MONEY TO FLUSH DOWN THE TOILET

    The Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, are never returning. The ragtag Ukrainian forces using antiquated Soviet hardware haven't taken back any territory since July of 2014, they've only lost a lot of personnel and territory. DPR and LPR forces have consolidated lines, and if there is movement, it will only be to take more of Donbass – currently they have around 1/3 of the region which once produced 80% of all Ukraine's coal, but from which the DPR and LPR do not supply to Ukraine any more, while industrial production in the rest of the former industrial heartland of Donbass has mostly ground to a halt. Ukraine's debt is over $80 billion – soon set to hit $100 billion, and with a sinking GDP. An agreed recent IMF bailout programme of $17.5 billion would only scratch the surface. By conservative estimates Ukraine's economy shrunk by 7.5% in 2014. Estimates for this year range from 6% to over 20%. European governments pledge support, meanwhile European businesses withdraw en mass, hundreds have already left the Ukrainian market, most of the 600 German firms operating in Ukraine are conducting an audit to decide on withdrawing from the market. Russia's trade with the country which was Ukraine's leading export and import parter is understandably decimated, Ukraine's economy is stricken, and will only go down the toilet. 1 Billion in loan guarantees is too little and too late!

    Normal life is almost impossible in Ukraine. Inflation in Ukraine is at a whopping 272%, the hryvnia's value is now less than 40% of what it was. Inflation has skyrocketed, salaries have collapsed, businesses across Ukraine have closed. In short, people don't have any money in Ukraine anymore – sales of new cars are down 67% on the year – production of cars down 96%, 46 banks declared insolvency in the last year.

    As for the eternal thorn in Ukraine's side, corruption, which apparently was so pressing an issue and one of the defining aims of Maidan – is even worse now than it was before.

    Greg Robb - Washington (MarketWatch) story suggests that Jacob Lew must have drank too much of Obama's Kool Aid and released news written by Kiev's government propagandists!!!

    oudinot

    I agree with you Mike but I do think, cynically, that Washington's policy worked out.

    This whole thing started when the Ukraine rejected a free trade deal with the EU. Russia was their best choice for trade for mostly practical reasons as Russia is their biggest trading partner(don't forget the EU wanted the Ukraine to meet EU standards before exporting which meant costly re tooling which the Ukranians couldn't afford but the US and Germany could buy in at 5 cents on the dollar, I mean Hryzinia or whatever)when all hell broke loose.

    Yes, the US putting in the Ukranian political roster and calling the plays from the sidelines where the Ukraine fought two offensivse and are now econmically, politically, morally and militarily defeated.

    Then the US hangs them out to dry.

    Why not?

    The US and its allies demolished the Ukranian economy so that it hurt trade with Russia, got sanctions against Russia which further withered the trade with EU and the US grabbed 33 tons of Ukranian gold reserves that disappeared in the NY and reappeared in Belgium while US left a pile of dung on Putin's doorstep.

    Shit happens.

    Good thing all the Clinton donors traded their US Fiat loans for real stuff

    [May 19, 2015]Why Soldiers Lie

    May 18, 2015 | The American Conservative
    Since the year began I have had opportunities to visit several American military units and schools. What I found was encouraging. A growing number of officers and staff NCOs accept the painful fact that we have lost two wars. They know we need to change if we are not to lose more. Finally, they have come to understand that their services' senior leaders, their top generals, do not much care about winning or losing. To them, military defeat is irrelevant because the money keeps flowing. The only war the generals care about is the budget war.

    The senior military leadership is facing a crisis of legitimacy and does not know it. As one Marine officer put it to me, the generals seem divorced from reality, powerless, and risk-averse. The problem is less what they do than what they do not do, namely address the reasons for our defeats. The dissatisfaction with the senior leadership is coming not only from junior officers. I found it now goes up to the ranks of lieutenant colonel and even colonel.

    Nor is the evidence merely anecdotal. The U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute in February published a study by two of its faculty members, Leonard Wong and Stephen J. Gerras, Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession. Its conclusion, that many Army officers routinely lie to "the system," is no surprise to anyone who knows our military. (The phenomenon runs across service lines.) What is more interesting is the study's finding as to the cause of institutionalized lying: "the suffocating amount of mandatory requirements imposed upon units and commanders."

    Who imposes this burden? Mostly the generals, who appear neither to know nor to care that they are laying on more training and reporting requirements than there is time to meet. Their only concern is covering their own rears. Unable to do as ordered and unwilling to risk their careers by telling their superiors the truth, officers deal with the problem by lying.

    The study's authors do not mince words:

    The Army as a profession speaks of values, integrity, and honor. The Army as an organization practices zero defects, pencil-whipping, and checking the box. Army leaders are situated between the two identities-parroting the talking points of the latest Army Profession Campaign while placating the Army bureaucracy or civilian overseers by telling them what they want to hear. As a result, Army leaders learn to talk of one world while living in another. A major described the current trend:

    'It's getting to the point where you're almost rewarded for being somebody you're not. That's a dangerous situation especially now as we downsize. We're creating an environment where everything is too rosy because everyone is afraid to paint the true picture. You just wonder when it will break, when it will fall apart.'

    The larger problem, again, is less what the generals do than what they do not do. They preside smugly over a cluster of institutional disasters, like so many Soviet industrial managers-which is what most of them are.

    Angry officers demanding change provide one wing of a potential new military-reform movement, one that might succeed where that of the 1970s and '80s failed. But success requires tying demands for reform to the services' budgets, which is all the senior generals care about. The earlier reform movement got generals interested in Third Generation maneuver warfare because senators and congressmen who voted on the defense budget were talking about it on the House and Senate floors. Whence might come this second arm of a political pincer movement under today's conditions?

    Far more than was true 35 years ago, legislation is now for sale, for the legalized bribes we call "campaign contributions." Business as usual in defense has vast amounts of money to give to members of Congress. Military reform can offer none. That usually means "end of story" on Capitol Hill.

    But there is one possibility. The House now has a number of members who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Having seen today's military from the inside, some of them will know its weaknesses. They might put loyalty to their former comrades above payoffs. If they were to reach out to those still serving who are tired of losing, they could create the "inside/outside" nexus that made the earlier reform movement powerful for a time.

    Money may still win in the end. If so, our problem will be larger than more lost cabinet wars. A republic whose government is for sale will not be a republic much longer. Or, perhaps, a state.

    William S. Lind is author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook and director of the American Conservative Center for Public Transportation.

    [May 19, 2015]The New Lie About Iraq

    May 19, 2015 | The American Conservative
    The newest lie about the Iraq war is that the truth about Iraq was not known before the American attack in 2003. One needs only to search for "lies about Iraq" to see all the many links explaining evidence from before the war started that showed the Bush/Cheney/neoconservative claims to be false.

    That false narrative is important to know because many of the same people are now promoting war with Iran, as they were before with Syria. Republican candidates are also stumbling over the question of whether they would have invaded Iraq because it undermines their present, ongoing promotion of an interventionist foreign policy.

    Take just one example of such a false claim, which even reached Bush's 2003 State of the Union address to Congress: "Saddam has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." It was a lie from the beginning. Bush had been informed that the Department of Energy and State Department intelligence had analyzed the tubes and found them to be useless for a nuclear program, rather being for conventional rockets.

    I was very active in reporting on the lies, writing at the time for Antiwar.com, which every day had articles, news reports, and analyses exposing the misinformation. An article I wrote in 2002, well before the war started, "Eight Washington Lies About Iraq," was at the top of a Google search for lies for 7 years. Even today it explains, with links, many of the lies made.

    Iraq's weaknesses were in fact easy to comprehend after nearly nine years of U.S. economic blockade following the First Gulf War. Iraq had been decimated by American bombing of its electricity, sanitation, irrigation, and transportation systems. Almost every bridge was destroyed. A half-million Iraqi children had died of starvation and disease. It was also subject to United Nations (read American) inspectors going all over the country to verify that it was conforming to earlier UN demands for destruction of its nuclear and chemical warfare facilities.

    All Americans should be reminded again and again that recent wars were based on lies. The First Gulf War was sold to Americans on the basis of the murder of "incubator babies" and an imaginary Iraqi threat to invade Saudi Arabia, including the assertion that satellite photographs showed the Iraqi Army massed on the Saudi border. The "classified" photos never existed. The Kosovo War was based on reports that 100,000 Kosovan Albanians had been murdered by Serbs, so America had to attack so as to stop the mass killing. It was also a lie.

    Today, when all the Republican candidates are being pressured by right-wing media and neoconservative money men to sound (and be) hawkish, Americans should recall how most of Washington's establishment lied to promote past wars. Wars mean billions of dollars for key congressional districts' arms producers, millions of rapt viewers for 24-7 cable news, lots of TV time for think-tank chicken hawks,, new jobs for "contractors," more growth for the "surveillance state." There's also the Israel Lobby and Christian Zionists. All In all that is a pretty formidable force for war.

    All Americans should be aware and suspicious of again being panicked into supporting more wars.

    Jake, May 19, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    I read your article 'Eight Washington Lies About Iraq' when it was first posted. I sent the link to several 'conservative' friends who wanted war, not because they were Christian Zionists (I felt that grouyp was hopeless on the subject), but because they feared what 9/11 meant and knew only what TV news and the hakcs leading the parties told them.

    None of them changed their minds about being for a war to kill Saddam Hussien and remake the Middle East. A couple of them gloated when the victory seemed so easy. Not one of them has told me that I was correct all along.

    The crowd that wants to land trooops in Syria and Iran will tel any lie to get its wish. It knows that the people hodwinked before will tend to flal for another snow job, because they do not want to havce been wrong the first time.


    JohnG, May 19, 2015 at 2:26 pm

    Thank you for this refreshing and to-the-point article, this combination of intelligence, competence, and integrity is why I support TAC. Sadly, when it comes to our foreign policy "elites" (of course, the term is a stretch), precisely the opposite is the case, a stunning combination of stupidity, ignorance, and crookedness wherever one looks.

    May I just add that the lies stretch to before the Kosovo war in the Balkans? The persistent demonizing and periodic bombings of the Serbs (in what are now Croatia and Bosnia) probably ended up giving us Putin in Kremlin and a region that will probably keep exploding in the future. And, by the way, watch out for what is about to happen in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

    I believe that the unique historical opportunity for a more just, democratic, and peaceful world was actually squandered under Bill Clinton, with all the nonsense that was done in the Balkans and the de facto preparation of the confrontation with Iraq (remember Madeleine Albright's famous statement?). George Bush's war was just a continuation, and WMDs just an excuse that the cakewalk crowd thought would be irrelevant/forgotten as soon as the Iraqis started to throw flowers on American tanks.

    The war was a gambit by a political class believing that it could use its powerful military to rule the world by controlling its supply of oil. And, gee, they discovered that it's a pretty big & messy world out there, surprise! They can't rule Afghanistan alone, anyone half-familiar with the history of that region could have told them that. So now we are busy talking about "what we knew" and "based on what we knew" hypothetical nonsense just to cover some dumb, arrogant, and dishonest asses rather than simply firing them all, from the media, State Dept., etc.

    Fran Macadam, May 19, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    On TAC there is much handwringing about the decline of Christian influence in America and the loss of faith generally. President Bush was the poster boy for evangelical Christianity, yet both lied and was manipulated by the unscrupulous, ordering torture and assassination. So the wars turned out badly for average folk, though those allied with Cheney of whatever political stripe profited handsomely. We lose, they win. The neocons are immune to loss of public faith, rather they enjoy full support of donorist elites who buy our democratically unaccountable politicians and get just the wars they continue to want.

    As in Europe after the huge losses of World War I, which almost every church supported, there was a great loss of faith. American churchianity, as Dwight Eisenhower put it, is a thoroughly civil religion that supports state aims. He explained that it was built on faith and it mattered not at all which one it was. When the church allies itself with disreputable state actors, some of them Christians in retrospect so obviously dunderheaded, what evaluation will a disillusioned public make of the church's credibility? It won't be disbelief in the miracles that causes the falling away, but the mendacious and supplicating justifications that had no resemblance whatsoever to "Just War" and were in reality against every teaching of Jesus. Thus the church's prophetic role of speaking truth to power in America died.


    [May 18, 2015] I herewith enter in to evidence the following 'article' by Neuters written with excruciating spin

    et Al, May 17, 2015 at 11:41 am

    I herewith enter in to evidence the following 'article' by Neuters written with excruciating spin.

    Neuters: Analysis – West clings to fraying Ukraine peace deal despite Kiev doubts
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/05/17/uk-ukraine-crisis-ceasefire-analysis-idUKKBN0O208T20150517

    Western powers are clinging to a fraying peace deal in Ukraine and forcing Kiev to follow suit, even though Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of wavering and NATO is warning that Moscow may be preparing for a new offensive.

    Western powers are clinging to a fraying peace deal in Ukraine and forcing Kiev to follow suit, even though Russian President Vladimir Putin shows no sign of wavering and NATO is warning that Moscow may be preparing for a new offensive.

    The United States and European Union are still backing the three-month old ceasefire, despite a growing feeling that it is in its death throes, telling Putin that sanctions will remain if he does not honor his promises…

    …SICKLY FROM BIRTH

    While it has been sickly from birth, no-one wants to administer the last rites on the ceasefire….

    …Some commentators detected a softer tone when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met Putin last week…

    …Any new Russian-backed thrust is likely to focus on the coastal city of Mariupol. If it fell, the rebels might be able to open a land corridor to Crimea, which Russia annexed last year…

    …"The simple reason why the political agenda of Minsk-2 has gone nowhere very fast is that the agenda ratifies Russian strategic gains and therefore runs counter to the national goals set by the Ukrainian government," Christopher Granville, managing director of London-based consultancy Trusted Sources, wrote in a note…

    …It is not in Putin's nature to "blink". He cannot afford to back down on Ukraine as he would lose popularity at home and looking weak is not an option….

    ####

    The article is all over the place. The author fails to ascribe blame on Russia and Putin outright but strongly alludes to it by use of 'anal-ysis' (Volodymyr Fesenko, Christopher Granville and the usual unnamed sources, Grubby Kegs & MakeLove. It's very badly written too. Well done Baron von Balmforth! This article is truly a massive piece of journalistic SHITE! Neuters should be embarrassed.

    So, considering what we have all discussed above, it looks like there has been a shift of some kind and the Pork Pie News Networks are scrambling to catch up.

    Christopher Granville

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Granville

    …He is a former diplomat, having worked in the Political Section of the British Embassy in Moscow from 1995 to 1999, and previously at the Foreign Service of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office between 1990 and 1995.[6] He is a Quondam (former) Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and graduate of New College, Oxford.[7]…

    Excuse me, but the above screams of SPOOK, recruited at Oxford… It's so cliché!

    [May 18, 2015]Did Uncle Sam buy off the Maidan?

    The question is interesting ;-). The answer of pressitutes from Zeit is pathetic... They definitely know about amount of cash shipped via diplomatic mail during Maydan event and the about the amount of cash confiscated by police from Batkivshchina office during the raid in December 2014. But they prefer do not metion it. This is what pressitution is about. When Jen Psaki is a role mode ;-)
    May 17, 2015 | ZEIT ONLINE

    The United States has spent millions on Ukraine over the past few decades. Where did the money go?

    Read the German version of this article here.

    When someone mentions Ukraine nowadays, Russia automatically springs to mind. What will happen next: Will it be war or peace?

    As soon as Russian President Vladimir Putin moved to attack the eastern Ukrainian port city of Mariupol in an attempt to build a bridge to already annexed Crimea, the West would feel obliged to react. And then it would quickly become apparent that the West is not united.

    It would also bring to the fore another problem that has so far been hidden by the conflict with Russia: The problem between Europe and America. At that point, many in Washington would want to send arms to Ukraine. In Brussels, very few would. In Berlin, no one would. That would give rise to another question: What do the Americans really want in Ukraine?

    A few months ago, the Ukrainians asked the United States for tanks and missile defense systems. They received instead 300 American military advisors, off-road vehicles and night-vision equipment. That was all the help for a country at war. Anyone attempting to measure the gap between the Ukrainian wishes and American response will see that there hasn't been anything more than gestures and symbolism so far. But what does that actually mean?

    To understand the American relationship to Ukraine, it's necessary to go back to the beginning. Back in 1991, President George H. W. Bush traveled to Kiev. The Cold War was over. The Soviet Union still existed, but it was crumbling. The West had won. What now?

    Mr. Bush had no interest in seeing the complete collapse of the Soviet Union. He feared there would no longer be an organizing power in the region. Which is why he appeared before the Ukrainian parliament to warn against the drive for independence and "suicidal nationalism."

    The Ukrainians paid no heed, voting in a December 1991 nationwide referendum – including Crimea – for independence. There was no way Washington could ignore that, so cooperation with Kiev was strengthened.

    The nuclear weapons in Ukraine, in cooperation with Russia, were destroyed. Ukrainian soldiers received training in the United States.

    In the second half of the 1990s, Ukraine had more military cooperation with the United States than with any other country. Not even with Russia. There were dreams of joining NATO, even while Ukraine's Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych was in power. The Russians didn't seem to mind much.

    But such harmony didn't last long. As Ukraine's economic and political reforms stagnated and corruption remained rampant, the Americans slowly lost interest in the country. Only after Mr. Yanukovych, suspected of vote fraud, was kept from ascending to the presidency by the 2004 Orange Revolution did U.S. attention revive.

    In December 2004 Viktor Yushchenko was elected Ukrainian president, guaranteeing closer ties with America, especially since his wife grew up there and had even worked for the U.S. State Department for a time.

    It's then that the theories of U.S. meddling in Ukraine started to gain traction. The British journalist Ian Traynor claimed in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian that the Yushchenko campaign was an American plot, citing as evidence American payments to train election observers and protest groups, as well as American financed polls designed to back up accusations of Mr. Yanukovych's vote fraud.

    Not many believe Mr. Traynor's theory, but one person who does is the respected Professor John Mearsheimer, who teaches political science at the University of Chicago. He says that Washington continues to try to influence Ukraine even a decade after the Orange Revolution. He's convinced that the Maidan protests – eventually responsible for the ousting of Mr. Yanukovych on February 22, 2014 – were several years in the making and backed by American cash. A putsch. "America wanted a change, because it wanted to gain influence over Ukraine," Prof. Mearsheimer says.

    It's at this point that a large sum of money and a telephone call become part of the story.

    Victoria Nuland, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, spoke of $5 billion, or €4.5 billion, for Ukraine in a call to the American ambassador in Kiev on January 28, 2014. That was just a few weeks before Mr. Yanukovych was chased out of the country. Ms. Nuland also spoke of whom from the opposition could join the new government as if she could influence such things. That all came to light after the conversation was tapped and made public – apparently by a Ukrainian intelligence service officer still loyal to Mr. Yanukovych.

    At first glance, $5 billion is a hefty sum of money – but is it hefty enough to buy an entire revolution?

    The money flowed from 1991 to 2014. Most of it from the U.S. State Department, which handles foreign affairs, and its development arm USAID, which was set up by John F. Kennedy. He saw it as successor to the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe after the Second World War.

    The agency's funds come from the U.S. federal budget. In 2016, USAID will have $22.3 billion to spend worldwide, but it has to stick to the president's foreign policy guidelines. It is therefore a political instrument that is never completely without a political goal in mind. But how will that money be used exactly?

    The Kiev offices of USAID are on the edge of the Ukrainian capital, on the same compound as the U.S. Embassy. It's a gigantic building surrounded by a high fence.

    Ann Marie Yastishock, the deputy regional USAID director, has frequently had to answer questions about the money. "We don't finance revolutions, we support civil society and NGOs," she said. "We financed neither the Orange Revolution nor the Maidan protests in 2014. Those were citizens out there at the Maidan, rising up against their corrupt government."

    USAID became active in Ukraine in 1992 at the behest of the Ukrainian government, just as it did in Russia, Georgia and many other post-Soviet countries. "We thought at the time that we would be here at most 20 years and then everything here would blossom," Ms. Yastishock remembers.


    America has supported many projects with the money since then with the intention of helping strengthen democracy: Anti-corruption groups, election monitoring, parliamentary expertise. Much more money was spent on health projects, environmental projects and economic development.


    But the expenditures have decreased substantially over the years. It was still $195.6 million in 2011, but that had shrunk by 2014 to just $86.1 million. Only in 2015 did that figure rise a little.

    Could such amounts have led to people risking their lives during the long weeks of struggle at Maidan?

    Mr. Putin seems to think so. He sees the foreign money as interference in the domestic affairs of a country. That's why NGOs in Russia that receive money from abroad are now subject to the country's foreign agent law. American NGOs are no longer allowed to operate there. The foundation of the U.S. investor George Soros had to shut down its HIV and methadone projects, helping contribute to Russia's increasing HIV infection rate.

    Mr. Putin, on the other hand, has invested heavily in a number of NGOs meant to increase Russia's influence abroad since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Starting in 2012, $130 million has flown each year into organizations operating in post-Soviet countries and the Balkans, but particularly in Ukraine.


    The overall amount is growing, according to a soon-to-be-released study from the respected London-based think tank Chatham House, which is predominately funded by international corporations. The study shows a huge network in service of Russian interests using fear-mongering and manipulation to influence a country's populace and attempt to bias it against the West. The biggest difference to the American soft power concept is that Russia isn't trying to win anyone over with the attractiveness of its own model, but rather makes use of economic pressure and political intimidation.

    But even someone failing to see a difference between Russian and American influence has to recognize that neither side now has the upper hand and neither is seriously in any position to steer the course of Ukrainian history. The Ukrainians, just as they did when Bush Senior spoke to them, have always decided their own future.

    And it should stay that way, because it could be a highly dangerous scenario if Ukraine became a geostrategic playing field for foreign powers. For example, what would happen if a U.S. president unwilling to ignore Russian provocations, such as a U.S. Republican like John McCain, came to power?

    President Barack Obama thinks differently. He avoids conflicts with Mr. Putin and would prefer to leave the problem with Europe, that is, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

    "Shortly after the annexation of Crimea by Putin there was the policy of not doing anything to provoke the Russians," says Karen Donfried, Mr. Obama's former Europe advisor. A high-ranking advisor in the White House connects the dots: "We can't deal with the Ukraine problem in an isolated fashion, since there are other interests as well. We want to keep open our lines of communication with the Russians on topics such as Syria, Islamic State, Assad or Afghanistan." In other words: Mr. Obama believes he still needs the Russians.

    In Kiev, the co-founder of the independent broadcaster Hromadske TV, which is financed by Ukrainian citizens, as well as donations from E.U. foundations and the Dutch and American embassies, says that it's become harder to get money from the Americans. And that's despite the fact that independent media in Ukraine can only exist with outside help.


    Ukrainian TV channels, all owned by the country's oligarchs, simply can't be trusted. The Americans, however, are hesitant. They want to avoid at all costs any semblance of meddling.

    Back in Washington there are still memories of Russia's war with Georgia in 2008, when relations between the Bush administration and Russia had reached a low point. America had previously lavished Georgia with massive amounts of money and weapons in an attempt to build a strategic bridgehead in the southern Caucasus region. But as Russia marched into Georgia, it wasn't prepared to intervene. Washington's Russian policy lay in tatters.


    A year later, Mr. Obama became president and attempted to restart ties with Russia. From the economy to disarmament, there were many common interests. Karen Donfried says: "We were honestly convinced that Russia had decided to cooperate with the West instead of risking an open military conflict. We were just as surprised by the events on the Maidan as by Putin's reaction to them. We knew, of course, that Russia had reacted sensitively to the NATO expansion. But we never thought that it would react in such a way to an E.U. association agreement."

    Because Mr. Obama wants to avoid an escalation of the conflict, he's continued to speak out against arms shipments. Anyone supplying weapons would simply fuel the logic of an arms race. Mr. Putin wouldn't watch idly, he would send more weapons into eastern Ukraine. That's why Mr. Obama has up until now ignored those in Washington demanding a more hawkish course of action against Russia.


    Ukraine is not an American priority, according to the government advisor, the White House is merely trying to improve the security situation there.

    American interest in Ukraine has ebbed and flowed dramatically over the past quarter century. Sometimes it wanted to help build up the country's democratic society, while other times it wanted to contain its strategic rival Russia. Should the situation escalate anew in the coming months, America will likely change its policy yet again. Barack Obama will then have to again consider sending weapons. His political opponents and some of his political allies will ask him the following question: Should America tolerate such behavior from Mr. Putin?

    And then there will be that problem again between America and Europe.

    Translated by Marc Young

    [May 18, 2015] NYT throws Poroshenko under the bus

    In Ukraine, Corruption Concerns Linger a Year After a Revolution - NYTimes.com

    The country is on the cliff of bankruptcy. A spate of politically motivated killings and mysterious suicides of former government officials has sown fear in the capital. Infighting has begun to splinter the pro-European majority coalition in Parliament. And a constant threat of war lingers along the Russian border.

    A year after the election of Petro O. Poroshenko as president to replace the ousted Viktor F. Yanukovych, and six months after the swearing in of a new legislature, Ukraine remains deeply mired in political and economic chaos.

    "Poroshenko, whether you like him or not, he's not delivering," said Bruce P. Jackson, the president of the Project on Transitional Democracies, an American nonprofit group. "The Ukrainian government is so weak and fragile that it is too weak to do the necessary things to build a unified and independent state."

    Victoria J. Nuland, a senior State Department official, in Kiev, Ukraine, on Saturday. She will be in Moscow for talks Monday.

    Efforts to forge a political settlement between the government in Kiev and Russian-backed separatists who control much of the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk have hit a deadlock over procedural disputes, despite a cease-fire in February calling for decentralization of power and greater local autonomy as the linchpins of a long-term accord.

    [May 18, 2015] Dueck's "Conservative Realism" and The Obama Doctrine

    This is a Neoconservatism, not so much realism...
    May 18, 2015 | The American Conservative
    Frank Hoffman reviews Colin Dueck's The Obama Doctrine: American Grand Strategy Today:

    The author proposes an alternative strategy called conservative American realism. It is designed to appeal to the center mass of today's conservatives by triangulating the three factions. This strategy seeks to counter the perceived retrenchment of the last six years, and explicitly embraces American primacy. Primacy, to Dueck, is "a circumstance and an interest, not a strategy." Conservative American realism emphasizes reassuring allies that the United States seeks to remain a key player in the international arena by expanding forward presence and bolstering deterrence. Dueck details U.S. fundamental interests, and defines the specific adversaries that must be countered. These include state competitors (China and Russia), rogue states like North Korea, and jihadi terrorists. To deal with the latter, the author chides Mr. Obama for half-hearted approaches, and suggests these implacable foes require solutions that are "appropriately Carthaginian." One wonders how far Dueck would really take that historical analogy - enslave Muslims or salt their lands?

    Based on the description of Dueck's "conservative American realism" in the review, it is debatable whether the proposed strategy qualifies as either conservative or realist. It would appear to commit the U.S. in too many places to bear burdens that our allies and clients should be taking on for themselves, and it does so out of a misguided concern that the U.S. has not been activist enough during the Obama presidency. I don't know what Dueck means by "appropriately Carthaginian" solutions, but the implication that the U.S. should be seeking to ruin and dominate other nations in such a fashion is disturbing in itself. It is not at all clear that the U.S. should be doing more "reassure" allies and clients. Most of them are already too dependent on the U.S. for their security and should be expected to do more to provide for themselves, and their endless demands for "reassurance" are attempts to get the U.S. to give them extra support they don't need or that the U.S. has no interest in giving them. The U.S. currently has too many commitments overseas and hardly needs to expand the presence that it already has.

    Dueck places great emphasis on applying coercive measures against various states, but there doesn't seem to much attention paid to the costs that applying these measures can have on the U.S. and its allies. Imposing costs and intensifying pressure on other states aren't ends in themselves, and they have proven time and again to be ineffective tools for changing the behavior of recalcitrant and hostile regimes. Coercive measures can backfire and can have effects that their advocates don't anticipate, and they can provoke the targeted state to pursue more hostile and dangerous policies than there would have been otherwise. Dueck's interest in relying on coercive measures seems to be little more than a reaction against the perceived laxity of the Obama administration, which has itself been too reliant on imposing sanctions as an all-purpose response to the undesirable behavior of other governments. If Obama failed to apply enough pressure, Dueck's thinking appears to be that more pressure must be the answer. Missing from all of this is any explanation of why the U.S. needs to be cajoling and pressuring these states in the first place. To what end?

    Dueck also wants to throw more money at the military by insisting on setting the military budget at 4% of GDP. As Hoffman notes, tying the military budget to an arbitrary figure like this represents the absence of strategy:

    The basis for this amount appears aspirational, and I have previously written on why such general goals are astrategic if not tied to specific requirements and threats. More importantly, details about how he would employ the additional $170 billion per year in defense spending are lacking.

    If one wants huge increases in military spending and the pursuit of pointlessly confrontational policies against both major authoritarian powers, Dueck's book would appear to offer the desired guidance. What it has to do with either realism or conservatism remains a mystery.

    [May 17, 2015] Ukraine Recession Deepens as GDP Falls 17.6%

    Poor Ukrainian citizens got back to 90th instead of EU...
    Notable quotes:
    "... and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. ..."
    May 15, 2015 | NASDAQ.com

    The contraction in Ukraine's economy accelerated to 17.6% in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, the State Statistics Service said Friday, hammered by a conflict with Russia-backed separatists in its eastern industrial heartland that has slashed industrial output.

    Gross domestic product for the period slid 6.5% from the final quarter of 2014, the agency said. Ukraine reached a cease-fire deal with the separatists in February that has reduced--but not ended--fighting. Talks over a longer-term political resolution to the conflict have stalled with each side blaming the other.

    The contraction was "a little bit worse than we estimated," according to Olena Bilan, chief economist at Dragon Capital brokerage. She said the economy had also been damaged by shrinking domestic consumption after the country's currency collapsed and inflation shot up. Retail spending was down 31% in March compared with the same month last year, according to Dragon Capital.

    Still, analysts said the contraction in the last quarter is likely to be the worst for the year, as the economy's plunge began last summer as fighting picked up. Ukraine's government has forecast a 5.5% contraction this year, but the World Bank said last month that Ukraine's economy would shrink by 7.5%.

    "In certain sectors are showing that the economy is testing the bottom," said Alexander Valchyshen, head of research at ICU investment firm, citing transportation and agriculture as examples of industries experiencing a turnaround. " Going forward I think the stronger decline we are having in the first quarter, the stronger rebound in the second half of the year, because last year it was the second half of the year when we started registering the collapse."

    See also

    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:45 am
    http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/gdp-decline-in-ukraine-accelerates-to-176-percent-in-q1-2015-statistics-388663.html

    So Ukraine's GDP drop in 2015 is likely going to be over 20%. I recall Moody's, etc forecasting a GDP drop of 2% for Ukraine and 6% for Russia. The 2% figure actually is looking more realistic for Russia this year and is total BS if applied to Ukraine.

    PaulR, May 16, 2015 at 9:49 am
    That's quite a fall. Inflation is now almost 61%. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/ukraine/inflation-cpi
    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 11:54 am
    These numbers are full on depression ones. The USA's GDP went down 25% during the Great Depression. I see Ukraine going down 30% and Ukraine was not doing so well before this disaster started.
    Hunter, May 16, 2015 at 7:14 am
    Hey all, very interesting discussions.

    Nice article Mark.

    I have an observation though and a question:

    First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship with Russia.

    I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe (I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset Russophobia in many parts of Europe.

    ... ... ...

    [May 17, 2015]Snowden cost US control of 'geopolitical narrative' – former NSA official

    Warren, May 15, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    Snowden cost US control of 'geopolitical narrative' – former NSA official

    http://rt.com/usa/259101-nsa-counsel-snowden-secrets/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

    marknesop, May 15, 2015 at 6:31 pm
    For one thing, this sounds an awful lot like an official admission that the USA did something wrong rather than Snowden.

    For another, it is important to remember that the "control of the geopolitical narrative" he speaks of was based on lying and secret snooping, and there is no reason to believe the USA would ever have stopped doing it on its own, or taken steps to admit it was doing it, so long as secret intelligence continued to keep them on top.

    [May 17, 2015]U.S. Wakes Up to New (Silk) World Order

    Neocons got what they saw -- teeth of Chinese dragon...
    May 16, 2015 | Information Clearing House
    The real Masters of the Universe in the U.S. are no weathermen, but arguably they're starting to feel which way the wind is blowing.

    History may signal it all started with this week's trip to Sochi, led by their paperboy, Secretary of State John Kerry, who met with Foreign Minister Lavrov and then with President Putin.

    Arguably, a visual reminder clicked the bells for the real Masters of the Universe; the PLA marching in Red Square on Victory Day side by side with the Russian military. Even under the Stalin-Mao alliance Chinese troops did not march in Red Square.

    As a screamer, that rivals the Russian S-500 missile systems. Adults in the Beltway may have done the math and concluded Moscow and Beijing may be on the verge of signing secret military protocols as in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The new game of musical chairs is surely bound to leave Eurasian-obsessed Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski apoplectic.

    And suddenly, instead of relentless demonization and NATO spewing out "Russian aggression!" every ten seconds, we have Kerry saying that respecting Minsk-2 is the only way out in Ukraine, and that he would strongly caution vassal Poroshenko against his bragging on bombing Donetsk airport and environs back into Ukrainian "democracy".

    ... ... ....

    Thus what was really discussed – but not leaked – out of Sochi is how the Obama administration can get some sort of face-saving exit out of the Russian western borderland geopolitical mess it invited on itself in the first place.

    About those missiles…

    Ukraine is a failed state now fully converted into an IMF colony. The EU will never accept it as a member, or pay its astronomic bills. The real action, for both Washington and Moscow, is Iran. Not accidentally, the extremely dodgy Wendy Sherman - who has been the chief U.S. negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks - was part of Kerry's entourage. A comprehensive deal with Iran cannot be clinched without Moscow's essential collaboration on everything from the disposal of spent nuclear fuel to the swift end of UN sanctions.

    ... ... ...

    The real Masters of the Universe may have also noted the very close discussions between Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the deputy chairman of the Central Military Council of China, Gen. Fan Changlong. Russia and China will conduct naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Japan and will give top priority to their common position regarding U.S. global missile defense.

    There's the not-so-negligible matter of the Pentagon "discovering" China has up to 60 silo-based ICBMs – the CSS-4 – capable of targeting almost the whole U.S., except Florida.

    And last but not least, there's the Russian rollout of the ultra-sophisticated S-500 defensive missile system - which will conclusively protect Russia from a U.S. Prompt Global Strike (PGS). Each S-500 missile can intercept ten ICBMs at speeds up to 15,480 miles an hour, altitudes of 115 miles and horizontal range of 2,174 miles. Moscow insists the system will only be operational in 2017. If Russia is able to rollout 10,000 S-500 missiles, they can intercept 100,000 American ICBMs by the time the U.S. has a new White House tenant.

    [May 17, 2015] Zuckerberg put Porky and other Ukie nationalists in their place

    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Sorry, but I cannot leave this Facebook story alone, since it is so satisfying to me that Zuckerberg put Porky and other Ukie nationalists in their place.

    Zuckerberg said that he did some research and found that the Ukrainian posts taken down included elements of ethnic slurs and hate speech towards Russians. Posts with such content are not allowed on Facebook, he said.

    "I think we did the right thing according to our policies, in taking down those posts and I agree that we must not support hate speech," said Zuckerberg.

    I like very much that

    (1) Zuckerberg defended the actions of his staff and did not throw them under the bus to service anti-Russian agenda of Washington. I really respect the guy for doing that.

    (2) that Zuckerberg put Ukrainians in their place: he made it clear they are not special people, he doesn't care if their President appealed to him, he is not impressed by Porky's power; and Ukies don't have the right to post murderous hate speech if other people don't have the same right.

    Having said that, Russia's version of Facebook "V Kontakte", is obviously more loosy-goosy than Zuckerberg's Facebook, since they tolerate just about anything. In fact, they sponsor the page of Vita Zaverukha, with her swastikas galore and photos of murdered Odessans; and comparing the scorched bodies to Kentucky Fried Colorado Beetles, etc etc.

    Having said that, Zuckerberg's Facebook enforces a code of conduct which excludes ethnic hate speech or calls to violence; and it is commendable that they actually enforced those rules even when the targets of the hate speech were the much-despised Russian ethnos.

    yalensis , May 16, 2015 at 12:48 pm
    The comment section to this piece is quite telling:

    "Czech Friend" who is some pro-Banderite troll calls Zuckerberg a kiss-up to totalitarian dictators, and then encourages every "freedom-loving" person to stop using Facebook.

    "puttypants", who is pro-Banderite, pro-Fifth Column, agrees with this, and repeats the slander (as stated in the movie "Social Network") that Zuckerberg is a plagiarist, who stole the Facebook idea from his college friends.

    "Mick Jones" then points out that he has seen examples of the kind of Ukie hate speech which call Russians "Mongols" (as if being a Mongol is a bad thing).

    "Calibra" replies to a comment that was deleted – I read the comment earlier, before it was deleted, I don't remember the exact words, but the person said some mean things and then dropped the ultimate threat: To quit their Facebook account. "Calibra" replies: "O my god, i'm sure Mark [Zuckerberg] will not sleep tonight knowing you left, how could you."

    Russ M. points out how Zuckerberg's nerd brigade laughed their asses off when Porky sent in a question. God, how embarrassing, I would cringe if I were Ukrainian myself…
    Having such a joke for a President. Oh wait! Russians used to have Yeltsin…

    Moscow Exile , May 16, 2015 at 12:58 pm
    At least Yeltsin used to knock back the vodka and take a bite out of a salted gherkin like the true provincial muzhik he was, the bastard, and not sip at Frog cognac and nibble at ladies' chocolate assortments as Porky Porosyonok does.
    Jen , May 16, 2015 at 2:46 pm
    Porky's still head of Roshen, hasn't divested himself of his business investments, so it's his (as he sees it) duty to scoff all the chocolates his fat snout can snuffle out.

    There's another reason for him to indulge in his favourite comfort foods and beverages: he's been caught constructing a new mansion on a plot of land right by a historic district in Kiev which he obtained through an arrangement involving a private company that morphed into a fake housing co-op.

    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:58 pm
    But wait there's more!

    Regarding Ukraine's epic fail on the Facebook front, get this:
    Ukrainian svidomites are so upset by Zuckerberg's comments that they have decided to organize a boycott of Facebook.

    And how, pray tell, have they organized this boycott?
    Why, through social media, naturally.
    And which social media, you might ask?
    Why, on Facebook, of course!

    You can't make this stuff up!

    As the author of this piece notes:

    Svidomites and Logic – 2 things that are completely incompatible, one with the other.

    [May 17, 2015] Usage of missionaries for promoting color revolution

    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:34 am

    It is the Spanish conquista model. The missionaries were the foot soldiers of the invasion. The USA is using the same tricks against Ukrainians. Well, they deserve it.
    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 7:45 am
    I think the Ukraine has more Baptist congregations than there are in Russia, and there are plenty of them here. I have worked with a few Russian Baptists.

    The Sky Pilot is in the Ukraine, in the "former Soviet Union" as he repeatedly says, and he is at a place where the leaders of Russian ministries have gathered, he says, "to talk about new crises that have taken place within their culture", such as HIV, which is rampant in what the speaker describes as "this Russian culture, predominantly".

    That was in 2008.

    Again from 2008:

    Catch 'em young!

    Warren, May 16, 2015 at 8:58 am
    It makes sense for the US perspective the predominance of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine and Russia is an obstacle to US power. It is no coincidence the strongest support for the West and the most hostile towards Russia, is in Western Ukraine/Galicia. This can be attributed to the fact the people in Western Ukraine/Galicia are overwhelming Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic/Uniate.

    By proselytizing Ukrainians, converting them from Orthodoxy to a Protestant denomination you can undermine and break the bonds Ukrainians have with Russia.

    The next step is to change the Cyrillic alphabet to a Latin Alphabet, this will complete Ukraine Civilisation transformation and pivot from Eastern Orthodoxy to Western Europe.

    Calls for Latinization of Ukrainian Alphabet On 'Civilizational Grounds' Anger Russians

    http://www.interpretermag.com/calls-for-latinization-of-ukrainian-alphabet-on-civilizational-grounds-anger-russians/

    Game plan for the West to permanent conquer Ukraine:

    1. Replace Eastern Orthodoxy with Protestantism and Catholicism.
    2. Replace the Cyrillic alphabet with the Latin alphabet.

    cartman, May 16, 2015 at 9:20 am
    Turchita is also a Baptist. (And Yats is a member of that other cult – Scientology.)

    What evangelicals do cannot conceivably be called Christianity, though. Most worship chaos as a means of bringing about the end times.

    PaulR, May 16, 2015 at 9:46 am
    One of my Soviet room-mates in Minsk took me along to a Baptist service there, though I left before the end because it was very long (though not as long as the interminable Orthodox services). Anyway, the point is that the Baptists have been active in that part of the world for quite a while, even in Soviet times.
    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:05 pm
    Russian diaspora in Western Massachussets area contains a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses.

    They are fairly innocuous, as far as I can see; apolitical, for the most part.
    Since I don't understand religion, I give them a pass.

    Jen, May 16, 2015 at 5:42 pm
    Hmm … I see something in Ukraine adopting the JW religion as its state religion. The Banderites would have to kick out Red Cross as accepting blood transfusions is against the Watchtower principles.
    marknesop, , May 16, 2015 at 1:36 pm
    Yes, I went to an Orthodox christening once for an acquaintance's child. I was completely unprepared for that singsong delivery and wondered what the hell was going on at first, and since I could not understand a word of it, it seemed even longer than it was. Which was long enough that I remarked quietly to my wife that they might just as well segue straight into the infant's wedding. Perhaps even her funeral.

    [May 17, 2015] The west is in a poor position to sustain an economic war against Russia

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    ucgsblog, May 16, 2015 at 1:33 am

    Nice Article Mark! I'm just going to leave this here: http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=RUB&to=UAH&view=1Y

    That's a chart showing how the Ruble pwnd the Hryvna. In spite of mismanagement, (at the beginning, it's now fixed,) Ruble's close tie to falling oil prices, anti-Ruble currency speculation, (thanks to all those who speculated when exchange rate was above 1 to 80 from my wallet,) lack of diversification, and deliberate attempts to lower the Ruble from within, (makes sense for exporters,) the Ruble kicked the Hryvna's butt in a contest where the Ruble wasn't even trying.

    Furthermore, a new investor's report was released on Ukraine. Who gets blamed by the US Investing Community:

    1. Poroshenko's inability to fight corruption, (listed as main, i.e. major, reason for not investing)
    2. War in Donetsk and Lugansk
    3. Instability within Ukraine

    No one's buying propaganda that it's all Putin's fault, although Putin might face tough questions as to what Russia's policy in Donetsk and Lugansk is going to be. Still, the number one reason is corruption. Not Putin.

    And let's not forget that IMF Is about to be challenged, so its investment into Ukraine will be limited. I heard rumors about IMF not allowed to help countries at war, (or was it WB,) can someone clarify that?

    "LA Times so excited that it forgot Russia and China agreed to a gas price last winter; saying instead that they had not yet agreed on a price, and that this means bad news for Russia because it is in a weak negotiating position. If it were true that they have not agreed on a price – which it isn't – how would that indicate Russian weakness? Wouldn't they just take whatever they could get, if their position was weak?"

    LA Times' job is not to make sense about Russia. They're doing it rather well.

    "The west is in a poor position to sustain an economic war against Russia, as the Eurozone is experiencing anemic growth – and even that appears to be due to false optimism over Quantitative Easing – while American growth is stagnant for the first quarter;"

    Don't forget Greece. Since the EU cannot sustain Greece and fight Russia, the pro-US leaders of German government, spearheaded by Schauble, are trying to kick Greece out of the EU. Not just the Eurozone, but the EU.

    "How does the west react to losing? I'm glad you asked. Like this. The Daily Mail, which some of my commenters refer to as the Daily Fail, chuckles uproariously at the antics of Russian soldiers attempting to load a tank onto the back of a flatbed truck. On the third attempt, the vehicle ends up too far to the right, and capsizes onto its roof as it falls off the truck. Oh, those Russians! Probably drunk, as usual. Except the vehicle is not a tank, it is a self-propelled howitzer, an artillery piece. The source clearly identifies the operation as depicting a Ukrainian unit, and if you look just behind the three guys watching just as the howitzer falls off the truck, you will see an oil drum with a Ukrainian flag standing in it. The first principle of Gambling For Idiots – when you're losing, double down."

    Nice!

    Also guys, have you heard about the Democratic revolt against Obama on the issue of the Trans Pacific Partnership? Apparently Democrats don't want to completely alienate their base, who knew? Speaking of Congressional approval rating: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx

    marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 8:53 am
    Hi, UCG! Good to hear from you, and what a lot of info in a single comment. As regards the IMF being forbidden from lending to the state in a country embroiled in a civil war – yes, and no. The most authoritative source I saw was John Helmer, who proclaimed that the IMF's lending to Kiev while it was at war with one of its regions was a violation of its charter (Article 1). However, if you look at it you will see it lays out instruction on the IMF's principles and what it must be mindful of when lending – not what it is forbidden to do. Even a halfway-capable lawyer could argue that lending to Kiev with the understanding it would almost certainly divert some or all of the funds to supporting its military campaign violates the spirit of the charter. But since it does not spell out what the IMF may not do, an argument might be made – just off the top of my head – that Kiev felt it necessary to attack the eastern region and subdue it in order to protect its currency, which would surely collapse without access to its main industrial belt, a la paragraph iii: "To promote exchange stability, to maintain orderly exchange arrangements among members, and to avoid competitive exchange depreciation."

    I had not heard about domestic opposition to TPP, but if it is as riddled with advantageous loopholes for Washington to manipulate and control foreign governments as the TTIP with the EU, I devoutly hope it fails.

    On your mention of Greece, it seems your analysis is spot on – I read something just yesterday in which the article was smoothing the way for a Greek exit and telling everyone it would not be really a bad thing at all, as well as a strikingly similar article which paved the way for Scotland to leave the UK without any blame accruing to Dave, saying the same stuff about how it really wouldn't matter too much to the UK at all, there would be niggling little difficulties but they were all surmountable.

    Sounds a far cry from the confident strut about western unity from just a few months back, doesn't it?

    Warren, May 16, 2015 at 3:18 am

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Zhovti_Vody

    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 4:35 am
    Zakharchenko commentary on Porky yesterday signing of the "de-communization" law:

    "When the law mandates that people who hung children to telegraph poles with barbed wire, and who murdered tens of thousands of Poles – that these people must be regarded as heroes… What do you think? Can such a nation have a future? No, it cannot have a future. Only partition and chaos await such a nation. When butchers are declared to be heroes.

    "In Donetsk, we will not allow this. We have our own path, and we are not ashamed of it."

    marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:02 am
    Very well said, I think. I was a little iffy on Zakharchenko at first, mostly because I was dazzled by Strelkov's battle tactics – which were amazing for someone many consider to be a nut – but he is daily taking on more and more the appearance of a statesman and leader.
    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 12:00 pm
    Strelkov is a talented soldier, but Zakharchenko has shown himself to be a statesman as well as soldier.
    Warren, May 16, 2015 at 4:37 am
    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 4:47 am
    По Крещатику прошло шествие против повышения тарифов ЖКХ

    В центре Киева собрались не менее 5 тысяч человек

    Along the Khreschatyk has passed a protest march against the increase of tariffs on housing and communal services

    In the centre of Kiev have gathered no fewer than 5 thousand people

    On Saturday, May 16, in the centre of the Ukrainian capital a protest march has started.

    At 10 am no fewer than five thousand people with different slogans gathered on the Khreschatyk, which at weekends becomes a pedestrian area.

    The main message of the campaign is a protest against an increase in utility tariffs. At the same time, protesters have posters with a variety of messages: "Yatsenyuk means poverty for the Ukraine" and "For Ukrainians – a Ukrainian government", "Not able to work – go work as a shop assistant at "Roshen" (this slogan is directed at President Poroshenko – ed.)

    People are carrying national flags. The protesters are behaving calmly and are not shouting.

    According to the "Vesti" correspondent, some people are apparently from the regions and arrived by bus early this morning at the metro station "Leo Tolstoy"; some of the protesters are residents of the capital.

    The procession is moving from the Bessarabian Market along the Khreschatyk and on to Europe Square.

    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:28 am
    This is the only thing these idiots will respond to. Their personal pocketbook pain. Having their country stolen from them and operated by foreign sponsored lunatic killers is clearly not a problem for them.
    yalensis, May 16, 2015 at 5:10 am
    Very good, but also very lengthy piece on the failure of the shale gas revolution in Ukraine. I only have time for quick summary:

    SUMMARY
    Poland, Great Britain, EU as a whole are disappointed by a wave of news (just reaching them) that the "shale-gas revolution" on the continent has been postponed indefinitely.
    Back to face hard reality that they depend on Russia for their gas needs.

    Europeans had believed American tall tales about the rosy future of shale gas on the continent. However, they just got a dose of reality from Bloomberg this past week. [yalensis: not sure which Bloomberg link they are talking about but it might be this one.]

    For example, British company Cuadrilla Resources has tried and failed for 6 years to open so much as one gas well in Poland. And Poland was supposed to be the European country best endowed with shale gas, so they were supposed to be the poster child.
    But now everybody is bailing out: Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron, Total and Marathon OIl have all bailed out of Poland.
    All of this history partially pre-determined Ukraine role as sacrificial lamb. In 2010, Exxon Mobil and Shell obtained licenses to scout for shale gas in Ukraine. In fall of 2012, Shell began drilling in Kharkov region.
    At the same time, Naftogaz began negotiations with American firms. Yanukovych government concluded all kinds of secret deals with foreign companies. Which the piece compares to American Indians selling their natural resources for beads and mirrors.
    These secret deals would have literally given Ukrainian underground mineral resources as private property to these European and American investors. (Point #37.1 in the secret deal with Shell.)
    These deals encoded a type of "eminent domain" situation, which would deed over the land itself to the companies drilling for shale gas. Even if that land belonged to somebody else.

    With these deals, Yanukovych and the Azarov government were willfully serfing Ukraine into bondage to these foreign corporations for the next 55 years. Until the very moment when he fled the country, Yanukovych was completely devoted to his "shale gas" project that would have sold the Ukrainian people into slavery. And the Americans were always there, behind the scenes, this was part of their strategic vision to replace Russian gas with Ukrainian gas, for Europe.
    [yalensis: Azarov also emerges in this piece as a villain, on the same level as Yanukovych.]

    After the Maidan revolution, nothing changed substantially. Some of the same players, and the same oligarchs (such as Sergei Taruta), who formerly accused (rightfully) Yanukovych of betraying the national interest; were now involved in exactly the same deal-making with Western companies.
    In fact, the project now steamed ahead full on steroids, now that America has a pliant puppet government in Kiev.
    As shown by the appearance of Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings, etc. Along with Hunter, another key figure in Burisma is John Kerry's family friend Devon Archer.

    Then came the civil war in Donbass. The plan was to use heavy artillery and destruction of infrastructure to drive out the native population; once the land was cleared of the pesky humans, then the gas companies could drill to their heart's content, without worrying about people and eminent domain, etc. This was tried and true method, employed by European colonists in America, etc.

    Everything was going as planned, but then in the middle of August (2014), the "gas revolution" suddenly started to collapse of its own volition, and the investors began to bail out. Having wasted billions of dollars on a project that did not bear any fruits. But at least the investors knew not to throw good money in after bad.
    So, they have left.
    But first having destroyed Ukraine and left the country in tatters.

    marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:22 am
    Great exposé, Yalensis! Given that the present government in Kiev is so vile, there's always a temptation to exalt Yanukovych, but maybe there's an opportunity here to inspire a bit of sympathy for ordinary Ukrainians who were desperate to have him gone because they believed – quite rightly it seems – that he was a thieving bag of shit. How were they to know that a self-enriching thief (and he couldn't have been too far along with any such plan, because the much-ballyhooed international hunt for his stolen billions has turned up zip) would be replaced by Nazi-worshiping ideologues?

    Poor Ukrainians – they get fucked over by every leadership no matter who they choose. You just have to love democracy, right? Choose Thief A or Thief B.

    I didn't really buy the war as a coherent plan to drive the regional inhabitants fleeing to surrounding countries so as to empty it for exploitation, but it is starting to look more plausible. If true, it was a grotesque failure on two counts; they reckoned without the inhabitants' determination to hold onto their towns even when they were just loose piles of bricks, and there were never enough recoverable resources there to justify such a purely-evil scheme in the first place. There isn't a gallows big enough for all those who deserve to be hung.

    Moscow Exile, May 16, 2015 at 5:33 am
    "As for why the photos are all of men, I am not sure, but I think the movement is mostly about soldiers who fell in battle against the Horde. In any case, that is a valid criticism, IMHO."

    Further to Yalensis' comment quoted above, and posted here because of the narrowing of the thread above:

    Pictures taken by Elena Denisovna whilst participating in the "Immortal Regiment" march, Moscow, May 9, 2015:

    If you look carefully, the portraits of some women are discernible. In fact, in the second of the above photographs, a "fake" participant is proudly holding high a woman's portrait by means of the longest placard handle that I have seen amongst the very, very many pictures of the event.

    Elena Denisovna bore on that day a photograph of her great-great uncle, Aleksandr Stepanovich, who fell in battle in 1942 whilst serving in the Red Army infantry some 58 years before his great-great niece was born.

    My elder daughter, Elena, is immensely proud of the fact that her great-great uncle fell in battle whilst defending his Motherland.

    Kreakly, of course, and other such Russia-hating "progressives", would ridicule such pride that my daughter bears.

    And they would label her a "fake", I presume.

    kirill, May 16, 2015 at 6:33 am
    Since they have photos that have been magnified and put on placards this must have been organized. Since it was organized, it must have been Putin's doing. Therefore this is nothing but artificial propaganda theater.

    The above is the retarded logic I am seeing. It is actually beyond retarded. People who spout it in Russia need to be chased down, beaten severely and then put on the next plane for their promised land in NATO.

    marknesop, May 16, 2015 at 9:32 am
    It is impossible for the western media to disguise the fact that the Parade of the Immortal Regiment was a game-changing event, a physical expression of nationalist pride that should leave the hopes of those who believe they can break Russia's will as ashes in their mouths.

    Sanctions which were intended to make the Russian people suffer so that they would blame their leader and turn against him have failed spectacularly in more ways than one – they have failed because they did not achieve their goal, but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

    They failed because they showed the west to the Russian people as it really is, and buried any hope of an eventual fruitful partnership if Russia would just bend a little more, accept a little less, give up something else. Russia should thank the west for the sanctions regime, because it did more to disarm and render harmless the precious kreakly than any other single action could have done short of war. And in fact the failure of sanctions may prevent the latter.

    [May 15, 2015] Russia to prosecute 'undesirable' foreign organisations

    Warren says:

    May 15, 2015 at 5:39 am

    Russia to prosecute 'undesirable' foreign organisations

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32751797

    Moscow Exile , May 15, 2015 at 5:49 am

    They should start with the US Embassy.

    james, May 15, 2015 at 9:12 am

    how many soros funded ngos operate in russia anyway aside from 'open russia'?

    Moscow Exile, May 15, 2015 at 10:04 am

    450,000 NGOs in Russia

    The sheer number of organizations described as NGOs and the number receiving foreign funding is staggering. Since 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union, hundreds of thousands of NGOs have sprung up in Russia. Members of the Russian Duma say over 450,000 NGOs operate in Russia today [Feb. 6, 2006]. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization puts the number even higher, saying that "There are at least 600,000 registered non-governmental, non-commercial organizations operating in Russia. At least as many may be working in the country without official registration".

    kirill, May 15, 2015 at 3:33 pm
    Time to regulate this "industry". NGO's should be required to have an active full time staff of 100. That should reduce this number to a few dozen.
    marknesop, May 15, 2015 at 10:53 am

    "Pavel Chikov, head of a human rights umbrella group called Agora, said: "Simply declaring someone 'undesirable, we don't want to see him on our territory' will be a violation of international law and general legal principles, and of the civil legal code."

    Oh, now this human rights toad is concerned about international law and general legal principles.

    Where were you while the Ukie Army's artillery smashed Slaviansk to rubble and killed hundreds of civilians, you worthless fucker?

    [May 15, 2015] Ходорковский: Бескровной смены режима не будет

    May 15, 2015 | maxfux

    "Die Welt", Michail Chodorkowski: „Es wird keinen unblutigen Regimewechsel geben" May 11, 2015

    Очень показательное интервью Ходорковского. В отличие от разных больных на голову "шендеровичей" и перманентных ничтожных неудачников "миловых", Ходорковский способен к управлению большим коллективом, способен стать как генератором оппозиции, так и идеологическим папой. За ним есть опыт, влияние, ресурс, признание, структуры. Поэтому к его словам стоит относится внимательнее, чем к балабольству разных шехтманов.

    Я оставлю данное интервью без своей оценки. Однако, отмечу, что в целом Ходорковского не пугает, что незаконная смена власти будет сопряжена с кровопролитием, гражданской войной и адским пламенем на Кавказе. Ради власти эти ребята готовы на все.

    Через год с лишним после своего освобождения Михаил Ходорковский, когда-то самый влиятельный предприниматель России, говорит о Владимире Путине и своем заключении. Что касается его родины, то ей он предсказывает перемены, во время которых не избежать насилия.

    Die Welt: В России государственная власть целиком сконцентрирована вокруг Владимира Путина. Насколько силен президент в действительности?

    Михаил Ходорковский: Путин в состоянии реально контролировать лишь небольшое количество процессов. Лично он может заниматься одним крупным кризисом, возможно, даже двумя одновременно, если они очень серьезны. В этом заключается преимущество авторитарной системы, но у нее есть и серьезные недостатки. Путин не в состоянии решать множество проблем одновременно. В стране, где уничтожены реальные институты государственной власти - независимая юстиция, парламент, местные органы самоуправления -, власть имущие теряют способность справляться со сложными вызовами в адрес общества. Наше государство очень централизовано, но слабо.

    - После убийства лидера оппозиции Бориса Немцова в России заговорили о конфликте между чеченским президентом Рамзаном Кадыровым и московскими силовиками. Насколько серьезно об этом можно говорить?

    - Этот конфликт имеет системный характер. В условиях обвала экономики начинаются конфликты между различными группировками, борющимися за сферы влияния и источники финансирования. Кадыров хочет большей независимости для своих вассальных структур в Чечне, оставаясь, однако, преданным Путину. При этом Кадырова окружает этническая преступная группировка, вступающая в конфликт со слабым, по сути, российским государством. Те, кому положено стоять на страже закона, не могут вмешиваться, потому что людей Кадырова защищает Путин. Он их главный покровитель.

    - А Путин по-прежнему контролирует эти группировки или, по сути, сам стал их заложником?

    - Я уверен, что Путин был очень недоволен убийством Немцова. Я не верю, что Кадыров без разрешения Путина допустит, чтобы нечто подобное повторилось.

    - То есть вы предполагаете, что Кадыров распорядился убить Немцова?

    - Нет. Мне кажется, я знаю, кто был заказчиком его убийства. Но это не Кадыров, а кое-кто ниже уровнем.

    - Кадыров знал, кто это?

    - Он узнал об этом потом. Но теперь он знает, кто за этим стоит. Я в этом уверен.

    - Можно ли считать убийство Немцова признаком слабости системы?

    - Без сомнения. Убийство человека, входящего в политическую элиту, в двух шагах от Кремля -- это удар по неприкасаемости властных структур. Это ведет к дальнейшему ослаблению механизмов власти. Любой чиновник будет теперь думать, принимая решения: Путин может меня уволить, но люди Кадырова могут меня убить.

    - Что может стать опасным для Путина? Возможен ли "дворцовый переворот"?

    - "Дворцовый переворот" возможен лишь в случае конфликта с участием спецслужб. Никто другой на такое не способен. Как показывает ситуация с Кадыровым, такой конфликт вполне возможен.

    - Многие боятся, что после Путина все станет еще хуже.

    - Я думаю, Путин еще сам доведет свое дело до конца. А после него все может стать только лучше.

    - Но до того момента внутриполитический климат может еще больше ухудшиться.

    - Путин готов ужесточить репрессии. Но он не настолько этого хочет, насколько некоторые этого опасаются. Он не монстр. Он знает, что слишком жесткое подавление его противников может повлечь отрицательные последствия для него самого. Поэтому он должен быть готов к "зачистке рядов" среди элиты. При Сталине два процента населения стали жертвами репрессий со стороны государства. В рядах силовых структур и вовсе был репрессирован каждый четвертый. Готов ли Путин на такое? Я сомневаюсь.

    - В сегодняшней России возможна бескровная смена власти?
    ( Collapse )


    - Бескровной смены режима не будет. Тысячи людей знают, что им придется понести личную ответственность за то, что они сделали при Путине. Но перемены в России - это не главная проблема. Перемены случатся еще при нашей жизни. Гораздо опаснее положение, возникающее из-за политики режима на границах России. На востоке Украины уже возникла целая армия национал-шовинистов, у которых и в России появляется все больше и больше сторонников. А поскольку Путин в Чечне защищает своего вассала Кадырова, тот требует все большей и большей автономии. И когда эти силы столкнутся между собой, станет по-настоящему опасно, потому что это может привести к гражданской войне. А этого никто не хочет.

    - После смерти Немцова оппозиция в России еще больше ослабла. Она действительно находится в такой же изоляции, как и диссиденты в Советском Союзе?

    - Нет, даже в нынешних обстоятельствах 14% россиян открыто признаются, что не поддерживают власть. Оппозиция имеет твердую поддержку в 10-15% населения. Число ее сторонников может еще больше вырасти.

    - С другой стороны, государственная пропаганда в России весьма эффективна. Как вы хотите достучаться до людей, которые в это верят?

    - Я считаю, что путинская система просуществует дольше, чем думают некоторые оппозиционеры. Режим готов стрелять, а демократическая оппозиция не готова. Вероятность того, что этот аппарат власти рухнет в ближайшие десять лет, на мой взгляд, составляет 50%. Так что с уверенностью утверждать это не приходится, и поэтому я концентрируюсь на своих задачах по развитию гражданского общества, чтобы выросло число людей, открытых для демократических ценностей.

    - Самым популярным противником режима в России сейчас является Алексей Навальный. Должна ли оппозиция объединиться вокруг него?

    - Было бы прекрасно, если бы оппозиция состояла из различных сил, но при этом была способна объединиться, когда ей нужно будет выступить сообща.

    - Это не очень похоже на слова поддержки в адрес Навального. Какую программу поддерживаете лично вы?

    - Самая большая проблема России остается неизменной: отсутствие правового государства. Меры, которые нужно предпринять, сформулировать легко: власть должна регулярно меняться в ходе честных выборов. И тогда власть будет представлять избирателей, тогда появятся независимые суды и будут соблюдаться законы.

    - Некоторые считают, что русским не нужна демократия, а нужна сильная личность во главе государства.

    - Я сегодня пообщался с несколькими немцами, и они заверили меня, что многие здесь также нуждаются в сильном лидере, который, однако, разделял бы демократические ценности. Так что сильное руководство не исключает наличия демократических институтов.

    - Как вы оцениваете ситуацию на Украине? Она действительно стала спокойнее, или это лишь иллюзия?

    - Мне хочется верить, что там не произойдет новой эскалации конфликта, однако, вероятность, что это случится, велика. Открытым остается большой вопрос, покинут ли вооруженные граждане России Восточную Украину и действительно ли сепаратисты потеряют поддержку Москвы. Но именно это и было бы опасно для российского режима. Возвращение боевиков накалило бы ситуацию в стране. Путин сделает все для того, чтобы эти вооруженные люди как можно дольше оставались на востоке Украины.

    - То есть надежды на эффективность новых минских мер безопасности призрачны?

    - Альтернативы мирному процессу нет. Но при нынешнем режиме в России он не может быть стабильным. Можно ли заморозить конфликт? Теоретически можно. Нужно попробовать сделать это.

    - Как должен вести себя Запад в общении с Путиным?

    - Тот, кто на Западе утверждает, что с нынешним режимом можно заключать долгосрочные договоренности, либо глуп, либо лжец. Любые договоренности будут ежесекундно подвергаться сомнениям. Конечно, с Россией нужно продолжать диалог, но надежды на реальное единение иллюзорны, потому что в России нет реальных институтов власти. Даже в советские времена было Политбюро, и генеральный секретарь не принимал решения единолично. Поэтому советский режим был предсказуем. Теперь же ситуация иная: Путин разрушил институты государственной власти, и это привело к тому, что в России нет взаимного контроля органов власти, да и четкого разделения власти тоже нет.

    - Какие интересы может преследовать президент, замораживая конфликт на Украине вместо того, чтобы распалить его с новой силой?

    - Путину не нужна постоянная напряженность. Он понял, что больше не является для своих бойцов идеальным лидером. Чтобы удержаться у власти, замороженный конфликт его вполне устроит. Силы, участвующие в нем, будут и далее оставаться на востоке Украины, но не разрастаться. Это важно и по другой причине: успех Украины стал бы примером для демократических изменений в России. К сожалению, это понимает и Путин. Поэтому одним из его приоритетов является крах украинского эксперимента.

    - Украинское руководство движется в правильном направлении?

    - Я бы хотел, чтобы оно ввиду вооруженной конфронтации оставалось единым. Но иногда бывает заметно, что это не так. Еще я бы хотел, чтобы Украина стала для России образцом для подражания в вопросах борьбы с коррупцией. Но пока я не знаю ни одного примера решительных действий в этом направлении.

    - Что вы думаете по поводу украинского президента Петра Порошенко?

    - Я встречался с ним. Я понимаю, откуда он пришел, как он мыслит и как действует. Больше я ничего не хочу говорить. Я же не являюсь активистом украинской оппозиции.

    - Вы десять лет провели в заключении. Насколько вы изменились из-за этого?

    - Когда мне говорят, что с кем-то невозможно вести диалог, я вспоминаю эти десять лет моей жизни и улыбаюсь. Однажды я сидел в одной камере с националистом Владимиром Квачковым. Мы нормально общались и решали свои повседневные проблемы. До этого я даже представить себе не мог, что сумею общаться с такими людьми. Но говорить надо со всеми.

    - Даже с советником Путина Игорем Сечиным, который в большой степени виноват в том, что вас посадили в тюрьму?

    - Да, говорить надо со всеми. Но это не значит, что всех надо прощать. Простить можно того, кто раскаялся в содеянном. Сечина надо отдать под суд, и я был бы готов выступить свидетелем.

    - Путин сказал, что его "университетами" было детство, проведенное на улице. А вашими "университетами" стала тюрьма?

    - Несмотря на мое непростое отношение к Путину, я не желаю ему получить такое "второе образование", какое пришлось получить мне. Мы росли в одинаковых условиях. Если то, что он рассказывает, правда, то у нас с ним было похожее детство. Но я постарался изгнать из себя следы "улицы", а Путин, напротив, культивирует ее, став президентом.

    - Чему можно научиться на улицах российских городов?

    - Помните фильм "Крестный отец"? Это похоже на то, что Путин называет своими "уличными университетами". Принципиальная разница между Путиным и мной состоит в том, что я предсказуем. Путин же гордится своей непредсказуемостью. Многие политологи даже считают, что в России властители должны быть непредсказуемыми. Я не могу с этим согласиться. Россия - "глобальный игрок" и не может себе позволить быть непредсказуемой.

    - В этом вопросе мы вынуждены возразить вам. В конце 1990-х годов вы тоже были непредсказуемы для западных инвесторов.

    - Я считаю иначе. После российского кризиса 1998 года я поехал в Германию и подробно расписывал банкам, как будет развиваться ситуация. Я сказал: "Не волнуйтесь и не делайте необдуманных шагов, и через некоторое время вы получите обратно все ваши инвестиции". И все получилось именно так, как я и говорил. Тот, кто мне поверил, получил хорошую прибыль.

    - Еще раз о Путине. Несмотря ни на что, вы должны быть благодарны президенту. Он помиловал вас в декабре 2013 года. Через три месяца, после аннексии Крыма, он бы, возможно, так не поступил.

    - Я уверен, что мое освобождение стало возможным благодаря определенным людям - Гансу-Дитриху Геншеру (Hans-Dietrich Genscher - министр иностранных дел ФРГ объединенной Германии в 1974-1992 годах - прим. пер.), Ангеле Меркель, нашим правозащитникам. Я понимаю, что согласие Путина было очень важно. Он столь же легко мог бы распорядиться возбудить и третье дело против меня, о чем его неоднократно просил Сечин. Все это я понимаю. И это влияет на мое эмоциональное отношение к Германии и госпоже Меркель - но также и к Путину. Это не нравится некоторым оппозиционерам, которые говорят, что надо быть бескомпромиссным. Но я все-таки просто человек.

    - Как часто вы вспоминаете свое заключение?

    - У меня стабильная психика, и я не вспоминаю о тюрьме. Я часто рассказываю о своей жизни в заключении - это был важный опыт. Но эмоционально меня это больше не трогает.

    - Вы можете себе представить, что когда-нибудь еще раз займетесь бизнесом?

    - Нет, это исключено. Я хочу посвятить остаток жизни новому делу: помочь российскому обществу стать демократическим.

    - Когда в конце 2013 года вас освободили из заключения, вы заявили, что не будете участвовать в политике. Теперь же вы не исключаете, что в кризисной ситуации могли бы стать президентом - на время. Почему вы вдруг изменили свое мнение по этому поводу?

    - Это совсем иная ситуация. Тогда еще была надежда, что наша политическая система раскроется. Но эта надежда умерла после начала войны на Украине. Мы движемся совсем к другому общественному строю. Мы переживаем распад государственных институтов, напоминающий распад СССР. Если режим падет, то каждый должен быть готов отдать ради своей страны все.

    - У вас есть политический кумир?

    - На моем рабочем столе стоял портрет Маргарет Тэтчер с подписью: "Если вы хотите, чтобы о чем-то говорили, поручите это мужчине, но если вы хотите, чтобы что-то было сделано, то поручите это женщине". (Смеется.) Это предложение в большой степени правдиво, в том числе и в отношении России.

    [May 15, 2015]Why I Wept at the Russian Parade Information Clearing House

    May 14, 2015 "Information Clearing House"

    Something extraordinary just took place in Russia and it may have moved our disturbed world one major step nearer to peace and away from a looming new world war. Of all unlikely things, what took place was a nationwide remembrance by Russians of the estimated 27 to perhaps 30 million Soviet citizens who never returned alive from World War II. Yet in what can only be described in a spiritual manner, the events of May 9, Victory Day over Nazism, that took place across all Russia, transcended the specific day of memory on the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in 1945. It was possible to see a spirit emerge from the moving events unlike anything this author has ever witnessed in his life.

    The event was extraordinary in every respect. There was a sense in all participants that they were shaping history in some ineffable way. It was no usual May 9 annual show of Russia's military force. Yes, it featured a parade of Russia's most advanced military hardware, including the awesome new T-14 Armata tanks, S-400 anti-missile systems and advanced Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets. It was indeed impressive to watch.

    The military part of the events also featured for the first time ever elite soldiers from China's Peoples' Liberation Army marching in formation along with Russian soldiers. That in itself should shivers down the spines of the neoconservative warhawks in the EU and Washington, had they any spines to shiver. The alliance between the two great Eurasian powers-Russia and China-is evolving with stunning speed into a new that will change the economic dynamic of our world from one of debt, depression, and wars to one of rising general prosperity and development if we are good enough to help make it happen.

    During his visit, China's President XI, in addition to his quite visible honoring of the Russian Victory event and its significance for China, met separately with Vladimir Putin and agreed that China's emerging New Silk Road high-speed railway infrastructure great project will be integrated in planning and other respects with Russia's Eurasian Economic Union which now consists of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Armenia with several prospective candidates waiting to join. While it may seem an obvious step, it was not at all certain until now.

    The two great Eurasian countries have now cemented the huge oil and gas deals between them, the trade deals and the military cooperation agreements with a commitment to fully integrate their economic infrastructure. Following his meeting with Xi, Putin told the press, "The integration of the Eurasian Economic Union and Silk Road projects means reaching a new level of partnership and actually implies a common economic space on the continent."

    It's Zbigniew Brzezinski's worst geopolitical nightmare come to fruition. And that, thanks to the stupid, short-sighted geopolitical strategy of Brzezinski and the Washington war faction that made it clear to Beijing and to Moscow their only hope for sovereign development and to be free of the dictates of a Washington-Wall Street Sole Superpower was to build an entire monetary and economic space independent of the dollar world.

    [May 14, 2015]War-Crazed Western Propaganda Machine Rages at Its Growing Insignificance

    russia-insider.com

    Atlantic Alliance media apparatus lashing out like a dying demon at the reality of being successfully confronted by the truth

    This article originally appeared at CounterPunch

    In mid-April, hundreds of U.S. paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade arrived in western Ukraine to provide training for government troops. The UK had already started its troop-training mission there, sending 75 troops to Kiev in March. [1] On April 14, the Canadian government announced that Canada will send 200 soldiers to Kiev, contributing to a military build-up on Russia's doorstep while a fragile truce is in place in eastern Ukraine.

    The Russian Embassy in Ottawa called the decision "counterproductive and deplorable," stating that the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine have "called for enhanced intra-Ukrainian political dialogue," as agreed upon in the Minsk-2 accords in February, and that it would be "much more reasonable to concentrate on diplomacy…" [2]

    That viewpoint is shared by many, especially in Europe where few are eager for a "hot" war in the region. Nor are most people enamoured of the fact that more billions are being spent on a new arms-race, while "austerity" is preached by the 1 Per Cent.

    But in the Anglo-American corridors of power (also called the Atlantic Alliance), such views are seen to be the result of diabolical propaganda spread through the Internet by Russia's "secret army." On April 15, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by Ed Royce (R-Calif.), held a hearing entitled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," with Royce claiming that Russian propaganda threatens "to destabilize NATO members, impacting our security commitments." [3]

    The Committee heard from three witnesses: Elizabeth Wahl, former anchor for the news agency Russia Today (RT) who gained her moment of fame by resigning on camera in March 2014; Peter Pomerantsev, Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute (a right-wing UK think-tank); and Helle C. Dale, Senior Fellow for Public Diplomacy at The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing U.S. think-tank. [4] The Foreign Affairs Committee website contains video clips of the first two witnesses – well worth watching if you enjoy Orwellian rhetoric passionately delivered.

    The day before the hearing, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Royce wrote,

    "Vladimir Putin has a secret army. It's an army of thousands of 'trolls,' TV anchors and others who work day and night spreading anti-American propaganda on the Internet, airwaves and newspapers throughout Russia and the world. Mr. Putin uses these misinformation warriors to destabilize his neighbors and control parts of Ukraine. This force may be more dangerous than any military, because no artillery can stop their lies from spreading and undermining U.S. security interests in Europe." [5]

    In her formal (printed) submission, Ms. Wahl referred to the Internet's "population of paranoid skeptics" and wrote: "The paranoia extends to believing that Western media is not only complicit, but instrumental in ensuring Western dominance."

    Helle C. Dale warned of "a new kind of propaganda, aimed at sowing doubt about anything having to do with the U.S. and the West, and in a number of countries, unsophisticated audiences are eating it up."

    Peter Pomerantsev claimed that Russia's goal is "to trash the information space with so much disinformation so that a conversation based on actual facts would become impossible." He added, "Throughout Europe conspiracy theories are on the rise and in the US trust in the media has declined. The Kremlin may not always have initiated these phenomena, but it is fanning them…Democracies are singularly ill equipped to deal with this type of warfare. For all of its military might, NATO cannot fight an information war. The openness of democracies, the very quality that is meant to make them more competitive than authoritarian models, becomes a vulnerability."

    Chairman Royce called for "clarifying" the mission of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the U.S. federal agency whose networks include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Marti). [6]

    The BBG is apparently in disarray. According to Helle Dale's submission, on March 4, 2015, Andrew Lack, the newly hired CEO of BBG's International Broadcasting, left the position after only six weeks on the job. On April 7, the Director of Voice of America, David Ensor, announced that he was leaving.

    Andrew Lack was formerly the president of NBC News. As Paul Craig Roberts has recently noted, Lack's first official statement as CEO of the BBG

    "compared RT, Russia Today, the Russian-based news agency, with the Islamic State and Boko Haram. In other words, Mr. Lack brands RT as a terrorist organization. The purpose of Andrew Lack's absurd comparison is to strike fear at RT that the news organization will be expelled from US media markets. Andrew Lack's message to RT is: 'lie for us or we are going to expel you from our air waves.' The British already did this to Iran's Press TV. In the United States the attack on Internet independent media is proceeding on several fronts." [7]

    Ironically, however, it's likely that one of the biggest threats (especially in Europe) to Anglo-American media credibility about Ukraine and other issues is coming from a very old-fashioned medium – a book.

    Udo Ulfkotte's bestseller Bought Journalists has been a sensation in Germany since its publication last autumn. The journalist and former editor of one of Germany's largest newspapers, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, revealed that he was for years secretly on the payroll of the CIA and was spinning the news to favour U.S. interests. Moreover he alleges that some major media are nothing more than propaganda outlets for international think-tanks, intelligence agencies, and corporate high-finance.

    "We're talking about puppets on a string," he says, "journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what's really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets." [8]

    In another interview, Ulfkotte said: "The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say…it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, all over Europe." [9]

    With the credibility of the corporate media tanking, Eric Zuesse recently wrote, "Since Germany is central to the Western Alliance – and especially to the American aristocracy's control over the European Union, over the IMF, over the World Bank, and over NATO – such a turn away from the American Government [narrative] threatens the dominance of America's aristocrats (who control our Government). A breakup of America's [Atlantic] 'Alliance' might be in the offing, if Germans continue to turn away from being just America's richest 'banana republic'." [10]

    No wonder the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on April 15 had such urgent rhetoric, especially from Peter Pomerantsev, Senior Fellow at the Legatum Institute – a London-based international think-tank whose motto is "Prosperity Through Revitalizing Capitalism and Democracy" and whose stated mission is "promoting prosperity through individual liberty, free enterprise and entrepreneurship, character and values."

    At the end of March, Conservative London mayor Boris Johnson (named as a potential successor to David Cameron) helped launch the Legatum Institute's "Vision of Capitalism" speakers' series, whose rallying cry is "It's time for friends of capitalism to fight back." [11] The sponsor of the event was the British Private Equity & Venture Capital Association (BVCA), whose membership comprises "more than 500 influential firms, including over 230 private equity and venture capital houses, as well as institutional investors, professional advisers, service providers and international associations." It is not clear whether the BVCA is also sponsoring the Legatum Institute's "Vision of Capitalism" series.

    The Legatum Institute was founded by billionaire Christopher Chandler's Legatum Ltd. – a private investment firm headquartered in Dubai. According to The Legatum Institute's website, its executives and fellows write for an impressive number of major media outlets, including the Washington Post, Slate, the New York Review of Books, Foreign Policy, New Republic, the Daily Telegraph, The Times, the London Review of Books, the Atlantic, and the Financial Times.

    Nonetheless, the Legatum Institute's Peter Pomeranzev told the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs that "Russia has launched an information war against the West – and we are losing."
    Chairperson Ed Royce noted during the hearing that if certain things are repeated over and over, a "conspiracy theory" takes on momentum and a life of its own.

    Pomeranzev said the Kremlin is "pushing out more conspiracy" and he explained, "What is conspiracy – sort of a linguistic sabotage on the infrastructure of reason. I mean you can't have a reality-based discussion when everything becomes conspiracy. In Russia, the whole discourse is conspiracy. Everything is conspiracy." He added, "Our global order is based on reality-based politics. If that reality base is destroyed, then you can't have international institutions, international dialogue." Lying, he said, "makes a reality-based politics impossible" and he called it "a very insidious trend."

    Apparently, Pomeranzev has forgotten that important October 2004 article by Ron Suskind published in the New York Times Magazine during the second war in Iraq (which, like the first, was based on a widely disseminated lie). Suskind quoted one of George W. Bush's aides (probably Karl Rove): "The aide said that guys like me [journalists, writers, historians] were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality…That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'." [12]

    It's a rather succinct description of Orwellian spin and secrecy in a media-saturated Empire, where discerning the truth becomes ever more difficult.

    That is why people believe someone like Udo Ulfkotte, who is physically ill, says he has only a few years left to live, and told an interviewer, "I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don't like to have this situation again, because war is never coming from itself, there is always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too…We have betrayed our readers, just to push for war…I don't want this anymore, I'm fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom…" [13]

    Recently, as Mike Whitney has pointed out in CounterPunch (March 10), Germany's newsmagazine Der Spiegel dared to challenge the fabrications of NATO's top commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, for spreading "dangerous propaganda" that is misleading the public about Russian "troop advances" and making "flat-out inaccurate statements" about Russian aggression.

    Whitney asks, "Why this sudden willingness to share the truth? It's because they no longer support Washington's policy, that's why. No one in Europe wants the US to arm and train the Ukrainian army. No wants them to deploy 600 paratroopers to Kiev and increase U.S. logistical support. No one wants further escalation, because no wants a war with Russia. It's that simple." [14] Whitney argued that "the real purpose of the Spiegel piece is to warn Washington that EU leaders will not support a policy of military confrontation with Moscow."

    So now we know the reason for the timing of the April 15 U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information." Literally while U.S. paratroopers were en route to Kiev, the hawks in Washington (and London) knew it was time to crank up the rhetoric. The three witnesses were most eager to oblige.

    [May 13, 2015] How Russias opposition united to finish Nemtsovs report on Ukraine

    May 13, 2015 | The Guardian


    MaoChengJi -> kolf 13 May 2015 10:37

    note was supported by hundreds of thousands - that is not a coup, but a revolution

    Aside from the fact that in a 40 million people nation 'hundreds of thousands' is very far from a majority, it's the protests that were supported by hundreds of thousands.

    Feb 21 Yanuk signs the agreement with the opposition, negotiated and guaranteed by European politicians. Stipulating early elections, amnesties, rollback of some laws, investigations of the police abuses, etc. It was accepted and signed by the opposition, i.e. those representing these hundreds of thousands you're taking about.

    Had this agreement been implemented, everything would've probably worked out somehow.

    Instead, a few ultra-nationalist militants, a fringe, refuse to accept the agreement. They take over the government. And the opposition politicians play along and become figureheads, puppets. And that's what's been going on there since: militant ultra-nationalist fringe is controlling the regime from the inside, and the US and EU from the outside, supplying them with money, weapons, propaganda, and diplomatic support. What a shame.

    Babeouf 13 May 2015 08:57

    Look Kerry went to see Putin to sell off an unwanted collection of Ukrainian Fascists. Apparently the Fascists had disappointed their US owners. And afterwards the invariable accompaniment of the brush off Kerry phoned Kyiv but didn't stop off on his way home. Today Yats is in Paris and the Choc Soldier is in Germany.

    Their survival now depends on Germany and France. So this sad collection of non entities now have to cut a deal with Putin, on Russia's terms. I 'm not surprised that the US public repudiation of the previous US policy of isolating 'Russia' is not noticed by the Guardian.

    As for the Russian opposition their identification with the 'invader at the Gates' has finished them off for a generation at least.

    entirely pro-government now, apart from one radio station Ekho Moskvy, and one TV station Dozhd

    MaoChengJi -> kolf, 13 May 2015 07:01

    That's precisely NOT entirely. Besides, kommersant is a newspaper, not broadcast media. There are plenty of opposition newspapers. Also, when the government is popular, the media, naturally, reflects that - there's nothing sinister about it. And murdering people is a crime, where they are journalists or not.

    it is rather like the soldiers that have to "resign" before they patriotically "volunteer" in Donbass, when instructed to do so - a mere technicality

    Perhaps. But we don't know that. I understand the suspicion, but not the certainty. Strelkov, in particular, gives the impression of very much anti-government character. A right-wing government opponent. Personally, I see absolutely no reason to believe that he was sent or controlled by the RF government. I'd be surprised.

    The violent takeovers in Donbass were carried out initially by small Russian-sponsored groups, with the support of special forces from Russia, who carried out a range of criminal and paramilitary activity including abduction, intimidation, murders, attacks on Ukrainian military bases, and destroying military Ukrainian aircraft on the ground


    This is a bunch of lies. The protests in Donetsk started the next day after the coup, I saw videos. Gubarev became the 'people's governor'. He was arrested - protests became more violent. I watched videos with old ladies blocking roads to stop the regime's troops carriers.

    was installed by the Rada after the previous president fled

    Oh, god. President fleeing and the majority party decimated (their offices burned) is the definition of a coup d'etat. He didn't resign, he didn't die, and he wasn't even impeached - they tried but they didn't have the votes.

    Can anyone in the right mind and not being disingenuous still insist that it wasn't a coup? I don't think so. So, go ahead, have your last word.

    Dmitry Berezhnov -> Botswana61 13 May 2015 04:06

    RFE is US propaganda bullhorn, of course I believe them in anything they say about Russia.

    MaoChengJi -> kolf 13 May 2015 04:05

    even Russian media acknowledges it

    you appear to be under the impression that Russian media are all pro-government. This completely disproves your statement that you "know the difference between propaganda and journalism". A large portion of the Russian media is rabidly anti-government. If you knew the difference between propaganda and journalism, you would've known it.

    All that "clearly" is just your impression, based on anti-Russian propaganda, on the stories you read and believe. What's clear to you isn't clear to others, if they read different stories. In fact, exactly the opposite can be clear to them. It's important for you to understand that your stories are not at all better than their stories.

    Also, "war started by Russian intelligence officers like Strelkov and Borodai" is all wrong, objectively. Strelkov and Borodai are not Russian intelligence officers. The Kiev regime attacked Donbas, Donbas did not attack Kiev. If Kiev acknowledged the referendum, there would've been no war. The important thing to understand here is that the Kiev regime was NOT at that time - without any doubt - a legitimate government, even if you believe that the current government is legitimate (I don't).

    Kiev had a revolution, and then Donetsk had a revolution. Then Kiev attacked Donetsk. It didn't have to, but it did. Blaming this on Russia is disinformation and a manifestation of russophobia.

    lionarslan Botswana61 13 May 2015 03:45

    Mr. Lavrov never denied that there's Russian citizens in Ukraine. Do you know the difference between soldiers (people who signed obligatory military contract and take a vow to serve their country) and volunteers (people who consciously decided to do something or to go somewhere)? People from Russia, Germany, Spain, Netherlands comes to Donbass to fight for freedom of people of Donbass. They volunteered, no one forced them. And that is what Sergey Lavrov "admitted".

    I read that report, that's really science-ficton. All so-called proofs are quotes without context which someone can understand in more than one way. The text itself is clear anti-Putin propaganda. It was really boring to read that text. It's like watching "Glee" only Glee has wonderful songs and some of actors are really good in their play.

    Russian self-named opposition's report is much more boring and have so much realism as tv-series "Glee".

    lionarslan -> freedomcry 13 May 2015 03:21

    Nationalists in Russia was never decent and sober-minded people. In time of Russian empire they were terrorists, in modern Russia they are still the same. Moreover, if you are sentient being you wouldn't support ideas of nationalists in any possible way. Do you forgot what nationalists did in Germany and then in half of the world in last century?

    Agatha_appears -> freedomcry 13 May 2015 01:53

    it is not opposition. This is a group of people who, like Yashin, have never worked, never done anything useful. They found a job paid by the US State Dep-t. Their responsibility is to play against official Russia according to US scenario. They buy luxurious cars, apartments, go to expensive resorts. Their main audience is the western media. There is a small group of Russia haters inside the country who notice them.

    There are nationalists who oppose the Kremlin. They are radicals. Some of them are in prison. They represent larger part of Russian society than so to say "liberals". Their views are similar to Ukranian nazi who are in power in Kiev. Putin tries to maintain balance and does not let them come to power, speak publicly, because nationalism is infection desease ( see what is going on in Ukraine). And Russian nationalism can be as awful as Ukrainian. It is close to fascism.


    Dmitry Berezhnov -> Tepluken
    13 May 2015 01:05

    Funny enough to see fairytales about Savushkina st. Once I have decided to waste some time and watched a video about a "troll lair", well, small office with like 10-12 people there. Do you really call that a HQ of Evil Russain Propaganda Machine?

    Let's just mention that:

    1. UK officially annouced creation of cybersquad with unmentioned budget for delivering a propaganda.

    2. US spending over 1 bln in 2014 for Russian opposition NGO sponssorship and declaring a war on "Russian propaganda" with it's own propaganda via BBG and state controlled media throughour Europe with gazillion bucks budget.

    3. Ukraine creating a Truth Ministry and Ukranian Information Army with up to this very moment over 40 000! volunteers, not mentioning a full-time staff.

    And we do not know about other countries trolls. In my humble opinion, Savushkina with it's 20 people tops looks very very faintly.

    Colin Robinson 13 May 2015 00:31

    Claims about Russian forces covertly entering the Donbas region, even if true, cannot explain the conflict there.

    It would hardly be possible for Russian tanks to move across the border, without being shot at or even photographed, unless the local population had previously rejected the Kiev régime and removed its border guards.

    This is conflict between two constituencies within Ukraine itself, not between a supposedly united Ukraine and a supposedly ambitious president of Russia.


    normankirk -> Botswana61 12 May 2015 23:36

    What do you mean he's just admitted it, he's never denied it. I would be disgusted if no help had been given to eastern Ukrainian civilians, HRW and Amnesty intern. have both recorded use of illegal weapons against civilians by the Ukrainian army.

    If ever there was a reason for humanitarian intervention you need go no further than protecting unarmed civilians from cluster bombs

    MichaPalkin -> bcnteacher 12 May 2015 23:08

    If they had found the slightest evidence it was indeed rebels' BUK, froth-at the mouth anti-Russian hysteria would have been filling the free press for months now. THE FACT IS THEY CAN'T. And since the Dutch keep remarkably quiet about it, what they v. probably have is the evidence to the contrary. When someone from the investigation tried to make the findings public a few weeks ago - he was immediately silenced and fired. This is called cover-up. It shouldn't be that difficult to tell BUK from air-to-air missile really. So this investigation will either go on into the plus infinity or they'll say some evasive bs, no media outlet would ever mention it and that would be the end of it. Ok?

    BorninUkraine -> Chirographer 12 May 2015 22:46

    There is real opposition in Russia. If I lived there, I'd be one of them. But those are the people who do not sell their country to foreign interests, never touch Western money, and therefore are not promoted by Western media owned by the same interests that purchase third-rate opposition figures in Russia.

    To give you a few examples, Eduard Limonov, Boris Kagarlitsky (who even spent some time in jail in Soviet period), and others like them are opposition, but they are not bought and paid for traitors. That's why they are not rich.

    Unlike Nemtsiov, they cannot afford to pay for the abortion of a whore in Switzerland. You are welcome to ask your supervisor to find out who they are.

    BorninUkraine -> nnedjo 12 May 2015 21:45

    The "government" in Kyiv absolutely needs this alleged Russia aggression.

    How else can they explain that they ran into the ground a reasonably decent country so quickly: from solid third world to total shit in a bit over a year.

    If Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, and Co acknowledge how much they steal and how incompetent they are, their puppeteers might start looking for better puppets, and that would never do.

    BorninUkraine -> Paul Moore 12 May 2015 21:36

    Oh, yes. Military officials in Sweden have already been looking very hard for a Russian submarine. As soon as they achieved what they wanted, an increase in the military budget, they acknowledged that no submarine ever existed.

    Apparently someone in Finland also wants a bigger military budget. How creative, wouldn't you say?

    Sergey A Gimranov 12 May 2015 21:33

    Good science-fiction report. The highlight of the presentation was "We don't have any actual evidence but we know troops were there". I could not believe they said that. Lame and fake! Shocking discovery from the "book" Russian troops were in Crimea on Russian military bases. Oh my God! Standards are lower and lower with each and every article. Where are the reporters? Why they cannot go there and report it? I guess narrative would change drastically.

    Roodan 12 May 2015 20:57

    But I do agree the government in Kiev does not represent the political will of all of its people and hence the civil war. That there is external support for each side in this war form special forces or otherwise be they NATO or Russian that this is not the cause of the war . I do not my self understand the relevance of the article, it states the obvious. Only a regional settlement between the waring parties will end the war. A ettlement in which all of the aspiration of the people in the Ukrainian, have representation perhaps a federation or Union like the EU .

    I don't think there is any value in supporting one side against the other to impose a system of government with out the support of the people . That is a dictatorship and I don't support dictatorships by any military alliance NATO or Russian federation, they result in perpetual war in which only the powerless suffer.

    Chirographer -> Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:55

    You seem to very concerned about who paid for the report. Why? That doesn't address the content of the report at all.

    And wouldn't there be more money and a lot safer life for this Yashin character if he'd published a book supporting the government's narrative?

    Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:18

    there were never CIA operatives in Ukraine, it is not true that Maiden was a western agencies. Just few masked people gathered on the square with clubs and firearms to have a fun

    Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:13

    Hi Tom, did you ask Russian opposition how much this report cost? You did not have to ask who paid, the same sponsored paid for your piece. Nice propaganda.

    nnedjo -> nnedjo 12 May 2015 19:21

    And to add one more thing. If I'd lived in the southeast of Ukraine and if my government would abolish my salary, and, on the other hand, if I would have known that soldiers receive 90,000 rubles per month, that would be an extra motivation for me to join the rebel army. So, in that case there would be no need at all for the arrival of troops from Russia, because the Ukrainian government itself supports the recruitment in the Donbas, in a way that stopped the economic support to the region.

    nnedjo -> Solongmariane 12 May 2015 19:11

    It is ridiculous to speculate about it at all, because it is clear that Russia pays not only all the fighters in the southeast of Ukraine, but also all other citizens. Because how else they would survive, considering that the Ukrainian government has abolished them all salaries and pensions, and closed all the banks, and prevent the use of payment cards.

    Thus, considering that the Ukrainian government itself agreed that someone else should pay these people, or more precisely, that Russia should pay them, then why do they complain about it now?

    ID5868758 12 May 2015 18:26

    You know, we're supposed to buy this narrative that Nemtsov was a credible political threat to Putin. But I remember seeing a video of a Russian TV station catching Nemtsov sneaking out of the side door of the American embassy in Moscow, and he was not a happy camper when he was caught.

    Now, reverse that, and imagine an American politician being caught sneaking out of the side door of the Russian embassy in DC. How much credibility do you suppose that politician would have left with the American public?

    Russians aren't really that different from Americans after all, and Nemtsov was no threat to Putin at all.

    Puttepoju -> Kaiama 12 May 2015 18:06

    Dear Kaiama.

    Russian journalists are clever and wise. They are better than the entire US satellite system. They have "common sense".I like Russia and Russians --- but what I like most -- is to be honest. My best greetings. Puttepoju

    Falloe7 12 May 2015 18:00

    more PROPAGANDA and the media of the West naturally believes it -because they want to believe it if you are in opposition in anything you will make up stories about your opponent just like this past Election there was enough Lies by the parties about each other hoping the voters will believe it (and they did) and the same about Russia. the papers are well known for printing Lies or make up stories

    Kaiama 12 May 2015 17:44

    So how come 10 Russian journalist claim to find something that the entire US satellite system can't find? It comes as no surprise that Russian volunteers have been killed in Ukraine fighting alongside their relatives.

    What is more telling is the 100,000+ Kiev draft evaders and 800,000+ displaced citizens - all in Russia (defected to the enemy? or simply more astute than their government in Kiev?

    Solongmariane 12 May 2015 17:38

    Some bizarre figures, I find ;
    a) 53 bln Rubles is just around 1 Bln $. Isn't ? Not so much money, for a war with 40.000-50.000 fighters.
    b) If the average of wages of 60.000 - 90.000 rubles is correct, It is around an army of 1.500 soldiers during 10 months.
    Are my calculations correct ? Please, check it !

    BorninUkraine -> bcnteacher 12 May 2015 17:32

    I don't have anything except my brains, but that's enough to have a pretty prestigious job in the US.

    Russia apparently has a lot to make self-appointed masters of the Universe in the US hysterical, and their European poodles even more so. Not to mention small-change commenters here paid very little (to match pathetic quality of their comments).
    The three things that immediately come to mind regarding Russia are nukes, natural resources, and fighting spirit. Each of these would be enough to scare the opponents. For example, the opposition in Iraq and Afghanistan only has fighting spirit, and this was sufficient to make NATO retreat with its tail between its legs. Or, in 1940 France had an army at least as strong as Hitler's, but due to lack of fighting spirit it disgracefully surrendered in no time.

    So, I can only express my sincerest condolences to the servants of humiliatingly hysterical masters.

    nnedjo -> Metronome151 12 May 2015 17:22

    Perhaps you are confused with suspicious arrest and detention of a female Ukranian pilot and Estonian security officer by the FSB. Must be he effect of those drugs you refer to.

    Actually, in the event that you mentions use of the drug is excluded because the pilot Savchenko was very defiant during the examination before the cameras, which is why she has acquired the status of a national hero in Ukraine, and in the absence she is elected to parliament.

    It is also interesting that the example of the pilot Savchenko is the first proven case of "a soldier on leave," who fought on the Ukrainian front. Because it is known that she left the regular Ukrainian army to join the volunteer battalion Aidar. So I do not see what is the problem that Russian troops also take leave and go to help the brothers in Ukraine.

    However, Ms. Savchenko has one big problem. If she had been released from the Russian prison now, she would not have anywhere to return because her Aidar battalion was disbanded by the Ukrainian authorities.

    Kiev Claims Is Disbanding Notorious Aidar Volunteer Battalion

    KIEV, March 2, (TASS) - Ukraine's Defense Ministry is disbanding an armed militia group blamed for abuse during recent months of regional conflict, said to be out of control and with a splinter faction planning unrest in the capital...
    The move follows the arrest of former Aidar battalion fighters said by Luhansk regional administration head Gennady Moskal to be preparing transfer of weapons from the Ukraine's restive Donbas region in a bid to promote social upheaval in Kiev.

    "Part of this unit long ago defected from Aidar and was engaged in looting, robbery, racketeering, auto theft and other crimes in regions controlled by the Ukrainian side," Moskal's website said.

    Moskal added that an attempt had been prevented to take an arsenal of weapons from the area of combat operations in Donbas to Kiev. The arms were meant for "destabilizing the situation" in the capital.

    Babeouf 12 May 2015 17:11

    So the opposition united to produce a monster /blockbuster report ,you say , well when there is a report I shall force myself to read it to see what evidence it actually contains. I seen no evidence open source or otherwise just assertions based on claims made by person or persons unknown. This battle over Russian troops is itself a proxy war between the supporters of the US and the rest of the world.

    MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 17:09

    What's truly outstanding is how lame you are and inept Kiev regime is. And quit blubbering gibberish. It simply kills me how low RFE standards sunk. You're trained very badly, klopets.

    nnedjo -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 16:28

    Gosh, you seem to have a lot of them--and you said all we had to do was just watch ONE
    I am talking here about a group of 10 soldiers who were captured by the Ukrainian Security Service last year.

    Yes, there are several of these videos, and from each of them, it is clear that the soldiers recite a prepared text directly into the camera.

    VladimirM -> SoloLoMejor 12 May 2015 16:28

    He is not, I think. But I did, actually, it is in Russian on the Dozhd website. I had an impression of reading some of the articles here in the Guardian but in Russian. Or even some posters, which is weird. The report is incoherent, includes many topics, just one chapter is about the Russian troops in Donbas. You may read anything here in the Guardian to get some idea of what the report is like. The article "Invisible army…" will do, I think. In my view, the report is utter rubbish and does not live up to expectations.

    nnedjo 12 May 2015 15:56

    As I saw in another article this report mentions the examination of Russian soldiers caught in Ukraine. We all remember this event in the summer of last year. Internet was flooded with videos with "examination" of Russian "prisoners of war" who were actually recited a prepared text that was placed somewhere in front of them and behind the camera. I think it was clear to everyone at the first viewing of the video.

    As an example, look at examination of the imprisoned soldier Alexei Generalov. This guy almost three minutes talking without interruption and without pauses, with a view strictly focused at one point, probably in some text that he reads somewhere on the left side of the camera. In one moment the examiner asks him something, and he looked at him, then to the right side of the camera.

    A particular problem is the fact that these soldiers were arrested somewhere near the border under very suspicious circumstances. According to the official Ukrainian version, that the soldiers also recited in the camera, they were caught about twenty kilometers inside the Ukrainian territory. However, it is very possible that they were in fact kidnapped by Ukrainian special forces on the Russian side of the border.
    You can say that this is my very bold assumption. But, one can easily notice that during examination these soldiers were very disoriented. I would not be surprised if this is the result of a drug that has been deliberately given to captives in order to weaken their will, but I still stand by my first assumption that they were kidnapped.
    For example, another captured soldier to the question of where he is, he replies: "I am now located in Ukraine, the city of Ukraine."

    Thus, it is clear that this soldier has no idea what his exact location, and that he is completely disoriented, although they examined him in a tent (ie in a tent in the "city of Ukraine"), which should be somewhere near the scene of his capture. Here you can watch, from 0:59 onwards of this video:

    Interrogation of Russian Soldier #3 Captured in Ukraine on August 25. English.

    henrihenri 12 May 2015 15:45

    `And he will NEVER risk an open confrontation with the West`.

    Oh, this is the main mistake. The Western politician think that Putin doesn`t attack Ukraine because he`s afraid of the NATO, West, etc. No, he doesn`t. He just grants the West with a good chanceopportunity to go home without shame. Why to fight Ukraine if it sooner or later crawls back? It will, it will due to many objective reasons. No, Putin won`t send troops there until Ukrainians ask him. Russia does not need any war.

    normankirk -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 15:45

    Poroshenko still wants the Donetsk airport. Why are they breaking the ceasefire to try and get it back off the anti-govt fighters?

    Madness to throw so many lives away

    Noes Vencia -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 15:41

    So 140 were given compensation to keep silence and 70 were not?!

    1) Given compensation to keep silence will work in a couple of instance, never in dozens!

    2) For sure it will never work, if then you don't give compensation to others.

    3) Lets do some math; if Ukraine have 200,000 troops of which some 2500 died, at that rate if there are 210 dead Russian soldiers send by Moscow, that means Russia has send 16,800 troops! Trust me, you cannot send 1000 soldiers anywhere without being highly noticeable, the logistics are immense! Let alone 17000!.

    4) What percentage does Kiev says of Russian troops are combating against? Because looking at the media seems that all are Russians. if so, that is a slap on the face to their own army that they cannot win an "army" of 12 times less soldiers with the same weaponry capabilities. If, however Russians are a small portion of the Revels, why 100% of focus on Russians so?

    Again, I do believe Russia has personnel in there, but limited to advising and intelligence gathering. I highly doubt there are troops fighting because 1st, they don't need it (enough supply with the residents) and 2nd it would not have got better outcomes for their own safety or economy.

    I feel sad that Ukrainians felt for antagonizing their biggest trading partner for the dream of UE. EU will not accept Ukraine in decades, enough we have with bankrupt tiny Greece, let alone 10 times bigger corrupted Ukraine. Nor will the French farmers will be happy with Ukrainian ones. Ukraine should had approached EU while maintained trade with Russia and assuring Russia that no NATO membership. That is what Finland choose even though of past severe confrontations with Russia; that pragmatism made of it a prosperous country.

    [May 12, 2015] Kerry set to meet Putin in first visit to Russia since start of Ukraine crisis

    The problem that West and first of all the USA and Germany face now is that Ukraine is another Greece. To keep it afloat financially requires tremendous and continues investment. 40 billions from IMF is only a start. Economic ties with Russia are destroyed. And without tens of billions of annual aid that means death sentence. Allowing it to fail with shake Western financial system and we do not know how many derivatives were written on Ukrainian debt and who holds them.
    .
    Looks like MentalToo was on duty for this article with support of usual gang. There was even some backlash against "Hillary bots", specifically against alphamysh.
    May 12, 2015 | The Guardian

    Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 11 May 2015 22:26

    By paying a price I clearly meant the very expensive support for Ukraine that EU has to provide, about 40 billion so far. The Ukraine's economy is down about 14% from just three years ago - this is going to get very, very expensive.

    If you want to compare Russia's and EU's losses due to sanctions, they have been very substantial for both. EU has so far lost about 10 billion in exports and in the long run it is not clear who will end up losing more. Russia's GNP will drop by 3% after years of high growth (more than double in 10 years). EU has been largely stagnant and many countries there are still below where they were in '09 (Italy, Spain, ...).

    Finally, militarily all that matters is who has local superiority. Russia has it in eastern Ukraine. You can squirm, hallucinate, cry all you want, there is no f...ing way that Nato can defeat Russia there.

    They know it, thus the coming deal.

    Dannycraig007 -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 21:34

    You would prefer I use the corrupt and obviously biased mainstream Western media as sources I assume, rather than first person video accounts from the victims themselves? Award winning war correspondent and Guardian journalist John Pilger has a few words for you. http://www.discussionist.com/101459708 This is a must watch video about how the Western media operate from a man who was once a part of the establishment here at the Guardian.

    Standupwoman -> Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 17:08

    Yep. I think my own Pollyanna moment is already beginning to seep away.

    But the stakes are so high! NATO's revival of the 'hotline' has unilaterally put us back on a Cold War footing, and at a time when the Doomsday clock is already set at 3 minutes to midnight. Putin has shown incredible restraint so far, but if the provocations don't stop then I'm genuinely worried about what might happen.

    Bosula -> samanthajsutton 11 May 2015 20:43

    Neither side is very open about what support it provides.

    Russia says openly it doesn't stop volunteers from Russia, often family, cross the border to fight with the East Ukrainians. They are also probably supplying weapons, but we don't really know. And no Russian troops have been captured despite the huge battles. To capture a Russian soldier in a fighting zone would be worth gold in terms of PR value.

    The Eastern Ukrainian are having difficulties training all their volunteers (just too many) with a million refugees, many based in camps in Russia, providing a fertile source of volunteers. The West provides no humanitarian help - a short sighted strategic decision, maybe?

    The US and their allies are also pretty secret about what support they provide - best estimates are around 1,500 advisers, trainers - and 'volunteers' fighting alongside privately funded far right militias and the Ukrainian army.

    The US are not really in a position to take the self- righteous moral high ground in a civil war tens of thousands of kilometres from their home.

    nnedjo -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:17

    What little influence US has on events in Ukraine is irrelevant.

    Because of this "little influence" the whole Ukrainian government has become irrelevant. You know, the fact that you do not see the strings that move their limbs does not mean that they are not puppets on the strings. And that guys from Washington hold the ends of the strings, that's probably clear to everyone after the cookies of Victoria Nuland. Or Toria, as poster Dipset called her.:-)))

    Funny guy that Dipset, wonder why he is not here yet.

    Standupwoman 11 May 2015 20:09

    'Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country'

    Are we really sure of this? Yes, Kiev has predictably denied Russian claims that American troops have been spotted in the Donbass, but the odd thing is that several pro-Kiev supporters have uploaded this footage of American training under the following description:

    In Severodonetsk, Luhansk region instructors from Georgia, Israel and the US carried out military exercises with the soldiers of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine

    Luhansk is in the ATO region - and Severodonetsk is very, very near to the front line.

    geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:05

    Irrelevant ...?

    Just the CIA advisers, military trainers, $billions of dollars, political cover, a propaganda machine.

    geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:59

    Not proper interviews, are they? Just clips of sentences without knowing the question that is being answered. They wrap narrative around the comment. Not one of those nine soldiers admits to fighting in Ukraine, and the claim of written evidence from NGOs is negated towards the end of the article with the caveat that 'Ukraine' wasn't actually mentioned in the NGO's documentary evidence.

    You're easily duped by propaganda.

    Standupwoman -> ID5868758 11 May 2015 19:50

    Understood. If governments had to actually fight the wars they started, the world would be a very different place...


    Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:35

    If your still doubtful about what the Kiev regime do to people who post unflattering information online, I present to you them demonstrating firsthand what happens when people step out of line. Graphic warning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXnNDbJ7r0k&feature=youtu.be

    geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:31

    "What about the guys in military uniforms with weapons, mortars, mines, grenades, anti-tank weapons..."

    What about them? They're defending themselves - the self-defence activists - after the Kiev regime sent tanks and aircraft to attack the protesters in what they called an Anti-Terror Operation as this example shows (see all four videos)..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27035196


    Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:30

    Your question answers itself, in that the Kiev Regime have been tracking down people who post videos on the internet and in social media that criticize the regime, hence the lack of video out of Slavyansk now.

    Watch this Ukrainian parliamentarian call for the genocide of Ukrainians of ethnic Russian origin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQ2CVz2Cyk

    Of course, there's also this tidbit from last summer.

    http://slavyangrad.org/2014/08/14/residents-of-slavyansk-have-disappeared-the-town-is-being-re-populated-with-migrants-from-western-ukraine/

    The Residents of Slavyansk have disappeared; the town is being re-populated with migrants from Western Ukraine.
    POSTED BY S. NAYLOR ⋅ AUGUST 14, 2014 ⋅ 27 COMMENTS
    In Slavyansk, occupied by Ukrainian troops, the local residents have practically disappeared. The town is being inundated with migrants speaking in a foreign dialect, who take over the housing of those who left to escape the Ukrainian bombing campaign.

    This is reported by one of very few residents of Slavyansk who, trusting Ukrainian official propaganda, made the decision to return to his native city. The picture that he saw is terrifying. He realized that the information about residents of Slavyansk returning home is nothing but a vile lie.

    "Please, heed our plea! The people have disappeared from Slavyansk!

    "I am a native of Slavyansk, residing here already for twenty-seven years. Or better to say 'I was residing', having left the town three months ago, when it was becoming dangerous to stay. During this time I found refuge with relatives in Odessa. I made a decision to return when all the Ukrainian media started saying that everything in Slavyansk was back to normal, that over sixty percent of residents have come back.

    "In the three months of my absence my apartment remained untouched by shells from the junta's bombardment or by its marauding thugs. I had already started to unpack when I heard the sound of my neighbour's doors opening across the hallway. I thought it must have been my neighbour, Sergey Ivanovich, but then I saw a young man unknown to me. To my question about his identity he replied that he was Sergey Ivanovich's son.


    geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:27

    Here's an example:

    Slaviansk: 10 self-defense activists and some 30 unarmed civilians killed

    http://rt.com/news/156584-right-sector-deaths-ukraine/

    Notice in the video some places look pretty deserted.


    nnedjo -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:25

    ... in Slavyansk since it was liberated by Ukrainian forces...
    You mean, liberated like Odessa:
    Occupation of Russian Hero-City Odessa 2014-2015 | Eng Subs
    ,or liberated like Kharkiv
    Kharkiv Welcomes May: Army Patrols, BTRs, Machine guns, etc

    And, speaking of Slavyansk , it is also interesting. In "liberated" Slavyansk it seems that nobody believes "liberators".

    Slavyansk residents trust Putin and not Poroshenko - Ukraine Hromadske TV March 2015


    Bosula -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:10

    Can you tell us how many people have been killed in Slayvansk?

    Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:06

    Here's another video for you that proves the Kiev regime are Nazis as it shows them marching through Kiev in uniform holding the Waffen SS Wolfsangel flag and was filmed by Poroshenkos very own Chanel 5 TV outlet.

    The rest of the hour and a half long video is a bloodbath showing them killing hundreds of innocent civilians. Get back to me after you've cleaned your conscience.

    Ukraine Crisis: Death and destruction continues in Eastern Ukraine / [ENG SUB]
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b10_1417842060#e1hSYTkJlw3TQgXs.99


    mlubiank -> ID5868758 11 May 2015 19:06

    Is Reuters good enough for you or is that all lies?
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/10/us-ukraine-crisis-soldiers-specialreport-idUSKBN0NV06Q20150510


    Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 18:57

    Investors, such as Franklin Templeton and George Soros' Foundation, who planned to make blood money and placed their bets off of the inside information right before the coup back in November 2013, have a combined $7 billion at stake in Ukraine.

    The IMF is trying to convince them to take a haircut on the massive amount and get put on the back burner for the time being, but Russia put it's $3 billion loan in strict terms back in 2012 and has payback priority.

    Those human flesh eating Western sharks want their money. This makes those 1%ers and their IMF vassals very upset as they didn't actually expect to lose money......they thought they were gonna double their billions with the rape of Ukraine. Now it's hard earned.


    Standupwoman ID5868758 11 May 2015 18:41

    I completely understand that. It's a very sensitive subject, and must be far more so for those with personal experience.

    Part of the problem is the difference between what we knew then and what we know now. At the time, as you say, we all thought My-Lai was a 'one-off' by a few bad apples, but now so much material has been declassified a very different picture has emerged.

    BUT there's still a world of difference between 'a lot' and 'all', and we must never allow those war crimes to taint the reputation of the good soldiers, or to belittle what they endured. It is indeed wrong to apply excessively broad brush-strokes, and I want to apologize to you personally, because I think in my post I was guilty of doing just that.


    SoloLoMejor -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:40

    Yep all good points and there's definitely some push back from Merkel and Hollande. I just don't think the US can relinquish control of our military or monetary systems as would happen if Europe developed independently and naturally became close to European Russia. This is a superpower making sure that it stays a superpower. That said, this is Europe & Russia, not the under developed middle East so they may not get it all their own way but 6000 lives so far is tolerable collateral damage for them


    Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 18:37

    There are 1,000 American, British, Polish and Canadian troops in Ukraine. Officially. Plus endless civilian advisors, agents, private security companies, etc...

    Maybe Russians have more people there, but it is after all on their border.

    "given control of Ukraine's border back to Ukraine, in contravention of the Minsk II agreement"

    No. The Minsk II specifically says that the border will be returned to Kiev control AFTER the Donbass area gets autonomy. Where is the "autonomy"? You can't cherry-pick from an agreement.

    If Nato steps over the line in Ukraine, as they are about to do, the nuclear option will be on the table. It is absolutely horrible, but that's where we are heading. Try to get your head out of your behind to understand what is going on there - it is playing with a huge fire on the border of a nuclear power that said they will not allow Nato missiles 400 km from Moscow. You want to test them?


    nnedjo -> Tattyana 11 May 2015 18:32

    I believe there is no need in any meetings for any further escalation as well.
    That's right, Tattyana, that's exactly what I said. My only criticism was related to Miss Marie Harf, who apparently recited a prepared statement, which aims only to reduce the importance of the visit of John Kerry to Russia.
    By the way, a true pleasure for me is to watch the exchange of opinions between US spokeswoman Marie Harf and her favorite "reporter", Matt Lee, at the State Department press conferences.
    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Marie+Harf+Matt+Lee

    Standupwoman -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:23

    Yes, that all makes good sense - but I still think personal integrity can have an (admittedly tiny) role to play. Carter is a case in point.

    I'm even (don't laugh!) inclined to extend that to Obama. Yes, he's technically responsible for this mess, and he must have supported Nuland and Pyatt in the original coup, but I still think things would be very much worse if either Biden or HRC had been at the helm.

    Obama (like Putin) has hawks screaming at him for being weak, but the fact he's holding out suggests there's a little shred of integrity still there.

    It's not much, but it's all we've got. Sometimes it feels as if the whole world is screaming for war, and in the centre is this little patch of stillness where two men are holding firm against the madness. If anything happens to either Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin then I think we really are sunk.

    geedeesee -> SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 18:22

    Yes, there clearly is a strategic plan being played out, though I don't think it has gone to plan for the Americans. The release of the Nuland/Hyatt phone call obviously came from Russian intelligence, which was an embarrassment for US. I suspect this is all a prelude to the coming clash for stakes in Arctic oil. There are a number of competing nations but US probably wants to minimise Russian access.

    However, there is a lot of strain within the EU at the moment, and we know the views of EU leaders were disregarded by Nuland last year ("Fvck the EU").

    It's possible the whole thing has gone far enough for EU leaders (see link below to comments identifying reasons) and they're pushing back on US behind the scenes to cool it down now.

    See the original post by Beckow and replies. Link direct to individual comment number:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/11/john-kerry-meet-russian-foreign-minister-talks--ukraine-syria-yemen#comment-51974992


    nnedjo 11 May 2015 18:04

    Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country, well away from the conflict zone, Russia has questioned their purpose.

    So I do not see how it could be otherwise. Had the US sent their "trainers" in the conflict zone in the east of Ukraine, it is possible that in that case Russia would not complain at all.

    In that case, Russia would also send their "trainers" who would soon be found "in the west of the country [Ukraine], well away from the conflict zone".:-)))


    normankirk -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 18:04

    and the German gold still locked up in US vaults


    Popeyes 11 May 2015 17:53

    Once again on Saturday Putin completely outclassed the West, and the decision by Western leaders to stay away in the end showed their total irrelevance.

    Closer ties between China and Russia is Washington's worst nightmare, and a very different new World Order is emerging from the rubble of the post-Cold War period. Today Russia proposed that Greece become the 6th member of a new Development Bank set up by the BRINCS, and with some European leaders desperate to end sanctions things are not going as planned for the empire.


    Dannycraig007 -> Bradtweeters 11 May 2015 17:52

    Oh, I'm an 'authentic' Guardian reader alright. i'm on my 20th account after being constantly banned this past year for posting the truth about Ukraine. And when they bane me again I'll be right back. True Brits don't give up so easily.


    ID5868758 -> Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 17:51

    Well, it's printed in English only, given away free in places like the Metro and coffee houses, so it's not like it's the Russian equivalent of the New York Times, to begin with. My son says it's read mostly by ex-pats in Russia, tourists, that kind of audience, it's certainly not anything that Russians read on a regular basis.

    ID5868758 -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:45

    Good grief, what fiction. Vladimir Putin's only problem is that he is not Boris Yeltsin, opening the door to the international banks and the multinational corporations to continue their rape of the assets and resources of the Russian people. He is slowly but surely returning Russia to Russians. Contrast that to Ukraine, going in the opposite direction, with the privatization of the assets and resources of the people just beginning, and the predators like Monsanto, Cargill, Chevron, banging at the gate.

    normankirk -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:44

    Oh I know! its his nature! He can't help it! And vindictively, at home, he's raised the standard of living and life expectancy! the bastard, only a lunatic would do so.And when he walks among the people he's forcing them ... at gunpoint!.... to put on forced smiles you can tell by looking. he.s a maniac! getting Assad to give up his chemical stores! crazy!


    Kaiama -> BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 17:43

    There was some indication that the ships could not be sold without the explicit permission of the Russians - probably because they provided the middle part of the hull and if they were feeling bad have the right to ask for it to be cut out and given back to them.


    nnedjo 11 May 2015 17:42

    "This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement.

    I do not see what it was unclear so far in the views of the State Department at the Ukrainian crisis. I mean, if John Kerry is going to Sochi to repeat the usual accusations against Russia, which US officials have said so far, then there's really no need for him to go to Russia only because of this, nor Putin is interested to hear it one more time.
    Thus, rather it will be some other reason behind this visit, about which we can now only guess. And none of us is so naive to believe that the Ukrainian crisis can be resolved without direct negotiations between the United States and Russia. So, either to make a deal, or to enter a further escalation of the military conflict.
    I am inclined to believe that the latter, less predictable solution, is not in anyone's interest.


    Kaiama -> Metronome151 11 May 2015 17:41

    Maybe, but if the US did cut Russia off of SWIFT for instance, the Russians have already said that they would regard it as a declaration of "war". The US might start it but the Russians will definitely finish it.


    MichaPalkin -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:40

    It finally happened: A REAL nutjob.

    Now why don't you put your money where you mouth is, you pos and go join the fight against Putin yourself um?.. See? Told ya.


    geedeesee -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:31

    On the glimmer of hope, I think you maybe right, though its early days. History books on 20th century show that when there's been a stand-off for sometime an intermediary, or unofficial envoy, is often sent to explore the basis for talks. And the history books also show confidence-building measures are used, such as making an announcement via the media acknowledging part of the grievance of the other side which can use for domestic purposes.

    This happened with the IRA talks, for example, both in 1970s and 1990s. Last week Jimmy Carter visited Putin in Moscow, not on its own remarkable, but what suggested this wasn't an initiative of his own volition was the interview he gave to Voice of America (official US Gov. channel) immediately after the meeting in Moscow - indicating they'd travelled with him.

    The narrative is for the press and the accompanying 45 second video of Carter saying all the right things for the Russians can be used by Russian TV/media in news reports.

    Narrative:
    http://www.voanews.com/content/carter-pleased-with-russia-embrace-of-minsk-agreement/2743389.html

    45 second Carter video:
    http://www.voanews.com/media/video/2743506.html

    You'll be disappointed if you look for integrity with the players at this level, because it doesn't exist. They have their plans and self-interests; integrity doesn't come into it.


    Dannycraig007 -> dmitryfrommoscow 11 May 2015 17:30

    The Moscow Times is actually operated out of Scandinavia and their readership has been dropping due to the obvious anti-Russian propaganda.


    ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:27

    Well, My-Lai was, of course, just a horrific example of evil behavior on the part of a few of our troops, but Kerry came home and, without personal knowledge, painted the entire military with the same broad brush, made up stories, and just so disgraced himself with this nation that he would never have won a Senate seat if he had not run in Massachusetts.

    I still to this day cannot listen to him speak for more than a few minutes at a time, his betrayal of the men who were fighting and dying in the hellhole that was Vietnam will stay with me forever.


    dmitryfrommoscow -> Havingalavrov 11 May 2015 17:26

    The Moscow Times is one of those pro-Washington mouthpieces which, according to the claims by Putin's critics, have been ruthlessly wiped out of the scene.


    SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 17:15

    I saw the Merkel Putin press conference in full. Merkel fully acknowledged and apologised for the horrors inflicted on the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, and quite rightly.

    When asked specifically about what she still blamed Russia for with respect to Minsk she became a lot less clear and rambling and very non specific. I couldn't make out what her beef was although I really wanted to know.

    She's going to need some very clear reasons to reinstate EU sanctions on Russia and the phrase Shaun Walker regurgitates in virtually every piece he writes, "mounting evidence" of Russian involvement (but without producing any) won't be enough this time round.


    MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 11 May 2015 17:15

    l though I find your comments stupid, and what is absolutely amazing is that guests such as you have had zero effect on anything.

    Some fascist parties did once praise you and still do, ahem, "purely for the funding you was willing to give". Some grammar problems here eh.

    But this has had no effect on nothing, or the policy of the EU in general.

    One does not even see you loonies demonstrating in the street, shouting "hail" to Poro & Co."

    Poro's only real "western" base of support comes from RFE and probably Guardian. Even Americans begin having their reservations now.

    Period

    Indeed, we may well have all your clownish incompetence to thank for your highly unsuccessful trolling.

    OK, klopets?


    John Smith -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 17:06

    You can forget about Crimea.

    Nothing will come out from this talks because the US will not let off their 'great prize'
    as the NED head called it. Unfortunately for Ukrainians.

    ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:31

    Standupwoman, I rarely disagree with you, but as an American who lived through Vietnam as the wife of a Marine Corps officer, and the sister of a brother in country as a cryptologist, may I just tell you that John Kerry's actions in front of Congress were not seen by most as heroic at all, not borne of courage and integrity, especially since he had spent only a very short time in country, and had awarded himself 2 or 3 purple hearts, but strangely enough, has no scars of those wounds remaining today. He lied, it was a performance that caused much of America to shun him even today, and that's the truth.

    Igor1980 -> GoodOldBoy1967 11 May 2015 16:29

    I am in Sochi now, a navy ship is patrolling the area of the Residence and many police cars can be seen. It is not surprising . I was surprised by the number of cars with Ukrainian license plates. The hosts say that many Ukrainian citizens moved to the area on the coast with their money.


    Standupwoman -> cabaret1993 11 May 2015 16:22

    I agree. If this were HRC rather than Kerry I'd think we were doomed. Do you remember her hilariously rabble-rousing claim that Putin had no soul - 'He's KGB, it's a given!' - and Putin's dry response? That woman ought never to have been allowed within a hundred miles of foreign affairs, and if she ever becomes President then it'll be time to start stocking up on the potassium iodide...


    Igor1980 -> Beckow 11 May 2015 16:12

    Great and sober analysis. The reality is harsh for both parties and very painful for the USA: the people in the West are not ready to die for the cause of the American dominance.

    It is easy to hate Putin, it is difficult to sacrifice your lives in a war to punish Russia for a little border change in the most unpleasant part of Eastern Europe.


    MaoChengJi -> DogsLivesMatter 11 May 2015 16:11

    state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement

    That's just standard bs. What do you expect them to say.


    Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:06

    Maybe I'm having a Pollyanna moment, but I wonder if there isn't just the littlest, tiniest glimmer of hope in this. The fact the US is prepared to talk to Russia on its own ground is definitely a step in the right direction, and the fact it's John Kerry is even better.

    Because Kerry was once an honest man. Back in 1971 he testified to Congress about American war crimes in Vietnam, and showed the kind of courage and integrity it's almost impossible to mention in the same sentence as 'politician'. He talked openly about the everyday reality of rapes, torture, desecration of the dead, and killing civilians for fun – the American toolbox we're all familiar with in Afghanistan and Iraq, but which in 1971 was genuinely shocking news. Nationalists hated him, but I think he showed genuine American patriotism when he explained: 'We feel that because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it - not the Reds, not redcoats, but the crimes which we're committing are what threaten it – and we have to speak out.'

    OK, he's a politician now, and his words have frequently been used against him to show the hypocrisy of his support for America's current wars, but deep down he's still in some way the same man he was then. He and Lavrov certainly used to have a good relationship until he made that unbelievably stupid remark about Russians 'lying to his face'.

    That kind of populist rudeness plays well with the 'Murica, F*ck yeah!' mob, but grown-up countries tend to choose a calmer, more courteous approach when it comes to negotiations which could lead to the threat of nuclear war. Kerry will need to apologize for that (even if only in private) if he hopes to get in the same room as President Putin.

    But maybe he will. Maybe he'll even confound the words of that Psaki-Manqué Harf and actually listen as well as talk. If he does, and if there's any integrity left in him, then maybe, just maybe, there'll really be a chance of peace.


    PlatonKuzin -> oleteo 11 May 2015 16:03

    The Ukies think that the US and EU do them gifts for granted. And they were very suprised as they knew that, for example, in Poland, an organization named "Restitution of Kresy" was established that in the nearest future will expropriate, from Ukraine, the property belonging to the Poles.

    And more than 100,000 such Poles are now ready to start proceedings to return their property from there.


    Dannycraig007 -> PlatonKuzin 11 May 2015 15:57

    Agreed on the 50,000. I am just citing the US/MSM 'official' number. I have been keeping up with the real numbers also. Petri Krohn has done a great job establishing a proper count of the dead form various events and battles. The majority of those 50,000 dead are Ukrainian conscripts and Kievs Baghdad Bob intentionally played the numbers way down in order to not have to pay dead soldiers families and hide the truth of the war, which the US and EU media simply parroted with no investigation whatsoever. Here's a link to the numbers:

    http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Ukraine_war_casualties

    His site is an amazing geo-political resource. Lots of really interesting MH-17 material there too. http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Special:AllPages


    greatwhitehunter -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 15:55

    The US could have prevented all this by keeping there nose out of Ukraine . In the words of Obama we brokered the change of government in Ukraine.

    Now their are 6000 plus people dead . east of Ukraine destroyed, Crimea gone never to return.

    Only the US could imagine you could get away with this.\


    Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:54

    Hmmm...don't fool yourself, he meant the Maidan crowd in Kiev. The problem Kiev government has is that as economy gets worse, the large cities like Kharkov, Odessa, etc... will become ungovernable. Except through brute force.

    How do you "join EU" if you have to be suppressing large portion of your population? I am sure EU would love to look the other way, but the cognitive dissonance might get too much, with YouTube, refugees, etc...


    Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 15:52

    Kerry will offer to swap Ukraine for Assad's head + no S300 missiles to Iran + sanction relief.

    Putin and Lavrov will tell Kerry to stick the offer where the sun don't shine and then it's back to square one.

    Obumbler won't be involved, he's too busy on the golf course, watching the NBA playoffs, and making hollow speeches filled with platitudes about race issues and police violence.

    Meanwhile back in the increasingly irrelevant Euroweenie land, the NSA-compromised Frau Merckel has a desk and a phone and will do as told by her masters

    Dannycraig007 -> DIPSET 11 May 2015 15:47

    I'd still like to see what those US spy satellites saw the day MH-17 was shot down. They first said they had proof Russia did it, then they went quiet, then they relied on social media BS, then they said they had a drunk Ukrainian that made a confession that the rebel put on Ukrainain uniforms, then they stayed quiet. All the while they had ships in the Black Sea monitoring that airspace and they had AWACS flying over Europe.

    They obviously know what really happened but they have chosen no to show that 'evidence'....there can only be one reason.......because it implicates the Kiev regime...and thereby....themselves.


    geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 15:42

    "...the army of Ukraine is not at war with "protesters"."

    Yes they are, they called it an Anti-Terror Operation and not war against an army. The facts are against you. Hard luck. ;-)


    Dannycraig007 -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 15:40

    Many people have no idea that Merkels father was in the Hitler youth. Sad but true fact. Hence, maybe that partly explains her allegiance to Ukraine.

    Horst Kasner
    Biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Kasner
    Kasner was born as Horst Kaźmierczak in 1926, the son of a policeman in the Pankow suburb of Berlin, where he was brought up. His father Ludwig Kaźmierczak (born 1896 in Posen, German Empire) - died 1959 in Berlin) was born out of wedlock to Anna Kazmierczak and Ludwik Wojciechowski.[1] Ludwig was mobilised into the German army in 1915 and sent to France, where he was taken prisoner of war and joined the Polish Haller's Army fighting on the side of Entente.[2] Together with the army he returned to Poland to fight in Polish-Ukrainian war and Polish-Soviet war.[3] After Posen had become part of Poland, Ludwig moved with his wife in 1923 to Berlin, where he served as a policeman, and changed his family name to Kasner in 1930.

    Little is known about Horst Kasner's wartime service, and he was held as a prisoner of war at the age of 19. During his high school years he was a member of the Hitler Youth, with the last service position of a troop leader.[citation needed] From 1948 he studied theology, first in Heidelberg then in Hamburg. He married Herlind Jentzsch, an English and Latin teacher, born on 8 July 1928 in Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) as the daughter of Danzig politician Willi Jentzsch, and their daughter Angela was born in 1954.

    PlatonKuzin -> Kaiama 11 May 2015 15:38

    There is another side of this medal: Novorussia said that, if Ukraine violates the ceasefire one more time, the Army of Novorussia will make no stops any longer and will free Kiev.


    Beckow -> MichaPalkin 11 May 2015 15:35

    Threats are simply a part of making deals. When one threatens, there is an implicit understanding of what the alternatives are. It is how countries negotiate.

    Look at it from Russia's point of view: they prefer to deal with useless twats. Putin has been smart to keep all his threats, options and deals to himself. He speaks very diplomatically and applies pressure on the ground. There is a Russian saying: "let the punishment tell" - that's what Russia is doing and it drives the likes of Kerry crazy.

    Unless US escalates into a nuclear confrontation, Russia has the upper hand in the long run. That was obvious from the beginning. So the question is why did Peace Price Winner do this? Why did he start? Is he and people around him that stupid or that desperate? I hope, it is just stupidity.

    "Poro & Co would be applying for the political asylum in the US" - that's going to happen anyway, but I think Canada will take the bulk of them...


    Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:24

    Let's be clear: Kerry is flying in with a proposal to review with Lavrov. If Russia accepts, Kerry will meet Putin. If not, we will know that sh..t is about to escalate - on both sides.

    Regarding "military involvement": both sides are heavily militarily involved with arms, training, "advisors" of all kinds, intelligence, logistics. And both sides downplay it ("lie", if you prefer). Why is that even an issue? Or "news"?

    It is infantile to discuss it. In a war there is always "military involvement". And this is a war, has been for about a year, this is the way wars are fought now (see Syria, Libya, etc...).

    And yes, of course Putin can change weather. Anyone with enough nukes can.


    BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 15:15

    Looks like India's participation in the Moscow parade is also paralleled by the cutting of 80% of the French fighter order (remembering that the govt. in New Delhi stated several months ago that its confidence in France as a supplier would be related to its vulnerability to political pressuring vis a vis the RU ships that will end-up being scrapped or bought by by a third party, and it might be that said party, if also participating in said parade, might sell in turn to RU for a 'cut'). IDK if this is related, big new orders from India for SU's:

    https://www.ibcworldnews.com/2015/04/20/why-the-brahmos-armed-sukhoi-is-bad-news-for-indias-enemies/

    These cannot be made in Russia, in any event, as Russia is entirely isolated.


    Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 15:09

    The US has really hurt itself with the WW2 remembrance ceremony snub. Russia won't be soon forgetting what the US has been doing in Ukraine and Europe either. After all the 7,000 people killed by the Kiev regime that came to power through the US backed coup were all ethnic Russian Ukrainian civilians. So many lives could have been saved if only the US would have allowed federalization of the obviously ethnically diverse regions of the country.

    For those that missed it, here's link to the amazing WW2 Red Square commemoration concert. It truly was a sight to behold.

    Absolutely Stunning! The Entire Russian "Road To Victory" Concert Spectacle -2015 Epic Masterpiece Rivals Olympic Ceremonies
    Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9c1_1431271822#esjFeSXyZqIlzoY8.99


    SonnyTuckson 11 May 2015 14:15

    Turn Ukraine into a federation. Of a rich pro western part that is member of the EU and a poor pro Russian part that is member of the Eurasian Union.

    In ten years time the East Ukrainians will have had enough of their Russian propaganda-ridden life without a decent standard of living. We will then have another Euromaidan, but this time in Donbass.

    History always discloses propaganda lies. In the end the people of Donbass will understand they have been used by Russia for its geopolitical games. And chose for a prosperous future in Europe as well.


    Beckow -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 14:14

    Yes, there are huge problems.

    But if US accepts a de facto defeat in Ukraine, they are done in many other places too. My guess is that they will try to weasel out of it by offering a deal to Russia:

    - US backs down, Kiev goes back in the box (over time), things quiet down, BUT no victory speeches or remarks by Russia. US has to be able to maintain that they "won".

    It is a disease for insecure people. They fear being seen as losers more than anything else. Thus we might still see the fire-works if Russia refuses to oblige.


    vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:09

    "Unfairly blaming Russia for the crisis in Ukraine, which was actually in the main provoked by the US itself, Obama's administration in 2014 went down the road of ruining bilateral links, announced a policy of 'isolating' our country on the international stage, and demanded support for its confrontational steps from the countries that traditionally follow Washington."

    Why does the press want us feel so amazed about this quote? What part of it isn't true?

    1. US did and does blame Russia for crisis in Ukraine.
    2. US did provoke the crisis.
    3. US did go down the road of ruining bilateral links.
    4. It did announced a policy of "isolation."
    5. And it did demand support for its steps from other countries in Europe.

    Putin actually appears to be a straight talker.


    vr13vr -> caliento 11 May 2015 14:05

    "The first question asked should be... "

    Kerry doesn't get to ask questions as if he were running a deposition. He can talk politely and be nice. Outside of the US police TV show and court drama, nobody in the world allows anyone to speak like this, especially in the diplomatic talks with Russia.


    vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:03

    "Russia believes that the US is meddling in Ukraine..."

    No, it's not just Russia believes. It is a fact. And everyone knows it, not just Russia.


    geedeesee -> Beckow 11 May 2015 13:46

    Add to your list:

    EU unity under considerable strain. Divisive issues on it's plate include Greece and Grexit, UK referendum and possible Brexit, UK Human rights exit, unresolved Eurozone crisis, migrant quotas, all made worse by further US spying revelations and German betrayal of EU businesses to the benefit of US companies.

    Putin now supporting/funding anti-EU parties in Europe.

    MH17 report and voice recorder info, clearly delayed for political reasons, is due this summer.

    Obama administration needs cooperation at UNSC on Iran nuclear deal.

    Putin supplying arms to Iran is giving Obama more problems from Netanyahu.

    If Obama has plans for a last attempt at cracking Israel/palestine then he'll need as much international support as he can muster.

    Russia opening spying and military bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.


    BunglyPete 11 May 2015 13:46

    Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war,

    That suggests that it is equivalent to the RFE/RL campaigns of the Cold War.

    The reports they produced in 1984 relating to showing the Ukrainian nationalists in a good light were described by Richard Pipes as "blatant anti-semitic propaganda". Not my words, the words of Richard Pipes.

    These same reports are reprinted today in the Guardian and if you disagree you are a "Putin propagandist". Even though Richard Pipes agrees that it is distasteful propaganda.

    Other activities involved sending millions of balloons across eastern Europe, campaigns in the US to ask for "Truth Dollars" to fund said balloon campaigns, leaflets pretending to come from a fictional resistance organisation intended to militarise citizens against their governments, and much much more. There are many books and articles on the subject.

    Senator Royce said in May 2014, in an instruction to Victoria Nuland at a senate subcommitee hearing, he wants them "producing the stuff they did years ago". Indeed they granted more money than they did during the cold war to BBG campaigns.

    In comparison to the rather pathetic RT, the US campaigns are far more serious in scope and effects.


    madeiranlotuseater 11 May 2015 13:27

    and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement

    In other words, do as the USA says or we shall continue to hound you.

    "Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war," Kerry said in February. "And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations, lies, whatever you want to call them, about their activities to my face, to the face of others, on many different occasions."

    There speaks the nation that admits to being involved in forcing regime changes all over the world since 1947. To arm twisting and invading Iraq on the basis of a known lie. If Mr Kerry believes he has been lied to he should present his evidence. We can all relax then. But he doesn't. He says to trust him to tell the truth. Why should we. The USA is a massive war machine intent on ruling the world. China and Russia are not interested in being bullied.


    Beckow -> deathbydemocracy 11 May 2015 12:53

    I see that even indirect criticism of the media coverage is not allowed. Interesting, but somehow understandable.


    DIPSET 11 May 2015 12:31

    First when they thought they thought they were "winning" they did not want to talk and instead, instructed their media to do the talking for them.

    Okay.

    Then reality happened hahaha

    As a consequence, we now have all sorts of chatter coming out of Washington and the urgent need to talk to Russia. So now it's......

    Let's "talk" about East Ukraine
    Let's "talk about Iraq
    Let's "talk" about Syria
    Let's "talk" about Yemen
    Let's "talk about Iran
    Lets "talk" about Latin America

    Funny how seeing China and Russia stand next to each other has sharpened some minds across the Atlantic.

    Pity they could not "talk" before Crimea was 'liberated' right in front of the American satellites circling in space lol

    ;-)

    Fascinating times


    Ilja NB 11 May 2015 12:28

    Which mounting evidence ??? I haven't seen a single one provided ?

    **The Russian foreign ministry said: "We continue to underline that we are ready for cooperation with the US on the basis of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and that Russian interests are taken into account without attempting to exert pressure on us."**

    Of-course USA will never agree with it, since USA wants to put it's nose in everyone's affairs.


    BMWAlbert -> BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:55

    Mr. Semenchenko is clearly referring to Greater Ukraine here that extends east into the Kuban, including some buffer areas around the mount Elbrus region (intruded upon on this 2008 occasion) to the south, and north to the Middle Don and Upper Donets basins, to include Beograd and steppe lands east of Voronezh.

    Beckow -> miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:40

    Kerry is going to make a deal. Probably surrender after one more chest-beating threat. If Putin doesn't meet him (also possible), we will have a very hot summer in Ukraine. And maybe elsewhere.

    Beckow 11 May 2015 11:34

    Kerry is going for a reason, and it is not to restate US views. The reality is:

    • - Ukraine cannot win the war in its east
    • - Ukraine is going bankrupt
    • - EU has just basically said no to Ukraine in EU for foreseeable future (decades?)
    • - EU denied visa-free access for Ukrainians
    • - the whole f...ing adventure in Kiev is getting really, really expensive
    • - time is on Russia's side, they can sit and watch Kiev collapse or West spending billions to prop it up
    • - EU cannot currently survive without Russia's gas. Russia has deals with China and Turkey, in 3 years EU will be screwed or pay a lot, lot more

    These realities on the ground drive US crazy. They don't like to deal with reality, it is too hard. They prefer the fantasy play world where US is god-like, others are scared and geography, resources and other realities are wished away. Infantile. Stupid. Self-defeating. Russia is actually doing US a favor by bringing them back to the real word.

    I feel sorry for the Ukrainians; they will suffer for years enormously. They rebelled against a miserable life, were used by a few hustlers from Washington, Berlin and a few Polish ultra-nationalists, now they will pay for it all. Those are the wages of naivete...

    emb27516 miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:32

    Yes, especially if they wrestle.

    BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:32

    "Mr Putin, look at these images provided to our Senator Inhofe, from Mr Semenchenko of Ukraine's official government designation to Washington.

    As you can see, these images from Georgia in 2008 clearly show you invaded Ukraine last year. We feel these images prove the invasion so strongly, Senator Inhofe wrote a bill authorising arms to Ukraine, and we passed this quite easily.

    What, Mr Putin, will you do about this? If you continue to send tanks to Georgia in 2008 then we will assume you have no interest in fulfilling the terms of Minsk accord and will enact necessary measures to ensure the stability of Ukraine."

    alsojusticeseeker Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:27

    "He may be a son of a b..., but he is our son of a b...". Just another typical example of US hypocrisy.

    BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 11:25

    If only his brain were as big as his hair (obviously, not the bald one).

    warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:25

    "Western leaders mainly boycotted the parade in protest at Russia's actions in Ukraine."

    Aka people's will in Crimea, and Russian people's will to help Donbass, they are not exactly hiding it there are donation kiosks all over the country almost in every major city. Not on government level though. There are no on duty Russian troops in Ukraine.

    RudolphS 11 May 2015 11:24

    So, Barry is too chickenshit to go to Russia himself?

    Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:19

    Americans should be asking why their government is supporting a Ukrainian governmnet which honours veterans of an insurgency which massacred Poles, Jews and Russians across Ukraine in 1943 and 1944.

    Here they are, members of the UPA-OUN. Rehabilitated by Poroshenko's governmnet. It was an organisation which formed the Nachtigall Battalion, in German service, and tasked with clearing the Lvov ghetto, and which took men from SS auxiliaries (Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201), which cleared Belarus of partisans and Jews.

    Most notoriously, the UPA ran a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Poles in Ukraine, killing some 100,000 of them (mostly women and children).

    So there are the veterans, in Ukraine's parliament. Here's a history of one of their massacres.

    America, you should know.

    Steve Ennever 11 May 2015 11:15

    "The US has placed several rounds of sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine"

    It has indeed. And badgered Europe into sanctioning Russia further. All of which has affected the US little but has been an immense pain economically for it's "allies."
    Strangely though, in 2014, business between the US & Russia actually increased by 7%.

    Honestly, you get taken for a ride as recently as Iraq & Libya & you still don't learn a thing.

    StatusFoe11 May 2015 11:08

    "This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed,"

    i.e. "If you don't do what we say and submit to our will there'll be more costs."

    warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:00

    "While Washington has pointed to mounting evidence of Russian military involvement in the east of the country."

    Yet unable to provide any concrete evidence for over a year...

    [May 12, 2015] Merkel-Ferkel yesterday in the Kremlin

    Quote: Thanks for the hour of duelling histories. Made me realise what a great agitprop resource history is for those who would like to "shape" current narratives.
    You have the white-hat / bad-hat lust for an – ideally, ego-stroking – answer multiplied by the my-eyes-glaze-over factor. Result: maximum impact.
    Best, this can all be deployed while seeming judicious and balanced to those not checking "facts-not-mentioned."
    Moscow Exile , May 11, 2015 at 3:02 am

    Merkel-Ferkel yesterday in the Kremlin:

    I have arrived in Moscow today during a difficult situation for German-Russian relations. It was important for me, together with President Putin, on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of world war II to honour those who died. I have laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and thus I want to say to the Russian people, that I, as German Chancellor, kneel in front of the millions of victims of a war that was unleashed by Nazi Germany. We shall be constantly aware of the fact that the share of the peoples of the former Soviet Union and Red Army soldiers accounted for the majority of casualties in that war. I remind you that the war in the East was carried out as a brutal race war and a war of extermination, and that it brought untold suffering to millions of people.

    The occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end WWII is on August 15, 2015.

    The occasion of the 70th anniversary of the end of the German-Soviet War was on the day before her arrival in Moscow.

    She could not be in Moscow on 9 May because she had been told not to attend the celebrations.

    Putin should have said to his "partner": Fick dich, Arschloch!
    :-(

    Tim Owen says:

    May 11, 2015 at 3:49 am

    Stalin offered in 1939 to send 1 mln troops to stop Hitler if Britain, France agreed to anti-Nazi pact; they refused http://t.co/46cwbt0x7y

    - exiledonline.com (@exiledonline) May 10, 2015

    "Papers which were kept secret for almost 70 years show that the Soviet Union proposed sending a powerful military force in an effort to entice Britain and France into an anti-Nazi alliance.

    Such an agreement could have changed the course of 20th century history, preventing Hitler's pact with Stalin which gave him free rein to go to war with Germany's other neighbours."

    Pavlo Svolochenko, May 11, 2015 at 4:01 am

    A forlorn hope, since the Ango-French idea of an alliance was that the USSR would do the fighting while the western allies made sympathetic noises and gathered up the spoils afterward.

    Tim Owen, May 11, 2015 at 5:16 am

    Get a load of this: The Body Language of a Liar http://t.co/mtHCnFCNu3

    - Joel Harding (@Joel_Harding) May 11, 2015

    Erika, May 11, 2015 at 6:47 am

    What countries signed treaties with Hitler but they only tell you about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? #Victory70 … Héctor A. on Twitter What countries signed treaties with Hitler but they only tell you about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

    - Héctor A. (@GrinchEtor) May 6, 2015

    marknesop, May 11, 2015 at 9:59 am

    That's a pretty good rundown. A handy list to keep for reference.

    Tim Owen, May 11, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    "Sympathetic noises" is a great phrase. An emotional gesture without any underlying meaning or commitment. It therefore also has a charge of implied violence to it.

    I admire your cynicism.

    Warren, May 11, 2015 at 5:20 am

    Listen to Michael Parenti's lecture on the real causes of WW2:

    http://noliesradio.org/archives/32286

    Warren, May 11, 2015 at 7:56 am

    If you want the official Western version on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact listen to this:

    As Putin defends the Nazi-Soviet pact, here's our podcast interview on "The Devils' Alliance" http://t.co/EesRFkuQQr Matt Lewis on Twitter As Putin defends the Nazi-Soviet pact, here's our podcast interview on The Devils' Alliance http--t. (pic.twitter.com/Q32RMOfl4I)

    - Matt Lewis (@mattklewis) May 11, 2015

    cartman , May 11, 2015 at 9:28 am

    I see the UK is on the list above, making a "Devils' Alliance"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_potato_(game)

    Moscow Exile, May 11, 2015 at 9:49 am

    The UK made that Naval Treaty with Nazi Germany behind of France's back. The Frogs were none too pleased at the time.

    Max, May 11, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    prima facia nonsense because Stalingrad.

    Tim Owen, May 11, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    Thanks for the hour of duelling histories. Made me realise what a great agitprop resource history is for those who would like to "shape" current narratives.

    You have the white-hat / bad-hat lust for an – ideally, ego-stroking – answer multiplied by the my-eyes-glaze-over factor. Result: maximum impact.

    Best, this can all be deployed while seeming judicious and balanced to those not checking "facts-not-mentioned."

    Warren, May 11, 2015 at 7:49 am

    Neocon Writer Anne Applebaum Covers up the Role West Played in Looting Russia http://t.co/6ekZbQFkdm #ColdWar pic.twitter.com/V4akXBUeIE

    - Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) May 11, 2015

    astabada, May 11, 2015 at 8:46 pm

    Has an American or British political dissident, opposed to the policies of his own government, ever won a Nobel Prize?

    I don't know whether you can consider Pintor a political dissident. However he certainly did not approve the policies of his own government, as clearly stated in his beautiful Nobel Prize lecture.

    The trick there was the usual one, namely not to silence dissent but to drown it in noise.

    marknesop , May 11, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    Great find; I had never heard of Harold Pinter – shows what an uncultured Philistine I am. The lecture is indeed a thing of beauty, and one paragraph of it may be perfect for my next post, which is in the works. Thanks!!

    [May 12, 2015] GOP antics may lead to a 'de-Americanized world'

    10/15/13 | MSNBC

    When there's a global economic crisis, investors from around the world have spent the last several generations doing one thing: they buy U.S. treasuries. The reasoning, of course, is that there is no safer investment, anywhere on the planet, than the United States of America – which has the strongest and largest economy on the planet, and which always pays its bills.

    All of these assumptions, of course, were cultivated over generations, and pre-date the radicalization of the Republican Party.

    But what happens when U.S. treasuries are no longer considered safe, Americans can no longer be counted on to pay its bills, and the nation's most powerful economy chooses to default on purpose? The world starts reevaluating old assumptions, that's what.

    In Britain, Jon Cunliffe, who will become deputy governor of the Bank of England next month, told members of Parliament that banks should be developing contingency plans to deal with an American default if one happens.

    And Chinese leaders called on a "befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world." In a commentary on Sunday, the state-run Chinese news agency Xinhua blamed "cyclical stagnation in Washington" for leaving the dollar-based assets of many nations in jeopardy. It said the "international community is highly agonized."

    I know I've been pushing this thesis in recent weeks, but it's important to remember the unique role the United States plays in global leadership and the extent to which Republican antics in Congress will change the dynamic that's been stable for the better part of the last century.

    No major western power has defaulted since Hitler's Germany, so this week may add some history to the potentially catastrophic economic consequences, and the world is watching closely.

    Indeed, try to imagine explaining this ongoing crisis to a foreign observer who doesn't fully appreciate the nuances of domestic politics. "Yes, we have the largest economy on the planet. Yes, we want to maintain global credibility. Yes, the process of extending our borrowing authority is incredibly easy and could be completed in about 10 minutes. No, some members of our legislative branch have decided they no longer want the United States to honor its obligations and pay for the things they've already bought."

    I suspect global observers would find this truly inexplicable. As it happens, I'd agree with them.

    Ezra Klein added yesterday that to the rest of the world, "the United States looks insane right now."

    They're dealing with real problems that their political systems are struggling to solve. The United States' political system is creating fake problems that it may choose to leave unsolved.

    "The United States was the one bright spot in the world recovery," says OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria. "It was leading the recovery! Leading the creation of jobs! This unfortunate situation with the budget and debt happens at the moment it was looking good." […]

    At best, the United States is slowing its recovery – and that of the rest of the world. At worst, it's going to trigger another global crisis. That's why, Gurria says, his concern isn't that the United States' economy is weak, but that its political system is.

    It's heartbreaking that so much of the world is now laughing at us, not because we have crises we can't solve, but because members of one party – the one that lost the most recent national elections – insist on manufacturing new crises to advance their unpopular agenda.

    To reiterate what we discussed last week, there's a global competition underway for power and influence in the 21st century. Americans have rivals who are playing for keeps. We can either be at the top of our game or we can watch others catch up.

    And it's against this backdrop that House Speaker John Boehner and his Republican colleagues shut down the government, threaten default, fight tooth and nail to strip Americans of their health care benefits, and keep spending levels so low we're kicking children out of Head Start centers while our global competitors invest heavily in education.

    It's as if some have a vision in which we no longer lead and we aim for second place on purpose.

    Great nations can't function the way we're struggling to function now. The United States can either be a 21st-century superpower or it can tolerate Republicans abandoning the governing process and subjecting Americans to a series of self-imposed extortion crises.

    It cannot do both.

    China is talking about "a de-Americanized world." It's time for Republicans to decide whether they intend to help them.

    [May 11, 2015] Why Ukraine Still Cant Break Ties With Russian Aggressor State by Simon Shuster

    Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap. ..."
    "... Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits. ..."
    "... About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations. ..."
    "... So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms." ..."
    Apr 13, 2015 | TIME

    Having survived an assassin's bullet, a revolution and a war, Gennady Kernes now faces a fight over Ukraine's constitution

    One afternoon in late February, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Kharkov, Ukraine's second largest city, pushed his wheelchair away from the podium at city hall and, with a wince of discomfort, allowed his bodyguards to help him off the stage. The day's session of the city council had lasted several hours, and the mayor's pain medication had begun to wear off. It was clear from the grimace on his face how much he still hurt from the sniper's bullet that nearly killed him last spring. But he collected himself, adjusted his tie and rolled down the aisle to the back of the hall, where the press was waiting to grill him.

    "Gennady Adolfovich," one of the local journalists began, politely addressing the mayor by his name and patronymic. "Do you consider Russia to be an aggressor?" He had seen this loaded question coming. The previous month, Ukraine's parliament had unanimously voted to declare Russia an "aggressor state," moving the two nations closer to a formal state of war after nearly a year of armed conflict. Kernes, long known as a shrewd political survivor, was among the only prominent officials in Ukraine to oppose this decision, even though he knew he could be branded a traitor for it. "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap.

    It was a sign of his allegiance in the new phase of Ukraine's war. Since February, when a fragile ceasefire began to take hold, the question of the country's survival has turned to a debate over its reconstitution. Under the conditions of the truce, Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace "federalization," a sweeping set of constitutional reforms that would take power away from the capital and redistribute it to the regions. Ukraine now has to decide how to meet this demand without letting its eastern provinces fall deeper into Russia's grasp.

    The state council charged with making this decision convened for the first time on April 6, and President Petro Poroshenko gave it strict instructions. Some autonomy would have to be granted to the regions, he said, but Russia's idea of federalization was a red line he wouldn't cross. "It is like an infection, a biological weapon, which is being imposed on Ukraine from abroad," the President said. "Its bacteria are trying to infect Ukraine and destroy our unity."

    Kernes sees it differently. His city of 1.4 million people is a sprawling industrial powerhouse, a traditional center of trade and culture whose suburbs touch the Russian border. Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine.

    "That's how the Soviet Union built things," Kernes explains in his office at the mayoralty, which is decorated with an odd collection of gifts and trinkets, such as a stuffed lion, a robotic-looking sculpture of a scorpion, and a statuette of Kernes in the guise of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union. "That's how our factories were set up back in the day," he continues. "It's a fact of life. And what will we do if Russia, our main customer, stops buying?" To answer his own question, he uses an old provincialism: "It'll be cat soup for all of us then," he said.

    Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.

    But that pain will be just the beginning, says Kernes, unless Ukraine allows its eastern regions to develop economic ties with Russia. As proof he points to the fate of Turboatom, his city's biggest factory, which produces turbines for both Russian and Ukrainian power stations. Its campus takes up more than five square kilometers near the center of Kharkov, like a city within a city, complete with dormitories and bathhouses for its 6,000 employees. On a recent evening, its deputy director, Alexei Cherkassky, was looking over the factory's sales list as though it were a dire medical prognosis. About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations.

    "Unfortunately, all of our major industries are intertwined with Russia in this way," Cherkassky says. "So we shouldn't fool ourselves in thinking we can be independent from Russia. We are totally interdependent." Over the past year, Russia has started cutting back on orders from Turboatom as part of its broader effort to starve Ukraine's economy, and the factory has been forced as a result to cut shifts, scrap overtime and push hundreds of workers into retirement.

    At least in the foreseeable future, it does not have the option of shifting sales to Europe. "Turbines aren't iPhones," says Cherkassky. "You don't switch them out every few months." And the ones produced at Turboatom, like nearly all of Ukraine's heavy industry, still use Soviet means of production that don't meet the needs of most Western countries. So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms."

    Russia knows this. For decades it has used the Soviet legacy of interdependence as leverage in eastern Ukraine. The idea of its "federalization" derives in part from this reality. For two decades, one of the leading proponents of this vision has been the Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin, who heads the Kremlin-connected institute in charge of integrating the former Soviet space. Since at least 2004, he has been trying to turn southeastern Ukraine into a zone of Russian influence – an effort that got him banned from entering the country between 2006 and 2010.

    His political plan for controlling Ukraine was put on hold last year, as Russia began using military means to achieve the same ends. But the current ceasefire has brought his vision back to the fore. "If Ukraine accepts federalization, we would have no need to tear Ukraine apart," Zatulin says in his office in Moscow, which is cluttered with antique weapons and other military bric-a-brac. Russia could simply build ties with the regions of eastern Ukraine that "share the Russian point of view on all the big issues," he says. "Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir, and they would sing for us. This would be our compromise."

    It is a compromise that Kernes seems prepared to accept, despite everything he has suffered in the past year of political turmoil. Early on in the conflict with Russia, he admits that he flirted with ideas of separatism himself, and he fiercely resisted the revolution that brought Poroshenko's government to power last winter. In one of its first decisions, that government even brought charges against Kernes for allegedly abducting, threatening and torturing supporters of the revolution in Kharkov. After that, recalls Zatulin, the mayor "simply chickened out." Facing a long term in prison, Kernes accepted Ukraine's new leaders and turned his back on the separatist cause, refusing to allow his city to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine.

    "And you know what I got for that," Kernes says. "I got a bullet." On April 28, while he was exercising near a city park, an unidentified sniper shot Kernes in the back with a high-caliber rifle. The bullet pierced his lung and shredded part of his liver, but it also seemed to shore up his bona fides as a supporter of Ukrainian unity. The state dropped its charges against him soon after, and he was able to return to his post.

    It wasn't the first time he made such an incredible comeback. In 2007, while he was serving as adviser to his friend and predecessor, Mikhail Dobkin, a video of them trying to film a campaign ad was leaked to the press. It contained such a hilarious mix of bumbling incompetence and backalley obscenity that both of their careers seemed sure to be over. Kernes not only survived that scandal but was elected mayor a few years later.

    Now the fight over Ukraine's federalization is shaping up to be his last. In late March, as he continued demanding more autonomy for Ukraine's eastern regions, the state re-opened its case against him for alleged kidnapping and torture, which he has always denied. The charges, he says, are part of a campaign against all politicians in Ukraine who support the restoration of civil ties with Russia. "They don't want to listen to reason," he says.

    But one way or another, the country will still have to let its eastern regions to do business with the enemy next door, "because that's where the money is," Kernes says. No matter how much aid Ukraine gets from the IMF and other Western backers, it will not be enough to keep the factories of Kharkov alive. "They'll just be left to rot without our steady clients in Russia." Never mind that those clients may have other plans for Ukraine in mind.

    [May 11, 2015] The Choice Before Europe

    May 05, 2015 | Information Clearing House

    Washington continues to drive Europe toward one or the other of the two most likely outcomes of the orchestrated conflict with Russia. Either Europe or some European Union member government will break from Washington over the issue of Russian sanctions, thereby forcing the EU off of the path of conflict with Russia, or Europe will be pushed into military conflict with Russia.

    In June the Russian sanctions expire unless each member government of the EU votes to continue the sanctions. Several governments have spoken against a continuation. For example, the governments of the Czech Republic and Greece have expressed dissatisfaction with the sanctions.

    US Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged growing opposition to the sanctions among some European governments. Employing the three tools of US foreign policy–threats, bribery, and coercion–he warned Europe to renew the sanctions or there would be retribution. We will see in June if Washington's threat has quelled the rebellion.

    Europe has to consider the strength of Washington's threat of retribution against the cost of a continuing and worsening conflict with Russia. This conflict is not in Europe's economic or political interest, and the conflict has the risk of breaking out into war that would destroy Europe.

    Since the end of World War II Europeans have been accustomed to following Washington's lead. For awhile France went her own way, and there were some political parties in Germany and Italy that considered Washington to be as much of a threat to European independence as the Soviet Union. Over time, using money and false flag operations, such as Operation Gladio, Washington marginalized politicians and political parties that did not follow Washington's lead.

    The specter of a military conflict with Russia that Washington is creating could erode Washington's hold over Europe. By hyping a "Russian threat," Washington is hoping to keep Europe under Washington's protective wing. However, the "threat" is being over-hyped to the point that some Europeans have understood that Europe is being driven down a path toward war.

    Belligerent talk from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from John McCain, from the neoconservatives, and from NATO commander Philip Breedlove is unnerving Europeans. In a recent love-fest between Breedlove and the Senate Armed Services Committee, chaired by John McCain, Breedlove supported arming the Ukrainian military, the backbone of which appears to be the Nazi militias, with heavy US weapons in order to change "the decision calculus on the ground" and bring an end to the break-away republics that oppose Washington's puppet government in Kiev.

    Breedlove told the Senate committee that his forces were insufficient to withstand Russian aggression and that he needed more forces on Russia's borders in order to "reassure allies."

    Europeans have to decide whether the threat is Russia or Washington. The European press, which Udo Ulfkotte reports in his book, Bought Journalists, consists of CIA assets, has been working hard to convince Europeans that there is a "revanchist Russia" on the prowl that seeks to recover the Soviet Empire. Washington's coup in Ukraine has disappeared. In its place Washington has substituted a "Russian invasion," hyped as Putin's first step in restoring the Soviet empire.

    Just as there is no evidence of the Russian military in Ukraine, there is no evidence of Russian forces threatening Europe or any discussion or advocacy of restoring the Soviet empire among Russian political and military leaders.

    In contrast Washington has the Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is explicitly directed at Russia, and now the Council on Foreign Relations has added China as a target of the Wolfowitz doctrine. http://carnegieendowment.org/files/Tellis_Blackwill.pdf

    The CFR report says that China is a rising power and thereby a threat to US world hegemony. China's rise must be contained so that Washington can remain the boss in the Asian Pacific. What it comes down to is this: China is a threat because China will not prevent its own rise. This makes China a threat to "the International Order." "The International Order," of course, is the order determined by Washington. In other words, just as there must be no Russian sphere of influence, there must be no Chinese sphere of influence. The CFR report calls this keeping the world "free of hegemonic control" except by the US.

    Just as General Breedlove demands more military spending in order to counter "the Russian threat," the CFR wants more military spending in order to counter "the Chinese threat." The report concludes: "Congress should remove sequestration caps and substantially increase the U.S. defense budget."

    Clearly, Washington has no intention of moderating its position as the sole imperial power. In defense of this power, Washington will take the world to nuclear war. Europe can prevent this war by asserting its independence and departing the empire.

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

    [May 11, 2015]Anglo-American Bankers Organized World War II

    May 11, 2015 | Voltaire Network

    To mark the 70th anniversary of the Victory against Nazism, we publish a study of Valentin Katasonov on financing of the NSDAP and the rearmament of the Third Reich. The author deals with new documents that confirm the organization of the Second World War by US and UK Bankers, covered by President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, in the hope of destroying the USSR. This study raises new questions that will be addressed in a future article.

    The war was not unleashed by frenzied Fuhrer who happened to be ruling Germany at the time. WWII is a project created by world oligarchy or Anglo-American "money owners". Using such instruments as the US Federal Reserve System and the Bank of England they started to prepare for the next world conflict of global scale right after WWI. The USSR was the target.

    The Dawes and Young Plans, the creation of Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Germany's suspension of reparations payments it had to pay according to Paris Peace Treaty and the acquiescence of Russia's former allies in this decision, large-scale foreign investments into the economy of Third Reich, the militarization of German economy and the breaches of Paris Treaty provisions – they all were important milestones on the way of preparing the war.

    There were key figures behind the plot: the Rockefellers, the Morgans, Lord Montagu Norman (the Governor of the Bank of England), Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler's government). The strategic plan of Rockefellers and Morgans was to subjugate Europe economically, saturate Germany with foreign investments and credits and make it deliver a crushing blow against the Soviet Russia so that it would be returned into the world capitalist system as a colony.

    Montagu Norman (1871 - 1950) played an important role of go-between to keep up a dialogue between American financial circles and Germany's business leaders. Hjalmar Schacht organized the revival of Germany's defense sector of economy. The operation conducted by "money owners" was covered up by such politicians as Franklin Roosevelt, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill. In Germany the plans were carried out by Hitler and Hjalmar Schacht. Some historians say Hjalmar Schacht played a more important role than Hitler. Simply Schacht kept away from spotlight.

    The Dawes Plan was an attempt following World War I for the Triple Entente to compromise and collect war reparations debt from Germany. The Dawes Plan (as proposed by the Dawes Committee, chaired by Charles G. Dawes) was an attempt in 1924 to solve the reparations problem, which had bedeviled international politics following World War I and the Treaty of Versailles (France was reluctant to accept it got over 50% of reparations). In 1924-1929 Germany got $2, 5 billion from the United States and $ 1, 5 billion from Great Britain, according to Dawes Plan. In today's prices the sum is huge, it is equal to $1 trillion of US dollars. Hjalmar Schacht played an active role in the implementation of Dawes Plan. In 1929 he summed up the results, saying that in 5 years Germany got more foreign loans that the United States in the 40 years preceding WWI. As a result, in 1929 Germany became the world's second largest industrial nation leaving Great Britain behind.

    In the 1930s the process of feeding Germany with investments and credits continued. The Young Plan was a program for settling German reparations debts after World War I written in 1929 and formally adopted in 1930. It was presented by the committee headed (1929–30) by American industrialist Owen D. Young, creator and ex-first chairman of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), who, at the time, concurrently served at board of trustees of Rockefeller Foundation, and also had been one of representatives involved in previous war reparations restructuring arrangement – Dawes Plan of 1924. According to the plan, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) was created in 1930 to make Germany pay reparations to victors. In reality the money flows went in quite a different direction - from the United States and Great Britain to Germany. The majority of strategically important German companies belonged to American capital or were partly under its control. Some of them belonged to British investors. German oil refinery and coal liquefaction sectors of economy belonged to Standard Oil (the Rockefellers). Farbenindustrie AG, chemical industry major was moved under the control of the Morgan Group. 40% of telephone network and 30% of Focke Wulf shares belonged to American ITT. Radio and AEG, Siemens, Osram electrical industry majors moved under the control of American General Electric. ITT and General Electric were part of the Morgan's empire. At least 100% of the Volkswagen shares belonged to American Ford. By the time Hitler came to power the US financial capital practically controlled all strategically important sectors of German industry: oil refining, synthetic fuel production, chemistry, car building, aviation, electrical engineering, radio industry, and a large part of machine-building (totally 278 companies). The leading German banks - Deutsche Bank, Dresdner Bank, Donat Bank and some others - were under US control.

    ***

    On January 30, 1933 Hitler was named the Chancellor of Germany. Before that his candidacy had been thoroughly studied by American bankers. Hjalmar Schacht went to the United States in the autumn of 1930 to discuss the nomination with American colleagues. The Hitler's appointment was finally approved at a secret meeting of financiers in the United States. He spent the whole 1932 trying to convince the German bankers that Hitler was the right person for the position. He achieved the goal. In mid-November 1932 17 German largest bankers and industrialists sent a letter to President Hindenburg expressing their demand to make Hitler the Chancellor of Germany. The last working meeting of German financiers before the election was held on January 4, 1933 in Kölnat the home of banker Kurt von Schröder. After that the National Socialist Party came to power. As a result, the financial and economic ties of Germany with Anglo-Saxons elevated to a higher level.

    Hitler immediately made an announcement that he refused to pay postwar reparations. It put into doubt the ability of England and France to pay off WWI debts to the United States. Washington did not object to the Hitler's announcement. In May 1933 Hjalmar Schacht paid another visit to the United States. There he met with President Franklin Roosevelt and big bankers to reach a $1 billion credit deal.In June the same year Hjalmar Schacht visited London to hold talks with Montagu Norman. It all went down smoothly. The British agreed to grant a $2 billion loan. The British offered no objections related to the Germany's decision to suspend debt payments.

    Some historians say the American and British bankers were pliant because by 1932 the Soviet Union had fulfilled the 5-year economic development plan to make it achieve new heights as an industrial power. A few thousand enterprises were built, especially in the sector of heavy industry. The dependence of USSR on import of engineering production has greatly dwindled. The chances to strangle the Soviet Union economically were practically reduced to zero. They decided to rely on war and launched the runaway militarization of Germany.

    It was easy for Germany to get American credits. By and large, Hitler came to power in his country at the same time as Franklin Roosevelt took office in the United States. The very same bankers who supported Hitler in 1931 supported Roosevelt at the presidential election. The newly elect President could not but endorse large credits to Germany. By the way, many noticed that there was a big similarity between the Roosevelt's "New Deal Policy" and the economic policy of the German Third Reich. No wonder. The very same people worked out and consulted the both governments at the time. They mainly represented US financial circles.

    The Roosevelt's New Deal soon started to stumble on the way. In 1937 America plunged into the quagmire of economic crisis. In 1939 the US economy operated at 33% of its industrial capacity (it was 19% in the heat of the 1929-1933 crisis).

    Rexford G. Tugwell, an economist who became part of Franklin Roosevelt's first "Brain, a group of Columbia University academics who helped develop policy recommendations leading up to Roosevelt's New Deal,wrote that in 1939 the government failed to reach any success.There was an open seatill the day Hitler invaded Poland.Only the mighty wind of war could dissipate the fog. Any other measures Roosevelt could take were doomed to failure. [1] Only the world war could save the US capitalism. In 1939 the money owners used all leverage at their disposal to put pressure of Hitler and make him unleash a big war in the east.

    ***

    The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) played an important role during the Second World War. It was created as an outpost of American interests in Europe and a link between Anglo-American and German businesses, a kind of offshore zone for cosmopolitan capital providing a shelter from political processes, wars, sanctions and other things. The Bank was created as a public commercial entity, it's immunity from government interference and such things as taxes collection was guaranteed by international agreement signed in the Hague in 1930.

    The bankers of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who were close to the Morgans, Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England, German financiers: Hjalmar Schacht (President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the Hitler's government), Walther Funk (who later replaced Hjalmar Schacht as President of the Reichsbank) and EmilPuhl – all of them played an important role in the efforts to establish the Bank. The central banks of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium and some private banks were among the founders. The Federal Bank of New York did its best to establish the BIS, but it was not listed as a founder. The US was represented by the private First National Bank of New York, J.P. Morgan and Company, the First National Bank of Chicago – all parts of the Morgan's empire. Japan was also represented by private banks. In 1931-1932 19 European central banks joined the Bank of International Settlements. Gates W. McGarrah, a banker of Rockefeller's clan, was the first BIS chairman of the board. He was replaced by Leon Fraser, who represented the clan of Morgans. US citizen Thomas H. McKittrick was President of the Bankduring the war years.

    A lot has already been written about the BIS activities serving the interests of Third Reich. The Bank was involved in deals with different countries, including those Germany was at war with. Ever since Pearl Harbor the Bank of International Settlements has been a correspondent bank for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It was under Nazi control during the war years, no matter American Thomas Huntington McKittrick was the Bank's President. Soldiers were dying on the battlefields while the leadership of BIS held meetings in Basel with the bankers of Germany, Japan, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain and the United States. There, in the Swiss offshore zone, it was all peaceful, the representatives of belligerents quietly worked in the atmosphere of mutual understanding.

    Switzerland became the place where gold seized by Germany in different corners of Europe was transported to for storage. In the March of 1938, when Hitler captured Vienna, part of Austrian gold was transferred to BIS vaults. The same thing happened with the gold of Czech National Bank (48 million USD). As the war started, the flows of gold poured into the Bank of International Settlements. Germany got it from concentration camps and as a result of plundering the wealth of occupied countries (including whatever belonged to civilians: jewels, gold crowns, cigarette cases, utensils…). It was called the Nazi Gold. The metal was processed into ingots to be stored in the Bank of International Settlements, Switzerland, or outside Europe. Charles Higham in his Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 wrote that during the war Nazi transferred $378 million into the accounts of Bank of International Settlements.

    A few words about the Czech gold. The details surfaced when after the Bank of England's archives were declassified in 2012. [2] In the March of 1939 Germany captured Prague. Nazi demanded $48 million of national gold reserves. They were told that the sum had already been transferred to the Bank of International Settlements. Later it became known that the gold was transferred from Basel to the vaults of Bank of England. Upon the command from Berlin the gold was transferred to the ReichsbankBIS account. Then the Bank of England was involved in transactions done upon the orders of Reichsbank given to the Bank of International settlements. The commands were retransmitted to London. There was collusion between German Reichsbank, the Bank of International Settlements and the Bank of England. In 1939 a scandal broke out in Great Britain because the Bank of England executed the transactions with Czech gold upon the commands coming from Berlin and Basel, not the Czech government. For instance, in the June of 1939, three months before the war between Great Britain and Germany started, the Bank of England helped Germans to get into their accounts the amount of gold equal to 440 thousand pounds sterling and transfer some gold to New York (Germany was sure that in case of German intervention into Poland the United States would not declare war).

    The illegal transactions with Czech gold were implemented with tacit approval of the government of Great Britain which was aware of what was going on. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon and other top officials did their best to hide the truth, including outright lies (the gold was returned to the lawful owner or had never been transferred to Reichsbank). The recently declassified materials of Bank of England reveal the truth and show that the government officials lied to cover up themselves and the activities of the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements. It was easy to coordinate the joint criminal activities because Montagu Norman, the head of Bank of England, served as the chairman of the board of Bank of International Settlements. He never made secret of his sympathy for fascists.

    The Bretton Woods Conference, formally known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, was the gathering of 730 delegates from all 44 allied nations at the Mount Washington Hotel situated in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, the United States, to regulate the international monetary and financial order after the conclusion of World War II. The conference was held from 1 to 22 July 1944. All of a sudden the issue of the Bank of International Settlements hit the agenda. It was reported that the bank collaborated with fascist Germany. Leaving many details aside, I'd only mention that with great difficulty (some US delegates opposed the motion) the delegates reached an agreement to close the BIS. The decision of international conference has never been enacted. All the discreditable information related to the BIS wartime activities was classified. Today it helps to falsify the history of the Second World War.

    Finally, a few words about Hjalmar Schacht (1877-1970) who served as President of the Reichsbank and Minister of Economics in the fascist Germany's government. He was a key figure controlling the economic machine of Third Reich, an extraordinary and plenipotentiaryambassador representing Anglo-American capital in Germany. In 1945 Schacht was tried at Nuremberg to be acquitted on October 1, 1946. He got away with murder. The same way it happened to Hitler. For some unexplained reasons he was not in the 1945 leading wartime criminals list. More to it, Schacht returned to his profession like if nothing happened and founded Schacht GmbH in Düsseldorf. This detail may go unnoticed, though it serves as another testimony to the fact that Anglo-American "money owners" and their plenipotentiary representatives in Germany prepared and, to some extent, influenced the outcome of the Second World War. The "money owners" want to rewrite the history of the war and change its results.

    Valentin Katasonov

    Source
    Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia)

    [1] P.Tugwell, The Democratic Roosevelt, A Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, New York, 1957, p 477.

    [2] http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/arch...


    Source : "Anglo-American Money Owners Organized World War II", by Valentin Katasonov, Strategic Culture Foundation (Russia), Voltaire Network, 7 May 2015, www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html

    Valentin Katasonov Professor, Department of Moscow State Institute of International Finance, doctor of economic sciences, corresponding member of the Academy of Economics and Commerce. He was consultant of the United Nations (1991-1993), member of the Advisory Council to the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) (1993-1996), head of the Department of international monetary relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russia (2001-11).

    [May 10, 2015] Battle Tested, Ukraine Troops Now Get U.S. Basic Training

    May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.

    For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire, and tugged hard, testing for explosives.

    When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with cutters.

    Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill, there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.

    ... ... ...

    The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

    The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided by 300 United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.

    Here in western Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while holding a rifle at the ready.

    ... ... ...

    The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.

    Photo

    The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

    Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had already been in combat.

    ... ... ...

    American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.

    ... ... ...

    [May 10, 2015] The New York Times does its government s bidding Here s what you re not being told about US troops in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
    "... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
    "... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
    "... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
    "... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
    "... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
    "... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
    "... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
    "... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
    "... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
    May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    Reprinted from May 07, 2015 article at Salon.com

    As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating openly in Ukraine.

    Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.

    At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts.

    Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.

    One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."

    Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?

    The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.

    The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.

    And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.

    In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring, if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.

    Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil. There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.

    "According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."

    This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.

    Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless.

    It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than "National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly put it at the time.

    The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950. (Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)

    Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.

    I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.

    Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)

    To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be "modest" in every mention.

    The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces Near Ukraine, U.S. Says." Read the thing here.

    The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story. This is what we mean by aggression these days.

    In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.

    At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever number on the border in question.

    The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.

    In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.

    Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not in American media. Not a word in the Times.

    The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.

    These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla and the colonels.

    The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."

    Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic, rights-trampling regime that does what it says.

    And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.

    * * *

    I end this week's column with a tribute.

    A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the Times' Marlise Simons is here.

    Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.

    Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all scholars are intellectuals.

    Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last, "The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.

    Farewell from a friend, Bill.

    Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist. More Patrick L. Smith.

    [May 10, 2015] Republican presidential hopefuls focus fire on Obama foreign policy

    Pot calling cattle black...
    May 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    libbyliberal -> libbyliberal 9 May 2015 20:01

    Obama/Hillary/Dem apologists, like the corporate media, can't admit that anyone exists to the real liberal left of these tools of the "empire of chaos" -- disaster capitalism is okay with them, profits uber alles.

    So so much of the citizenry -- the voting majority which really is a pathetic minority -- stay penned up as the US sinks into quicksand, and the reins of the country keep getting passed back and forth between the supposed good cop and bad cop parties, and the citizenry is CON-FUSED, which according to Latin origin is "fused with". Obama is a Republican, a far right one in sensibility. Yet crazy Repubs call him liberal. How confusing is that??? How stupid to believe they are right.

    Obama apologists call those more liberal than Obama (so not hard) to be non-liberal and demonize them since they are so ego-desperate to not admit just how betrayed we all have been not only since the highly lying Obama campaign days but when Clinton and his cabal of Ruben and Summers and Hillary and others destroyed consumer protections and handed over control to the corporate class.

    We are hypnotized to think we have only two voting options, and the media underlines this never giving the microphone to those outside of the authoritarians of the two pens. We are hypnotized to think we have to go with the media-beloved sure-winners, when the corruption is so over the top the bewildered herd keeps contributing to the problem and never finding a solution.

    So many non-hypnotized have stopped voting in disgust and despair.

    Jill Stein of Green Party once said that with either Repubs or Dems we are on the Titanic. It may sink a tad faster with the Repubs in charge but it is sinking with the craven Dems as well.

    Bill Ehrhorn Ozymandia 9 May 2015 20:01

    It gives the chickenhawks a chance to act manly. Sitting from away from the battlefield they like to pretend that they're tough

    tupacalypse7 babymamaboy 9 May 2015 20:00

    Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising Islam.

    oh that's a good one!


    sour_mash TheWholeNineYards 9 May 2015 19:55

    A mantle that murdered 4,486 Americans with +30,000 wounded and an untold number of Iraqis dead. $4-$6 trillion spent destabilizing Iraq which was no threat, never attacked America is the GOP calling card.

    (I agree with you, just fine tuned a bit.)


    sour_mash babymamaboy 9 May 2015 19:50

    "We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you."

    Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising hypocrisy.


    Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:07

    The republicans are irrelevant. Americans need to stop watching Fox News and not elect these crazy lunatics who will create more wars, more inequality, more neoliberalism, more deregulation, and completely screw the working and middle classes, just like they did under Bush snr and jnr, and Reagan.

    We live in a multi polar world. Latin America is more independent than it has ever been, and IMO Obama has done a good job negotiating with Iran.

    Treat people the way you would like to be treated and there will be peace in the world,

    t bone Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:46

    There's nothing worse than a secret war - the one that your Obama is committed to. He's set the Mideast on fire because he's just as much as a war devil as anyone else.

    He's messed up Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq, there's all kinds of heinous murdering and uprisings going on there now. Now he's trying to start a race war here in the United States!

    Congratulations - because you're the only one living in your utopian dream world. Obama (and his minions) has destroyed our U.S. Constitution - irreparably! He's an sobmfr! GD him!

    cromwell2015 9 May 2015 18:43

    listen to the war talk once again. Their talk, their glory, your blood, your death, your dreams .when will they lead like the kings of old and put the uniform on. In your dreams, when will "normal" people wake up and send these people to where they belong. We including Iran all belong to a same race ,its called the human race.

    To add insult to any one with a brain knows your not so lily white when you have gone into and interfered with so many other country's including bombing Iraq back into the stone age. I would finish with you the USA's politicians, you are the people who are the real danger to the world,


    MiniApolis 9 May 2015 17:56

    "Conservatives howled and hooted as Walker, who was criticized by Obama for his lack of foreign policy expertise, went after the administration's nuclear deal with Iran, its handling of terrorism and its relationship with Israel."

    Well.

    And Obama's expertise on foreign policy when he was elected was exactly what? Having a Kenyan father?

    The Republicans are a truly miserable bunch - worse this time around than even before, with the stunning exception of Sarah Palin, who can out-worse anyone.

    But they are absolutely right on Iran, and Obama is absolutely wrong.

    A plague on all of them.


    tupacalypse7 9 May 2015 17:53

    ISIS will be the biggest campaigner for the rightwing in 2016. republicans will paint anyone who doesn't support full-throttled blind aggression against IS as weak and unpatriotic. there will be frothing talk of smashing IS to pieces and bringin 'MERICAN justice to Iraq once again. and once again, no one will talk about what comes after IS because that would require vision, foresight, finesse, community organizing, LISTENING to the native population, listening to women and owning up to true motivations. there is no doubt the US and its allies are fully capable of blowing that part of the earth off the map. congratulations, you are all badasses.

    however, the vicious cycle of self-perpetuating war will continue until the focus is put on the humanitarian endgame of any military aggression and not solely on military aggression. the question that needs to be answered and addressed by any war committee is why did WWI set the perfect stage for WWII? and why did Iraq 2 cause the potential Iraq 3 and IS? the answer to me is a complete lack of finesse and vision centered around an all-male war party with a complete conflict of interest because a world without war is a world without weapons sales.


    ExcaliburDefender ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:50

    Always good to bring up the Obama/Hitler, the nra have been milking that one for decades now too. Who could forget 'ninja Nazi jack booted thugs Fourth Reich' of 1994/1995. After the bombing of Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168, Bush 41 publicly withdrew from the NRA and trashed La Pierre specifically.

    All your talk is just part of fear mongering, only believed by the bunker dwellers.

    No one believes this any more. ISIS is not coming to the parking lot of Walmart, you don't need an AR15 that hold 100 rounds of ammo.

    The greatest threat to the Tea Party faithful is Type II Diabetes, and they really need to keep their Medicare and ACA coverage. Too many super sized happy meals.

    Profhambone ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:43

    How little you know.....one aspect of Chamberlain signing is that it bought time for GB to begin to re-arm and prepare the industrial base for war making. Germany had a large lead and GB was not prepared to go to war then. Today, it is used as "appeasement" which has a negative connotation.

    An example of appeasement for those who slept through history is the Republican hopefuls for Emperor who pledge any and all things to Israel in order to keep Shelton Adelson happy here in Las Vegas and giving millions and tens of millions of dollars to PAC's friendly to them. "Elect me!!" is the name of the game. It is all about "me", the whole country, it seems these days....


    illegitimato -> Tony Wise 9 May 2015 17:43

    Disingenuous dick -- this isn't about Republican versus Democrat. It's about failed leadership across the board.

    Besides, count the casualties. Dubya killed more people.

    How much does the GOP pay you for this drivel, 50 cents a post? Or do you carry their water for free?


    illegitimato -> Boredwiththeusa 9 May 2015 17:38

    Great, another round of chicken-hawk "leaders" with no combat background, ready to send others' sons and daughters into the carnage. How did that work out last time with Dubya, Cheney, Rummie, et al?

    The new outrage this latest clutch manifests tops even those "Iraqi Freedom" incompetents -- bowing on bended knee to the owner of a Macau casino which uses underage sex slaves, all for his cash.

    Those Predator drones have the wrong targets.

    Robert Greene 9 May 2015 17:23

    "Blackburn instead summed up the general argument candidates have been making at conservative gatherings: if voters do not elect a Republican in 2016, America could very well cease to exist as a global superpower."
    So what we do not need to be a global superpower anymore. What has is got us just MORE FUCKIN' WAR!!


    Tony Dearwester -> saltyandtheman 9 May 2015 17:22

    Oh, like when Hillary says "We have to stop the 1% from running things" as she begs them for money, I mean... "What difference does it make"?


    Steve Troxel -> seehowtheyrun 9 May 2015 17:07

    What will they do when Obama is out of office? Apparently the only ideas they have is the opposite of what Obama is doing. The GOP field this election is a vacuous collection clowns each trying to out noObama the next.

    Steve Troxel -> Pete Street 9 May 2015 17:02

    Well said... I wonder if they guys or their constituency ever read the news. All you have to do get a red meat roar from this crowd is to flap you jaws about bombing someone.

    When asked for specifics they usually reply with something that is already being done... and are evidently unaware of it.


    sour_mash Tony Wise 9 May 2015 16:54

    "your explanation is NOT the historical explanation"

    Damn, I must have missed Bill Clinton calling for a Crusade against an Axis of Evil. And claiming that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US with WMD'S.


    libbyliberal 9 May 2015 16:23

    Obama is a disgusting warmonger, but not warmonger enuf for the crazy Republicans.

    Here comes the fodder to build Dem "lesser evilism" which means both evil parties get to mass murder.

    A frightened and very low-information and/or conscience-possessing American citizenry has learned from the authoritarians that the only tool in America's tool box for global co-existence is a HAMMER. As well as colossal lies about reality. We live in a spiritually profoundly dark age.

    The US (and cronies) are arming ISIS, using ISIS in some of its wars like in Syria. Israel is covertly helping ISIS. The bullying nations are helping bomb the shit out of the poorest country in the ME. US is providing anti-international law cluster bombs to SA as one of their big helps. Why? Because the big sharks must devour the little fish. Proxy wars against nuclear allies or potential allies of that country, or they pretend they are, all leading to the big nuclear WWIII these insane monsters at the helms of our countries seem committed to.

    The Republican hypocrit neocons who speak of God and war in the same sentences. The Dem hypocrit neolibs who pretend war is humanitarian. Disaster capitalism requires lots of bloodbaths and lemming Americans, especially bloodthirsty and stupid lemming Americans are willing to kill anyone that isn't them.

    The world is a big video wargame to America, and you pick Blue Team or Red Team and then kill, kill, kill.


    Tony Wise Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:06

    "Evidently, these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S. project using armed aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist leadership from the top down the ladder."

    except its not been sucessful, we are still fighting the same war, and are fighting increased numbers, because we keep creating more terrorists then we kill. we are ctually bombing targets without even knowing whos inside (signature strikes) then labeling anyone in the blast radius a terrorist. pakistan, PAKISTAN for goodness sakes, is working with the UN human rights commission to STOP the bombs with new laws governing drone warfare. this war has been going on for over a decade, and is predicted to go on decades longer, with NO tangible results. how do you call it "successful" when the main target of the war on terror wasnt even eliminated with it?


    Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:01

    Thanks for presenting the Chicken Little view of the Republican Party wannabes. Evidently, these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S. project using armed aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist leadership from the top down the ladder.

    Even a news media worker has a better grasp of the activity of this project:

    "Strikes began against Isis fighters in Iraq on 8 August and in Syria on 23 September. Such strikes have now run into the thousands; on Saturday the US military said 28 more had been carried out since Friday."

    The RP faces put themselves in a vulnerable position here when an ordinary voter can easily do enough fact-checking to explode the false view of these faces.

    Thereby, they make themselves easy picking by HRC who would eat their lunch anyhow.

    Meanwhile, cheers and applause from a couple thousand RP right-wingers does not a viable candidacy make.

    If this numbskull approach to vote-seeking continues, then little doubt exists that the RP will remain a rump party controlling state houses and gerrymandered voting districts for political power, but excluded from the White House again for lacking a sensible, moderate platform to appeal to more voters in the middle of the political spectrum.

    From that position of course the RP will have a big target for its political asininity and hostility in the form of HRC as president for 8 years beginning in 2017.

    Tony Wise Ozymandia 9 May 2015 16:00

    obamas more of a warmonger then republicans, and the economy is only better if you are rich.


    Tony Wise Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:54

    if the republicans need help,

    "Tanden: '95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent'"

    Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning group, argued that the issue not only would work well among the party faithful but beyond.

    "95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent, That's a fact in the country," Tanden said. "I think this is going to be an issue on both the right and the left."

    source: politifact


    Tony Wise LostintheUS 9 May 2015 15:48

    "There are no worse sources for money than the Koch Bros."

    sachs, jpmporgan, BP, citibank, need i go on?


    Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:47

    oh, and pakistan, because those bombings are actually illegal in spirit. they are actually working on making it illegal in the letter. the drones are new technology and pakistan is working on legislation governing their use with the UN human rights commission, because we are slaughtering too many innocents.

    you wonder why I keep saying that? its not because im the one supporting the warmongering, bro. end it all, today. imo.


    Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:44

    so tell us, Tony: which of those countries do YOU think Obama should not have bombed?

    • libya: because the terrorists we left in charge are worse then kadaffy
    • syria, because it was a civil war we had no business getting involved in.
    • iraq, because it should have been over when it was over. obamas own incompetence required us to return and go to war again. when we left, ISIS was a minor, defunct, disbarred, offshoot of al-quida, then they started getting the weapons we were sending to so called "vetted moderates" who turned out to be no such thing. with those, they were able to march back into iraq picking up allies along the way, and take an entire city, and all the war toys left behind when obama withdrew. why would you leave such weapons in the hands of an obviously incompetent, corrupt, army? why would you keep sending them MORE after the pullout?
    • yemen, because we are not world police
    • and afghanstan, because we got bin laden already.

    I didnt know rush limbaugh was antiwar? if hes for war, then your comparison of me to him is just vastly...ridiculous and childish.

    Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:43

    Did you ever wonder why Republicans have decided NOT to challenge Obama on the state of the US economy???

    Because any references to the economy under Obama will automatically conjure up comparisons between the current President and the last REPUBLICAN president.
    Just 6 years ago, the US economy was in tatters.

    As the last Republican president prepared to leave the White House...
    6 years ago....As the Last REPUBLICAN was preparing to leave office in early 2009....

    1. the DOW had fallen to 7,949 and
    2. the NASDAQ had plunged to 1500.
    3. The average American with a 401K lost about half of their retirement savings.

    4. Banks and financial institutions many over 100 years old that had survived the Great Depression went belly up: Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch . AIG. Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Indymac

    5. Housing prices were falling like a rock as the bubble burst.

    6.The unemployment rate was 7.8%...and heading up. In the same month that Bush left office a staggering 818,000 workers lost their
    jobs. . The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits rose to a 26-year high for the week ended Dec. 20.,2008

    7. The US auto industry was on it's knees. A month before he turned over the The White House to Obama, Bush announced a $17.4 billion taxpayer bailout for GM and Chrysler. "If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush admitted.

    8. The Bush administration had to borrow 700 billion dollars from the taxpayers to bail out the banks. ""This is a big package because it was a big problem." Bush said ""People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence ."

    9. In the 4th quarter of 2008...3 weeks before the flickering torch was passed from Republican to Democrat the US economy contracted a whopping 8.9%...the worst in postwar history.

    10. Two months before Obama took office The Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence Index fell to 38 in October, 2008. The decline marked the index's lowest level since its inception in 1967.

    11. By the end of Republican Bush's stewardship his job approval ratings had plummeted to 25%

    12. In the final month of Bush's term only 7% of Americans were happy with the direction the country was headed, the lowest reading ever measured by Gallup

    How different things are today.

    Elizabeth Thorne 9 May 2015 15:42

    "Iran: enemy. Israel: friend."

    I can't imagine why people compare him to a Neanderthal.

    I have to admit though that giving the loony right a free hand in foreign policy would bring the date the world grows a pair and takes care of the US' anti-social antics much closer. They would destroy the county and most our "allies". Not ENTIRELY bad if you compare that with "liberals" having not one complaint about expanded illegal use of drones by their guy. Look at the choices. The US will continue to maim destroy and kill in the name of short-range interests and goals with disproportionate effect on developing nations until it destroys itself. Look how long it took Rome to fall and look at what happened in the meanwhile. Like a useless structure. Better an implosion than to slowly burn.


    Tony Wise ExcaliburDefender 9 May 2015 15:34

    why are democrats such hypocrites about the kochs? democrats had no problem taking money from the kochs, when it was being offered.

    they did take it, its documented history, as well as their offer to the kochs of special privileges in return for more cash. the kochs said no, and the war was on. your party still takes money from FAR worse sources, like Bp, that wrecked our shore, and banks like sachs and jpmorgan hat wrecked our economy. the kochs, even if you disagree with their political philosophies, at least create jobs here in America, manufacturing things we ALL use. how many jobs does warren buffets unregulated derivatives create?

    I suppose his rail lines, transporting that dirty tar sands oil, creates jobs. this koch stuff just seems so ridiculous given your own parties donors. kochs are what, 56th in political giving? something like that?


    Tony Wise sour_mash 9 May 2015 15:27

    we know why bush bombed iraq"

    Yes, we do. He lied. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.

    your explanation is NOT the historical explanation, see 1998 iraq liberation act. signed by bill clinton.


    Michael Miller 9 May 2015 15:20

    The MIC needs to be fed.


    Boredwiththeusa Tony Wise 9 May 2015 15:09

    Bernie Sanders has always acted in accordance with his conscience. He is no sell out. That he made one decision you dislike doesn't affect my admiration for the man in the least, but paints you as a leftist purist who is never satisfied with anything.


    Tony Wise -> Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:08

    TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion

    Six Republicans joined with 45 Democrats and one Joe Lieberman to defeat a resolution that would have blocked the release of $350 billion in financial-industry bailout funds Thursday. The Senate action -- or lack of it -- paves the way for the dispersal of the money regardless of any action taken by the House of Representatives.

    The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is structured so that the president has access to the money unless Congress actively prevents its release. Only 42 senators -- seven Democrats, 34 Republicans and one Bernie Sanders -- voted to block the money.


    Taku2 9 May 2015 14:58

    ""We need a commander in chief who will once and for all call it what it is, and that is radical Islamic terrorism," Walker said. "We need a president who will affirm that Israel is our ally and start acting like it."

    These pathetic Republicans shameless has nothing to offer the American people, especially as they do not give a damn about the American poor. So, what do these bourgeois parasites focus on; 'making America Great.'

    And how do these parasites try to achieve this; making war on other nations. For them, America 'being great' means military might. It means spending more on the military, which makes more money for these parasites. It does not mean spending more on maintaining and improving the nation's infrastructure, because the Republicans are only interested in enterprises which makes them lots of money.

    If Walker and Santorum are intellectually deficient and talking shit, what does that make their Republican colleagues who support them?

    [May 10, 2015] Obama s Petulant WWII Snub of Russia by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
    "... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
    "... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
    "... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
    "... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
    "... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
    "... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
    May 09, 2015 | antiwar.com
    President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.

    Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.

    Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated – largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.

    Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous insult to the Russian people.

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.

    But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would have been much more difficult if not impossible.

    Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.

    For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).

    This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule. From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.

    That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."

    Distorting the History

    So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed, about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed coup in declaring there was no coup.

    The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February 2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]

    Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history."

    Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding conflict.

    For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea." Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.' He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing the region."

    So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.

    Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

    But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014, they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.

    Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."

    You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it. Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.

    The Sole Indispensable Country

    Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.

    That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept. 11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust."

    Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."

    More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."

    The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt – and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need anyone's help to win World War II.

    President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s, which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message, a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

    [May 10, 2015] The New York Times does its government s bidding Here s what you re not being told about US troops in Ukraine

    Notable quotes:
    "... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
    "... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
    "... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
    "... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
    "... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
    "... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
    "... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
    "... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
    "... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
    "... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
    May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    Reprinted from May 07, 2015 article at Salon.com

    As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating openly in Ukraine.

    Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.

    At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts.

    Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.

    One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."

    Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?

    The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.

    The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.

    And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.

    In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring, if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.

    Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil. There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.

    "According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."

    This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.

    Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless.

    It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than "National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly put it at the time.

    The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950. (Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)

    Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.

    I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.

    Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)

    To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be "modest" in every mention.

    The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces Near Ukraine, U.S. Says." Read the thing here.

    The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story. This is what we mean by aggression these days.

    In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.

    At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever number on the border in question.

    The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.

    In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.

    Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not in American media. Not a word in the Times.

    The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.

    These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla and the colonels.

    The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."

    Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic, rights-trampling regime that does what it says.

    And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.

    * * *

    I end this week's column with a tribute.

    A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the Times' Marlise Simons is here.

    Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.

    Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all scholars are intellectuals.

    Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last, "The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.

    Farewell from a friend, Bill.

    Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist. More Patrick L. Smith.

    [May 10, 2015] Battle Tested, Ukraine Troops Now Get U.S. Basic Training

    May 09, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.

    For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire, and tugged hard, testing for explosives.

    When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with cutters.

    Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill, there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.

    ... ... ...

    The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

    The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided by 300 United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.

    Here in western Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while holding a rifle at the ready.

    ... ... ...

    The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.

    Photo

    The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times

    Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had already been in combat.

    ... ... ...

    American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.

    ... ... ...

    [May 10, 2015] Putin voices grievances as huge parade marks 70th anniversary of victory

    Now we have new forces that push the world to the war much like in 30th of XX century. One of the key problem of modern world is the USA elite attempt to maintain world hegemony. The post WWII security architecture was dismantled by the USA and its allies and after the collapse of the USSR. Instead the regime of unconditional domination of the USA was put in place by Clinton's government. This switch was signified by the attack on Serbia and treatment of Russia (as well as other xUSSR countries) after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia as all other xUSSR countries were mercilessly economically raped, which provided to the USA (and EU) another 10 years of economic expansion and only in 2001 crisis hit again. And it never ended with the second wave of the same crisis coming in 2008 and the third wave being in the wings right now (whether it'll materialize in 2016 or 20120 is an open question). With the current level of world debt and, especially, the USA debt the situation changed, Also the USA economy is smaller in comparison with other world economies then ever before (Germany and Japan economies fully recovered from WWII, and China became a new world economic power). This create a drive against the US hegemony and "dollar regime" (with EU and euro as one such development). Recent US adventures in Iraq, Libya and Syria were met with understandable resistance which due to decline of the US manufacturing base threatens the current US domination in world affairs. Only in Ukraine they managed to secure a victory by using nationalists as a Trojan horse for establishing full hegemony over the country (but at the expense of partitioning the country). Due to those threats and instability of world financial system "audacious oligarchy" that rules the USA is becoming more and more reckless. Neocons continue dominate the State Department and we have a chance of neocon becoming the next US president (not the Clinton., Bush II or Obama were substantially different in this respect). Which provoked rearmament of Russia and armament of China making the world again more dangerous. Putin took a "independence" stand (may be prematurely, failing to wait for the time when Russia would be ready, forced by the events in Ukraine) which now greatly complicates US geopolitical position and expantion of its neoliberal empire (which come to the screeching end in any case because the Earth is a finite size) . Troubles with cheap oil availability ("plato oil" or "end of cheap oil") were just the straw that broke the camel back. And without continues expansion of markets neoliberalism enters deep crisis. Understandably no love left between the US elite and Russia and Ukraine was only a pretext to put Russia "in place". The USA and EU desperately need to acquire the control over Russian energy sector, but with Putin in power this is not possible.
    .
    All is fine in Guardian Russian-Ukrainian forums. Alpamysh, GreatMountainEagle, jezzam, Botswana61, Metronome151 and company perform their usual roles. We have some newcomers such as some1here
    May 10, 2015 | The Guardian

    freedomcry -> some1here 10 May 2015 10:36

    An apologist is not necessarily a supporter. The bottom line is, you're repeating the exact things Hitler's propaganda used to justify the invasion of the USSR which were contradicted both later, in the way the Nazis behaved on occupied territories, and earlier in Mein Kampf where Hitler had laid out quite bluntly the Lebensraum argument for colonising Russia and Ukraine.

    Aneesia 10 May 2015 10:36

    The behavior of the West was childish in this matter. They are looking for a fight to keep their economies growing...and will do all they can to provoke one.....like the spoiled brat in a sandbox. Russia was by far the most mature.


    Abiesalba -> Carly435 10 May 2015 10:33

    And what percentage of Western Europeans are neo-fascists, in your opinion?

    If you define Nazi-fascist ideology for what it really is, namely 'us against them' and 'superior' vs 'inferior' nations, then I think at least 10% of the population, if not more.

    It is now acceptable for parties with such ideologies to even run in elections, e.g. Wilders, Le Pen, Farage etc., and they get rather high support.

    This dangerous 'us and them' ideology has different forms and undertones with respect to the local context. For example, here is Slovenia I would count among such divisive and potentially very dangerous parties the party which won 20% in our 2014 elections (their main target for discrimination are the 'Southerners' = immigrants from other Yugoslav nations).

    I think it is very dangerous that Europe is largely turning a blind eye. They also did not confront neither Hitler, nor Mussolini, and more recently nor Milošević until it was too late.

    Freedom of speech is not unlimited; it is limited by the rights of others. The right of individuals and groups to human dignity and to not be discriminated against on any grounds has a priority over the right to freedom of expression. In other words, hate speech should be unacceptable, yet parties with hate ideologies are making it to European national parliaments and to the EU parliament. Very worrying.

    I suppose that Slovenes are very sensitive to such developments. We have been oppressed by the Austrians/Germans for more than a thousand years. After WWI, Slovenes in Italy were the first nation in Europe to experience the Nazi-fascist terror, so Slovene writers and poets had very early premonitions of a new, even more sinister war coming (which indeed happened - WWII). See for example Srečko Kosovel's poem Ecstasy of Death about the death of western Europe in a sea of scorching blood. Kosovel published this poem in 1925, when he was 21 (and this was 15 years before WWII, and before Hitler rose to power).

    Kosovel died at the age of 21, but he was a true European visionary. He stood for Europe of peace and brotherhood of nations. I suspect he would be horrified by the recent developments in Europe if he were alive today. Maybe he would write the Ecstasy of Death all over again.

    Vladimir Makarenko -> alpamysh 10 May 2015 10:28

    this is what is called "black agitprop" or in a lay man talk - lies.

    Vladimir Makarenko -> Metronome151 10 May 2015 10:27

    Since when you started to be heartbroken about Russian interests?

    CoastalBrake1 -> Abiesalba 10 May 2015 10:24

    "With all due respect to the US, the US role is not even remotely comparable to the sacrifice in the Soviet Union. The Red Army was by far the decisive power in defeating Nazi Germany" No shlt, because the Red Army had no other choice under the thumb of one of the most vicious and ignorant military leaders in history.

    Yes, Russia clearly paid the biggest price for victory, but many of The Red Army casualties were simply a result of their own military strategies and the fact they had way more troops in the first place compared to other allied powers.

    freedomcry -> Carly435 10 May 2015 10:23

    Russians are loath to reflect too deeply on the meanings of that war.

    That is one big filthy lie. I can see how a certain amount of intelligence went into its making: the fact that the Russian predicament during the war was more about survival than almost anyone else's, creates the possibility that the war impressed itself as something that's more about defeating the invader than understanding what had made them into what they were. And once you have that possibility, you go ahead and just blurt out the claim - it being the nature of ubiquitous Russophobia that any judgement of the Russians automatically rings true.

    But seriously, it's so completely false, so diametrically the opposite of how we actually see the war that I'm reeling a little. And I thought I'd heard every insult of Russians out there, from the crudest to the most intricate.

    Vladimir Makarenko -> GreatMountainEagle 10 May 2015 10:22

    Hm all complaints please to greedy sharks which draw the Versaille treaty. As those with brains can see the WWII started the moment it was signed.

    Metronome151 -> Popeyes 10 May 2015 10:22

    Indeed it is a win win situation for China at Russia's expense.

    Botswana61 -> BeatonTheDonis 10 May 2015 10:21

    [stalin]"took the Soviet Union from a devastated agrarian economy to an industrial power that defeated Nazi Germany and was able to compete with the USA and Western Europe."

    Soviet Union has never been able to compete economically, industrially with the Western Europe, let alone the U$A.

    It collapsed not only because it had an insane political system, but also because it had a lunatic economic system which could not produce any quality products (especially consumer goods) for its populace.

    Btw. Putinesque Russia still cannot.

    [have you seen any Russian 4G cell phones, laptops, tablets, supercomputers, video cameras, HDTV large screens, modern-wide-body passenger planes or even attractive passenger cars sold anywhere in the world?]

    alpamysh -> FraidyMan 10 May 2015 10:18

    I think that Merkel's actions, as usual, have been the best.

    Boycotting the military parade sends a clear message.

    And a German chancellor honouring fallen Russians the next day sends one just as powerful...

    Popeyes 10 May 2015 10:17

    I hope the Russia/China agreements and the pacts they have made between themselves work out and just maybe the U.S. will climb back into its box. The alliance between Russia/China is Washington's worst nightmare. Russia with the world's largest land mass, richest natural resources and it would seem the most advanced technology together with China who has the world's largest population, and the largest producer and exporter of manufactured goods.


    bailliegillies ID5868758 10 May 2015 10:15

    We haven't and are fully aware of its consequences. Chamberlain's problem was that Britain was not yet ready to face the might of an emerging Germany. Home Chain was nowhere near ready, nor was Fighter Command, it had plenty of Hurricanes but the Spitfire squadrons were still being formed as was the integrated defence system that the RAF relied on in 1940. Chamberlain and others in government knew that when the war came the main threat that Britain was going to face was from the air. Chamberlain bought the country the time needed to prepare. All the same Munich is not something the country is proud off.

    MyFriendWillPay -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 10:14

    Murdering their own people when they should be killing other people?

    Here is a more human ideal, currently practiced by "you know who"!

    * Get agents provocateur to let off a few bombs to create civilian casualties.

    * Pin the blame on people you want to get rid of.

    * Apply to UN for no-fly zone to protect the civilians.

    * Bomb the shit out of anything that moves anywhere in the country.

    * Fly in local exiles from US with geologists and lawyers to secure mineral rights

    * Conclude regime change

    * Escape ensuing chaos to plan next regime change.

    * Have your President nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!

    Botswana61 -> ijustwant2say 10 May 2015 10:14

    One huge difference between UK and RF.

    UK has reconciled itself to the loss of the (huge) British Empire after WWII;
    never looked back, but moved forward, today being more successul economically than many other EU member states.

    [Modern Turkey has also reconciled itself to the loss of its huge Ottoman Empire]

    But Russia has not. It still dwells in the past, relieves its past 'glories' and yearns for return of times when everybody feared it.

    While still unable to transform itself into a modern, democratic, prosperous country which could have a meaningful, successful future.


    Vladimir Makarenko -> dyst1111 10 May 2015 10:12

    Hm, what is then the point of NATO expansion in the time when Russia was making drastic reduction in its weapons and army size?

    Ukraine coup d'etat? Or should it be called what it is - a highway robbery of Russia's most important trade market?

    Well, Russians successfully made it a EU disaster.

    As to new generations of weapons - Russians do feel better, they know that for sure Western Europe or whoever will not repeat the 1941 mistake.

    kraljevic -> MiltonWiltmellow 10 May 2015 10:10

    The Russian power elites are no more pernicious than the American ones. The supposed anti-red, anti-commie Republicans are now the most vocal defenders of Big Commie himself Lenin's perverse internal borders. Lenin arrived at those borders not through democratic legitimacy but through the "blood" of millions of Russian patriots who wanted to preserve the unity of their nation and fought against his monstrous tyranny.

    Although supposedly ideological enemies the likes of Breedlove and McCain on one side and Lenin and Trotsky on the other are in perfect harmony when it comes to rigging borders so that the Russian people come away with as little as possible and become the big losers!

    The sudden devotion of the American right wing establishment to Lenin's "unitary" Ukraine is motivated purely by the anti-Russian nature of the new Government in Kiev and the damage and shelling and killing it can inflict on the pro-Russian population in the east!

    MyFriendWillPay -> MahsaKaerra 10 May 2015 10:07

    "A series of UN mandates that Russia deemed so threatening that they either voted in favor of the military interventions or didn't bother to express an opinion one way or the other. For all the US's military actions there have been zero Russian vetoes."

    That's because the Yanks are so disingenuous;

    * Get agents provocateur to let off a few bombs to create civilian casualties.
    * Pin the blame on people you want to get rid of.
    * Apply to UN for no-fly zone to protect the civilians.
    * Bomb the shit out of anything that moves anywhere in the country.
    * Fly in local exiles from US with geologists and lawyers to secure mineral rights
    * Conclude regime change
    * Escape ensuing chaos to plan next regime change.
    * Have your President nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!

    Abiesalba -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 10:04

    It was estimated about half a million of American soldiers casualties to conquer Japan.

    The Soviet Union lost about 10 million soldiers and 15 million civilians.

    About 1.6 million German soldiers were killed in WWII, of which 1.1 million in the Eastern (Soviet) front. So out of 10 dead German soldiers, 7 died fighting the Red Army.

    In Europe, 9 in 10 Jews were killed.

    In Poland, 1 in 5 people were killed, many civilians.

    In my country Slovenia, 1 in 10 were killed, many civilians. And about 10% is among the highest national death rates in WWII.

    With all due respect to the US, the US role is not even remotely comparable to the sacrifice in the Soviet Union. The Red Army was by far the decisive power in defeating Nazi Germany.

    And it is highly hypocritical and disrespectful that the 'west' ignored the celebration of the end of WWII in Europe in Moscow.

    Was perhaps the role of the US and the UK in WWII ignored by everybody due to the recent illegal and catastrophic US/UK Iraq invasion? I thought not. There were also no sanctions etc.

    Carly435 -> Nat1978 10 May 2015 10:03

    Though I'm not a fan of what-aboutism, the horrific scale of German war crimes against Russian POWs has never gained the attention it deserves in the West.

    BeatonTheDonis -> alpamysh 10 May 2015 10:00

    Luckily for them he is back "on brand" with his latest book, about two-thirds of which is devoted to the Eastern Front, which Beevor believes redresses the balance of previous histories of the Second World War. "Ninety per cent of all Wehrmacht losses were on the Eastern Front. As far as the Germans were concerned, we were a sideshow. But each country sees the war from its own perspective and memories."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/11093344/Antony-Beevor-I-deserved-to-fail-history.-I-was-bolshie....html

    WayneB1 10 May 2015 09:53

    Unfortunately the West (i.e., the America and its key European allies) refuse to recognise the realities as far as the Russians are concerned. it was understood - blatantly - that Russia did not want countries on its doorstep, including Ukraine, made members of NATO. Yet the West and Ukraine itself persist.

    As for WWII. It is callous for the everyman Russian to hear that the country's then leaders - by initially siding with the Nazis and also annihilating their own people - were accountable for so many of the losses they suffered. But regardless of any and all of this, the West should have attended this commemoration in full force. Sanctions, snubbings and petty political manoeuvring is not the way to move forward. The West screwed up royally with Ukraine (and Crimea) and should accept and amend the fact that it is an insensitive behemoth guilty of the utmost arrogance and pushing for the 'unipolar world' suggested by Mr. Putin.

    The only thing that will change this is Russia (and other nations) pushing back. Indeed, with the likes of Russia and China establishing relations with South America, it will only be a matter of time that America might find itself the the 'enemy' at its doorsteps.

    sodtheproles -> Vijay Raghavan 10 May 2015 09:47

    How dare you!? How dare you dishonour and disfigure the memory of British and American exploitation of colonised peoples, and, above all, on a day like this!? Don't you realise how lucky they were to be given the chance of dying for democracy, a chance which was simply not open to them in their home countries!? How the very dare you, Mr Raghavan!?

    Eugene Weixel -> Roguing 10 May 2015 09:51

    Had Neville Chamberlain and company not given Czechoslovakia to Hitler and nudged him eastward there would have been no pact between the USSR and Hitler. This pact was a response to the Dr facto Hitler Chamberlain accord.

    kraljevic -> dyst1111 10 May 2015 09:50

    Since the majority of the Balkan peoples are eagerly allowing their territories to be used as forward bases for NATO and American attempts to contain and encircle Russia I wouldn't have wasted a single Russian bullet freeing them from Nazi rule! Many of them schemed with Hitler and took part in the invasion of the Soviet Union with great enthusiasm!They are definitely no angels and since most of them were hostile to the Russian presence and the Americans wouldn't have been in any great hurry to free them if it meant costing them lives there was little reason for the Russians to come to their rescue!

    MyFriendWillPay -> Rudeboy1 10 May 2015 09:43

    If you unscrambled your comment, it would be more readable but just as wrong.

    When the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union (SU) on 22 June 1941, three million German soldiers and almost 700,000 allies of Nazi Germany crossed the border, and their equipment consisted of 600,000 motor vehicles, 3,648 tanks, more than 2.700 planes, and just over 7,000 pieces of artillery.[

    The Nazis expected their blitzkrieg to bring total collapse of the SU within two months, and British Intelligence assessed the timescale as 8 - 10 weeks.

    However, events unfoulded rather differently as, within the first 3 4 weeks of the campaign, Admiral Canaris, head of German Military Intelligence, confided to a German general on the easter front, that everything about the campaign now looked "black". Even Goebells at that time wrote entries in his diary about how bad German progress was in the first month.

    By mid October 1941 - six weeks after the scheduled Nazi victory over the SU - various agencies, from the Swiss Secret Service to the Vatican, predicted that the Nazis would lose the war.

    By the start of December 1941, when the Germans ground to a halt just 20 miles from the Kremlin - exhausted, frozen and with over-extended supply lines - the Soviets prepared to strike. Their offensive began on 5 December and it pushed the Nazis back 60 - 170 miles, whereupon Hitler postponed the assault on Moscow until Spring 1942. Significantly, the success of this Soviet offensive prompted the German Armaments Minister to suggest to Hitler that a negotiated peace might be sought. Hitler was not prepared to negotiate, although his inner circle and Hitler himself, evidently realized that the war was lost.

    The Nazis fought on, hoping to seize the oilfields in the southeast, but this dream ended with the surrender of their army at Stalingrad in early 1942 and the long retreat to Berlin. During the retreat, a new dream emerged as the Nazis hoped to make peace with the western allies, and then turn their combined forceas against the Soviets. However, that was not to be, and the war ended in berlin on 9 May 1945.

    In summary, the Soviets were always going to win this war after Operation Barbarossa failed to crush them during the Summer of 1941. The Nazis had failed to seize Soviet materiel - from food to oil - and, unlike the Soviets, they were not able to go on replacing casualties with high quality manpower. Also, importantly, the Soviets were not merely fighting for freedom as their western allies were doing, they were fighting for their very survival as a people, hence their monumental sacrifices.

    The die for the outcome of this war was cast before the first shipments of material support to the Soviets, welcome as they were, and almost three years before the Normandy landings. But the cost to the SU was enormous: vast destruction of infrastructure, and the loss of fighters and civilians killed at 30 times higher than the combined losses of the British Empire and the United States!

    That is why the western WW2 allies' boycott of the Memorial Parade was churlish.

    Eugene Weixel -> Abiesalba 10 May 2015 09:43

    UZ troops had their way with destitute women in Germany and Italy the price of a candy bar for years.

    Abiesalba -> Carly435 10 May 2015 09:40

    Russians and Russian history textbooks gloss over what was at stake in WWII. For them, it's all about defeating an enemy

    Americans and Britons completely fail to understand the difference between having the territory of your own nation occupied and sending soldiers and/or planes to fight in another country.

    Having the enemy on your doorstep in terrible. And having Nazi-fascists on your doorstep was much worse in Slavic countries than in the occupied western European nations, becuase Hitler, Mussolini and allies waged ethnic cleansing of 'inferior' Slavs. On the other hand, the Aryan people of the occupied western Europe were spared this horror.

    I am from Slovenia, which was brutally occupied in WWII by Germany, Italy and Hungary. For two decades before WWII, Italian fascists pursued ethnic cleansing in western Slovene territory. This ethnic cleansing only intensified in WWII.

    For Slovenes, WWII meant having to choose between fear and courage every day.

    We had a very strong resistance movement, including the guarilla partisan fighters.

    But members of the resistance knew how brutal the revenge of the occupiers against their families and Slovenes can be. When the father joined the partisans, the mother and the children had to go underground. The occupiers frequently shout 10 civilian hostages for every of their soldiers killed by the resistance. They burnt down whole villages on suspicion that they support the partisans. Oh, and the use of the Slovene language was prohibited. And Slovenes were tortured, sent to concentration camps etc.

    In fact, our strong resistance drove the occupiers crazy. Italians encircled the capital of Slovenia, Ljublana, with 35 km of barbed wire and bunkers, hoping that they will defeat the resistance. In essence, they converted Ljubljana to the largest concentration camp in Europe. But people still strongly fought back, including the increasingly strong partisan units.

    The people of the Soviet Union faced a similar dilemma. They fought incredibly heroically for every inch of their homeland. In fact, they largely defeated Nazi Germany themselves. The Eastern Front was the largest military combat in history.

    And while the people of the Soviet Union, Slovenia and other occupied nations fought for their very existence, it seems to me, with all due respect, that the resistance in the occupied western countries was very weak, and often their regimes in effect sided with Germany.

    Now, what would you do if you had the enemy on your doorstep? Would you chose fear or courage?

    It is a tough personal choice and a tough decision for a nation. But under such circumstances, the true spirit of the nation shines through.

    freedomcry -> lizgiag 10 May 2015 09:39

    The anti-Russian feelings you encounter are really the product of decades of anti-Soviet propaganda.

    It's much older than that, I'm afraid. Anti-Soviet propaganda was a continuation of an already well-established prejudice against Russians. And the sad thing is, notwithstanding the West's present obsession with fighting stereotypes and hate speech, many a Westerner nowadays would read Rudyard Kipling's ridiculous The Man Who Was and find it entirely convincing because those are the exact same cardboard Russians with horns and tails that their media and Hollywood keep showing them.

    Laudig 10 May 2015 09:38

    Compare the situation in the Crimea and the situation in Hawaii. The vote was held promptly in Crimea. 3 or 4 generations later in Hawaii. The USG has no moral standing to complain. It is an empire that needs to collapse so the country can exist.

    Vijay Raghavan 10 May 2015 09:38

    I think the President of Russia & President of China being very powerful should ask the exceptional president of America to pay pension dues for war veterans of second world war.They should take this matter up in security council & discuss this promptly.If the British & Americans claim that their values are exceptional then how come they have not paid the pensions for millions of war veterans for 70 years.

    I think the exceptional president should ask his federal printing press to print a little more dollars & send it to all countries who have been paying pensions on their behalf.

    BBC can do like this instead of wasting their time on silly documentaries they should produce documentaries on their war veterans & ask the moral question are they responsible for paying war veterans pensions or not.

    lizgiag -> MiltonWiltmellow 10 May 2015 09:37

    Great rant! But if you take a look at any country's history you will find the same - Britain, Spain, France, Germany - bloody wars instigated everywhere all for the glory of empire & resources.

    Now its the turn of the EU & USA - these empires are re-branded, they no longer call themselves empires, but the outcome is the same - a geo-political land & resource grab!

    Be in NO DOUBT the populace comes way down on the list of concerns - look at what is happening the world over, the middle east is in a mess because of the involvement of the West recently but also for decades past.

    Do not be fooled, the New American Century is upon us...google it!


    freedomcry -> Botswana61 10 May 2015 09:25

    And it probably originates with Nazi propaganda about the advancing barbarous subhuman Russian hordes.

    This is not to be taken as a denial that the Red Army committed any rapes at all. Rather, I'm pointing to the fact that mass rapes are just the sort of thing that specifically Russian soldiers were likely to be accused of, whether they did it or not. And the core of that prejudice still survives more or less intact.

    Vijay Raghavan -> GreatMountainEagle 10 May 2015 09:16

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/World-War-II-pensioners-get-pittance-from-government/articleshow/4741980.cms

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/World-War-II-veterans-get-only-Rs-1000-pension/articleshow/19923091.cms

    http://www.deccanherald.com/content/102212/govt-directed-reconsider-pension-world.html

    Those who fought for the British only got a middle finger.BBC has been so callous it does not even put in a word to British government to reimburse pension for those who fought for them.....that has been their attitude.

    The total number of people for whom the British government has not paid pension is 1.5MM people for their 2nd world war.Indian governemnt had to pay their pensions & they have been paying with all courts saying it is India's responsibility.The cost per year would be 1.Billion for 60 years we had paid 60Billion dollars that is just your world war 2....add another 30 Billion for your world war 1.I think the Guardian and BBC should write a article about that and ensure British Government promptly repays back 100Billion dollars to India.If we add up Nepal that will also be huge claim on British government.

    We can do a deal like this you can pay 50% for our schools & another 50% for the roads & hospitals.or May be you can give a interest free loan to Nepal for 100 billion against pension amount payable to India as they need that money badly for fixing their country after earth quake.

    Standupwoman -> MentalToo 10 May 2015 09:15

    'Rapes committed by western allies ground troops against German civilians are not, for the very good reason nothing like that happened.'

    That is not true. There is considerable evidence to suggest the majority of rapes were committed by the Red Army (whose own civilian population had suffered in a way ours never had) but the other Allies were guilty of a lot of it too - one estimate quoting a figure of 11,040 for the Americans alone. Don't forget the Australian journalist who accompanied the American army and claimed:

    I know for a fact that many women were raped by white Americans. No action was taken against the culprits. In one sector a report went round that a certain very distinguished army commander made the wisecrack, 'Copulation without conversation does not constitute fraternisation'.

    Rape is always wrong, and even if the Red Army had considerably more provocation than we did, that still doesn't excuse them. But neither does it give us the right to lie about them, or about our own share in the atrocities. Can't we at least show some integrity about that?

    BeatonTheDonis -> ijustwant2say 10 May 2015 09:14

    The history on Churchill's role in the Bengal Famine and Allied torture and murder of German and Japanese POWs is quite recent, so you must be pretty young if you covered it at school.

    You haven't provided any evidence for Putin's revisionism affecting Russian schools. From what Putin has said, it seems he acknowledges Stalin's crimes but places them in the context of the challenges Stalin faced and he compares Stalin to other historical figures whose crimes against humanity haven't seen them completely written off as monsters - Oliver Cromwell, for example.

    Stalin was a murderer who terrified his populace into submission. But he was also in power for 30 years and took the Soviet Union from a devastated agrarian economy to an industrial power that defeated Nazi Germany and was able to compete with the USA and Western Europe. Life expectancy in the USSR when he died had increased to 63 for men and 69 for women.

    After the fall of the USSR, life expectancy for men fell to under 60 - that is the context which sees Putin lauded by many Russians.

    Tattyana -> Carly435 10 May 2015 09:13

    It is easy. We can not find any single point your ideology is ever better.

    You insist our media keep to lie? You think so because YOUR media told you so? I can read both - yours and ours. I can read Ukrainian as well. And I can compare. Can you?

    I can continue, but unlike you I do aware, there are some bad pages in history of every country or people. And I never start to talk with any of Germany people from the point "Do you remember that Hitler killed millions of Russians?"

    Though here is much more truth than in your points which should blow hatred to Russians.

    Abiesalba -> Barkywoof 10 May 2015 09:10

    Was nothing learned from that awful war ?

    Unfortunatelly, not much. Except that it is now not politically correct in western Europe to specifically target the Jews.

    However, it is very popular to specifically target the horrible 'Eastern and Central European' immigrants. The term 'Eastern and Central European' immigrants predominantly means the Slavs.

    According to the Nazi ideology, Slavs were at the very bottom of the race hierarchy, below the Jews. And oppression of 'inferior' Slavs by the 'Aryan' race has more than a thousand years of history. Hitler planned a genocide of Slaves, and the Nazis killed many millions of Slavs due to their 'inferior' ethnicity.

    I find it very disturbing that in the 21st century in nations which Hilter declared to be the Aryan superior race, targeting the Slavs is acceptable. Take Wilders in the Netherlands or Farage in the UK, or neo-Nazis in Austria and neo-fascists in Italy, etc.

    moongibbon Carly435 10 May 2015 09:09

    This is the spectacle presented in the Western media and it's not representative of Russians at all, for whom today is about remembering those who died in WWII to save their country from destruction.

    Lafcadio1944 10 May 2015 09:08

    The Guardian's "coverage" of Russia is pathetic. Anyone could have written this article far from Moscow by just watching TV. It is really disgraceful propagandist "reporting" just throw up some insult and scary warning about evil Putin/Russia and go home - well done.

    There are huge - some even positive - things going on in Russia, China and India which count for a huge % of the global population and China is the 2nd largest economy and has launched one of the biggest global trade initiatives of modern times yet not a word about it.

    The Guardian just regurgitates propaganda about these nations written by the CIA or US State Department it has no reporters in these places and just ignores any positive developments. Thu leaving its readers fearful of the "mysterious" East - purposely.

    Dimmus -> Isanybodyouthere 10 May 2015 09:06

    "like claims to Russian speaking populations being endangered " - everything depends on the point of view of course. Even when pro-Russian people in Ukraine were burned alive they were not endangered from the point of view of anti-Russian nationalists.

    When many russian journalists were killed in Ukraine - it is not much mentioned, it is not interesting.

    When one US journalist killed somewhere - country is bombed and all the media for long time are full of discussions and moaning.

    When pro-Russian people (Ossetians) in Georgia were bombed by heavy artillery by order of Georgian president it was not endangering of those people because the president was a US-friendly president.

    And there are many more examples of western nationalizm. Just believe, that there are many people around the world who are really feel endangered by nationalists, including western nationalism.

    Eugene Weixel -> raffine 10 May 2015 09:06

    Had the West not awarded Czechoslovakia to Hitler and nudged him eastward three never would have been that pact, and many fewer on all sides would have suffered and died.

    teurin_hgada -> GreatMountainEagle 10 May 2015 09:05

    Rotenberg is jew. TimchenKO is ukrainian. Those evil nazi russians!!

    teurin_hgada -> Metronome151 10 May 2015 09:03

    Poland invaded Russia somedays before that. That was revenge. 'Who will come with us with a sword will dye from a sword' very old russian proverb. Chingiskhan, Napoleon, and Hitler knew that. Obobo still dont know

    kraljevic -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 09:02

    Facts speak for themselves Russia emerged the victor in WW2 but its an irony that if anyone sticks up for the Russians they are accused of being a fascist!Many eastern European nations especially western leaning ones look down on Russians as oriental savages and there's no doubt many of them hated their Russian liberators more than they did the Germans even though the latter treated them like scum! That's why the Russians should have stopped when they liberated their own territories and let the Eastern Europeans stew in their in their own juices and liberate themselves.Why should a Russian mother lose her precious son to free a Pole or Czech or Hungarian who hates him with a passion and would stab him in the back first chance he got!

    freedomcry nobblehobble 10 May 2015 08:58

    Like I said: Russian neo-Nazis exist. Your links tell a lot about the level of attention they get from Western media (who happily follow the old trope of "take an issue that's hot in the West and make it look like it's much worse in Russia" - never fails to sell well) than about the actual scale of the problem. Did you even know Tesak is in jail now? Or that Belov (if you even know who that is) is under house arrest?

    Do you know what phrase famously, and ridiculously, landed Konstantin Krylov a conviction for hate speech in 2013? Did you know last year's Russian March was pro-Ukrainian? No? Then leave me alone.

    No; apologise for the paid troll libel, then leave me alone.

    Eugene Weixel -> bumcyk 10 May 2015 08:51

    Russia is being demonized and confronted by the West as though it was the USSR. It is in Russia and some former Soviet republics that the victory over Nazism is unambiguously seen as something positive.

    Barkywoof 10 May 2015 08:58

    There are a bunch of psychos always at the ready on all sides if allowed to take the reins. The Russians did terrible things. The Nazis did terrible things. Then the USA killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese women and children with a new and horrifying weapon.

    I don't think it's a case of 'We Are Good... They are Bad.'
    Was nothing learned from that awful war ?

    teurin_hgada -> Roguing 10 May 2015 08:58

    Half of Europr and Japan were Hitler allies. Ask them. And USSR just signed pact of no attack with Hitler. It is not the same that to be allies

    sodtheproles -> Isanybodyouthere 10 May 2015 08:57

    So what should be done when Russian speaking populations who see themselves as Russian are 'endangered', and that's 'endangered' in the sense of raped, bludgeoned, shot, beaten and burnt to death 'endangered'

    Eugene Weixel -> nonanon1 10 May 2015 08:56

    Good enough reason as Putin underlines the fact that his name is not Manuel Noriega.

    sodtheproles -> ID5868758 10 May 2015 08:53

    It's Shaun of all credibility journalism

    Eugene Weixel -> Koppen616 10 May 2015 08:53

    A necessary show of force, determination and support by the world's largest nation's, and many others as well.

    Vladimir Makarenko -> ChristineH 10 May 2015 08:51

    Hm, "dinosaur era" is marked by destroying countries by choice and then walking away cursing "f*ck, it is again didn't work..."

    Military parade commemorating staggering sacrifice is internal matter of Russia and for Russia, outsiders are welcome to watch and think twice.

    oAEONo -> Nolens 10 May 2015 08:50

    What "well documented fact" are you talking about, can you please give me a link?

    Books by Noam Chomsky would provide you with a huge amount of carefully documented facts. Some are even mentioned on this thread alone. That you missed them up until now simply beggars belief. Makes me wonder if you are interested in facts at all.

    SHappens 10 May 2015 08:50

    "We have seen attempts to create a unipolar world, and we see how forced bloc thinking is becoming more common."

    Because of the attitude of the United States, but also because of the cowardice of European leaders, this May 9, 2015 has confirmed the division of the world in two. It symbolizes the opposition of an "old world", the Atlantic Basin and this new world emerging around Asia, which constantly attracts to itself new countries.

    During his speech in Munich in 2007, Putin talked about a multipolar world. Because even the most powerful and richest country cannot alone ensure the stability of the world. The US project exceeds the US forces. But instead of listening, since this speech there was an acceleration of the US demonization of Putin.

    It is important to break this dynamic of the political blocs to return towards a dynamic of a multipolar world. Beyond the shame and anger we feel for the attitude of the western leaders, beyond the disgust we feel for the insult not only to the Russian people but also to Chinese and Indian people, as well as to all others who came to Moscow on 9 May, we must realize that by calculation or cowardice, Western leaders, by abdicating their natural role, are helping to plunge the world towards a future of wars and conflicts.

    It is a mistake- as we know from Talleyrand - the policy mistakes are worse than crimes.

    Standupwoman , 10 May 2015 08:47
    Are YOU remembering the massacre of Poles at Volhynia and Eastern Galicia by Ukraine's own newly celebrated UPA? Where estimates of the dead vary between 60,000 and 100,000?

    Russia has at least admitted Soviet responsibility for the Katyn massacre - and officially condemned Stalin for it. Ukraine, on the other hand, has just declared Roman Shukhevych a Hero, and prohibited 'disrespect' for the UPA.

    No country should be denied honour for genuinely heroic deeds, no matter what else it's done. As long as that country also admits and is sorry for its crimes, then it is also worthy our respect. Unlike Ukraine under its current regime, Russia merits

    Michael A -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 08:46

    Thank you for sharing MIKHAIL SHISHKIN's honest, candid and insightful words. I share his morality. He is correct in his assumptions and conclusions and he mirrors my felling about the hypocrisy that has shaped too much of my American lifetime.

    The shame of the disintegration of relations between our two spheres is not the goals sought but the myopic way both sides have gone about achieving them.

    Unfortunately the old American saw that our children grow up with, "it matters not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game", is almost inevitably and totally reversed in adulthood to, "it matters whether you win or lose, not how you played the game". The idealism and honesty of youth is replaced with greed and shortsightedness as age creeps in.

    I thank the Russian people for the horrible sacrifices they made on behalf of victory over fascism. I also thank my American, British, French, etc, etc brothers and sisters for the their sacrifice. Sacrifice is to be commended not by degree but by intent. Thank you all.

    Goodthanx -> Metronome151 10 May 2015 08:42

    The number of Poles who died due to Soviet repressions in the period 1939-1941 is estimated as at least 150,000

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_repressions_of_Polish_citizens_(1939%E2%80%9346)

    Ukrainian nationalists[edit]
    Main article: Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia
    Ukrainian nationalists organized massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia during which (according to Grzegorz Motyka) approximately 80,000-100,000 Poles were killed.[5]

    An OUN order from early 1944 stated: "Liquidate all Polish traces. Destroy all walls in the Catholic Church and other Polish prayer houses. Destroy orchards and trees in the courtyards so that there will be no trace that someone lived there... Pay attention to the fact that when something remains that is Polish, then the Poles will have pretensions to our land"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Poles_from_the_USSR

    And these are now your friends???
    says a lot.

    MiltonWiltmellow kraljevic 10 May 2015 08:41

    Its a sad reflection of today's selfish blinkered and short sighted world that the usual Russophobes and closet Nazis are given so much space and airtime to spread their pernicious ideology which consists of almost exclusively denigrating everything Russian.

    Where are the thundering armies of the Tsar trampling the upstart Napoleon at Borodino?

    Where are the Tsar's great Cossacks rousting quiet villages to pay the Tsar's new taxes during the Balybostock Pogram (1906) while terrified Russians fled into the night, onto the steppes, into the ocean...

    And, as I'm a bit of an ettymologitst, where did the term "pogram" actually originate.

    Where are the murderers of the Tsar's family whose blood spattered the cellar of a small estate? Who was Pavel Medevedev?

    There's one Russian truth. Not this glorious past upon which Putin attempts to rebuild a lost and imperious empire, but a series of killings in the night of the Russian people by those waving saber and lance against defenseless people.

    Exhortations like this this belong in the history books of Germany, Imperial Russia, and many of the religiously motivated wars that has turned Europe's soil a deep, rich crimson from which has arisen -- like a virginal saint roused from slumber-- as kingmakers and various petty tyrants lick their bloody wolf lips.

    Nobility in war is about as common women and children left unmoslested by maurading troops.

    Go badk to your Tolstoy ... or is it your pastiche writer Sholokov? ... to find your vanished glory, because there's little glory in Russian History. It's mostly a history of endurance and suffering.

    Says Kasparov:

    Arguably the world's best chess player ever, Garry Kasparov is on a new mission. He hopes to convince the world that the biggest threat to global unrest is not the Islamic State, al-Qaida or North Korea. Instead it is Vladimir Putin, Russia's president from 2000 to 2008 and then again from 2012 to today. [http://news.yahoo.com/bianna-golodryga-interviews-garry-kasparov-093317385.html]

    mrkhawaja1944 -> Roguing 10 May 2015 08:41

    Ask the Russians they will give you better answer but I am not talking about invaders Russians or no Russians but do you know any country invaded America I know of one and they are very good friends now but give you list of countries invaded and occupied by America and Europe I do not think you can name any country in present days world not invaded by so called western powers.

    But I was taking about Russian who died in millions defending the country not invading other countries.

    Vladimir Makarenko -> Debreceni 10 May 2015 08:36

    Let's make some sorting of apples from oranges: not "Ukrainians" but Western Ukrainians or how they called themselves "Galicians". Galicia never was a part of Russia but divided between Hungary and Poland. Its pro independence movement made alliance with German Nazis in the beginning of 30-ties.

    When Nazis made a call for SS division "Galicia" more than 100,000 volunteered, 27,000 were admitted. Their training was in first turn anti guerilla actions. Their fate was sealed during three days battle of Brody with regular experienced Soviet troops which without particular difficulty eliminated this bunch wannabe warriors. The remnants (about 7,000) escaped and ended up in Italy and after war across the pond, mostly to Canada. (Hence Canada attitude to Russia today).

    This explains why there will be no peace between Donbass and Eastern Ukraine (which was a center of resistance then as it is today) and pro Galician (today) Kiev.

    itsanevolvething 10 May 2015 08:36

    A serious lack of respect and error of judgment by scameron and other western nations to not recognise the sacrifice of the Red Army in WW2 and send representation to this event. There is zero wisdom out there right now..just battle lines being drawn up.

    nnedjo -> Omniscience 10 May 2015 08:33

    Not sure, hope that wouldn't clash with the Victory over Czechoslovakia celebrations.

    Czech President Milos Zeman met with Putin yesterday and, among other things, said the following:
    President of the Czech Republic Miloš Zeman (in Russian):

    Thank you, Mr President.

    You know, politics are like the weather: it cools off and then it gets warmer. A person is happy when it warms up after a cool-down. This is one thing.

    The other is that I have stated several times in public that I am here primarily to pay tribute not only to those soldiers who died on the territory of the Czech Republic, but to all the 20, or some say 27 million Soviet citizens, both soldiers and civilians, who died during the Great Patriotic War. This was the first purpose of my visit.

    Abiesalba -> J00l3z 10 May 2015 08:32

    He would do as well to remember that Stalin consigned a great number of the returning servicemen who had seen the west to death in Gulags. And that Russia exterminated more of her own people than Hitler did in concentration camps. Shmoozing despots says a lot about the nasty party !

    The UK and all other imperial powers would do well to remember how many countries they forcefully occupied and then ruthlessly exploited their hunam and natural resources for centuries, including slavery. The UK and others had colonies well after WWII.

    How many dead people from the activities of these most glorious empires based on Nazi-like ideologies of the 'superior' nation vs the 'inferior' nation?

    And did these most democratic western powers ever pay reparations to their former colonies for the huge damage they have caused?

    johhnybgood 10 May 2015 08:29

    In the US the population knows nothing about the Russian involvement in the war.

    Even in Europe only 13% of the population know the real story. This of course is because the history has been rewritten. If you watched the ceremony in Moscow, you realised just how deep feelings still run throughout the whole population. Few families escaped without loss.

    This is why the West is playing with fire through its NATO encroachment provocation. The West's foreign policy regarding Russia is totally self defeating. Only the politicians are responsible -- the general populations have no desire for war with Russia - quite the reverse, Russia and China represent the future of global trade.

    mrkhawaja1944 10 May 2015 08:18

    Shameful act of revenge by western leaders not people by not attending ceremony in Russia as if their dead were better then Russians who lost millions.

    They did not attend just because they do not like one man happened to be president making excuse of Ukrainian problem but who started it paid demonstrators by CIA known fact like the Arab spring where no flowers bur rubbles pile up in middle east spread to Europe thanks to American freedom loving policies.

    Russians who died in millions deserver to be remembered with respect like the one in western countries who's leaders absence is disgraceful act.

    Abiesalba -> HHeLiBe 10 May 2015 08:12

    Sad that the hallmarks of expansionism and extreme nationalism are now most evident in Russia.

    How about the illegal US/UK Iraq invasion?

    How about the US relationships with its neighbours? A Berlin Wall along its border with Mexico. Decades of embarge against their neighbour Cuba. Cuba is, however, good enough for the US to have its Guantanamo concentration camp there. Oh, and how about racism in the US, and the status of the native Indians.

    The UK financially supported the rise to power of Mussolini and his fascists in Italy who pursued brutal policies of ethnic cleansing of 'inferior' races long before Hitler rose to power in Germany. After WWII, the UK prevented extradition of 1,200 Italian fascists accused of war crimes to Yugoslavia, Greece and Ethiopia. These war criminals were never put to trial, and the UK kept supporting Italian pro-fascist politicians after WWII. The general acceptance of Italian fascism in the UK was also reflected in the English football team Sunderland appointing the Italian extreme Mussolini fan and self-declared fascist Paolo Di Canio as the manager in 2013.

    Meanwhile, Italy keeps denying its WWII atrocities and neo-fascism is very alive. Every year, in Italy people march to celebrate the anniversary of Mussolini's march on Rome, which led to Mussolini's fascist regime taking the power in Italy (video of the march in 2014 here.) The most democratic 'western' states do not protest about it and the western media just avoid this scandal.

    And there is much more. For example, in February 2015 (three months ago), the Italian GOVERNMENT (!) gave medals of honour to 300 Mussolini's fascists, including 6 accused of war crimes.

    And neo-Nazism is alive and well also in Austria. Surely the EU members demanded in 2002 that neo-Nazi Jörg Haider is expelled from the Austrian government. But after that happened, nobody cared about the fact that Haider went on to be the elected (!) governor of the Carinthia region of Austria until 2008 (he was not voted out; he died in a reckless car crash) where he pursued apartheid-like policies against the Slovene minority in Carinthia. Slovenes are Slavs, and according to Nazi and fascist ideology they are an 'inferior' race and should be eradicated. The Slovene minorities in Austria and Italy keep being oppressed and attacked by neo-fascists and neo-Nazis, often also via the attitudes of the Italian and the Austrian governments.

    Germany is the only Nazi-fascist country which fully admitted its war atrocities and apologized for them. Germany is now at least very watchful about neo-Nazis, and is trying to crack down on groups with neo-Nazi and similar ideologies. Even so, neo-Nazism is rising its ugly head also in Germany.

    Many other European states keep denying their involvement in Nazism and fascism. In these states (e.g. Austria, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, the Netherlands etc. etc.), the state of denial enables Nazi and fascist ideologies to thrive. In Hungary, the neo-fascist Jobbik party won 17% of the votes in the 2010 elections and 20% in 2014. In Slovakia, a neo-Nazi won regional elections in 2013. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders' party is the third largest in the parliament. In the UK, UKIP just got 13% of the votes and is the third largest party by the number of votes.

    Besides, all western European states (including the UK) are collectively in denial about their centuries-long support of Nazi-like ideologies. The imperialistic Nazi-like ideology of 'superior' vs 'inferior' nations/races fuelled centuries of forceful occupation, oppression and exploitation of human and natural resources (including slavery) of many 'inferior' nations around the world.

    Across western Europe, there is rising discrimination against 'Eastern and Central European' immigrants. These unwanted immigrants are largely Slavs. The specific targeting of 'inferior' Slavs has a long history in Europe (over a thousand years) and was also reflected in Hitler's hierarchy of races, where the Slavs were at the very bottom of under-humans (below the Jews). Hitler had plans for extensive genocide of Slavs, and Nazis killed many millions of them (e.g. Poles, Ukarinians).

    In this historical context, I find the specific targeting of 'inferior' Slavs by various xenophobic groups in western Europe rather disturbing. This is nothing but re-painted Nazi-fascist ideology. Notably, such ideology thrives in particular in nations which Hitler declared to be the superior race = Herrenvolk = Aryan race: Germans, British, Irish, Dutch, Northern French, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes etc.

    It seems to me that it would not be acceptable in modern Europe to specifically target the Jews. On the other hand, it is very acceptable to specifically target the Slavs.

    Rudeboy1 -> Batleymuslim 10 May 2015 08:11

    The first rule of war is logistics, logistics , logistics...in that order.

    I don't underestmate the Russians, far from it. It's a realistic view on their real capabilities and re-equipment in recent years. They're running to stay still at present. They have block obsolescence on the horizon for most of their kit and can't afford to replace it at the required levels. The Russian Navy is a case in point, their latest SSN was actually laid down 15 years ago and has yet to enter service. For surface ships they're done for as they either don't have the skills or they no longer have powerplants for them (their marine GT's were all built in the Ukraine).

    The recent excitement over their new armour was a tad over the top. Have a look at them. The Kurganets? Is it as good as a German Puma? Bumerang? Is it really as good as a German Boxer? The Armata is an attempt to try and close the gap to western designs, but it's 25+ years too late. They'll never manage to build 2000 of them, they don't have the funds or the production capabilities.

    The point about the F22 and F35 is still valid. I'm not counting the F35's as they're yet to hit IOC. The West has done all this in an era of declining military spending, with next to no effort.

    In contract the Russians are spending increasing proportions on defence although they have announced some cuts recently). The Russian's simply aren't a military threat, and they know it. The last thing we need is an over-reaction. If the Armata is anything like previous Russian tanks once we get our hands on one we'll find that it was never all that anyway, still it keeps defence spending a little higher I suppose...

    nnedjo -> Bradtweeters 10 May 2015 08:05

    This is not a commemoration of the war dead. The commemoration of the war dead are being made at monuments to war victims. So, this is a celebration of the victory over fascism, and not any commemoration.

    But, anyway, Putin is not a priest, he is a politician, and from politicians are expected on such occasions to give a political message too. Especially, if he complains that there is not enough cooperation in the world. It should be the political agenda of all politicians in the world, and not only of Putin.

    lizgiag -> Natalia Volkova 10 May 2015 08:01

    Privet Natalia! The anti-Russian feelings you encounter are really the product of decades of anti-Soviet propaganda. For decades there was really nothing positive said about the Soviet Union, years and years of negativity (not just about the system but also the people) meant that it is a deeply rooted feeling which was very easy to resurrect in the past few years.

    Whilst this is not new, the more sinister side of this is the re-writing of history, so that the events of World War 2 are re-interpreted to the extent that the Soviet Union is now slowly being seen as the aggressor to fit in with the current narrative for the West's geo-political strategy.

    Frustrating as this is, it makes it even more important that Russia's point of view is put forward even if it seems futile.

    kraljevic 10 May 2015 07:59

    Its a sad reflection of today's selfish blinkered and short sighted world that the usual Russophobes and closet Nazis are given so much space and airtime to spread their pernicious ideology which consists of almost exclusively denigrating everything Russian.

    You could almost see some of them them practicing their Heil Hitler salutes in front of the mirror!

    But however many of them delude themselves into believing that victory was snatched from their grasp by a set of unlucky circumstances rather than relentless Russian resistance then they will continue to try to kid the world that Russia's victory was a fluke!

    The next step is to revive the myth that the SS and their allies stood for humane values and the defence of freedom and European civilization! But none of this relentless drivel will affect the attitude of the majority of people who continue to be inspired by the incredible, unimaginable and superhuman bravery and defiance of the Russian people in a life and death struggle unmatched in the annals of history!

    geedeesee -> airman23 10 May 2015 07:46

    "Crimea belongs to Ukraine"

    Things change, nothing is fixed forever. Scotland may leave the UK. The Declaration of Independence by the Republic of Crimea was in accord with the provisions in the UN Charter.

    Standupwoman -> sztubacki 10 May 2015 07:46

    I don't actually disagree with you about the leadership. Stalin (a Georgian, as you know) was a murderous tyrant in his own right, and the Russian people suffered as much as any other Soviet country under his rule.

    But Victory Day isn't about Stalin, except as a figurehead. It's about the ordinary men and women who fought and died and achieved the most incredible victory the world has ever seen. How could anyone want to take away from that?

    dyst1111 -> Manolo Torres 10 May 2015 07:42

    "Then we have the Royals that attended Nazi parties and married Nazis and even conspired against Britain with the Nazis."

    And what of this? Nothing. They had no power.

    Halifax was sidelined because of his attitude and Churchill made PM.

    Soviet Union worked with the Nazis AFTER the war had broken out. Worked closely on many levels.

    And there is one more aspect - what Britain and France did is regarded today with disdain as cowardly acts. What USSR did is desperately being whitewashed by Russia. So even if they acted more less the same, only Russia thinks it was OK.

    John Smith -> Omniscience 10 May 2015 07:33

    The US companies had some 500 mln$ investments in German war industries.

    Standard Oil, General Motors, General Electric, ITT, Ford...
    IG Farben ( Standard Oil) financed Hitler's rise to power.

    CaptTroyTempest -> Kaikoura 10 May 2015 07:31

    According to Wikileaks, Petro Walzmann (aka Poroschenko) has been in the pockets Washington's pocket since 2006. Probably just a coincidence.

    http://scgnews.com/leaked-documents-ukraines-new-president-works-for-the-us-state-department?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    juster 10 May 2015 07:25

    Soviets may have won the war but they got pasted in the subsequent PR department.

    I've seen interesting public opinion polls in France that immediately after the war showed 80+% people said mostly SU won the war and 60 year on 80+% people said the US played that role.

    Because SU was branded the empire of evil and the US the force of good and people bought it ignoring the fact there is precious little difference. And still to this day Obama speaks of say the Vietnam war with praising the american troops for their righteous and good fight for freedom in the jungles. Clearly, he's never seen the Winter Soldier. The one from 1972 with testimonies of veterans that was and is de facto censored in the US for 40 years now, not the Cpt. America one.

    Manolo Torres -> Botswana61 10 May 2015 07:24

    Are you joking?!

    In a new international ranking, the United Kingdom ranks first, while the U.S. performs poorly across almost all health metrics.

    According to the world health organization you are second to 36 countries in 2000. Morocco, Singapore and Costa Rica have better healthsystem than you.

    teurin_hgada -> AlfredHerring 10 May 2015 07:21

    Your democrazy is nukong civilians in Japan after theirs capitulation. To kill Vietnam with WMD. Serbia, Syria, Lybia, Iraq.

    Do you know that democracy eas invited in Greece and means slavery. There are citizens in democracy, and there are slaves, which brings prosperity to citizens. We dont want to be slaves of successors of criminals from whole word which made genocide to indeans civilization 300 years ago

    Kaiama 10 May 2015 07:21

    Read and Enjoy (2/2)

    Dear friends,
    We welcome today all our foreign guests while expressing a particular gratitude to the representatives of the countries that fought against Nazism and Japanese militarism.
    Besides the Russian servicemen, parade units of ten other states will march through the Red Square as well. These include soldiers from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Their forefathers fought shoulder to shoulder both at the front and in the rear.
    These also include servicemen from China, which, just like the Soviet Union, lost many millions of people in this war. China was also the main front in the fight against militarism in Asia.
    Indian soldiers fought courageously against the Nazis as well.
    Serbian troops also offered strong and relentless resistance to the fascists.
    Throughout the war our country received strong support from Mongolia.
    These parade ranks include grandsons and great-grandsons of the war generation. The Victory Day is our common holiday. The Great Patriotic War was in fact the battle for the future of the entire humanity.
    Our fathers and grandfathers lived through unbearable sufferings, hardships and losses. They worked till exhaustion, at the limit of human capacity. They fought even unto death. They proved the example of honour and true patriotism.
    We pay tribute to all those who fought to the bitter for every street, every house and every frontier of our Motherland. We bow to those who perished in severe battles near Moscow and Stalingrad, at the Kursk Bulge and on the Dnieper.
    We bow to those who died from famine and cold in the unconquered Leningrad, to those who were tortured to death in concentration camps, in captivity and under occupation.
    We bow in loving memory of sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, comrades-in-arms, relatives and friends – all those who never came back from war, all those who are no longer with us.
    A minute of silence is announced.

    Minute of silence.

    Dear veterans,
    You are the main heroes of the Great Victory Day. Your feat predestined peace and decent life for many generations. It made it possible for them to create and move forward fearlessly.
    And today your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren live up to the highest standards that you set. They work for the sake of their country's present and future. They serve their Fatherland with devotion. They respond to complex challenges of the time with honour. They guarantee the successful development, might and prosperity of our Motherland, our Russia!
    Long live the victorious people!
    Happy holiday!
    Congratulations on the Victory Day!
    Hooray!

    Kaiama 10 May 2015 07:20

    Read and Enjoy... (1/2)

    Fellow citizens of Russia,
    Dear veterans,
    Distinguished guests,
    Comrade soldiers and seamen, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen and warrant officers, Comrade officers, generals and admirals,
    I congratulate you all on the 70th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War!
    Today, when we mark this sacred anniversary, we once again appreciate the enormous scale of Victory over Nazism. We are proud that it was our fathers and grandfathers who succeeded in prevailing over, smashing and destroying that dark force.
    Hitler's reckless adventure became a tough lesson for the entire world community. At that time, in the 1930s, the enlightened Europe failed to see the deadly threat in the Nazi ideology.
    Today, seventy years later, the history calls again to our wisdom and vigilance. We must not forget that the ideas of racial supremacy and exclusiveness had provoked the bloodiest war ever. The war affected almost 80 percent of the world population. Many European nations were enslaved and occupied.
    The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the enemy's attacks. The elite Nazi forces were brought to bear on it. All their military power was concentrated against it. And all major decisive battles of World War II, in terms of military power and equipment involved, had been waged there.
    And it is no surprise that it was the Red Army that, by taking Berlin in a crushing attack, hit the final blow to Hitler's Germany finishing the war.
    Our entire multi-ethnic nation rose to fight for our Motherland's freedom. Everyone bore the severe burden of the war. Together, our people made an immortal exploit to save the country. They predetermined the outcome of World War II. They liberated European nations from the Nazis.
    Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, wherever they live today, should know that here, in Russia, we highly value their fortitude, courage and dedication to frontline brotherhood.
    Dear friends,
    The Great Victory will always remain a heroic pinnacle in the history of our country. But we also pay tribute to our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.
    We are grateful to the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the Victory. We are thankful to the anti-fascists of various countries who selflessly fought the enemy as guerrillas and members of the underground resistance, including in Germany itself.
    We remember the historical meeting on the Elbe, and the trust and unity that became our common legacy and an example of unification of peoples – for the sake of peace and stability.
    It is precisely these values that became the foundation of the post-war world order. The United Nations came into existence. And the system of the modern international law has emerged.
    These institutions have proved in practice their effectiveness in resolving disputes and conflicts.
    However, in the last decades, the basic principles of international cooperation have come to be increasingly ignored. These are the principles that have been hard won by mankind as a result of the ordeal of the war.
    We saw attempts to establish a unipolar world. We see the strong-arm block thinking gaining momentum. All that undermines sustainable global development.
    The creation of a system of equal security for all states should become our common task. Such system should be an adequate match to modern threats, and it should rest on a regional and global non-block basis. Only then will we be able to ensure peace and tranquility on the planet.

    Manolo Torres -> dyst1111 10 May 2015 07:19

    Lets see the other side as well then:

    Huge trade, far bigger, just the investment of GM in Nazi Germany was 25% of the total amount their trade with the Soviet Union, if we add Standard Oil and Ford it will probably be already much more, and we are not throwing in the bankers that are the ones that made the most profit.

    Then we have the Royals that attended Nazi parties and married Nazis and even conspired against Britain with the Nazis.

    Then we have France and Britain giving Hitler (and the Polish) parts of Czechoslovakia. Talking about congratulatory letters we know about one from British deputy prime minister:

    "Herr Chancellor, on behalf of the British Government I congratulate you on crushing communism in Germany and standing as a bulwark against Russia" (1a)

    - Lord Halifax then British Deputy Prime Minister (later Foreign Secretary) addressing Adolf Hitler, November 1937.

    Standupwoman 10 May 2015 07:17

    I'm having a hard time believing both the tone of this article and the venom in some of the comments. On Russia's own Victory Day? Really? Are we sunk as low as that?

    The only excuse I can find is that maybe some people simply don't know what this day really represents. This piece in The Hill, for example, actually states:

    The Soviet victory in World War II - also known as the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia - can in terms of mythological importance be compared to D-Day for Americans

    OK, this might be an unusually crass and insensitive writer, but could anybody with even a smattering of education make such a comparison? How could the events of one day in which 2,500 Americans died conceivably equate to the events of four years in which 27 million Soviet citizens were killed - nearly 14 million of them Russian? We know how Americans feel about 9/11, but even if they'd suffered a new 9/11 every day for four years, it would still be less than half what was done to Russia.

    Even the British struggle to comprehend that degree of loss. We too suffered from Nazi attack, we too saw women and children killed in their own homes, we too saw our great cities pulverized and our history smashed - like Coventry Cathedral, for a start. But the German army never set foot here, because we were saved by the English Channel, the best airforce in the world - and the fact that the Russians held out long enough to turn the tide.

    No-one in the West can really imagine what Russia went through, and there isn't space to say it here. Do some reading - or better still, watch the BBC's 'The World at War' and 'Nazis: A Warning from History'. The latter programme even interviews a former German soldier who describes how they treated the 'sub-human Slavs' of their occupied territories - 'We'd kill the children first in front of their mothers, and then the mothers.' Imagine it. Try. Imagine the desperate courage of that defence, at Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad. Look again at the Victory Day footage, and note how young some of the veterans are - because even children took part in the sieges of their homes. At Sevastopol in 2011 I met one woman who'd been throwing Molotov cocktails against German tanks when she was seven years old.

    And they won. The tide was turned before the Americans even joined, and the momentous Battle of Kursk for the first time put the Germans on the run. Yes, we retook France and Italy, but it was the Red Army who drove the Germans back from the East all the way to Berlin. Britain has many victories of which she can be rightfully proud, but none on the scale of that one. No-one has.

    Of course they celebrate it - and so should we. Politics should never be allowed to rewrite history, and I'm utterly ashamed that my country chose this day to insult 27 million dead. God bless Russia, and I hope and pray they can forgive us some day. I'm not sure I ever can.

    Debreceni -> jezzam 10 May 2015 07:11

    What is the connection? There was apartheid in the American South in the 1930s and 1940s. Sill, you do not question or try to trivialize American contribution to the victory over Japan or Nazi Germany.

    The debate about dictatorhip, politial oppresion belong to a different page. You do not go to a funeral to bring up the widow's past.


    AlfredHerring veloboldie 10 May 2015 07:11

    If only Truman listened to Patton,

    Yep, we could have liberated Moscow within 6 months. Easy, just cut off all the lend lease crap and drop the big one on Moscow during that stupid parade of German prisoners that Stalin was watching and the whole thing would have been ripe for free elections. Thanks to the war a 'well regulated militia' was already in place, just would have had to hunt down those NKVD motherfuckers.


    Hants13 sztubacki 10 May 2015 07:10

    How many dictators do you know that are happily united in many multi-polar relationships with like minded nations?

    Over 85% of the people of Russia support their leader and Government and these are a few reasons why:

    Russia was bankrupt in 2000, when Putin first came to power. Since then:

    He sorted out the oligarchs.
    The average Russian lives an additional ten years since 2000.
    There is a rise in the middle class sector.
    Russia is now a creditor nation.
    Christian Orthodox Russia paid off the $45 billion debt of the Communist Soviet Union (including when the Bolsheviks and Lenin overthrew the Russian Empire).
    Russia paid off the $16.5 billion RF debt.
    Russia has the 12th largest currency reserves (around $420,000,000,000)
    Russia has the 5th largest gold reserves and can almost back the ruble with gold, rather than printers and paper.
    Russia has minimal debt (11% GDP Debt)
    Russia has control of her vast wealth of natural resources.

    How is the West, up until 2019 going to pay for Russian gas? Rubles or gold. After that, there are no contract with EU countries and much of the Russian gas will be going to China and no doubt India.

    No wonder Russia loves their President and his cabinet. Can any other Western Nation and the USA say the same?


    Mungobel samanthajsutton 10 May 2015 07:01

    I fully agree that the UK's failure to join in honouring the memory of the millions of Russians and other Soviet citizens who lost their lives in the struggle to resist the Nazi onslaught in WWII was a shaming thing. Worse still, while the Russians and others were preparing to celebrate the hard won end to that war, the UK joined with it's NATO friends in playing US-led war games on Russia's doorstep - as if intent on provoking yet another blood-letting across the globe.


    Reco1234 Hants13 10 May 2015 07:00

    The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

    -Adolf Hitler: Mein Kampf

    Hmmm, Hitler was a fan of the ideology of Karl Marx........nice one, moron.


    Hants13 MentalToo 10 May 2015 07:00

    You are aware that the Ukrainian Krushchev took Crimea from Russia in 1954?

    Using international law and self determination, the people of Crimea voted to return home to Russia in 2014. Aided by the words of the Ukrainian Presidential Candidates and what they wished to do to the 8,000,000 Russian speaking citizens of Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine did the same, but not to be ruled by Ukraine.

    The argument is explained in the 1970 United Nations Report, Self Determination and Territorial Integrity. In fact NATO used the same argument in their final report, Kosovo in an International Perspective: Self Determination, Territorial Integrity and the NATO Interpretation. Then if you study the foundations of the United Nations Charter, it was based around self determination.

    By the way, Russia leased Sevestopol (which NATO wanted) at a substantial cost and owing to the agreement, they were allowed 25,000 serving members of the military (no specifics on ranks, grades or trades). At the time that the people of Crimea voted to return home to Russia, there were only 20,000 out of the 25,000 little green men in Crimea.

    plumrose799999 10 May 2015 06:59

    The Observer(one of limited vision) is so obsessed with its Putin prodding that it fails to acknowledge Russia's part in winning the war which might not have been won by our side had it not been for the Russian people.

    I don't know whether Putin is as bad as the western media make out but thankfully their is one leader left in the world who is still capable of standing up to the USA and dictorial colonist aspirations.


    Liberator37 10 May 2015 06:57

    Without for a moment endorsing its bloodthirsty liquidation of more helpless civilians than Hitler killed, Eric Margolis has a crackerjack and fact-filled article out today in praise of the Soviet contribution to the WW-II victory. The Western boycott of Putin's celebrations is downright churlish.


    BunglyPete 10 May 2015 06:50

    Lets go back 31 years to 1984.

    RFE/RL was broadcasting into the USSR, what one of the most anti Russian US officials in history, Richard Pipes, called "blatant anti semitic propaganda".

    His concerns, which were echoed by other US officials, were based upon an RFE/RL report that painted the Ukrainian nationalists that fought alongside Hitler in a good light.

    Fast forward to 1984, sorry I mean 2015, and those messages are now reproduced in the Guardian and are enshrined in Ukrainian law and celebrations.

    If Richard Pipes thought it was an issue, can't you see Russia's concern when it leads to the downfall of Ukraine?


    MyFriendWillPay -> Amanda Katie Bromley 10 May 2015 06:48

    It's clear that those who have criticised your comment have done so from a position of ignorance.

    Operation Barbarossa, the German-led Blitzkrieg of 4 million men against the Soviet Union (SU), on 22 June 1941, was expected to bring SU defeat within weeks, which is why the Germans only stockpiled 2 months of supplies for the campaign, and even British Intelligence expected the SU to collapse within 8 - 10 weeks. However, within less than a month, the head of German Military Intelligence, Admiral Canaris, confided to a general on the eastern front that he could only see a "black outlook" for the war in the east. Even Goebells himself noted in diary entries in July 1941 of the allarming lack of progress towards victory.

    By mid October 1941, the previously euphoric Vatican had decided that Germany would lose the war in the east, as had the Swiss Secret Service and other neutral intelligence agencies.

    By the start of December 1941, with German forces less than 20 miles from the Kremlin, their campaign had ground to a halt due to troop exhaustion, the Russian winter and over-extended supply lines. Then, on 5 December 1941, the Soviets launched a massive attack that drove the Germans back 60 - 170 miles. Hitler then ordered the campaign to take Moscow delayed until the following Spring, although he then realised, apparently, that he would lose the war, and that was more than a year before the iconic Soviet victory at Stalingrad.

    Two imprtant points can be drawn from the initial weeks of Operation Barbarossa. Firstly, the US material support in war was going to the German side until it became apparent that they would not win. Most supplies of vital material, such as oil and rubber, came from the US via Spain and Vichy France. For example, 44% of Germany's vital engine oil came from the US in July 1941, and this rose to 94% in September 1941. This means that, important as subsequent western supplies were to the SU's war effort, they started arriving after it was recognised that the SU would defeat Germany and her allies. It was a fundamental issue of resources - manpower as well as materiel - that the SU had, and Germany didn't.

    Secondly, even accepting the destruction of Germany's heavy water facility, if Operation Barbarossa had succeded, Germany would have had four whole years to catch-up the US's possession of a few low-yield atomic bombs in August 1945. Taking Germany's rapid programme for the V1 & V2 rockets in the last months of the war as an example of her capability for technological development, few could seriously doubt her potential to produce the atomic bomb.

    As someone who lost a father in the west and a grandfather in the east - both during WW2 - I try to view history objectively. And, in this case, I regard the boycot by western wartime allies of Russia's celebration of WW2 victory over fascism as very disappointing indeed.

    [May 10, 2015] US and Russian Servicemen March Together in Belarus on V-Day

    May 10, 2015 | ABC News
    timepass a day ago
    As the ringleader of the 'west' this really shows the US in poor light. While these stupid Western leaders were 'boycotting', it was Putin who showed class by acknowledging the role the 'west' played in defeating Hitler.
    RADMIL

    We should have had some representation there. I stand by what the russian soldier and airmen did in WWII. They achieved a lot. But it was a joint effort If the UK and US had not put pressure on Hitler from the west thing might have been different. Hitler was an idiot. Didn't let his Generals run things.

    Roscoe Chait -> RADMIL a day ago

    Russia must be acknowledged for the horrific sacrifice it made during WWII, where millions of its troops and civilians were killed by the Nazis. At the same time, we must also not forget that Russia was Hitler's ally at the beginning of the war.

    Ruslan Moroz -> Roscoe Chait 20 hours ago

    It wasn't just Russia, Belarus lost more people to this war then any other nation. Part of Belarus was part of Soviet Union back then of course...

    Ernie -> Roscoe Chait a day ago

    It was a non-aggression pact, not an alliance. The US would have done the same thing had it shared the same proximity to Germany. It is easy to criticize Russia being on another continent.

    origion007 a day ago

    1901 - sending troops to Colombia.
    1902 - the invasion of Panama.
    1904 - the invasion of Korea, Morocco and the Dominican Republic.
    1905 - U.S. troops intervene in a revolution in Honduras.
    1905 - the invasion of Mexico (the dictator Porfirio DMaz helped suppress the
    rebellion).
    1905 - the invasion of Korea.
    1906 - the invasion of the Philippines, the suppression of the liberation
    movement.
    1906 - 1909 - U.S. troops are in Cuba during the elections.
    1907 - the invasion of Nicaragua.
    1907 - U.S. troops intervene in a revolution in the Dominican Republic
    1907 - U.S. troops are involved in a war with Honduras, Nicaragua.
    1908 - U.S. troops are in Panama during the elections.
    1910 - Nicaragua. The United States sent military forces in Nicaragua and
    organized anti-government conspiracy.
    In 1910 was formed a junta of pro-American generals.
    In the same year became president Estrada, but the following year he was
    replaced by A. Diaz, supported by U.S. troops.
    1911 - Americans landed in Honduras to support the rebellion led by former
    President Manuel Bonnily against the legitimately elected President Miguel
    Davila.
    1911 - suppression of anti-American riots in the Philippines.
    1911 - introduction of troops in China.
    1912 - U.S. troops are in Havana (Cuba).
    1912 - U.S. troops are in Panama during the elections.
    1912 - U.S. troops in the invasion of Honduras.
    1912-1933 - the occupation of Nicaragua. Nicaragua turned into a colony
    monopoly "United Fruit Company" and other American companies.
    In 1914, Washington signed an agreement by which the United States granted the
    right to build an inter-oceanic canal in the territory of Nicaragua. In 1917 he
    became president E. Chamorro, the United States has concluded with several new
    agreements, which led to further enslave the country.
    1914 - U.S. troops are in the Dominican Republic, the battle with insurgents in
    Santa Domingo.
    1914-1918 - A series of intrusions into Mexico.
    1914-1934 - Haiti. After numerous uprisings America introduces its troops, the
    occupation continues 19 years.
    1916-1924 - 8-year-old occupation of the Dominican Republic.
    1917-1933 - occupation of Cuba
    1917-1918 - participation in the 1st World War.
    1918-1922 - intervention in Russia. It was attended by just 14 countries.
    1918-1920 - Panama. After the election, introduced troops to quell the unrest.
    1919 - COSTA RICA. U.S. Troops ... to "protect American interests".
    1919 - U.S. troops fighting on the side of Italy against Serbs in Dolmatov.
    1919 - American troops are in Honduras during the elections.
    1920 - Guatemala. 2-week intervention.
    1921 - U.S. support for the rebels who fought to overthrow the Guatemalan
    president Carlos Herrera to benefit the United Fruit Company.
    1922 - intervention in Turkey.
    1922-1927 - U.S. forces in China during the popular uprising.
    1924-1925 - Honduras. Troops invaded the country during the elections.
    1925 - Panama. American forces dispersed a general strike.
    1926 - Nicaragua. Invasion.
    1927-1934 - all over China - U.S. troops.
    1932 - invasion of Salvador.
    1937 - Nicaragua. With U.S. troops dictator Somoza comes to power, displacing
    the legitimate government of Hamid Sacasa.
    1939 - The introduction of troops in China.
    1947-1949 - Greece. Suppression of anti-fascist movement.
    1948-1953 - military action in the Philippines.
    1950 - uprising in Puerto Rico suppressed by U.S. troops.
    1950-1953 - armed intervention in Korea
    1958 - Lebanon. Occupation of the country, the fight against the rebels.
    1958 - confrontation with Panama.
    1959 - America invades Laos, begin the first clashes of American troops in
    Vietnam.
    1959 - Haiti. Suppression of the popular uprising against the pro-American
    government.
    1960 - after Jose Maria Velasco was elected president of Ecuador and refused to
    comply with U.S. demands to cut ties with Cuba, Americans spent several
    military operations and organize a coup.
    1960 - U.S. troops are in Guatemala to prevent removal from power U.S. puppets.
    1965-1973 - military aggression against Vietnam.
    1966 - Guatemala. ... U.S. troops entered the country, were arranged massacres
    of Indians, who were considered potential rebels.
    1966 - military assistance pro-American governments of Indonesia and the
    Philippines.
    1971-1973 - the bombing of Laos.
    1972 - Nicaragua. American troops are introduced in order to support the
    government, favorable to Washington.
    1983 - The military intervention in Grenada, about 2 thousand marines.
    1986 - The attack on Libya. The bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi.
    1988 - the invasion of American troops in Honduras
    1989 - American troops suppress unrest in the Virgin Islands.
    1991 - large-scale military action against Iraq
    1992-1994 - the occupation of Somalia. Armed violence against the civilian
    population, the killing of civilians.
    1998 - Sudan. Americans consume missile strike pharmaceutical plant, claiming
    that it produces nerve gas.
    1999 - U.S. and NATO launched a campaign of the 78-day aerial bombardment of
    Yugoslavia.
    2001 - the invasion of Afghanistan.
    2003 - bombing of Iraq.
    2011 - Libya.

    [May 09, 2015] Why Is the US Failing to Honor Russia's Victory Day Anniversary by Martin Sieff

    May 09, 2015 | The Nation

    Instead of honoring shared sacrifice in the fight against the Nazis, the president has taken another cheap shot at Russia over Ukraine.

    ... ... ...

    These spiteful and petty acts, enthusiastically embraced by American neoliberals and neoconservatives alike, can only further embitter Russians against the West. And the campaign is doomed to fail anyway. It will certainly not "isolate" Russia, which is playing host this weekend to powerful leaders from around the globe, including China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. More than one-third of the total population of the world will be represented at the events.

    A generous acknowledgement of the leading Soviet role in the victory of 1945 should have served as a reminder of how much the United States and the Soviet Union were able to accomplish together in their joint triumph over fascism. And it would have reminded us how vital it is for the two nations to continue to work together as partners in the fight against terrorism, transnational crime, drug trafficking, sexual slavery, climate change and nuclear proliferation.

    To honor this great and solemn anniversary is simply the right thing to do-historically, morally and politically. The total number of Soviet military and civilian deaths, 27.5 million, was more than twice the death toll of all Americans, Britons, Commonwealth, French, and even Germans killed in the war combined. That is why Victory Day remains the most sacred public holiday of the year in Russia, and why it is equally revered in many of the former Soviet republics.

    The Russian people and their allies paid the colossal price in lives and blood that victory in World War II required. To dishonor their memory is disgraceful.

    Read Next: How America misremembers Russia's central role in World War II

    [May 09, 2015] Vladimir Putin: US trying to create 'unipolar world' by Damien Gayle

    May 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    Vladimir Putin has used an address commemorating the 70th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany to accuse the US of attempting to dominate the world.

    Speaking at Moscow's annual Victory Day parade in Red Square, which this year has been boycotted by western leaders over the continuing crisis in Ukraine, the Russian president berated Washington for "attempts to create a unipolar world".

    Putin said despite the importance of international cooperation, "in the past decades we have seen attempts to create a unipolar world". That phrase is often used by Russia to criticise the US for purportedly attempting to dominate world affairs.

    The US president, Barack Obama, has snubbed the festivities, as have the leaders of Russia's other key second world war allies, Britain and France, leaving Putin to mark the day in the company of the leaders of China, Cuba and Venezuela.

    The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has likewise ducked out of attending the parade but will fly to Moscow on Sunday to lay a wreath at the grave of the Unknown Soldier and meet the Russian president.

    As western sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine continue to bite, Moscow has increasingly appeared to pivot away from Europe and focus more on developing relations with China. The Chinese leader, Xi Jinping, will be the most high-profile guests on the podium next to Putin. Other presidents in attendance include India's Pranab Mukherjee, president Abdel Fatah al-Sisi of Egypt, Raúl Castro of Cuba, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Jacob Zuma of South Africa.

    Russia used the parade to show off its latest military technology, including the Armata tank, in the parade, which included 16,000 troops and a long convoy of weapons dating from the second world war to the present day. Also on show for the first time was a RS-24 Yars ICBM launcher, which Moscow has said described as a response to US and Nato anti-missile systems.

    The celebrations stand in contrast to the festivities a decade ago, when Putin hosted the leaders of the United States, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

    The Soviet Union lost about 27 million soldiers and civilians in what it calls the "great patriotic war" – more than any other country – and the Red Army's triumph remains an enormous source of national pride.

    On Saturday morning, many Muscovites sported garrison caps and black and orange striped ribbons that have become a symbol of patriotism in recent years. More than 70% of Russians say a close family member was killed or went missing during the war, making Victory Day an emotional symbol of unity for the nation.

    In recent years, victory in what Russians see as a 1941-1945 conflict has been raised to cult status and critics accuse Putin of seeking to co-opt the country's history to boost his personal power.

    The Kremlin has also used second world war narratives to rally support for its current political agenda, for example painting the Ukrainian government as Nazi sympathisers.

    Later in the day around 200,000 people were expected to march through Red Square with portraits of relatives who fought in the war, in a Kremlin-backed campaign dubbed the "immortal regiment".

    The parade will also see more than 100 military planes – including long-range nuclear bombers swoop over Moscow in a spectacular flyby.

    Smaller parades in 25 other cities will involve 25,000 soldiers and even nuclear submarines, according to the defence ministry.

    [May 09, 2015] Putin Celebrates 70th Anniversary Of Victory Over Hitler, Warns Of Dangers From Unipolar World

    May 09, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Putin Celebrates 70th Anniversary Of Victory Over Hitler, Warns Of Dangers From Unipolar World

    Below is the transcript of the speech given by Vladimir Putin at the military parade on Red Square in Moscow to mark the 70th anniversary of Russia's victory in the 1941–1945 "Great Patriotic War."

    * * *

    Via the Kremlin:

    Fellow citizens of Russia,

    Dear veterans,

    Distinguished guests,

    Comrade soldiers and seamen, sergeants and sergeant majors, midshipmen and warrant officers,

    Comrade officers, generals and admirals,

    I congratulate you all on the 70th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War!

    Today, when we mark this sacred anniversary, we once again appreciate the enormous scale of Victory over Nazism. We are proud that it was our fathers and grandfathers who succeeded in prevailing over, smashing and destroying that dark force.

    Hitler's reckless adventure became a tough lesson for the entire world community. At that time, in the 1930s, the enlightened Europe failed to see the deadly threat in the Nazi ideology.

    Today, seventy years later, the history calls again to our wisdom and vigilance. We must not forget that the ideas of racial supremacy and exclusiveness had provoked the bloodiest war ever. The war affected almost 80 percent of the world population. Many European nations were enslaved and occupied.

    The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the enemy's attacks. The elite Nazi forces were brought to bear on it. All their military power was concentrated against it. And all major decisive battles of World War II, in terms of military power and equipment involved, had been waged there.

    And it is no surprise that it was the Red Army that, by taking Berlin in a crushing attack, hit the final blow to Hitler's Germany finishing the war.

    Our entire multi-ethnic nation rose to fight for our Motherland's freedom. Everyone bore the severe burden of the war. Together, our people made an immortal exploit to save the country. They predetermined the outcome of World War II. They liberated European nations from the Nazis.

    Veterans of the Great Patriotic War, wherever they live today, should know that here, in Russia, we highly value their fortitude, courage and dedication to frontline brotherhood.

    Dear friends,

    The Great Victory will always remain a heroic pinnacle in the history of our country. But we also pay tribute to our allies in the anti-Hitler coalition.

    We are grateful to the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the Victory. We are thankful to the anti-fascists of various countries who selflessly fought the enemy as guerrillas and members of the underground resistance, including in Germany itself.

    We remember the historical meeting on the Elbe, and the trust and unity that became our common legacy and an example of unification of peoples – for the sake of peace and stability.

    It is precisely these values that became the foundation of the post-war world order. The United Nations came into existence. And the system of the modern international law has emerged.

    These institutions have proved in practice their effectiveness in resolving disputes and conflicts.

    However, in the last decades, the basic principles of international cooperation have come to be increasingly ignored. These are the principles that have been hard won by mankind as a result of the ordeal of the war.

    We saw attempts to establish a unipolar world. We see the strong-arm block thinking gaining momentum. All that undermines sustainable global development.

    The creation of a system of equal security for all states should become our common task. Such system should be an adequate match to modern threats, and it should rest on a regional and global non-block basis. Only then will we be able to ensure peace and tranquillity on the planet.

    Dear friends,

    We welcome today all our foreign guests while expressing a particular gratitude to the representatives of the countries that fought against Nazism and Japanese militarism.

    Besides the Russian servicemen, parade units of ten other states will march through the Red Square as well. These include soldiers from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Their forefathers fought shoulder to shoulder both at the front and in the rear.

    These also include servicemen from China, which, just like the Soviet Union, lost many millions of people in this war. China was also the main front in the fight against militarism in Asia.

    Indian soldiers fought courageously against the Nazis as well.

    Serbian troops also offered strong and relentless resistance to the fascists.

    Throughout the war our country received strong support from Mongolia.

    These parade ranks include grandsons and great-grandsons of the war generation. The Victory Day is our common holiday. The Great Patriotic War was in fact the battle for the future of the entire humanity.

    Our fathers and grandfathers lived through unbearable sufferings, hardships and losses. They worked till exhaustion, at the limit of human capacity. They fought even unto death. They proved the example of honour and true patriotism.

    We pay tribute to all those who fought to the bitter for every street, every house and every frontier of our Motherland. We bow to those who perished in severe battles near Moscow and Stalingrad, at the Kursk Bulge and on the Dnieper.

    We bow to those who died from famine and cold in the unconquered Leningrad, to those who were tortured to death in concentration camps, in captivity and under occupation.

    We bow in loving memory of sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, grandfathers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, comrades-in-arms, relatives and friends – all those who never came back from war, all those who are no longer with us.

    A minute of silence is announced.

    Minute of silence.

    Dear veterans,

    You are the main heroes of the Great Victory Day. Your feat predestined peace and decent life for many generations. It made it possible for them to create and move forward fearlessly.

    And today your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren live up to the highest standards that you set. They work for the sake of their country's present and future. They serve their Fatherland with devotion. They respond to complex challenges of the time with honour. They guarantee the successful development, might and prosperity of our Motherland, our Russia!

    Long live the victorious people!

    Happy holiday!

    Congratulations on the Victory Day!


    Squid Viscous

    any viewer of Speilberg's "Saving Ryan's Privates" should read this first:

    http://ericmargolis.com/2015/05/stalins-soviet-union-defeated-germany-we-should-not-forget/

    ZD1

    Instead of recognizing the 70th anniversary, Obama traveled to Nike headquarters in Oregon on Friday to promote his Pacific trade agreement of which details are secret.

    During his visit he displayed his struggles as an athlete by wearing mom jeans and by throwing like a girl...

    http://freebeacon.com/blog/obamas-nike-visit-highlights-his-struggles-as...

    The_Prisoner

    Putin nails it

    History repeating itself: "the enlightened Europe failed to see the deadly threat in the Nazi ideology."

    Clear message to Europe to cast off its allegiance with the Empire.

    Volkodav

    Not what is called nazi nor certain muslims is the problem.

    anyone can't see who is the pusher of this?

    WillyGroper

    >>>>>We are thankful to the anti-fascists of various countries who selflessly fought the enemy as guerrillas and members of the underground resistance, including in Germany itself.

    That's fucking rich. He's part of it.

    I have an Iraqi friend that told me when we invaded Iraq, Bremer stole all the farmers seed.

    Who here knew that Abu GrabA$$ was the oldest seed bank in the world with the oldest strains of wheat?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69bLgOgbZVk

    Goldilocks

    HELLSTORM
    The Biggest Cover-Up In History

    Winston Churchill told Lord Robert Boothby:

    Germany's most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit.

    Hellstorm - Exposing The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMCOKNCwHmQ (1:30:20)

    Published on May 1, 2015
    This documentary tells the tale that the victors still do not want you to know. Learn the terrible truth about the rape, torture, slavery, and mass murder inflicted upon the German people by the Allied victors of World Word II. This is the biggest cover-up in world history.

    BI2

    A MUST READ: The truth about the conflict with Russia >> http://wp.me/p4OZ4v-1Gm

    The_Prisoner

    The sponsors of both Bolshevism and Nazism lived in the USA since the late 19th century. How surprise would you be to find out they are the same people?

    RMolineaux

    Putin's eloquence matches that of Lincoln. Would that the west could produce a leader of equal perception, gravity and carisma!

    [May 08, 2015] The Cold War Against Cuba Changed Us by Jacob G. Hornberger

    [May 08, 2015] The latest political murder: Oleg Kalashnikov, former Parliament Deputy for Party of Regions.

    May 15, 2015 | informationclearinghouse.info
    Apr 16, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    yalensis, April 16, 2015 at 3:15 am

    Meanwhile, back in Banderaland, more info is coming out about the latest political murder. Oleg Kalashnikov, former Parliament Deputy for Party of Regions.
    .
    According to the VZGLIAD piece, Kalashnikov was organizing and planning to hold some kind of march to celebrate the 70 anniversay Victory Day in Kiev. One of his relatives reported to the press, that he (Oleg) had received death threats in conjunction with these activities. He had also been threatened by SBU types.

    During the time in the Rada (2006-2007) Oleg had made several important political enemies, including Julia Tymoshenko and Anatoly Gritsenko.

    On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov wrote a letter to a friend, including the following words:
    "Открытый геноцид инакомыслия, угрозы физического уничтожения и постоянные грязные оскорбления за открытый призыв к празднованию 70-летия Победы в Великой Отечественной войне стали нормой в оккупированной нацистами сегодняшней Украине, – писал Калашников. – Этот "подарок" я получил 13 апреля вместе с очередной порцией угроз и оскорблений", – говорится в письме.

    TRANSLATION
    "The open genocide of dissident thinking, threats of physical extermination, and the constant, dirty insults (directed at my) calls to celebrate the 70th Anniversay or Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War – these have become the norm in today's Ukraine, which is occupied by Nazis," Kalashnikov wrote. "This so-called 'gift" was received by me on 13 April…"
    END OF TRANSLATION

    By "gift" what Oleg meant was that, all of his personal demographic info, including his address, was published in the publication called "Mirotvorets" on April 13. "Mirotvorets" is a "resouce" which publishes all known info about separatists. This resource is under the purview of Anton Gerashchenko, one of the big-shots in the junta government.

    Within a day of his data being published, Oleg Kalashnikov was gunned down and assassinated near his home.

    The piece adds, intriguingly, that this "Mirotvorets" database of separatist info, is supposedly only accessible to Ukrainian Internal Police and SBU. Therefore, the implication is, that this was a government-sanctioned assassination of a political opponent.

    yalensis , April 16, 2015 at 3:34 am
    Continuing with more info from above piece (is a long article):

    Kalashnikov had ended his letter with the following words:
    "Маски сброшены! Нацизм со звериным оскалом жаждет крови, чтобы скрыть свои преступления против многострадального народа современной Украины!" – так заканчивает свое письмо Калашников.

    TRANSLATION
    "The masks are off! Nazism with its beastly grin, is thirsty for blood, and tries to hide its crimes against the long-suffering people of contemporary Ukraine."
    END OF TRANSLATION

    On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov's friends begged him to flee the country.
    He said he could not, for 2 reasons: (1) He was an officer in the intelligence services, and (2) he could not in conscience leave his fellow-thinkers behind.

    Political writer Vladimir Kornilov confirms, that Kalashnikov was very worried about all his personal, demographic data being published in "Mirotvorets", which he calls a "stool-pigeon rag".

    A few months ago, back in January, Gerashchenko proudly presented his new plan of tracking political dissidents. In a separate comment, I will translate a bit (if I have time) of Gerashchenko's "presentation" of this totalitarian project for tracking and eliminating dissidents. For now, suffice that the title of Gerashcheno's "oeuvre" is called: "Gifts for Christmas: or Every Creature gets what he deserves".

    Meanwhile Ukrainian totalitarian media are all over this too, the general tone being:
    (1) Kalashnikov was an odious "Regional" who deserved to die; however
    (2) It was probably his Russian "sponsors" who whacked him, maybe because he was about to spill some beans, or something like that….

    Around the murder itself, some strange events:

    Oleg was shot dead with 4 shots.
    Oleg's wife heard the noise and rushed out, as husband was being gunned down.
    She immediately called the police.
    Within minutes, according to her, police from Internal Ministry were on the spot.
    While this was going on, Oleg's daughter-in-law was suddenly mugged; somebody grabbed her purse, right there at the crime scene.

    Pavlo Svolochenko , April 16, 2015 at 3:42 am
    Likely as not the mugger was also the shooter.
    yalensis , April 16, 2015 at 3:46 am
    Here, by the way , is the site Mirotvorets. This is the site where you go if you are Ukrainian and want to denounce your neighbour as a separatist.

    Just skimming through the site, one gets a glimpse into Gerashchenko (aka "Fat Bastard") sick Nazi mind. For example, scroll down a bit to see him bragging about collecting a database of 20,500 "individuals" (with more negative connotation than English equivalent).


    Иначе этих нелюдей назвать не можем, поскольку именно они принесли беду в наш общий дом: изменники родины, сепаратисты, террористы и боевики, наемники российского происхождения, военные преступники из вооруженных сил РФ, а также пособники разных мастей всей этой нечисти.

    TRANSLATION
    We don't know what else to call these in-humans, since they have brought woe into our common home: traitors of the motherland, separatists, terrorists and militants, mercenaries of Russian origin, war criminals from the army of the Russian Federation, and also collaborators of various stripes of all this filth.
    END OF TRANSLATION

    The rest of the site has the same tone: all heavily anti-Russia and in your face, tone is basically that of some loud-mouth mobster bully.
    Which is exactly what Gerashchenko is.

    yalensis, April 16, 2015 at 3:58 am
    Here is Mirotvorets post from March 16, pertaining to Crimean citizens:

    В последнее время к нам неоднократно официально обращаются представители ряда государственных ведомств Украины с просьбой предоставить имеющуюся информацию об изменниках Родины, сепаратистах, пособниках российских оккупантов и боевиках НВФ, проживающих в настоящее время на временно оккупированной территории АР Крым (Украина). Учитывая эти просьбы, а также в полном соответствии с действующим Законодательством Украины, мы решили открыто разместить на сайте Центра "Миротворец" указанную информацию в форматах, удобных для интеграции в любые автоматизированные системы обработки. Данные представлены в формате CSV. С учетом постоянного накопления данных, список периодически будет обновляться. По состоянию на 16 марта 2015 года в Чистилище находится информация о более чем 7500 особей, большую часть из который представляют изменники Родины.

    TRANSLATION
    Recently we have been approached officially by representatives of a series of governmental authorities of Ukraine, with a request to present all the information we have pertaining to traitors of the motherland, separatists, collaborators with Russian occupiers, and fighters in illegal formations who dwell at the current time on the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine).
    Taking into account these requests, and also in full accordance with existing legislation of Ukraine, we have decided to place on the "Mirotvorets" site the information indicated, in formats convenient for integration into any automated databases. The data is presented in the .CSV format [yalensis: ASCII text file with comma-separated fields]. Taking into account the continuous accumulation of data, the database will be refreshed periodically. As of 16 March 2015, in our database we have information on more than 7500 individuals, the major portion of whom are traitors to the motherland.
    END OF TRANSLATION

    yalensis: And now, in April, the database is up to 20K traitors.
    All in their comma-delimited traitorous glory.

    Pavlo Svolochenko, April 16, 2015 at 4:05 am
    Writing in Russian of course.
    marknesop , April 16, 2015 at 6:56 am
    "Fighters in illegal formations", Dear God, you could scream. According to the Ukrainian constitution, all formations except for the state military and law enforcement are illegal. But only half-hearted attempts are made to "legalize" the volunteer battalions, which are not even paid by the government, or were not until Benny's bottomless purse flew away with him. And the ever-alert-for-illegal-behavior west which brought you the suggestion that Ukraine could ignore its debt to Russia as "odious debt" says not a word about Kiev's own making up what is legal as it goes along.
    marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 6:52 am
    It's like a caricature of reality, as if someone either not too imaginative or with the brilliant talent for mockery that results in films like "Springtime for Hitler" were making an educational film about the growth of fascism in a fertile society.

    All this, I'm sure, contributes to Brussels' ambition to make a close partner and chum of Ukraine. It certainly displays European values. Of course, you never know how much they know and how much they are just pretending not to know.

    cartman, April 16, 2015 at 8:59 am
    "This is the site where you go if you are Ukrainian and want to denounce your neighbour as a separatist."

    These are European values.

    Does anyone remember the Stalinism for Android app, which allowed people to report and disappear their neighbors from their mobile phones?

    PaulR, April 16, 2015 at 5:40 am
    They seem to have moved on from politicians to journalists: 'Pro-Russian journalist killed in Kiev':
    PaulR, April 16, 2015 at 6:11 am
    More on this. Anton Gerashenko, senior advisor to the Interior Minister, is blaming it on the Russians: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/16/pro-russia-journalist-shot-killed-ukraine-kiev-oles-buzyna
    marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 7:55 am
    "pro-Russia" and "Russia-leaning" and "Kremlin-friendly" are the new "nothing to see here; move along" in Ukrainian discourse. What a name that benighted nation is making for itself! I must confess – somewhat guiltily, because there is nothing funny about the desperate situation of ordinary Ukrainians – that I get a great deal of amusement over the west's continuing hamfisted attempt to portray this hellhole as a brave emerging country stumbling towards democracy. It is nothing of the kind – it is like some sort of college frat party spun out of control in which the most wicked and deviant of the population are allowed to fully indulge their secret fantasies.
    marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 7:01 am
    It seems you can kill just about anyone with impunity in the brave new Ukraine provided you put "pro-Russian" before their occupation. I am becoming steadily more supportive of all Ukraine except the southeast, without any source of income and crazy as a bedbug, going to the EU. They deserve to live cheek by jowl with their project and the result of their meddling.
    PaulR, April 16, 2015 at 6:03 am
    The 'Russian economy returns to growth' headline is actually a little misleading, because although the stock exchange and currency are up, it still seems as though GDP will decline this year. That said, the rise in the ruble will reduce inflation which will allow the Central Bank to cut interest rates, which should permit GDP to start rising again sooner than expected. So not all is rosy, but the Russian economy is looking much more resilient than critics had suggested.
    marknesop, April 16, 2015 at 7:48 am
    Yes, that's true – "stabilized" would have been more accurate. But I believe stability is going to look like growth in today's economic climate; countries that were struggling are going to be desperate, while those who were on shaky ground are going to have an increasingly hard time of it. And that's going to be without a coalition of the most prosperous countries all united in an effort to take them down. Russians have good reason to be more confident, because indeed the sanctions, long-term, are going to have hurt those who imposed them much more than those upon whom they were imposed.

    Is there a video of your TV appearance? I'd like to see it. How did it go?

    et Al, April 16, 2015 at 7:44 am
    What has impressed me is how the bad news about western sanctions was handled. Rather than the usual "There's nothing to see. Move on!.", they explained the potential consequences, the reasons for it and most importantly of all, a reasonable time scale of when it should be over.

    I also strongly suspect that they deliberately overplayed the figures of potential damage to the economy knowing that it would be highly unlikely that the figures would ever play out as such, the flip side being that any performance better than those figures is a victory.

    On the one hand it gives a pyrrhic victory to the Pork Pie News Networks, western politicians and Russophobes for Russia to admit it will be significantly damaged and importantly allows Western states to claim they are taking tough and decisive action against Russia when they have not done so despite having multiple opportunities to do so – a very useful face saving exercise.

    The sanctions could have been much, much worse.

    So both sides get something. The West pretends to slap on draconian sanctions and swing its gigantic pot belly and balls aggressively to its own adoring congregation proving that they are indispensable and exceptional nations that the rest of the world should be modelled on, Russia plays the "I'm sexy and I know it" card to the rest of the world. Everyone is pleased.

    [May 07, 2015] The Cold War Against Cuba Changed Us

    May 07, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    During the 1950s and 1960s, the CIA made multiple attempts to assassinate Cuba's ruler, Fidel Castro. Let's assume that the CIA had succeeded and that Castro had been shot dead on the streets of Havana.

    It's not difficult to imagine what US national-security state officials would be saying today: "If we hadn't assassinated Castro, the United States would have fallen to the communists and, today, Fidel and his brother would be running the IRS, Social Security, Medicare, public schooling, and other socialist programs owned and operated by the US government."

    Soon after Castro took power on January 1, 1959, when President Eisenhower was still in office, and continually through the Kennedy administration, the CIA steadfastly maintained that a communist-ruled Cuba was a grave threat to US "national security" - a communist dagger situated 90 miles away from American shores and pointed directly at the United States.

    It was all a Cold War farce, one that served as one of the biggest protection rackets in history - one by which the national-security establishment was able to keep the American people in a constant, never-ending state of anxiety, fear, and depression, which assured ever-increasing budgets and power for what Ike called the "military-industrial complex" and what has ultimately become known as the "national-security establishment."

    How do we know it was all a farce? Because they didn't succeed in assassinating Castro and yet the United States is still standing! Sure, we've got the same types of socialist and interventionist programs that Castro has in Cuba - income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, economic regulations, a Federal Reserve, etc. - but that's not because Castro conquered the United States but rather because Americans love socialism and interventionism as much as Castro does.

    What difference did it make to the American people that Cuba was ruled by a self-avowed communist? It didn't make any difference at all. The plain truth is that under Castro, Cuba never initiated any acts of aggression toward the United States. Castro's own national-security establishment never invaded the United States. It never tried to assassinate US officials. It never initiated acts of terrorism inside the United States.

    The only reason that US officials ultimately decided to list Cuba as an official "sponsor of terrorism" was because of Castro's support of insurgencies in other Latin American countries in which people were trying to oust US-supported right-wing dictatorships, much like the brutal US-supported Fulgencio Batista dictatorship that Castro succeeded in ousting from power in Cuba.

    Throughout the Cold War and beyond, the CIA issued severe warnings about the danger that other Latin American countries would end up with communist regimes. It was all a farce too. It wouldn't have made any difference to the United States if every other Latin American country went communist. That's because there was never any possibility that Latin American countries were ever going to mount up their military forces and invade, conquer, and occupy the United States.

    Consider all the Latin American countries that have gone leftist - including many of the ones that the CIA was so concerned with during the Cold War. Nicaragua, Bolivia, Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, and more. Do you see them mobilizing their armies to invade the United States? It's a ridiculous notion. And it was a ridiculous notion throughout the Cold War.

    That's not to say, of course, that it's beneficial for people to live under a socialist or communist regime. That's where libertarians part company with leftists. Living in Cuba, Venezuela, or other socialist regime is pure misery from an economic standpoint and a civil-liberties standpoint. But the fact is that such regimes never had any interest (or financial means - they were too broke) to even think of invading, conquering, and occupying the United States.

    What all too many Americans have still not confronted is what the adoption of the national-security apparatus did to our country - in the name of the anti-communist crusade.

    In the post-9/11 era, Americans are now fully accustomed to assassination. Most everyone accepts the fact that the CIA assassinates people with regularity and with impunity and immunity. It's become a normal part of America's governmental structure, justified as part of the "war on terrorism," a war, we are told, is certain to last longer than the Cold War. It's just another great big protection racket, one designed to maintain the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and the entire national-security apparatus in high cotton for the indefinite future.

    The CIA has been an assassination machine practically since its inception. In its 1954 regime-change operation in Guatemala, for example, the CIA had a kill list of Guatemalan officials who were to be assassinated. There were the multiple assassination attempts against Castro. There were the plans to assassinate Rafael Trujillo, the ruler in the Dominican Republic. There was Operation Phoenix in Vietnam. There was the kidnapping-assassination of Gen. Rene Schneider of Chile. There were the assassinations of Americans Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi. There was the CIA's partnership in Operation Condor, one of the biggest assassination rings in history, one that assassinated former Chilean official Orlando Letelier and his young assistant Ronni Moffitt on the streets of Washington, D.C. And as the mounting circumstantial evidence has inexorably disclosed, there was the assassination of President Kennedy, on grounds of "national security," as I detail in my book Regime Change: The JFK Assassination.

    At one time, CIA assassinations were kept secret or "covert." That's because most people recognized assassination for what it was - murder. Even President Lyndon Johnson, who wasn't exactly the paragon of political virtue, called the CIA's assassination program a "Murder Inc."

    And that's precisely what assassination is – murder. What right, either moral or legal, did the US government have to assassinate Fidel Castro or any other leftist ruler? From where did that authority come? It certainly didn't come with the Constitution, which doesn't authorize either a CIA, assassination, or regime-change operations. Under what moral, religious, legal, or constitutional authority did the US national-security state murder people because of their political or economic philosophy?

    Throughout the Cold War, Americans weren't supposed to ask those types of questions. They were expected to defer to the national-security establishment. Conscience, reason, and independent thinking were submerged to the judgment of the national-security state. The citizen's creed became: Assassination is normal and necessary. Our national-security state officials know what's best. Trust them. Don't ask questions. Secrecy must be maintained. "National security" is at stake.

    The grafting of a national-security apparatus onto America's founding governmental system was the worst mistake in the history of the United States, for in the name of protecting "national security" from Fidel Castro and communism, it moved America in the direction of the socialist and totalitarian regimes it was opposing.

    How ironic that we now live in a society that has adopted the same socialist and interventionist programs found in Cuba and that why we now live in a society in which the government wields the omnipotent power to torture and assassinate its own people and others. How ironic that modern-day Americans celebrate their socialism, interventionism, assassinations, torture, coups, invasions, regime-changes, and their entire welfare-warfare state as "freedom."

    Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation.

    [May 07, 2015] The Illegal Phone-Data Sweeps By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

    May 07, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    There is a lot to praise in the powerful ruling issued by a three-judge federal appeals panel in New York on Thursday, which held that the government's vast, continuing and, until recently, secret sweep of Americans' phone records is illegal.

    But perhaps the most important message the unanimous decision sends is a simple one: Congress could not have intended to approve a program whose true scope almost no one outside the National Security Agency fully comprehended - that is, until Edward Snowden leaked its details to the world.

    In the nearly two years since those revelations shocked America and started a heated debate on the proper balance of privacy and national security, the N.S.A., which conducts the data sweeps, has defended its actions by contending that Congress knew exactly what it was doing when it reauthorized the Patriot Act in 2010 and 2011, after the collection program had begun.

    At issue before the appeals panel was Section 215 of the act, which permits the government to collect information that is "relevant" to terrorism investigations. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, at the urging of the N.S.A., has interpreted "relevant" so broadly that it gives the government essentially unlimited power to collect all phone and other types of data.

    In fighting this lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union immediately after the Snowden leaks, the government argued that Congress was apparently fine with this alarmingly broad interpretation.

    The problem, as Judge Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rightly pointed out in his 97-page opinion, is that "it is a far stretch to say that Congress was aware" of what the intelligence court was doing. To the contrary, Judge Lynch wrote, "knowledge of the program was intentionally kept to a minimum, both within Congress and among the public," and there was "no opportunity for broad discussion" about whether the court's interpretation was correct. Allowing the government to define "relevant" so loosely, he said, "would be an unprecedented contraction of the privacy expectations of all Americans."

    It is particularly galling that the government cannot even point to evidence that any terrorist attack has been thwarted by the collection of all this data. But even if it could, the panel said, "we would expect such a momentous decision to be preceded by substantial debate, and expressed in unmistakable language."

    For too long that debate did not happen, nor could it, since the intelligence court operated in near-total secrecy. Now, thanks to Mr. Snowden (who still lives in exile in Russia), the debate is well underway, and not a moment too soon, since Congress is debating reauthorization of Section 215, which is scheduled to expire on June 1.

    Bipartisan bills in both houses would amend the law to cut back on domestic phone-data sweeps, but they do not address bulk collection of overseas calls, which could include information about Americans, and they do not establish an advocate to represent the public's interest before the intelligence court.

    Without such an advocate, Judge Robert Sack wrote in a concurring opinion, the court "may be subject to the understandable suspicion that, hearing only from the government, it is likely to be strongly inclined to rule for the government."

    Unfortunately, even modest reforms face resistance from top Republicans, including the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who on Thursday called for the law to be renewed without change. In doing so, they ignored a ruling that is the most important rebuke yet of the government's abuses under that law.


    ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 1 hour ago

    We must never forget the government lied to us about spying on Americans before Snowden blew the whistle. Director of Intel James Clapper admitted he lied to the People when he testified under oath the NSA was not collecting data from American's calls. When he lied, Congress knew it, the President knew it and Clapper knew it.

    Snowden exposed the lie and the government immediately indicted him while Obama expressed support for Clapper who lied to the public.

    Why should we ever trust what the government tells us about surveillance programs? Why is James Clapper still receiving a taxpayer's check after lying to us? Why doesn't Pres. Obama get it -- you don't lie and get away with it?

    Oh yah, Pres. Obama knew he was lying when he testified and was hoping he could get away with it.

    Thank you Mr. Snowden for exposing the lies perpetrated on the public. In a just World, Clapper would be indicted and you would be welcomed home as a Patriot. But as you know first hand, we don't live in a just world.

    Thank you Mr. Snowden for exposing the liars for who they are.

    RC, is a trusted commenter MN 2 hours ago

    Good editorial; the unconstitutional surveillance of all domestic communications, not just phone records, should now be addressed.

    Holding the politicians who authorize and support unconstitutional surveillance accountable might help to end the massive wasting of taxpayer dollars on these inefficient activities, which diverts funds from more productive programs that would benefit the security of our country.

    [May 03, 2015] The "Russian aggression" meme really follows in the footsteps of the "WMD" meme.

    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Drutten May 1, 2015 at 2:14 pm

    The "Russian aggression" meme really follows in the footsteps of the "WMD" meme.

    You can easily see how it works, from the invention of a few buzzwords and/or phrases that are then repeated in nauseam, to the obedient media quickly following suit.

    It strikes me as the highest level of irony that all the silly propaganda tactics they continuously and loudly accuse Russia of (and Russia is surely guilty of some of them), they employ themselves – ten fold.

    It's like that ongoing BS about RT, its funding and penetration. All the data's there, and RT is simply dwarfed by its Western analogues, both in terms of finances and scale. Yet they keep raving about it, using bald-faced lies to support their tirades. Likewise, whatever bad journalism RT is guilty of (e.g. distorting events by omission to fit the agenda etc) they're again ten times worse.

    And the big elephant in the room is Ukraine, a country highly relevant in this context as most of these things pertain to that particular crisis. Ukraine where things are so aggressive, oppressive and generally rotten that had it been any other country there'd be talk about some sorely needed B-52's raining democracy bombs over Kiev by now.

    This kind of mindblowing hypocrisy, selective (deceptive) reporting and cynical agitation against whatever the "preferred target" happens to be today is nothing new, of course, but it never ceases to amaze me.

    [May 03, 2015] US Goes Ballistic Over Ukraine as Both Sides There Wage Peace By William Boardman,

    March 10, 2015 | readersupportednews.org

    US and UK deploy troops to Ukraine, but they're just "advisors"

    American combat troops deployed in Ukraine will soon number in the hundreds, at least, but US officials claim they're there only as "advisors" or "trainers," not as an in-place threat to Russia. Whatever advising or training they may do, they are also an in-place threat to Russia. US officials are also lobbying to arm Ukraine with "defensive" anti-tank rockets and other lethal weapons in hopes of escalating the fighting, maybe even killing some Russians. In other words, American brinksmanship continues to escalate slowly but recklessly on all fronts.

    To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties). The government in Kievand the would-be governments of the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk have been acting as if they're not hell-bent on mutually assured destruction after all. They've exchanged prisoners. They've agreed to double the number of ceasefire monitors to 1,000. They've pulled back their heavy weapons. Both sides have stopped the random shelling that has caused "heavy civilian tolls of dead and wounded," according to theMarch 2 report from the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights.

    The calmer heads of Europe, in Germany and France particularly, are presently prevailing over the fear-mongered countries closer to Russia who seem bewitched by US enthusiasm to subject Europe to yet another devastating war in which those near-Russia countries would be the first to feel the pain. But for now, most of Europe seems willing to accept the notion that the Russians have a rational view of their reasonable security needs, that the cost of further Russian advances outweighs any rational gain, and that all the mad babbling of bellicose Americans is just unprocessed cold war hysteria amplified by the need to deny decades of imperial defeats.

    What is it with exceptional American irrationalists' love of war?

    Still the manic American willingness to risk war with Russia, including nuclear war – over what, exactly? – keeps spinning out of Washington:

    • Ashton Carter, President Obama's choice as Secretary of Defense, assured senators during his confirmation hearing in February that he would push for more aggressive military action for the rest of Obama's term, that he favors lethal arms for Ukraine, and that he would not be pressured into faster release of innocent prisoners held in Guantanamo.
    • John Kerry, Secretary of State, advocated in early February in favor of sending arms to the Ukraine government. Since April 2014, Kerry has been demonizing Russia, blaming Russia for growing violence in eastern Ukraine even as Kiev militias were attacking the Donetsk and Luhansk separatists, calling them "terrorists." Kerry, the highest ranking American diplomat, recently and publicly accused the Russians of lying to his face.
    • James Clapper, director of national intelligence, has told the Council on Foreign Relations that he wants to give "lethal- defensive weapons" to the Kiev government to "bolster their resolve" and persuade them "that we're with them." Clapper was calling Russia one of the greatest threats to the US as early as 2011.
    • Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, jumped on the arm-Ukraine bandwagon March 3, saying "I think we should absolutely consider lethal aid." (He didn't add that the big danger of non-lethal aid is that it might help people settle differences without killing each other.)
    • Victoria Nuland, formerly security advisor to Dick Cheney, now an assistant secretary of state for European affairs, has long engaged in working for regime change in Russia. Nuland is famous for her "f-k the EU" attitude during the Maidan protests in 2014. On March 4 she became the first US official to call Russian actions in eastern Ukraine "an invasion." She claimed there were hundreds of Russian Tanks in eastern Ukraine, though no credible evidence supports the claim.

    "NATO now exists to manage the risks created by its existence."

    – Richard Sakwa, Frontline Ukraine

    From the Russian perspective, NATO aggression has continued for the past 20 years. Secretary of State James Baker, under the first President Bush, explicitly promised the Russians that NATO would not expand eastward toward Russia. For the next two decades, at the behest of the US, NATO has expanded eastward to Russia's borders and put Ukrainian NATO membership in play. The unceasing madness of "US and NATO aggression in Ukraine" is argued forcefully by attorney Robert Roth in Counterpunch, who notes that US-sponsored sanctions on Russia are already, arguably, acts of war.

    NATO continues to maintain nuclear weapons bases around Russia's periphery while adding more anti-missile missile installations. Anti-missile missiles to intercept Russian missiles are generally understood to be part of the West's nuclear first strike capability.

    Then there's the months-old, expanding Operation Atlantic Resolve, an elaborate US-sponsored NATO show of force deploying thousands of troops to NATO countries that are also Russia's near-neighbors. Beginning in April 2014, Operation Atlantic Resolve started sending troops to Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) that border Russia. Those troops remain, and Defense News reported that more US saber-rattling is coming:

    The US military's plans to send troops into Romania and Bulgaria as a deterrence to Russian aggression could expand to include Hungary, the Czech Republic and Russia's southern neighbor, Georgia…. by the end of the summer, you could very well see an operation that stretches from the Baltics all the way down to the Black Sea….

    In the Black Sea itself, NATO forces continue to project force through "training exercises" involving the Navies of at least seven nations: US, Canada, Turkey, Germany, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria. NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove complained in late February that Russia had deployed "air defense systems that reach nearly half of the Black Sea" – as if it were surprising that Russia would respond to hostile military activity close to one of its oldest and largest naval bases, Sevastopol, in Crimea. Breedlove admits that NATO naval forces have approached Crimea, provoking Russian naval responses. Breedlove's warmongering reportedly upsets German officials, but they don't object publicly to American lies.

    This pattern of provocation and response is familiar to those who know the Viet-Nam War, when similar US tactics provoked the so-called "Tonkin Gulf incident." That manipulated set of events, deceitfully described by the White House and dishonestly amplified by most American media, was used to gull a credulous and lazy Congress into passing the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, giving the president authority to wage that disastrous, pointless war. Watch for the sequel coming to a Black Sea theatre of war near you.

    Congress is as eager for Ukraine War as it was for Iraq and Viet-Nam

    War mongering has a large, noisy cheering section in Congress. Eleven American lawmakers including House Speaker John Boehner have signeda bi-partisan letter to President Obama demanding in the shrillest tones ("defend against further aggression") that the US ship lethal arms to the Kiev government now. The eleven Congress members (8 predictable Republicans and three veteran, dimwit Democrats) write about Ukraine what they had never had the wit or courage to say about US aggression in Iraq. They assert with grotesque oversimplification and false premises about "the crisis in Ukraine" that:

    It is a grotesque violation of International law, a challenge to the west, and an assault on the international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II.

    Fatuous warmongering. At the end of World War II, Crimea was indisputably part of Russia (within the USSR) and the anti-Russian military alliance of NATO did not exist, much less had it pushed its existential security threat to the Russian border. You want an all-out, unambiguous assault on international law, look to Iraq and all the "little Iraqs" that the American hegemon executes with impunity and nearly endless destructiveness to peace, order, and culture.

    The weak-kneed Democrats mindlessly signing on to this reflexive Republican rage to kill someone are: Eliot Engel of New York (Westchester County), lawyer – first elected in 1988, he's been a strong supporter of violence in Palestine, Kosovo, and Iraq (voting for the war in 2002); Adam Smith of Washington (Seattle), lawyer – first elected 1997, he's supported violence in Afghanistan and Iraq (voting for the war in 2001) and he sponsored a bill to allow the US government to lie to the people; and Adam Schiff of California (Burbank), lawyer – he's supported violence in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria (voting for the Iraq war in 2002). "Bi-partisanship" is pretty meaningless when the imperial warmaking ideology is monolithic, as in this basic lie also in the Boehner letter:

    We should not wait until Russian troops and their separatist proxies take Mariupol or Kharkiv before we act to bolster the Ukrainian government's ability to deter and defend against further aggression.

    The core of this lie is those "separatist proxies." That's an Orwellian phrase used to turn the roughly 5 million residents of the Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk into un-persons. These 5 million people are predominantly Russian-speaking and ethnic-Russian. They have legitimate, longstanding grievances with Ukrainian-dominated governments in Kiev, especially with the current illegitimate one which is neo-Nazi-tinged and Russo-phobic.

    It is important for these 5 million people seeking self-determination to disappear from the American argument for war sooner rather than later. The American war justifiers require "Russian aggression" as a crediblecasus belli, but the would-be war makers offer no credible evidence to support that propaganda claim ("Remember the Maine!").

    The American news bubble distorts and excludes the world's realities

    The blandly mindless media repetition of the phrase "Russian aggression" is a reliable measure of how much the news reports the government propaganda, at the expense of something like real world complexity. Dissenting voices are few in America's media world, and seldom heard, especially those who ask: "What aggression?"

    Somehow, in the well-washed American collective brain, it's aggression when an oppressed minority declares its independence from its oppressors, the coup-installed Kiev government (and some of its predecessors). But that same scrubbed brain believes it's not aggression when another minority, aligned with foreign interests, carries out a violent overthrow of Ukraine's legitimately elected government.

    Newsweek has demonized Russian president Vladimir Putin for months now, including on a cover with the headline "The Pariah" over a picture showing Putin in dark glasses that seem to reflect two nuclear explosions. (This imagery worked with deceitful perfection in 2002 when President Bush and Condoleezza Rice terrified audiences with the possibility that the "smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud.") Newsweek has even called for regime change in Russia. Newsweek is hardly alone in demonizing Putin without considering the realities of his situation. Others, like CNN, simply resort to calling him "completely mad," even though Russian actions have been largely measured and limited, especially when considered in the context of two decades of western provocation.

    The New York Times got suckered by the Kiev government into running pictures "proving" Russian troops were in Ukraine, when they proved no such thing. This was not an anomaly among American media, according toRobert Parry in Consortium News:

    At pivotal moments in the crisis, such as the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper fire that killed both police and protesters and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 killing 298 passengers and crew, the U.S. political/media establishment has immediately pinned the blame on Yanukovych, the ethnic Russian rebels who are resisting his ouster, or Putin. Then, when evidence emerged going in the opposite direction – toward "our side" – a studied silence followed, allowing the earlier propaganda to stay in place as part of the preferred storyline.

    When reality intrudes upon propaganda, reality must be discredited

    In a somewhat mocking story about Russia's denunciation of US troops arriving in Ukraine as a threat to Russia security, the Los Angeles Timesgive roughly equal time to a NATO commander denouncing the Russian denunciation. The casual reader who stops halfway through the story is easily left with the impression that the Russians are behaving badly again and maybe sending lethal weapons is a good idea. Only in the last two paragraphs does the Times, quite unusually, report some real things that matter about Ukraine:

    Ukraine, which proclaimed independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 as the communist-ruled federation was collapsing, had pledged to remain nonaligned, and in any case would need years to carry out reforms and assimilation of its armed forces with those of NATO before it could be inducted into the Western defense alliance.

    But since the Russian-backed insurgency began ripping Ukraine apart, Kiev authorities have renounced the nonalignment pledge and set their course for eventual NATO membership.

    The first of these two paragraphs is a partly reasonable explanation of why Russia would feel betrayed by the US and NATO. A nonaligned Ukraine remains an obvious possible alternative to the present conflict ignited by decades of NATO aggression.

    The second paragraph serves as a warning, packaged as a justification based on a lie. The lie is that it's a Russian-backed insurgency that's ripping Ukraine apart, when Ukraine has been ripping itself apart for years, a reality that led to the coup-government in Kiev. The explanation – which is false – is that the insurgency has forced the Kiev government's hand, even though the government took power with EU and NATO links obviously in mind. The warning is that Ukraine may just join NATO as soon as it can.

    Until Americans – and especially American policy makers – face fundamental realities in and about Ukraine, the risk that they will take the rest of us into an unjustified, stupid, and potentially catastrophic war will remain unacceptably high. One of the realities Americans need to face is that the Ukraine government is corrupt, as corrupt an some of the most corrupt governments in the world, and nothing the US has done is likely to change that any time soon. What any war would ultimately be about is: who gets to benefit from that corruption?

    Ukrainians know this and despair as, for example, Lilia Bigeyeva, 55, a violinist and composer did when she told her family's storyfrom Dnipropetrovsk in central Ukraine:

    I was born in Melitopol, raised in Zaporizhzhya, and have spent all of my adult life in Dnipropetrovsk. It hasn't been easy, this past year in Ukraine. The loss of Crimea is a tragedy, the war is a tragedy. And it's far from clear that our government and our people are really prepared to institute rule of law….

    The war is very close to us, here in Dnipropetrovsk. Every day there's bad news. But we continue to play music, my pupils and I. Culture and art, these are the things that have always helped us through frightening times.

    This was published in The Moscow Times on March 6, but it was originally recorded and distributed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In other words, there's no excuse, for anyone on any side, to say they didn't know what was happening to the Ukrainian people for the sake of geopolitical greed.

    END NOTE: HOW YOU CAN HELP THE WEST'S WAR EFFORT

    [Craigslist posting, edited, from Orange County, California, March 3, 2015.]

    Ukrainian/Russian Men Needed $19/Hr (Oceanside, CA)

    GTS (Glacier Technology Solutions LLC) – We are military contractors working directly with the US Marine Corps assisting them with their immersive simulation training program.

    Currently, we are looking for role players of Ukrainian and/or Russian ethnicity and language skills. Need MEN ranging 18-65 years of age.

    This is temporary, part time, on-call work based on need and availability.

    At the moment, we are staffing for an upcoming training to take place on: March 29-31, 2015. The scheduled hours will vary from 8-12 hours per working day.

    Compensation is $15.17/hr. plus another $4.02/hr. Health and Welfare benefit for up to 40 hours of work in a workweek. (Overtime rates will be paid if necessary). Register for work at: www.Shiftboard.com/wforce


    William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

    Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

    Activista 2015-03-10 13:22

    rt.com/op-edge/239205-baltic-states-us-military-troops/
    NATO uses 'Russia threat' as excuse to halt defense cuts ...
    these are make up threats to keep profit/militari sm/NATO going ...
    EU does not want to pay 2% GDP to NATO ...
    and US military expenditure and debt is growing ..
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures#mediaviewer/File:Top_ten_military_expenditures_in_$_in_2013.jpg.jpeg

    jdd 2015-03-10 18:52

    You have it backwards. While it may be less disturbing to believe that NATO exists merely to justify military spending, you have missed the point. NATO's was originally created as a military alliance against the Soviet Union, even though the Warsaw Pact was later dissolved, NATO was maintained and expanded to threaten and encircle Russia. Nuland, Carter and other believe that they can cause "regime change" in Russia, or alternatively win a "first strike" victory in a "limited nuclear war." Now, in response to the successful cease-fire, made possible by Putin's cooperation, we have EU Commissioner Juncker calling for an EU army to confront Russia. The response from a prominent Russian parliamentarian :

    "In a nuclear age, extra armies do not provide any additional security. But they surely can play a provocative role...One should presume that a European army is seen as an addendum to NATO...never, even in the darkest days of the Cold War, had anyone dared to make such a proposal." If only it were merely about military spending.

    and continue to provoke the Russians

    lorenbliss 2015-03-11 02:13

    If I did not know better, I would assume there is someone in the State Department channeling Hitler, someone in the Defense Department channeling Goering, someone at Homeland Security channeling Himmler and someone at the head of the media monopoly channeling Goebbels.

    And in their resurrected madness -- exactly as in 1941 -- they are forgetting the lessons the Scythians taught the Persians and the Scythians' Russian descendants taught the Teutonic Knights, the Mongols and Bonaparte, not to mention the lessons Hitler, Goering, Himmler and Goebbels were themselves taught by the Russian "untermenschen."

    Such are the darkest times in our species' history...

    REDPILLED 2015-03-10 17:13

    The 11th COMMANDMENT:

    No nation shall DARE defy the United States and its Puppets by attempting to be truly independent! That right is reserved only for the God-chosen United States.

    wantrealdemocracy 2015-03-10 20:06

    Too bad the "God chosen United States" is not independent. Our nation is under the control of Israel. Israel wants this war against Russia, and all those wars in the Middle East, so that the Christians and Muslims will kill each other leaving Israel the winner. The state of Israel and the Zionists will then control the whole world. That is the 'New World Order' you have heard about.

    arquebus 2015-03-10 17:20

    NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia, then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.

    What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.

    skeeter 2015-03-10 19:07

    Quoting arquebus:
    NATO aggression? When you see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia, then come talk to me about aggression. Has not happened and is unlikely to happen.

    What we really have here is Putin and the Russians paranoia and inability to get over the German invasion of 1940...something that happened 75 years ago.

    Let's get real...the Europeans are threatening to bring Ukraine into NATO, a military alliance established and maintained to challenge the Soviet Union. No Russian leader in his right mind could stand by and let this happen. Imagine if the Soviets had approached Mexico or Canada a few years ago and tried to convince them to join the Warsaw Pact. The Russians paranoid...can you blame them?

    Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23

    First I read the (very excellent) piece of journalism from people like William Boardman.

    Then I "scroll to the troll" and give the predictable right wing doublethink a thumbs down.

    Then I go to PayPal and give RSN 10bux all the while complaining that trolls don't pay to clog up important discussions on RSN. Penny a word from the troll factory is all I ask.

    Merlin 2015-03-10 21:05

    Agricanto 2015-03-10 19:23

    Spot on and well said!

    jsluka 2015-03-11 00:15

    If Russian troops began to maneuver on the US border, like US troops (NATO) are now doing on the Russian border, the US would go "ballistic." That's called "hypocrisy," by the way.

    MJnevetS 2015-03-13 14:52

    "Russia already did that and invaded killed people and are feeding a false insurgency that is being dubbed freedom fighters .. they even shot down a domestic airliner in the summer flying over that territory over the UKraine from Amsterdam. don't you know the news even on this subject"

    There is a sad lack of facts in these statements. NY Times had to retract the allegations of a 'Russian Invasion', as the evidence proved to be fabricated. The only 'false insurgency' was the coup initiated by the US and with regard to the shooting down of the commercial liner, show me one SINGLE piece of evidence that Russian backed rebels were involved. It was a false flag operation and when people demanded evidence over propaganda, the news story magically disappeared, as the evidence would show that it was a terrorist attack by the Nazis currently in control of Ukraine.

    jdd 2015-03-11 08:15

    When you "see NATO tanks rolling across the border in an armed attack against Russia" it will not be the time to converse with you, but rather then you may kiss your loved ones a final goodbye as that will be the beginning of a war of human extinction, all over within an hour.

    Thank goodness for Putin and s few sane voices in the West who are trying to avoid ever getting to that point while others in the West, such as the Newland gang, seem hell-bent on making it happen.

    Activista 2015-03-11 20:36

    ... see NATO bombers in Libya, Yugoslavia .. US troops in Kosovo US Sending 3,000 Troops To Latvia, Estonia ...
    www.ibtimes.com/ukraine-crisis-us-sending-...
    International Business Times
    2 days ago - An Abrams main battle tank, for U.S. troops deployed in the Baltics as part of NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve, left the port in Riga, Latvia ....

    Trish42 2015-03-10 18:03

    When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support our intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!

    Kev C 2015-03-10 21:19

    Allow me to explain why they won't. Education. The entire system is based on US centric thinking and behaviour. There is limited information available about the rest of the world and what there is is painting the US as the God Given Saviour of humanity. Hell they won the war after all. Single handed. They saved the UKs ass by coming to our rescue didn't they? Not!

    Until the vast majority of Really decent but hypnotized Americans get the real info they will continue to believe what they are told because there isn't really an alternative to the Faux news/MSN bullshit and the pre programmed education system. Its not the peoples fault. The system was rigged long before they were born.

    dsepeczi 2015-03-11 09:38

    Quoting Trish42:
    When will Americans ever get their collective head out of their ass and start looking at the world from others' points of view? We have gotten sucked into the propaganda about Ukraine, never checking other sources or verifying what we "know" to see if there was any evidence that would support our intervention. Sound familiar? We've got to get the war-mongers out of DC!!
    Sadly, I'm starting to believe the answer to your question is ... "Never". If Iraq wasn't a big enough, loud enough, and obvious enough mistake to wake up ALL Americans to the fact that our government lies to us and we should take everything they say with a grain of salt and request that they provide solid proof of their allegations against another nation ... I can't think of any event that will. :(

    pbbrodie 2015-03-11 09:45

    "get warmongers out of Washington."
    Yes, especially the complete idiots who are making insane comments about "limited nuclear war." There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Once one is exploded, it is all over.

    Johnny 2015-03-10 18:15

    How soon we forget. The U.S. must punish Russia, and, more importantly, divert the attention of Russia from the Middle East, because Russia has supported Syria, which is an obstacle to open war against Iran, because Iran arms Hezbollah, and the last time the Zionists invaded Lebanon, Hezbollah chased them out. Hezbollah is an obstacle to annexation of the whole area by Israel. And now that the Zionists smell the opportunity to induce the U.S. to attack Iran, they are creating another front on which Russia must try to defend itself and its allies. The U.S. Congress is not the only part of the U.S. government that Jewish supremacist banksters have bought, lock, stock, and barrel. (Before some asshole starts to howl about anti-Semitism, let him explain why we should not criticize other proponents of racism, such as white supremacists; Zionism, after all, is merely warmed over Nazism, with a different "chosen" people and different victims.)

    dquandle 2015-03-10 20:05

    In fact, the neo-nazis now in control in the US/NATO supported Ukraine have been blatantly anti-semitic for decades, having supported the Nazis at that time and are even more egregious now.

    "For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital. No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in the borderland through which Hitler's invading Nazis took millions of Russian lives. They were supported by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they called "vermin". The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelli ng Right Sector. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left."

    Taken from

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/07/11/on-israel-ukraine-and-truth/

    And these, fully supported and paid for supported by the ostensibly "Jewish" Nuland and Obama's heinous State Department.

    See also e.g.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-hughes/the-neo-nazi-question-in_b_4938747.html

    Radscal 2015-03-11 00:24

    In addition to Ms. Nuland and her PNAC founding husband, Robert Kagan, two of the three Democrats cited by Mr. Boardman as signees on the "arm Ukraine" letter are Jewish. In fact, Congressman Engel is of Ukrainian Jewish ancestry.

    As the "protests" in Ukraine grew in late 2013/early 2014, Ukrainian Jewish groups reported skyrocketing cases of anti-Semitic rhetoric and attacks. But those reports were buried by Zionist organizations who insisted that Russia was the real threat to Ukrainian Jews, not the frigging Nazis in Ukraine!

    At first, this sort of thing confused me, before I realized it wasn't a Jew against Jew thing. This is Zionist fascists supporting Nazi fascists.

    Vardoz 2015-03-10 22:23

    Sorry it just boils down to profits and power and any excuse to wage endless war for profits period end of story.

    L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06

    I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in military action. Those troops are advisors and instructors. This interpretation is very cynical and pessimistic and I don't buy it.

    My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge this interpretation and find it very unhelpful and in itself can be contributing towards War rather than supporting the diplomatic actions towards Peace.

    Merlin 2015-03-10 21:02

    L.S. 2015-03-10 20:06

    So talk to me about the advisors that Eisenhower put in Viet Nam. Then talk to me about Kennedy expanding on their number. Then talk to me about the Viet Nam War.

    You state:

    "My background is International Relations and I am watching the chess pieces on the board and I challenge this interpretation"

    I challenge YOU because either you a not what you claim or you sure did not learn very much.

    Kev C 2015-03-10 21:24

    If you don't see what is happening now then your a lousy chess player. Don't give up though. Practice makes perfect. However beware there are not many nations left that haven't been smeared then bombed by the US and we are running out nations and out of time before the US blow all our asses off the face of the planet for that self serving act of pathetic vanity which will be countersigned in hell with 'Property of The US Military.'

    jsluka 2015-03-11 00:17

    "Advisors and intructors" - Don't be naive. And what happens when some of them get killed? What is the likelihood or statistical probability of escalation after that? This is clearly provocative and dangerous and does absolutely nothing for "peace" or "security" of anyone.

    Radscal 2015-03-11 00:27

    L.S. "...I am watching the chess pieces on the board..."

    Does your use of that analogy imply that you read Ziggy Brzezenski's 1998 book, "The Grand Chessboard," in which he explains why the U.S. must take control of Ukraine as key to controlling Eurasian resources, and ultimately to conquer Russia and China?

    RODNOX 2015-03-11 05:14

    history has shown the USA always has some underhanded agenda--some self serving plan---and often plays BOTH sides of the problem--just to escalate it----WHEN WILL WE STOP THEM ????? THIS IS TRULY THE 1 % IN ACTION--WE--THE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM

    wrknight 2015-03-12 20:47

    Quoting L.S.:
    I do not agree with these conclusions. I don't believe that the U.S. and U.K. are invested in military action. Those troops are advisors and instructors.

    Like the advisors the U.S. sent to South Vietnam in the 1950's.

    Archie1954 2015-03-10 20:16

    Exceptional, indispensable? More like irrational, despicable! What we need is for Putin to call up Obama and tell him point blank that if the US doesn't get the hell out of Ukraine, Russia will make it! If you don't think it can, think again!

    jsluka 2015-03-11 00:20

    I appreciate your emotion here, but that would be really really scary because I imagine the US would respond with even greater belligerance and "justify" it by saying "Putin is threatening us" - even though, ironically, it is the US that is doing all the threatening.

    Vardoz 2015-03-10 21:17

    It's more like war madmen then warmongers and it's all very frightening. Putin is crazy too and we have no right getting involved so that the Fuking military can make profits!!!! Enough!!!!! Our military is out of control with a suicidal war agenda and they don't care about the consequences or the collateral damage. It's just war all around, kick out the jams no matter how many die- they don't give a damn. Seemed like Germany was making some constructive headway and Merkel should tell the US where to go. This is all so dirty and obscene and wrong.

    Radscal 2015-03-11 00:33

    You do know that the U.S. was not even invited to the peace talks, right?

    Similarly, it was EU members, Russia and then-president Yanukovych who signed the agreement with the Maidan Protest leaders on 2/21/14 in which Yanukovych acquiesced to every one of their demands.

    That was when Vickie Nuland's "Fuck the EU" plan went into action and the neo-nazis stormed the government buildings, including the Parliament and drove about 2 dozen Members of Parliament and the President to flee for their lives.

    And that, is why those who followed the events call it a "coup."

    jdd 2015-03-11 07:28

    The ceaae-fire came about because the "Normandy Four" excluded the US and UK, whose participation would have guaranteed failure. Now the efforts of all, but especially that of Putin have led to a fragile peace. The response from a disappointed Victoria Nuland crowd continues to speak of sending arms and "advisors" to Ukraine in order to throw gasoline on the embers.

    dsepeczi 2015-03-11 08:21

    Quoting ericlane:
    Another moronic article. Who do you think was behind the peace deal?
    Ummm. I believe the organizers of that peace deal were Europe, Ukraine and Russia. The US, wisely, was not invited to the table.

    jsluka 2015-03-11 00:13

    Is "US Goes Ballistic" a scary pun here? I.e., as in "nuclear armed ballistic missiles". Also, isn't that how it all started in the Vietnam War - with "advisors"? This is batcrap crazy, but then many people have now begun to realise that US politicians have become homocidally psychotic. It's "back to the future" and return of Dr. Strangelove.

    [email protected] 2015-03-11 06:22

    We have no business in Ukraine, we have no business antagonizing the Russians. We Slavs have been demonized, mocked and denigrated as imbeciles and barbarians by the West for centuries. Stay the hell away from us, already. We don't need to be like you.

    Buddha 2015-03-11 17:10

    "To the dismay of the Pentagon, the White House war crowd, and the rest of the American bloviating class of chickenhawk hardliners, the warring sides in Ukraine are disengaging and the ceasefire has almost arrived (March 7 was the first day with no casualties)."

    John McCain's dick just got limp again. Oh well, there is always ISIS and Iran to try to stoke up WWIII, right Uncle Fester?

    Kootenay Coyote 2015-03-16 10:12

    "Until Americans, and especially American policy maker, face fundamental realities in and about Ukraine….". Or any fundamental realities, for that matter: cf. Global Warming. The nearest thing to reality that's considered is that of the weapon makers & warmongers, & that's pretty meagre.

    [May 02, 2015] Any analysis of Russia has to consider the effect of Nato expansion

    Apr 22, 2015 | The Guardian

    Russia's president Vladimir Putin. 'One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity,' writes James Rodgers.

    Timothy Garton Ash (There is another Russia, 20 April) makes some interesting points, but misses others. While true that some "Putin understanders" do seek to "excuse all" when looking at Russia today, there are also pitfalls in adopting the opposite approach. Nowhere does the article mention Nato expansion. One can agree or disagree as to the wisdom or otherwise of Nato's policies in eastern Europe since 1991. One cannot disagree that the admission of the Baltic states in particular, and earlier discussions of the possible accession of Georgia and Ukraine, have been used by Putin's administration to fuel his popularity.

    James Rodgers

    City University London (and Reuters TV Moscow 1991-93; BBC Moscow 1998-2000 and 2006-09)

    Nato's eastward expansion and the continued development of a US missile defence system in eastern Europe have contributed to heightening tensions in the region. Russian military announcements and actions should be understood in that context, especially considering that at the end of the cold war, the Warsaw pact was disbanded, while Nato increased its membership. A new government should carry out an evaluation of Trident's relevance to current threats in this year's strategic defence and security review, but the alternative doctrine Paul Mason seeks (Russian subs are circling, but what should Britain's nuclear deterrent be?, 20 April) in response to Russian foreign policy must be a commitment to peaceful relations and a process of de-militarization and nuclear disarmament.

    The non-proliferation treaty review conference in May is the opportunity for a new PM to resume relations and revive disarmament negotiations, building on Obama and Putin's successful New Start treaty and setting out a willingness to scrap Trident, alongside a commitment to seeking resolution of conflicts through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the UN, rather than the cold war relic of Nato.

    Kate Hudson
    General secretary, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

    [May 02, 2015] radio C-SPAN

    Mar 10, 2015 | annbeaker
    Listened on the way to work the record of the meeting of the Senate Committee on Ukraine and anti-Russia. First, the names of speakers and respondents. Kornblum, Kantor, Nudelman and joined them boy Bobby Corker and others have wives from Ukraine, they said. Second, Putin is such a chronic incarnation of Satan that he looks larger them even the whole country. Now there are even concepts in his name, for example - "Putin's economy", what a beast it is unclear, but in the minds of American senators it's definitely evil. And just a bad person who alone lives in seven rooms and actively that fact that the members of the Congress did not like one bit and expressed strong desire to move him to something with less rooms. the third is that those gentlemen with the German-Yiddish surnames discussed the entire countries and territories as if they were just deserts, forests and steppes. As if there no population on this territories, who may have their own views on the subject, distinct from opinion by Committee members. Fourth, in some moments of the meeting, reminded the congregation in the local synagogue, and sometimes the PTA meeting which analyzed the behavior of poor students.

    Main memes and beliefs expressed at the meeting:

    1. Russia backward and unable to progress and development of the country.
    2. In Russia there is no infrastructure.
    3. Russia lives from the sale of oil and only.
    4. Russia is financing all and with all the oil revenue.
    5. Russia is very aggressive.
    6. She attacked Ukraine. The existence of civil war not only not denied, this concept is just not even considered by Committee members. That completely changes everything, not war within one nation, when brother rose up against brother, and external invasion of a neighbor!
    7. Russia is aggressive towards the Baltic States and the Baltic States should be armed.
    8. Tomorrow Russia will attack Estonia.
    9. America has vital interests in Ukraine.
    10. To return the Crimea to Ukraine is America's vital interests.
    11. Putin is enemy No. 1.

    There were suggestions from the field. For example, start to give Ukraine the money for one billion dollars a year for three consecutive years. This money, Ukraine will buy weapons from the USA and defend against Putin. We must begin to arm Estonia and to send battalions because there is a lot of Russians and Putin's aggression will be the first thing sent to Estonia. This was repeated several times and in different ways. I.e. looks like you have already decided to arrange provocations in Estonia. As this is done, he starts revealing to cut Russian compactly living in Narva or Estonia will satisfy the invasion by type Saakashvilis, only where? In Narva? He then tried to attack South Ossetia which was legally in Georgia, but not inhabited by the same nationality as the rest of the country and there was revolt. In Estonia like no no revolt. But it is clear that the next for some expensive and stupid military supplies is Estonia. Funny, Yes?

    [May 02, 2015] US Foreign Policymakers Cannot Be Trusted by Sheldon Richman,

    April 23, 2015 | Antiwar.com

    The megalomaniacs of the Washington power elite actually think they can mold the Middle East to their specifications. No calamity resulting from their clumsy machinations ever causes them to rethink this preposterous conceit.

    Look at some of their more recent handiwork. In 2003, on the basis of shoddy intelligence if not conscious lies, President George W. Bush had the U.S. military overthrow Iraqi dictator (and former ally) Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim whose secular regime discriminated against the Shia majority. With Saddam gone and his Ba'ath party dispersed, the Shiites inevitably assumed power, assisted by American forces that put down a Sunni insurgency and enabled Shiite militias to ethnically cleanse most of the capital, Baghdad. Millions were killed, injured, and displaced.

    Next door, of course, is the Shiite Islamic Republic of Iran, which has been America's bête noir since 1979, when a revolution overthrew the U.S.-backed autocratic shah and militants held American hostages, 26 years after the CIA helped to oust a prime minister and restore the shah to power. Iraq under Saddam had also been Iran's enemy; he launched an eight-year war of aggression against the Islamic Republic in the 1980s, aided by the United States. (Among other assistance, US satellite intelligence helped Saddam wage chemical warfare against the Iranians.) In balance-of-power terms, Saddam was the counterforce that checked Iranian influence. But now Saddam's regime was gone.

    One did not need to be an expert to know that Iran would benefit. Iraq's sectarian Shiite prime minister from 2006 to 2014, Nouri al-Maliki, was favored by Iran, as is his successor, Haider al-Abadi. Even Bush administration's original pick to lead post-Saddam Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi, had long been close to Iran.

    So despite some 30 years of America's cold, covert, cyber, and proxy war against Iran, the Bush administration was indispensable in helping Iran gain greater influence in the Middle East.

    This influence has grown even greater now with the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which was a predictable consequence of Saddam's overthrow and sectarian Shiite rule, before which there was no Sunni al-Qaeda in Iraq, much less ISIS, its even more virulent offshoot. The Obama administration has assumed the lead in the effort to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, which is officially regarded as a "threat to the homeland," but Obama's method is largely confined to airpower, with only a small force on the ground. Most analysts believe that airpower alone will not suffice. The fight on the ground in Iraq is being handled by that country's Shiite army and an assortment of vengeful Shiite militias, making the Sunnis fearful of sectarian violence and even accepting of the brutal and intolerant ISIS. Who advises these forces? None other than Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani of the Iranian Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution and commander of the Quds Force, a division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Soleimani reportedly is playing a major role in the current effort to retake Takrit, Saddam's hometown, from ISIS.

    This objectively places the United States on the same side as Iran, but the Obama administration cannot acknowledge this without granting Iran prestige. Indeed, American and Israeli officials worry that the price of defeating ISIS will be a Middle East dominated by Iran as never before.

    Of course, ISIS also controls territory in next-door Syria, which is ruled by Iran's ally Bashar al-Assad, a member of a minority Shiite sect whose regime is embroiled in a civil war. Obama has called for Assad's departure, but Assad is also fighting ISIS (as well as Syria's al-Qaeda franchise), putting him, too, objectively on America's side.

    The question arising from this tangled tale is: What were the American and Israeli advocates of war with Iraq thinking back in 2003? Was their plan to build up Iranian influence in order to justify war and regime change? That would explain why advocates of the Iraq policy are trying to torpedo multilateral talks with Iran over its nonexistent nuclear weapons program. But war with Iran, which is much larger and more populous Iraq, would be a catastrophe.

    In light of all this, should Americans trust their lives and well-being to the arrogant Washington power elite?

    Sheldon Richman is a Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, which is based in Oakland, California.

    [May 01, 2015] George Friedman, Europe Destined for Conflict

    Glib and unconvincing. Bu some interesting thought starting from minute 53 of the talk about modern version of "divide and conquered" strategy used by the USA.
    YouTube

    Published on Feb 4, 2015

    The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Stratfor founder and CEO George Friedman present a discussion on the emerging crisis in Europe.

    [May 01, 2015] Flashpoints The Emerging Crisis in Europe George Friedman

    Save your money - this is nothing but marketing fear to sell books (see Friedman's publishing history).
    Amazon.com

    "In this insightful examination of contemporary Europe, political scientist Friedman (Next Decade) challenges the view that the European Union and its neighbors have transcended the threat of violent conflict among nations….. By dispassionately anatomizing the fears, aspirations, and interests of the key players, particularly a resurgent and resentful Russia, Friedman vividly describes a region where memories are long, perceived vulnerabilities are everywhere, and major threats have emerged rapidly and unexpectedly many times before." --Publishers Weekly

    S. PowerTOP 500 REVIEWER on January 12, 2015

    Unsupported opinions that are interesting, thought provoking, and baseless and likely inaccurate

    This book is full of unsupported opinions that are interesting, thought provoking, and baseless and likely inaccurate. It attempts to be a scholarly work, but lacks any of the research or academic rigor that is requisite for this type of book.

    The book is mainly opinion and conjecture of one man, without much of substance to back his points up. Although lacking as an academic text, it is well written and a pretty enjoyable and thought provoking peace. I didn't hate it, but don't think that it will sell well at all.

    Academics and financial analysts might enjoy reading it, but most won't because of its lack of research and rigor. No professor in her or his right mind would dare put this on their class text list. It is borderline fiction.

    ByMark P. McDonald VINE VOICE on December 24, 2014

    Disappointing in its limited and traditional analysis of the future of Europe

    A one star review requires some explanation and hence this review. I sought out Flash Points in order to understand more about the forces, friction and future of Europe. Given George Friedman's credentials I had hoped to find new insight and ideas. I did not and hence the reason for the one star review.

    Flashpoints seeks to answer three questions:

    First, how did Europe achieve global domination, politically, militarily, economically and intellectually?

    Second, what was the flaw in Europe that caused it to throw away this domination between 1914 and 1945?

    Third, is the period of peace that followed 1945 what the future of Europe will look like, or will Europe return to its historical ways?

    The book seeks to address these questions with a combination of personal observation, travelogue and historical re-interpretation. On the surface this is a recipe for an interesting and provocative book. However, the book produced rather standard answers to a set of engaging questions.

    I found issues with Friedman's analysis framework limit its ability to work outside of the conventional geo-political box and produce analysis that goes beyond the normal memes of Russia protecting its boarders, Germany being economically strong but militarily weak, the French and their ability to live with ambiguity and Britain following the U.S. to curry favor and influence.

    It assumes that nations are largely monolithic actors where all constituent groups share a common worldview. While Friedman recognizes the role of immigration, nationalities, the tension in Belgium, the majority of his framework assumes nation-states as the main actors on the world stage. While the actions of nation-states dominated Europe in the past, there are many more actors and leaders in Europe.

    The framework does not include the role of corporations and non-state actors in the future of Europe. This omission is surprising given Friedman's focus on economic growth as the primary promise of the European Union. Companies are the primary unit of analysis in generating growth and jobs. Multinational companies are major actors in this area and they should be part of the future of Europe, as their decisions will impact employment, growth and wealth creation.

    The framework ignores the role of technology in changing the social, political and economic future of Europe. While Friedman acknowledges the Arab spring, he does not carry the impact of technology into European society or its future. This is an interesting omission given the role of technology in shaping societal values, Europe's current tussle with U.S. based technology firms and the role of technology in future economic growth.

    The book has a limited discussion on the role and responsibilities of extra-European actors including the U.S. and China. While the book makes the point that U.S. is the military guarantor of Western Europe, Friedman asserts that Europe will not be a primary area of interest for the U.S. going forward. China, a major player, is assumed to have no substantive role in the world's largest free market.

    These challenges are understandable in a world driven by geography, nation states and historical politics. This is the Europe Friedman presents and for those accepting that view, this book provides a predictable set of conclusions and outcomes.

    The first nine chapters largely contain a restatement of history, Freidman's personal family experience and observations that anyone who pays attention to Europe would already know. The new angle that Freidman does provide is offered in Chapter 4 when he discusses the logical implications of a rational analysis of humanity. I quote,

    "A need for internal consistency mean that ideologies defined all aspects of thought, from the nature of marriage to what was beautiful in art to how steel aught to be smelted. If you begin with a set of core principles and applied them ruthlessly to all things, then everything could be explained and all actions defined." Page 67.

    Friedman completes his analysis with a rather interesting conclusion for the future of Europe in the following excerpts from the last two pages in the book:

    "Today, Europeans desire to possess everything at no cost. … They want to be one people, but they do not want to share each other's fate. They want to speak their own language, but they don't believe that this will be a bar to complete mutual understanding. They want to triumph, but they don't want to risk. They want to be completely secure, but they don't wish to defend themselves. … Europe is no longer the center of the world, but a subordinate part of the international system." Page 258.

    If that is a position you agree with, then you will find much to justify your views in this book. If you suggest that there must be more Europe than rekindling smoldering 'flashpoints' then you will need to look elsewhere as this book offered little insight into why the future described above is inevitable.

    ByNJon, March 24, 2015

    Too superficial

    Flashpoints packs in some good information but it is too cursory, needlessly conspiratorial and unfoundedly biased.

    Almost a half of the short book is a summary of the "European" history. From protestant reformation and renaissance to scientific revolution, French revolution and Napoleonic wars, colonialism, Marxism and the two big wars to the fall of the Wall and even the 2008 GFC along with the rise and decline of many states and kingdoms (I am getting breathless just highlighting some of the topics covered!) are discussed with summaries that are likely to be useful only to those completely uninitiated. The biases present in deriving the implications of these events are more galling because of a near complete lack of substantive proofs - for instance, the rise of Germany's economy (like Japan's) post WW2 is solely attributed to the US tariff policies and is apparently desired by Germany to reassert its regional superiority in the absence of militarism rather than any wish to have prosperity.

    The book turns more interesting as the author begins his European travelogue. There are good insights when the book leaves the known or larger Western European countries to describe the life in the Balkan, the Baltic, the Caucasus or the Carpathian regions. Even if there are as many errors and sweeping generalizations in these sections as elsewhere, for most like me they will not be as apparent.

    The discussion turns shallow again when the author journeys the larger countries. From the English' use of the cutlery to the French's "comfort with contradictions",many absurd history lessons and supposed facts are used to draw massive predictions. Effectively, the premise is that in Europe everyone hates everyone else as they have a lot of bad history. Nobody is anyone's friend as per the author. The author expects some economic, social or political tension somewhere or the other to result in massive chaos because of the hidden animosities.

    In some ways, the author's personal history and/or pre-conceived conclusions mar the book from the start to the end. With the logic provided here, the author would have forecasted WW3 all through the cold war. Or he would make equally strong case for civil wars leading to the break-ups in the US, China or India. Wars will happen again. And people do have long memories. But whenever and wherever next wars happen, they will not be for the reasons explained here (at least largely).

    Niemand Namenlos, April 12, 2015

    Since 100 years "we" European suffer from American infiltration in internal European affairs.

    Well then America is the country of thinking big and plenty in memory of Brian Tracey.
    A country which citiziens have mainly, formerly been Europeans and with a dremendously 300 year "cultural" history.
    Everything they did built up is based on the fascis which stands for an overwhelmingly Power and Control with Ahrimans Fascism as their one and only God. Book of revelation 13 speaks about this loud and clear enough. Coming to the point that it seems that George Friedman seems to be one of the KhasARIAN AshkeNAZIm who likes it the way it is and does not want to stop this global lunacy for the sake of feeding the rich and burrying the poor we can say:" Well done mates you have done an awesomly good job to get us at the deepest point of humankind can get". Very clever and intriguing strategie and your plan will work out brightly. Its only a question of time that your system will win against the European culture and especially your homemade enemy Russia. And Europe will stand and fight and die with you. They will bleed for you, they will suffer for you, whilst you are just standing there and watching the scenario and laughing your butts of about this European stupidity. The world itself must be flattered about this intensity of darkness you want to bring over something you created with your long time plan from the ones who are the reall "owners" of America.

    Yes you were MADE IN GERMANY and now you start to bring back something what beginns with you and especially with the 23.12.1913.

    Anyhow Mr George Friedman Sura 5 Ayat 48 and Sura 2 Ayat 275 does tell us interesting facts. Neither we Germans are terrorist nor as stupid as you want us to be. Probably the German MK Ultra planned unconsciousness has reached its target to the fullest but there might be something from the Antarctic in your ecuation which develops to something dangerously unknown during your "beginning" World War 3 "game"

    Whatever comes next this crisis was long term planned and at least we do know now, who has done all that suffering for the sake of gaining absolute power at least during the last 100 years in Europe.

    Hopefully America is able and will stay {st}able to controll such powers they want to unleash over Europe now.

    There is a shiver through the bone hearing the names Thomas PM Barnett and George Friedman because awakened minds do already know that these names mean that mortal man will suffer in an eternity of darkness if their plans will come true.

    There is only Psalm 23 left to protect the whole abrahamitic world against such planned European Genocide

    NAMASTE

    I honour the place within you were the whole Universe resides. I honour the place of Light,Truth,Peace and Wisdom within you. I honour the place within you where you and me are united as ONE.

    But it seems that you are willing to fullfill this NAMASTE by using the Bhagavad Gita misquotation from Robert Oppenheimer
    "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

    David Wineberg TOP 500 REVIEWER on January 27, 2015
    Unloseable Baggagea>

    George Friedman is Stratfor. He advises on European and world issues. He visits everywhere, takes the pulse, collects the data and mingles with those in the know. His family fled Hungary (to Brooklyn, the Bronx and now Texas) just after he was born. He traces their remarkable story of barely getting out after the communists took over from the Nazis and imposed more of the same terror. It makes for an informed and deeply personal foundation for Flashpoints.

    Most of what Flashpoints posits is hard to disagree with. It's all there in the news every day, from Ukrainian separatists to Flemish separatists and everyone in between. We differ on a couple of issues. Friedman defines Europe as everything west of a line from St. Petersburg, Russia, to Rostov-on-Don, Russia. This is a lot bigger than most people would consider Europe to be, and explains why he thinks Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia to be "European" flashpoints. I can't imagine Russia allowing a US military base in Ukraine any more than the US allowing Russian missiles in Cuba. Putin could not possibly survive if he allowed the West to take over a country on his border, any more than the US would allow a Russian regime in Central America. It is inconceivable. So why does Freidman pretend differently? Putin is not Gorbachev. NATO is not going to war with Russia over Ukraine.

    I had problems with credibility right from the preface, where Friedman lists statistics that purport to show the straits Europe finds itself in. He cites population density, the overcrowded EU having 112 per square kilometer, while relaxed Asia has 86. But that is absurd on its face. Asia's population is nearly three billion, nine times more than Europe's 340 million. What Friedman has done is include all the gigantic empty and uninhabitable space of Siberia, the Gobi Desert, Tibet and Mongolia, which Europe does not have. What Asia does have is most of the most densely populated places on Earth, like Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing. Only Gaza is more densely packed. This put his methods on the line and me on my guard.

    Basically, he sees Europe as a vast storehouse of old baggage, which will come back to haunt its owners again and again. Because old grudges fester. It's an easy bet to make, and while Europe is working very hard to prove him wrong, there are so many possibilities for conflicts, one or more of them will inevitably flare up. In the mean time, this is a comprehensive look at the whole matrix of national personalities, cultures, history and politics.

    David Wineberg

    J. Hambyon January 29, 2015

    Moments in time like he puts forth to illustrate the fault lines in ...

    There is no doubting that George Friedman is deft at presenting an argument/opinion in a well researched and cogent manner.

    The reason for this rating though comes from a couple of things I found in my reading.

    First, the book boils down some broad sweeping and even startling changes in European society to one element. Whether it is the way he supports the printing press as being such a huge factor not just in the triggering the Reformation (like Popes, mistresses and venality oh my did not play a part, among so many other equally pertinent issues) but also growing nationalism or comparing why Portugal went one way and Spain the other in regards to exploration and colonization (skipping that it doesn't really work since despite the Pope's declaration dividing the world between the two Portugal went both East and West in exploration).

    I don't think he could cover every single factor in the two examples or other pivotal moments he illustrates in his argument. But I find that more than once he picks one item and seems to focus too strongly on it as a factor. Because, I came away suspecting, it fits his theme and bolsters his theories.

    Second, he also takes such factors and applies hindsight to declare as fact what prompted such a moment. But this doesn't work. Moments in time like he puts forth to illustrate the fault lines in Europe that caused it to self-destruct and possibly do so again, Because there, again, were so many factors. Plus some we simply don't know occurred. Much of history is still subjective and speculative. It might be based on logic and rational argument as it tallies what is known. And I'm not even factoring in the aspect of history being written by the winners.

    Third, I found some of his theories, again seeming to be present more as fact whether past, present or possible, a bit too shrill and alarmist. It puts forth his ideas as taking place in a vacuum. Not taking into account factors like climate change or simply changes in the Islamic pond in the Mid-East that could ripple for good or ill or simply shifting ideas that play a role in the social, political and economic changes in Europe.

    Overall I did like the style he employs to combine his own family's history to interweave with his ideas and theories. But I just came away with too much of a sense that Friedman cherry picks certain ideas and events to bolster an agenda he set out on writing the book. This is not a study that comes to a conclusion after gathering all the facts. This is a determined notion of what could be and what can be taken from the past to support that.

    wogan on January 24, 2015 TOP 500 REVIEWER

    Nothing significant is ever over

    The author, George Friedman is the founder of a private intelligence company and is considered an expert on that and international geopolitics. He writes this book describing the points that he feels are festering with problems that have led to wars in the past. He says the European Union is failing to stop these challenges to peace and stability.
    There are useful maps throughout to help the reader picture what Friedman is trying to prove. He also explains his, his family's and Europe's in general, past history which lends a more personal look and understanding of some of these problems and the saga of past events. The reader can see the results of the past and what might come to fruition in the future.

    With that said, the title might lead one to feel that the contents of the book are predictions for Europe's future, when in fact it seems that there is more of an emphasis on the past events that might lead and add to impending troubles
    The analysis that is done is interesting, but in some cases it seems to ignore some of the changes in modern life such as the interconnection of the world by internet and a more global perspective both in communication and travel than had occurred prior to WWII.

    Still there are interesting perspectives here from an author who has some proven insights on global trends. Those who wish to learn more about the European situation and what could be future difficulties might like to digest the concepts in this book.

    Kyle Slayzaron January 24, 2015

    More Biographical and Historical Than Editorial

    Friedman has very good credentials as a survivor or some of Europe's darkest periods (Holocaust, Cold War) as a Jew in Europe and let became an operative for US intelligence. His perception on European affairs is not one to discount given his experiences. As such, I was greatly looking forward to reading his alleged editorial "Flash Points," believing it to be an essay on a growing issue in Europe that may soon boil over.

    This was not the case, not really.

    Friedman spends more time explaining the roots of nationalism and colonial hegemony than anything else starting in the colonials times, going to the industrial revolution, and so forth, than actually formulating what the "emerging crisis" in Europe really is. Also, I found his narrative a bit subjective if not non-academic. It felt like a graduate essay except less citation. Truth be told, I had to stop after each half chapter or so to contemplate what I just read to ensure that I was on the same page.

    This isn't to say that Friedman isn't a good writer, just needs a lot of polish and to establish what his thesis statement is, early and often. I did enjoy Flash Points but I encourage Friedman to be more concise in the future.

    Amazon Customer VINE VOICE on December 22, 2014

    Overwrought, Emotional, and Irrational

    If Mr. Friedman is planning to keep writing about serious subjects, he should work on dropping the highly emotional, overwrought, and often hysterical tone he is prone to adopt. It is impossible to read page after page of these melodramatic outbursts. This author will do well in the Harlequin series, but history and politics are just not his thing.

    At the beginning of the book, Friedman confesses that when he was a grad student, he was more interested in gossiping with friends than reading books. And it shows. His analysis relies on gossip and emotion but rarely on reason and logic. To give an example, Friedman tells the readers that Moldova is the poorest country in Europe. However, when Friedman traveled to Moldova with his wife and another woman, the two women gossiped about the boots they saw some Moldovan women wear. For Friedman, his wife's suggestion that she saw women wearing expensive boots in Moldova is proof that the country is not that poor.

    Similarly, when Friedman sees young people enjoy the bar scene in Berlin, he somehow concludes that it's evidence that Germany is likely to go to war against France. To justify this extreme leap of logic, Friedman goes on another long and overwrought rant about his relatives, friends, and the gossip he heard someplace about something.

    There are serious lacunae in Friedman's knowledge and he tries to cover them up with endless repetitions. For instance, he keeps repeating that "Ukraine" means "the outskirts of Russia." It doesn't but he seems very wedded to this idea.

    For people who like a good sob story, the beginning of Friedman's book will be enjoyable. I, however, do not seek out tear-jerkers and do not cherish opportunities to see people unravel emotionally in public. We are on the verge of great transformations, and they need to be discussed in calm, rational ways. Unfortunately, Mr. Friedman seems to have no use for calm, reason, and rationality.

    [Apr 28, 2015] Ten Years Later, What Paul Wolfowitz 'Owes to the Country' by James Fallows

    The Atlantic

    Andrew Bacevich has a wonderful essay, in the form of an open letter to Paul Wolfowitz, in the current Harper's. You have to subscribe to read it -- but, hey, you should be subscribing to any publication whose work you value. This essay isolates the particular role Wolfowitz had in the cast of characters that led us to war. As a reminder, they included:

    • Dick Cheney, who was becoming a comic-book churl by this stage of his public life;
    • Colin Powell, the loyal soldier, staffer, and diplomat whose "Powell Doctrine" and entire life's work stood in opposition to the kind of war that he, with misguided loyalty, was to play so central a role in selling;
    • Tony Blair, the crucial ally who added rhetorical polish and international resolve to the case for war;
    • Donald Rumsfeld, with his breezy contempt for those who said the effort would be difficult or long;
    • Paul Bremer, whose sudden, thoughtless dismantling of the Iraqi army proved so disastrous;
    • Condoleezza Rice, miscast in her role as White House national-security advisor;
    • George Tenet, the long-time staffer who cooperated with the "slam-dunk!" intelligence assessment despite serious disagreement within the CIA;
    • and of course George W. Bush himself, whose combination of limited knowledge and strong desire to be "decisive" made him so vulnerable to the argument that the "real" response to the 9/11 attacks should be invading a country that had nothing to do with them.

    But Paul Wolfowitz was in a category of his own because he was the one who provided the highest-concept rationale for the war. As James Galbraith of the University of Texas has put it, "Wolfowitz is the real-life version of Halberstam's caricature of McNamara" [in The Best and the Brightest].

    Bacevich's version of this assessment is to lay out as respectfully as possible the strategic duty that Wolfowitz thought the U.S. would fulfill by invading Iraq. Back before the war began, I did a much more limited version of this assessment as an Atlantic article. As Bacevich puts it now, Wolfowitz was extending precepts from his one-time mentor, Albert Wohlstetter, toward a model of how the United States could maximize stability for itself and others.

    As with the best argumentative essays, Bacevich takes on Wolfowitz in a strong rather than an oversimplified version of his world-view. You have to read the whole thing to get the effect, but here is a brief sample (within fair-use limits):

    With the passing of the Cold War, global hegemony seemed America's for the taking. What others saw as an option you, Paul, saw as something much more: an obligation that the nation needed to seize, for its own good as well as for the world's....

    Although none of the hijackers were Iraqi, within days of 9/11 you were promoting military action against Iraq. Critics have chalked this up to your supposed obsession with Saddam. The criticism is misplaced. The scale of your ambitions was vastly greater.

    In an instant, you grasped that the attacks provided a fresh opportunity to implement Wohlstetter's Precepts, and Iraq offered a made-to-order venue....In Iraq the United States would demonstrate the efficacy of preventive war.... The urgency of invading Iraq stemmed from the need to validate that doctrine before the window of opportunity closed.

    Bacevich explains much more about the Wohlstetter / Wolfowitz grand view. And then he poses the challenge that he says Wolfowitz should now meet:
    One of the questions emerging from the Iraq debacle must be this one: Why did liberation at gunpoint yield results that differed so radically from what the war's advocates had expected? Or, to sharpen the point, How did preventive war undertaken by ostensibly the strongest military in history produce a cataclysm?

    Not one of your colleagues from the Bush Administration possesses the necessary combination of honesty, courage, and wit to answer these questions. If you don't believe me, please sample the tediously self-exculpatory memoirs penned by (or on behalf of) Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Bremer, Feith, and a small squad of eminently forgettable generals...

    What would Albert [Wohlstetter] do? I never met the man (he died in 1997), but my guess is that he wouldn't flinch from taking on these questions, even if the answers threatened to contradict his own long-held beliefs. Neither should you, Paul. To be sure, whatever you might choose to say, you'll be vilified, as Robert McNamara was vilified when he broke his long silence and admitted that he'd been "wrong, terribly wrong" about Vietnam. But help us learn the lessons of Iraq so that we might extract from it something of value in return for all the sacrifices made there. Forgive me for saying so, but you owe it to your country.

    Anyone who knows Andrew Bacevich's story will understand the edge behind his final sentence. But you don't have to know that to respect the challenge he lays down. I hope Paul Wolfowitz will at some point rise to it.

    For another very valuable assessment of who was right and wrong, when, please see John Judis's piece in The New Republic.

    [Apr 21, 2015] Russian Workers Take Aim at Putin as Economy Exacts Its Toll By ANDREW E. KRAMER

    Sanctions have a bite, despite the effort to diminish their influence...
    Apr 21, 2015 | NYTimes.com

    MOSCOW - In the far east, the teachers went on strike. In central Russia, it was the employees of a metallurgical plant. In St. Petersburg, autoworkers laid down their tools. And at a remote construction site in Siberia, laborers painted their complaints in gigantic white letters on the roofs of their dormitories.

    "Dear Putin, V.V.," the message said. "Four months without pay."

    After months of frustration with an economy sagging under the weight of international sanctions and falling energy prices, workers across Russia are starting to protest against unpaid wages and go on strike, in the first nationwide backlash against President Vladimir V. Putin's economic policies.

    The protests have been wildcat actions for the most part, as organized labor never emerged as a strong political or economic force in modern Russia. Under the Soviets, labor unions had been de facto incorporated into management.

    Russian companies tend to avoid laying off workers in a downturn to limit severance payments - or to evade the wrath of officials trying to minimize unemployment in their districts. So with the Russian economy expected to contract this year and next, many workers are going unpaid or being sent away from their factories for a few days at a time of unwanted "vacations."

    Unpaid wages, or wage arrears, an old scourge in Russia, rose on April 1 to 2.9 billion rubles, or about $56 million, according to the Russian statistical service. That is a 15 percent increase over a year earlier, but experts say that still does not capture the scope of the diminished pay of workers involuntarily idled during the slowdown.

    ... ... ....

    In the Ural Mountains, workers at the Kachkanarsk metallurgical plant that enriches vanadium, a metal used in steel alloys, went on a work-to-rule strike in March over layoffs.

    ... ... ...

    The actions fall in line with economists' predictions that the recession caused by the Ukraine crisis and falling oil prices will bite Russia hardest in rural areas and single-industry towns.

    In those places, public-sector employees like teachers and postal workers, whose salaries are capped under austerity measures this year, make up a larger percentage of the population than they do in cities, according to Vladimir Tikhomirov, the chief economist at BCS Financial Group.

    Russia's one-factory towns, called monotowns, barely tread water economically in the best of times. After the collapse of the ruble in December, the rising cost of imported parts hurt manufacturers such as automotive assembly plants.

    "If they are not laid off, workers could be sent on unpaid vacation because of falling demand," Mr. Tikhomirov said.

    The construction worker protest in Siberia was all the more remarkable for coming at a highly prestigious site, the new national space center, the Vostochny Cosmodrome. There, deep in a coniferous forest off a spur of the Trans-Siberian Railway, laborers laid concrete and built gigantic hangars for rockets long after salaries stopped being paid in December.

    "We haven't seen a kopeck since December," Anton I. Tyurishev, an engineer, said in a telephone interview. Some people walked away, but he stayed on his job burrowing tunnels through the frozen soil for communications wires near the launchpad, hoping to be paid. "The company should have laid people off if they didn't have enough money."

    In all, 1,123 employees of a main subcontractor, the Pacific Bridge-Building Company, have not been paid since December. Most work stopped on March 1, though dozens of employees stayed at the site to guard equipment. Their labor protest took the form of writing the giant message to President Putin on the roofs of their dormitories.

    In a rare twist for Russia's unpaid workers, somebody finally noticed this time.

    After the message appeared, a Russian state television crew showed up to ask the workers to appear on a televised call-in show with Mr. Putin on Thursday. Hours before the show, the general contractor paid about 80 percent of the salaries to the 70 or so employees who remained at the space center, Mr. Tyurishev said. The contractor, Spetsstroy, earlier paid a portion of back wages for all employees for December.

    "Because of the indifference toward us, we just despaired, and decided on this original means to appeal directly to you," Mr. Tyurishev told Mr. Putin on the call-in show, referring to the sign the workers had painted. "So you saw us, and helped in our situation, to resolve our problem."

    Mr. Putin said he would ensure the whole group was paid in full.

    "It is one of the most important construction projects in the country," he said of the new space center. "Not because I initiated the project, but because the country needs a new launchpad."

    Before the show, a boss had asked the remaining workers to paint over their message, to show that this dispute, at least, was resolved.

    Mr. Tyurishev said no, not until all the employees had been paid in full. But in a compromise, he agreed to update it to read, "Three months without pay."

    [Apr 21, 2015] 'West scared of BRICS as it has no control over it' - Ex-Indian Foreign Secretary

    Video from RT.
    Apr 11, 2014 | youtube.com

    Representing a fifth of the world economy, the BRICS states pose a challenge to the US-dominated world. Submarket growth in Russia and the West could also change more rapidly, shifting the whole world system Eastwards. Is this the start of a new era? Former Foreign Secretary of India Kanwal Sibal is on Sophie&Co today.

    [April 20, 2015] Another Idiotic Plan to Hurt Russia by MIKE WHITNEY

    April 20, 2015 | CounterPunch

    "The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests…..We must, however, be mindful that…Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

    -The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992

    "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia…and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."

    -THE GRAND CHESSBOARD – American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, page 30, Basic Books, 1997

    The Laussanne negotiations between Iran and the so called P5+1 group (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany) have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. They are, in fact, another attempt to weaken and isolate Russia by easing sanctions, thus allowing Iranian gas to replace Russian gas in Europe.

    Laussanne shows that Washington still thinks that the greatest threat to its dominance is the further economic integration of Russia and Europe, a massive two-continent free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok that would eventually dwarf dwindling US GDP while decisively shifting the balance of global power to Asia. To counter that threat, the Obama administration toppled the elected government of Ukraine in a violent coup, launched a speculative attack on the ruble, forced down global oil prices, and is presently arming and training neo-Nazi extremists in the Ukrainian army. Washington has done everything in its power to undermine relations between the EU and Russia risking even nuclear war in its effort to separate the natural trading partners and to strategically situate itself in a location where it can control the flow of vital resources from East to West.

    Laussanne was about strategic priorities not nukes. The Obama administration realizes that if it can't find an alternate source of gas for Europe, then its blockade of Russia will fail and the EU-Russia alliance will grow stronger. And if the EU-Russia alliance grows stronger, then US attempts to extend its tentacles into Asia and become a major player in the world's most prosperous region will also fail leaving Washington to face a dismal future in which the steady erosion of its power and prestige is a near certainty. This is from an article titled "Removing sanctions against Iran to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan":

    "If Washington removes energy sanctions on Iran…then a new geopolitical configuration will emerge in the region. Connecting with Nabucco will be enough for Iran to fully supply Europe with gas…

    Iran takes the floor with inexhaustible oil and gas reserves and as a key transit country. Iran disposes of the 10% of the reported global oil reserves and is the second country in the world after Russia with its natural gas reserves (15%). The official representatives of Iran do not hide that they strive to enter the European market of oil and gas, as in the olden days. Let's remember that the deputy Minister of Oil in Iran, Ali Majedi, offered to revive project of Nabucco pipeline during his European tour and said that his country is ready to supply gas to Europe through it…

    "Some months earlier the same Ali Majedi reported sensational news: 'two invited European delegations' discussed the potential routes of Iranian gas supply to Europe," the article reads." … It is also noted that the West quite materially reacted to the possibility of the Iranian gas to join Nabucco." (Removing sanctions against Iran to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan, Panorama)

    So, is this the plan, to provide "energy security" to Europe by replacing Russian gas with Iranian gas?

    It sure looks like it. But that suggests that the sanctions really had nothing to do with Iran's fictitious nuclear weapons program but were merely used to humiliate Iran while keeping as much of its oil and gas offline until western-backed multinationals could get their greasy mitts on it.

    Indeed, that's exactly how the sanctions were used even though the nuclear issue was a transparent fake from the get go. Get a load of this from the New York Times:

    "Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America's 16 intelligence agencies." (U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb, James Risen, New York Times, February 24, 2012)

    See? The entire US intelligence establishment has been saying the same thing from the onset: No Iranian nukes. Nor has Iran ever been caught diverting nuclear fuel to other purposes. Never. Also, as nuclear weapons physicist, Gordon Prather stated many times before his death, "After almost three years of go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections, IAEA inspectors have yet to find any indication that Iran has - or ever had - a nuclear weapons program."

    The inspectors were on the ground for three freaking years. They interviewed everyone and went wherever they wanted. They searched every cave and hideaway, every nook and cranny, and they found nothing.

    Get it? No nukes, not now, not ever. Period.

    The case against Iran is built on propaganda, brainwashing and bullshit, in that order. But, still, that doesn't tell us why the US is suddenly changing course. For that, we turn to an article from The Brookings Institute titled "Why the details of the Iran deal don't matter" which sums it up quite well. Here's a clip:

    "At heart, this is a fight over what to do about Iran's challenge to U.S. leadership in the Middle East and the threat that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia. Proponents of the deal believe that the best way for the United States to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to seek to integrate Iran into the regional order, even while remaining wary of its ambitions. A nuclear deal is an important first step in that regard, but its details matter little because the ultimate goal is to change Iranian intentions rather destroy Iranian capability." (Why the details of the Iran deal don't matter, Brookings)

    Notice how carefully the author avoids mentioning Israel by name although he alludes to "the threat that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies". Does he think he's talking to idiots?

    But his point is well taken; the real issue is not "Iranian capability", but "Iran's challenge to U.S. leadership in the Middle East". In other words, the nuclear issue is baloney. What Washington doesn't like is that Iran has an independent foreign policy that conflicts with the US goal of controlling the Middle East. That's what's really going on. Washington wants a compliant Iran that clicks its heals and does what its told.

    The problem is, the strategy hasn't worked and now the US is embroiled in a confrontation with Moscow that is a higher priority than the Middle East project. (The split between US elites on this matter has been interesting to watch, with the Obama-Brzezinski crowd on one side and the McCain-neocon crowd on the other.) This is why the author thinks that easing sanctions and integrating Iran into the predominantly US system would be the preferable remedy for at least the short term.

    Repeat: "The best way for the United States to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to integrate Iran into the regional order." In other words, if you can't beat 'em, then join 'em. Iran is going to be given enough freedom to fulfill its role within the imperial order, that is, to provide gas to Europe in order to inflict more economic pain on Russia. Isn't that what's going on?

    But what effect will that have on Iran-Russia relations? Will it poison the well and turn one ally against the other?

    Probably not, mainly because the ties between Iran and Russia are growing stronger by the day. Check this out from the Unz Review by Philip Giraldi:

    "Moscow and Tehran are moving towards a de-facto strategic partnership, which can be easily seen by the two groundbreaking announcements from earlier this week. It's now been confirmed by the Russian government that the rumored oil-for-goods program between Russia and Iran is actually a real policy that's already been implemented, showing that Moscow has wasted no time in trying to court the Iranian market after the proto-deal was agreed to a week earlier. Providing goods in exchange for resources is a strategic decision that creates valuable return customers in Iran, who will then be in need of maintenance and spare parts for their products. It's also a sign of deep friendship between the two Caspian neighbors and sets the groundwork for the tentative North-South economic corridor between Russia and India via Iran." (A Shifting Narrative on Iran, Unz Review)

    But here's the glitch: Iran can't just turn on the spigot and start pumping gas to Europe. It doesn't work that way. It's going to take massive pipeline and infrastructure upgrades that could take years to develop. That means there will be plenty of hefty contracts awarded to friends of Tehran –mostly Russian and Chinese–who will perform their tasks without interfering in domestic politics. Check this out from Pepe Escobar:

    "Russia and China are deeply committed to integrating Iran into their Eurasian vision. Iran may finally be admitted as a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the upcoming summer summit in Russia. That implies a full-fledged security/commercial/political partnership involving Russia, China, Iran and most Central Asian 'stans'.

    Iran is already a founding member of the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); that means financing for an array of New Silk Road-related projects bound to benefit the Iranian economy. AIIB funding will certainly merge with loans and other assistance for infrastructure development related to the Chinese-established Silk Road Fund…" (Russia, China, Iran: In sync, Pepe Escobar, Russia Today)

    Get the picture? Eurasian integration is already done-deal and there's nothing the US can do to stop it.

    Washington needs to rethink its approach. Stop the meddling and antagonism, rebuild relations through trade and mutual trust, and accept the inevitability of imperial decline.

    Asia's star is rising just as America's is setting. Deal with it.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

    [Apr 18, 2015] Petro Poroshenko's REAL Problem (And It's Not Russia) by Raymond Sontag

    Quote: "If basic rule of law and tolerance for dissent are not observed, what chance does Ukrainian democracy have? Therefore, it is in Poroshenko and Ukraine's interest to see that the fighting in the east stops for good, even if it means the country de facto loses control of that territory, at least temporarily. If such a loss proves to be part of the price Ukraine pays for a functioning democracy, it will be well worth it. It is also in the interest of Poroshenko and his supporters to not misdiagnose political violence and radicalism as a purely foreign import or as something that hurts the country only to the extent that it discredits the current government."
    Apr 18, 2015 | The National Interest

    Ukraine has had a string of opposition figures die in 2015. Between late January and early March, seven former officials associated with deposed President Viktor Yanukovych died in apparent suicides, but many suspect they were murdered. Then this week, Oles Buzina, a pro-Russian journalist, Oleh Kalashnikov, a former member of parliament from Yanukovych's political party, and Sergey Sukhobok were shot and killed. On Friday, Kiev political analyst Volodymyr Fesenko wrote on his Facebook page that he had received a letter from a group called the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) claiming responsibility for the murder of Buzina and Kalashnikov and for three of the seven "suicides." UPA, incidentally, was the name of the Ukrainian partisan paramilitary force that fought Soviet and German armies in the 1940s, suggesting Ukrainian nationalists were taking credit.

    ... ... ...

    ...Of course we do not know if the note Fesenko received is genuine, or who committed these murders, or how many were actually murders, as opposed to suicides. We do know, though, that Ukraine has a serious problem with radical politics and politically motivated violence and that these problems are greatly exacerbated by the war in the east.

    Unable to raise an army sufficient to fight the Russian-backed separatist movement, the government has relied on nationalist paramilitary groups to do a good part of the fighting. While this strategy may be a necessity, it does raise questions about the government's ability to control these groups or even to defend itself from them, should it need to. Last fall, right-wing protesters clashed with police outside the parliament building, and this spring, the Dnipro-1 paramilitary group briefly took a state-owned oil company as part of dispute between the government and the oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. The war has also sparked proliferation of weapons in Ukraine, with gun violence on the rise across the country.

    Beyond the dangers posed by paramilitary groups and freely available arms, the war has seriously aggravated divisions within Ukrainian society between those who feel culturally or linguistically closer to Russia and those who are more oriented toward western Europe. As these recent killings would seem to show, these divisions can be deadly even outside of areas where the war is being fought.

    If basic rule of law and tolerance for dissent are not observed, what chance does Ukrainian democracy have? Therefore, it is in Poroshenko and Ukraine's interest to see that the fighting in the east stops for good, even if it means the country de facto loses control of that territory, at least temporarily. If such a loss proves to be part of the price Ukraine pays for a functioning democracy, it will be well worth it. It is also in the interest of Poroshenko and his supporters to not misdiagnose political violence and radicalism as a purely foreign import or as something that hurts the country only to the extent that it discredits the current government. As Ukrainian sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko put it,

    "In this twisted logic the far right are criticized first of all for putting their partisan interests above Ukraine's national interests. In other words, they are criticized not for being anti-democratic, reactionary, xenophobic and for propagating discriminatory ideas, but for not being nationalist enough."

    ... ... ...

    Raymond Sontag is an adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for The National Interest

    [Apr 18, 2015] The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say" Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S.-Russia-Ukraine history

    Quote: "The [crisis now] grew out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy toward what was thought to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in the '90s to think of Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II: Russia would decide its internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role as a state in international affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national interests."
    From comments: When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics, like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US. At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural resources and being in a subservient position.

    The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say": Stephen F. Cohen on the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won't tell you

    There's an alternative story of Russian relations we're not hearing. Historian Stephen Cohen tells it here

    It is one thing to comment in a column as the Ukrainian crisis grinds on and Washington-senselessly, with no idea of what will come next - destroys relations with Moscow. It is quite another, as a long exchange with Stephen F. Cohen makes clear, to watch as an honorable career's worth of scholarly truths are set aside in favor of unlawful subterfuge, a war fever not much short of Hearst's and what Cohen ranks among the most extravagant expansion of a sphere of influence-NATO's-in history.

    Cohen is a distinguished Russianist by any measure. While professing at Princeton and New York University, he has written of the revolutionary years ("Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution," 1973), the Soviet era ("Rethinking the Soviet Experience," 1985) and, contentiously but movingly and always with a steady eye, the post-Soviet decades ("Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia, 2000; "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives," 2009). "The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag After Stalin" (2010) is a singularly humane work, using scholarly method to relate the stories of the former prisoners who walk as ghosts in post-Soviet Russia. "I never actually lost the uneasy feeling of having left work unfinished and obligations unfulfilled," Cohen explains in the opening chapter, "even though fewer and fewer of the victims I knew were still alive."

    If I had to describe the force and value of Cohen's work in a single sentence, it would be this: It is a relentless insistence that we must bring history to bear upon what we see. One would think this an admirable project, but it has landed Cohen in the mother of all intellectual disputes since the U.S.-supported coup in Kiev last year. To say he is now "blackballed" or "blacklisted"-terms Cohen does not like-is too much. Let us leave it that a place may await him among America's many prophets without honor among their own.

    It is hardly surprising that the Ministry of Forgetting, otherwise known as the State Department, would eschew Cohen's perspective on Ukraine and the relationship with Russia: He brings far too much by way of causality and responsibility to the case. But when scholarly colleagues attack him as "Putin's apologist" one grows queasy at the prospect of a return to the McCarthyist period. By now, obedient ideologues in the academy have turned debate into freak show.

    Cohen, who is 76, altogether game and remembers it all, does not think we are back in the 1950s just yet. But he is now enmeshed in a fight with the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies, which last autumn rejected a $400,000 grant Cohen proposed with his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, because the fellowships to be funded would bear Cohen's name. Believe it, readers, this is us in the early 21st century.

    The interview that follows took place in Cohen's Manhattan apartment some weeks after the cease-fire agreement known as Minsk II was signed in mid-February. It sprawled over several absorbing hours. As I worked with the transcript it became clear that Cohen had given me a valuable document, one making available to readers a concise, accessible, historically informed accounting of "where we are today," as Cohen put it, in Ukraine and in the U.S.-Russia relationship.

    Salon will run it in two parts. This is an edited transcript of the first. Part two follows next week.

    What is your judgment of Russia's involvement in Ukraine? In the current situation, the need is for good history and clear language. In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia justified?

    Well, I can't think otherwise. I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in the '90s. I've been saying since February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev] that the 1990s is when everything went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So you need at least that much history, 25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier.

    As I've said for more than a year, we're in a new Cold War. We've been in one, indeed, for more than a decade. My view [for some time] was that the United States either had not ended the previous Cold War, though Moscow had, or had renewed it in Washington. The Russians simply hadn't engaged it until recently because it wasn't affecting them so directly.

    What's happened in Ukraine clearly has plunged us not only into a new or renewed-let historians decide that-Cold War, but one that is probably going to be more dangerous than the preceding one for two or three reasons. The epicenter is not in Berlin this time but in Ukraine, on Russia's borders, within its own civilization: That's dangerous. Over the 40-year history of the old Cold War, rules of behavior and recognition of red lines, in addition to the red hotline, were worked out. Now there are no rules. We see this every day-no rules on either side.

    What galls me the most, there's no significant opposition in the United States to this new Cold War, whereas in the past there was always an opposition. Even in the White House you could find a presidential aide who had a different opinion, certainly in the State Department, certainly in the Congress. The media were open-the New York Times, the Washington Post-to debate. They no longer are. It's one hand clapping in our major newspapers and in our broadcast networks. So that's where we are.

    The Ukraine crisis in historical perspective. Very dangerous ground. You know this better than anyone, I'd've thought.

    This is where I get attacked and assailed. It's an historical judgment. The [crisis now] grew out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy toward what was thought to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in the '90s to think of Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II: Russia would decide its internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role as a state in international affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national interests.

    That was the pursuit that Clinton and Strobe Talbott, who's now very upset about the failure of his policy, in the Yeltsin era. That's what they wanted, and thought they were getting, from Boris Yeltsin. You can read Talbott's memoir, "The Russia Hand," and know that all the official talk about eternal friendship and partnership was malarkey. Now it's all gone sour, predictably and for various reasons, and has led us to this situation.

    The problem is that by taking the view, as the American media and political establishment do, that this crisis is entirely the fault of "Putin's aggression," there's no rethinking of American policy over the last 20 years. I have yet to see a single influential person say, "Hey, maybe we did something wrong, maybe we ought to rethink something." That's a recipe for more of the same, of course, and more of the same could mean war with Russia….

    Let me give you one example. It's the hardest thing for the American foreign policy elite and the media elite to cope with.

    Our position is that nobody is entitled to a sphere of influence in the 21st century. Russia wants a sphere of influence in the sense that it doesn't want American military bases in Ukraine or in the Baltics or in Georgia. But what is the expansion of NATO other than the expansion of the American zone or sphere of influence? It's not just military. It's financial, it's economic, it's cultural, it's intermarriage-soldiers, infrastructure. It's probably the most dramatic expansion of a great sphere of influence in such a short time and in peacetime in the history of the world.

    So you have Vice President Biden constantly saying, "Russia wants a sphere of influence and we won't allow it." Well, we are shoving our sphere of influence down Russia's throat, on the assumption that it won't push back. Obviously, the discussion might well begin: "Is Russia entitled to a zone or sphere in its neighborhood free of foreign military bases?" Just that, nothing more. If the answer is yes, NATO expansion should've ended in Eastern Germany, as the Russians were promised. But we've crept closer and closer. Ukraine is about NATO-expansion-no-matter-what. Washington can go on about democracy and sovereignty and all the rest, but it's about that. And we can't re-open this question…. The hypocrisy, or the inability to connect the dots in America, is astonishing.

    The nature of the Kiev regime. Again, there's a lot of fog. So there're two parts to this question. The coup matter and the relationship of the Yatsenyuk government to the State Department-we now have a finance minister in Kiev who's an American citizen, addressing the Council on Foreign Relations here as we speak-and then the relationship of the Kiev regime with the ultra-right.

    It's a central question. I addressed it in a Nation piece last year called "Distorting Russia." One point was that the apologists in the media for the Kiev government as it came to power after Feb. 21, and for the Maidan demonstrations as they turned violent, ignored the role of a small but significant contingent of ultra-nationalists who looked, smelled and sounded like neo-fascists. And for this I was seriously attacked, including by Timothy Snyder at Yale, who is a great fan of Kiev, in the New Republic. I have no idea where he is coming from, or how any professor could make the allegations he did. But the argument was that this neo-fascist theme was Putin's, that what I was saying was an apology for Putin and that the real fascists were in Russia, not in Ukraine.

    Maybe there are fascists in Russia, but we're not backing the Russian government or Russian fascists. The question is, and it's extremely important, "Is there a neo-fascist movement in Ukraine that, regardless of its electoral success, which has not been great, is influencing affairs politically or militarily, and is this something we should be worried about?"

    The answer is 100 percent yes. But admitting this in the United States has gotten a 100 percent no until recently, when, finally, a few newspapers began to cite Kiev's battalions with swastikas on their helmets and tanks. So you've gotten a little more coverage. Foreign journalists, leaving aside Russians, have covered this neo-fascist phenomenon, which is not surprising. It grows out of Ukraine's history. It should be a really important political question for Western policy makers, and I think it is now for the Germans. German intelligence is probably better than American intelligence when it comes to Ukraine-more candid in what it tells the top leadership. Merkel's clearly worried about this.

    It's another example of something you can't discuss in the mainstream media or elsewhere in the American establishment. When you read the testimony of [Assistant Secretary of State] Nuland, this is never mentioned. But what could be more important than the resurgence of a fascist movement on the European continent? I'm not talking about these sappy fascists who run around the streets in Western Europe. I'm talking about guys with a lot of weapons, guys who have done dastardly things and who have killed people. Does that warrant discussion? Well, people said, if they exist they're a tiny minority. My clichéd answer is, "Of course, so was Hitler and so was Lenin at one time." You pay attention and you think about it if you learn anything from history….

    We say we're doing everything we're doing in Ukraine and against Russia, including running the risk of war, for a democratic Ukraine, by which we mean Ukraine under the rule of Kiev. Reasonably, we would ask to what extent Kiev is actually democratic. But correspondents of the Times and the Washington Post regularly file from Kiev and basically re-write whatever the Kiev authorities say while rarely, if ever, asking about democracy in Kiev-governed Ukraine.

    Rewriting handouts. Is that actually so?

    Until recently it was so…. I haven't made this a study, and one could be done in a week by a sophisticated journalist or scholar who knew how to ask questions and had access to information. And I would be willing to wager that it would show that there's less democracy, as reasonably understood, in those areas of Ukraine governed by Kiev today than there was before Yanukovych was overthrown. Now that's a hypothesis, but I think it's a hypothesis the Times and the Post should be exploring.

    I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.

    But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington, Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with murderous intent.

    By saying that this is not a civil war, it's just Russian aggression-this omits the human dimension of the entire war, and also the agency of the people who are actually fighting in the east-the hairdressers, the taxi drivers, the former newspaper reporters, the school teachers, the garbage men, the electricians, who are probably 90 percent of those fighting. There are Russians there, from Russia. But Ukraine's army has proved incapable of defeating or even holding off what began as a fairly ragtag, quasi-partisan, ill-equipped, untrained force.

    The horror of this has been Kiev's use of its artillery, mortars and even its airplanes, until recently, to bombard large residential cities, not only Donetsk and Luhansk, but other cities. These are cities of 500,000, I imagine, or 2 million to 3 million. This is against the law. These are war crimes, unless we assume the rebels were bombing their mothers and grandmothers and fathers and sisters. This was Kiev, backed by the United States. So the United States has been deeply complicit in the destruction of these eastern cities and peoples. When Nuland tells Congress there are 5,000 to 6,000 dead, that's the U.N. number. That's just a count of bodies they found in the morgues. Lots of bodies are never found. German intelligence says 50,000.

    Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine. You've got 1 million people or more who have fled to Russia-this is according to the U.N.-another half a million having fled elsewhere in Ukraine. I don't notice the United States organizing any big humanitarian effort. Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut our eyes to a humanitarian crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether you like or don't like Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of American policy and the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate this.

    You've written about the second Minsk accord as the only hope we've got left. Tell me briefly your take on Minsk II and whether there's a chance it will hold.

    The second Minsk Accord has a lot of moving parts. The primary part is the cease-fire and the withdrawal by both sides of heavy artillery. It would appear that this has been significantly accomplished, but the cease-fire is very unstable. The political parts are supposed to come now. Kiev is supposed to pass certain constitutional reforms, giving a certain autonomy to the eastern regions. The eastern regions are supposed to hold new elections that in some way comply with Ukrainian law. If all that happens by December, then the Ukrainian-Russian border will be turned over to the Kiev authorities along with some European monitors. The political parts are going to be the hardest because there is no political support for this in Kiev.

    [President] Poroshenko went to Minsk because he had no choice: Merkel told him he had to sign Minsk II. But Kiev is ultra-nationalist. They want no concessions to the east or to Russia. Getting Minsk II through parliament in Kiev will be very difficult. But the main fact for now is that Minsk II is the last, best choice to avoid a wider war that might well cause a direct war with Russia. [Since this interview the Kiev parliament has passed legislation either contradicting or negating the Minsk II terms.]

    Minsk II was Merkel's initiative with President Hollande of France, and why, at the last minute, she suddenly realized that the situation was different than she thought-desperate-I don't know. And remember, this is a woman with enormous executive responsibilities for the economic crisis of the European Union and Greece. The enemies of Minsk II…

    I think the main enemy is Washington.

    That's right. I wouldn't call them the enemy, but we can't be children about this. Washington controls the IMF. Washington controls NATO. NATO and the IMF are the two agencies that can make war happen on a broader basis in Ukraine and in regard to Russia, or stop it. Whoever is the decider in Washington, if it's Obama, if it's somebody else, now has to make the decision.

    All the enemies of Minsk II speak freely and are quoted in the papers and on the networks as rational people. And yet there's not one dissenting voice from the establishment. Outwardly, it appears to be a very uneven struggle. One hopes that somewhere in dark corridors and dimly-lit rooms in Washington, serious conversations are taking place, but I don't think so. [One March 23, 48 members of Congress did vote against sending weapons to Kiev, a point Cohen commended in an email note.]

    Our post-Soviet politics after 1991, it turns out to be war by other means. The Cold War never ended, in my view. The tactics changed, perhaps the strategy did, too, but there was very little by way of even a pause.

    It's complicated. The main problem today of getting the American political class to think freshly is Putin. They use Putin as the excuse to do whatever they want and not rethink anything. But Putin came much later.

    The historical facts are not convenient to the triumphalist narrative, which says that we defeated the Soviet Union and thereby ended the Cold War, and therefore and therefore. According to Gorbachev, Reagan and Bush, the Cold War ended either in 1988 or 1990. When Reagan left the White House-I think he wrote in his diary in January 1989, "We have ended the Cold War"-so he thought he had ended it with Gorbachev. I was in Moscow when he walked across Red Square in that heat, I think it was July 1988, and somebody shouted to him "President Reagan, is this still the Evil Empire?" And he, in that affable way, said "Oh, no, that was then… everything's changed."

    The Cold War was a structural phenomenon. Just because the president says its over doesn't mean it's over, but then there was Malta in December 1989, when [George H.W.] Bush and Gorbachev said the Cold War was over, and that continued all through the reunification of Germany. Between '88 and '90 we were told repeatedly by the world's leaders that it was over. Jack Matlock, Reagan's ambassador to Russia, has written very well about this, and because he was there as a personal testimony, of how this truly was. So the conflation of the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War is an historical mistake.

    Bush then continued to maintain the official line that he had pursued with Gorbachev that there were no losers at the end of the Cold War, everybody had won. Bush maintained that position until the polls showed he was running behind Clinton in his reelection campaign. And then he declared in 1992 that we, and he in particular, had won the Cold War. I saw Gorbachev shortly thereafter. My wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and I had been friends with him for several years. He was deeply, deeply hurt, with a sense of betrayal. He's forgiven Bush, being a forgiving man.

    But at that moment, '91 and '92… well, words are words, but as Russians say, words are also deeds. By announcing that we had won the Cold War, Bush set the stage for the Clinton administration's decision to act on an American victory, including the expansion of NATO.

    This history brings us to where we are today.

    What has changed in U.S. policy toward Russia between 1991 and now, and what hasn't?

    I think the history that we know is what I just told you. Behind the scenes, there were clearly discussions going on throughout the '90s, and there were different groups. Big historical decisions, whether we talk about the war in Vietnam, or, a subject that interests me, why slavery and segregation lasted so long in the American South, where I grew up, can never be explained by one factor. Almost always they're multi-factored. But you got, in the 1990s, some people who genuinely believed that this was the moment for an enduring post-Cold War, American-Russian, full-scale strategic partnership and friendship between equals. There were these Romantics, so to speak.

    On this side of the ocean?

    I think there were people who believed in this. Just like there're people who really believe in democracy promotion as a virtuous profession-some of my students have gone into it. They believe in it: It's a good thing. Why not help good countries achieve democracy? The dark side of democracy promotion for them is either not visible or not in their calculation. People are diverse. I don't judge them harshly for their beliefs.

    There were others who were saying Russia will rise again, and we have to make sure that never happens. To do that, we need to strip Russia of Ukraine, in particular. Brzezinski was writing that. At some point during this time he wrote that Russia with Ukraine is a great imperial power, without Ukraine it's a normal country. But there were people in Washington, the same people I heard in private discussions, saying that Russia's down and we're going to keep it down. They were feeding opinion into the Clinton administration, and that clearly helped lead to the NATO expansion.

    They use the excuse that everybody wants to join NATO. How can we deny them the right? It's very simple. People say every country that qualifies has a right to join NATO. No, they do not. NATO is not a junior Chamber of Commerce. It's not a non-selective fraternity or sorority. It's a security organization, and the only criterion for membership should be, "Does a nation enhance the security of the other member countries?" The Ukrainian crisis proves beyond any doubt, being the worst international crisis of our time, that the indiscriminate expansion of NATO has worsened our international security. That's the end of that story. I don't know what they think NATO is. Is it like AARP membership and you get discounts in the form of U.S. defense funds? It's crazy, this argument.

    But then you got these guys who are either Russophobes or eternal Cold Warriors or deep strategic thinkers. You remember when [Paul] Wolfowitz wrote this article saying Russia had to be stripped of any possibility ever to be a great power again? These people were all talking like…

    It goes back to your comparison with Japan in '45.

    The question is why Clinton bought into this. That would then take you to Strobe Talbott. Strobe was a disciple of Isaiah Berlin, who taught that if you want to understand Russia, you have to understand the history, the culture and the civilization. And certainly if you took that view, you never would have done, as George Kennan said in 1996 or 1997, you never would have expanded NATO. I knew George during my 30 years at Princeton. George's social attitudes were deeply alarming, but about Russia he had a very important idea. Russia marches to its own drummer, let it, don't try to intervene or you'll make things worse. Be patient, understand Russian history, the forces in Russia. That was Isaiah Berlin's position. Once, that was Strobe's position. Look at Strobe Talbott today: We have to send in weapons and overthrow Putin and turn Russia around. Now it's all outside agency.

    How did this guy go from A to B?

    Well, they say power corrupts, or at least changes people. He had been Clinton's roommate at Oxford, and he ended up in the White House as a Russia aide, very smart guy. I think Russia disappointed him. One phenomenon among Russia-watchers is that you create an artifice, and that's your Russia. And when it disappoints you, you never forgive Russia. Check out Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post. Fred was writing from Moscow during the '90s that democracy was going to be great. So did most the guys who are now were still in editorial positions. Russia let them down. They can't forgive Russia anymore than they can the ex-wife who cheated on them. They can't think anew. It's a phenomenon, probably not only American, but it's particularly American. You cannot reopen any discussion with these people who bought into Yeltsin's Russia in the 1990s and were certain that though the road was rocky, as they liked to say… "Failed Crusade" is about this. They can't get over it.

    Part of it also had to do with Yeltsin. He was so desperate, not only for American affirmation but for American affection. He was so insecure, as his health declined and he became more and more the captive of the oligarchs, that he wanted to mean as much to Washington as Gorbachev had. He was getting close to virtually giving Washington anything, saying anything, until the Serbian war. Then it dawned on him that Washington had a certain agenda, and the expansion of NATO [was part of it], but by then it was too late, he was a spent force.

    Later, when Dmitri Medvedev was president [2008-12], I think, he told a group of people that Yeltsin hadn't actually won the election, that Gennadi Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party, had. So assuming that Medvedev wasn't lying and assuming he was in a position to know, all this talk of American support for democracy, when it comes to Russia, at least, is, shall we say, complex.

    Let's go to Putin. What is your view here? What is he trying to accomplish?

    It's impossible to answer briefly or simply. This is a separate university course, this is a book, this is for somebody with a much bigger brain that I have. This really is for historians to judge.

    I wrote an article in, I think, 2012 called the "The Demonization of Putin," arguing that there is very little basis for many of the allegations made against Putin, and that the net result was to make rational analysis in Washington on Russian affairs at home and abroad impossible, because it was all filtered through this demonization. If we didn't stop, I argued, it was only going to get worse to the point where we would become like heroin addicts at fix time, unable to think about anything except our obsession with Putin. We couldn't think about other issues. This has now happened fully. The article was turned down by the New York Times, and an editor I knew at Reuters published it on Reuters.com.

    The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though he had been at the KGB.

    When he came to power, both the Times and the Post wrote that Putin was a democrat and, better yet, he was sober, unlike Yeltsin. How we got from 2000 to now, when he's Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Gaddafi, everybody that we have to get rid of, whom we know killed Boris Nemtsov because from the bridge where Nemtsov was killed [on February 27] you can see the Kremlin…. Well, remember, Sarah Palin could see Russia from Alaska! It's preposterous. But the demonization of Putin has become an institution in America. It is literally a political institution that prevents the kind of discussion that you and I are having.

    Kissinger had the same thought. He wrote, last year, I think, "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." That's half correct. It's much worse now, because they did have a policy. I think the "policy" growing in some minds was how to get rid of Putin. The question is, "Do they have the capacity to make decisions?" I didn't think so, but now I'm not so sure, because in a lot of what comes out of Washington, including the State Department, the implication is that Putin has to go.

    I asked a question rhetorically several years ago of these regime changers: Have you thought about what would happen in Russia in the event of regime change? If what you say is true, if Putin is the pivot of the whole system, you remove Putin the whole system collapses. Russia has every known weapon of mass destruction in vast quantities. What would be the consequence of that conceit on your part-that we're going to get rid of Putin-for the rest of the world?

    So this Putin phenomenon has to be explained. How did he go from a democrat for sure, now to maybe the worst Russian leader since Ivan the Terrible. How do you explain it? Does that tell us more about Putin or more about us?

    I think his sin is an unacceptable take on, broad-brush terms, Eastern ethos vs. Western ethos, and on narrower terms a rejection of a neoliberal economic regime in the Washington consensus style. Although he's got a lot to answer for, I think, in this respect, he's not an evangelist for what he's doing. What does he face domestically? What's he trying to do?

    Let me tell you just briefly. When I ask Russians, they think the answer is American presidential envy. We've had a lot of unsuccessful presidents lately. Clinton left basically in disgrace, Bush left not beloved for the war that he had got us into and lied about, Obama is before our eyes a shrinking, failing president. And here's Putin, now in his 15th year of growing stature inside Russia.

    And by the way, until recently the preeminent European statesman of his time, no doubt of this. In the 21st century, only Merkel can stand anywhere near him as a European statesman, whether you like what a statesman does or not. This, of course, changes everything. Not to take the famous cop-out, but let history judge. X number of years from now, when we've joined the majority, as Lenin used to say, historians will undoubtedly look back and do the pluses and minuses, and it's going to be a very close call.

    For my short-term take on Putin, he was put in power to save the Yeltsin family from corruption charges, and the first decree he signed upon becoming acting president was to exempt the Yeltsin family from future prosecution. He has honored that, by the way. One of the beefs against Putin in Russia is that he's honorable to his friends and appointees to an extreme; he can't bring himself to fire anybody. He's got this KGB code of honor. I kind of like it. I'd rather that than people stab you in your back….

    I operate under the assumption that no matter how or why people come to power, when in power they begin to ponder what their mission is, what history asks of them. For Putin it was quite clear: The Russian state had collapsed twice in the 20th century. Stop and think what that means. It had collapsed in the 1917 Revolution and the Soviet Union didn't collapse in 1991- it was plucked apart- but then the state collapsed and the result was what Russians call smuta, a time of troubles. It means misery; it means foreign invasion; it means civil war; it means that people fall into poverty. This is the Russia that Putin inherited. Remember, when he came to power in 2000, Russia was on the verge of collapsing for a third time as a result of Yeltsin's policies. The governors were corrupt, were not obeying the law, were not paying taxes, were running criminal fiefdoms in scores of regions. Russia was highly vulnerable, NATO was expanding, Russia had no influence in world affairs.

    Putin comes to power and perceives that his first mission has to be to stop the collapse of the Russian state- which he calls the vertical, because Russia has always been governed from the top down, which has made it ungovernable because it's so big- and, most of all, to make sure it never, ever, ever happens again. In Russian history, the worst thing that can happen to Russia is smuta, when the state collapses. Stop and think: Between 1917 and 1991, it happened twice in the largest territorial country in the world. Is there any precedent for that in history? How a leader could come to power and not see that….

    The second piece of this conversation will run next week.

    Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter, @thefloutist.

    More Patrick L. Smith.

    Americans are like Legos, designed to be manipulated, used, to build structures whose existence is unknown to them. Part of the design is their incapacity to deal with an idea that would threaten the structure of which they are the fundamental element. And so we see in these comments the ingredients of the very plastic from which they are made: deflection, ad hominemism, demonization, etc. By the time they are finished the discussion will be about someone's character, or the exchange of speculative analyses of some historical event that didn't happen. The comments are a reduction in scale of what happens at the level of diplomacy and policy.

    Smith an Cohen know this, and yet they carry on trying to educate and inform against great resistance. They have my respect.

    fizzed

    Since 1990, the US is the only nation that's faught wars against nations not on its border. Only the US has military bases nearly everywhere on earth. Only the US routinely violates nations' sovereignty, and we do so seemingly every week. We've even classified the number of nations we're bombing. And still, our hawks yearn for more. A recent world Gallup poll found that the world views us as the greatest threat to workd peace by a huge margin, Russia was 2nd by over 20 points. If, by some miracle, we've not become insane, it's impossible fo know because we've classified the evidence. Which may be itself evidence for insanity.

    bandeapart

    It's funny how people can't even say "I think Cohen is wrong about this." They have to say he's a "Putin apologist" or "on the Kremlin payroll." They're so offended that anyone could even suggest that Putin in 2015 isn't the contemporary equivalent of Hitler in 1938 that they have to resort to obvious falsehoods. That alone should tell you something: This demonization of Putin isn't about the facts.

    It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne Applebaum, are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.

    (Sorry, posted the fragment below by accident and ran out of time to edit it.)

    Jane Cullen

    @bandeapart

    It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne Applebaum, are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.

    Those warmongers are incapable of learning, even from recent disaster.

    And this is what happens when Obama refused to prosecute Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the other monsters responsible for all of that destruction and death. Had we had the war crimes trials America desperately needed, even the tools on this very thread would have gotten a thorough education, and perhaps even a clue.

    Lora

    @PGrajnert @markwriter @Bitter Scribe It is naive , borderline stupid to think that Washington's aim is to defend the Baltics or former subservient Slavs from a Russian boot. Washington uses fear at home and abroad to reach one ultimate goal: economic gain (a.k.a. profit). Simplification some say, well Washington is not that complex just look who has been in charge in the past 40 years. US policies of late are obnoxiously primitive and transparent, but not to American audience.

    mykry

    Isn't it funny how Cohen thinks 'The New York Times basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say' when he himself seems to shadow and echo the Kremlin narrative ad verbatim. Is Cohen not aware of the lack of independent Russian media portals and echo chambers (domestic and international) that are bought and paid for by the Kremlin? Does Mr. Cohen not see the distortion and disinformation he helps spread? If he does not, then his lack of objectivity makes him simply a Stalinist (or in this case Putinist) apologist. However, if he does, then he is certainly on the Russian payroll---in some form or another---and is no better than the Russian trolls residing in St. Petersburg.

    stuinmich

    @mykry baseless libel.

    jsmith499

    It's really amazing with people like Noam Chomsky become imperialists. Russia invades Chechnya, Georgia, now Ukraine, and it's all OK. So we should have invaded Cuba, or any other country nearby that decides to make a treaty with Russia or China. There are people who think that, but you have to go to some really extreme right wing xenophobic imperialistic new sites to find them. Who would have thought that the likes of Noam Chomsky (and someone like Patrick Smith) would become imperialists? I guess you think NATO is an empire ruled by the Pope or someone? Yeah, NATO is the Holly Roman Empire of neocons, right? Is that really what you think Patrick? It is one thing to be against neoconservatism, it is another to take your dislike of it so far that you become an imperialist, it's like something out of the 17th century.

    jab670

    @jsmith499

    I agree with you.

    Chomsky and Smith strike me as people who if they were Russians, living in Russia, they would be supporting the United States. They are natural dissenters to public opinion. That's a great thing to have, especially when it's well-researched and articulated.

    The problem is that they cannot get past their American-centric views. It's always about what America is doing, to whom, and why. They excuse the actions of other countries as purely reactionary.

    The truth is likely somewhere in between and overlapping with good, bad and survivalist intentions from both sides. And the truth is that with a globalized economy, this fading superpower (United States) and former superpower (Russia) are trying to maintain their polarity in this multipolarized world that no longer needs either of them, and their ideologies, to survive.

    Lora

    @jsmith499 Invading Cuba? You have tried and failed, killing Castro? You have tried and failed. You got your fav. pres. shot for failing so many times to return investments to US mafia. NATO is a tool and it is used by IMF and Washington for one ultimate goal: economic advantage. Your childish arguments reveal how incapable you are at analysis. Read what informed people are writing and grow intellectually by accepting the shades of gray in RL. This is not discussion about baseball.

    Pacific Blue

    What is it about the threat of putting an op-positional military alliance at the doorstep of a potential adversary that the America does not get? Would we tolerate a federation of Soviet alliances to put troops, missiles, armaments, missile defense systems, and nukes in Canada and Mexico aimed primarily at all of the US major cities.

    Please people. Get some sense. Drunken Yeltsin let Bill Clinton humiliate Russia by expanding NATO into countries like Poland and Hungary after the US previously promised Gorbachev that they would not do so. Putin is a different animal.

    He knows that what happened in the Ukraine was engineered by neo-cons. He knows we can't be trusted (thank you Bill Clinton). He saw our attempt to get our fingers into Georgia. Remember John McCain's "We're all Georgians now." He knows that the NATO alliance is waiting to bring the Ukraine into their fold both economically and militarily. He's drawn a red line and said, "No more."

    We'd be wise to heed it and back off. Russia has her back against the wall and it's dangerous for us to keep playing this game of empire with such a country.

    markwriter

    @Pacific Blue I don't think making an argument that the US should back away out of fear of an unstable Russia is the best one to make for the pacifist viewpoint. If that's what this is.

    fizzed

    The argument is not that anyone is unstoppable. Rather, it's that we seem to have forgotten MAD. Russia and the US are the world's only nations capable of destroying the planet in s few hours, We used to know the dangers and the necessary protocals, things we must have forgot to teach our current generation in gradeschool history.

    Even in conventional wars the US hasn't won anything since WW2, but we leave unimaginable misery in our wake and excell at creating enemies with our continuous wars. Can anyone give a rational explanation to US foreign policy since 1995?

    brucewhain

    Are they talking about William Randolph Hearst? Hearst was a pacifist, certainly vis-a-vis Roosevelt's military assistance to Russia starting back in the 30's, and all the subversive influence behind him - and Churchill.

    The point is our State Department - anyone with half a brain - knew from the beginning what Russia's reaction would be if we installed this new (sleazebag) government in Ukraine. It's our inheritance from England's Lower Danube Policy, and it's stupid, criminal, suicidal for both the named combatants.

    Any action to bring about the Ukraine "regime change" of 2014, as with practically all our regime-change-actions over the long haul, including that dispatching Hitler, have been criminally motivated.

    bandeapart

    @brucewhain I think they're referring to Hearst's role in whipping up war fever prior to the Spanish-American War.

    Jane Cullen

    US forces are now operating in Ukraine, not that the MSM cares. The troops real function is to act as a tripwire for war.

    Led by blind Neocons, we are that aggressive, that stupid, that suicidal.

    http://www.stripes.com/news/us-paratroops-convoy-to-western-ukraine-for-training-mission-1.339858

    jab670

    @Jane Cullen

    They are about 800 miles from the eastern front. American troops in Ukraine is a small step of provocation, but you're carelessly misrepresenting the truth.

    Jane Cullen

    @jab670

    So Russian paratroops, in an unstable, civil-warring Mexico, would be "a small step of provocation", eh?

    Nothing to worry about. Nothing at all.

    jab670

    @Jane Cullen @jab670

    Did I say nothing to worry about? Again, you distort the truth. If we are looking to equate things, then the truthful claim is that the are Russian paratroopers on the border of Guatemala, across the entire country from our southern border, who are training Mexicans.

    It's a concern, but I would not be so careless to imply they are near the battlefields, nor would I (unlike you) deny that there are covert American soldiers fighting in Mexico to destabilize, let's say Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez.

    Jack Hughes

    The problem with US foreign relations -- especially with countries perceived as "adversaries" such as Russia and Iran -- is that we neglect to consider their point-of-view.

    Worse, we neglect to consider that they might even have a point-of-view that differs from our own.

    This is usually the result of the idiotic concept of "American exceptionalism" that presupposes that we are always good and that therefore our opponents are, by definition, bad -- instead of simply pursuing what they perceive as rational self-interest.

    This is a childish worldview that guarantees conflict.

    How would we react if the Russians were establishing military ties with Canada and Mexico? Would we react differently than the Iranians if other countries demanded that we eliminate our nuclear industries or be subject to trade embargoes or military action?
    Jane Cullen 2 days ago

    @spriddler

    US and NATO military forces do not belong on Russia's borders, any more than Russian forces belongs on ours.

    Neocon apologists want the US sphere of influence to span the globe, while Russia's sphere has been shrunk to nothing. That's not paranoia, that's recent history.

    Jane Cullen

    @spriddler

    The alleged "wants" of a subset of Ukranians do not come close to justifying the risk of global thermonuclear war.

    But get back to the root of the problem - the US sponsored coup of Feb, 2014, and ongoing US support of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Because, you cannot explain those things away on the basis of nebulous Ukrainian "wants".

    What explains those things is the Neocons' PNAC agenda (look it up). Jane Cullen

    @markwriter

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukraine-coup/

    markwriter

    @Jane Cullen @markwriter Aha. This is all based on that secretly taped and released (by Russia) conversation between US diplomats. The conversation was about trying to prevent a hero boxer with no expertise from becoming a senior political leader of the uprising, amidst a general tone of trying to catch up to events on the ground, including the UN wanting to step in to mediate as well.

    The US certainly was in favor of what was happening, we can agree upon that. But the uprising and eventual coup was organic and a direct result of the government's violent action and killing of its own citizens.

    To call it US (or UN, for that matter) 'sponsored' is inaccurate and is a deliberate word chosen on purpose to evoke comparisons to other US blunders and the 'neo-cons running amok' narrative, some of which you might be surprised to learn I would agree with.

    I would close with this: although I completely disagree with the "sponsored" designation, bringing up that taped call is relevant for this discussion, kudos.


    ComradeRoger

    @Jane Cullen @spriddler Jane, you lose all credibility when you blather on about a 'coup' inKiev while totally ignoring the actual coups that happened in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and Slavyansk at the hands of Russian forces.


    You are just a typical Kremlin propagandist, perhaps even one of the paid ones judging from your posts.

    Jane Cullen

    @ComradeRoger

    Ah hah. I'm a Kremlin propagandist.

    In decades past, the likes of you called antiwar activists pinkos, Reds, commies. A decade ago, anyone opposing the Neocons was called a Saddam apologist.

    I wear your absurd personal attack as a badge of honor.

    Jane Cullen

    @macnic1

    A random Rocky & His Friends ep has more intelligence and insight than Obama's State Dept plus both houses of Congress.

    Lora

    @ComradeRoger How many coups one country can have? Lol.

    Jane Cullen

    @spriddler

    No, the issue is whether we risk GTW in fealty to the PNAC agenda.

    Pacific Blue

    @spriddler @Jane Cullen Well the problem is the Ukrainians want different things. Isn't that what the conflict is all about. First they had an election and then they had a coup. Then they had an election in which the opposition opted out.

    Some Ukrainians want to break away from Ukraine. Besides, you're underestimating the amount of manipulation occurring on both sides of the conflict.

    We have outside forces on both sides meddling in the Ukraine but I'll tell you this. Russia has much more at stake than we do.

    jab670

    @Pacific Blue @spriddler @Jane Cullen

    I need to celebrate your knowledge! You're the first person who understands this break in Ukraine (something Smith and Cohen forget, since neither are Ukrainian scholars).

    However, I will argue they do not want to separate Ukraine, even though the west has historical ties to Poland and Austria-Hungary, and the east and south has ties to Russia (and Turkey).

    90% of Ukrainians, including those in the east, want to stay Ukrainians. If they wanted to be Russians, they could have easily immigrated there long ago (as the second-largest nationality in Russia is Ukrainian).

    In many ways, it's like the old North and South or liberal and conservative views of America. They have their own views of what America is and the will of its people. Perhaps it would have been beneficial to allow the ideological break in America to occur. Similar to the old American North, Russia is far more willing to see the country split than we are.

    It's a difficult question where both sides have some merit. But Russia has shown with its breakaway regions in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and now Crimea, they do not take care of them. Maybe it's a complete disregard, maybe its corruption in the government, and maybe it's a poor economy that cannot afford to finance the size of its territory. A problem America has with its own infrastructure across the country.

    Lora

    @spriddler @Jane Cullen Wait a second are we living in the same World? How did you deduced from a small radical Maidan protest helped by US what all Ukranians want? Ukrainians have expressed their will through elections, no not the traveling circus that put Poroshenko in charge the real elections before. Amazing isn't it that a bunch of American ignoramuses proclaim they know what Ukrainians want. (shakes it's head)

    Share Jane Cullen

    @ComradeRoger

    The Neocon aggression in Ukraine is absolutely unprecedented, and Norway is in no way equivalent to Ukraine, sitting as it is next to the heart of Russia, and containing Russia's main port to the Atlantic.

    But I'm sure that you'll be proud of your lobbying for war, those few minutes between the WEA alert on your cell phone, and the end of all you know.

    markwriter

    As best as I can tell, Cohen's arguments are:

    Russia has collapsed twice and almost 3 times in the last 100 years, and is ungovernable except by ruthless central control since any other governing system leads to an immediate threat of the internal disintegration of the country.

    Therefore, the US should have realized it was forbidden from engaging with countries that have suffered due to Russia and are terrified by it, because of Russia's secret feelings that it's falling apart.

    Furthermore, intervening in the Balkans against genocide was a terrible mistake because Serbians share the same church or something with Russia, and it threatened Russia.

    And, according to Cohen, Ukraine was the final straw in this disastrous US policy of trying to pay attention in Europe. The Maidan protests against overwhelming corruption should be completely discredited because it responded in kind when some protesters were killed, and... fascism.

    The conflict in eastern Ukraine is being fought by hero hairdressers and taxi drivers. The efforts by the Ukrainian government to respond are war crimes.

    Merkel, the German leader, is responsible for Greece, and therefore is another misguided leader who dangerously threatens Russia by refusing to push her "Kiev agrees to Minsk II" button that's on her desk. The fact that the agreement has a "II" in its title because the first one a few months ago was untenable within the first day is immaterial.

    Russia is always allowed to disappoint, because Russia. Smart scholars like myself, Stephen Cohen, know this is so, and know how to move on. By the way, I have no idea about Putin except that he's somehow holding his country together, one day at a time, just doing what he has to do.

    Man, that Putin, he's so unknowable and loving to his friends. My god, compare him to Obama who doesn't even know how to circumvent term limit protections! I think he's one of the best, and all my future imaginary historian friends agree with me. You'll see when you can listen to them too.


    Stuart Forrest

    The core problem with this interview, and the many articles making similar points, is that they start from an assumption that the perspectives and feelings of Russians matter more than those of the people living in the nations that used to be in the Warsaw Pact but now are in NATO or would like to be in NATO.

    The people of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc. have resisted Russian influence for centuries. For most of that time, they have ruled themselves and associated with western Europe or, in the case of Poland, tried to do so. These ties run deep; for example, their dominant churches have been Roman Catholic; not Eastern Orthodox.

    The same is true for the western half of Ukraine. It is culturally part of western Europe and has been for a very long time.

    Given centuries of conflict with Russia and their natural affinity with the nations of NATO, it is not wrong for western European people to want to belong to NATO. Nor was it wrong for NATO to expand to include these nations after the end of the Warsaw Pact.

    Russia's hurt feelings here, for the most part, are grounded in the loss of its expanded sphere of influence after WWII. There are two ways of viewing this: maybe Russia fears another invasion from the West; or perhaps Russia is upset that it's former client states prefer to associate with their historical allies and patrons. If it is the former, then the USA and NATO need to do more to make it clear that they will not attack Russia. If it is the latter, however, then it is right for the West to disregard Russia's hurt feelings.

    Although there may be a good deal of truth in what Stephen Cohen and Patrick L Smith write regarding the treatment of Russia by the West, and by the USA in particular, their argument largely fails because it does not explain why Russia legitimately fears an invasion from the West. If, indeed, Russia does have such a fear instead of just bemoaning the loss of influence it never legitimately had.

    jab670

    @Stuart Forrest

    A voice of moderate reason! Rather than viewing this as either/or, I'd assume that all the claims about Russia and United States are correct. Russia does feel a loss of influence, Russia does fear a military threat, and Russia does dislike Ukraine's interest in affiliating with the West. United States does want to expand influence, United States does want to remove corruption from Ukraine, and United States does want a strategic location against both Russia and the Middle East. There's also probably a corporate element too, where corporations want to open markets in Ukraine and find the corruption too infringing on this ability to expand, so they lobby western governments to intervene.

    There's also something revealing about Putin's past claim that "Ukraine is not a real country." It's borders and its peoples have been re-drawn and forced to migrate dramatically over the last 100 years. So, it's easy to see how Russia feels claim over Ukraine, especially when one is raised under the Soviet Union as a brotherhood. But, the fact is that Ukraine is now a country in its own right.

    To me, Russia and United States' biggest failings over Ukraine was not foreseeing (or for political reasons, willing choose) potential conflict. Ukraine should have immediately, after banishing Yanukovych, moved to model itself after Canada (who balances French and English backgrounds) and militarily & diplomatically commit to neutrality like Switzerland.

    author0072002

    I am the person with Russian background , who came to the uSA for good in spring of 1990. I am american citizen, I have no Russian citizenship, as, when I immigrated it was required to denounce Soviet citizenship. I am intelligent (two Ph.Ds.) and I am unbiased. So, the truth and, the very obvious one, is that Clinton's policies and what happened further, brought to the world the much heavier than before shape of cold war between two most powerful nuclear country of the world.

    I like Putin, like his understanding of his duties, his role in world's history, and his code of behavior. More important that the overwhelming majority of Russians like him also, as all polls show. I can write a lot of how idiotically I have been treated here, in the USA. But i've been here for 25 years, the treatment has been fully idiotic and very damageable for those, who were treating me this way, and I do not have here enough space to describe even a little bit of this despicable stupidity.

    What I want, nevertheless, to emphasize, is that I completely can't understand how democrats could, currently even think, not even advertise, that Mrs. Clinton, one of main architect of Clinton's time international policies, if not the leading person of them, should become their nominee for 2016 presidential run. This person is heavily responsible for the obvious return and the heavy escalation of the cold war, not mentioning her numerous internal achievements. How is it possible AT ALL to present her as the future nominee, ah?

    nyabingi

    @author0072002 My sentiments exactly. There are American officials and other well-connected people who are obsessed with making Russia another client state in much the same way the Baltic states are now: An outlet for American goods and a source of cheap labor, lax environmental laws and other sorts of exploitation, and outposts for the expansion of American military power (via NATO).

    Putin has always acted to American provocations in a calm, measured manner and I think it drives the American powers-that-be insane. Hillary Clinton was a very hawkish secretary of state and all indications are that she will act similarly if we are unfortunate enough to see her elected president.

    Jane Cullen


    @nyabingi

    The Megathatcher has compared Putin to Hitler, and to Saddam. The woman is a dangerous fool.
    She will push, hard, for war with Russia, if the world hasn't already burned by the time she's elected.

    jab670

    @Jane Cullen @nyabingi

    Finally something we agree on.

    Aranfell

    @Jane Cullen @nyabingi Now, who was it who said "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? Who STILL wants to bomb Iran? Who opposes diplomatic solutions. Republicans. It's really crazed to think voting for a Republican President is the path to peace with ANYONE.

    jab670

    @Aranfell @Jane Cullen @nyabingi

    Neither mainstream party has offered an acceptable candidate. Maybe I could conceivably take some of the tolerable positions from each of the candidates and create a Frankenstein Republocrat to vote for, but our choices in 2016 make me want to write in Nader.

    Aranfell

    @author0072002 I'm sorry to hear that you've been treated badly in the USA. Even someone who likes the way Putin governs shouldn't be treated badly. But my question for YOU is: why would you vote for someone whose response to other countries not doing what they want is to bomb or invade them?

    Those are your ONLY choices on the Republican side. Don't confuse their admiration for "tough guys" like Putin as any sort of support for Russia. And if you are still being treated badly, why would you vote for a party that brags about being hostile to immigrants?

    RaisingMac

    @Aranfell @author0072002 Where in his post did he endorse any Republicans? He didn't even mention them.

    Aranfell

    @RaisingMac @Aranfell @author0072002 He can't believe the Democrats would nominate Hilary Clinton. But so far as I can tell, EVERY Republican who might be nominated is much more of a war-monger than Hilary, even assuming that his claims about her are correct. That's my point. Does he really think that US policy toward Russia would have been or will be friendlier with a Republican as President? If so, I'd sure be interested in his reasoning.

    RaisingMac

    @author0072002 I am sorry to hear about how you have been treated in the US. You've probably been here long enough by now to realize that Democrats and Republicans really aren't all that different on foreign policy (among other things). The main differences have to do with culture-war.

    Your old USSR was a one-party state; our USSA is a one-and-half-party state. Sad, but that's how it is.

    susan sunflower

    Would that more people felt this way: "" People are diverse. I don't judge them harshly for their beliefs.""

    The elephant in the living room seems to be that we are hell-bent for regime change -- via the usual method that fails time and time again -- economic sanctions, destroying the economy in the belief that "the people" will force him out.

    Didn't work in Iraq, didn't work with Iran, probably won't work in Russian if only because the BRICS will not let it succeed. No one knows who's next. The poorly-thought-through demonization of Putin is reminiscent of our character assassinations of Assad, Hussain, Karzai, Maliki, Kim Jong II, etc. - all "bad men" who we discovered were not actually easy to replace. Too many fingers in too many pies.

    Kyeshinka

    The Times has never gotten it right about Russia. Not once. I can still hear Thomas Friedman telling us that Yeltsin giving trillions in state assets the oligarchs is good for capitalism. Those old Stalin ladies on the street selling packs of Prima cigarettes for a ruble apiece to pay skyrocketing electric bills should just deal with it. They would never, ever vote for someone who promised to put a stop to the whole thing and take on the West.

    Philadelphia Steve

    I do not doubt the lies from Kiev. But using War Criminal Henry Kissinger as a source is about as reliable as using Bill Kristol.

    susan sunflower

    @Philadelphia Steve I think the original quote -- which I cannot find -- was that the problem was that Obama has a "stance" wrt Russia and Putin, but lacked a policy ... which at the time seemed a very good way to describe various gesture-like reactions by Obama to Putin and escalating sanctions on Putin's "inner circle"... very whack-a-mole ...

    Possibly because Obama was cowardly avoiding having a stated policy (see other F.P. situations) or because (my personal guess) serious lack of consensus among his various advisors and advising agencies (see also Syria). It has seemed as if Nuland has prevailed simply by ad hoc actions taken (See Cohen on the Obama/Putin deal struck on the eve of the ouster). Both Susan Rice and Samantha Power are at the top of the best reasons not consider voting for Clinton ... and their silence (and apparent recent low profile generally) on the Ukranian humanitarian crisis (and god knows the Syrian/Iraqi humanitarian crisis.... etc.) is stunning as Cohen brought up. Obama also apparently has a stance on R2P, but not a policy that might force his hand or limit his "flexibility" -- end whack-a-mole -- for something with a goal or end-point, y'know coherent or decisive.

    (see Seumas Milne's recent report on our remote control continuing wars).

    nyabingi

    @PGrajnert He quoted Kissinger in one instance, and you're assuming he's basing his "analysis of history" on that? Quoting someone isn't the same as saying you agree with that person or their actions 100%. Calm down man.

    Adams

    @jab670 @Jane Cullen @battleaxe "Russia is likely encouraging a destabilized/breakaway territory..." Yes, as the US of A encouraged the destabilization and overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, no?

    "Russian military are operating in eastern Ukraine." Yes, as the US of A is operating overtly and covertly in Ukraine, no?

    ComradeRoger

    @Adams The US military is there at the invitation of the Ukrainian government.

    That would hardly be covert, now would it?

    jab670

    @Adams @jab670 @Jane Cullen @battleaxe

    Why is it with you folks who have to always make it a "Yes, but you..." argument.

    The United States doesn't benefit from destabilization as Russia does. The reason? We don't share a border with Ukraine. We actually need the opposite, which has benefited from the destabilization Russia and separatists have caused in the east.

    Look at political, historical, religious, linguistic, etc. maps of Ukraine and you'll see that with Donetsk and Lugansk's regions' voices being diminished due to violence, and now the exclusion of Crimea, the Ukrainian government is actually more stabile and more pro-western aligned.

    Of course, there are many fractured between pro-western and pro-Ukrainian nationalist factions, but the notion America would want destabilization is no represented by the facts. It IS troubling though. It is America post-Civil War where the South's electoral power was greatly diminished. It is undemocratic. It's a "chicken or the egg" situation until violence stops, which can only happen with granting the east more autonomy, but the Ukrainian government cannot do that at gun point.

    Jane Cullen

    @Adams

    I'm not laughing, I'm mocking.

    Sadly, the reference will be lost on most of the authoritarians who applaud the latest, suicidal Cold War with Russia, because a Democratic State Dept is leading the charge.

    Nicholai

    As a Russian, I should say that Mr. Cohen's understanding of "cause - effect" dependency, in application to present U.S.-RF tensions, is clear and logical.

    Mr.Cohen tries to stay focused on the main confrontation line. Obviously, there are dozens and dozens of issues directly or indirectly related.

    Like "what is the present U.S. representative system and why is it called "democracy?"

    In my view, we have a conflict between the U.S. plutocracy and the Russian national state.

    However. Expanding the discussion to the level of institutions would be too much for this format. So Mr. Cohen is trying to avoid such issues.

    The same way the author doesn't mention the world outside Russia and U.S + 32 U.S.-aligned national states.

    I liked this aspect - staying focused.

    And I will be waiting for Part Two.

    I am truly intrigued how Mr. Cohen is going to assess president Putin.

    Brian Burman

    In the past three days, three opposition figures have been murdered in Kiev, two journalists and one ex-MP. Comparing the total lack of media coverage of these (and a whole wave of "suicides" of opposition figures in the past months) to the front page headline coverage of the Nemtsov murder in Moscow shows the complete double standard of the Western media. The NY Times isn't writing that even if he didn't give the orders, Poreshenko is personally responsible for creating an "atmosphere" in which journalists can be gunned down in the streets. It's much easier to ignore it, because it doesn't fit the media narrative of a democratic, Western-striving Ukraine. It's like only Russia is allowed to be bad in that part of the world. And as Cohen says, that's OUR problem, because the corrupt, oligarch-run Kiev regime is propped up with US tax dollars and EU money in the name of democracy. Meanwhile, Ukraine's parliament passed a law proclaiming the Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators in WWII (who murdered hundreds of thousands of people) to be "freedom-fighters", as Kiev (and the US) continues arming neo-Nazi battalions and sending them to kill Ukrainians. By turning a blind eye, the West is helping foster and nurture, as well as funding these fascist tendencies in Europe, all in the name of Western values. If that's what they lead to, those Western values aren't worth much.

    PGrajnert

    @C_COOK @Frank Knarf You are correct that our US-led system suck. But that does not take away the fact that living under Muscovite rule sucks more. It'd be great for the EU to get our sh-t together and create an alternative... But until that's the case, we have to chose sides. And Patrick and Stephen, cowards who have never lived under the Muscovite boot, are simpleton scumbags for thinking that people should be forced to.

    Jane Cullen


    @PGrajnert

    So those few speaking up against more Neocon war are cowards, and simpleton scumbags.Sounds exactly like the filthy slurs used against those few who stood up to Neocon war against Iraq.

    The immorality of the Neocon warpigs who brought death and dismemberment to Iraq is the same now as then, as is the immorality of their chickenhawk enablers.

    jab670

    @Aranfell @Proteusar

    There's a tremendous abuse of the facts by all media on Ukraine, including Russian, Ukrainian and American media. Cohen offers a good perspective, but it's only a Russian perspective. But the media is failing us because they keep turning to Russian scholars. Would Russia report on the United States by talking to a Mexican scholar? It can tell part of the story, but you never hear Smith or Cohen mention the historic divide in Ukraine between East and West.

    usxpat

    Puleeeze. Enough of the Bull$hit already.

    I know I am probably a conspiracy theorist, but here goes.

    When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics, like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US. At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural resources and being in a subservient position.

    Remember Marc Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich ? I remember he had many dealing with the Russians. This allowed the US to diminish its dependence on South Africa resources and probably contributed to South Africa's collapse. I suspect that this could happen because Russian governmental leadership supported the Russian oligarchy and gave western businessmen a small cadre of Russian businessmen to negotiate with. I suspect Yeltsen supplied these relatively easy connections and they had the same deal with Putin. And now those Western businessmen would like access to Russian oil. Especially now that the Middle East is going pear shaped thanks to Bush the Junior.

    The American reaction to that time period is best summed up by Jeffery Sachs book which has a chapter on the American intervention in the Russian economy after his success in the Polish economy. That chapter is unsatisfyingly short and goes something like, the Russian economy was way too complex and I failed because it is impossible to understand.

    I think he ran into American/Russian forces that were way more powerful than he, and that they were rushing to the money and ran he and his team over.

    I would be very interested in someone writing more about this time period in Salon. I suspect that these writings would help people understand many of today's attitudes driving politics in the the region, and specifically attitudes driving Putin.

    I also remember vaguely a story about a Russian female banker working for one of the major US banks who was in effect laundering money and how she was caught. I bet she was getting money out for the oligarchs. Her story would also be interesting.

    susan sunflower

    ""The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though he had been at the KGB.""

    I was utterly shocked by the PBS/Frontline report stating baldly that "the Kremlin" -- the FSB from Wiki:

    "" The blasts hit Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 September and 13 September and Volgodonsk on 16 September. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 22.[1] The next day then-Prime Minister of Russia Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War.[2] A few hours later, three FSB agents who had planted this device were arrested by the local police. The incident was declared to be a training exercise. These events led to allegations that the bombings were a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to power.[4]

    The Russian investigation concluded on the other hand:

    "" The official Russian investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that all the bombings were organized and led by Achemez Gochiyaev, who remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, who have been killed. Five other suspects have been killed and six have been convicted by Russian courts on terrorism-related charges.

    Yury Felshtinsky, Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Berezovsky, David Satter, Boris Kagarlitsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky, and the secessionist Chechen authorities claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the FSB in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya, which boosted Prime Minister and former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's popularity, and brought the pro-war Unity Party to the State Duma and Putin to the presidency within a few months. This theory has been criticized byRobert Bruce Ware, Henry Plater-Zyberk, and Simon Saradzhyan.""

    It's pretty shocking to me -- myself having mixed feelings about Chechnya until Beslan (2004) and as I recall at that time there was no suggestion that the apartment bombing and Chechen suppression had been a "false flag" to put Putin into power -- rather that he had shown impressive leadership. ... Wikipedia has even more conspiracies within conspiracies that make 09/11 Truther Movement's main tenets appear boy-scout simple

    Am I remembering wrong? As far as I can tell, there was a drastic sea change -- likely spurred by the death/assassination of

    Alexander Litvinenko, but involving allegations from that camp apparently dating back to 1998.

    {wiki Litinenko: "In 2007, Sergey Dorenko provided The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal with a complete copy of an interview he conducted in April 1998 for ORT, a television station, with Litvinenko and his fellow employees."" }

    I am at a loss to understand that "honeymoon" period Cohen speaks of in light of what I what I would guess was freely shared intelliegence by Putin's rivals (including the late Mr. Nemtsov --- widely interview in the Frontline prior to his death -- who as I recall lost-out-to Putin -- also back in 1998). It feels like the Russian people don't buy into this false flag conspiracy somehow only gained currency 5-6 years after the event, despite claimed "evidence" almost immediately.

    Putin is getting the Saddam Hussain treatment in which the past cooperation and applause is erased in favor of a damning portrait of a ruthless murderer to rival the Borgias, etc. -- or as Cohen references Ivan the Terrible. As I felt wrt to the Truther movement, It's really "something" to accuse a sitting administration of the deliberate murder of hundreds or thousands of citizens for political gain ... I'm fascinated by the repetition of "Putin's alleged crimes" -- seems so reckless.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

    susan sunflower

    Oh, and the martyred Litvinenko also claimed Beslan was another false flag ... making him sound like Thierry Meyssan or something ... Unified theory of everything

    wiki Beslan

    "Several hostage-takers, including one of the leaders, Vladimir Khodov had been previously involved in terrorist activities, but released from government custody prior to the attack despite their high profiles. According to a publication in Novaya Gazeta, "the so-called Beslan terrorists were agents of our own special forces – UBOP [Center for Countering Extremism] and FSB."[236] According to FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian secret services must have been aware of the plot beforehand, and therefore they themselves must have organised the attack as a false flag operation. He said that the previously arrested terrorists only would have been freed if they were of use to the FSB, and that even in the case that they were freed without being turned into FSB assets, they would be under a strict surveillance regime that would not have allowed them to carry out the Beslan attack unnoticed"

    In for a penny, in for a pound. Looking forward to next week -- Thank you Patrick ...

    The BBC has been ramping up the alarm for the last few days wrt to the imminent entire breakdown of that oh-so-imperfect cease fire which has already exceeded everyone's dire predictions at its inception.

    Hifisnock

    If you've read Cohen before, there won't be any surprises here. He obviously has a valid point in reference to the US overplaying it's hand in the Ukraine and generally with the expansion of NATO. It was clumsy and shortsighted thinking to believe a former (now-semi) superpower wouldn't respond to our attempt at militarizing its borders.

    On the flip side, the author complains about Cohen being branded 'Putin's apologist', but Cohen rarely delves into Putin's failures as a leader. And Cohen's bugle call that were on the edge of a 'more dangerous Cold War' is pure talking-head hyperbole. The world has changed a bit since the last Cold War and most of that change has diminished Russia's ability to project power. Unfortunately, with Putin in charge for the foreseeable future, we are left with tried and true 'containment' as our best policy going forward. Pushing beyond containment just plays into Putin's hands and makes him appear a 'strong' leader at home (and to Fox News).

    susan sunflower

    @Hifisnock Have you factored TPP in your calculations? Between TPP and TIPP, we're doing our damnedest to lock Russia in and out ... and we're actively courting China and India -- Pretty chilly

    wp: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/06/trade-partnerships-are-an-opportunity-not-to-be-missed/

    obviously this article thinks both are Tony Tiger grrrreaaaat ... but there's no subtlety

    ""First, Russian aggression is an unpleasant balance of power problem that is unlikely to go away any time soon. TTIP isn't a panacea, but it would strengthen the West's balance of power position. It would help European economies grow, provide more opportunities for European companies to turn from Russia to the United States and enhance the prospects for further trans-Atlantic economic policy coordination. The United States and its European allies need to prepare for more rounds of economic sanctions against Russia in the near term, and they have to build a stronger, more united economic front for the long haul.

    Second, turning to the Pacific, the rise of China is the great balance of power challenge of our time. The TPP isn't a Pacific panacea, but it is an important part of the equation. It would reinforce the United States' position in the region and provide strategic reassurance to the many Asia-Pacific countries that worry about China's rise – that is, everyone except North Korea. It would be a new, strong multilateral accord in a region that very much needs more multilateral frameworks. These would be stability-enhancing developments.""

    RaisingMac

    @susan sunflower @Hifisnock Yes, TPP and TTIP are more or less transparent schemes to lock down Europe and East Asia before they drift into the Russo-Chinese orbit. That's why they both exclude Russia and China.

    [Apr 17, 2015] Graham Allison on World War I, Ukraine and Realism

    Apr 17, 2015 | The National Interest
    https://youtu.be/hR3HakDTlLo?list=UUgp3Ipjacu00pea4DD1bU_w

    Please Note: The following is a note from The National Interest's Editor, Jacob Heilbrunn.

    Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillon professor of government and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School and a member of the National Interest's Advisory Council, has enjoyed a long and distinguished career both in academia and government. His accomplishments include his landmark book Essence of Decision, a study of the Cuban missile crisis as well as serving as assistant secretary of defense for policy and plans in the Clinton administration. His approach to realism in foreign policy -- a habit of thought that he calls an "endangered species" -- is grounded in a practical and hardheaded understanding of international affairs. As he notes in this interview, it was Henry Kissinger who profoundly influenced his thinking. Other Harvard professors who helped shape his thinking include Samuel Huntington and Ernest May, both of whom were keen students of history and international relations.

    In his numerous essays and books, Allison focuses on statesmanship -- averting and ending crises. His most recent book, together with Robert D. Blackwill, consists of extended interviews with Lee Kuan Yew, the former leader of Singapore who, as Kissinger puts it in a foreword, is "not only one of the seminal leaders of our period, but also a thinker recognized for his strategic acumen."

    Currently, Allison is completing a book on what he calls the Thucydides Trap -- the moment when an established power is challenged by a rising one, as, for example, Wilhelmine Germany sought to surpass the British empire with calamitous results both for itself and the rest of Europe. Indeed, with a number of contributions to the National Interest web site, Allison has examined the legacy of World War I for contemporary events, asking whether the crisis in Ukraine might, as the Balkans once did, presage a larger and even more sanguinary conflict that could menace the very foundations of the Western world that has existed since the end of World War II. It's an unsettling thought. But then again, Allison is a provocative thinker who is rarely satisfied with what passes for conventional wisdom in Washington, DC or elsewhere.

    In the lively and engaging interview above, he discusses his understanding of how the past may shape the present, the deep impression left upon him by Kissinger, and what lessons World War I and the Cuban missile crisis may offer. Perhaps most provocatively, he dismisses the notion that President Obama has failed in foreign policy, withholding great praise for Obama but also noting that he disagrees with the prescriptions offered by leading neoconservatives. Nuanced, cogent, meditative -- these are all adjectives that might be appropriately applied to Allison, who knows that simple truculence cannot substitute for discerning diplomacy when conducting foreign affairs.

    Articles by Graham Allison

    Vladimir Putin's Dicey Dilemma: Russia Stands at a Fateful Fork in the Road

    Despite the Obama administration's narrative of a Russia that is not a player in global affairs -- Moscow matters. Yet, major challenges remain if the Ukraine crisis remains unresolved.

    Graham Allison Is America on the ISIS Hit List?

    "To whom does ISIS pose the most imminent and even existential threat?"

    Graham Allison Graham Allison on World War I, Ukraine and Realism

    TNI's editor speaks with Harvard's Graham Allison.

    Graham Allison How to Solve the Ukraine Crisis

    "If Ukraine is to have a chance to succeed as a modern nation, it will require a degree of acceptance and cooperation from Russia as well as its Western neighbors."

    Graham Allison Could the Ukraine Crisis Spark a World War?

    We should not forget that in 1914, the possibility that the assassination of an Archduke could produce a world war seemed almost inconceivable.

    Graham Allison Good News From Ukraine: It Doesn't Have Nukes

    Looking back at Kiev's risky, carefully negotiated decision to give up its nuclear weapons after it escaped the Soviet Union.

    Graham Allison A "Belgian Solution" for Ukraine?

    "Given the reality that is Ukraine today, an internationally-recognized neutral state within its current borders would be a victory for all."

    Graham Allison Putin's Olympic Gamble

    A report from Sochi.

    Graham Allison 2014: Good Year for a Great War?

    Prospects for peace seemed to be looking up in 1913, as in 2013. What are the chances we're wrong again?

    Graham Allison An Interview with Graham Allison

    A conversation on the Syria deal, Russia's power, the Iran overtures, and more.

    Graham Allison Lee Kuan Yew, Grand Master of Asia

    Singapore's éminence grise sees China rising and India falling.

    Robert D. Blackwill The Coming Clash Over Iran

    Relations between the United States and Israel may soon be dominated by disagreements about the Islamic Republic.

    Shai Feldman The Three 'Nos' Knows

    In the previous issue of The National Interest, John Mueller argued that the threats from nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and nuclear war are exagger

    Graham Allison Apocalypse When?

    Graham AllisonJoseph CirincioneWilliam C. PotterJohn Mueller

    Churchill, Not Quite

    With America facing grave threats, the Bush Administration has failed to demonstrate a willingness to establish a hierarchy of priorities.

    Graham AllisonDimitri K. Simes In Brief: Thoughts on National Security

    Graham AllisonIan BremmerHarlan UllmanDerek Chollet Not If, but When: Imagining a Nuclear 9/11

    As unpleasant and as frightening as it may be, the United States must come to grips with the prospect of facing a terrorist strike using nuclear materials--a "nuclear 9/11"--within the coming decade.

    Graham Allison The New Containment

    Forging a U.S.-Russian alliance to prevent nuclear terrorism should be America's top priority in the post-September 11 world; here is a blueprint for one.

    EU pushing Ukraine towards trilateral free trade, with Russia

    et Al, April 16, 2015 at 9:31 am

    euractiv: EU pushing Ukraine towards trilateral free trade, with Russia
    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/eu-pushes-ukraine-toward-trilateral-free-trade-including-russia-313816

    Fearing that Russia could retaliate against Ukraine following the entry into force of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) later this year, the European Commission is now pushing Ukraine to agree to a trilateral trade format, including Russia.

    On Wednesday (15 April), a Ukrainian parliamentarian reacted angrily to messagess from EU officials, who said that Ukraine should seek to accommodate its EU free trade agreement with an older arrangement his country had with Russia.

    Ironically, it was Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich who appealed for such an approach two years ago, which was flatly rejected by Brussels…

    …Neighbourhood Commissioner Johannes Hahn backed the main conclusions of the paper in the following terms:

    "The study rightly recognises that integration [for Ukraine] with Russia and EU are not in principle mutually exclusive. The study goes on to suggest that at least partial restoration of links with Russia, and the so-called Eurasian Economic Union will be important to Ukraine's economic recovery, and that Ukraine should diversify its export markets and develop trade relations in many directions."

    The Commissioner said that the EU wasn't looking for an exclusive economic relationship with Ukraine.

    "This is important to be stressed. There is nothing in our new agreement that would stop Ukraine from continuing to export products to Russia. Approximation with EU standards will not prevent Ukraine from trading with Russia," he went on. In his terms, the Association Agreement left Ukraine free to determine its own trade policy.

    "Ukraine already has preferential trade relations with the members of the Eurasian economic union within the framework of the Community of Independent States free trade area. These are perfectly compatible with the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, and there is no reason why they should not be maintained. So the EU-Ukraine bilateral DCFTA does not impose a false choice on Kyiv. Those who say so are wrong or may have their own agenda," Hahn said….
    ####

    More at the link.

    So Brussels admits failure and that it was wrong? No. Brussels has got the message from Germany and others that they will not take over Russia's former subsidy of the Ukraine.

    So there you have it – Brussels wants this unfortunate misunderstanding brushed under the table with the backing of EU states that still want to continue sanctions against Russia. Silence from the US.

    [Apr 17, 2015] Will Ukraine Push the US Into War

    As for question "What are the forces that have us "stumbling to war"?" the answer is chick hawks ("liberal interventionalists" which are indistinguishable from neocons) from current administration and military industrial complex.
    Apr 17, 2015 | The American Conservative
    "Could a U.S. response to Russia's action in Ukraine provoke a confrontation that leads to a U.S.-Russia War?" This jolting question is raised by Graham Allison and Dimitri Simes in the cover article of The National Interest.

    The answer the authors give, in "Countdown to War: The Coming U.S. Russia Conflict," is that the odds are shortening on a military collision between the world's largest nuclear powers. The cockpit of the conflict, should it come, will be Ukraine.

    What makes the article timely is the report that Canada will be sending 200 soldiers to western Ukraine to join 800 Americans and 75 Brits on a yearlong assignment to train the Ukrainian army.

    And train that army to fight whom? Pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine whom Vladimir Putin has said will not be crushed, even if it requires Russian intervention. Says Putin, "We won't let it happen."

    What are the forces that have us "stumbling to war"?

    On our side there is President Obama who "enjoys attempting to humiliate Putin" and "repeatedly includes Russia in his list of current scourges alongside the Islamic State and Ebola." Then there is what TNI editor Jacob Heilbrunn calls the "truculent disposition" that has become the "main driver of Republican foreign policy." A "triumphalist camp," redolent of the "cakewalk war" crowd of Bush II, is ascendant and pushing us toward confrontation.

    This American mindset has its mirror image in Moscow.

    "Putin is not the hardest of the hard-liners in Russia," write the authors. "Russia's establishment falls into … a pragmatic camp, which is currently dominant thanks principally to Putin's support, and a hard-line camp" the one Putin adviser calls "the hotheads."

    The hotheads believe the way to respond to U.S. encroachments is to invoke the doctrine of Yuri Andropov, "challenge the main enemy," and brandish nuclear weapons to terrify Europe and split NATO. Russian public opinion is said to be moving toward the hotheads.

    Russian bombers have been intruding into NATO air space. Putin says he was ready to put nuclear forces on alert in the Crimea. Russia's ambassador has warned Copenhagen that if its ships join a NATO missile defense force, Denmark could be targeted with nukes.

    In coming war games, Russia will move Iskander missiles into the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad on Poland's northern border. "Russia is the only country in the world that is realistically capable of turning the United States into radioactive ash," brays the director of the television network Rossiya Segodnya.

    As of now, the "pragmatists" represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov retain the upper hand. They believe Russia can still do business with the United States and Europe. "The 'hotheads' take the opposite view," the authors write, "they argue that NATO is determined to overthrow Putin, force Russia to its knees, and perhaps even dismember the country."

    In Ukraine, Putin has drawn two red lines. He will not permit Ukraine to join NATO. He will not allow the rebels to be crushed.

    Russia hard-liners are confident that should it come to war in Ukraine, Russia would have what Cold War strategists called "escalation dominance." This is what JFK had in the Cuban missile crisis-conventional and nuclear superiority on sea and land, and in the air around Cuba.

    With Ukraine easily accessible to Russian forces by road and rail, sea and air, and Russia's military just over the border while U.S. military might is a continent away, the hard-liners believe Russia would prevail in a war and America would face a choice-accept defeat in Ukraine or escalate to tactical atomic weapons.

    The Russians are talking of resorting to such weapons first.

    The decisive date for Putin to determine which way Russia will go would appear to be this summer. The authors write:

    Putin will attempt to exploit the expiration of EU sanctions, which are scheduled to expire in July. If that fails, however, and the European Union joins the United States in imposing additional economic sanctions such as excluding Moscow from the SWIFT financial clearing system, Putin would be tempted to respond, not by retreating, but by ending all cooperation with the West, and mobilizing his people against a new and 'apocalyptic' threat to 'Mother Russia.'

    As a leading Russian politician told us, 'We stood all alone against Napoleon and against Hitler.'

    As of now, the Minsk II cease-fire of February seems to be holding. The Ukrainian army and pro-Russian rebels have both moved their heavy weapons back from the truce lines, though there have been clashes and casualties.

    But as Ukraine's crisis is unresolved, these questions remain: Will the U.S. train the Ukrainian army and then greenlight an offensive to retake the rebel-held provinces? Would Russia intervene and rout that army? Would the Americans sit by if their Ukrainian trainees were defeated and more Ukrainian land was lost?

    Or would we start up the escalator to a war with Russia that few Europeans, but some Americans and Russians, might welcome today?

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority. Copyright 2015 Creators.com.

    [Apr 16, 2015] Chaos And Hegemony - How US Dollar Imperialism Dominates The World

    Quote: "However, when at the beginning of the 21st century the new economic giants China and India, with their almost inexhaustible hunger for energy, started organizing their own supply, the U.S.-dominated oil regime collapsed. The oil markets henceforth followed the pricing laws for exhaustible goods; oil prices therefore rose drastically and have subsequently been guided by market mechanisms."

    Apr 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Mohssen Massarat via CounterPunch.org,

    With last fall's U.S. Congressional elections, the Barack Obama 'era' has entered its final phase. Shortly before coming to power, the new U.S. president had sparked a massive uproar when he proclaimed a new 'Pacific century.' Since then, roughly two years before the end of his term in office, we can see more clearly. First and foremost, the proclamation of an allegedly new orientation towards the Pacific served the purpose to put Europe, and particularly Germany, under pressure so that they fill the allegedly emerging security gap. In reality, however, it is not the Pacific that forms the epicenter of U.S. geostrategic interests, neither – despite the Crimea crisis – is it the 'old (European) world,' but it is still the Middle East. For the latter's fate defines whether American hegemony stands or falls.

    America's interest in this region is as old as the discovery of enormous Mideast oil reserves – albeit not at the moment, as is generally but falsely suggested, because of her own domestic oil supply. Thanks to its immense domestic energy resources, historically the U.S. has since the dawn of the last century been independent from importing oil. And with the current widespread use of fracking technology, it is once again about to become self-sufficient. As the new hegemonic power in the wake of the Second World War, the U.S. quickly realized that it could make rivaling world powers dependent on it by way of controlling the Middle East with its tremendous reserves of oil – the global economy's fuel. Originally, the U.S., together with Saudi Arabia – its main ally in the region – established a global oil supply regime that could provide the West, China, and all BRICS countries with energy security. In this regime, Saudi Arabia arranged for constant overproduction. Thanks to this system that was politically controlled by the U.S., both its Western allies and its rivals enjoyed unimpeded oil supply at low prices – and all this despite great political turbulence raging during the entire second half of the last century. At the same time, the U.S. dollar, pegged to the oil price, acted as the global reserve currency.

    However, when at the beginning of the 21st century the new economic giants China and India, with their almost inexhaustible hunger for energy, started organizing their own supply, the U.S.-dominated oil regime collapsed. The oil markets henceforth followed the pricing laws for exhaustible goods; oil prices therefore rose drastically and have subsequently been guided by market mechanisms.

    The irony of history: Albeit the U.S. has lost the ability to steer the oil price – one of its central political leverages –, it has in another way been able to drastically strengthen its hegemony via the new prices set by the global market. For the high oil prices have multiplied the percentage share of oil trade within global trade, which caused massively higher demand for dollars and U.S. government bonds. As a result, for the foreseeable future the U.S. dollar will thereby remain the indisputable reserve currency.

    It is precisely here that we can identify the actual basis for U.S. dominance: By way of an unlimited creation of the dollar as the globe's reserve currency, the U.S. constitutes the only economy in the world that can finance several mega-projects at once – such as the bailing-out of banks and gigantic defense spending – through public debt and the issuing of government bonds. After the 2008 crash, no other national economy could have managed the banking crisis on its own without suffering any severe consequences. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), whose financial basis is essentially formed by the U.S Treasury's government bonds, provided the U.S. with the required capital. The FDIC is an institution specifically created by the U.S. Congress to promote "stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system." Thereby, in fact, in 2009 the United States successfully nationalized all ailing banks in order to dispose its debt, and subsequently privatized them again. Meanwhile, in the European Union the banking crisis turned into a sovereign debt crisis.

    Nonetheless, the global economic figures for the U.S. are anything but rosy: Its trade balance has witnessed deficits uninterruptedly since 1987, which until 2013 had led to an accumulated deficit of $9,627 billion. This is caused by the fact that the U.S. economy in parts, for a long time now, is no longer competitive vis-à-vis its main competitors – the EU, China, and Japan. Moreover, the fiscal deficit has chronically been on the rise, as result of from drastically growing defense spending. For decades, various U.S. administrations have 'solved' both problems – the trade deficit and concomitantly the constantly rising fiscal deficit – by allocating government bonds and engaging in money creation.

    Technically, both objectives are being realized as follows: In order to conduct current government expenditures, the U.S. Treasury swaps government bonds with the FED in exchange for the latter's freshly printed dollars – in 2013 alone, $1,100 billion were thus brought into circulation. The FED in turn places those government bonds on the world market and thereby continuously channels new capital into the U.S. economy, which provides for the balancing of the trade deficit. The price for this policy of money creation is the gigantic U.S. public debt, which climbed from $6,731 billion in 2003 to $17,556 billion in 2013. In the same time period, the public spending ratio rose from 60% to 108% (in comparison that of the EU 'only' rose from 60% to 87%).

    No surprise then that such an economy suffering from trade as well as budgetary balance deficits has transformed into a consumptive surplus economy – amassing the largest national debt of all time. Between 2001 and 2013 only, these consumption surpluses accounted for a total of $11,550 billion. To put it plainly, per year an average $962.5 billion – capital corresponding with real economic performance – flowed from the rest of the world to the United States, while the latter confined itself to printing new money and bringing it into circulation.

    To make it even more clear: In 2012, the $1,250 billion that flowed into the U.S. made up 7.9% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). This additional capital stock flowing into the economy also explains why the saving rate in the U.S. had drastically sunk during that period. Americans consumed nearly the totality of the goods and services they produced, while the rest of the world paid for investments allowing the U.S. economy to keep going.

    Essentially, the U.S. has become to resemble Arab rentier states. Instead of oil, the U.S. uses the dollar – the international reserve currency – as leverage for appropriating its global purchasing power. While Saudi Arabia at least exports oil in exchange for other countries' goods and services, the U.S. merely pumps paper into the global cash cycle.

    The dollar as leverage

    Here is the reason why: The significantly largest part of world trade is still being processed in dollars. This is why international demand for dollars is enormous, and is rising in proportion to world trade. Therefore, with the assistance of FED, the U.S. can continuously inject dollars into circulation, thereby financing its trade balance and budgetary deficits (and ultimately its constantly growing government debt). Hence, Nobel economics laureate Roger B. Myerson does not bother too much about U.S. debt: "U.S. debts are in dollars and the U.S. can print dollars. […] We may have inflation. But we are sure we can pay back the debt."

    Yet, contrary to Myerson's contention, in reality the U.S. will never pay back its debt, which has already been clear in the 1970s to U.S. economist Michael Hudson:

    "To the extent that these Treasury IOUs are being built into the world's monetary base they will not have to be repaid, but are to be rolled over indefinitely. This feature is the essence of America's free financial ride, a tax imposed at the entire globe's expense."

    In truth, the U.S. can simply absorb the excess purchasing power that is created all over the world. All of this, however, only works as long as oil is being traded in dollars and the status of the U.S. currency is not being jeopardized by other potential reserve currencies, such as the euro or China's renminbi. After the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, almost without anyone noticing, the gold standard got replaced by oil henceforth backing the dollar: oil was increasingly in demand by all countries – except for oil exporters; it is a homogeneous and scarce commodity with rising prices. As such, oil trade as a proportion of world trade continuously rose from 1.7% in 1970 to 6% in 2001, and to 12% in 2011 – resulting in a massively rising demand for dollars. Moreover, the 'oil standard' freed the U.S. from all shackles of the Bretton Woods agreement; it could henceforth accumulate new debt even more uninhibitedly than before.

    The military as instrument

    Yet, ensuring that the global oil trade will be carried out in dollars for decades to come requires a Middle East controlled by the U.S. as complete as possible. This can be done through regime changes wherever necessary in order to nip possible anti-dollar alliances in the bud. In this vein, the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was from the very start targeted towards such a direction, with its willingness to create a 'Greater Middle East' that ought to be subordinated to the U.S. to the greatest possible extent. In PNAC documents there is no mention of creating conditions for peace but instead for wars, for expanding military bases all around the world, for military superiority on land, in water and in the air, for nuclear defense shields in the earth's atmosphere, and above all for further increases in defense spending.

    Over the last decade, the U.S. with its annual defense budget of $500 billion to $800 billion has spent as much on armaments as the rest of the world combined. Any other national economy would have collapsed long ago under such tremendous unproductive spending. Indeed, the arms race during the Cold War did lead to the demise of the Soviet Union. In contrast, after the end of the bloc confrontation U.S. arms spending rose exponentially from $150 billion in 1990 to the astronomic sum of $739 billion in 2011. The share of military expenditure as a proportion of GDP is currently 4% in the U.S., more than twice that of other Western industrialized nations. The opposition, otherwise loudly opposing administration policies of increasing other budget items, refrains from criticizing military spending as a matter of principle, the exception being when an increase in military spending is deemed too low. Nor is this massive military spending subject to any substantial debate in the media or in society at large. But how can these enormous arms expenditures be explained and how are they justified to the people? Ultimately, this is done by the fact that the U.S. also covers its military spending by government debt and printing money. Instead, financing the costs of war via direct taxes would mobilize people against any war. Both World Wars were financed by public debt, not only by European but also all U.S. administrations. Through the continuity of wars, especially since the First World War, the U.S. public debt has continued to grow.

    The de facto monopoly over world money explains how a national economy like that of the U.S., which in many areas is simply not competitive and shows chronic trade balance deficits, can finance not only such mega-projects as the military-industrial complex and various quite expensive wars, but also has a relatively stable financial sector and a currency that attracts magnet-like surplus capital from all over the world.

    A world without order and chaos as opportunity – for the U.S.

    To maintain its hegemony, the U.S. must by all means prevent the emergence of rival powers and impede possible current as well as future threats that could emanate from oil states. The ideal condition for enforcing its own goals at a low cost would be the fragmentation of antagonistic power centers through ethnic and religious strife, civil wars, chaos and deep-seated mistrust in the Middle East – always following the well-known premise of 'divide and rule.' In this way, for decades to come no other power would be able to even consider trading oil in a currency other than dollars. In addition, as all the opponents need petrodollars to purchase weapons, the oil wells gush merrily on – as they currently do in Iraq despite daily acts of terror and chaos paralyzing the country.

    In fact, we are currently experiencing tremendous changes towards such a chaotic state of affairs. Meanwhile, there have been regime changes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. In all these countries, discord and distrust, tribal conflicts, territorial separations among ethnic lines and mutual terror have been raging – particularly from Sunnis against Shi'ites. However, the regime change project has not ended here. Now, Syria and Iran have been put in crosshairs: U.S. neo-cons have spared no efforts to torpedo the nuclear negotiations with Iran. And Al-Qaeda – officially the main reason for the U.S. 'war on terror' – has in the meanwhile attained unprecedented strength. This prowess provides, in turn, the best basis of legitimacy for the U.S. military-industrial complex.

    The old military-industrial complex

    This way all the strands of 'dollar imperialism' come together: oil, dollars, and the military. The military-industrial complex is the main beneficiary of the 'new American century' of New Wars. Especially in the Middle East both a nuclear and a conventional arms race is taking place, which is increasingly putting the arms race of the 1970s that had led to three Gulf Wars in the shade. While the recycling of petrodollars for weapons has resulted in a dangerous vicious circle which could at any time trigger a conflagration across the whole region, the U.S. defense sector can remain confident: All U.S. administrations, regardless of their political persuasion, will continue with impunity the policy of public debt and thus keep on financing the military budget. Thanks to the rising demand for dollars and the FED's continued money printing (also under the new Board of Governors Chair, Janet Yellen), the U.S. banking system has such extensive money reserves that the politically dangerous U.S. military industry can be easily financed.

    However, 'dollar imperialism' is fundamentally a highly unstable construction, producing absurdities difficult to imagine.

    • On the one hand, it keeps alive a gigantic apparatus of violence in the U.S. – at the expense of (and ultimately financed by) the whole of humanity.
    • On the other, this construction is based on chaos, violence, and civil wars, particularly in the oil-rich regions that may therefore collapse at any time, plunging the world into serious crises.

    In short, what could be more absurd than the fact that money belonging to all of us helps finance an industrial sector whose ultimate survival depends on there never being peace on the planet? Even the NSA scandal – revealed thanks to Edward Snowden – appears in a new, very particular light when seen against the background of the prevailing dollar imperialism. For, of course, this highly unstable construction generates a seemingly limitless greed for the widest possible control of all communication channels, including spying on the heads of all foreign administrations, even those of friendly states. Despite worldwide outrage, in his January 2014 speech, Barack Obama emphasized that "[o]ur intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments [...] around the world."

    The massive U.S. security apparatus is being legitimized – today as in the past – exclusively on the grounds of national interests. When the NSA was founded in 1952, there was no talk of Al-Qaeda and '9/11,' rather of the benefits and interests of a then aspiring hegemonic power. Today, the NSA is above all concerned with recognizing in due time all the steps and movements in the world that could endanger the current status of the U.S. currency, and nipping them in the bud by any means necessary. It thus functions in the interest of the influential alliance between the military-industrial complex and the U.S. financial sector, which is dependent on such knowledge for its own survival.

    On the other hand, it has become clear that the NSA poses the biggest threat to democracy in the U.S. and in the West as a whole – and in a way in which President Dwight Eisenhower could not even imagine when he warned about the military-industrial complex in his farewell address on January 17, 1961: "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. […] In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

    Roughly 50 years after Eisenhower's warning, the U.S. has taken a major step 'forward.' This powerful complex has been struggling for its continued existence since the end of the bloc confrontation and has done everything possible to permanently consolidate American hegemony. It is indeed not the case, as was eagerly anticipated, that the world has become safer and more peaceful since 1989. On the contrary, it has become more insecure and warlike – as was the case at the dawn of the last century. This makes it even more urgent that the international community finally – and still perhaps just in time – defends itself against this highly dangerous development.

    The alternative: The global energy transition and the diversification of reserve currencies

    The question of democratizing the global economy by abolishing the U.S. monopoly over world money must definitely be placed on the global political agenda. In the long term, this goal can be most effectively attained by a global energy revolution – away from fossils and towards extensively expanding renewable energies. In the short term, a range of reserve currencies can and ought to be established, which would finally account for the real economic balance of forces.

    One such alternative would also serve the long-term interests of American citizens and would contribute to the U.S. finally offloading the parasitic and ultimately unproductive parts of its economy – namely, the alliance between finance and the military. On the other hand, the example of Barack Obama, who had to move away from nearly all his positive reform initiatives, shows that America on her own and using her own abilities is barely capable of pushing back this all-powerful alliance including the political forces sustaining it.

    This leads to Europe and Asia assuming responsibility: Only a new reserve currency – pushed forward by the EU and China – can help the U.S. leave its previous path of increasing prosperity through imperialist methods, to the benefit of its own immeasurable productive potentials. The BRICS countries' establishment in Brazil in July 2014 of an international development bank and a monetary fund could evolve into a serious competitor to the Bretton Woods system. You could imagine the dollar being no longer the only world currency, and necessarily losing its stability in a lively international competition involving the euro and renminbi. International excess capital would then be withdrawn, to a considerable extent, from the U.S. and invested in the euro or renminbi zone. The previous U.S. policy of public debt by issuing government bonds would stall, and the bipartisan taboo on tackling military spending would lose its validity. In order to reduce chronic budget deficits, U.S. administrations would then have no other choice but to drastically cut the disproportionately high military budget.

    How would such a new situation impact American hegemony? Inside the U.S. there would – finally – emerge a fierce debate over the sense and non-sense of military spending as well as its global military capacities (including over 800 bases) – with the prospect of the U.S. demilitarizing to a level corresponding to its actual economic weight. As such, the U.S. would no longer be the 'only remaining superpower,' but merely one among several world powers. Wholly new global power structures and balances of power would then become conceivable: Asia but also the Middle East, South America, Africa, and even Europe would have real opportunities to come together in cooperative and common-security regional architectures. At the same time, nationalistic and racist resentments and conflicts would strongly lose traction. Perhaps international cooperation would also finally shrink the financial sector to a reasonable level – in so doing also significantly increasing the possibility of an equitable distribution of income.

    In short, we would finally have the prospect of a world with more justice and less financial speculation – a more democratic and peaceful world. Yet, the losers of such a scenario would be the military-industrial complex, the financial sector and its beneficiaries, and above all the neoconservatives. This is why we must expect fierce resistance. However, in the interest of a more just and peaceful world, this fight is nothing less than inevitable.

    [Apr 14, 2015] The New Militarism: Who Profits?

    Quote: "So who is the real enemy? The Russians? No, the real enemy is the taxpayer. The real enemy is the middle class and the productive sectors of the economy. We are the victims of this new runaway military spending. Every dollar or euro spent on a contrived threat is a dollar or euro taken out of the real economy and wasted on military Keynesianism. It is a dollar stolen from a small business owner that will not be invested in innovation, spent on research to combat disease, or even donated to charities that help the needy."
    Apr 12, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Militarism and military spending are everywhere on the rise, as the new Cold War propaganda seems to be paying off. The new "threats" that are being hyped bring big profits to military contractors and the network of think tanks they pay to produce pro-war propaganda.

    Here are just a few examples:

    The German government announced last week that it would purchase 100 more "Leopard" tanks – a 45 percent increase in the country's inventory. Germany had greatly reduced its inventory of tanks as the end of the Cold War meant the end of any threat of a Soviet ground invasion of Europe. The German government now claims these 100 new tanks, which may cost nearly half a billion dollars, are necessary to respond to the new Russian assertiveness in the region. Never mind that Russia has neither invaded nor threatened any country in the region, much less a NATO member country.

    The US Cold War-era nuclear bunker under Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, which was all but shut down in the 25 years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, is being brought back to life. The Pentagon has committed nearly a billion dollars to upgrading the facility to its previous Cold War-level of operations. US defense contractor Raytheon will be the prime beneficiary of this contract. Raytheon is a major financial sponsor of think tanks like the Institute for the Study of War, which continuously churn out pro-war propaganda. I am sure these big contracts are a good return on that investment.

    NATO, which I believe should have been shut down after the Cold War ended, is also getting its own massively expensive upgrade. The Alliance commissioned a new headquarters building in Brussels, Belgium, in 2010, which is supposed to be completed in 2016. The building looks like a hideous claw, and the final cost – if it is ever finished – will be well over one billion dollars. That is more than twice what was originally budgeted. What a boondoggle! Is it any surprise that NATO bureaucrats and generals continuously try to terrify us with tales of the new Russian threat? They need to justify their expansion plans!

    So who is the real enemy? The Russians?

    No, the real enemy is the taxpayer. The real enemy is the middle class and the productive sectors of the economy. We are the victims of this new runaway military spending. Every dollar or euro spent on a contrived threat is a dollar or euro taken out of the real economy and wasted on military Keynesianism. It is a dollar stolen from a small business owner that will not be invested in innovation, spent on research to combat disease, or even donated to charities that help the needy.

    One of the most pervasive and dangerous myths of our time is that military spending benefits an economy. This could not be further from the truth. Such spending benefits a thin layer of well-connected and well-paid elites. It diverts scarce resources from meeting the needs and desires of a population and channels them into manufacturing tools of destruction. The costs may be hidden by the money-printing of the central banks, but they are eventually realized in the steady destruction of a currency.

    The elites are terrified that peace may finally break out, which will be bad for their profits. That is why they are trying to scuttle the Iran deal, nix the Cuba thaw, and drum up a new "Red Scare" coming from Moscow. We must not be fooled into believing their lies.


    Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute Related

    [Apr 14, 2015] Nuland Ensconced in Neocon Camp Who Believes in Noble Lie

    Mar 5, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
    RPI Director Daniel McAdams is interviewed on RT. Transcript below; video here.

    Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics, seeking to stir the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more arms sales, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.

    RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is generally improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?

    Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined to see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the conflict in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been bombarding Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and their own people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon camp. The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie… They lied us into the war in Iraq; they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.

    RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable proof. Do you think she can she be challenged on these topics?

    DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except for Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are true but we have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the war. This is much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global nuclear war. So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not provided any. We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this week hundreds of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it only an escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?

    RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?

    DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders of the Joseph Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came back to Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons - whatever that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide lethal weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.

    RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another round of sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?

    DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland said that the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of activity. I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was one bit of unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there.
    Related

    [Apr 14, 2015] ​Western ISIS adventurism, Israel behind Hamas - new Assange revelations

    Apr 14, 2015 | RT News
    Julian Assange has given an interview to an Argentinian paper from his Ecuadorian embassy asylum where he spent more than 1,000 days. He spoke about why US meddling in Ukraine led to civil war, how the West helped ISIS and Israel supported Hamas.

    US has long wanted to bring Ukraine to West

    The United States has spent "a lot of time trying to bring Ukraine to the West," the WikiLeaks founder said in an interview to Pagina/12, Argentinian newspaper on Monday.

    "If it cannot be with a NATO membership, at least it becomes independent from Moscow's sphere of influence, to reduce Russian industrial-military complex and its naval bases in Crimea."

    Kiev first step closer to NATO was in December 2014, when President Petro Poroshenko signed a law canceling the Ukraine' non-bloc status and promised to hold a national referendum on NATO accession in the next five to six years.

    In January, Kiev authorities announced that the Ukrainian army would take part in 11 international military drills in 2015 to bolster NATO standards in troops.

    One more attempt of US and Europe to 'bring Ukraine closer to the West' was spending "billions of dollars on the creation of NGOs," said Assange , adding that "through these institutions, the West promised to end corruption in Ukraine."

    ISIS -- result of Western adventurism

    Meddling of Western countries in the Middle East led to creation of the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS), an Islamist group that is currently gaining a massive following across the wider Middle East and Africa, Assange said.

    "The IS is a direct result of the adventurism of the West," Assange said.

    He says the "adventurism" of Western countries has already destroyed the Libyan and Syrian society and now is "destroying Iraq for oil and other geopolitical reasons."

    Many people know that arms are being transported to Syria, that there are attempts to reduce Iranian influence in postwar Iraq by supporting the Sunnis, he said. But "what we don't know is that in recent years in recent years Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey have increased their power and managed to gain certain independence form the US."

    As a result, Washington ceased to be "the only geopolitical actor" pushing developments in the Middle East, believes Assange.

    Israel supported Hamas in its infancy

    The WikiLeaks founder accused Israeli authorities of supporting Hamas group at its early stages in order to divide the Palestinian resistance.

    "Our cables reveal that Israel supported Hamas in its infancy, that Hamas was used as an instrument to divide the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] and the Palestinian resistance," Assange told the paper.

    Assange has been living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London while awaiting safe passage to the Central American country, where he has been granted asylum. Staking out the building, in case the Australian should leave the premises, has already cost British taxpayers a hefty £10 million, according to govwaste.co.uk.

    Assange has not been charged with a crime, but is wanted for questioning in Sweden regarding allegations of sexual misconduct brought against him in 2010.

    An arrest warrant was issued for Assange in 2010 in the of wake sexual assault allegations leveled against him by two Swedish women. He denied the allegations of sexual misconduct and rape and managed to avoid extradition to Sweden by seeking refuge in the embassy in 2012.

    He repeatedly announced that he is ready to answer all questions concerning his sexual assault allegations within the sanctity of the embassy. However, Swedish prosecutors were reluctant to do so until March this year.

    "If Assange gives his consent, the prosecutor will promptly submit a request for legal assistance to the British authorities to further continue the investigation," the Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement.

    Assange's Swedish lawyer welcomed the Swedish prosecutors' request to interview Assange in London, but added that the whole process of questioning could take time.

    "We welcome [this] and see it also as a big victory ... for Julian Assange that what we have demanded is finally going to happen," Per Samuelson said.

    Assange supporters fear that if he is deported to Sweden he will likely face espionage charges in America over his role in publishing sensitive, classified US government documents.

    But even if Sweden drops the case, he faces arrest by UK police for jumping the bail granted while the British courts considered a European arrest warrant issued by Stockholm.

    In June 2014, 56 international human rights and free media organizations signed a letter addressed to US Attorney General Eric Holder calling upon the US government to end all criminal investigations into Assange's actions as editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, and to cease harassing the organization for publishing materials in the public interest.

    Read more:

    [Apr 14, 2015] Freedom of speech as three card monte

    Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. Governments restrict speech with varying limitations, the most important of which is the real freedom of speech belongs only to owners of the press. Common limitations on speech are related to activities of three-letter agencies (buying journalists), libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
    But in reality interpretation of freedom of speech interpretation is very country dependent. For example definitions of what libel constitute are different between the USA and GB. And in the USA, the relevant case law is a pretty complex with many exceptions for those who have money.
    There are also common sense restrictions on freedom of speech (To incite actions that would harm others -- like crying fire in overcrowded theater), some are not.
    But again the key issue is that the freedom of speech like freedom of press is mostly limited to those who own the press. That means that freedom of speech is also never awarded to skeptics or outright opponents of the existing regime. They need to fight for it.

    What Does Free Speech Mean

    Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

    The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

    "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech."

    Quiz: Test your First Amendment knowledge (usatoday.com)


    Freedom of speech includes the right:
    • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
      West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
    • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war ("Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.").
      Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
    • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
      Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
    • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
      Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
    • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
      Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
    • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
      Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

    Freedom of speech does not include the right:

    • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater.").
      Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
    • To make or distribute obscene materials.
      Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
    • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
      United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
    • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
      Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
    • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
      Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
    • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
      Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

    [Apr 12, 2015] No Longer Quiet On The Eastern Front (Part 3)

    ...Vaclav Klaus .... stating that Western lies about Russia are 'monstrous'.
    Apr 12, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Kevin Virgil of Emerging Frontiers,

    This is the final installment in a three-part series that explores the ongoing economic standoff in Greece and the Ukrainian civil war, and how these events are converging to launch what will soon become known as the Second Cold War. - By Kevin Virgil, CEO of Emerging Frontiers

    * * * * *

    Writing a short series of articles about geopolitics carries some risks - namely, that current events can unfold faster than I can hit the 'send' button on my next edition. It appears that I am releasing this missive in the nick of time, as the coming days promise more dramatic developments in the Greek economic crisis and, of particular interest, that country's growing closeness with Russia.

    Let us quickly review what has been covered thus far in this series. In part one, we focused on economic tensions between the European Union and Greece, and how the past five years of austerity and hardship may compel the new Greek government to seek stronger ties with Russia. Part two reviewed last year's disintegration of Ukraine, and the chain of events that sparked its ongoing civil war.

    Civil unrest in Kiev. Photo courtesy: The Times of London

    In this final segment, we will attempt to view both of these conflicts from the Russian perspective, and to provide some insight into (if not a defense of) the Greek point of view. I do not consider myself to be a "Kremlinologist", or even an expert on Russian political affairs. That being said, I do believe that I can offer a relatively informed perspective that comes from living in both Athens and Moscow over the past ten years, at times when both countries were facing economic crises. I also believe that mainstream Western media outlets have thoroughly and utterly failed in their duty to provide a balanced perspective on the causes behind the growing chasm between Russia and the West.

    We will begin with a look at the Russian point of view on Ukraine, and then shift our focus back to Greece in an effort to better understand what both Athens and Moscow stand to gain from the perception of closer cooperation against the EU. We will then quickly review other potential flashpoints along the EU's eastern borders, and show how Europe is rapidly losing its appetite for US-led sanctions against Russia. Finally, we will wrap up this adventure tour with an upcoming event that might provide a prophetic glimpse into Russia's future sphere of influence.

    With that in mind, let's get started.

    -----------------

    Any casual watcher of CNN or Sky News is familiar with the Western narrative on Ukraine's last 12 months. Here is a brief summary; for a bit of entertainment, try to imagine Wolf Blitzer's droning voice reading this next paragraph from his teleprompter:

    "The Ukrainian people, yearning for democracy in their troubled land, launched the spontaneous Maidan protests to bring down the evil Yanukovych regime. The people succeeded, but Russian President Vladimir Putin exploited the ensuing chaos by waging a propaganda war in Crimea, and a military offensive in the separatist regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, to take back what Russia lost in the Soviet Union's collapse. And of course, this is only the first step in Putin's grand plan to re-unite the former Soviet Union."

    Contents of the previous paragraph resonate well with the American people, who are strangely comforted whenever their media does its best to scare them out of their wits. Which, distressingly, is a constant and unrelenting process these days; I can't watch the first ten minutes of my local six o'clock news without feeling the impulsive need to pack atropine injectors and distress beacons in my kids' school lunches.

    Now let's look at events from the Russian perspective.

    But first, let's set some ground rules before we take this any further. My intent for this column is neither to defend nor apologize for the Russian government, its foreign policy or its president. To that end, please suppress any indignant references you might want to make regarding the Boris Nemtsov assassination, Sergei Magnitsky, the apartment bombings, Pussy Riot, Sochi's twin toilets, or any other (alleged) Russian transgressions. This is not a nomination essay for the Nobel Peace Prize, but a column about geopolitics.

    With that out of the way, let's move on...

    Ukraine

    It will most likely come as a surprise to Westerners, and particularly Americans, that Russia maintains that it was forced to take action in Ukraine in response to US provocations in Kiev. For the past twenty years Moscow has watched the US attempt to lead NATO expansion into former Soviet satellites such as Ukraine and Georgia, an affront that Russia considers to be a serious threat.

    With regard to Crimea, Moscow maintains that the region - which houses an ethnic Russian majority -- has repeatedly sought annexation from Russia since Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev bequeathed it to Ukraine in 1954. The Crimean regional parliament has voted for and announced independence in 1992, again in 1994, and of course in 2014. Yet Russia has ignored all previous requests for annexation - a fact which has been well-documented - and only took action in 2014 when the Yanukovych government was overthrown amidst credible evidence of foreign (US) influence.

    The Russians maintain that they have also exercised restraint with the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine. Even though both regions - which also contain significant Russian populations - announced separation from Ukraine in April and May 2014, Moscow has refused to officially recognize the sovereignty or independence of these regions even though many of Russia's political elite are calling for that, and even for the annexation of those regions.

    Russia has always bitterly opposed any Ukrainian bid for membership in NATO. Recall that in the previous segment of this series, we discussed how the US had pushed for accession of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO in 2008, but were rebuffed by European partners - notably France and Germany - who had absolutely no interest in deploying military forces into a possible confrontation with Russia. At the time, tensions between the US and Russia were high (though not nearly as high as they are today) because the Bush administration was planning to emplace interceptor missiles in Poland and an advanced radar system in Poland. Though these weapons were ostensibly installed to address the threat of long-range missile strikes from Iran, the Russian government clearly saw their installation as a direct threat to their security and sovereignty, and warned Kiev that any move to join NATO would be met with Russian missiles targeting Ukraine.

    In a joint Russian-Ukrainian news conference, held in Moscow in 2008, Putin stated that Russia would be forced to respond if Ukraine joined NATO. "Russia could target its missile systems at Ukraine," he said. "Imagine that for a second. It's horrible to say and even horrible to think." That threat certainly gave pause to Ukraine's attempts to court NATO, but even Putin's rhetoric paled in comparison to the sledgehammer that Russia wields over Ukraine and ultimately most of continental Europe - namely, Gazprom. Eighty percent of Russia's natural gas supplies to Western Europe are transported along pipelines through Ukrainian territory, elevating Ukraine to the vaunted and much-desired status of 'energy transit country' with estimated revenues of nearly US$ 2 billion per year (equivalent to 3% of its national budget). Consequently, neither Ukraine nor Western Europe have felt any particular need to poke the Russian bear any further on this issue, and even the US chose to drop plans for its 'missile shield' as part of the Obama administration's much-vaunted (and, plainly by now, failed) "reset" with Russia.

    US diplomat Victoria Nuland, providing snacks to anti-Yanukovych protestors in Kiev. Russian media exploited this image to further portray the US as the aggressor in Ukraine. Source: US Department of State

    The Russian position is that the US has been the aggressor nation in Ukraine from the outset. Russian media outlets have honed in on US attempts to influence and strengthen the Maidan protests and remove Yanukovych from power. They have been particularly effective at painting US diplomatic envoy Victoria Nuland (featured in part two of this series) as the villain and chief architect of American covert influence in Ukraine, in order to insert a more Western-friendly government that has been seduced by the allure of NATO and the West. From their perspective, movements to annex Crimea and deploy military forces in the Donbas region of Ukraine were necessary to stop the Kiev government's offensive against ethnic Russians in those regions.

    From Moscow's perspective, US indignation over its actions in Ukraine is deeply hypocritical. Russian news and propaganda outlets have very effectively portrayed US efforts to establish a missile shield, to implement economic sanctions, and the toppling of the Yanukovych government as a long-term containment strategy designed to limit Russia's influence in eastern Europe. Consequently, anti-American sentiment is higher in Russia today than it has been since the first Cold War. Recent polls indicate that 87% of Russians distrust or carry negative opinions of the United States, and that as many as 62% believe that their country is 'on the right track'.

    Most Russians see little reason to negotiate with, or even engage in dialogue with, the Obama Administration which seems to have little interest in Russia other than to marginalize the country or insult their leader. A quick perusal of recent Western stories on Putin seems to confirm this (examples here, here and here); mainstream newspapers regularly portray Putin as a thuggish buffoon whose grip on power is at risk of collapsing any day now.

    I will point out the obvious here. Love him or hate him, Vladimir Putin has outmaneuvered and outwitted the Obama Administration at nearly every turn since it first occupied the White House in 2009. Whether in Libya (by refusing to support the United Nations coalition that destabilized that country), Syria (forcing the Americans to back down from planned military action, and driving a wedge between the UK and US), his refusal to extradite Edward Snowden, and now in Ukraine where that country has virtually disintegrated, Putin is proving to be the USA's most accomplished adversary on the global geopolitical stage.

    ... ... ...

    Over the past year I have begun to notice an unmistakable trend amongst both politicians and the general public: there are an increasing number of Putin admirers in Europe, and even in the US. This clearly is not attributable to any newfound sympathy or support for Russia, or Putin's geopolitical agenda. Instead, I believe his rising popularity is driven by a grudging admiration that is naturally felt for a strong leader who gets things done and protects the interests of his people. Nigel Farage, a UK politician and prominent Eurosceptic, caused a stir last year when, asked which current world leader he most admired, replied: "As an operator, but not as a human being, I would say Putin."

    Nearly every country in Europe now has at least one political party that is broadly pro-Russian. In Greece's case, Syriza is now in power while Podemos, another left-wing party in Spain, has become a credible threat to Madrid's political establishment even though it was only formed last year. Close ties with Russia are not restricted to socialists; France's National Front is making waves with a far-right nationalist agenda, and its leader Marine Le Pen is an admirer of Putin, stating that "I admire his cool head…because there is a cold war being waged against him by the EU at the behest of [the] United States, which is defending its own interests."

    Even Poland, probably the most hostile country toward Russian influence in the EU, now has a party whose primary stance is the condemnation of Western sanctions against Russia. Zmiana ("change") claims it will win as much as 12% of the popular vote ahead of general Polish elections later this year. It is easy to marginalize such parties as fringe extremists – though some caution might be required here as that is exactly what the Spanish establishment said about Podemos a year ago.

    A quick look at other events on the EU's eastern borders further supports this point of view. Throughout the region, governments are increasingly voicing skepticism on continued sanctions against Russia, and openly doubting US motives and intentions behind their use.

    Let's take a quick tour of some other potential hotspots in the region:

    Hungary

    EU officials are objecting to a recent decision to award a €10 billion contract for construction of two nuclear reactors to Rosatom, the Russian state-owned company. Hungarian President Viktor Orban, formerly an active anti-Soviet dissident in the 1990s, has recently begun to pursue closer relations with Russia. Hungary has stopped short of objecting to EU and US sanctions against Moscow, but was the first EU country to invite Putin for a bilateral summit since Flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine last year - a disaster for which the West blames Russia, and Russia denies. Until recently Hungary had put the bidding process up for tender, but awarded the contract to Rosatom after Russia offered attractive financing terms for 80% of the project over 21 years. US-Japanese construction giant Westinghouse was previously considered the front-runner and is lobbying aggressively with the EU to be awarded the contract.

    Czech Republic

    Last September Czech President Milos Zeman caused a diplomatic stir when he openly voiced opposition to EU and US sanctions against Russia, referred to the Ukrainian conflict as a "civil war" and refused to denounce Russia's actions in that country. Earlier last year he proclaimed that sanctions against Russia would work no better than those that had been enforced against Cuba for the past fifty years, and called for them to be dropped altogether. His predecessor Vaclav Klaus has gone even further, calling for the EU to be scrapped and stating that Western lies about Russia are 'monstrous'.

    Events in Prague took an even more interesting turn last week when the US Ambassador told Czech television that it would be "awkward" should Zeman attend the upcoming Russian Victory Day celebrations in Moscow as the only head of state from an EU country. (Which is untrue, since both Alexis Tsipras of Greece and Nicos Anastasiades of Cyprus also plan to attend - more on that a bit later). Zeman is not known for his soft-spoken diplomacy, and has now barred the US ambassador from further access to Prague Castle.

    Greece

    Ah, Greece. The country offers so much low-hanging fruit for geopolitical bloggers and late-night comedians that it's impossible to resist talking about it again, even though the entire first installment of this series focused on their ongoing crisis. We seem to be approaching an endgame and a potential 'Grexit'; as of this writing the Greek government has made a €458m (US$ 503m) payment to the IMF that was due on 9 April. However, with another €1.2 billion coming due within the next month it is increasingly difficult to see how Athens can meet both its foreign and domestic obligations.

    Meanwhile, new Greek President Alexis Tsipras has just returned from a visit to Moscow where, on 8 April, he and Putin agreed to "restart and revive" bilateral relations in a calculated move that was surely intended to put the world on notice that their two countries are at least considering a collaboration against their mutual adversary in Brussels.

    ... ... ...

    Over the past few weeks rumors have increased that Greece and Russia may reach some sort of accord that provides the former with critical financial assistance, and the latter with increased leverage against the European Union. The EU is due to debate and vote on continued Russian sanctions in June of this year, and renewal will require a unanimous vote from its 28-member bloc. As already mentioned above, support for continued sanctions is increasingly shaky and both the Greeks and Russians have much to gain by using these much-hyped overtures as leverage against the West.

    It is increasingly clear that Tsipras has little to lose as a 'Grexit', or Greece's exit from the Eurozone, becomes more likely. Regardless of whether an exit is forced or voluntary, the result will almost certainly be a move away from Europe and toward Moscow's sphere of influence. Greece shares an Orthodox religious heritage with Russia and cultural ties are arguably stronger between the two countries than any affiliation that Greece shares with northern Europe. Their increasingly adversarial relationships with the EU will only serve to strengthen that relationship.

    As with Ukraine, when analyzing the Greek financial crisis it is important to contrast the Western narrative with the Greek point of view. It is nearly impossible to defend Greece's fiscal policies since joining the Euro; in hindsight, it was plainly a mistake to admit a country that had no chance of fulfilling the economic guidelines required for admission. However, the EU's strategy to resolve the crisis - to punish its people for the profligacy of its ruling class - is clearly doomed to failure.

    Last week I came across the following column from the Daily Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, which very effectively describes the flaws in the EU's approach toward Greece:

    "IMF minutes from 2010 confirm what Syriza has always argued: the country was already bankrupt and needed debt relief rather than new loans. This was overruled in order to save the euro and to save Europe's banking system at a time when EMU had no defences against contagion"

    Finance minister Yanis Varoufakis rightly calls the EU austerity plan 'a cynical transfer of private losses from the banks' books onto the shoulders of Greece's most vulnerable citizens'...Marc Chandler, from Brown Brothers Harriman, says the liabilities incurred – pushing Greece's debt to 180% of GDP - almost fit the definition of "odious debt" under international law. "The Greek people have not been bailed out. The economy has contracted by a quarter. With deflation, nominal growth has collapsed and continues to contract," he said."

    The Greeks know this. They have been living it for five years, victims of the worst slump endured by any industrial state in 80 years, and worse than European states in the Great Depression. The EMU creditors have yet to acknowledge in any way that Greece was sacrificed to save monetary union in the white heat of the crisis, and therefore that it merits a special duty of care. Once you start to see events through Greek eyes – rather than through the eyes of the north European media and the Brussels press corps - the drama takes on a different character."

    Mr. Evans-Pritchard also points out that no developed country has ever defaulted on a payment to the IMF. Given the arduous path being forced upon Greece by its EU creditors, I believe that the IMF's ratio of 'non-performing loans' (banker-speak for 'default') is about to see an increase.

    ----------------

    The next twelve months are going to be a defining era for the European Union, which is dealing with several crises in parallel - a significant downward move in the euro's value, its potential (and in my opinion, inevitable) eviction of a member country, and a pending decision on whether to further extend Russian sanctions.

    Those first two problems are difficult enough to deal with, but it is the third that may ultimately drive a wedge between the US and the EU. As mentioned in the second part of this series, the US is indifferent to Russian sanctions - trade with Russia comprises less than 0.3% of US GDP. Yet Russia is normally a significant importer of EU agricultural goods - which Moscow banned in response to last year's sanctions. Loss of that market is proving catastrophic to several large European agricultural and industrial companies, leading many politicians - including the Italian foreign minister - to call for an end to sanctions. This transatlantic divergence of economic interests may prove to be the ultimate undoing of America's anti-Russian containment strategy.

    I also believe that another factor may prove to have even more of an impact - namely, America's plummeting reputation in foreign policy circles when it comes to hot air and broken promises. Putting aside its incompetent and capricious foreign policy in the Middle East - immortalized in this Twitter quote - the Obama Administration is making no friends in eastern Europe. Take Ukraine, for example, where US Secretary of State John Kerry pledged to "stand by" the Ukrainian government even though less than half of the aid it promised last year has been delivered. Instead of the aid promised, the Ukrainians received a speech from Kerry with a long list of platitudes and tough talk, but no commitment to action or clarity on when or whether promised aid will actually be delivered.

    ... ... ...

    European governments are increasingly employing 'realpolitik' when it comes to their dealings with America, as evidenced by widespread interest in joining China's new infrastructure investment bank despite strong US lobbying. This new reality is also playing out in eastern Europe, where decision-makers are comparing historical US and NATO commitment against Putin's resolve and track record.

    Given the past year's events, it is perhaps not surprising that Europe's eastern periphery is rapidly becoming more pragmatic in its dealings with Russia.

    ---------------

    The best way to wrap up this series does not involve further analysis of the past. Instead, we should search for indicators that provide any insights for what the future holds with relations between Russia and the West.

    One event worthy of a close look is the upcoming Victory Day celebrations in Moscow, as mentioned earlier. This will be the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the Russians - who absorbed more of the burden in defeating the Nazis than any other country - take the event seriously. In past years the event has been well-attended by Western heads of state, to include US President George W. Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. This year, nearly all Western leaders will boycott the event - with the exceptions of Greece, Cyprus and the Czech Republic. Twenty-six other heads of state are reportedly on the confirmed attendee list, to include Indian President Pranab Mukherjee, President Xi Jinping of China, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. The latter two are particularly interesting in light of Russia's increasing focus toward the opening of new export markets and alliances in North Asia - which as I have previously commented, will see a greater economic transformation in the next twenty years than any other region on Earth. On 9 May, the VIP reviewing stand in Red Square will provide a telling glimpse into Russia's expanding sphere of influence.

    -------------

    Less than three years ago US President Obama mocked his political opponent Mitt Romney for citing Russia as the USA's primary geopolitical threat, stating "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years."

    Politicians are not known for issuing mea culpas, and this particular President is certainly not known for speaking with journalists who ask tough questions - but I would gladly buy a ticket to any studio broadcast today where the interviewer played that sound bite for the President and asked him whether he still believes that to be true.

    Russia certainly has many flaws and weaknesses - some of the world's worst demographic statistics, its "one-trick pony" export economy, and frequent hostility toward foreign investors - but its near-monopoly on natural gas supplies, nuclear arsenal and military force projection capabilities shall ensure that it retains a position of strength relative to the European Union for the foreseeable future.

    If Western leaders want to contain a resurgent Russia and limit the damage of another Cold War, they would be well-advised to drop unhelpful rhetoric, seek an immediate end to anti-Russian sanctions, and adjust economic policies that are pushing periphery EU countries into Moscow's orbit.

    The Middle East's ongoing descent into chaos and China's impending ascendancy to the status of global superpower are just two of the many threats that the US, European Union and Russia all share. Each of these issues should certainly occupy a higher position on their respective agendas than the breakup of Ukraine or the insolvency of Greece. Leaders of all three governments would be well-advised to set aside their differences, or at least to prevent those differences from obstructing cooperation on more important issues. Unlike its predecessor, the Second Cold War will not be bilateral. Today's world is far more chaotic, kinetic and dangerous than it was fifty years ago.

    [Apr 11, 2015] McFaul asks why Obama has Cuba/Iran success, not Russia. Simonyan - "you"

    Quote: "...they don't call the usa the exceptional nation for nothing… pathetic or bully nation would be better, as we reached that point a long time ago.."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , April 11, 2015 at 8:08 am

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2015 at 8:34 am

    McFaul seems to consider the sanctions continually imposed by the USA and its lackeys against Russia to be of no consequence.

    The thing is about sanctions is that they are deemed as punishment – but by whom and what for and on whose judgement?

    Meeting out judgements from on high – acting as judge, jury and executioner on the assumption that one has the god-given right to do – and directing punishments at particular parties does not lead to the development of cordial relations between the United States and those whom it chooses to chastize.

    james, April 11, 2015 at 9:11 am

    you've articulated it exactly as i see it… cheif judge, executioner, jury and etc – with no accountability to any international over sight… they don't call the usa the exceptional nation for nothing… pathetic or bully nation would be better, as we reached that point a long time ago..

    Warren. April 11, 2015 at 10:10 am
    The United States not only has a Manifest Destiny to rule the North American continent but also be a City upon a Hill for the world to marvel and aspire to.

    Russia is a child that needs to be disciplined and taught how to behave.

    Moscow Exile, April 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm
    Exactly! And the words "behave" and "behaviour" are often used in the West when referring to Russian state policies, frequently anthropomorphizing that state as the Evil One, he whom we are obliged to hate and reject as embodiment of all that is contrary to that which USA and its acolyte "International Community" represents.

    Witness, for example, the words of Obama, Kerry and Call-Me-Dave and others in this respect:

    Obama on Russia: 'Behavior That Has No Place In the Community of Nations'

    But the star prize in this respect goes to Motyl:

    Such countries as France and Germany, which have extensive economic relations with Russia, face a difficult moral choice. They must ask themselves whether Putin is evil or evil enough. If they decide his killing spree in eastern Ukraine is neither evil nor evil enough, they must explain - to themselves and to the rest of the world - just why they believe the destruction of Ukrainian, Russian, Malaysian, Dutch and other lives is not a form of evil behavior.

    If, alternatively, Putin's behavior strikes them as evil, they must either act on that conviction, in the manner suggested above, or explain to themselves and the rest of the world just why their enhancing Putin's war-making proclivities is not wrong.

    See: Motyl: Putin, just evil enough

    [Apr 10, 2015] Thursday Unemployment Claims

    calculatedriskblog.com
    Mary wrote on Wed, 4/8/2015 - 6:53 pm

    Rub a Buddha Belly Bulletin

    [1] the most certain of them being the lifting of the embargo on Greek agricultural products....

    [2] the Russian authorities will check 20 Greek companies and the most likely scenario, according to sources of Mega TV, is the establishment of joint Greek-Russian companies for the processing of agricultural products. ...

    [3] another "gift" to the Greek economy, namely to remit the fines associated with the low gas consumption in Greece.

    Putin's expensive gifts for Tsipras 24-hours ago

    Both men made it clear there had been no Greek request for a loan but agreed that there could be grounds for Russian investment in Greece in the future.
    [...]
    [4] Putin said Russia has an interest in Greek privatizations, with the Thessaloniki Port Authority being one of the most appealing assets to Moscow [COSCO, CHINA]. The president also suggested his country could provide credit for joint projects with Greece in the future, possibly including the planned Turkish Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas to Europe via Turkey.

    Tsipras-Putin talks yield pledge for better ties but no results today
    :: greek-brand-name
    Leader of Independent Greeks seeks loans from Russia
    Athens opposes EU energy strategy, blocks privatisations
    "An important element of the transparency will be the Commission to also check the bilateral contracts with third countries [E.G. Azerbaijan,Turkmenistan, Putin] for gas deliveries and to give advice what are the prices in the contracts of other member states."
    Something Like an Energy Union but Rather Just Another Strategy

    [Apr 10, 2015] Exhumation of fascism by neoliberalism

    Apr 06, 2015 | Izvestia

    ... ... ..

    The term "fascism" was initially defined as a local phenomenon - the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Later, the term changed its meaning and has become synonymous with Nazism (national socialism) of the Third Reich. During 1950-1990-Western political science began to call fascism any repressive regime and introduced the term "totalitarianism". This was done in order to combine Nazism and communism, those two social phenomenon were ideologically polar and has had a different social base despite using similar cruel methods.--[ I do not see much difference in enslavement via Gulag with ensavement via decration of undermench -- NNB] In one case, the the driving force was large industrialists and the middle class, in another - mostly the urban poor and part of intelligencia, especially Jewish intelligencia.

    The theory of binary totalitarianism has no serious scientific status. The term "fascism" has now been returned to its historical meaning. It is a synonym of racism and all of its varieties - crops-racism (the idea of cultural superiority), the social racism (the idea of social inequality as the nature of this division of people into masters and slaves), etc.

    Usually researchers try to distill the signs of fascism. For example, the Italian philosopher Umberto Eco counted 14. But this approach only blurs the subject. The myth of superiority is a key symptom. The rest is optional. Additional definitions are generated by the desire to "attach" to fascism more than that.

    For example, "nationalism". Normal people are proud of their nation and its culture, but do not seek to destroy other peoples. This is the difference between nationalism and Nazism.

    Or "traditionalism". If fascism were based in the traditions of the peoples, then some nations would have dwelt for centuries in the fascist state of fever. Tradition is the enemy of the "voice of blood", and there is no logic of exclusion of other people in traditions, while fascism lives this logic . Not coincidentally, he is associated with the Protestant line in Christianity and its idea of "chosen for salvation". Apart from the idea of exclusiveness, fascism is born with the spirit of renewal, the destruction of the weak and "unnecessary" for the sake of winning power, novelty and rationality. I repeat: tradition is the main enemy of fascism.

    The idea of a strong state accompanies fascism, but does not define it. The Olympics of 1936, "Olympia" by Leni Riefenstahl are symbols of a strong statehood. But Hitler's fascism was not defined by the Olympics, but by the Nuremberg racial laws, summary execution of Slavs, Jews and Gypsies, the plans of the colonization of the Eastern territories.

    Yes, the war of 1941-1945 was the war between two authoritarian States, but only from the German side it was an ethnic war. There were no intentions to carry out the genocide of "inferior Aryans" in minds of Soviet soldiers or Joseph Stalin.

    In Europe in recent decades, it was fashionable to talk about fascism as "a reaction to Bolshevism". Indeed, the growing influence of leftist ideas in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century caused activation of right-wing forces. But the roots of fascism are more ancient then Marxist and Bolshevik. Fascism arose as a justification for colonial expansion. Hitler didn't invent anything new. He just moved to the center of Europe bloody colonialist methods of the British, the French, the Spaniards, and made the destruction of people fast and technically perfect: gas chambers, mass graves. In a way fascism is application of colonial methods to the part of population of the country, internal colonization so to speak.

    The regime of the 1930-ies in Germany is the legitimate child of the European liberal capitalism. But this conclusion is seriously injures European sense of identity. That's why this statement is a strict taboo in the West --[not really, the hypothesis of intrinsic connection of fascism with European (colonial) culture are pretty common --NNB]. But the truth eventually comes out. Authors from European left now more frequently touch this connection and try to develop this hypothesis.

    Today we are witnessing a return to archaization of neoliberal society and slide of neoliberalism into "new barbarism." Hence the reasoning of the European politicians about Ukraine as an "Outpost of civilization". However, the assertion that Russia "does not meet democratic standards", those days unlikely will deceive anyone. Euphemisms is a product of distortion of the language, not political reality. This phrase marks Russia as a "defective" state, inhabited by "inferior" people - "watniks", "colorado bugs". Neo-fascist model within the framework of liberalism is often built by shifting the boundaries of tolerance. To some people tolerance applies, to other - no. The protection of the rights of one group in this case means the destruction of the rights of another.

    Political myth about the deep opposition between liberalism and Nazism have always refuted by independent historians. Today this myth is completely discredited.

    There are obvious interplay and close relationship between the two ideas - fascist and liberal - obviously. They both go back to the idea of natural selection, transferred to human society. In other words, the strongest must survive at the expense of the weakest. this doctrine is often called "Social Darwinism". Indeed, the principle of "preservation of the fittest races", transposed into social sciences, resulted in the adoption of the Nuremberg laws designed to protect the "purity of race and blood" - the "law of the citizen of the Reich" and "Law on the protection of German blood and German honor."

    The return of fascism is a symptom of a certain historical tendencies. To such radical measures economic elites resort only for the postponement of the final world crisis. But in the end it is fascism that might again bring Western societies to the wedge of collapse.

    [Apr 09, 2015] Ukraine The Global Corporate Annexation

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits' ..."
    Apr 21, 2014 | Jesse's Café Américain
    "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."

    George Orwell

    "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

    Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

    There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.

    Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'

    It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may lag.

    Follow the money...

    GlobalResearch
    Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation
    'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
    by JP Sottile

    As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.

    The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.

    On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

    Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.

    That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.

    Business confidence never faltered

    Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...

    Read the entire report here.

    [Apr 09, 2015] Ukraine The Global Corporate Annexation

    Notable quotes:
    "... 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits' ..."
    Apr 21, 2014 | Jesse's Café Américain
    "War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it."

    George Orwell

    "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

    Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

    There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.

    Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'

    It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may lag.

    Follow the money...

    GlobalResearch
    Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation
    'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
    by JP Sottile

    As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.

    The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.

    On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.

    Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.

    That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.

    Business confidence never faltered

    Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...

    Read the entire report here.

    [Apr 04, 2015] The majority of Maidan supporters are experiencing severe impoverishment instead of welfare bonanza from EU they expected

    Notable quotes:
    "... The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment. ..."
    "... I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    kirill, April 3, 2015 at 6:11 am

    Ukraine will be a consolidated fascist state without an economy. Right. It was mentioned elsewhere that the only thing keeping the regime in power is the war. It sure isn't the economy. But eventually the economic decline will break the bubble.

    The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment.

    So this ridiculous delusion is going to break down. But delusions are very resilient things.

    et Al, April 3, 2015 at 2:49 pm
    I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. In a sense it already is with various oligarchs controlling bits of territory and sort of cooperating in Kiev. Elections are not much more than a Afghan Jirga.

    Still, it is interesting to see Russia play the long game, the latest being a $285 three month gas contract with Kiev. When the Ukraine finally implodes, Russia can clearly point out how it could have pulled the plug at any time it wanted but it didn't because it has the best interests of its closest neighbor in mind. It also sets a benchmark for all the promises from the EU and US to be compared to, the latter far more likely to creatively reinterpret supposedly solid agreements than Russia especially if Kiev doesn't sing from the same hymnbook 200%. It is also a warning to Berlin and the EU – we pull the plug and it's all yours baby!

    marknesop, April 3, 2015 at 3:16 pm
    Yes, the people of Ukraine will never stand for this ridiculous substitution – a goose-stepping Nazi police state in place of the cushy streets-paved-with-gold paradise they were led to expect in exchange for their support for Maidan and the coup. They would probably put up with anything if it meant widespread prosperity, but they are indisputably much worse off now than they were prior to The Great Ukrainian Leap Forward and the trend is remorselessly downward for at least another year – even the IMF forecasts a considerably worse contraction of a further 10% rather than the 6% it forecast earlier. And that's with the most lipstick The New Atlanticist – a relentlessly pro-western publication whose current headlines include Wesley Clark's prediction of a Russian Spring offensive, the manifestly ridiculous contention that "Putin's war against Ukraine" has had the effect of uniting Ukrainians, and Russia's paranoid fantasies about the west representing a threat are all in its head – can put on it. Moreover, there is likely to be zero growth in 2016 as well. That assessment probably assumes certain realities that do not now exist, such as Kiev bringing the east back under its thumb, rather than it slipping further from its control and perhaps even expanding its territory.

    [Apr 04, 2015] Big Brother's Liberal Friends by Henry

    The US elite does not like the message and thus is ready to kill the messenger... See Snowden interview with Katrina van den Heuvel and Stephen F Cohen at the Nation. Another interesting idea is the in the quote of Bruce Wilder: " classification as a mechanism for broadcasting information is exactly right, and a revelation, at least to me."
    October 27, 2014 | Crooked Timber

    I've an article in the new issue of The National Interest looking at various liberal critiques of Snowden and Greenwald, and finding them wanting. CT readers will have seen some of the arguments in earlier form; I think that they're stronger when they are joined together (and certainly they should be better written; it's nice to have the time to write a proper essay). I don't imagine that the various people whom I take on will be happy, but they shouldn't be; they're guilty of some quite wretched writing and thinking. More than anything else, like Corey I'm dismayed at the current low quality of mainstream liberal thinking. A politician wishes for her adversaries to be stupid, that they will make blunders. An intellectual wishes for her adversaries to be brilliant, that they will find the holes in her own arguments and oblige her to remedy them. I aspire towards the latter, not the former, but I'm not getting my wish.

    Over the last fifteen months, the columns and op-ed pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post have bulged with the compressed flatulence of commentators intent on dismissing warnings about encroachments on civil liberties. Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer and Michael Kinsley have employed the Edward Snowden affair to mount a fresh series of attacks. They claim that Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and those associated with them neither respect democracy nor understand political responsibility.
    These claims rest on willful misreading, quote clipping and the systematic evasion of crucial questions. Yet their problems go deeper than sloppy practice and shoddy logic.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.27.14 at 11:03 pm

    "Yet this does not disconcert much of the liberal media elite. Many writers who used to focus on bashing Bush for his transgressions now direct their energies against those who are sounding alarms about the pervasiveness of the national-security state."

    It's not just the elite. I can't wait for the Lawyers, Guns, and Money get-out-the-vote drive. We'll have to see whether the slogan is "Vote, Stupid Purity Trolls" or "The Lesser Evil Commands". Maybe just two-tone signs labeling their target voters "Dope" and "Deranged".


    Dr. Hilarius 10.27.14 at 11:44 pm

    An excellent analysis and summation.

    Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task. Having lived through Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention many smaller governmental adventures) I see no evidence of competence. Instead, it's repetitive failures of analysis and imagination no matter how much raw intelligence is gathered.

    Nor is there any evidence that existing oversight mechanisms function as intended. Recent revelations about the CIA spying on the Senate should be enough to dispel the idea that leakers have no role to play.

    Kinsley is particularly loathsome. His position is little more than "your betters know best" and that the state's critics are guttersnipes needing to be kicked to the curb. Kinsley doesn't need a coherent position, his goal is to be a spokesman for the better sorts, nothing more.

    Collin Street 10.27.14 at 11:53 pm

    Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task

    Dunning-Kruger, innit. There are actually pretty good reasons to believe that strategic intelligence-gathering is pretty much pointless (because your strategic limitations and abilities by-definition permeate your society and are thus clearly visible through open sources), so you'd expect in that case that the only people who'd support secret strategic intelligence-gathering would be people who don't have a fucking clue.

    [specifically, I suspect that secret strategic intelligence gathering is particularly attractive to people who lack the ability to discern people's motivations and ability through normal face-to-face channels and the like…

    … which is to say people with empathy problems. Which is something that crops up in other contexts and may help explain certain political tendencies intelligence agencies tend to share.]

    Thornton Hall 10.28.14 at 12:03 am

    This sentence is false and a willful distortion mixing legality and politics to elide the basic fact that the Justice Department has not prosecuted anyone who did not break the law:

    The continued efforts of U.S. prosecutors to redefine the politics of leaking so as to indict journalists as well as their sources suggest that Greenwald had every right to be worried and angry.

    Meanwhile, ever since Mark Felt blew the whistle on a psychopath and the result was the deification of Bob Woodward, the American elite has been utterly confused about the role of journalism in a democracy.

    That your essay mixes Professor Wilentz with the father of #Slatepitch, and an archetypical "even the liberal New Republic…" journalist as if they all had the same job description is part and parcel of this ongoing inability to separate the job of selling newspapers from the job of public intellectual.

    Glenn Greenwald is a "journalist" crank who is simply not in a category that overlaps with Daniel Ellsberg. Snowden is in the same category as Ellsberg, and Packer is right to note that he does not compare particularly well. But then Packer's analysis failed to explain why Snowden needed the judgment and gravitas of Ellsburg. And it was a side point in any case, because Packer's actual thesis was the sublimely stupid point that only "objective" journalism can be trusted to do leaks right.

    The other unfortunate confusion I see in the essay is the mixing of domestic and foreign policy. There is not a single thing about the New Deal that informs opinion about Edward Snowden. Nothing. What does regulating poultry production have to do with killing Iraqis? What does the Civilian Conservation Core have to do with drone strikes in Pakistan? The Four Freedom speech was a pivot from domestic to foreign policy given in 1941. Freedom from Want was the New Deal. Freedom of Speech was about the looming conflict with fascism, not domestic policy.

    Both confusions–the failure to recognize journalists as pawns selling newspapers and the failure to understand that foreign policy and liberalism do not have to be linked–result when the blind spots of the press and the academy overlap. In areas where journalists and the academy provide checks and balances to each other they tend to do well. Edward Snowden represents the apex of the overlap between academic and journalistic obsessions, and so no one is there to say: "Hey, the top freedom concerns of journalists and professors are not synonymous with freedom writ large or with liberalism.

    Daniel Nexon 10.28.14 at 12:48 am

    Liked the piece, even though we probably come down differently on some of the merits.

    I wonder if the explanation isn't simpler. A number of what you term "national security liberals" have served in government and held clearances. Many of them - and here I include myself - took seriously that obligation. And so there's a certain degree of innate discomfort with the whole business of leaks, let alone those that don't seem narrowly tailored. Wikileaks was not. Snowden's leaks included par-for-the-course foreign-intelligence gathering (and this sets aside his escape to Hong Kong and subsequent decision to accept asylum from the Russia Federation).

    I recognize that there's a larger argument that you've made about how the trans-nationalization of intelligence gathering - centered on the US - changes the moral equation for some of these considerations. I don't want to debate that claim here. The point is that you can be a civil-liberties liberal, believe that some of the disclosures have served the public interest, and still feel deeply discomforted with the cast of characters.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.28.14 at 1:07 am

    "still feel deeply discomforted with the cast of characters"

    We need better leakers - leakers who honor their promises not to reveal inside information. Leakers who don't leak.

    Not like that unsavory character, Daniel Ellsberg, who I hear had to see a psychiatrist.

    Barry 10.28.14 at 1:09 am

    " Indeed, in recent months soi-disant liberal intellectuals such as Sean Wilentz, George Packer and Michael Kinsley …"

    Kinsley is a hack who occasionally coins a good term. At 'Even the Liberal' New Republic, he was a biddable wh*re for a vile man, Peretz. At Slate, he took the same attitude, preferring snark to truth, and built it into the foundations.

    Packer is not an intellectual, either. He's a cheerleader for war who has just enough give-a-sh*t to right a book explaining the problems, long after it was clear to others that things had failed.

    I don't know much about Sean Wilentz, except that he's a long time 'cultural editor' at 'Even the Liberal' New Republic under Peretz, which is a strike against him. Heck, it's two strikes.

    BTW, after Watergate, the press did know its role in democracy – the elites are really against it. IIRC, Whatshername the owner of the WaPo actually praised 'responsible journalism' not too long afterwards.


    Sev 10.28.14 at 1:58 am

    #4 From a different era, the NYT story on use of Nazis by US spy agencies:

    "In Connecticut, the C.I.A. used an ex-Nazi guard to study Soviet-bloc postage stamps for hidden meanings."

    A certain skepticism, at least, than and now, seem fully justified.


    Matt 10.28.14 at 2:48 am

    I don't think that even the most transparent, democratic, public decision making process among American citizens can legitimately decide that German or Indian citizens cannot have privacy. If in Bizarro World that makes me illiberal, then I will be illiberal.

    Losing the capability to conduct mass electronic surveillance is akin to losing the capability to make nerve gas or weaponized anthrax spores. It's a good thing no matter who loses the capability, or how loudly hawks cry about the looming Atrocity Gap with rival powers. It would be a better world if Russia and China also suffered massive, embarrassing leaks about their surveillance systems akin to the Snowden leaks. But a world where there's only embarrassing leaks about the USA and allies is better than a world with no leaks at all. Better yet, the same technical and legal adaptations that can make spying by the USA more difficult will also make Americans safer against spying efforts originating from China and Russia. It's upsides all the way down.

    John Quiggin 10.28.14 at 2:57 am

    ""I can see C as justified but not decamping to Hong Kong and Russia.""

    Again, given the fact that the "right" people are immune from prosecution for any crimes they commit in the course of politics (other than sexual indiscretations and individual, as opposed to corporate, financial wrongdoing) this seems like a pretty hypocritical distinction. Those involved in torture, from the actual waterboarders up to Bush and Cheney, don't have to think about fleeing the US – indeed, the only (small) risk they face is in travelling to a jurisdiction where the rule of law applies to them.

    For the wrong people on the other hand, there are no reliable legal protections at all. On recent precedent they could be declared "enemy combatants", held incommunicado, tortured and, at least arguably, executed by military courts. This would require a reversal of stated policy by the Obama Administration, but that's a pretty weak barrier.

    bad Jim 10.28.14 at 4:31 am

    It's far from clear that the massive expansion of surveillance has actually been of any use. The West hasn't faced any strategic threats since the end of the Cold War, and even the Soviet threat was almost certainly less than we feared. Someone once remarked of the intelligence-gathering efforts of that era, "It's difficult to discover the intentions of a state which doesn't know its own intentions."

    We seem to have been surprised by recent developments in the Middle East and by Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine; more to the point, it's not necessarily clear how we can or should respond. It may be that the massive apparatus in place is unable to acquire the information we desire. It's not clear that better information would actually be useful.


    dsquared 10.28.14 at 4:53 am

    I always thought it would be instructive to compare the views of the "national security liberals" with a test case. What, for example, do they have to say about the other North American government which operates a grisly system of unregulated political prisons in the island of Cuba, but tries to portray itself as progressive because of its (admittedly excellent) record of providing healthcare to the poor?

    William Timberman 10.28.14 at 5:34 am

    I think one point could be made a little more explicitly. Beginning in the late Thirties, without a great deal of serious concern for the possible consequences, the machinery of the social welfare state in the U.S., such as it was, was gradually repurposed to serve the national security state, and from 1947 or so to the present, the pace of that repurposing has rarely slackened. One can argue about how much of it was attributable to intent, and how much to circumstance, how much or how little bad faith it took to complete the conversion, but there's little doubt that it's now largely over and done with, and that the consequences are there to see for anyone who cares to look.

    George Packer may think that the national security state is a perfectly admirable creation, but if so, I'd question whether or not he's really a liberal. By any definition of liberalism I'm aware of, it's odd liberal indeed who doesn't think Edward Snowden ought to be trusted with sensitive information, but doesn't at all mind leaving it in the custody of Keith Alexander.

    maidhc 10.28.14 at 8:03 am

    The CIA produced the Pentagon Papers under orders from LBJ. They produced a document blaming everything on the stupid politicians while the CIA was always right. Unfortunately no one could read it because it was secret. Hence it was leaked to the New York Times.

    Woodward and Bernstein had intelligence backgrounds. The Washington Post was known to have close CIA ties. Everyone involved in Watergate was tied to the CIA and the Bay of Pigs. Nixon was taken down from the right.

    If you look at those Cold War days, almost everything that was considered to be highly secret, the world would have been better off if it had been public knowledge. Major policy decisions on both sides were based on false information provided by intelligence services.

    That is not to say that things that happened back in those days are unimportant now. The career of Stepan Bandera, for example, is tied in very closely with today's headlines.

    J Thomas 10.28.14 at 8:43 am

    #12 Watson Ladd

    I can easily imagine bribing Putin's butler to be an easy and effective way to get good information on both of those, and I can imagine that doing so openly would be catastrophic.

    Whyever would you expect Putin's butler to know either of those?

    But I find this plausible - Putin's butler goes to the secret police and tells them he's had an offer. They say "OK, take the money and tell them this:" and they give him a cover story to tell the spies.

    Continuing the story, a top general's batman does the same thing, but the secret police do not coordinate well enough and he gets a different cover story.

    Another top general's mistress does it and gets a third cover story to tell. The stories do not add up at all.

    So then somebody in the CIA looks at all the conflicting data, and MAKES UP a story which makes sense, concentrating on estimates of capabilities, and estimates about what choices are likely based on internal politics etc.

    The report reaches various people in the military with a need-to-know, who discount it and who make their mostly-mundane decisions about preparation on the basis of path-of-least-resistance. The report may even reach the President, who also discounts it.

    Furthermore, plenty of information that isn't strategic in nature can be very useful. Knowing that in event of war, your fighter planes can outmatch theirs, is useful.

    How would you find that out, except by testing it for real with their real pilots with real training, etc? Base it on the performance claims by US manufacturers versus the potential enemy's manufacturing claims?

    So is knowing that they are planning to invade a country, or are actively collaborating with terrorist organizations.

    The USA makes plans to invade other countries *all the time*. Often we publicly threaten to invade them for a year or more ahead of time, while we slowly build up supply dumps in nearby areas. It usually isn't hard to tell whether a nation is ready to invade some particular other nation. The hard part is predicting whether or when they actually do it. Chances are, they don't know themselves and nobody in the world can accurately predict that until shortly before it happens.

    The USA and Israel actively cooperate with terrorist organizations *all the time*. It doesn't mean that much. Except we can use it for propaganda. "Our enemies actively collaborate with terrorist organizations! Our secret intelligence organizations have proof, but we can't show it to you because that would compromise our sources. Trust us."

    Very little of this is likely to be reported openly, particularly from dictatorships.

    Or from the USA. Or from anybody, really. We all like our surprises.

    J Thomas 10.28.14 at 8:57 am

    #19 Daniel Nexon

    As I suggested above, albeit perhaps opaquely, it is perfectly possible to say "I can see C as potentially justified, but not D… G" and to say "I can see C as justified but not decamping to Hong Kong and Russia."* These strike me as categorically distinct arguments from "Snowden, Greenwald, and Assange aren't the 'right sort of people," even if those advancing that claim invoke some of the same warrants.

    I don't understand this sort of claim. Normally, US citizens have basicly no information about what our expensive secret-creating organizations do. The basic argument is "Trust us. We're doing good, but it would be catastrophic if you knew.".

    Now we have a more-or-less-random samples from Snowden and Manning. So my questions about their personal character center around two themes:

    1. Did they release false data, created by the US government to make cover stories to hide the real stuff that the US government does not want us to know?

    2. Did they release false data, created by some foreign government and intended to discredit the US government?

    3. Are there important discrepancies between them, that might indicate that at least one of them was doctored?

    Apart from those, why are we talking about Snowden or Manning or Greenwald, instead of what we've found out about our government?


    Barry 10.28.14 at 12:04 pm

    Tony Lynch 10.28.14 at 4:30 am

    "The persoanl animosity towards GG from, presumably, people with no personal relationship to GG, is weird. Whence this incessant personalism – not only from Kinsley et. al., but from those who claim more genuine liberal and left convictions? Why does it seem important to approach things by venting this personal animosity?"

    Here are my thoughts:

    1). Most of these elite journalists are leakers of classified information, and guilty of serious felonies. However, they are lapdogs of the establishment, and comparable more to Pravda than a free press. They don't like unauthorized leaks.

    2). All three liberals mentioned eat a lot of right-wing sh*t, for actual liberals. Again, they are lapdogs, who occasionally criticize, but in a limited fashion. Heck, Kinsley played Buchanon's poodle on TV show. They therefore don't like people who actually oppose the establishment, moreso because it shows them up as the frauds that they are.

    lvlld 10.28.14 at 1:17 pm

    @39

    Not quite.

    MacNamara (politician) ordered his staff (Office of the Secretary of Defense) to carry out the study (they got some material from the CIA and State), out of a concern that the whole thing might be a huge mistake on the part of US policymakers – politicians and otherwise – from World World 2 on down. That was July, 1967. He resigned a few months later, the report was completed in late 1968.

    Dan Ellsberg (Rand, ex-OSD) was involved in producing it, and was dismayed by the scale of the official deceptions and thought that yes, this was probably material in the public interest. He leaked it to the Times and the Post, the latter of which's decision to publish on June 18, 1971 was not made in consultation with its city beat reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.

    Thornton Hall 10.28.14 at 2:15 pm

    So the following points are uncontroverted:

    • Glenn Greenwald is a clown, but this fact has nothing to do with anything.
    • Edward Snowden is a bit dim on how the world works, and this has had consequences good bad and otherwise.
    • When white elites are forced to consider the criminal justice system they are shocked, shocked to find that prosecutors are arbitrary and vindictive assholes.
    • Our vocabulary of politics is hopelessly confused to the point where a political science professor will assert that a fellow professor's support for the New Deal is in conflict with his position on the NSA.
    • Elites insist on confusing the motives and morality of leakers with the motives and morality of journalists.

    J Thomas 10.28.14 at 2:16 pm

    #13 Andrew F

    He claimed that the CIA might hire Chinese gangsters to murder him, or journalists associated with him, among other things. So to say that he has a "teenager's conspiratorial view of the world" is not to speak without some justification.

    This minor point deserves some thought.

    Do you have more access to CIA secrets than Snowden did?

    If not, why do you believe that your understanding of what the CIA might do is better informed than his was?

    Layman 10.28.14 at 2:23 pm

    "I think it is perfectly fair to judge Snowden based on the totality of his actions. Isn't that how we're supposed to judge people? "

    Why judge him at all, in the context of discussing his revelations and what they mean for civil liberties? It's perfectly clear that some people choose to judge Snowden in order to dismiss those revelations. Isn't that the point of the OP? Do you agree that your personal distaste for Snowden is irrelevant to the larger question? And that people who seek to distract from that larger question by focusing on Snowden's character are engaged in hackery?

    Bruce Wilder 10.28.14 at 3:51 pm

    Dan Nexon @ 47

    The apparatus of surveillance and the system of classification are both parts of a vast system of secrecy - aspects of the architecture of the secret state, the deep state.

    I've had a security clearance, and so have some personal acquaintance with the system of classification and what is classified, why it is classified and so on, as well as experience with the effect classification has on people, their behavior and administration. I see people sometimes elaborate the claim that, of course the state must have the capacity to keep some information confidential, which is undoubtedly true, but sidesteps the central issue, which is, what does the system of classification do? what does the secrecy of the deep state do? What is the function of the system of classification?

    From my personal acquaintance, I do not think it can be said that its function is to keep secrets. Real secrets are rarely classified. Information is classified so that it can be communicated, and in the present system operated by the U.S. military and intelligence establishment, broadcast. I suppose, without knowing as an historic fact, that the system of classification originated during WWII as a means to distribute information on a need-to-know basis, but that's not what goes on now. The compartmentalization that the term, classification, implies, is largely absent. That Manning or Snowden could obtain and release the sheer volume of documents that they did - not the particular content of any of them - is the first and capital revelation concerning what the system is, and is not. The system is not keeping confidential information confidential, nor is it keeping secrets; it is broadcasting information.

    The very idea that a system that broadcasts information in a way that allows someone at the level of a Manning or Snowden to accumulate vast numbers of documents has kept any secrets from the secret services of China or Russia is, on its face, absurd. The system revealed by the simple fact of the nature of Snowden's and Manning's breaches is not capable of keeping secrets. Snowden was a contractor at a peripheral location, Manning a soldier of very low rank.

    Rich Puchalsky 10.28.14 at 3:57 pm

    This comment thread is just as disgusting as the comment threads elsewhere, so I'll direct people to what I think is one of the best articles on all this: Bruce Sterling's.
    William Timberman 10.28.14 at 4:00 pm

    Bruce Wilder @ 72

    Fox News for apparatchiks. Brilliant, especially since not even Keith Alexander in his specially-equipped war room had any idea how many apparatchiks there were, nor where they were, nor what they were up to when his panopticon was looking the other way.


    Bruce Wilder 10.28.14 at 4:02 pm

    Rich Puchalsky : If only the government could tell us the real story! Then we'd know that they aren't lying.

    The system of classification is a system of censorship. It creates a system of privileged access to information that permits highly-placed officials to strategically leak information as a means to manipulate the political system.

    It doesn't keep secrets from the enemies of democracy abroad; it creates enemies of democracy at home, placing them in the highest reaches of government.

    J Thomas 10.28.14 at 4:14 pm

    357 Layman

    "I think it is perfectly fair to judge Snowden based on the totality of his actions. Isn't that how we're supposed to judge people? "

    Why judge him at all, in the context of discussing his revelations and what they mean for civil liberties?

    Judging Snowden is a very serious matter for everybody who has a security clearance.

    If you have a clearance, then you have to consider whether or not you ought to do the same thing. On the one hand you swore an oath not to. You would be breaking your word. And you can expect to be punished severely.

    On the other hand, there are the things you know about, that have destroyed American democracy. Do you have an obligation to the public? But then, you probably know that it's already too late and nothing can be done.

    What should you do? In that context, deciding just how wrong Snowden was, is vitally important.

    It's perfectly clear that some people choose to judge Snowden in order to dismiss those revelations.

    Well sure, of course. If it's their job to patch things up, they have to use whatever handle is available.

    But apart from the hacks, every single honest person who has a security clearance has to somehow find a way to justify that he has not done what Snowden did. If Snowden did it incompetently, he might have an obligation to do it better. Or maybe his obligation instead is to the power structure and not to the people.

    Likely by now there is better technology in place to catch people who try to reveal secrets. We can't know how many people have tried to reveal secrets since Snowden, who have failed and disappeared.

    Layman 10.28.14 at 4:15 pm

    Bruce Wilder @ 72

    Bravo! This view of classification as a mechanism for broadcasting information is exactly right, and a revelation, at least to me.

    [Apr 03, 2015] Were not cattle Kiev protesters throw manure at US embassy

    Apr 03, 2015 | offguardian

    Life News reports:

    About two and a half thousand Ukrainians surrounded the US embassy in Kiev on the first of April. People who disagree with the appointment of foreigners to the Ukrainian government, as well as the intervention of the Americans and Europeans in the public administration of the country, holding banners saying "We are not cattle!" And they made sounds imitating animals.

    Besides the protesters braying and bleating, they were eating cabbage, which was distributed by the organizers of the protest.

    They also kept two-meter carrots with the symbols of the European Union. By the end of the demonstration of dissent Kiev residents pelted the US embassy with manure.

    It is noteworthy that the video from the protest was removed from all the Ukrainian sites and users were blocked. Local journalists hardly covered the event.

    [Apr 03, 2015] U.S. Trained Fascists To Storm Kiev

    Notable quotes:
    "... Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord support. ..."
    Apr 01, 2015 | M of A

    barrisj | Apr 1, 2015 1:08:35 PM | 8

    It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era, where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces", National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in the Western Hemisphere.

    So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa, in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators against their own respective peoples.

    And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!

    rufus magister | Apr 1, 2015 10:23:52 PM | 9

    Alberto at 6

    Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn from local fascists.

    en1c at 1

    I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.

    Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of political repression. And here is a comprehensive guide to their methods.

    Meanwhile, searches at the Ministry of the Interior have begun.

    At Russia Insider, Rostislav Ishchenko argues that War in the East Is the Only Thing Preventing Ukraine Collapse. Which will not be pretty when it happens.

    There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.

    I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.

    Some good news -- miners near Kharkov are fighting to be paid.

    Fete | Apr 1, 2015 11:39:02 PM | 10

    04/01/2015 23:59

    Russian Spring

    Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".

    Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.

    According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces are installed.

    jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13

    @9
    The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine ... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.

    I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last 100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle 100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from. And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way to go.

    It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16

    "US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft, and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected - all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen and sold.

    Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord support.

    rufus magister | Apr 2, 2015 11:05:14 PM | 26
    It's Official – All Kiev's Investigations of Maidan Crimes Deadlocked

    "Council of Europe report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests are a total shambles and are going nowhere."

    Harold | Apr 3, 2015 2:56:26 AM | 28

    As billmon predicted the Ukraine has called Russia's number -- for now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-ukraine-crisis-gas-idUSKBN0MT0B420150402
    Richard Steven Hack | Apr 3, 2015 1:44:14 PM | 31

    Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.

    The alleged intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that. These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.

    But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev forces in the east.

    So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.

    The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.

    Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.

    Demian | Apr 3, 2015 2:14:25 PM | 32

    Funny that this isn't showing up on Western news channels:

    offguardian: "We're not cattle": Kiev protesters throw manure at US embassy (with video)

    Note that unlike the EuroMaidan, this protest is peaceful.

    Demian | Apr 3, 2015 5:58:20 PM | 33

    Republicans see Obama as a greater threat to the US than Putin. For once, they are right.
    jfl | Apr 3, 2015 6:11:32 PM | 34

    @31,32
    Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played. Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?

    I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?

    [Apr 03, 2015] U.S. Trained Fascists To Storm Kiev

    Notable quotes:
    "... Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord support. ..."
    Apr 01, 2015 | M of A

    barrisj | Apr 1, 2015 1:08:35 PM | 8

    It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era, where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces", National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in the Western Hemisphere.

    So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa, in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators against their own respective peoples.

    And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!

    rufus magister | Apr 1, 2015 10:23:52 PM | 9

    Alberto at 6

    Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn from local fascists.

    en1c at 1

    I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.

    Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of political repression. And here is a comprehensive guide to their methods.

    Meanwhile, searches at the Ministry of the Interior have begun.

    At Russia Insider, Rostislav Ishchenko argues that War in the East Is the Only Thing Preventing Ukraine Collapse. Which will not be pretty when it happens.

    There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.

    I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.

    Some good news -- miners near Kharkov are fighting to be paid.

    Fete | Apr 1, 2015 11:39:02 PM | 10

    04/01/2015 23:59

    Russian Spring

    Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".

    Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.

    According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces are installed.

    jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13

    @9
    The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine ... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.

    I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last 100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle 100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from. And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way to go.

    It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16

    "US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft, and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected - all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen and sold.

    Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord support.

    rufus magister | Apr 2, 2015 11:05:14 PM | 26
    It's Official – All Kiev's Investigations of Maidan Crimes Deadlocked

    "Council of Europe report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests are a total shambles and are going nowhere."

    Harold | Apr 3, 2015 2:56:26 AM | 28

    As billmon predicted the Ukraine has called Russia's number -- for now: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-ukraine-crisis-gas-idUSKBN0MT0B420150402
    Richard Steven Hack | Apr 3, 2015 1:44:14 PM | 31

    Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.

    The alleged intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that. These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.

    But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev forces in the east.

    So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.

    The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.

    Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.

    Demian | Apr 3, 2015 2:14:25 PM | 32

    Funny that this isn't showing up on Western news channels:

    offguardian: "We're not cattle": Kiev protesters throw manure at US embassy (with video)

    Note that unlike the EuroMaidan, this protest is peaceful.

    Demian | Apr 3, 2015 5:58:20 PM | 33

    Republicans see Obama as a greater threat to the US than Putin. For once, they are right.
    jfl | Apr 3, 2015 6:11:32 PM | 34

    @31,32
    Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played. Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?

    I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?

    [Apr 03, 2015] C-Suite Survey Executives increasingly gloomy about oil shock's impact on economy Richard Blackwell

    March 30, 2015 | BNN News/The Globe and Mail
    Canadian executives are increasingly gloomy about the prospects for Canada's economy, and are fearful that the recent drop in oil prices will stunt the country's growth in the coming year.

    The latest quarterly C-Suite survey reveals the most pessimistic mood in the corner office since mid-2009, when the country was still in the grips of a deep recession.

    Almost 40 per cent of the executives surveyed said they expect the economy to decline in the next year, a sharp increase from the 23 per cent who felt that way in December. Last summer, only 3 per cent thought a decline was in the offing.

    The main culprit is the precipitous fall in oil prices, which has knocked the wind out of the oil patch, put Alberta's finances in a precarious position, and caused economic ripples across the country.

    "We are certainly going to have a slow-growth year," said Arni Thorsteinson, president of Shelter Canadian Properties Ltd., a Winnipeg-based company that owns commercial and residential real estate across the country, including some in Fort McMurray, Alta. "The impact from the decline in oil prices is substantive because capital investment in the energy market has really been the main driver [of the economy] for the last five years."

    Lower oil prices and the lower Canadian dollar should help consumers and exporters, Mr. Thorsteinson said, but many of those benefits can take months or years to come to fruition.

    He noted that his firm has investments in hotels, which will theoretically gain if more foreign tourists are attracted by the lower loonie. "But those booking patterns take two years or longer to kick in," he said. "By the time they get around to coming, it could be 2017."

    On the other hand, the impact of low oil prices was felt almost instantly in the oil patch, which was stunned by the sudden plunge.

    "None of us saw it coming," said Murray Toews, chief executive officer of Bonnett's Energy Corp., a Grande Prairie, Alta-based oil-field services company. As late as last December, he said, the general view was that 2015 would be similar to 2014. Instead, "Boom. The rug was pulled from underneath us."

    While some may benefit from lower oil prices, "I don't think that this is good for the country at all," he said. "Whenever you get someone stumbling in any sector of our country it is going to affect us east to west."

    Having learned its lesson from the 2008-09 recession, Bonnett's quickly cut back, trimming 15 per cent of its work force in February.

    Bonnett's is certainly not alone, as many oil-sector firms swiftly trimmed staff and reduced spending plans. Indeed, the C-Suite results showed that 41 per cent of companies surveyed have taken specific initiatives in light of the drop in oil prices. The top moves include reducing capital spending, shifting investments and cutting staff.

    While there is a broad consensus that Canada's economy is weakening as a result of lower oil prices, the survey also underlines significant regional differences in attitudes. Far more western-based executives – about 46 per cent – say the national economy will shrink in the next year, compared with Ontario where 29 per cent expect a decline.

    ... ... ...

    About the survey:

    The quarterly C-Suite survey was conducted for Report on Business and Business News Network by Gandalf Group, and sponsored by KPMG. The survey interviewed 152 executives between Feb. 23 and March 16, 2015.

    Watch for coverage Monday on BNN and view the full survey.

    [Apr 02, 2015] Hillary Clinton: foreign policy is her strong suit – but it could be her undoing by Tom McCarthy

    Apr 02, 2015 | The Guardian

    someoneionceknew 2 Apr 2015 20:51

    Hillary Clinton: war mongering is her strong suit – according to media hacks.


    BradBenson Ashok Choudhury 2 Apr 2015 19:04


    Nonsense. Who are the wise? Hillary is a war criminal. She should not be elected for any reason. She should be shipped off to the Hague with Obama, Bush and Cheney.

    BradBenson yesfuture 2 Apr 2015 18:57

    Libya, for one. It's always been about light crude that is used for airplane fuel. Regaining control of Libya's Oil is BP Petroleum's prime project and Hillary supported it.

    BradBenson Elton Johnson 2 Apr 2015 18:52

    Congratulations, you are both wrong. We were occupiers in Iraq and were always going to incite bigger and more violent opposition groups. We should not have gone in. We should have gotten out sooner. We should not be there now.

    BradBenson Michael Seymour 2 Apr 2015 18:49

    This kid is a living, typing example of the way that Americans have been dumbed down over the years. He has no fucking clue as to what we are doing in the world and believes everything he hears on CNN and MSNBC (our so-called 'liberal' media outlets). He can no longer be reeducated.

    He will live in fear that ISIS or some other phony terrorist group will plant a bomb in his toilet and thus suffer from constipation for the rest of his life.


    Paul Moore Alchemist 2 Apr 2015 18:45

    Bush vs. Clinton
    Been there. Done that.


    BradBenson Whitt 2 Apr 2015 18:42

    Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama the second time around.

    BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40

    Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead, he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which he once claimed to have stood.

    Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.

    More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

    More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

    BradBenson Whitt 2 Apr 2015 18:42

    Well, actually that is no longer possible. Still, should we continue to accept that status quo? We can't overthrow the government, but we could all vote third party. I'll not vote for a Bush or a Clinton in the coming election. If my vote is wasted, so be it. My conscience will be clear and I will no longer vote for a known War Criminal as I did when I voted for Obama the second time around.

    BradBenson Batters56 2 Apr 2015 18:40

    Boy have you got it bass ackwards. We wanted Obama to do the things he promised. Instead, he became a neo-con War Criminal on his first day in office and rejected everything for which he once claimed to have stood.

    Here's the links. Read 'em and weep.

    More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

    More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

    BradBenson lightstroke 2 Apr 2015 18:36

    Nobody, including Obama. Where have you been for the past six years. Obama makes Bush look like a beginner. Bush started two wars. We now have seven that we know about and are militarily engaged in more than 100 countries.

    The blind eye that you faux lefties turn toward Obama and Hillary is absolutely disgusting and hypocritical. Obama and Hillary are fucking WAR CRIMINALS--just like Bush and Cheney--in fact worse!

    BradBenson diddoit 2 Apr 2015 18:34

    Yes...in the wrong direction. He's beginning to reverse some of his earlier anti-interventionist statements and was one of 47 idiots that signed that letter to Ayatollah Khamenei. I like Rand for a while, strictly because of his 'opposition' to our wars and the domestic spying. Lately, he's back to trying to appeal to Evangelical Nutcases.

    BradBenson Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 18:30

    Well Natasha, you are correct that US Foreign Policy should be about protecting US Interests--to a point. Where we may disagree is in how that policy has truly not served our best interests and certainly could not be said to have served in the best interests of the US or the Globe in any single respect--not one. When your only foreign policy is war and murder by drone, you are not serving anyone's interests but the arms dealers.

    BradBenson Samuel Burns 2 Apr 2015 18:22

    Our leaders have brought war, torture, murder and mayhem to the planet since the early 90's and have doubled down since 9/11. They are war criminals and the blame is correctly place upon the US. Wake up.

    BradBenson fredimeyer 2 Apr 2015 18:19

    Well I wish you were right, but it's not shaping up that way right now. That being said, she cannot win and we will all be stuck with another fucking Bush.

    I'll be voting third party this year as will every other anti-war progressive.

    BradBenson sour_mash 2 Apr 2015 18:17

    Those ills are now the ills of the Obama Administration and I have pointed this out to you way too often in the past for you not to have gotten it. Obama embraced Bush's War Crimes and made them his own. Quit apologizing and making excuses for this murderous SOB. Here again are the links. Educate yourself.

    More information on Obama's Embrace of war, murder, torture and mayhem can be found at the following link.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world

    More information of the influence of the neocons upon Obama can be found at the following link.

    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

    macmarco 2 Apr 2015 18:14

    She like Obama are militarists. Obama astounded his progressive supporters with his praise for militarism at Nobel. Hillary lost the primaries by hanging onto the 'Iraq was a just and good intervention'. Even if it was imposed by Bill it was idiotic when even some in the GOP were jumping ship.

    BradBenson Mikhail Lykhin 2 Apr 2015 18:14

    That's just sexist bullshit. She's a well-qualified war criminal and will wage our wars with the same audacity, ferocity and veracity of any man. In fact, she will be more brutal just to prove that women should be allowed to be the War-Criminal-in-Chief more often.

    BradBenson Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 18:11

    Yep, I remember that too. That should have been a wake up call for any faux Democrats that hated Bush's Policies, but loved those same policies under Obama. Now these neo-con converts can't wait for Hillary to break the glass ceiling and become the greatest US War Criminal of all-time. She will never be President. Real lefties will stay home.

    BradBenson toadwarrior 2 Apr 2015 18:07

    It's not a matter of age. It's a matter of faulty policies and a total lack of any morality. I'm 64 and I'd match my intellectual acuity against anyone, young or old. I might not always win, but it wouldn't be because of my age if I lost.

    Hillary is not qualified because she is a war criminal. Period.

    Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 18:03

    It was easier for Clinton to coordinate his politics with Europeans at that time. The US was the measure of everything.

    But yes, I think you are right, Hillary may be moved by an excessive ambition rather than pure ideology. What I fear is that this ambition makes her prone to hard ideological positions and to alliaces with the worst currents of American politics. On the other hand, you are right, as a whole the Democrats may seem to be more reasonable and I, in Europe, probably underestimate the political climate in the country.

    BradBenson Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:59

    People with money back them and most of the American People have been dumbed down to believe that we are a beacon of freedom and democracy around the world.

    Despite the fact that realistic Americans recognize the truth, we can no longer unseat the shadow government and will just have to wait for the inevitable collapse of the evil empire under its own weight. It will be tough, but the education will be good for the survivors--however difficult.

    voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 17:48

    Point taken.

    But interestingly, there was much less "go-it-alone" foreign policy by Bill Clinton. He coordinated with European allies, for one--for which he was castigated by the Republicans. That sort of foreign policy really took off under Bush--the right-wing is contemptuous of Europe, the UN, and pretty much any other nation.

    I agree with you that she's too hawkish--and that she has made a number of serious mistakes. But I think she's less ideologically driven that driven by her (maybe "pragmatic") ambition.

    But the climate in the US is such that the Republican alternatives are *much* more extreme and aggressive -- they talk about waging war on a daily basis. It's truly terrifying.

    But anyone more "moderate" that Clinton really doesn't stand a chance for the Democrats. The political climate is too extreme and money has totally corrupted our political process--big money is generally (*but not exclusively) interested in "advancing their interests" and "the rest of the world be damned." There really are no good alternatives--it's Clinton or someone like Bush, or even worse someone like Cruz, Christie, or Paul.

    NomChompsky Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 17:45

    The world is in much worse shape and the U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was Secretary of State.

    Hey.


    BradBenson 2 Apr 2015 17:32

    The people are not dissatisfied with Obama's Foreign Policy because it has somehow been too tepid. They are sick of his embrace of the worst war crimes of the neo-con right as his own and his failure to implement hope and change from the abuses of the Bush/Cheney Administration. To say that Hillary's experience as Secretary of State has given her anything more than experience in WAR CRIMES is an exaggeration if not outright mendacity.

    Obama started with two wars and we now have at least seven. During Obama's Tenure, both he and Hillary were involved in: illegal drone murders; CIA Black Sites (Benghazi was actually about the freeing of illegally held Libyan Nationals from a CIA Black Site Prison); an illegal Coup d'état in the Ukraine, which nearly brought Europe to the brink of war; the overthrow of the Libyan Government, which resulted in a civil war and the rise of ISIS there; the failure of our policies in Syria and Yemen, resulting in major wars throughout the Middle East; the failure of the Arab Spring and the reestablishment of US-backed dictatorial strongmen in numerous Arab Countries. Hillary has promised to be "more aggressive" than her predecessor.

    There is no basis for this woman to be elected and her candidacy will result in the US being saddled with Bush III. Anti-war Progressives WILL NOT vote for another war criminal and will either vote for a third party candidate or stay home.

    More information on Hillary's War Crimes can be found at the following sites.

    http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14401-hillary-clintons-legacy-as-secretary-of-state
    http://radio.foxnews.com/2014/10/29/cornel-west-calls-president-obama-and-hillary-clinton-war-criminals/
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/11/18/hillary-the-warmonger/

    More information on Obama's Aggressive Foreign Policies and War Crimes can be found here.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/19622-empire-under-obama-americas-secret-wars-in-over-100-countries-around-the-world
    http://consortiumnews.com/2014/06/23/obamas-true-foreign-policy-weakness/

    Matt062 2 Apr 2015 17:28

    We don't call her Killary over here for nothing. There is no need to speculate about the future. We can already see her foreign policy in action in Yemen, where the USA is once again directing another lawless war of aggression.

    Ask the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate how his targeted bombing of what little civilian infrastructure Yemen has? You know, dairy processing, electrical power installations, the usual list of war criminality we have all come to know so well and hate.

    Ana ask how long will it take for mass starvation to kick in with a total naval blockade on a country that must import 100% of its grain?

    normankirk 2 Apr 2015 17:02

    Please, not Hillary. I'm not eligible to vote in American elections, but I do have a stake in staying alive. Hillary has to be a nutcase with her warmongering rhetoric.

    And I'm not encouraged by Ukrainian oligarchs bloating the Clinton foundation with looted money


    Kikinaskald voxusa 2 Apr 2015 16:56

    I meant internationally. At that time nobody dared to oppose the US. Nowadys it's different. China challenges the US, in South America there are left governments and others that claim some independence. In Europe there is skepticism and critic of the American government. Iran made now an agreement on better terms than they had offered in 2003. Russia showed that they would act according to what they think it's their interest against American opposition. The US lost wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. We have to consider all those failures and mistakes. Hillary Clinton is not the right person for that.


    voxusa Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:38

    "Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition."?

    You must have missed the government shut-down by the right-wing and the mendacious obstructionism of Newtie Gingrich and his pals


    Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:21

    I wonder why the electorate keeps people in politics who are clearly unsuitable to be politicians. Many are crazy, are ignorant, are politically corrupt, have no common sense, have no scruples of any kind, are greedy. Why can't people have better choices? Why don't they send such people in retirement and vote for better politicians? Why do such politicians remain eternally in the political arena? Why do people take them seriously?


    CroatianRoger 2 Apr 2015 16:14

    If Clinton or Bush win we are in for more war, only Rand Paul will pull the troops back.
    Apparently this election will cost about $5 billion, disgusting.


    Kikinaskald 2 Apr 2015 16:12

    but who may be guided by a preference for alliance-based negotiations of the kind that informed her husband's presidency

    This doesn't mean very much. Times were completely different. The Soviet Union had just fallen when Bill Clinton was the president and the leadership of the US was not disputed. Today opposition to intervention is much stronger and an agressive politics which didn't function before when conditions were more favourable will not function now.

    Bill Clinton could do whatever he wanted without much opposition. But he didn't seem to be very ideologically guided. He used military and diplomatic power because he had the power to do that, he was moved by custom, and for personal reasons (because of the scandals involving him).

    Obama doesn't seem to be a very determined person, to have very strong convictions. He noticed that his power was limited and decided to take the easiest way. That means that he made mistakes, that he simply followed what Bush had begun without much questioning. But he tried to correct the course in some moments, to repair some mistakes, he took some positive initiatives.

    Hilary Clinton on the other hand lacks some of the few qualities of past presidents while combining their bad qualities. She doesn't seem to be careful like Obama, she isn't so pragmatic as Bill Clinton, she's as ideological as some of the worse politicians in the US, she's as naive as Bush, she's as ignorant as McCain, she doesn't show any kind of moral and intellectual independence and autonomy: she sides with the worst tendencies of politics. The results cannot be good.

    Speculation and discussions about all those cases (Ukraine, Syria and so on) show how insane political talk has become. It's funny, because they are exactly the result of long term faillures, political mistakes and so on. Obama often spoke wrong, but did the right thing in the end. H. Clinton would do the wrong thing in the end. I think that politis is too serious to be in the hand of people like her.

    Expatdownunder1 2 Apr 2015 14:59

    On the 22nd April 2008 Hillary Clinton made the following astonishing comment:"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the President, we will attack Iran," she replied adding, "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them". From that time on, I began to see her as a liability and was confirmed by innumerable speeches made as Secretary of State: speeches which displayed arrogance towards and ignorance of other cultures, together with a contempt for the political process.


    Natasha2009 2 Apr 2015 14:41

    How exactly is foreign policy her strong suit? The world is in much worse shape and the U.S. held in much lower esteem since she was Secretary of State. There is not one area of the world better off now due to her efforts.


    Phil429 lightstroke 2 Apr 2015 13:55

    Obama's strategy of forcing the regional players to sort things out themselves

    This would be the same Obama who started the war on Libya and showered his Al-Qaeda buddies with weapons to terrorise the whole region, would it? The same Obama who tried to support Hosni Mubarak only until his defeat became undeniable, then worked to make sure his replacement would be as close to identical as possible? Whose State Department funded and enabled the Nazis who overthrew the government of Ukraine? Who's been devoted to indefinitely continuing the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq from his first day in office? Whose murder-by-drone campaign has caused vastly more devastation in Yemen and Pakistan than under Gov Bush? Who's turned Honduras into a living hell, tried to sanction the life out of Iran on fraudulent grounds with no authority and faithfully continued enabling every war crime Israel commits on its way to national suicide?
    Anyone who considers that 'leaving others to sort things out' has lost all touch with reality.


    Whitt brighterday 2 Apr 2015 12:48

    "If some nutter like Jeb Bush wins, a major war is just a matter of time." - brighterday
    *
    Actually, in the current crop of Republicans making noises about running, Jeb Bush is the moderate one. Moderate being in a completely relative sense here.


    TONY C 2 Apr 2015 12:08

    A vote for Hillary is a vote for her undying support of the Iraq war. I hope this woman becomes undone at the seams for whatever can be made to stick. She is the same old pedigree of war mongers that both democrats and republicans push to the forefront of amerikkkan politics.


    LowlyPeruser 2 Apr 2015 12:06

    Hillary Clinton supported just about every military aggression in the Middle East (invading Iraq, bombing Syria and Lybia) that was on offer, and when the crap hit the fan (as in Benghazi) she was stupid enough to try to cover it up. Some strong diplomatic skills and wisdom she has, indeed....


    sparafucile2 2 Apr 2015 11:24

    Rand Paul is the only candidate on the horizon who could conceivably end America's disastrous love-affair with the neo-cons and neo-liberals. The thought of Hillary Clinton returning to the White House would be a bit like Cherie Blair returning to No 10.


    DynamicDitherer 2 Apr 2015 11:24

    Americans are being fed the idea that it is time a woman was in charge, like the first black president it is a con.

    Anyone want to know what Hillary Clinton is about simply google "Hilary Clinton on Gadaffi" and it just about sums up US foreign policy REGARDLESS who is in the big chair.

    If people in the UK really want to end the murders and mayhem our? foreign policies wreak around the globe then the only way to stop it is to vote green and be brave enough to usher in a brand new dawn in British politics as this shit has to stop, its only a matter of when, vote for the main parties and we are sending more of our own sons and daughters to go fight the banksters wars which in turn will unleash hell on the civillian populations of whatever country it is.. last time it was Libya, almost Syria... lets not let it happen again and perhaps bring foreign policy to the front of elections... no more war.


    nonfiction 2 Apr 2015 11:02

    She is an old fraud. She's told the world she was the one who brought peace to Northern Ireland, though it was certainly not anything she did that helped there. She told the world how brave she was, when she landed in a supposed danger zone, when in fact she and her daughter had landed to a peaceful welcome by a children's band. She showed no understanding of Palestine or of Israel. Internationally, she hasn't a clue. She's nothing but a grabby property developer. t can't believe even Americans are so easily hood-winked that they'd vote for her.


    wimberlin 2 Apr 2015 10:42

    She is obviously a bellicose bag - there is no doubt about that. However the irony is that this bellicose bag may be better than any wing-nut the Republicans decide to come up with in the next year.

    American politics is all about money anyways - if she can get the really rich behind her, then she will get in.


    Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:39

    Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical questions for Hillary Clinton ......

    ... Hillary, give the money back. Or don't run. You can't keep the money and run.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/02/18/foreign-donations-to-hillary-clintons-foundation-raise-major-ethical-questions/


    DNAin1953 2 Apr 2015 10:28

    In politics you do not need to be good, you just need to be better than the other choices and win a plurality of the electorate. Discussing someones merits or failings as a leader without contrasting that with the competition is a tiresome waste of time. Clinton is not impressive except in comparison with the lunatics from which her opponent will be choosen. It is this contrast that is the relevant one that should be discussed. Despote her many failings, she is the least bad choice among thoae on offer, by a country mile.


    Continent 2 Apr 2015 10:28

    Hillary Clinton: foreign policy is her strong suit

    25 Mar 2008 ........ Hillary Clinton has conceded that she "did misspeak" about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire, blaming tiredness for a dramatic description that was shown to have been significantly exaggerated. .....

    ..... News footage of the event however showed her claims to have been wide of the mark, and reporters who accompanied her stated that there was no sniper fire. Her account was ridiculed by ABC News as "like a scene from Saving Private Ryan".

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1582795/Hillary-Clintons-Bosnia-sniper-story-exposed.html


    Seanymoon 2 Apr 2015 09:56

    Madame is a war hawk's war hawk; and few major political figures belong more completely to Wall Street.

    No thanks.

    moncur 2 Apr 2015 09:48

    Family dynasties are a disturbing, newish trend in Western democracies, particularly in USA. The Bushes, the Clintons...
    There is no need to copy North Korea.

    [Mar 31, 2015] Ukraine s Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

    It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
    Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

    After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk ceasefire is rapidly unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.

    The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.

    The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

    Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

    This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

    Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

    The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its fate, apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.

    Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

    This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

    [Mar 31, 2015] Ukraine s Bloody Civil War No End in Sight

    It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
    Mar 31, 2015 | The National Interest

    After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk ceasefire is rapidly unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.

    The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.

    The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters, the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.

    Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.

    This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

    Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.

    The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its fate, apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.

    Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.

    This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security.

    [Mar 30, 2015] Nuland's Mastery of Ukraine Propaganda By Robert Parry

    In other words, many of the "free-market reforms" are aimed at making the hard lives of average Ukrainians even harder – by cutting pensions, removing work protections, forcing people to work into their old age and making them pay more for heat during the winter.
    March 11, 2015 | consortiumnews.com
    Exclusive: In House testimony, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland blamed Russia and ethnic-Russian rebels for last summer's shoot-down of MH-17 over Ukraine, but the U.S. government has not substantiated that charge. So, did Nuland mislead Congress or just play a propaganda game, asks Robert Parry.

    An early skill learned by Official Washington's neoconservatives, when they were cutting their teeth inside the U.S. government in the 1980s, was how to frame their arguments in the most propagandistic way, so anyone who dared to disagree with any aspect of the presentation seemed unpatriotic or crazy.

    During my years at The Associated Press and Newsweek, I dealt with a number of now prominent neocons who were just starting out and mastering these techniques at the knee of top CIA psychological warfare specialist Walter Raymond Jr., who had been transferred to President Ronald Reagan's National Security Council staff where Raymond oversaw inter-agency task forces that pushed Reagan's hard-line agenda in Central America and elsewhere. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Victory of 'Perception Management.'"]

    One of those quick learners was Robert Kagan, who was then a protégé of Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams. Kagan got his first big chance when he became director of the State Department's public diplomacy office for Latin America, a key outlet for Raymond's propaganda schemes.

    Though always personable in his dealings with me, Kagan grew frustrated when I wouldn't swallow the propaganda that I was being fed. At one point, Kagan warned me that I might have to be "controversialized," i.e. targeted for public attack by Reagan's right-wing media allies and anti-journalism attack groups, like Accuracy in Media, a process that did indeed occur.

    Years later, Kagan emerged as one of America's top neocons, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which opened in 1998 to advocate for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ultimately gaining the backing of a large swath of the U.S. national security establishment in support of that bloody endeavor.

    Despite the Iraq disaster, Kagan continued to rise in influence, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a columnist at the Washington Post, and someone whose published criticism so alarmed President Barack Obama last year that he invited Kagan to a White House lunch. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's True Foreign Policy Weakness."]

    Kagan's Wife's Coup

    But Kagan is perhaps best known these days as the husband of neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, one of Vice President Dick Cheney's former advisers and a key architect of last year's coup in Ukraine, a "regime change" that toppled an elected president and touched off a civil war, which now has become a proxy fight involving nuclear-armed United States and Russia.

    In an interview last year with the New York Times, Nuland indicated that she shared her husband's criticism of President Obama for his hesitancy to use American power more assertively. Referring to Kagan's public attacks on Obama's more restrained "realist" foreign policy, Nuland said, "suffice to say … that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

    But Nuland also seems to have mastered her husband's skill with propaganda, presenting an extreme version of the situation in Ukraine, such that no one would dare quibble with the details. In prepared testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, Nuland even slipped in an accusation blaming Russia for the July 17 shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 though the U.S. government has not presented any proof.

    Nuland testified, "In eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage; MH-17 was shot down."

    Now, it's true that if one parses Nuland's testimony, she's not exactly saying the Russians or the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine shot down the plane. There is a semi-colon between the "unspeakable violence and pillage" and the passive verb structure "MH-17 was shot down." But anyone seeing her testimony would have understood that the Russians and their "puppets" shot down the plane, killing all 298 people onboard.

    When I submitted a formal query to the State Department asking if Nuland's testimony meant that the U.S. government had developed new evidence that the rebels shot down the plane and that the Russians shared complicity, I received no answer.

    Perhaps significantly or perhaps not, Nuland presented similarly phrased testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday but made no reference to MH-17. So, I submitted a new inquiry asking whether the omission reflected second thoughts by Nuland about making the claim before the House. Again, I have not received a reply.

    However, both of Nuland's appearances place all the blame for the chaos in Ukraine on Russia, including the 6,000 or more deaths. Nuland offered not a single word of self-criticism about how she contributed to these violent events by encouraging last year's coup, nor did she express the slightest concern about the actions of the coup regime in Kiev, including its dispatch of neo-Nazi militias to carry out "anti-terrorist" and "death squad" operations against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives."]

    Russia's Fault

    Everything was Russia's fault – or as Nuland phrased it: "This manufactured conflict - controlled by the Kremlin; fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers' expense - has cost the lives of more than 6,000 Ukrainians, but also of hundreds of young Russians sent to fight and die there by the Kremlin, in a war their government denies."

    Nuland was doing her husband proud. As every good propagandist knows, you don't present events with any gray areas; your side is always perfect and the other side is the epitome of evil. And, today, Nuland faces almost no risk that some mainstream journalist will dare contradict this black-and-white storyline; they simply parrot it.

    Besides heaping all the blame on the Russians, Nuland cited – in her Senate testimony – some of the new "reforms" that the Kiev authorities have just implemented as they build a "free-market state." She said, "They made tough choices to reduce and cap pension benefits, increase work requirements and phase in a higher retirement age; … they passed laws cutting wasteful gas subsidies."

    In other words, many of the "free-market reforms" are aimed at making the hard lives of average Ukrainians even harder – by cutting pensions, removing work protections, forcing people to work into their old age and making them pay more for heat during the winter.

    Nuland also hailed some of the regime's stated commitments to fighting corruption. But Kiev seems to have simply installed a new cast of bureaucrats looking to enrich themselves. For instance, Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko is an expatriate American who – before becoming an instant Ukrainian citizen last December – ran a U.S. taxpayer-financed investment fund for Ukraine that was drained of money as she engaged in lucrative insider deals, which she has fought to keep secret. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's Finance Minister's American 'Values.'"]

    Yet, none of these concerns were mentioned in Nuland's propagandistic testimony to the House and Senate – not that any of the committee members or the mainstream press corps seemed to care that they were being spun and even misled. The hearings were mostly opportunities for members of Congress to engage in chest-beating as they demanded that President Obama send U.S. arms to Ukraine for a hot war with Russia.

    Regarding the MH-17 disaster, one reason that I was inquisitive about Nuland's insinuation in her House testimony that the Russians and the ethnic Russian rebels were responsible was that some U.S. intelligence analysts have reached a contrary conclusion, according to a source briefed on their findings. According to that information, the analysts found no proof that the Russians had delivered a BUK anti-aircraft system to the rebels and concluded that the attack was apparently carried out by a rogue element of the Ukrainian military.

    After I published that account last summer, the Obama administration went silent about the MH-17 shoot-down, letting stand some initial speculation that had blamed the Russians and the rebels. In the nearly eight months since the tragedy, the U.S. government has failed to make public any intelligence information on the crash. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Danger of an MH-17 'Cold Case.'"]

    So, Nuland may have been a bit duplicitous when she phrased her testimony so that anyone hearing it would jump to the conclusion that the Russians and the rebels were to blame. It's true she didn't exactly say so but she surely knew what impression she was leaving.

    In that, Nuland appears to have taken a page from the playbook of her husband's old mentor, Elliott Abrams, who provided misleading testimony to Congress on the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s – and even though he was convicted of that offense, Abrams was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush and thus was able to return to government last decade to oversee the selling of the Iraq War.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

    Friend (MakePeaceNotWar), March 11, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    I'm terribly sorry, but I would like to post this small joke from the other side of the ocean. The knowledge of geography and facts shown by representatives of the U.S. State's Department is so overwhelming that one can proudly claim:

    "1 nuland = 100 psakis"

    Thank you for your attention, please don't be insulted.

    PS Jane Psaki and Marie Harf are inventors of the Belarussian sea (Belarus is a landlocked country), Rostov mountains (Rostov region in Russia consists of flatlands only) and the dependence of Russian on European export and gas (it's the opposite in reality). For Europeans it's like saying Grand Hill of America instead of the Great Canyon and Lincolnton instead of Washington.

    PSS Mrs. Nuland claimed that Crimeans are mostly unhappy about joining Russia (well, according to the German GfK survey published in BloombergReview only 4% are unhappy – but it's of course a lie, evil Putin must have put pressur eon GfK to puvlish these data).

    dennis morrisseau, March 11, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    Cookie Nudelman is perhaps beginning to lose some of her chocolate chips?

    2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy [armor – Vietnam era] retired.

    xxx, March 11, 2015 at 9:15 pm
    The crash occurred over territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists, during a battle in Donbass, in an area controlled by the Donbass People's Militia. According to American and German intelligence sources, the plane was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Buk surface-to-air missile fired from the territory which they controlled. The Russians denied any and all access to the wreckage, contravening standards for investigating civilian aircraft disasters. Evidence from open sources indicated that separatists in Ukraine were in control of a Buk missile launcher on 17 July and transported it from Donetsk to Snizhne.

    Immediately after the crash, a post appeared on the VKontakte social media website attributed to Igor Girkin, leader of the Donbass separatists, claiming responsibility for shooting down an AN-26, but after it became clear that a civilian aircraft had been shot down, the separatists denied any involvement, and the post was taken down. Malaysia said intelligence reports on the downing of MH17 were "pretty conclusive", but more investigation was necessary to be certain that a surface-to-air missile brought down the plane.

    US sources attributed the downing to a missile fired from separatist-controlled territory, with their judgment based on sensors that traced the path of the missile, analysis of shrapnel patterns in the wreckage, voice print analysis of separatists' conversations in which they claimed credit for the strike, as well as photos and other data from social media sites.

    The underlying assumptions of this and other articles by Mr. Parry on this and other questions regarding Russia is that anything the West says is always a lie and anything Putin says is always the truth.

    What absurdity!

    Gregory Kruse, March 11, 2015 at 11:04 pm

    You should apply for a job at the State Department, but I have a few points to question.
    1. The territory held by the "separatists" is so small that it would be impossible to determine that anything occurred "over" that territory.
    2. According to German and US propaganda, the plane was shot down by ….etc.
    3. The Russians denied any and all access to the wreckage, but the US analyzed the shrapnel patterns and there was plenty of pictures and other data from social media.
    4. There were sensors all over the place but there has been no presentation of such data.
    5. Some separatists admitted to downing the plane, proven by "voice print analysis of their conversations".
    6. Parry thinks the West always lies, and Putin always tells the truth. This is called personalization. How about, " the West always lies, but the East always tells the truth". Or, Victoria Nuland always lies, and Putin always tells the truth". None of these ways of saying it are true, but the first one seems less absurd because it is clever propaganda, and that's the point.

    Nick Gibbon, March 12, 2015 at 3:13 am

    If from this article you don't question US sources on, oh, most things these days then pity you.

    Meanwhile here's some proper, rational analysis about MH17:-

    http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/133434.html

    Joe B, March 12, 2015 at 8:36 am

    Your sources are not credible at all. None of those "analyses" have any value at all, and the suppression of information by the US proves the deception.

    1. "sensors that traced the path of the missile"
    In fact no such evidence was presented or claimed: the whole debate would be different if that existed. The US denied any such photos and presented none. Russia claimed photos showing Ukraine fighter planes near the plane.

    2. "analysis of shrapnel patterns in the wreckage"
    The evidence was concealed, reports were of shrapnel vs. bullets although photos showed bullet-like holes. If a missile it might have just as well have been air-launched. If ground-launched, both sides had SAMs in the area.

    3. voice print analysis of separatists' conversations … from social media sites.

    This evidence is absurdly vague and suspect. If such persons so claimed, it was apparently gossip; we are of course not given the contrary gossip.

    The fact that the USG suppressed the aerial photos, flight recorder data, ATC communications, etc., and accused Russia repeatedly of sending in armored divisions with no evidence whatsoever, proves the intent to deceive We the People by any and all means whatsoever. No USG "evidence" in this matter has any credibility, and those who accept it at face value merely state a lack of concern for truth and justice.

    Joe L, March 12, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Have you read Robert Parry's article "Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case" (October 20, 2014)? I believe this article is based on a Der Spiegel article where German Intelligence, the BND, claim that they believe that the "rebels" shot down MH-17 but they did it with a "captured" BUK missile system from a "Ukrainian Military Base"! Also in the article it points out that the German BND dismiss Russian evidence of an SU-25 shoot-down but also that photos provided by the Ukrainian Government of MH-17 "have been manipulated". Also, you are using "evidence" from "social media" as evidence? Well for me, if this truly was shot down by Russia or the "rebels" I am sure that the US would have satellite data since I believe there was a satellite overhead on that day and the US being the largest surveillance apparatus on the planet. With such surveillance power available to the west, why has the investigation of MH-17 devolved to mainly evidence from "social media"?

    By the way, here is the article to Mr. Parry's article.

    Consortium News: "Germans Clear Russia in MH-17 Case" (October 20, 2014):
    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/20/germans-clear-russia-in-mh-17-case/

    spktruth200, March 11, 2015 at 10:41 pm

    Russia told the EU that they had a sat image proving Kiev Right Wing Nazis in charge of the Kiev military actually shot down the plane in an effort to blame Russia. Immediately Merkel and Holland made a desperate trip to Moscow to keep them from responding…Notice, not one corporate media has ever brought that issue up again. EU and foreign governments also know who really did 911, and PUTIN threatened to go public on that issue too.

    madeleine, March 12, 2015 at 12:32 am

    thank you for showing how deceitful these neocons really are.

    seems like the US is the new USSR !

    Huley, March 12, 2015 at 1:36 pm

    No, that is totally wrong: The necon-US is getting more and more a HITLER-style regime, a NAZI-regime, mentally sick, preparing and organizing chaos, regime-change, war, ethnic clensing all over the world: "Exceptionalsm", "leader of the world", "to be the first", are nothing but synonyms for conquering the world. The US is getting the most hatetd state in the world.

    The neocons should be eliminated before they take their chance destroying the world.

    Andrew Nichols, March 12, 2015 at 12:43 am

    Nuland is of the Goebbelsian propaganda school where it doesnt matter whether or not what she says is true, it becomes the truth because its repeated enough. I do wonder if she thinks she can survive nuclear war. We live in dark times a pivotal moment where the Empire really is upping the ante. We may not survive it.

    Mary, March 12, 2015 at 1:18 am

    Nuland and her hubby - war pigs.

    Sydney Vilen, March 12, 2015 at 2:08 am

    Why did Hillary Clinton bring Nuland, former adviser to VP Dick Cheney, into the State Department? The answer to this seems very relevant to the next presidential election.
    Bob, March 12, 2015 at 12:48 pm
    I completely agree, the answer to this question may well be the answer to All of our perplexing questions…

    jimbo, March 12, 2015 at 11:49 am

    I have been with Parry and his view that the Russians are the better guys in this conflict but I am being swayed in another direction especially due to a report on Vice which shows how active duty Russian soldiers had been killed in the Ukraine.

    Huley, March 12, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    This rotten mad creature should be brought to justice like the complete bunch of neocon organized criminals and fascists.

    Tom Coombs, March 12, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    Hey Robert keep up the good work. I was checking my bookmarked "Project for New American Century" today (it's been a long time since i visited the site) the website is gone, is there anyway to get an archived copy? I was introducing your website and your books to a friend of mine who is the editor of the "Valley Voice" a bi-weekly paper in the Slocan Valley of British Columbia in Canada. I lent her the four books of yours and was trying to show her the American Century website. Could you e-mail me and let me know how i can get a copy of their manifesto, i consider it the mein kamf of our time…Tom Coombs

    Charron, March 12, 2015 at 2:35 pm

    I saw the testimony Ms. Nuland gave before the Senators of the Foreign Affairs Committee last week on CSpan. After hearing a number of questions and comments by the Senators of the Foreign Relations committee I was extremely depressed. I have never heard such drivel in all my 84 years.

    One Senator wanted assurance that we would install a nuclear missile system in the Ukraine, and I well remember what our reaction was when we learned that Soviet Russia was installing missile systems in Cuba. They were so cocksure and oblivious to reality I felt we were being governed by mad men.

    I mean I came away extremely scared. They were all so unconnected with reality, it was unbelievable, and the Democrat Senators on the committee were as bad as the Republican. They had no understanding of what was going on in the Ukraine! You would think that as Senators they would have some slight understanding but they were all posturing as defenders of freedom and protectors of America from the evil Putin. They were all playing out a role in the morality play that they had created, that had no connection with reality. I mean I am used to baloney from our members of Congress, but this was on another level. Unbelievable!

    [Mar 28, 2015] Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical

    Quote: "she apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the Russian economy was in tatters."

    Mar 28, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile, March 28, 2015 at 4:07 am

    This is what Psaki says, as I posted 3 days ago after seeing an article about the Dozhd TV interview in Komsomolskaya Pravda:

    I thought Sobchak had fucked off, anyway, because her life is in danger – allegedly: I wish she would.

    Джен Псаки: Смещение Путина не является нашей целью, мы хотим изменить курс России

    Jen Psaki: The ousting of Putin is not our goal: we want to change the direction that Russia is taking

    Extracts and précis:
    -----------------------------------The official U.S. state Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki is soon to go on maternity leave and will quit her post, which has become famous even in distant Russia. But before doing that, on Wednesday night Jen gave an interview with Ksenia Sobchak in a live "Dozhd" transmission.

    Psaki: We cooperate with Russia on many issues, but we have serious disagreements about the Ukraine. About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets international standards.

    Psaki then said what would happen following the U.S. Congress request that Obama begin arms shipments to the Ukraine:

    Psaki: Congress gives authority for the president to act, but it is up to him to decide whether to take any action. Of course, our goal is to make Russia and Pro-Russian separatists in the Ukraine strictly comply with the Minsk agreement. We are not going to wage a proxy war with Russia, but we are considering different options depending on what is happening. We are only talking about defensive weaponry, but weighing all the facts, we are trying to understand what decision will bring a resolution to the conflict in the Ukraine. There are many other levers: the introduction of new sanctions, negotiations with our external partners. The USA has a lot of options…

    Russia and Pro-Russian separatists have encroached into Ukraine territory. There are Russian troops there, so there are good reasons for what Congress has recommended.

    Asked by Sobchak if she thought Putin was a dictator, Psaki answered:

    It is a pity that he seems to have ignored the economic decline of the country, which is having a direct impact on the Russian people, and is focusing on unlawful interference in Ukrainian affairs. Political leaders in America would be prosecuted if they chose such a path.

    Sobchak: Is the purpose of the US to oust Putin?

    Psaki: No, that is not our goal. Our goal is to stop the illegal invasion by Russia and pro-Russian separatists of Ukrainian territory. This is not about changing the leadership of the country. This should be the choice of the Russian people. But Russia is taking action specifically in Ukrainian matters, and Russia has the opportunity to change its course of action.

    Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical as, for example, in the case of the expulsion of Yanukovych.

    Psaki: We tried to work with Yanukovych, but he left the country. There was chaos, and we are reminded of this today- and with deep regret.

    Sometimes Psaki clearly deviated from the general line of the US leadership. For example, she apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the Russian economy was in tatters. She said:

    "We do not consider Russia as an opponent. We wish you success and prosperity."

    Psaki did a lot of talking about cooperating with Russia – over both achievable and desirable goals. However, the sincerity of her statements did not lend itself to be very much believed.
    -----------------------------------

    End of excerpts and précis.

    kat kan, March 28, 2015 at 4:40 am

    About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets international standards.

    Hmmm…. good question., What ARE international standards about people living where they live? When does living in your own house turn into an invasion?

    colliemum, March 28, 2015 at 5:29 am

    When someone else wants to have your house?

    [Mar 28, 2015] The Kremlin's Kool-Aid - By John Feffer,

    Completely detached form the reality rant. No attempt to point out the position of Russia with the new neoliberal order governed from Washington, DC. I noticed that he did not use the term neoliberalism and neo-imperialism even once in the article. And this is not accidental ;-). This guy is a essentially a neocon in peacenik cloths.
    March 11, 2015 | FPIF

    We were nearing the end of dinner when the eminent personage leaned in my direction and began yelling at me.

    Up to that point, the argument among the five of us at the end of the long table at the restaurant had been heated but at a conversational volume. The fact that we were arguing at all was at least partly my fault.
    After all, I'd brought up the subject of Russia. Just before the entrees arrived, I confessed that I found the political situation in Moscow troubling. I made it clear that I thought the Russian leadership in no way progressive and that I sympathized with the isolated dissidents concentrated in Moscow and St. Petersburg.
    The argument escalated. Just before the desserts arrived, the eminent personage told me in no uncertain terms that I'd gotten my priorities all mixed up. My concerns over human rights in Russia were nonsense. The number one issue was to avoid nuclear war, which required close cooperation with the Kremlin. These sentences were delivered with all the finesse of an exasperated parent disciplining a misbehaving child.
    As I stood up, mumbling something about my decision to forgo dessert, I suffered a brief spell of vertigo. I was suddenly not sure what decade I was in. I could have been having the same confrontation, more or less, in 1985 or 2015. I'd thought the Cold War had ended.

    More importantly, I'd thought that the Cold War mindset had ended.

    But as the science fiction writer William Gibson once wrote, "The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed." I'd somehow stumbled into one of those pockets of the past that coexist with the present and the future.

    Alvin Toffler introduced the famous phrase "future shock." But I was experiencing "past shock," like when you wander off the main road and discover an Amish village going about its business as if it were 1850. Except that this anachronism was philosophical, not physical.

    And it went far beyond the loudly expressed views of the eminent personage.

    Neither East nor West

    I came of age politically during the last years of the Cold War.

    I campaigned in college against U.S. interventions in Central America and protested U.S. nuclear policy in the streets of New York and the halls of Congress. But as a Russian major, I was also acutely aware of the repressions that took place in the Soviet bloc. I refused to accept the bipolar thinking of the Cold War. I saw no reason to choose between Moscow and Washington. Geopolitics was not a multiple-choice test with only two possible answers.

    I naively believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union meant the end of this false dichotomy. I continued to critique U.S. foreign policy, but my opponents no longer told me that I should move to Russia if I didn't like what Washington was doing. I also continued to criticize the policies of the Russian government, but no one accused me any longer of being a State Department symp.

    The challenge as I saw it in the 1990s was to create a European security structure that bound together both the United States and Russia according to international norms. Washington saw things differently. It was wedded to NATO, even though the alliance's raison d'etre had evaporated along with the Soviet Union. NATO not only crawled out from under the wreckage of the Cold War, it prospered.
    I described the errors of NATO expansion in one of the first Foreign Policy In Focus briefs in 1996, our first year of publication.

    "Russia has steadfastly opposed NATO expansion," I wrote at the time. "Virtually all political forces within the country view this policy as an encirclement, a containment that will lead to greater isolation. Thus, Russia is particularly sensitive about the inclusion of bordering countries….Since Russia poses a considerably diminished security threat to Europe, expansion is an aggressive act that threatens to undo decades of security cooperation and tilt Russia closer toward considering an anti-Western alliance with China or pariah states such as Iraq."

    I stand by those views 20 years later. We pushed Russia into a corner, and Russia pushed back - just as it said it would. Washington, in other words, deserves the lion's share of the blame for the persistence of Cold War thinking.

    But none of that excuses or justifies what Vladimir Putin is doing today in Russia. He is, from economics to politics to social policy, about as far away from the progressive ideal as possible. Yes, of course, I support negotiating arms control treaties with him, working with him to resolve the conflict in Syria, and soliciting his support for a resumption of talks with North Korea. But that doesn't mean that I won't vigorously criticize his policies and bemoan the state of Russia today.

    Pro-Putinism

    A week before the outburst of the eminent personage, I was participating in a conference on Ukraine in Toronto. In the audience, those who blamed everything on the "fascists in Kiev" squared off against those who blamed everything on the "imperialists in Moscow." I tried to present a different picture - of the political diversity of the Ukrainian government and the legitimate security concerns of Russia - while also offering a grim but workable solution to the crisis.

    Afterwards, someone came up to me and asked why segments of the Western left were ga-ga over Putin and his crowd. "Do you think they're being paid by Moscow?" she asked.

    I said no, I didn't think so. Except for a few outliers, progressives do things for principle, not profit, which is probably why we remain on the margins of U.S. politics.

    But even when you take money out of the equation, her question is an interesting one, and worth exploring. Why do some voices on the left insist that what happened in Kiev last year was a "U.S. coup," that Russia's seizure of Crimea was somehow legitimate, that Moscow is blameless in the war that has raged in eastern Ukraine, and that Putin isn't systematically eliminating his opponents by throwing them in jail, pushing them into exile, or possibly having them killed?

    Perhaps the people making these arguments get their information only from the English-language RT broadcasts. But when even the sensible journalist Glenn Greenwald starts to edge in this direction - for instance, by exaggerating the influence of fascists in Ukraine today - then clearly something else is at work here.

    Russia Today

    First, there is an entirely understandable concern that a new Cold War is emerging between the United States and Russia. This Cold War will, like its predecessor, at minimum produce some low-intensity conflicts, a war of words, and many missed opportunities to further international agreements on nuclear weapons, climate change, and so on. At worst, the confrontation could escalate into the nightmare of the Cold War: a nuclear war.

    But many anti-nuclear protestors during the 1980s - both here and in Europe - were able to address both security questions and human rights issues. Indeed, the very concept of "human security" was an attempt to address the full spectrum of challenges from war to hunger to civil rights.

    Certainly we must avoid the misuse of human rights issues, through politically motivated "linkage," to sabotage arms control agreements. But progressives have a distinguished record of upholding human rights issues even as we embrace pragmatic agreements - with Iran, with North Korea - that reduce the risk of war. The U.S. government is selective in its application of the human rights yardstick. Progressives should resist the temptation.

    Another popular theme presents Russia as a counter-hegemonic force to the United States. This argument revives the old notion that the Soviet Union might have been nasty and brutish, but at least it represented a check on U.S. power in the world. This argument sounds very much like the realpolitik of Henry Kissinger, though turned on its head.

    As frequent RT guest and anti-imperialist blogger Eric Draitser writes in 5 Reasons Why Leftists Should Support Russia, "Any self-described 'leftist' should immediately question their own position when they find themselves on the same side with Washington and NATO on questions of foreign policy, war, and peace. Russia has consistently (and with increasing assertiveness in the last few years) opposed the Empire's agenda in various corners of the globe." He offers only two examples: Syria and Ukraine.
    But Russia is largely not interested in opposing U.S. foreign policy - except where the interests collide in Russia's "near abroad."

    Putin is perfectly happy with Washington's "war on terror," for the two countries see eye to eye on battling Islamic extremism. Only when Washington gets distracted by "democracy promotion" - in Egypt or Syria - does the Kremlin get antsy. But the rise of the Islamic State has led to a convergence of U.S. and Russian objectives (though Moscow still objects to coalition air strikes). Moreover, Moscow doesn't want Iran or North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons. And given its oil and gas interests, Russia is happy that the Obama administration hasn't been more radical in its efforts to arrest climate change.

    And what are the "progressive forces" that Moscow is supporting around the world? It's a rogue's gallery: Syria's Assad, North Korea's Kim, Belarus's Lukashenko, Tajikistan's Rahmon, Egypt's Sisi. Sure, the United States has no better record when it comes to making deals with devils. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Putin represents a geopolitical alternative.

    A third argument, that Russia offers an alternative to economic austerity, reflects the grave and legitimate disappointment with globalization and its effects. "Russia and its leaders are hardly trembling behind Kremlin walls," writes F. William Engdahl. "They are forging the skeleton of a new international economic order that has the potential to transform the world from the present bankruptcy of the Dollar System."

    Although it's true that Russia is working with China and other countries on a BRICS bank that challenges the current international financial system, Putin hardly presents an economic alternative. His view of capitalism is, if anything, even more rapacious than the "Dollar System." Russia today is a playground of oligarchs where the state has helped facilitate the amassing of vast fortunes (and the occasional expropriation of vast fortunes like Khodorkovsky's). Income inequality is exacerbated by enormous regional disparities, with some areas of the country at the level of sub-Saharan Africa and others at the level of the EU --[is not this the same in the USA ? NNB]

    Through it all, Vladimir Putin remains popular - even more so now than before the Ukraine crisis broke out. The economy might have recently gone south, as a result of sanctions and falling energy prices, but Putin has racked up an 86-percent approval rating.

    There's no reason to doubt these numbers. Russians have long favored an "iron fist" style of leadership, and Putin has delivered in spades, by stabilizing the economy, reducing violent crime, arresting population decline, and installing a puppet dictator in Chechnya to "solve" the crisis there (a dictator who, to give the Kremlin plausible deniability, is probably responsible for the murders of Putin's opponents). But Putin's popularity is not a sign of democratic health. After all, Russian respect for Stalin has also shot up over the last decade or so.

    To get these poll numbers, Putin has put together a potent brew of nationalism, Orthodox Christianity, and social conservatism, all served with a splash of gaudy entertainment via state-controlled television. It's a cocktail that has proven attractive to right-wing politicians all over Europe, like Viktor Orban of Hungary, Marine Le Pen of France, and Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party.

    Of course, like Greenwald, we should be concerned about the Azov Battalion and high-ranking extremists in the Ukrainian government (even if far-right parties like Svoboda and Right Sector have bombed at the polls). But the real darling of the far right is Putin. It's no surprise that European extremists are intoxicated by his authoritarian style. The mystery is why some on the left have also drunk the Kremlin's Kool-Aid.

    John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Mar 27, 2015] Obama's Drone Policy Crashes and Burns BY Leonard C. Goodman

    But until we end the partnership between government and corporate power, three things will remain constant: Our foreign policy will be expensive for U.S. taxpayers, profitable for the war contractors and disastrous for everyday people.
    In These Times
    The unraveling of Yemen should be a wake-up call for Obama loyalists. Obama was elected in large part because of his opposition to the disastrous Iraq War and his promise of a smarter Middle East policy, one less reliant on invasion and occupation. Nevertheless, in office, Obama has supported the occupation of Afghanistan and the NATO-led overthrow of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi, which led to chaos.

    Still, as Obama explained in a September 2014 foreign policy speech, the centerpiece of his strategy in the Middle East has been a more long-distance approach: "taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines." In other words: air strikes, drones and military aid. He touted the success of this strategy in Yemen and Somalia.

    Indeed, Yemen has been the poster child for Obama's Middle East strategy. Using the U.S. military bases that surround Yemen, we have propped up the corrupt and repressive regimes of President Ali Abdullah Saleh and his successor, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi (i.e., our "partners on the front lines"). In exchange, they let us incinerate alleged militants. And when we slaughter innocents (like 35 women and children in a 2009 bombing, or 12 members of a wedding party in a 2014 drone strike), our partners help cover up our crimes, even jailing the Yemeni journalist who exposed the U.S. role in the 2009 attack.

    Of course, the cover-up was effective only in the United States, where most of our news comes from corporate sources that almost never challenge official pronouncements about military or CIA missions. The Yemeni people know all too well our criminal acts. Last September, 13-yearold Mohammed Tuaiman al-Jahmi told the Guardian that "he lived in constant fear of the 'death machines' in the sky that had already killed his father and brother" in 2011, as they were out herding the family's camels. In February, Mohammed himself was killed by a U.S. drone.

    The Obama "success story" in Yemen had already come to an end in January, when Houthi rebels took control of the presidential compound in Sanaa, ousting Hadi, his prime minister and his entire cabinet. The motto of the new leaders is "Death to America, death to Israel, curse on the Jews, victory to Islam." On February 10, the State Department confirmed that it had closed the U.S. embassy in Yemen, the third in an Arab country since 2012.

    In truth, Obama's foreign policy is similar to George W. Bush's. The war contractors want to keep the rivers of taxpayer cash flowing into their coffers, while multinational energy firms want the U.S. to keep supporting brutal, undemocratic regimes that keep their boots on the necks of restive citizens who might object to foreign firms exploiting national resources. And as long as our laws permit corrupt ties between corporate interests and politicians, we will continue to see disastrous failure after failure of our foreign policy.

    In February, Obama led a three-day summit on countering violent extremism. The president's remarks at this summit, of course, made no mention of our odious drone policy. No citizens of Yemen or Pakistan were invited to speak about how living with the constant anxiety caused by armed drones buzzing in the sky drives residents to join anti-U.S. terror groups. Nor was there any talk of the blowback caused by the U.S. military bases which garrison the greater Middle East, or of the corrupt, repressive regimes that those U.S. bases support. Instead, leaders of some of those regimes attended the summit.

    Obama did offer empty rhetoric about how we are not at war with Islam. Such words are unlikely to impress Muslims outside the United States, who know that it's Muslims who populate Obama's kill list, who are indefinitely detained at Guantánamo without charges and whose systematic torture by the CIA was swept under the rug by Obama.

    Americans, who are ill-informed about our actions overseas, will hear Obama's empathetic rhetoric and quite rationally conclude that the reason we are losing in places like Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is because Obama is too soft. Perhaps our next president will be someone who promises to get tougher on Muslim extremists.

    But until we end the partnership between government and corporate power, three things will remain constant: Our foreign policy will be expensive for U.S. taxpayers, profitable for the war contractors and disastrous for everyday people.

    [Mar 26, 2015] Ukraine pleads for quick restructuring of debts by Larry Elliott

    "I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere) will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled." ... "How embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots who have prostituted their credibility on the altar of propaganda." This neocons who run the show has thrown Ukrainian people into abysmal poverty and horrors of civil war and now want to sell all the assets for pennies on the dollar. Note activity of Psakibots (psigone, jessam, nickpossum, Mike_UK, etc) in comments. Quote: "I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation. Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad at all. I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer to say nothing than the wrong thing."

    Mar 24, 2015 | The Guardian

    Finance minister Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so Ukraine can move towards stability

    Jeremn -> MartinArvay 26 Mar 2015 09:04

    It is Shock Therapy II. Deregulation. Privatisation ("privatization of everything that can be privatized and we plan to start it this year," she said on 13 March). Selling off assets. Firing staff.

    See the number of staff being sacked from state institutions. 50% from the economic ministry alone. The minister helpfully remarked

    "One can't do anything with old staff."

    OldStickie -> Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 06:53

    East European oligarchs usually buy themselves Israeli citizenship. There is no extradition from Israel so that is where you go when justice begins to catch up with you.

    sodtheproles Goodthanx 26 Mar 2015 05:47

    Common sense dictates federalisation for the whole of Ukraine. The existing situation benefits only the US, and their arms manufacturers, no one else

    61gvern 25 Mar 2015 21:12

    I notice the Graun finally reported on the Kolomoisky situation.

    Only a week after he sent his armed gangs to occupy corporate HQs in Kiev. Not bad, not bad at all. I guess it takes time to be sure what the party line is in such delicate situations. Safer to say nothing than the wrong thing.

    nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 17:37

    As far as I understand, with Ukraine is happening now something similar with the patient over which performs open-heart surgery. So, while the surgeons do not complete the operation, they must attach a patient to the artificial heart and artificial lungs, otherwise he would have died.

    Similarly, the Ukraine until recently was inextricably linked with Russia's economic and industrial complex. Severing those ties were equally to the separation of man from his heart during surgery. And, IMF now plays the role of an artificial heart, which should maintain the patient's bloodstream until they implanted a new heart to him. How long the operation will last, and whether it will ever be successful, it is obvious that neither the IMF knows himself. Because, as Natali Jaresko said, Ukraine is a very big country, and throughout the EU is currently a major crisis.

    Also, it is not known how the patient (Ukraine) will pay "the cost of the operation" to the IMF, if one day he really healed, and will he ever be able to do so.

    sodtheproles -> Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 17:12

    I meant for ability to use government to line her own pockets, certainly not for her investment 'skills'

    Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 17:02

    Prof. Steven Cohen, of Princeton and NYU, calls the Ukraine situation "the worst international crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWzHhW_qNiM

    He's probably just a Putin-bot.


    Gonzogal -> sodtheproles 25 Mar 2015 16:22

    That $150 million WNISEF fund handed by Jaresko has lost more than a third of its value since the Ukrainian economy tanked. As she steps into office, Kiev's foreign reserves are down to $10 billion and shrinking, while inflation roars at 22 percent.

    albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 16:06

    http://tass.ru/en/world/784470

    my sources mostly Russian and Ukrainian news agencies or blogs. There has been occupations and clashes between the regime forces and battalions in Kiev, Dniepr and also in Odessa.

    However my best independent source is Colonel Cassad.

    Gonzogal 25 Mar 2015 15:43

    Some background on Natalie Jaresko:

    Ukraine's new Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko, a former U.S. State Department officer who was granted Ukrainian citizenship only this week, headed a U.S. government-funded investment project for Ukraine that involved substantial insider dealings, including $1 million-plus fees to a management company that she also controlled.

    Jaresko served as president and chief executive officer of Western NIS Enterprise Fund (WNISEF), which was created by the U.S. Agency for International Development (U.S. AID) with $150 million to spur business activity in Ukraine. She also was cofounder and managing partner of Horizon Capital which managed WNISEF's investments at a rate of 2 to 2.5 percent of committed capital, fees exceeding $1 million in recent years, according to WNISEF's 2012 annual report.

    The growth of that insider dealing at the U.S.-taxpayer-funded WNISEF is further underscored by the number of paragraphs committed to listing the "related party transactions," i.e., potential conflicts of interest, between an early annual report from 2003 and the one a decade later.

    In the 2003 report, the "related party transactions" were summed up in two paragraphs, with the major item a $189,700 payment to a struggling computer management company where WNISEF had an investment.

    In the 2012 report, the section on "related party transactions" covered some two pages and included not only the management fees to Jaresko's Horizon Capital ($1,037,603 in 2011 and $1,023,689 in 2012) but also WNISEF's co-investments in projects with the Emerging Europe Growth Fund [EEGF], where Jaresko was founding partner and chief executive officer. Jaresko's Horizon Capital also managed EEGF.

    From 2007 to 2011, WNISEF co-invested $4.25 million with EEGF in Kerameya LLC, a Ukrainian brick manufacturer, and WNISEF sold EEGF 15.63 percent of Moldova's Fincombank for $5 million, the report said. It also listed extensive exchanges of personnel and equipment between WNISEF and Horizon Capital.

    Though it's difficult for an outsider to ascertain the relative merits of these insider deals, they could reflect negatively on Jaresko's role as Ukraine's new finance minister given the country's reputation for corruption and cronyism, a principal argument for the U.S.-backed "regime change" that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.

    Read more: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/

    DerFremde -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 15:02

    That's nothing their president Poroshenko has been on the American payroll since at least 2006.

    Wikileaks Cable 06KIEV1706_a

    frankverismo -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 14:30

    "Russian President Putin's game plan now in Ukraine is to turn it into a failed state as an example to the others in his EurAsian (customs) Union."

    As if Putin and Lavrov need to do anything - it's already a failed state. All thanks to Washington, its NATO stooges and a woefully naive Ukrainian population.

    Jeff1000 -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 13:07

    Ukraine is a disaster - anybody can see that. Your decidedly odd efforts to convince...somebody...that Ukraine is about to turn around and become a healthy economy is, frankly, mad.

    If there isn't another coup, or at least huge unrest in Kiev, by the end of the year it will be a near miracle.

    HollyOldDog -> SHappens 25 Mar 2015 10:38

    The foundations of the bridge between Russia and Crimea are due to go in this spring though the bridge completion could take 2years. Has anyone heard of how the pipelines from Russia to Crimea are progressing - one for gas and the other for water. I think it's best for Crimea to be totally physically seperated from Ukraine for the safety of the Crimean citizens.

    Griffon79 -> nnedjo 25 Mar 2015 10:09

    pretty sure the shadow government in the US has decided to destroy the US - the social compact has been broken - no longer do they act in national interests, but private, commercial ones.

    I give them about a half century before collapse followed by civil war.

    Griffon79 -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 10:05

    Incorrect, but either your juvenile patriotism, or ignorance, or possibly payola prevents you from seeing the absurdness of your position.

    Luckily, the rest of the world as they say is not so dim.

    Griffon79 -> Jonathan Stromberg 25 Mar 2015 10:01

    No, there isnt. This little coup has made that clear to the intellectuals in the West - you know, the ones not in government in journalism, the ones who make the society tick, that our media is at least as, if not more corrupt than any media, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, with the possible exception of North Korea.

    So, I guess the elite thought we would either swallow this, after Syria, Iraq, Libya and countless other misadventures, or that they could retain some credibility after this propaganda assault.

    Wrong on both counts.

    Griffon79 -> Jonathan Stromberg 25 Mar 2015 09:58

    Alleged? ALLEGED? Please.

    Here, from the fine Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/05/ukraine-women-fighting-frontline

    Check out the insignia on the vehicle behind 'anaconda'. Really great people our 'leaders' have elected to ally with eh?

    Just to defend against your next deflection, it is in fact the neonazo simple 1488, as the Guardian, under pressure BTL, was forced to admit.

    I bet some poor staffer got in trouble for that.

    Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:55

    Ukraine was not attacking anyone until they had a coup, didnt like resistance in the East, and so sent a bunch of neonazi hooligans and their poorly equipped army to attack civilian populations.

    Facts. Unsubjective ones. You feel me, Guardian?

    Griffon79 -> psygone Mar 2015 09:52

    Yes, and America will be nowhere to be seen. America likes to talk big but when it comes down to the wire, they will sacrifice their 'allies' in a heartbeat.

    Griffon79 -> Mike_UK 25 Mar 2015 09:42

    They weren't Ukrainian nuclear weapons ; they were Russian. The Russians were taking back what they owned. Also, given recent history, its probably a good thing the nutcases in the Ukrainian coup government do not have nukes, n'est pas?

    What do you think happens to the US economy when oil is no longer being traded almost exclusively in US dollars?

    Just curious what the Langley view is.

    Griffon79 -> rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 09:38

    This point, from the HEAVENS:

    "This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated."

    Griffon79 -> Systematic 25 Mar 2015 09:35

    They don't conform to their dishonest narrative, so they wont report on it.
    Right now meetings are being held to determine the best possible way to spin the news for the few dullards who remain supportive in Western nations of the Ukrainian coup government.

    Griffon79 -> TOR2000 25 Mar 2015 09:34

    ah yes but don't expect the vaunted Guardian to report that; they think we are rubes who will swallow their outrageous lies hook line and sinker

    newsflash, kids in short pants, you are the ones killing your creditibility, not us

    johnbonn -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 09:31

    You are on fire today, 'how are you'. Keep it going.

    Griffon79 -> GreatMountainEagle 25 Mar 2015 09:31

    Erm. Ukraine can. Ukraine is like a child that does not understand why her parents wont give her more money after she spends her allowance on candy.

    Only instead of candy, she is spending her money on weapons with which to attack her own (former) citizens.

    Griffon79 -> Demi Boone 25 Mar 2015 09:26

    Its getting bad then since this has been true from the start.

    How embarassing for the Guardian; history will not be kind to the complicit, useful idiots who have prostituted their credibility on the altar of propaganda.

    johnbonn -> retsdon 25 Mar 2015 09:25

    How else was the US going to conduct a regime change. And speaking of thugs and carpet baggers Joe Biden fits in nicely.

    And why would you put the words western and credibility together - - a contradiction in terms.

    Griffon79 -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 09:19

    "Ukraine will not be allowed to founder by the West whatever "

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Are you really that naive? Explains a lot, if you are Ukrainian. Idealists, not realists.

    Griffon79 -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 09:16

    Well, as a Canadian, I certainly don't support your blatant lies and distortions.

    The misinformation campaign headquartered in Langley has failed, miserably. People are only too aware of how our corrupt governments have connived in order to support a coup. People are only too aware that the coup government is a mashup of neonazi nationalists, corrupt oligarchs and poorly trained and equipped (and led - look at Debaltseve) conscripts who are deserting in droves.

    We are aware the vast majority of the roughly 1 MILLION refugees fled East, to Russia. Not West, to the people trying to kill them. We are aware the vast majority of the killed civilians were killed by the Ukrainian coup government using artillery and that those same forces are being trained and equipped by our subservient governments.

    We are aware Ukraine is a financial black hole that our governments will throw taxpayer dollars into, despite a crumbling domestic economy.

    Oh - on the neonazis, dont even try to deny it. The Guardiane even posted an article about 'women of the revolution' unintentionally exposing their neonazi leanings when they were photogrpahed next to a van showing the brigade insignia of the SS (yes, that SS, WAFFEN SS)

    Long and short, the battle for 'hearts and minds' is long lost. If the US agitates for WWIII to save their bankrupt state, I think the leaders best check their heads are still attached to their shoulders. People are the power, not the banksters and their puppets.

    This conflict has done more to awaken Western citizens to the utter abrogation of our soverignity to US aggression than any of their previous illegal adventures. We dont like what we see.

    sodtheproles -> MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:34

    That's why they called shelling their own citizens an anti-terrorist operation. The Americans have a lot to answer for, not least their abuse of the English language. Anyone remember 'collateral damage'?

    MaiKey Dee 25 Mar 2015 08:26

    I thought the IMF was not permitted to lend to countries in a state of civil war

    todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 08:08

    Poroshenko: Ukrainian army among five strongest in Europe

    Yet they have to "orderly" retreat in the middle of the night from Debaltsevo leaving dead and injured behind as well as equipment. Furthermore they keep on begging for more money to arm these army while the population cannot afford to feed itself...

    retsdon 25 Mar 2015 07:56

    As this well-researched article at the Saker makes evident, the Ukrainian leadership is a rat's nest of criminals, thugs, and carpet-baggers. It debases western credibility entirely that we even deal with such people at all, leave alone support and court them. And it dirties the rest of us by association.

    http://thesaker.is/kolomoisky-finishing-ukraine-up/

    ivan2034 -> Drifterrus 25 Mar 2015 07:47

    Victoria Nuland's background is even more telling. Quite frightening in fact.

    todaywefight -> Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 07:28

    I have taken the liberty to copy your post to a series of documents that I keep since the beginning of this sad episodes...as your comment is one of the very few posts that is solid and deeply relevant, as such it affects ones feelings just as deeply, thank you.

    sodtheproles -> HollyOldDog 25 Mar 2015 07:03

    Robert Parry
    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/05/ukraines-made-in-usa-finance-minister/

    SHappens 25 Mar 2015 06:49

    Moody's has downgraded Ukraine's "long-term issuer and government debt ratings to Ca from Caa3" with a "negative" outlook. The ratings agency said in a press release that its move "reflects Moody's expectation that Ukraine's government and external debt levels will remain very high, in spite of the debt restructuring and plans to introduce reforms."
    https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Ukraines-sovereign-ratings-to-Ca-outlook-remains-negative--PR_320764

    Meanwhile:

    Crimea has been experiencing an upsurge in development following its reunification with Russia thanks to the country's investment in the republic. "Crimea has not developed at such a pace as it has in the past year over the past twenty years.

    Unfortunately, the 23-year-long tenure in Ukraine has been the time of regression for Crimea. The Ukrainian government did not invest a single penny into Crimea, at the same time it sucked out all possible resources from here," Polonsky told Sputnik, stressing that Russia "is taking an entirely different route" which is making a "drastic" difference on the peninsula. But even if Crimea residents were told not to expect any investment from the Russian government a year ago, they would have "still made the choice of becoming part of Russia," the minister stressed. The social standards, salaries and the level of medical services in Crimea grew sharply in the past year.

    Standupwoman 25 Mar 2015 06:49

    "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour".

    Listen, Ms 'Insider Trading' Jaresco, and I'll tell you what you and your country have actually done to Britain.

    You've damaged our economy by unjust sanctions, and used our taxpayers' money to fund your murderous war on your own people. British citizens are reduced to living off food banks, but you're demanding we divert our spending into NATO defence – to fight an enemy that would never have been a threat if you hadn't interfered in the first place.

    You've released a poison into Europe that will take generations to cure. You've split us in two, revived old racial hatreds, and brought back the spectre of Nazism to the countries that suffered from it most. You've forced us into provocations that have brought us to the very brink of war – and one that threatens to destroy us all.

    You've insulted our war dead by your revision of history. You've hailed Hitler as a liberator, deified those who committed mass murder under the Nazi flag, and defiled monuments to those who resisted him. You've made our war sacrifices worthless, and forced us to stand by while Nazi sympathizers glorify their heroes at the site of our own Cenotaph. You've forced us to insult our war allies by snubbing the May 9th acknowledgement of the millions of Russian dead whose sacrifice enabled our own country to survive. You've dishonoured us all.

    You've taken away our self-respect, and put us for ever on the wrong side of history. You've forced us to condone the destruction of democracy, and made us complicit in war crimes. You've put us in breach of the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, the Vienna Conventions for the protection of Embassies, and even made us abandon the presumption of innocence. God knows we didn't have much moral credibility after our colonial past, but you've taken from us every last little shred of decency we had left.

    And now you want us to pay for the privilege?

    No, Ms Jaresco. You can take your begging bowl back to Washington and tell them, 'You broke it – you own it.' Get them to stop the war, bring justice to the innocent, and give freedom to the people of the East. Get them to help those ordinary decent Ukrainians who only wanted the chance of a better life, and were misled by you to their ruin. Get them to rebuild Donbass, give back homes to the 1.5 million displaced people, help and compensate the bereaved families of those 60,000 dead. And when they've done all that, then it'll be time to start thinking about what reparations you can make to us…

    sodtheproles -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:49

    Let's hope she's booked her ticket
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Saigon-hubert-van-es.jpg

    Goodthanx -> oleteo 25 Mar 2015 06:43

    Its fantastic isnt it? You couldnt script better characters than a self styled President in rent a Prop Poroshenko, Pre Menstraul Yatsintook, 'Its a miracle i can walk' Tymoshenko.. The list goes on..

    TrueBrit1066 -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:42

    Thanks for this. Why does this not surprise me? :)

    oleteo -> Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:37

    I'd wish a success to Ukies but ultranationalism can't be a success

    HollyOldDog -> justTR 25 Mar 2015 06:37

    Except for those countries who refuse to keep filling the pot.

    Sargv_ -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:35

    > The only countries in recent history that have resorted to mass killings of their own people are Russia, China and Cambodia

    USSR was not Russia, not even by a long shot. For starters, Russians were a minority on all levels of early-days soviet state machine, and were, by far, the most oppressed nation during communist rule. Consider the gains and losses for all the nations occupied by bosheviks prior to communist revolution, and after the Soviet collapse.

    It's Russians, Chechens Russian Germans who lost the most, while Georgia - a homeland of Stalin, and Ukraine - a homeland of Kruschev and Brezhnev, gained enormous territories and industries. They lost most of this in just 25 years, but that's anothe story.

    todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:32

    Sorry I don't see any mention of demonstrations and the army getting ready mate..just give me a link please

    Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:32

    she is the only candidate who does not scream for war. People, especially his allies, are fed up with Yatsenyuk's foul, nonsense, warmongering language. Let's see who will be the winner of this fight for power.

    todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:28

    Thank you very much

    oleteo 25 Mar 2015 06:27

    Good girl, good start.

    At the beginning there was the begging for money, now and then there would be an incessant begging to write off.

    Albatros18 -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:27

    Porkoshenko's website.

    Verbum -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 06:25

    The US spent 5 billion between 1991 and 2014 on the development of standard democratic institutions in Ukraine

    Is Kolomoisky and his private army one of the 'standard democratic institutions' funded by the US in Ukraine?

    Verbum -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:23

    Kolomoisky, Poroshenko, Yats... Is it the 'democracy' the Yanks spent 5 billion dollars on? The dollar doesn't seem to buy much nowadays. And Nuland's cookies to top it all up... All wasted.

    Sargv_ 25 Mar 2015 06:21

    With all that constant 'donate for the good cause' narrative here and there, Ukraine should finally drop the idea of being a sovereign state (as they are clearly suck at this) and register as a World-first 45mln-strong charity organisation instead.

    Goodthanx -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:19

    I say let them! The fighters of DPR are looking forward to the resupply!


    Jeff1000 25 Mar 2015 06:18

    Finance minister Natalie Jaresko...

    Interesting notes on the career/life of Ms Jaresko:

    - Born in America, still a US citizen.
    - Not a Ukrainian citizen until 2014, Poroshenko pushed a special law through parliament in order to make her FM.

    - Her dual citizenships are illegal under Ukrainian law (they seem to be OK with it).

    - Held jobs at: The US State Dept, the US Treasury and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

    Just another sign that the USA has absolutely NOTHING to do with the mess in Kiev, and it certainly isn't about grabbing money, influence and/or natural resources.

    Goodthanx -> todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 06:17

    I have never lived there, but a close examination and reading of history plus an attitude that remembers we are talking about human life.. Is enough to convince me to the virtues of this cause.

    ID075732 -> Parangaricurimicuaro 25 Mar 2015 06:16

    But it's no secret where she came from!

    todaywefight -> Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:16

    Apparently he resigned... and Poroshenko accepted his resignation and installed one of his followers to the position.

    Do you have any links to the rest of your post? if that lady becomes the PM Ukraine is gone for all money.

    Sargv_ -> nickpossum 25 Mar 2015 06:15

    > Two simple truths. The West does not want a war with Russia. If Russia attacks the West, it will be destroyed.

    If Russia attacks the West, it'll attack the part it can reach, which is, obviously, the EU.

    So the outcome will be slightly more complicated: Russia attacks The West, EU and Russia are both destroyed, while The Rest of The West grab all the gains (nobody will ever mention that $17tln debt; there'd be no high-end market competition wit US goods - and so on, and so forth).

    There's only one winner in this conflict, no matter how hot it will get: the USoA. Europeans are predefined to the role of economical donor for pro-US Ukraine at best, WW3 cannon fodder at worst.

    todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 06:12

    What is sad is that, having lived in the country for many years I feel so sorry for the people, the normal people, not the Gucci, Ferragamo and Zegna brigade the guys wearing $4000 suits wth a black tee shirt, the ones that their idea of being part of parliament is to sit the whole day in Passage, or go to Da vinci fo lunch or go to Mafia for dinner and look important when their chauffeurs open the door of the black mercs a disgusting low life.

    It will never be the same, forces were unleashed last year by Nuland that helped create a generational hatred and the loss of life not to mention the lose of 1/5 of the country and if Poroshenko or anyone else think that the eggs can be unscrambled I can advise them that they do not need the IMF but a bunch of Clinical Psychiatrists

    HollyOldDog vr13vr 25 Mar 2015 06:09

    But it won't last. The Anericans always screwup.

    Sargv_ -> geedeesee 25 Mar 2015 06:06

    > "Jaresko said that, in five years, she wanted to see a Ukraine at peace"

    "In five years I want to be a five years sober." We definitely need an international AA for country-wide hangovers caused by 'we are the people' riots.

    HollyOldDog -> someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 06:05

    But the USA fallout is to destroy whatever is left of the Ukraine economy leaving it citizens with far higher food and fuel costs.

    While Russia is finding new friends and markets the World over. Strange how many countries are now learning that if you don't protect your back then expect an USA knife trying to rip your guts out .

    DerFremde -> HollyOldDog 25 Mar 2015 06:05

    wag the dog, Holly, wag the dog

    first law of democratisation, you will open your markets to us in full. nationalised assets will be privatised and you will take out IMF loans to do the 'restructuring' not the so-called investors. this debt will be paid for by the population in due course.

    Albatros18 25 Mar 2015 06:03

    Kolomoisky sacked by Poroshenko, the former's private army is on alert to attack government buildings, hundreds protest in Kiev asking Yatsenyuk's head, the reports suggest that the finance minister, the Chicago born lady to become PM, the junta still shells Donetsk towns, and what the Americans want: send more weapons. Only continuing conflict would save the Americans' crooks in Kiev in short term.

    todaywefight -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 05:57

    Yes actually I saw one of the interviews, she wants the Russians not to call the debt, she also wants peace and then she turns the switch on and talks like Nuland and proceeds to shit all over Russia, It think the girl will be done like a dinner in no time...

    todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:47

    Probably the most important part about your posts is that they are totally disconnected from reality, and, as such we do not really have to even give you the courtesy of an answer.

    todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:42

    ...the 2,000,000 to 3,600,000 killed in Vietnam and the millions left without limbs and the destruction of their cities. How about the hundreds of thousands dead in latin america due to the intervention of the US...the exceptional country...the thing is that all these deaths were based on lies invented by your country

    AlexRS -> psygone 25 Mar 2015 05:41

    Don't lie. Russia defaulted only on its internal debt in 1998. Russia cleared Soviet debt by 2006 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2945924/Reborn-Russia-clears-Soviet-debt.html

    todaywefight -> jezzam 25 Mar 2015 05:37

    What exactly do you call the targeted wooden buildings and the firebombing of these buildings by 300 b29s killing an US official "100000" and two days later the bombing of Hyrishima and Nagasaky, the 1,000,000 killed in Ira


    Goodthanx -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 02:36

    As a Jew myself, i can tell you that Kolomovsky and the likes of him, does not represent me or the greater Ukrainian Jewish community. Referencing a 'dial-a-jew', does not provide validity to your argument, just provides further fuel to the propoganda fire.

    Lastly i believe the question was, 'who do you work for?'

    MSM is full of articles and comments that demonise Putin and Russia. The problem is, there is no where near enough attention and scrutiny brought towards the country that staged a violent coup helped by neo nazis who now control critical ministerial positions in the Rada, declared an ATO on their own civilian population in the east, murdered opposition and intimidate the rest, burn thru international funds and pocket the rest, war crimes..etc

    These are the issues.

    PlatonKuzin 25 Mar 2015 02:04

    Kolomoisky id no longer a governor but the questions remain and the conflict between the oligarchs in Ukraine gains strong momentum. What next?

    todaywefight 25 Mar 2015 01:58

    In 1887, the struggle for control of Hawaii was at its height as David Kalakaua was elected to the Hawaiian throne. King Kalakaua signed a reciprocity treaty with the United States making it possible for sugar to be sold to the U.S. market tax-free, but the haole - or "white" - businessmen were still distrustful of him. They criticized his ties to men they believed to be corrupt, his revival of Hawaiian traditions such as the historic Hula, and construction of the royal Iolani Palace. A scandal involving Kalakaua erupted in the very year he was crowned, and it united his opponents, a party of businessmen under the leadership of Lorrin Thurston. The opposition used the threat of violence to force the Kalakua to accept a new constitution that stripped the monarchy of executive powers and replaced the cabinet with members of the businessmen's party. The new constitution, which effectively disenfranchised most native Hawaiian voters, came to be known as the "Bayonet Constitution" because Kalakaua signed it under duress.

    Replace Nuland for Thurston and there you have a good example of there is no reason for reinventing the wheel.

    irishinrussia -> UncleSam404 25 Mar 2015 01:16

    Russia is not broke by any stretch of the imagination. It has a very low debt to GDP ratio. It still has $360 billion in reserves (even if that figure continues to decline at its current rate - unlikely as the rouble has stabilised - that would still give them almost three years before that money ran out). The budget deficit for last year was very small. This year it is projected to be around 3% (incidentally, about what the US deficit was last year and is projected to be for the next ten years). It continues to run a balance of payments surplus even with lower oil prices. The situation in Russia is certainly not peachy, but it is a far cry from "broke".

    Demi Boone -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 01:09

    Oh Vlad, take a look at the marches honoring the Ukranian SS that just took place across Ukraine where thousands showed up, or the SS armbands worn by extreme right participants in the Maiden or the Azov Battalion who brags of their SS devotion (but they are quick to denounce the atrocities of WW2) I challenge you to show any article promoting NeoNazi's in Russia. You have obviously not read any Russian History to know the hatred these people have for the idea of the Nazi. Your accusations of Nemstov's murder are pure speculation based on your biased opinion. There were no Nuclear threats made by Russia rather they were saying that all systems were on alert. When a Russian plane flies close to the UK you had better believe they are on the same high alert. With regards to your statement about News credibility most media sources in the US whitewash the news. Did you read anything in any major papers about the people who were run over by Ukranian forces and given permission to "shoot to kill" if the crowd got too out of hand and began to fight back?

    someoneionceknew -> Goodthanx 25 Mar 2015 00:57

    What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova?

    CIA, buddy. She's a company gal.

    someoneionceknew 25 Mar 2015 00:51

    "The good news is that we have made great progress on stability."

    Words fail me.

    These CIA types certainly can gild a lily when required.


    Jerome Fryer normankirk 25 Mar 2015 00:44

    The Russian economy in GDP terms is expected to have a 5% contraction year on year, then pick up growing. That assumes no favourable changes in oil price, and doesn't factor in Putin's attempts to steer the Russian economy into greater self-sufficiency. Oil is likely to recover, and the attempt to shift / diversify the economy could go either way.

    (At a minimum, they will be replacing as much of Ukraine's former supply of critical components as quickly as possible. Russia have been handing out citizenship papers and jobs like candy to any Ukrainians that were working in the defense related industries. Putin isn't trying to rebuild the USSR, but he is trying to maintain the capabilities of the USSR by drawing critical personnel -- and allegedly machinery -- into Russia.)


    Jerome Fryer -> BorninUkraine 25 Mar 2015 00:33

    It is very sad.

    Western propaganda used to be a lot smarter, presumably because of the 'clash of ideologies' background. Now we are back to the old, pre-Communist threat, standard of "The Kaiser eats babies".

    Most people tend to only 'believe' this nonsense at a superficial level, though. Ask them about the 'reporting' and you'll find that they consider the assertions dubious. Effective propaganda is intended to operate at more of a subliminal / emotional level, and bypass our thinking abilities.

    Jerome Fryer -> pantaraxia 25 Mar 2015 00:25

    He is also president of European Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates into backing from powerful Jewish interests in the US and Israel.

    That is debatable, and incorrect. See here for why he resigned from the ECJC and started his own "European Jewish Union".

    Kolomoisky is no less divisive than Poroshenko. He is, however, very much an 'old school' Jewish mafia type -- and prone to blatant aggressive behaviour such as the recent takeover of the UkrTransNafta building by his 'private security'.

    Oh, and it appears that Poroshenko has gone with the option to try to arrest Kolomoisky's 'private security', as a start. (Source seems to be RT, though, so about as reliable / unreliable as the BBC.)

    todaywefight -> Vladimire_Poutine 25 Mar 2015 00:17

    Are you from the newly created Ministry of Truth in Kyiv? or "ukraine tomorrow"?
    The former is an oxymoron Truth and Ukraine should never be on the same sentence unless it says Ukraine failed to tell the truth...that is acceptable...

    I dont know Vladimire...in view of the current events and the little fight amongst the Oligarchs...and accusations against Kolomoisky, his partners and his rather strong response, I am not sure who the crazy ones are here.

    HollyOldDog ID075732 25 Mar 2015 00:15

    I could be wrong but I half remember a political cartoon depicting the USA as a Wreaking Ball against some other economy. I will have to check later.

    BorninUkraine rogermell1e 25 Mar 2015 00:04

    Wow! The circus keeps going.

    Poroshenko relieved Kolomoisky of duties of Dniepropetrovsk governor (directive 173/2015).

    In response, Kolomoisky promised to take his battalions from the war zone with LNR/DNR and direct them to take over Kremenchug power plant and the office of Ukrtransgas (Ukrainian "state" company involved in transport of natural gas). Mega-thieves started all-out struggle, revealing the criminal nature of current Ukrainian state for all to see in the process.

    How can Western media report such a piece of evidence directly incriminating the US and EU?

    Old_Donkey 24 Mar 2015 23:53

    Let's hope that Natalie Jaresko's skills as a financier are better than her skills as a diplomat. She's asking Russia to accept a haircut on $3 billion of debt, and Ukraine's situation is so desperate that you can't blame her for trying. But if she wants the Kremlin to "buy into this vision", she will need to learn some manners and show Russia some more respect first. Jaresko presents Ukraine as a country that is "protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour". No one who wanted to persuade Vladimir Putin to restructure the debt would say that unless they were either very stupid or dutifully repeating State Department propaganda (or both).

    The fundamental problem with the Ukrainian government is that it is incapable of restoring stability to Ukraine and instead seems hell-bent on a continuation of the civil war. The Kiev government remains absolutely opposed to finding a political solution to the problems in Eastern Ukraine and refuses to recognize the authority of the rebel leaders, who, in Donetsk and Lugansk, are clearly "the only game in town". Jaresko's own government is busily wrecking the Minsk 2 agreement and has thereby enormously increased the political risks attached to any new loans. Already, Ukrainian forces have violated the ceasefire by firing on Russian journalists and OSCE observers near Shirokino.

    The purpose of an IMF loan is not to enable a country to rearm or to continue fighting a civil war but to help it to rebuild its financial system. Until we can be confident that Kiev is committed to implementing Minsk 2, all IMF loans to the Kiev government would therefore be irresponsible and offered on a dishonest basis. The IMF is specifically prohibited from offering war loans by its own charter. At the moment, it looks as though Kiev needed Minsk 2 merely for form's sake, so that it could screw some more cash out of Christine Lagarde to pay for a reconquest of the Donbass once spring arrives.

    Madame Lagarde's career has always benefitted from American support, and her eagerness to return the favour is understandable. She knows how the game is played but she also knows that loyalty to a patron has its limits. So if Jaresko and her State Department controllers expect Madame Lagarde to violate the IMF's own rules by continuing to fund Ukraine's neo-Nazi war machine, they may find themselves disappointed. Madame Lagarde still has a reputation to protect but Jaresko lost hers as soon as she joined the criminal regime in Kiev.

    Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:46

    "we are lucky to have the support of the IMF."

    Yes well according to Jaresko's biography which includes very cosey relationship with the IMF, i dont think luck played any hand in it.

    What is it by the way, with her numerous investments in Ukraine and Moldova? Conflict of interest? Or just business as usual?

    http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=70651&privcapId=23915&previousCapId=47577789&previousTitle=Shatkin%2520Arbor,%2520Inc.

    ID075732 24 Mar 2015 23:43

    Jaresko said she could not complain that Ukraine had been ignored while the European Union tried to sort out the problems of Greece.

    It's a joke isn't it?

    Jaresko parachuted in by the US to help shore-up the coup they created financially and think it should have the same status as Greece. Now claiming a similar restructuring package that the EU refused for Tsipras?

    The difference being that Ukraine is not part of the EU, nor part of NATO.

    Jaresko is claiming that Russia is a threat to Europe? We all know Putin's big idea was for more trade integration with Europe that was the actual threat the US didn't want. So they turned Ukraine into a buffer against this happening, although its become more of a punch bag.

    Another wreaking US intervention, we're all wise to this now. And when it's wreaked buy it cheap - great for Amerika's business. A win win for US backed business, a lose lose for the Ukrainian people!

    EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 23:31

    Well, the oligarch war in Ukraine is intensifying. Kolomoiskyi threatened the head of Naftogas to take his battalions out of the war zone and to occupy the office of Ukrtransgas and Kremenchug power station. Poroshenko just fired Kolomoiskyi from his position of the Governor of Dnepropetrovsk region, which Kolomoiskyi is not about to give up, of course. The Ukrainian parliament, Rada, in the meantime is considering privatization of Privatbank owned by Kolomoiskyi, the move that could crush whatever is left of the Ukrainian financial system. Curiouser and curiouser.

    I do hope that even those people in the West who had no clue before now realize that kind of personages their governments brought to power in Ukraine. Ukraine is in chaos, there is no government to speak of, and all these colorful individuals keep their personal airplanes ready for immediate departure.


    Goodthanx 24 Mar 2015 23:09

    "There is always a risk of a default," she added, noting that several factions in Ukraine's parliament were demanding that the government go down that route.

    In Ukraine, we call it the classic 'Ha Ha..screw you maneuver.'

    twiglette 24 Mar 2015 23:04

    This absurd narrativeve that Ukraine is a beacon of Western democracy! It is a corrupt racist state whose current elite came to power in a U.S. inspired coupe that threw out the elected government that wished to join Russia. It has fought a viscous war against its Russian east. It deserves nothing.


    rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 23:03

    Looks like Kolomoiskyi has had it. The "Kyiv Post" just ran an article in which they mention that Kolo has (gasp) "connections to organised crime".
    :-D

    Last week they were *very* careful about what they said about Kolomoiskyi to the point of barely reporting the events. But now the rats are fleeing the sinking ship.

    Kolo had better skedaddle before we see yet another mysterious defenestration.

    OneTop 24 Mar 2015 22:58

    Natalie Jaresko wants to see debt cut and interest on remainder reduced so Ukraine can move towards stability

    Jaresko is a US citizen who was appointed by Nuland [Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs] to run the finance ministry of the Ukraine. (the Ukraine granted her citizenship -- to give the appearance of legitimacy).

    The Ukraine is run by very powerful oligarchs who have to date, much more political and real power than the western installed and supported Poroshenko.

    There is no doubt the US / West will continue to support Poroshenko as he desperately needs US support to maintain his position, the more powerful "other" oligarchs with their private armies do not.

    Jaresko is simply parroting US diktat (her paymasters) which is building the narrative that Ukraines' debt to Russia (primarily for energy) be legally declared as odious debt.

    Which means that the Ukraine could stiff Russia for the billions it owes for goods and services already rendered.

    In plain words, Jaresko is a mindless mandarin installed by America in an effort to wrest Ukraine from their evil Russian masters.


    Vaska Tumir Kata L 24 Mar 2015 22:11

    America's Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, has now informed him, in no uncertain terms, that "the law of the jungle" must end in Ukraine.

    Ambassador Pyatt's statements are taken very seriously by Ukrainian Government officials.

    Really?

    They ARE the "law of the jungle" enforcers in Ukraine, as Pyatt knows perfectly well. In this instance, what we have is a situation in which a set of criminals of exactly the same sort as those in power but currently not in the government itself (Kolomoysky and his lot) is stronger than the set of criminals the USA put in power in Kiev. That's what comes from having a foreign policy based on pure banditry.

    ChristopherMyers 24 Mar 2015 22:09

    I realize this may be a very bizarre thought, but the situation here in the Ukraine bears a striking resemblance to the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 by the United States.

    BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:57

    It's not only the media, it is much broader than that. When I left USSR in 1991, most educated people believed BBC, Voice of America, and Western media in general, and had fairly good feelings about the US and Europe.

    When I started reading Russian news sites last year (simply because the Western narrative about Ukrainian crisis made no sense to someone who has friends and relatives all over Ukraine), I was appalled by the level of anti-American and anti-EU feelings. Americans are called almost invariably "pindós" [Cyrillic spelling пиндос], which is a pretty derogative term, the US is called "pindostan", and most people think that Western media lie almost as much as Ukrainian media, which are notorious for ludicrous lies (like the story that Russia used nukes in the fight for Lugansk airport).

    In the USSR I always knew that Soviet media are spewing propaganda, using half-truths and blatant lies. However, compared to current reporting on Ukraine in the Western media, even Soviet papers look truthful. It is very sad.

    pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 21:45

    It will be fascinating to see which way the US goes with Kolomoisky vs. Poroshenko.

    On the one hand a lot of time and energy has been expended propping up the Poroshenko gov't. In spite of this he is rapidly losing popularity with the populace and may be seen as expendable. A convenient scapegoat for the failed military operation in eastern Ukraine. However another regime change at this point would threaten the country with absolute chaos and would make external financing arrangements problematic to say the least.

    Kolomoisky is hooked into the US state department, via Bursima, the murky gas company where both VP Biden's son and Kerry's stepson(?) are members of its Board. He is also president of European Council of Jewish Communities, which probably translates into backing from powerful Jewish interests in the US and Israel. Kolomoisky and Nuland seem to be kindred spirits both in their advocacy for a military solution as well as their general ziocon tendencies.

    Interesting times indeed.


    whitemangotnodreamin -> normankirk 24 Mar 2015 21:41

    Because they are probably under instructions to support Poroshenko and his side kick no matter what..lest they want their hard drives smashed to smithereens in the carpark as it happened before. They did it with Iraq, Libya, Syria, Torture and Kidnapping, Diego Garcia...all of these glossed over...lately even the "suicide" of 7 party of regions members they reported as 4 and did not open for comments...such is life


    frankverismo -> Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 21:39

    "I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the rampant corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article."

    I don't think you get how this works. Or you simply don't wish to see the sheer depth of the venality at work. Jaresko has been put there by Washington. The plan is exactly the opposite of granting Ukraine its sovereign independence but rather to put it even further into debt thus putting it completely at the mercy of outside forces. It's already a black hole - and she's asking for the death blow.

    "And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have been the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous leaders too."

    Correct.

    "Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present"

    Kindly tell us all about this 'aggression'. Be specific. You are, I assume, aware that Russia has had its Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea since the 18th century? What was Russia going to do when a US-backed coup happened on her doorstep? Hand her naval base over to NATO and let Kiev do to Crimea what they've been doing in Donbass? Really? Be honest. What would you have done?

    "Ukraine's failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions, tied to the feet of a sinking Russia."

    Were the Russian economy remotely similar to the US' this might be so. But it isn't. It has a low debt-to-GDP ratio, an expanding manufacturing base and countries other than Europe and the US perfectly willing to trade with it (and not in US$). The sanctions are certainly an annoyance as is the low oil price but long-term this will only serve to further divorce Russia from the West's sick fiat system - a very healthy thing.

    rogermell1e Systematic 24 Mar 2015 21:34

    "I wonder how long can The Guardian & Co."

    I guess at some point last year they made the strategic decision that any credibility amongst those who are well informed could be sacrificed. Very few Westerners (especially in the Anglosohere) will make the effort to find alternative sources, and the rest can easily be gulled.

    This is really a victory for Russia, because at one time a substantial part of the intelligentsia had some trust in the western MSM. This has now almost completely evaporated.

    TOR2000 24 Mar 2015 21:33

    Kiev continues to violate the ceasefire (OSCE):

    Between 09:40 and 10:40hrs, whilst at an observation point in the eastern outskirts of Sopyne (government-controlled, 15km east of Mariupol, 2.5km west of Shyrokyne) the SMM heard heavy engagement of small arms, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers and mortars, including 70 outgoing 82mm and 120mm mortar shells. The SMM assessed that the fire originated from one kilometre to the east and was directed further east of the SMM's position. An additional ten 82mm mortar shells hit 400m east of the SMM's position, some of which detonated in the air indicating that they were fitted with distance or time delay fuses. Due to the security situation, the SMM relocated to another observation point 4km north-west of Shyrokyne ("DPR"-controlled, 20km east of Mariupol, 102km south of Donetsk). Between 11:33 and 12:06hrs the SMM observed three incoming 82mm mortar shells exploding above Ukrainian Armed Forces positions north of Berdyanske (government-controlled, 18km east of Mariupol). It also heard small arms and light weapons fire as well as ten mortar detonations but was not able to ascertain the direction and calibre.
    The SMM unarmed/unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) monitored both sides of the contact line east of Mariupol. At 17:38hrs, in Shyrokyne the SMM UAV observed outgoing mortar fire from a Ukrainian Armed Forces position.

    The SMM revisited four Ukrainian Armed Forces heavy weapons holding areas, all of which comply with the respective withdrawal lines and remain in situ. All serial numbers are consistent with previous visits. Additionally, the SMM intended to monitor two additional holding areas, but these sites no longer contained any heavy weapons.

    BorninUkraine -> rogermell1e 24 Mar 2015 21:33

    Yes, the competition between two mega-thieves, Kolomoisky and Poroshenko, intensified in the last few days. Considering that the head of SBU (Ukrainian KGB) Nalivaichenko, who is CIA agent and US citizen, took the side of Poroshenko, the US plans to play against Kolomoisky. This does not guarantee Poroshenko win, though: this is about a lot of money to be made on oil, gas, etc, and then on grain that will be paid by farmers in return for credits for gas, diesel, and lubricants they need for planting.

    It is well known (not in the West, I am sure, where people are fed ridiculous lies) that for this amount of money Kolomoisky would kill his own mother, let alone Poroshenko or even US ambassador.

    So buying some popcorn is a good idea.

    whitemangotnodreamin -> Jerome Fryer 24 Mar 2015 21:21

    No prospect to repay 'loans' makes those loans unlikely.

    Precisely, what Jaresko is essentially saying is give us the money but don't ask for it back... Nick is a confused soul...or a purposely confused one.


    whitemangotnodreamin 24 Mar 2015 20:41

    I actually watched one of her interviews on Bloomberg, full of softballs, she seldom if ever answered a question, in particular what would happen if Russia demands payment at the end of the year, and the fact that they are asking creditors to take a rather large haircut. The softest thing about this woman are her teeth, but as we will see being hard does not translate to being tough, hit a brick in the right place and it breaks.

    So let's see who is Natalie Jaresko:

    " A Chicago-born investment banker who received her Ukrainian citizenship in December 2014, she. is Ukraine's finance minister and in total control of Ukrainian financial policy. In the late '80s and early '90s, she just so happened to hold several positions at the US State Department before taking the position of Chief of the Economic Section of the US Embassy in Ukraine. She also managed the USAID-financed Western NIS Enterprise Fund, which kindly provided funds for 'pro-democracy' movements in Belarus, Moldova and, predictably, Ukraine. "

    Ms.Jaresko, is involved in court proceedings, again. This time for breaching US passport laws. She was previously a US State Dept. employee and was granted Ukrainian citizenship so she could take the job.

    She has previously been in court over the misappropriation of US funding through her previous company Horizon Capital. This company just happened to be a partner of Yatsenyuk's pre maidan campaign. The other party in the case is her husband who she has been attempting to silence by court order. She has also so far managed to silence her former husband spilling the beans of some significant loan improprieties.

    But, hey what would one expect of a President who, was secretly palling up to the US's embassy in Kyiv when he was a minister for 3 different administrations in Ukraine, a man whose latest Human resource success was the employment of "Help me or I'll eat my red tie" Saakashvili a man wanted in Georgia who was being kept quietly in the US until now.

    bobby_fisher 24 Mar 2015 20:33

    US citizen, financial shaister and former State Department employee Natalie Jaresko is well positioned as Finance minister of Ukraine to oversee implementation of the H.R. 5859, the Ukraine Freedom Support Act, that among other things gives control to Washington over Ukrainian Energy policies, provides protections to American oil, gas, biotech, financial corporate interests over legitimate interests of Ukrainian people.

    This seals the fate of Ukraine as US colony, instead of an independent state.

    Chirographer 24 Mar 2015 20:32

    I don't think anybody really wants to lend or give the Ukraine any money because of the rampant corruption and "mismanagement" referred to in the article.

    And the Ukraine's problems didn't start with the war or Yanukovich. While he might have been the biggest crook who ruled the country, he has competition for that title from previous leaders too.

    Russia's aggression and policy of destabilisation is a huge aggravating factor at present, but there will have to be real and substantial changes in the way Ukrainians conduct their businesses and government before they're going to get the kind money the finance minister is asking for.

    It does seem fitting though, that given the economic ties between the two countries, Ukraine's failing economy is another anchor, with low oil prices and western sanctions, tied to the feet of a sinking Russia.


    HollyOldDog DerFremde 24 Mar 2015 20:23

    The Russian Steppes? The Ukrainian fracking has not shown commercial quantities of gas/oil. To try the same techniques in East Ukraine would mean closing down the existing coal mines first and even then there is a serious risk of contaminating the fresh water both underground and surface waters. All this with only minor prospects of finding commercial quantities of Fracked oil/gas.

    If the existing cialthey mines in East Ukraine were closed down then where would West Ukraine get its coal of a suitable quality to be used in its coal fired power stations?

    HollyOldDog Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 20:11

    And not forgetting the looting of the Iraq museums by any sneak theif who walked through the unguarded doors . Only the Oil Ministry was important to the Americans.


    pantaraxia HollyOldDog 24 Mar 2015 20:09

    The Japanese had been attempting to surrender months before Hiroshima. The back channels went through the USSR with no constructive response from the American side.

    According to a number of analysts there was another reason for dropping the nuclear bombs - to showcase to the USSR and the world the raw power available to the US military. A scare tactic.

    Manolo Torres -> DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 19:30

    That seems indeed a very good book, but one may end up extremely disgusted after reading it. From the review, to give our friends an idea of what Mrs Jaresko might be up to now and why her urgent plead:

    An unprecedented account of life in Baghdad's Green Zone, a walled-off enclave of towering plants, posh villas, and sparkling swimming pools that was the headquarters for the American occupation of Iraq. The Washington Post's former Baghdad bureau chief Rajiv Chandrasekaran takes us with him into the Zone; into a bubble, cut off from wartime realities, where the task of reconstructing a devastated nation competed with the distractions of a Little America-a half-dozen bars stocked with cold beer, a disco where women showed up in hot pants, a movie theater that screened shoot-'em-up films, an all-you-could-eat buffet piled high with pork, a shopping mall that sold pornographic movies, a parking lot filled with shiny new SUVs, and a snappy dry-cleaning service- much of it run by Halliburton

    In the vacuum of postwar planning, Bremer ignores what Iraqis tell him they want or need and instead pursues irrelevant neoconservative solutions-a flat tax, a sell-off of Iraqi government assets, and an end to food rationing. His underlings spend their days drawing up pie-in-the-sky policies, among them a new traffic code and a law protecting microchip designs, instead of rebuilding looted buildings and restoring electricity production.

    Mordantdude 24 Mar 2015 19:14

    Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she said.

    Meanwhile with the little help from "the free world" Ukraine downgraded further into junk by Moody's. Do you need more?

    pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 19:14

    The whole IMF program is a con job, transferring debt onto the Ukrainian government and its taxpayers (with the inevitable austerity and privatization programs to follow), while leaving the back door wide open to systemic abuse by well-connected oligarchs.

    As for where the IMF money which has been paid into the Ukrainian banks has gone, the report discloses … the banking system faced large foreign currency outflows (US$3.1 billion). Capital controls likely prevented larger outflows, but were not fully effective in stemming them."

    In short, of the $3.2 billion disbursed to the Ukrainian treasury by the IMF at the start of May, $3.1 billion had disappeared offshore by the middle of August.

    The looting continues.

    HollyOldDog -> nickpossum 24 Mar 2015 19:08

    There is a history of the other side of the coin with the actions of the USA. When Japan was on the point of defeat and negociations for Japan's surrender to the USA and its allies were occuring , the USA decided to drop nuclear bombs on Japan. A senior military spokesman from that period gave the reasons why.

    1. To force Japan to surrender more quickley and solely under the terms Givern solely by the USA.

    2. If it saved only ONE DAY of negociations then dropping nuclear bombs on Jalan would be worth it.

    Millions of Japanese citizens died either through the the blasts themselves or by radiation sickness just for the Americans to save ONE DAY of negociations.


    pantaraxia 24 Mar 2015 18:36

    For the sordid backstory on the IMF loan to Ukraine:

    THE IMF IS POSTUREPEDIC, SO IGOR KOLOMOISKY CAN SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT
    http://johnhelmer.net/?p=12944#more-12944

    some excerpts:

    The new loan terms announced by the IMF last week, postpone reform by the commercial banks until well into 2016. In the meantime, the IMF says it will allow about $4 billion of its loan cash to be diverted to the treasuries of the oligarch-owned banks. That is almost one dollar in four of the IMF loan to Ukraine.

    The biggest beneficiary of last year's IMF financing is likely to repeat its good fortune, according to sources close to the National Bank of Ukraine (NBU). This is PrivatBank, controlled by Igor Kolomoisky , governor of Dniepropetrovsk region and financier of several units fighting on Kiev's side in the civil war.

    snip

    …Kolomoisky has been assured by the IMF that he is one of the few Ukrainian taxpayers to be safe from an increase in income tax.

    snip

    The justification for the PrivatBank payout, …
    For collateral, Gontareva (NBU Governor) has accepted a shareholding in the bank, plus an undisclosed number of airplanes owned by Kolomoisky, or by airlines associated with the Privat group. …. They are all bankrupt, and so the asset value is uncertain and the subject of creditor claims pending in several countries

    and the punch line:

    …." A Geneva banker with an office close to Kolomoisky's residence in the city comments: "Not even the Swiss have thought of war financing like this – funding civil war, then taking international loans for compensation, then banking the profit margin in Geneva."


    DIPSET Manolo Torres 24 Mar 2015 18:17

    Be fair, most of that money to rebuild Iraq was stolen by the same homicidal maniacs that destroyed the country in the first place.

    True that.

    You won't find a better tome than this book on the whole debacle and financial corruption the Yanks got into in Iraq.....

    http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_City.html?id=Tz2LT0gL_pYC&redir_esc=y

    Some juicy bits........

    Because of bureaucratic delays, only 2 percent of the $18.4 billion Supplemental had been spent. Nothing had been expended on construction, health care, sanitation, or the provision of clean water, and more money had been devoted to administration than all projects related to education, human rights, democracy, and governance combined. At the same time, the CPA had managed to dole out almost all of a $20 billion development fund fed by Iraq's oil sales, more than $1.6 billion of which had been used to pay Halliburton, primarily for trucking fuel into Iraq.

    Or this......

    The first guy who was assigned to help rebuild Iraq's health sector was named Skip Burkle. And Skip is physician. He has a Master's degree in public health. He has four postgraduate degrees. He teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. He had worked in Kosovo, in Somalia and in Northern Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War. He also was employed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, and a USAID colleague called him the single most talented post-conflict public health specialist in the U.S. government. But a few weeks after the fall of Saddam's government, Mr. Burkle was informed by an email from a superior at USAID that he was being replaced. He was told that the White House wanted, quote/unquote, "a loyalist" in the job. And I write in the book that Burkle had a wall of degrees, but he didn't have a picture with the President.

    In his place was sent Jim Haveman. Jim Haveman does not have a medical degree. He was a social worker, and he was the former Director of Community Health in the State of Michigan. Prior to his stint in government, he had a little bit of international experience, but it was largely in the context of being a director for International Aid, a faith-based relief organization that promotes Christianity in the developing world in conjunction with development assistance. And prior to that, he headed up a large adoption agency in the State of Michigan that urges pregnant women not to have abortions.

    Well, Haveman showed up, and his view was that, look, Iraq didn't need a huge infusion of money to rebuild its hospitals, even though I and other people who have been to Iraqi hospitals have seen them to be thoroughly decrepit and really, you know, in need of an overhaul, and particularly with the violence that's wracking that country today and the number of injured from insurgent attacks. You would think that really putting resources toward rebuilding emergency rooms would be a top priority.

    Instead, Haveman devoted resources to other projects.

    And now they have moved onto Ukraine.

    Good luck is all i can say......

    Bosula -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:56

    Ukraine is a country not a business. The interests of countries are very different from fund mangers, hedge funds, etc.

    Very unusual to bring in a foreigner to a country to run a finance ministry when there are serious legal allegationS about propriety hanging over her head.

    Could you imagine bringing in a Sate Department official to run the finances of the UK?

    Ukraine has a lot of smart people...

    Another Nuland buddy meddling in Ukrainian affairs.


    DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:53

    now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament to the corporate takeover

    Ah yes, the faustian pact and it's tentacles are eating Ukraine up (and soon to spit out an empty husk) right in front of our eyes.

    Remember that American company that brought up all that pure and rich soil and agricultural land in Ukraine ?

    Look what's been happening back at the ranch in Yankee Land......

    After paying an original sum of $2.4 million to reimburse farmers for contaminating their fields with genetically modified wheat that had not even yet been approved for farming, Monsanto has been forced to pay another $350,000 in order to settle a class action lawsuit brought upon by numerous farmers from over seven different states.

    The news comes amid economic struggles for the biotech juggernaut that have resulted in the loss of share value and poor projections for the long term future. In last year's fourth quarter, Monsanto reported a loss of $156 million. And for the multi-billion dollar company, it's not about the monetary figure, but the future of its genetically modified creations that the public just simply isn't buying.

    In the latest legal settlement, we find that Monsanto's new method of simply paying off farmers just isn't going to cut it when it comes to international trade. Following the news that GMO wheat had contaminated nearby wheat supplies, Japan and South Korea suspended a number of wheat orders from the United States - a blow towards the national economy in full thanks to Monsanto.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-hit-with-fine-for-genetically-contaminating-wheat-supply/5438551

    And these are the "friends" Ukraine have placed their trust in since this whole think kicked off last year.

    Who needs enemies, eh ?

    Fascinating times...

    frankverismo -> nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:36

    "Why has the United States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?

    The Wolfowitz Doctrine is a giant boot sworn to crush national self-determination wheresoever on the globe it may be found. If ordinary Americans have to pay the bill, so be it.

    It's not much of a policy - but it's what happens when Washington is taken over by those the White House used to rightly refer to as 'The Crazies'.

    BunglyPete DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 17:30

    9

    10

    It gets better! Pinchuk made donations to the Clinton fund before Maidan, and not only this he was the top contributor.

    Back in September 2013 they all met with Blair, Branson, IMF and more to hash it all out in Yalta at a Pinchuk bash.

    Check vesti-ukr.com a Ukraine news site now emblazined with Bransons face in giant ads as testament to the coporate takeover. Fantastic stuff.

    Reply | Pick

    Report


    nnedjo -> nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:27

    Here's another interesting article on the same topic:
    How Not to Reconstruct Iraq, Afghanistan -- or America
    Peter Van Buren

    Some images remain like scars on my memory. One of the last things I saw in Iraq, where I spent a year with the Department of State helping squander some of the $44 billion American taxpayers put up to "reconstruct" that country, were horses living semi-wild among the muck and garbage of Baghdad. ...

    I flew home that same day, a too-rapid change of worlds, to a country in which the schools of my hometown in Ohio could not afford to pay teachers a decent wage. Once great cities were rotting away as certainly as if they were in Iraq, where those horses were scrabbling to get by.

    To this day I'm left pondering these questions: Why has the United States spent so much money and time so disastrously trying to rebuild occupied nations abroad, while allowing its own infrastructure to crumble untended? Why do we even think of that as "policy"?

    Canigou 24 Mar 2015 17:24

    I like the picture at the top of the article-----it shows burning tires, tired and hungry-looking men sitting on makeshift seats and shivering, trash strewn about, some motley men in the background standing about doing nothing, some sinister-looking smoke rising as a backdrop. A bleak, hellish, desperate, post-apocalyptic landscape.

    It seems to be from the Maidan riots of last year, but makes a fitting image for an article about the Ukraine economy of 2015.

    EugeneGur 24 Mar 2015 17:23

    Well, people of Europe, it's time to open up your wallets to pay for the handiwork of your leaders. Ukraine is indeed a large country on the verge of economical collapse marred in a civil war. The present "government" did everything in its power to ruin the economy succeeding quite well. They alienated and then destroyed Donbass responsible for a good part of the country's economic output. They disrupted economic ties with Russia, the main trading partner, so most enterprises have closed or are closing throwing workers out on the streets.

    Give these people more money - and they'll spend some on the war they'll lose, and steal the rest. It is hard to tell whether they are more inept or corrupt - I guess they are just well-rounded individuals combining the highest degree of greed and corruption with utter stupidity/ineptitude and total disregard for their country's interests. One example: Ukraine is short on coal, but the miners in Volyne region, the only coal deposit outside of Donbass, haven't been paid for months and are now on strike. Is that what they mean by "structural reforms", not paying salaries any more?


    HollyOldDog -> UncleSam404 24 Mar 2015 17:23

    Interesting, so you agree with the Ukrainian Oligarts having a right to plunder the assets of Ukraine - Let the People eat cake. Perhaps this attitude that the West has to Ukraine will bolster the undercurrent of discontent within West Ukraine citizens to boot out its current government and Western Freeloaders.

    A French style revolution baring the gillotine is in the cards.


    nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 17:19

    Jaresko said the IMF loan was enough to stabilise the economy but not sufficient to "reorganise and renew" it.

    The intention to "reorganise and renew" Ukraine's economy is very generous indeed. However, before accepting this job, Ms. Jaresko should draw some lessons from previous unsuccessful attempts of the kind:

    The U.S. has spent more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. And it's not done yet.

    Released: January 18, 2013

    The United States has invested more reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan than it did rebuilding Germany after World War II. $60.45 billion has been spent in Iraq, more than $100 billion in Afghanistan. For comparison, the U.S. spent less than $35 billion in today's dollars in Germany from 1946 through 1952...
    These are reconstruction costs only; the total cost to the U.S. of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts exceeds $1.4 trillion.


    babalua Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 17:18

    Ukraine is not to be compared to anything, let alone to a company. Parasite living off Russia, EU and everyone else. Should not really be a state. With crooks in power? Not only crooks, but literally scum?! You call it a country and compare it to whatever? Oh, god, wake up. You know , the funnu thing is that this black hole of Europe even wants to compete with Russia. Who are these people from U? Are they taking LSD?


    DIPSET BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 17:17

    She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member. Theyre all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.

    :-)

    As always, you are spot on Sir.

    I'm sure you have read this but sharing is caring as they say lol..........

    Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and – from op-ed pages – he demands Congress buy more weapons.

    ......a new Cold War took shape. Prominent neocons, including Nuland's husband Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which masterminded the Iraq War, hammered home the domestic theme that Obama had shown himself to be "weak," thus inviting Putin's "aggression."

    In May 2014, Kagan published a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers Don't Get to Retire," in which Kagan castigated Obama for failing to sustain American dominance in the world and demanding a more muscular U.S. posture toward adversaries.

    According to a New York Times article about how the essay took shape and its aftermath, writer Jason Horowitz reported that Kagan and Nuland shared a common world view as well as professional ambitions, with Nuland editing Kagan's articles, including the one tearing down her ostensible boss.

    Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on her husband's attack on Obama, she indicated that she held similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

    Horowitz reported that Obama was so concerned about Kagan's assault that the President revised his commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of the criticism and invited Kagan to lunch at the White House, where one source told me that it was like "a meeting of equals."

    I found this bit even more fascinating......

    And, whenever peace threatens to break out in Ukraine, Nuland jumps in to make sure that the interests of war are protected. Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande hammered out a plan for a cease-fire and a political settlement, known as Minsk-2, prompting Nuland to engage in more behind-the-scenes maneuvering to sabotage the deal.

    In another overheard conversation - in Munich, Germany - Nuland mocked the peace agreement as "Merkel's Moscow thing," according to the German newspaper Bild, citing unnamed sources, likely from the German government which may have bugged the conference room in the luxurious Bayerischer Hof hotel and then leaked the details.

    Picking up on Nuland's contempt for Merkel, another U.S. official called the Minsk-2 deal the Europeans' "Moscow bullshit."

    Nuland suggested that Merkel and Hollande cared only about the practical impact of the Ukraine war on Europe: "They're afraid of damage to their economy, counter-sanctions from Russia." According to the Bild story, Nuland also laid out a strategy for countering Merkel's diplomacy by using strident language to frame the Ukraine crisis.

    "We can fight against the Europeans, we can fight with rhetoric against them," Nuland reportedly said

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    Yikes!!!

    Europe has got itself entangled in some bullshit it is going to regret for a looooong time.

    Hope them cookies tasted good and were worth it.

    BunglyPete 24 Mar 2015 16:57

    Jaresko is quite possibly the most poorly judged person to be in her position, nevermind make these claims.

    She is not only a US citizen ex State Dept employee who was granted Ukrainian citizenship just to take the job, she is involved in other affairs that seriously question her credibility.

    Firstly she is involved in a lawsuit filed by her ex husband who claims she missappropriated USAID funds through her Ukrainian company Horizon Capital. She had a court injuction taken out to prevent her husband discussing the case.

    Furthermore, Horizon Capital funded Yatsenyuk's Open Ukraine campaign in the years before he came to power.

    The whole idea of the new government was to get rid of corruption and outside influence and move to a new honest and accountable system.

    Now we have a foreigner trying their hardest to push more IMF debt which benefits very few people other than those friendly to Jaresko; which would be, western financial and corporate interests, the main IMF stakeholders and the Yatsenyuk government.

    Ukrainian citizens lose pensions and fight over food in supermarkets as Jaresko is chaffeuered around in the most expensive car her ministry has ever bought.

    She also recently spoke at the Brookings insitute of which Nulands husband is a key member. Theyre all in it together in one big circle of dodgy deals and kickbacks.

    nnedjo -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:56

    What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded that justified armed take over of police stations and tanks being sent into Ukraine.

    The government which the Ukrainian people voted in the previous election was violently overthrown in Kiev, by the people for which the people from the Donbas not only never voted, but in many cases not even know them.

    So, it's very simple. People from Donbas took care to protect their police stations and other government buildings that foreign visitors would not have entered into them.

    frankverismo 24 Mar 2015 16:56

    "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she said.

    Was a more incorrect statement ever made? The 'democracy' of which she speaks was, sadly, Victoria Nuland's idea of democracy: "the democracy Ukraine deserves".

    Does Ukraine really 'deserve' to be torn apart by warring oligarchs while being used by Washington as a proxy war theatre to bait Russia into a wider conflict? Should the Ukranian people have seen this coming? Probably. Did they ever have much choice in the matter? Little, if any. A bloody tragedy.


    brianboru1014 psygone 24 Mar 2015 16:44

    Russian economy going down the tubes?
    I very much doubt it. They have what the West needs, and lots of it

    The article is about this Ukrainian Foreign Minister, a woman with a begging bowl and really zero to offer the West except a monstrous headache. Too bad Bush's neocon Victoria Nuland (who should have been dismissed by Obama, but wasn't) but was able to poison everything in this particular part of the world with her now famous obscene comment referring to the European Union.[11] After discussing Ukrainian opposition figures Nuland stated that she preferred the United Nations as mediator, instead of the European Union, adding "Fuck the EU,".
    So as a result, the EU will give her zero.

    nnedjo 24 Mar 2015 16:34

    "Everybody in the free world should be doing more to help Ukraine. This is a country that has given its life for democracy and is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbour," she [Mrs Jaresko] said.

    So, practically until yesterday, in its economic existence Ukraine relied on its "aggressive neighbor." This is what Russian PM Medvedev wrote about it in his article, at the end of last year:

    How Russia supported the Ukrainian economy

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all of this (including the gas transport system) went to Ukraine. In addition, Russia took on the entire Soviet debt. Ukraine entered a new era in its history, free of any burden. That is why in 1991 its initial conditions for economic growth were among the best in the post-Soviet space. And that's precisely why the economy of independent Ukraine managed to remain afloat. Until recently, Ukraine was using its past achievements to survive. It continued to rely on cooperation with Russia. And it used our resources.

    Does Mrs. Jaresko thought to this when she said that "Ukraine protects Europe from its aggressive eastern neighbor." Okay, no problem. Aggressive eastern neighbor no longer needs to pumped gas and money to Ukraine with its invasive methods. As of this moment its "less aggressive" Western friends can take on this responsibility. In particular, the country of origin of Mrs. Jaresko, United States, could take care of it. It is also a very big country, and besides, they constantly boast to their economic superiority over Russia.
    Well then, if you wanted, here you go, be our guest!

    SHappens -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:26

    It's the same with ISIS supporters and ISIS terrorists, they need each other for their terrorist activities to spread

    Indeed, what we do not hear about is that while we fight the Islamic State, alias ISIS, in Iraq and Syria, Washington and the Caliphate are fighting on the same side in Ukraine.

    Nobody is paying attention to the role played by the Dudayev Battalion, a fighting force of Islamic radicals consisting of Chechens, but also including fighters from the Caucasus and some Ukrainians.

    geedeesee -> Mike_UK 24 Mar 2015 16:24

    "What the hell was the problem before the Russians invaded..."

    If the Russians had invaded it would be a war, whether declarations had been made or not. The Ukraine-Russian War. But there is no war between the two states. Kiev instead calls it an "anti-terror operation". Objective observers like me would call it a civil war.

    Steve Ennever 24 Mar 2015 15:48

    That's American, Natalie - I'm Ukrainian now - Jaresko, right? Strange, even David Cameron had some thoughts on this subject...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEwREymsSNU

    It appears supporting the overthrow of one democratically elected president because you didn't like him & he was corrupt, apparently doesn't remove the corruption.
    But other things should be raising the eyebrows of lenders right now, & Jaresko.

    Power grabs are in play. The Oligarch, Kolomoysky, worth an estimated $6 billion, is currently causing problems for Poroshenko & his fragile presidency.
    http://redpilltimes.com/kolomoysky-calls-for-federalisation-of-ukraine-ukrnafta-building-in-kiev-seized-by-dnepr-1-battalion-us-ambassador-pyatt-warns-kolomoysky/


    normankirk 24 Mar 2015 15:34

    This is a country that has given its life to democracy......

    The major loss of life has been in the Donbass, where its civilians have been killed in the tens of thousands.They are the ones who can be said to have given their lives to democracy.

    Once again "democracy" has been the trojan horse for corporate interests and the Wolfowitz doctrine.

    I hope that one day Ukraine does achieve a true democracy,but it wont be through the efforts of the criminal Nuland-Pyatt crowd.

    DIPSET 24 Mar 2015 15:24

    C'mon Larry, it ain't a plea for "help".

    It's pure, unprincipled, without a sliver of self pride and shame begging.

    Beg for gas
    Beg for coal
    Beg for weapons
    Beg for money
    Beg for EU membership
    Beg for money again
    Beg for cookies
    Beg for a football tournament to be cancelled
    Beg for men to be sent to die in the East

    After they stupidly get the real war and invasion they have been moaning for, watch them *beg for mercy.

    *Shout out to G-Unit for those that know ;-)

    Watch them in the next couple of weeks beg Russia to not call in that 5 Billion loan repayment that is due.

    2015 is going to be one helluva year.....

    brianboru1014 24 Mar 2015 14:58

    Ukraine is protecting Europe from an aggressive neighbor she said with a straight face.
    She says the country had 70 years of Communism, which it had, and 23 years of incomplete reforms.

    She should have said 23 years of thievery because the people of Ukraine didn't see too much benefit. Twenty three years of neo liberalism. That's a very hard sell.

    [Mar 25, 2015] Congress Demands War in Ukraine! by Daniel McAdams

    March 23, 2015 | The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

    Just weeks after a European-brokered ceasefire greatly reduced the violence in Ukraine, the US House of Representatives today takes a big step toward re-igniting -- and expanding -- the bloody civil war.

    A Resolution, "Calling on the President to provide Ukraine with military assistance to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity," stealthily made its way to the House Floor today without having been debated in the relevant House Committees and without even being given a bill number before appearing on the Floor!

    Now titled H. Res. 162, the bill demands that President Obama send lethal military equipment to the US-backed government in Kiev and makes it clear that the weapons are to be used to take military action to return Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Kiev's rule.

    Congress wants a war in Ukraine and will not settle for a ceasefire!

    The real world effect of this Resolution must be made clear: The US Congress is giving Kiev the green light to begin a war with Russia, with the implicit guarantee of US backing. This is moral hazard on steroids and could well spark World War III.

    The Resolution conveniently ignores that the current crisis in Ukraine was ignited by the US-backed coup which overthrew the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. The secession of Crimea and eastern Ukraine were a reaction to the illegal coup engineered by US officials such as Victoria Nuland and Geoff Pyatt. Congress instead acts as if one morning the Russians woke up and decided to invade Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

    There is no mention at all of US backing for the coup -- or even that a coup took place!

    Indeed, a read of the Resolution shows it is revisionism par excellence:

    Whereas the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin has engaged in relentless political, economic, and military aggression to subvert the independence and violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine;
    ...

    Whereas Russian aggression against Ukraine is but the most visible and recent manifestation of a revisionist Kremlin strategy to redraw international borders and impose its will on its neighbors, including NATO allies;

    Shamefully, the resolution pins the blame for the thousands killed by Kiev's shelling of civilian centers in eastern Ukraine on Russia:
    Whereas this Russian aggression includes the establishment and control of violent separatist proxies in other areas of Ukraine, including arming them with lethal weapons and other materiel including tanks, artillery, and rockets that have enabled separatist militias to launch and sustain an insurrection that has resulted in over 6,000 dead, 15,000 wounded, and more than a million displaced persons;
    The Resolution goes even further, explicitly calling for the US to support regime change in Russia itself:
    Whereas the United States and its allies need a long-term strategy to expose and challenge Vladimir Putin's corruption and repression at home and his aggression abroad;
    "Expose and challenge" the elected Russian president at home.

    During the Floor debate on the Resolution, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) even compared Russian "action" in Ukraine to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia, demanding that this time the "Hitler" must be stopped before he goes further!

    Not a single Member of Congress took the Floor to oppose this dangerous Resolution.

    Passage of this Resolution should make it clear that the political leadership of the US will accept nothing short of war with Russia.

    Update: The Resolution passed in the House, 348-48.


    Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

    [Mar 24, 2015] Ukraine Asks Bondholders to Reach Deal Now or Risk Bigger Losses

    Mar 24, 2015 | Bloomberg Business
    Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko urged the nation's bondholders, including Russia, to negotiate a debt-restructuring agreement now or risk facing bigger losses.

    "This is the best time for us to do this," Jaresko said in an interview in London on Tuesday. "The situation is relatively peaceful now. They do not want to be in a situation where there is an uncontrolled situation and we are forced to do a much worse deal for them."

    The former Soviet republic has held talks with Franklin Templeton and its 14 other biggest U.K. and U.S. creditors as it seeks new terms on about 29 bonds and enterprise loans, Jaresko said. Russia, which as recently as last week said it wouldn't budge on being paid back a $3 billion bond in full by the December deadline, won't be offered special terms, she said. Ukraine's $2.6 billion of bonds due in July 2017 declined by 0.5 cent on Tuesday to 39.71 cents on the dollar.

    Jaresko's comments show the stakes for Ukraine, whose $17.5 billion International Monetary Fund loan package requires a restructuring deal with bondholders by the end of May. Relations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine have fallen apart since Russia's National Wealth Fund bought the debt in December 2013, two months before President Viktor Yanukovych was toppled in a bloody uprising in Kiev.

    Equal Terms

    Since the $3 billion security took the form of a tradeable bond, Russia should be treated on the same terms all other holders, Jarekso said on Tuesday. Her comments are in contrast with those of Russian politicians including Deputy Finance Minister Sergey Storchak, who said March 17 that the nation isn't taking part the debt talks because it's not a private creditor.

    "We need to have a process that is transparent, that has a certain amount of justice, that has inter-creditor equity," Jaresko said. "That means no special terms for any single investor or creditor, regardless of nationality."

    Jaresko was part of a government delegation that held talks last week with Templeton, which owns about $7 billion of Ukraine bonds. While Templeton won't accept a writedown, according to a person familiar with the situation, analysts at Bank of America Corp. said this month current bond prices are consistent with about a 20 percent cut in the principal and a 50 percent reduction in coupon payments.

    [Mar 24, 2015] Are NGOs Agents of Subversion by Patrick J. Buchanan

    March 24, 2015 | Antiwar.com

    Though "Bibi" Netanyahu won re-election last week, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will still look into whether the State Department financed a clandestine effort to defeat him.

    Reportedly, State funneled $350,000 to an American NGO called OneVoice, which has an Israeli subsidiary, Victory 15, that collaborated with U.S. operatives to bring Bibi down.

    If we are now secretly pumping cash into the free elections of friendly countries, to dump leaders President Obama dislikes, Americans have a right to know why we are using Cold War tactics against democracies.

    After World War II, my late colleague on CNN's "Crossfire," Tom Braden, delivered CIA cash to democratic parties in Europe imperiled by communist parties financed from Moscow.

    But that was done to combat Stalinism when Western survival was at stake in a Cold War that ended in 1991.

    Hopefully, after looking into OneVoice and V15, the Senate will expand its investigation into a larger question: Is the U.S. using NGOs to subvert regimes around the world? And, if so, who decides which regimes may be subverted?

    What gives these questions urgency is the current crisis that has Moscow moving missiles toward Europe and sending submarines and bombers to probe NATO defenses.

    America contends that Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and backing for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine is the cause of the gathering storm in Russian-NATO relations.

    Yet Putin's actions in Ukraine were not taken until the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian regime in Kiev, in a coup d'etat in which, Moscow contends, an American hand was clearly visible.

    Not only was John McCain in Kiev's Maidan Square egging on the crowds that drove the regime from power, so, too, was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

    In an intercepted phone call with our ambassador in Kiev, Nuland identified the man we preferred when President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted. "Yats," she called him. And when Yanukovych fled after the Maidan massacre, sure enough, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was in power.

    Nuland also revealed that the U.S. had spent $5 billion since 1991 to bring about the reorientation of Ukraine toward the West.

    Now, bringing Ukraine into the EU and NATO may appear to Nuland & Co. a great leap forward for freedom and progress.

    But to Russia it looks like the subversion of a Slavic nation with which she has had intimate ties for centuries, to bring Ukraine into an economic union and military alliance directed against Moscow.

    And if NATO stumbles into a military clash with Russia, the roots of that conflict will be traceable to the coup in Kiev that Russians believe was the dirty work of the Americans.

    If the U.S. had a role in that coup, the American people should know it and the Senate should find out whether Nuland & Co. used NGOs to reignite a Cold War that Ronald Reagan brought to an end.

    And if we are now using NGOs as fronts for secret operations to dump over regimes, we are putting all NGOs abroad under suspicion and at risk.

    Not in our lifetimes has America been more distrusted and disliked. And among the reasons is that we are seen as constantly carping at governments that do not measure up to our standards of democracy, and endlessly interfering in the internal affairs of nations that do not threaten us.

    In this new era, U.S. foreign policy elites have boasted of the "color-coded" revolutions they helped to foment in Belgrade, Kiev, Tbilisi. In 2003, we helped to overthrow the Georgian regime of Eduard Shevardnadze in a "Rose Revolution" that brought to power Mikheil Saakashvili. And Saakashvili nearly dragged us into a confrontation with Russia in 2008, when he invaded South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.

    What vital interest of ours was there in that little nation in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin, to justify so great a risk?

    Nor is it Moscow alone that is angered over U.S. interference in its internal affairs and those of its neighbor nations.

    President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt has expelled members of U.S. NGOs. Beijing believes U.S. NGOs were behind the Occupy-Wall-Street-style street blockages in Hong Kong.

    If true, these U.S. actions raise a fundamental question:

    What is the preeminent goal of U.S. foreign policy?

    Is it to protect the vital interests and national security of the Republic? Or do we believe with George W. Bush that, "The survival of liberty" in America "depends on the success of liberty in other lands."

    If it is the latter, then our mission is utopian – and unending.

    For if we believe our liberty is insecure until the whole world is democratic, then we cannot rest until we witness the overthrow of the existing regimes in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Belarus, most of the Arab and African nations, as well as Venezuela and Cuba.

    And if that is our goal, our Republic will die trying to achieve it.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

    [Mar 24, 2015] Russia Under Attack by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    Mar 24, 2015 | CounterPunch

    The Return of Dr. Strangelove

    While Washington works assiduously to undermine the Minsk agreement that German chancellor Merkel and French president Hollande achieved in order to halt the military conflict in Ukraine, Washington has sent Victoria Nuland to Armenia to organize a "color revolution" or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government's allegiance away from Russia. The result would be to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization and present Russia and China with destabilization where they can least afford it. For details go here.

    Thus, Russia faces the renewal of conflict in Ukraine simultaneously with three more Ukraine-type situations along its Asian border.

    And this is only the beginning of the pressure that Washington is mounting on Russia.

    On March 18 the Secretary General of NATO denounced the peace settlement between Russia and Georgia that ended Georgia's military assault on South Ossetia. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO rejects the settlement because it "hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region."

    Look closely at this statement. It defines the "international community" as Washington's NATO puppet states, and it defines strengthening security and stability as removing buffers between Russia and Georgia so that Washington can position military bases in Georgia directly on Russia's border.

    In Poland and the Baltic states Washington and NATO lies about a pending Russian invasion are being used to justify provocative war games on Russia's borders and to build up US forces in NATO military bases on Russia's borders.

    We have crazed US generals on national television calling for "killing Russians."

    The EU leadership has agreed to launch a propaganda war against Russia, broadcasting Washington's lies inside Russia in an effort to undermine the Russian people's support of their government.

    All of this is being done in order to coerce Russia into handing over Crimea and its Black Sea naval base to Washington and accepting vassalage under Washington's suzerainty.

    If Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, and the Taliban would not fold to Washington's threats, why do the fools in Washington think Putin, who holds in his hands the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, will fold?

    European governments, apparently, are incapable of any thought. Washington has set London and the capitals of every European country, as well as every American city, for destruction by Russian nuclear weapons. The stupid Europeans rush to destroy themselves in service to their Washington master.

    Human intelligence has gone missing if after 14 years of US military aggression against eight countries the world does not understand that Washington is lost in arrogance and hubris and imagines itself the ruler of the universe who will tolerate no dissent from its will.

    We know that the American, British, and European media are whores well paid to lie for their master. We know that the NATO commander and secretary general, if not the member countries, are lusting for war. We know that the American Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon and armaments industry cannot wait to test their ABMs and new weapons systems in which they always place excessive confidence. We know that the prime minister of Britain is a total cipher. But are the chancellor of Germany and the president of France ready for the destruction of their countries and of Europe? If the EU is of such value, why is the very existence of its populations put at risk in order to bow down and accept leadership from an insane Washington whose megalomania will destroy life on earth?

    Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format. His latest book is How America Was Lost.

    [Mar 24, 2015] The MSM ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing

    Mar 22, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.6com

    Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 9:35 am

    This strikes me as very good big picture analysis:

    "So there are two ways by which the current stand-off will play out.

    • The first one, and arguably the less likely one, is that Russia backs down and ultimately, under continued economic pressure, agrees to privatize its national monopolies or even sell them directly to Western firms, and thus become a sort of Saudi Arabia of the North.
    • The second one is that Russia fends off this latest Western encroachment, forcing the West to re-examine the structure of its post-Cold War political economy. With economic expansion no longer on the table, the West will have a choice of rediscovering the benefits of redistributive policies, or embark on exclusionary policies that would have to be backed by a police state."

    http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html

    cartman, March 22, 2015 at 10:17 am

    If the MSM will ignore and blatantly lie about the nature of the regime the West is backing, then Western governments will take what they have learned from the junta and apply them to their own societies.

    Fern, March 23, 2015 at 6:23 am

    Tim, thanks for posting the 'fortruss' article by J Hawk – a very good analysis. FWIW, my own thoughts are that it is absolutely essential for the EU and the West generally that Crimea does not prosper. i would go so far as to say that, to a large extent, the future of the neo-liberal economic order depends on Crimea becoming an economic disaster zone. For what has happened as a result of its reunification with Russia, almost an accidental bi-product, you might say, is that the world and its wife has the opportunity to watch two different development models in action, literally side by side. In Ukraine, there's the IMF 'austerity' model – privatisation, asset stripping, foreign ownership of key parts of the economy, cutting back the role of the state to the bare minimum, poverty for much of the population etc. In Crimea's there's a different model, one that sees a role for the state as well as private enterprise – much like the mixed economies of the west in the 1970's before the neo-liberals grabbed control – and where's there's genuine job-creating, value-adding investment in infrastructure planned and already happening.

    If Crimea delivers a much higher standard of living for its people than is achieved in Ukraine, then what price neo-liberalism, what lessons might Greece, Spain, Portugal etc learn? Crimea cannot be allowed to succeed, the threat of a good example is too dangerous.

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 7:49 am

    An excellent point, Fern, and that might make a good subject for a post in the not-too-distant future.

    Oddlots, March 23, 2015 at 9:10 am

    I think you are dead right. The stakes could barely be higher.

    It's funny, Russian politics kind of reminds me of Canada in the 70s under Trudeau. Before the southern strategy and the radical "government is the problem, not the solution" ideology of Reagan, Thatcher etc. it was still possible in the west to voice a common purpose that roughly mapped onto government initiative. After 30 years of this pro-oligarchy drivel we can barely conceive of a common purpose. The parasite has taken over the host's mind.

    et Al, March 23, 2015 at 9:45 am

    I would quibble with this:

    However, while Globalization was marketed as a win-win proposition for both the global North and South, in reality the developing states have gotten the losing side of the bargain.

    The smaller southern states have been picked off but are fighting back, as we see in Ecuador, Venezuela, Boliva. The 'Developing World' successfully stopped the Doha round of globalization talks because the North wanted full liberalization of their markets at drop of a hat so that they can waltz in and buy anything worthwhile.

    Brazil has refused this, India has (for example its textile and other industries) and Africa was mostly ignored because the North is racist and thinks they have nothing to offer except South Africa and a few northern bits (which is blatantly wrong as China has been the trailblazing investor in Africa with serious money, development and actually building roads, hospitals and infrastructure – followed eventually by Japan, India & the US).

    I think that maybe the North's dismissing of Africa may well be part of its undoing.

    As for the rest of it, I can agree, but I am weary of being presented with such a limited number of outcomes.

    rymlianin, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 am

    Noam Chomsky agrees . Free markets are for the third world, so that 1st world countries can easily get rid of their excess products.

    yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 10:28 am

    Here we go again! At first I thought this item was from a few days ago, but it's from today. Then I thought it was GroundHog Day!

    Because Kolomoisky has done it again, and his guys (maybe not him personally) have invaded a different oil company, this time UkrNafta (not to be confused with UrkTransNafta, which is a different company). Benny's guys have barricaded themselves inside the company HQ, at Nesterovsky Street in Kiev.

    A spokesperson says this siege is a continuation of the story (explained by Jen, in comment above) whereby the rules were changed for what constitutes a quorum among shareholders.

    The Ukrainian government owns (50% + 1) share of UkrNafta. Now, just like the previous case, the government wants to put in its own management, while expelling Benny's henchmen from the big boardroom.

    The article states that Benny must not have listened to Pyatt's warnings.

    [yalensis: I mentioned in comment, above, that Benny is a proud and stubborn man, who listens to nobody.]

    james, March 22, 2015 at 12:35 pm

    thanks for these kolowonky updates… what i find fascinating is a guy being allowed to have a goon squad and parading around ukraine with the goon squad doing these kinds of acts.. what would happen if he had some competition and goon squads started to lock themselves into privatbank locations?

    how do ordinary citizens of ukraine view this guy? there are no parallels in western societies that i am aware of!

    james, March 23, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    article today suggests that my question from earlier is being answered here – http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/kolomoisky-vs-poroshenko-kiev-junta.html

    2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".

    3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:

    "Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).

    see the article for more..

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:05 pm

    He is setting himself up for a mini civil war in Kiev if he thinks to order Benny to disperse his private army now, because they are loyal to their employer – Benny, who pays them directly, when they know all too clearly they are not going to be allowed to have this much fun roughing up and killing people ever again while getting paid for it – and the time to do it was the second it became known Benny was doing it, because the constitution forbids it and Porky always knew that.

    He let him get away with it because it was useful, and there is no use in his attempting to stand on the law now: funny how when you trample on the law every day and only obey what suits you, how difficult it is to get back to the world of law when you need to. And what else does Porky have but the moral high ground he is attempting to claim? Would the Ukie army obey him if he ordered them to wipe out Benny and his boys? Glad it's not my decision. If you run for it now, Porky, you might avoid being turned into bacon. Yes, I said it. Bacon.

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am

    Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on? Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:29 am

    VZGLIAD is taking online poll as people place their bets on their cock-fight.

    Results so far (of 11609 people voting):
    64.6% think Benny will win the fight
    15.7% think Porky will win.
    19.7% say it will end in draw

    I explained my reasons in above comment, I placed my bets on Porky, and I went ALL IN!
    (or "va bank" as the Russians say!)

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 3:03 am

    The Germans also use the expression "Va banque" – sometimes spelt "Vabanque".

    A well known usage of this term allegedly took place during a conversation between Hermann Göring und Adolf Hitler on their hearing of the British declaration of war against Germany on September 3rd, something which they had not expected to happen as a result of the German invasion of Poland two days earlier and had therefore considered that invasion a risk worth taking.

    Apparently, Göring said to Hitler:

    "Wir wollen doch das Vabanque-Spiel lassen", worauf Hitler antwortete: „Ich habe in meinem Leben immer Vabanque gespielt.

    "We should go for broke", whereupon Hitler answered: "I have my whole life always gone for broke".

    It means to play against the bank, to lay all your stakes against what the bank has; if you win, you win big time: if you lose, you lose everything.

    The vulgar expression where I come from is "shit or bust".

    So rephrasing Hermann and Adolf's little exchange above:

    – Well, it looks like it's shit or bust.

    – All my life it's been shit or bust with me.

    Only thing is, Adolf didn't use dirty language.

    And he liked dogs as well.

    And he was a veggie.

    yalensis, March 22, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Roman Bochkala, Ukrainian journalist and patriot.

    1. Four months ago: We must not surrender the airport to the Separatists!"
    2. Two days ago: Ukraine has plunged into poverty .
    TRANSLATION (of piece done by Bochkala on Ukrainian TV)

    The (Ukrainian) people are suffering real poverty. Here is just one sad example:
    Yesterday I happened to be in Zaporozhie. We popped into a deli. Ahead of me in the queue was a young girl and an old woman. And some very basic products on the belt. The girl was purchasing yogurt, some hot dogs, margarine, and eggs. All this came to around 70 or so.
    When she was ready to pay, she studied the receipt, and discovered that the real price was higher than what was marked (on the products). "What you have on the price tags is lower than this," she told the check-out clerk. She said this matter-of-factly, not like she was disputing the price, just complaining about it.

    "We didn't have time to change the price tags. Sorry," the young clerk apologized. I concluded that the young girl had calculated in her head how much she would pay, when selecting her products. In other words, for her this was a serious sum. She doesn't have the option of just buying yogurt, without factoring in the price. Then my attention was turned to the sound of coins clanking.

    The old woman was pouring out of a cellophane (baggie) a small heap of coins, of varying denominations. "That's all I have," she said. "I don't have any more money." The old woman was neatly dressed, but looked hopeless.

    The clerk methodically moved the coins from one heap to another (while counting them). "You need 27.5 but you only have 25," he concluded, counting the money again. It became an issue (for her): what should she put back, the bread, or the flour?

    I took out 200 hryvnas and gave it to the woman. She looked at me, with the look of a dog who has been many times abused and deceived.

    Then she burst out crying.

    And such people are ever more numerous in Ukraine.

    marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:39 am

    I don't have the words to tell you how sad that is to me.

    kirill, March 23, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    Not a single squeak about this theme in the whole western media.

    Quite the propaganda chorus the western media is.

    Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Igor Mosiychuk heads a meeting in mourning for and dedicated to the victims of the Holodomor.

    kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:31 am

    I should take this opportunity to point out, once again, that the western Ukraine did not live through Holodmor. All of western Ukraine not just some part of it. But the Donbas did live through Stalin's forced collectivization famines.

    So we have the Nazi allied Bandera vermin using the deaths of people in the Donbas as a pretext to kill people in the Donbas. Sick.

    But they have the following logic: Before the Holodomor the Donbas was populated by virgin ethnic Ukrs. The residents of the Donbas after the famine are all Russian squatters. My relatives believe this SHIT. I need to stop treating them as my relatives.

    Some facts about the Donbas:

    1. There are many Ukrainians living there, which is inconsistent with the genocide claim. Genocides totally remove demographic traces. You can see this in western Ukraine where there are no longer Poles and Jews in regions they previously populated in large numbers.
    2. There are Serbs and Greeks still living in eastern Ukraine. Did Stalin settle them there?
    3. We should ask the current residents of the Donbas who tend to graves going back into the 1800s what they think about the Banderite claims.

    kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:43 am

    Ignore this BS map in the east. Novorossia was not part of Ukraine until the Soviets.

    marknesop, March 22, 2015 at 11:42 am

    I don't suppose he sees any irony at all in commemorating an event in which people starved to death when he himself displaces roughly as much water as a Buick Skylark.

    kirill, March 22, 2015 at 11:47 am

    To be fair, he likely has a thyroid disorder and insulin resistence. Obesity is not simply due to stuffing your face and it is a fact that thin people can consume more calories than obese people.

    This applies to the insulin resistant who instead of turning glucose into heat (as "normal" people do) turn it into fat. Calorie restriction for insulin resistant metabolism types is guaranteed to fail.

    They need high fat, low carbohydrate type diets.

    Jen, March 22, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    Symptoms of iodine deficiency include obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes. They go together in a vicious circle and teasing out which causes which almost amounts to time-wasting Titanic deckchair rearrangements.

    Max, March 22, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Not so fast…

    https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/more-on-the-fake-holodomor/

    The 7 million figure was invented after World War 2 by Ukrainian nationalists, many of whom had fought with the Nazis and killed many Jews by participating in the Holocaust. The 7 million figure was invented by these people to be higher than the 6 million Jews killed by Hitler in the Holocaust. In other words, Stalin was worse than Hitler, and Hitler was right to go to war against Judeo-Bolshevism. Get it?

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Seven million people? Peanuts!

    More like TWO HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE! Killed by commies, yeh!

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    Interesting footnote, which I saw in above wiki piece. (To be specific: footnote #12 – the word "Crimea" caught my eye").

    Here is link to footnote:

    So, one year after George W. Bush dedicated the monument, designed to exasperate the Chinese government, then the first anniversary of this exercise in extreme hypocrisy, was held in Crimea, with Tatars playing the role of "victims du jour".

    The event organizers had selected Beethoven's Ninth Symphony as the background music. This well-known symphony is regarded a symbol of both the beginning and the end of Communism in Eastern Europe. In 1918, the top Communist leaders, including Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky, participated in the first anniversary celebrations of the October Revolution by attending a performance at the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. Seventy-one years later, shortly after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the American composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein conducted the Ninth Symphony on Christmas Day in West Berlin.

    It was very touching to see more than 20 wreaths lined up in the grassy area adjacent to the Memorial site waiting to be presented at the ceremony. They were in alphabetical order, starting with Afghanistan and ending with Ukraine. (……)

    The Crimean Tatar wreath was presented in the name of the Crimean Tatar Mejlis (Assembly), Simferopol, by the International Committee for Crimea (ICC), Washington, DC. The inscription on one of the ribbons read: "Honoring the memory of more than 200,000 victims of famine, deportation and political repression." I had the honor of presenting the Crimean Tatar wreath in person. We are grateful to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation for providing a platform where we can link to other people of different national, ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds, who were victimized by Communist authorities. Together we can support the Foundation and work toward the common goal of educating the public about Communism's crimes against humanity.

    Plus ça change, plus ça la même chose!

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    P.P.S. – one link leads to another . ICC still exists, and still sobbing about violated Tatars rights. Meanwhile, in reality Tatars have more rights now, in Russian Crimea, than they ever had in Ukie Crimea.

    ICC logo appears to be a Ukie trident flipped upside down and ready to sink into the Black Sea…

    Maybe like a sinking boat?

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    http://www.iccrimea.org/

    colliemum, March 23, 2015 at 10:29 pm

    It's how things work: once a group of people has become a designated 'victim group', they can do no wrong in the eyes of the MSM and of course their supporters in the West. It doesn't matter if these designated 'victim groups' are in foreign countries or actually living on the soil of a Western country.

    I have no idea how the process of selecting a 'victim group' works. For example, in the UK Pakistani and Bangladeshi muslims are 'victims' – Kurds, who've been persecuted by various Turkish regimes, are not. And it's not about skin colour either, because neither Sikhs nor Hindus are 'victim groups' …

    I think someone ought to do a bit of research into this!

    (Not me – I'm pounding the pavements and doing other electioneering, until May 7th)

    Moscow Exile, March 22, 2015 at 11:57 am

    Referring back to the previous posting concerning Psaki's replacement, Rathke, and Harfe and how Matt Lee tackles these double-talking spokespersons for the State Department:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfEIXy64HL0

    Warren, March 22, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    Published on 22 Mar 2015

    MORE DOCUMENTARIES HERE: http://www.youtube.com/RTDocumentaries/

    Miguel Francis, a Los Angeles film school graduate, travels to Crimea to discover how life there has changed since it was reunited with Russia. He explores the beautiful peninsula's history and cultural heritage, as well as taking in some of Crimea's tourist attractions while talking to locals about their attitudes to becoming Russian citizens.

    Tim Owen, March 22, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    Did he graduate?

    Jen, March 22, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    Miguel Francis Santiago also made a documentary on Donetsk and the Donetsk rebels. From memory, I think he visited the airport with the rebels and talks to Givi.
    http://rtd.rt.com/films/donetsk-an-american-glance/

    davidt, March 22, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    For a change of pace and emphasis, the American University in Moscow website has a nice, and interesting, interview with Charles Bausman, of Russia Insider fame.
    http://us-russia.org/3032-orthodox-american-crowdfunds-a-major-volunteer-media-watchdog-site.html

    I think it's worth reading.

    Warren, March 22, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    With that announcement on #Syria the #UK breaks international law OFFICIALLY & should shut up about #Russia forever. pic.twitter.com/j6oufVHQC0

    - Jason Han (@hanjixin) March 23, 2015

    Warren, March 22, 2015 at 5:53 pm

    EXCLUSIVE: Detained by #SBU, beaten by #RightSector – Story of French businessman in #Ukraine http://t.co/49YFrNd6M5 pic.twitter.com/bNx0Ct5INf

    - Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) March 21, 2015

    Pavlo Svolochenko, March 22, 2015 at 8:27 pm

    http://ria.ru/world/20150322/1053911387.html

    Benny admits DNR and LNR defacto authorities in Donbass.

    http://www.politnavigator.net/nachinaetsya-kolomojjskijj-potreboval-finansovojj-federalizacii.html

    Benny wants 90% of regions' tax take to stay with regional authorities.

    So much for the champion of edina Ukraina.

    kat kan, March 23, 2015 at 12:07 am

    He'd love them to stay separate. With 90% of taxes? he has a racket worked out already for taking it off them. Whereas they're of a bent to nationalise things they believe were illegally obtained.

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:07 am

    American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine fires its president , most probably for his "pro-Russian" views.

    Namely, Bernard Casey was outspoken in his views against Maidan as a violent coup, and felt that Crimea should return to Russia.

    KievPost "exposed" Casey; after their expose, he was toast, and then he got fired from his job.

    Casey apparently hails from San Jose California [yalensis: I have been there, it's actually a lovely place, the local inhabitants keep their property in perfect shape, almost obsessively landscaping their yards], anyhow Casey's expertise is small business and start-up companies.

    Nothing in Casey's bio that suggests that he is a rebel, or even anything "ethnic" going on there…

    Maybe he is simply an honorable man who tells the truth as he sees it, and pays the consequences for that?

    kirill, March 23, 2015 at 5:47 am

    He is definitely a heretic. NATO is even going to establish rapid internet reaction forces to stop the spread of Russian false narratives. We are back in the era of the crusades.

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 8:05 am

    Because everyone knows the people are too stupid and unwordly to know for themselves that they are being fed bullshit. In fact, NATO's successful transmission of its own narrative depends on it.

    james, March 23, 2015 at 8:46 am

    thanks yalensis.. the kiev post is an interesting american publication, or at least that is what it looks like to me! reading the article on caseys views which were also published in the kiev post confirms the fact he was looking for objectivity in an atmosphere which was opposed to it..i am surprised the kiev post let his thoughts be known!

    http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/chamber-disavows-ex-presidents-remarks-supporting-russias-annexation-of-crimea-384197.html

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    KievPost has the WORST commenters, bunch of low-IQ, prejudiced Banderite diaspora trash.

    Like this one, for example:

    A commenter called "OlenaG" makes gratuitous attack not only against Mr. Casey but entire San Jose State University, which is actually a component of the California State University system (which is highly respected educational system, even internationally):

    "He received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering at the San Jose State University and an MBA degree at Santa Clara University."

    Anyone that knows the reputation of San Jose State as a "Party College" (rated by U.S. News and World Report in its annual College ratings) and knows the Political Correctness of Santa Clara County both in California and in South San Francisco Bay would know to not have hired Casey.

    (….)

    Talk about ad hominem attacks! This idiot has no proof whatsoever that Mr. Casey spent his time partying instead of studying electrical engineering; and moreover, the very fact that Mr. Casey joined the Chamber of Commerce probably indicates that he was NOT politically correct at all!

    Pavlo Svolochenko, March 23, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    The worst American university would still compare favourably with the best Ukrainian one, I suspect.

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 3:34 am

    Well, Ukraine USED to have good universities, especially in Soviet times.
    Now, I am not so sure…

    yalensis, March 23, 2015 at 3:24 am

    More on Kolomoisky's antics.

    Linked piece is entitled: "Kolomoisky goes va-banque", which is a Russian phrase (actually French), meaning, as Americans would say, in a poker game, "all in".

    In other words, Benny continues to occupy the UkrNafta company offices in Kiev.
    (Not to be confused with the other oil company, UkrTransNafta, which Benny had to cede.)

    To beef up the ranks of his goons, Benny sent his personal battalion "Dnepr-1″. Leaving the war zone of the "Anti-Terrorist Operation", this battalion arrived back in Kiev to seize UkrNafta.

    Benny has explained that his military operation against UkrNafta is necessary to thwart the "raider" attempt by his (Benny's) arch-enemy, Igor Eremeev. Eremeev is a fellow oligarch and also a member of Ukrainian Parliament.

    This exciting event is all happening on Monday, March 23.

    There was a confrontation when one of Porky's allies, the deputy named Mustafu Nayem, attempted to enter the building. Benny's goons would not allow Mustafu inside. Ukrainskaya Pravda reported that Mustafu was beaten up. (see the video)
    Mustafu elucidated on his Facebook that he was roughed up, but not badly beaten.
    According to the description of the video (which I have not had time to watch), Mustafu asked Benny: "What are you doing here, Igor Valeryevich?"
    To which Benny replied: "I came to see a Parliamentary Deputy. And who are you, a journalist or a deputy?"

    Mustafu replied that within 2 months, UkrNafta will be a nationalized company belonging to the state.

    Benny shot back, that this will not happen, because UkrNafta is a private company, and that he himself (=Benny) owns 42% of it.

    And on and on… lots more… but the thrust of the article is that things are getting serious now.

    james, March 23, 2015 at 8:58 am

    yalensis, i am confused by these actions. in most countries where the rule of law supposedly operates, the police would come and evict these squatters… why isn't this happening here? or is this the type of system they have where oligarchs goon squads can do whatever their goon demands they do without any legal ramifications?

    james, March 23, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    2. Poroshenko ordered to disarm all armed guards near the office of "Ukrnafta".

    3. Continuing the theme, Poroshenko said:

    "Territorial defense will obey the clear military vertical of power and no Governor will be allowed to have his own pocket UAF (armed forces of Ukraine).
    http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/kolomoisky-vs-poroshenko-kiev-junta.html

    Jen, March 23, 2015 at 4:08 pm

    Kolomoisky funds at least five paramilitary battalions including Aidar, Azov, Dnepr-1, Dnepr-2 and Donbass which are part of the National Guard.

    A good proportion of his "goons" are probably members of these battalions. Whatever passes for the police (under Arsen Avakov's authority) in Kiev doesn't have a hope against these people.

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 11:10 pm

    Baby, what you said. Hopeless. Run for it, Porky.

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:05 am

    Are we in the process of placing bets? Because I am still betting on Porky. To be sure, he doesn't have much of an army.

    But he has Geoffrey Pyatt and the American marines behind him. That has to count for something!

    "From the halls of Montezuma, to the walls of UkrNafta…"

    (or something like that)

    colliemum, March 24, 2015 at 2:23 am

    He's also got a squad of UK army 'instructors' …
    ;-)

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 2:33 am

    Which side is Yats Rats on? I reckon he's the one that runs the show there: he's Nudelman's boy after all.

    james, March 23, 2015 at 6:29 pm

    more info/subjective angle – http://cassad-eng.livejournal.com/150328.html

    yalensis, March 24, 2015 at 2:08 am

    Yeah, see, Cassad agrees with me. Benny is toast!

    davidt, March 23, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Alastair Crooke has posted two new articles at Conflicts Forum. The first discusses a possible Iran agreement. To quote from the article:

    "Iran has already dropped the dollar as a means of trading. And as the non-dollar economic system expands with a SWIFT financial clearing system already launched, with Central Bank non-dollar currency swaps in place and a putative non-dollar jurisdiction banking system under construction by China and Russia, Iranians are now seeing the alternative, and getting fed up with hanging on the eternal "will they/won't they" lift sanctions hiatus."

    http://www.conflictsforum.org/2015/how-would-an-iran-agreement-impact-on-irans-geo-political-situation/

    davidt, March 23, 2015 at 5:57 am

    The second of Alastair Crooke's posts considers Greece's travails with the EU "system", which he sees as similar to Russia's conflict with the global "system".

    http://www.conflictsforum.org/2015/widening-geo-political-linkages-and-the-middle-east/

    ... ... ....

    Moscow Exile, March 24, 2015 at 12:08 am
    Bacon butty, anyone? The heat is on?

    Breaking: Kolomoysky raids Ukrnafta

    marknesop, March 24, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Kolomoisky is out of control – before any of those too-rich-to-give-a-fuck oligarchs start thinking about an armed takeover, they should consider how their plan meshes with the west's plan. Because if they are in competition rather than harmony, that oligarch will be squashed. And Benny is embarrassing – it was already inconceivable that Ukraine would be accepted for membership in the European Union, the west just wants to use it as a "stone frigate" against Russia, but how much more inconceivable is it now, with Benny's antics? Besides, he did not even make Nuland's "A" list, so obviously the notion of his being the rebel King of Ukraine was never entertained. Nuland wants Yats, who is watching with interest to see who will emerge victorious from this street fight.

    On a totally unrelated subject, I just picked up Mrs. Stooge from the Ferry home; she spoke glowingly of your handsomeness, enviable bearing and manner. Mrs. Exile will have to keep you on a short leash, you lady-killer. For the prizewinners Jen and James, I have acquired perhaps the only set of metal Novorossiyan soldiers in Canada. I haven't seen them yet, the missus just dropped me off at work and headed home without even taking her suitcase out of the car, but I will get about the business of sending them forthwith. I think I will save Strelkov for last or for the 100,00th comment, but once I have a look at them I will describe the others for the winners' choice – Jen first, and then James.

    et Al, March 23, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    RT OpEd: Anti-Russian propaganda is 'unconvincing', because Western narrative is false

    http://rt.com/op-edge/243237-eu-russia-propaganda-counter-war/

    ###

    Neil Clark doesn't mess about and it is not complicated. The West's response to the failure of the general public to swallow hook, line and sinker its bs line on Ukraine is because it is bs an people know it. Their strategy to counter 'Russian propaganda' is nothing more than shouting louder. Now how retarded is that? As I posted from an earlier piece from euractiv, Brussels would like a return on this investment! That's Planet Brussels for you!

    marknesop, March 23, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    In other news, there was no protest in Odessa yesterday, it was all a faked, crappy provocation by a Kremlin-sponsored TV station that provided not only the phony protesters, but phony Right Sektor goons to attack them. Totally phony, from the word "Go". Nothing to see here, return to your homes.

    Moscow Exile, March 23, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    By way of Russia Insider by A. Karlin:

    The Moor Has Done His Duty*

    Freedom! Don't ya'll just love the sound of that word!

    Freedom of speech, freedom of the press! You just cannot get enough of it in the Land of the Free.

    From a comment to the above:

    I even think that Putin, where [sic] he a sane man, could have obtained the return of Crimea peacefully had he not been a psychotic killer.

    Another Internet clinical psychiatrist, I presume.

    * "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go" .

    From Schiller's "Die Verschwörung des Fiesco zu Genua" [Fiesco's Conspiracy at Genoa]: Der Mohr hat seine Schuldigkeit getan, der Mohr kann gehen, meaning "once you have served your purpose, you are no longer needed".

    [Mar 24, 2015] Why Ron Paul is Right about Ukraine by Dan Sanchez

    Mar 24, 2015 | antiwar.com

    How should libertarians assess the crisis in Ukraine? Some would have us believe that a true commitment to liberty entails (1) glorifying the "Euromaidan revolution" and the government it installed in Kiev, (2) welcoming, excusing, or studiously ignoring US involvement with that revolution and government, and (3) hysterically demonizing Vladimir Putin and his administration for Russia's involvement in the affair. Since Ron Paul refuses to follow this formula or to remain silent on the issue, these "NATO-tarians," as Justin Raimondo refers to them, deride him as an anti-freedom, anti-American, shill for the Kremlin.

    Dr. Paul takes it all in stride of course, having endured the same kind of smears and dishonest rhetorical tricks his entire career. As he surely knows, the price of being a principled anti-interventionist is eternal patience. Still, it must be frustrating. After all he has done to teach Americans about the evils of empire and the bitter fruits of intervention, there are still legions of self-styled libertarians whose non-interventionism seems to go little further than admitting that the Iraq War was "a mistake," and who portray opposition to US hostility against foreign governments as outright support for those governments.

    "Yes, the Iraq War was clearly a mistake, but we have to confront Putin; we can't let Iran 'get nukes;' we've got to save the Yazidis on the mountain; we must crush ISIS, et cetera, et cetera. What are you, a stooge of the Czar/Ayatollah/Caliph?"

    Some of these same libertarians supported Ron Paul in 2008 and 2012, and presumably laughed along with the rest of us when the neocons tried to paint him as "pro-Saddam" for opposing the Iraq War and for debunking the lies and distortions that were used to sell it. Yet, today they do not hesitate to tar Dr. Paul as a "confused Pro-Putin libertarian" over his efforts to oppose US/NATO interventions in Ukraine and against Russia. Such tar has been extruded particularly profusely by an eastern-European-heavy faction of Students for Liberty which might be dubbed "Students for Collective Security."

    It should be obvious that Ron Paul holds no brief for Putin and the Kremlin. Let me inform the smear-artists and their dupes what Ron Paul is trying to do with his statements and articles about Ukraine and Russia. He is not trying to support Putin's government. He is doing what he has always done. He is trying to prevent US intervention. He is trying to stop war.

    Some NATO-tarians have responded to this assertion by asking, "If that is so, why can't he just limit himself to simply stating his principled opposition to intervention? Why must he go beyond that, all the way to reciting Kremlin talking points?"

    First of all, this is one of the most egregious fallacies that Ron Paul's critics regularly trot out: the allegation that, "because A voices agreement with B about statements of fact, then A must be doing so in the service of B."

    To see the fallacy involved clearly, let us draw out the Iraq War comparison a bit more. Before and during that war, in spite of Bush Administration and media propaganda to the contrary, Ron Paul argued that Saddam Hussein did not have a weapons of mass destruction program or ties to Al Qaeda. Saddam argued the same thing. So was Ron Paul just "reciting Baghdad talking points" back then? Was he being a "confused pro-Saddam libertarian"? No. Do you know why Ron Paul was saying the same thing as Saddam? Because it was true. As is widely accepted today, Saddam did nothave a WMD program or ties to Al Qaeda. Is it valorizing Saddam to admit that he told the truth? Again, no; it is simply to abstain from hysterically demonizing him. Of course Saddam was a head of state, and as such, he was a lying murderer. But in this instance, telling the truth happened to serve his interests, which included trying to avoid a war in which he might be overthrown and killed. Ron Paul also told the truth, because he's not a lying murderer, and because he also wanted to prevent such a disastrous war: although of course not for Saddam's sake, but for the sake of avoiding all the catastrophic results that would surely (and did) flow from it.

    Ron Paul had no love for Saddam then or for Putin today, just as, notwithstanding endless smears to the contrary, there was no love nurtured by Murray Rothbard for Khrushchev, Justin Raimondo for Milosevic, Lew Rockwell for Lukashenko, or Jacob Hornberger for Chavez. Rather, it just so happens that, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the truth has a well-known anti-war bias. That is the only reason why, when speaking about the same international crises, principled anti-war voices so frequently find themselves in agreement over points of fact with tyrants who want to avoid being attacked. The truth can, in some cases, happen to serve the purposes of both good and evil men. That doesn't stop it from being the truth.

    Similarly, there are a great many true (and intervention-disfavoring) points of fact concerning Ukraine and Russia that are being completely ignored by the media, which instead regurgitates the intervention-favoring propaganda it imbibes directly from Washington, London, and the NATO bureaucracy. These truths are broadcasted, and this propaganda refuted, both by the Kremlin and by Ron Paul. But again this coincidence does not occur because the two are in cahoots. The Kremlin engages in this broadcasting and refuting because it considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be in its state interest. Ron Paul does so because, again, it is the truth, and because he considers avoiding US/NATO intervention to be moral and in the interest of humanity in general (Americans, Russians, and Ukrainians, included).

    What is this propaganda that Ron Paul labors to refute, along with his Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and like-minded alternative media outlets like Antiwar.com and LewRockwell.com?

    According to the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative, a peaceful protest movement emerged in Kiev against an oppressive government, was met with a deadly, unprovoked, and uncompromising crackdown, but ultimately prevailed, causing Ukraine's dictator to flee. A popularly-supported, freedom-loving, self-determination-exemplifying government then emerged. But dastardly Putin horribly invaded and conquered Crimea, and engineered a "terrorist" revolt in the east of the country. Putin is the new Hitler, and if the US and Europe don't confront him now, he will continue his conquests until he has recreated the Soviet Empire and re-erected the Iron Curtain.

    The reality of the situation, which Dr. Paul and only a handful of others strive to represent, is far different.

    First of all, the chief grievance of the protesters was not about domestic oppression; it was over foreign policy and foreign aid. They wanted closer ties with the west, and they were angry that (the duly elected) President Viktor Yanukovych had rejected a European Union Association Agreement over its severe stringency.

    Far from "organic," the movement was heavily subsidized and sponsored by the US government. Before the crisis, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragged about the US "investing" $5 billion in "helping" Ukraine become more western-oriented.

    Once the anti-government protests in Kiev were under way, both Nuland and Senator John McCain personally joined the demonstrators in Maidan Square, implicitly promising US support for a pro-western regime change. Nuland even went so far as to pass out cookies, like a sweet little imperial auntie.

    Far from peaceful, the protesters were very violent, and it is not clear which side fired the first gunshot. The Foreign Minister of Estonia, while visiting Kiev, was shown evidence that convinced him that protest leaders had hired snipers to shoot at both sides. And the BBC recently interviewed a Maidan protester who admitted to firing on the police before the conflict had become pitched.

    In fact, the hard core of the Euromaidan movement, and its most violent component, was comprised of Nazis. And no, I don't mean to say "neo-Nazi," which is a term really only appropriate for people who merely glean inspiration from historical Nazis. On the other hand, the torchlight marching fascists that spearheaded the Ukraine coup (chief among them, the Svoboda and Right Sector parties) are part of an unbroken lineal tradition that goes back to Stepan Bandera, the Nazi collaborator who brought the Holocaust to Ukraine. Even a pro-Maidan blogger wrote for The Daily Beast:

    "Of course the role that the Right Sector played in the Euromaidan cannot be underestimated. (…) They were the first to throw Molotov coctails and stones at police and to mount real and well-fortified barricades."

    Maidan protesters bearing armbands with the neo-Nazi wolf's hook symbol

    More fundamentally, what is often forgotten by many libertarians, is that revolutionary street and public square movements like Euromaidan are not "the people," but are comprised of would-be members of and partisans for a new state, every one of which is inherently an engine of violent aggression. What we saw in the clash at Maidan Square was not "Man Vs. State," but "Incoming State vs. Outgoing State."

    Far from being completely intransigent, Yanukovych agreed to early elections and assented to US demands to withdraw the riot police from the square. As soon as he did that, the government buildings were seized. The city hall was then draped with white supremacist banners.

    Far from being supported and appointed popularly and broadly, the new government's backing is highly sectional and heavily foreign. It was installed by a capital city street coup, not a countrywide revolution. In a deeply divided country, it only represented a particularly aggressive component of one side of that divide. Moreover, its top officeholders were handpicked by Nuland, and its installation was presided over by the US Vice President, as was famously revealed in an intercepted and leaked telephone recording.

    And the only thing saving the extravagantly warlike new government from bankruptcy is the unstinting flow of billions of dollars in aid from the US, the EU, and the IMF, as well as "non-lethal" military aid (including drones, armored Humvees, and training) from the US.

    Far from being freedom-loving, top offices are held by an ex-bankster (Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, whom Nuland handpicked when she said "Yats is our guy" in the above recording), a corrupt oligarch (chocolate magnate Petro Poroshenko), and, yes, Nazis (including Andriy Parubiy, until recently the National Security chief, and Oleh Tyahnybok, also mentioned by Nuland in the recording as a key advisor to the new government, and pictured at the top of this article with Nuland and "Yats").

    Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the far-right Svoboda Party, formerly the "Social-National Party." Get it? Social-National: National Socialist?

    Far from being an exemplar of self-determination, the new regime responded to eastern attempts to assert regional autonomy with all-out war, shelling civilian centers (with cluster bombs, even) and killing thousands. Of course Nazis have also played a key role in the war. As the famous journalist Robert Parry wrote:

    "The U.S.-backed Ukrainian government is knowingly sending neo-Nazi paramilitaries into eastern Ukrainian neighborhoods to attack ethnic Russians who are regarded by some of these storm troopers as "Untermenschen" or subhuman, according to Western press reports.

    Recently, one eastern Ukrainian town, Marinka, fell to Ukraine's Azov battalion as it waved the Wolfsangel flag, a symbol used by Adolf Hitler's SS divisions in World War II. The Azov paramilitaries also attacked Donetsk, one of the remaining strongholds of ethnic Russians opposed to the Kiev regime that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February."

    Plagued by failure and desertion in spite of massive western aid, the "pro-freedom" new regime in Kiev has resorted to conscripting its non-rebeling citizens. Meeting stiff draft resistance and opposition to the war, it has jailed a journalist for merely advocating draft-dodging, prepared a law restricting the travel of draft-age citizens, contemplated conscripting women over 20, and passed a law allowing the military to shoot deserters on the spot.

    And the Nazis have also played in key role in the stifling and crushing of internal dissent as well. After the coup, Right Sector began patrolling the streets and squares of Kiev. And in Odessa, Right Sector toughs joined a mob in trapping and burning to death 38 anti-Maidan protesters in the Trades Union House.

    Whatever involvement Moscow has in it, the revolt in the east is far from engineered. People there do not need Russian money and threats to know they had absolutely no say in the regime change in distant Kiev, and that it was executed by their political enemies. Russian-speaking and heavily industrial, it would have suffered grievously, both economically and politically, had it been dragged into a new expressly anti-Russian order. It was made abundantly clear which way the wind was blowing when Tyahybok's Svoboda, as the Christian Science Monitor put it, "pushed through the cancellation of a law that gave equal status to minority languages, such as Russian," even if the cancellation was temporary.

    Far from "terrorists," the rebels are not trying to destabilize or overthrow the government in Kiev, but are seeking to establish autonomy from it. If anything, it is Kiev, with its high civilian death toll, that has been more engaged in terrorism.

    And far from Soviet revanchism, Russian policy has been largely reactive against US aggressiveness. Since Moscow dropped its side of the Cold War by relinquishing its empire, including both the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the US has taken advantage by progressively expanding NATO, an explicitly anti-Moscow military pact, all the way to Russia's borders: a policy that even Cold War mastermind George Kennan, in 1998, predicted would prove to be tragic. Moscow warned Washington that Russia could not abide a hostile Ukraine, which would be a bridge too far.

    But Washington blithely pushed on to snatch Ukraine anyway. The sheer flippancy of it can be seen most vividly when Gideon Rose, editor of the US foreign policy establishment organ Foreign Affairs (published by the Council on Foreign Relations) went on The Colbert Report in the midst of the crisis and jocularly boasted about how "we want to basically distract Russia" with the shiny Olympic medals it was winning at the Sochi Olympics while getting Ukraine "to flip sides." Colbert aptly characterized this geopolitical strategy as, "Here's a shiny object! We'll just take an entire country away from you," to which Rose enthusiastically responded, "Basically!" (Perhaps to atone for such an embarrassing and pandering display of naïveté and frivolity, Rose later published an excellent article by respected establishment foreign policy expert John Mearsheimer arguing "Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault." Even that old CFR-associated murder-monger Henry Kissinger has urged reconsideration.)

    The takeover included Crimea which is heavily Russian-speaking and has been under effective Russian control since the 18th century. Unsurprisingly, Washington's brilliant "Shiny Object" doctrine failed miserably, and rather than see its only warm-water port pass under the sway of an increasingly antagonistic rival, Russia asserted control over Crimea, doing so without loss of life. Later, following a referendum, Crimea was formally annexed.

    Of course this act was not "libertarian"; hardly anything that a state does is. But it is simply a warmongering distortion to characterize this bloodless foreign policy counter-move as evidence of reckless imperial Russian expansionism, especially when you compare the "invasion" of Crimea with the bloody havoc the US has wreaked upon the Middle East, North Africa, and Southwest Asia for the past 14 years.

    As for whatever meddling Russia is guilty of in eastern Ukraine, let's try to put it in perspective without absolving it. Just imagine what the US would do if Russia had supported a coup in Ottawa that installed an anti-American Canadian government right on our border, and then perpetually re-armed that government as it bombed English-speaking separatists in British Columbia. Compared to what you'd expect to follow that, Russia's response to a US-sponsored, anti-Russian junta bombing Russian speakers right on its border has been positively restrained.

    After all, it is Putin who has been constantly pushing for ceasefires against American militant obduracy and European reluctance, just as, in 2013, it was Putin who successfully pushed for a deal that prevented the US from launching yet another air war, this time against the Syrian government.

    Again, this is not to claim that any foreign intervention on the part of Moscow is at all justified on libertarian grounds, or to argue that Putin is anything more than a lying murderer who happens to be more intelligent and sane than our own lying murderers. It is only to make clear that in this respect too, Russia's involvement in the affair is hardly evidence of grand imperial designs.

    As an aside: Putin's foiling of neocon war aims in Syria (and potential future such foilings) may be the reason that the anti-Russian putsch in Ukraine, and the new Putin-threatening Cold War it engendered, was advanced by Nuland, who is a neocon holdover from the Bush Administration and the wife of leading neocon Robert Kagan, in the first place.

    To think that any country is too big or too dangerous (especially if destabilized) to be targeted by neocons for regime change would be naïve. And to think Putin is too naïve to know this would be equally naïve.


    So much for the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative. Now to return to the NATO-tarian objection from above: why must Ron Paul stress these points of fact, especially when they make wicked Putin look better, or at least not-so-wicked? Why can't Dr. Paul merely state his principled opposition to intervention?

    It might make sense for him to do so if that were enough to make a difference. But the thing is, it's not. The sad but inescapable fact is that the American people are not operating under the same moral premises as Ron Paul and other principled libertarians. As such, the public is susceptible to war lies and distortions. And the Washington/NATO/Kiev/neocon narrative about Ukraine and Russia is nothing but a tissue of war lies and distortions.

    As the warmongers are abundantly aware, if Kiev is sufficiently falsely valorized, Washington/NATO sufficiently falsely absolved, and Putin and the eastern separatists sufficiently falsely demonized, then American opinion will provide cover for US intervention, regardless of what principled libertarians say. So the only way to practically stop such intervention is to go beyond statements of principle and to debunk those war lies and distortions; moreover, to debunk them bravely and forthrightly, even if the Kremlin is also trying to debunk them, and even if simple-minded or lying critics will use that parallel to smear you as an agent of a foreign power.

    Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention.

    So much for Ron Paul's "ulterior motives." But what about some of his critics? A question actually worth asking is as follows: Why are some of his avowedly libertarian critics, many of whom profess not to favor intervention (or at least studiously avoid talking about that question concretely) so absolutely livid over Ron Paul's challenge to their narrative? Their English-language blasts against Dr. Paul are also not likely to effect Putin's domestic support one way or the other. Their only possible impact is also on US foreign policy. So, why are they so extremely sensitive about the acceptance in America of a narrative that lends itself toward intervention and confrontation? The question answers itself.

    Let me close with a few additional questions.

    Why is it "defending tyranny" for Ron Paul to agree with Putin on points of fact, but not for "libertarians" to hail a government that rose to power in a violent putsch, that welcomes outright Nazis in its ranks, that conscripts its people, and that drops cluster bombs on civilians?

    What exactly is "libertarian" about NATO, which amounts to an hegemonic, dual-hemisphere, nuclear tripwire, species suicide pact?

    What is so secure about a state of "collective security" in which petulant, reckless nationalists in small eastern European countries can drag the whole world into nuclear war over a border dispute?

    And finally, why should a new Cold War be launched, and the risk of nuclear annihilation for all our families and hometowns be heightened over the question of which clique rules a particular river basin on the other side of the world?

    Ron Paul has excellent, solidly libertarian answers to all these questions. Do his critics?


    Also published at Medium.com. Follow Dan Sanchez via Twitter, or TinyLetter.


    Dax

    Wow, what a sad mess the U.S. government is. It's quite frustrating how little say we peons have on what our rulers arbitrarily do to other countries that are no threat to us whatsoever. And these wannabe Ukrainian Nazis...I had no idea they were so powerful in number. Are their attacks on ethnic Russians some sort of "cosmic revenge" for the Soviet Union's starvation of Ukrainians in the 30's? The whole thing is a nightmare. May our leaders burn in hell for the misery they've helped create.

    johndavit66

    Besides, if Ron Paul's statements really are part of some ulterior pro-Putin agenda, how could he possibly hope for his efforts to advance such an agenda? He couldn't. He is not writing in or speaking Russian; he has zero effect on Putin's domestic support. The only real effect he has is on opinion and policy in the English-speaking world. So, as it concerns the Ukraine crisis, the only real impact he could hope to have is to dissuade intervention. Thank for share
    Friv 100000

    Michael

    mind blowingly rational stream of conscious and geo-political conscience! It makes tremendous sense particularly if you feel we have been recently duped into 20 or so highly profitable (for oligarchs and financial institutions) wars. Assuming they are going to have another real war with Russia for fun and neo-con profit, where are they going to live in blissful retirement to spend the loot without getting attacked or dripped-on by glow-in the dark irradiated zombies? Are some wars better not started regardless of the causus belli or opportunity for plunder? Is setting-up a game of nuclear armed chicken with the second most powerful alliance on the planet still a good idea if you were planning to retire and spend time growing rhodos and fishing and playing baseball with your grandchildren?

    Do neo-cons have a we-were-just-kidding plan "B" or are they truly to committed to a global sepuku / samson option if they / we lose? Do neo-cons do anything other than dream big about obliterating evil comic book enemies and ruling the world? Is it too late to invent a drug or make a video game or addictive snuff porn to keep them better occupied? How come all the neo-cons are moving to the USA and no one elsewhere is complaining about a shortage of them?


    Claus Eric Hamle

    It is really like 2+2=4: Deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe (Poland and Romania) leads to Launch On Warning (probably by 2017) and Suicide by accident/mistake. What else can the Russians do to defend themselves ? Will they even announce when they adopt Launch On Warning=Suicide Guaranteed. The crazy Americans asked for it -- The Russians want to be certain that they won't die alone. Stupid, crazy, bloody fools in the Pentagon !!!

    [Mar 24, 2015] The West has no respect for Russian liberals or kreaklies

    To be a Russian liberal or kreakly to have a fanatical belief that the West is right all the time and on everything
    Warren March 23, 2015 at 4:28 pm
    The West has no respect for Russian liberals or kreaklies. The moment a Russian liberal or kreakly steps out of line or fails to sing from the same hymn sheet they will be ostracised and labelled a Putin/Kremlin lackey.

    To be a Russian liberal or kreakly is to be a member of a religion, to be a believer in "Westernism" as Karlin coins it. Russian liberal or kreakly is a lay person who has no right to question or challenge the high priests of Westernism, to do so is heresy and will condemn you to become a benighted undemocratic uncivilised Russian heathen again.

    The treat of Gorbachev and Solzhenitsyn by the Western media is evidence that the West has no respect for any Russian political figure or dissident that goes off message and goes off the reservation.

    Russian liberals and kreaklies only function is to denigrate their own country and people incessantly. If a Russian liberal or kreaklies, dares to defend the Russian perspective or interests, then they cease being a liberal or a kreakly.

    To be a Russian liberal or kreakly to have a fanatical belief that the West is right all the time and on everything.

    [Mar 22, 2015] Top Russia Scholar Stephen Cohen War between NATO and Russia a Real Possibility by Damir Marinovich

    Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vWzHhW_qNiM
    Mar 22, 2015 | russia-insider.com
    • Round Table on "Defining a new security architecture for Europe that brings Russia in from the cold" was held in Brussels on March 2.
    • The organizer of the event was the American committee for East West Accord.
    • Three key presenters were American scholars Professor John Mearsheimer and Professor Steve Cohen, and publisher-editor of The Nation, Katrina Vanden Heuvel.
    • Q&A session was conducted by VIP guest panel which included five Members of the European Parliament from Left, Center and Right party groupings, two ambassadors and other senior diplomats from several missions, a senior member of the EU External Action Service, and Professor Richard Sakwa, author of the recently published Frontline Ukraine.
    • The first speech at the roundtable was delivered by John Mearsheimer, which we wrote about previously.
    • For more exclusive videos, please visit and subscribe to Russia Insider You Tube Channel

    Professor Stephen Cohen is one of the most respected authorities on Russia among American and Western scholars. He is an American scholar of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University. His academic work concentrates on modern Russian history and Russia's relationship with the United States.

    The key points of Cohen's extraordinary speech:

    • The possibility of premeditated war with Russia is real; this was never a possibility during Soviet times.
    • This problem did not begin in November 2013 or in 2008, this problem began in 1990's when the Clinton administration adopted a "winner-takes-all" policy towards post-Soviet Russia.
    • Next to NATO expansion, the US adopted a form of a negotiation policy called "selective cooperation" - Russia gives, the US takes.
    • There is not a single example of any major concession or reciprocal agreement that the US offered Russia in return for what it has received since the 90s.
    • This policy has been pursued by every president and every US Congress, from President Clinton to President Obama.
    • The US is entitled to a global sphere of influence, but Russia is not entitled to any sphere of influence at all, not even in Georgia or Ukraine.
    • For 20 years Russia was excluded from the European security system. NATO expansion was a pivot of this security system and it was directed against Russia.
    • Putin started as a pro-Western leader, he wanted partnership with the US, provided helping hand after 9/11 and saved many American lives in Afghanistan.
    • In return he got more NATO expansion and unilateral abolition of the existing missile treaty on which all Russian security was based.
    • Putin is not an autocrat, he's maybe very authoritarian as an ultimate decider, but he is answerable to other power groups.
    • Putin is not anti-Western, or as Khodorkovsky said, he is more European than 99 percent of Russians. He has become less pro-Western and particularly less pro-American.
    • Since November 2013, Putin has became not aggressive but reactive. For this he has been criticized in circles in Moscow as an appeaser (that is, soft, not tough enough).
    • We (opposing academics) don't have effective political support in the administration, the Congress, political parties, think tanks or on university campuses. This is unprecedented situation in American politics. There's no discourse, no debate and this is failure of American democracy.
    • There is ongoing extraordinary irrational and nonfactual demonisation of Putin. No Soviet leader was so personally vilified as Putin is now.
    • The solution is federation to unite Ukraine without Crimea, which is not coming back, free trade with both the West and Russia and no NATO membership for Ukraine.
    • This guarantees must be in writing, not oral premises like they gave to Gorbachev, and must be ratified by the UN.
    • The Kiev regime is not a democratic one, but an ultra-nationalistic one. Poroshenko is a diminishing president.
    • Unless the Kiev regime changes its approach to Russia or unless the West stops supporting Kiev unconditionally, we are drifting towards war with Russia.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vWzHhW_qNiM

    [Mar 21, 2015] Propaganda Shouldn't Pay by NICK COHEN

    July/August 2014 | standpointmag.co.uk

    Spinner-in-chief: Every tinpot PR now thinks he is Alastair Campbell

    As with Nye Bevan and Conservatives so with me and PR departments: "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for press officers. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." Or as the BBC's economics editor Robert Peston put it in his recent Charles Wheeler lecture, "I have never been in any doubt that PRs are the enemy."

    Let me explain how they are the nearest thing to prostitutes you can find in public life. You might say that biased reporters look more like sex workers, as they try to satisfy their readers' every whim. But there is a small difference. The biased journalist occasionally tells the truth. He might produce propaganda, but his bias or that of his editor will cause him to investigate stories conventional wisdom does not notice. Right-wing journalists uncover truths about corruption in the European Union. Left-wing journalists discover truths about the crimes of Nato armies. They look at scandals others ignore precisely because they do not think like level-headed and respectable members of the mainstream.

    Press officers have no concern with truth. It is not that all of them lie - although many do - rather that truth and falsity are irrelevant to their work. Their sole concern is to defend their employers' interests. That they can manipulate on behalf of central government, local authority and other public bodies is an under-acknowledged scandal. The party in power that wishes to stop public scrutiny, or the NHS trust whose executives wish to maintain their positions, use taxpayer funds to advance their personal or political interests. If anyone else did the same, we would call them thieves.

    It makes no difference who is in office. Conservatives complained about the spin and manipulation of New Labour but they are no different now. Indeed they are playing tricks those of us who lived through the Blair years haven't seen before.

    They withhold information from journalists in the hope of killing a story. If reporters publish nevertheless - as they should - the government tells their editors and anyone else who will listen that they are shoddy hacks who failed to put the other side of the story. An alternative tactic is for press officers to phone up at night, just after an article has appeared online, and try to bamboozle late-duty editors into making changes. I have had the Crown Prosecution Service and the BBC try to pull that one on me. That neither institution is in the political thick of it only goes to show that every dandruff-ridden PR in every backwater office now thinks he is Alastair Campbell.

    Politicians and senior civil servants do not rate state-sponsored propagandists by their ability to tell the public what is done in their name with their money. Like corporate chief executives and celebrities, they judge them by their ability to keep uncomfortable stories out of the press.

    Compare PRs with other despised trades. Journalists have blown the whistle on journalistic malpractice. Bankers have blown the whistle on financial malpractice. But I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion.

    Once you could have said that my comparison between press officers and prostitutes was unfair - to prostitutes. Poverty and drug addiction drives women on to the street. Press officers are not heroin addicts or the victims of child abuse. Nor do the equivalent of sex traffickers kidnap media studies graduates and force them to work in "comms". PRs do not do what they do because a cruel world has left them with no alternative to selling their souls, but because they want to.

    But that is no longer quite right. As the web destroys the media's business model, PR is where the jobs are. Students leave university and go straight into PR or hang around newsrooms for a few years on internships and petty payments before giving up and joining the former reporters in PR departments.

    A profound shift in the balance of power is under way, and the advantage lies with those who can buy coverage. You can see it on the screen and in the press. Television royal coverage is run by Buckingham Palace - I always tell foreigners that if they want to know what Britain would look like if it were a dictatorship, they should watch how the BBC reports the monarchy. Travel journalism is advertising in all but name. Press offices give travel "journalists" free holidays and they repay the favour in kind copy. Political coverage is still of a high quality, but the state-funded BBC is always open to attack from the state's spin doctors. Meanwhile most serious news, business and arts journalism remains clean, but Private Eye has reported anger among Daily Telegraph journalists about the advertising department's attempts to influence what they write.

    Such conflicts will grow. The web has made most newspapers imitate most television stations. They give away their content and rely on advertising for an income. At the same time, the web has lowered the price of advertising by making a vast number of new outlets available to advertisers. In his speech, which is worth reading in full online, Peston said: "News that is a disguised advert, or has been tainted by commercial interests, is not worth the name." But the need for money is pushing newspapers into creating more cloaked commercials.

    Without sales revenue or conventional advertising revenue, media marketing departments are offering what they call "native" advertisements: commercials disguised as news features. Peston says BBC executives are thinking of doing the same - though how they could hope to retain public funding if they do is beyond me. Readers may not be aware that the videos they are watching or the stories they are reading are "sponsored content", and that is the point. Manipulation works best when no one realises it is happening. PR departments aren't just influencing or stifling news, but creating it, and passing off advertisements as independent journalism.

    We are heading towards a media future that is not worth having. To avoid it we will need strict controls, backed by criminal sanctions, against the use of public money for propaganda, and a popular revolt against a pestilential trade. A start could be made by journalists. We should refuse to speak to press officers unless we intend to give them the ridicule and contempt they deserve.

    Anonymous

    September 8th, 2014
    8:09 PM

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry and the irony and stupidity of the comparison between PR's and 'sex workers'. This is written by someone who is clearly unable to cast a critical eye on the propaganda campaign which upholds the nasty power structures between men and the women that they demonise in order to exploit. Maybe he can have a decent opinion on propaganda without being aware of how it is saturated into his own understanding of the world but dear God what a way to undermine oneself only a few lines into to a rant against propaganda. Laugh or give up all hope? The predictable defences, outrage and mocking of the other commenters in response to this will probably means hopelessness is the appropriate response.

    Captain Nemo Vero

    July 30th, 2014
    7:07 PM

    Cohen ignores (among so much else) the blithe and cosy relationship between the BBC and Guardian on the one hand and "campaigning organizations" on the other. When Greenpeace claimed what they called "bottom-trawlering" (must be something done on Hampstead Heath; I think they mean "bottom trawling", or dredging) "destroyed 10,000 species", they did so without one shred of scientific evidence. Nonetheless, the story was given a DPS in the Times and The Guardian before the PR department at a fishing industry body forced a retraction.

    The same PR department won an apology from The Times over inaccurate posters in the London underground falsely repeating Daniel Pauly's now-recanted saw that there would be no fish left in the sea by 2048; and so on and so on.

    The liars and whores among journalists (since when is it a "profession" by the way? That implies a barrier to entry, and there is no such thing in journalism)also need exposition, and to ignore this fact is to ignore reality.

    Anon

    July 28th, 2014
    4:07 PM

    Nick makes the good point that the balance of power is changing. There used to be lots of journalists with enough time on their hands to properly research a story. That isn't the case now. It means that an increasing amount of copy is PR-generated. Given the financial travails of most media outlets I can't see that changing. A journalist under pressure to fill his/her publication must be tempted to believe any old guff. There is an answer - the internet. I see very many well-informed blogs. I learn more from them than I do from the BBC or newspapers. It's a shame that so few people read them.

    Countdown2

    July 10th, 2014
    2:07 PM

    Surely Robert Peston doesn't think the output of a future BBC which would have to pay its way by giving advertisers what they want can be any worse than the current outfit which acts like the propaganda wing of the Green Party?

    Richard Whipple

    July 9th, 2014
    6:07 PM

    So, now I have read and digested the article and I see a bunch on my colleagues in this discussion here and I have to ask: WHERE ARE YOUR VOICES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR TRADE (I refuse to demean the term profession)? True press agentry is not the sum total of PR's potential to be a voice in business but how many clients call up a PR agency for a Corporate Conscience. And just where and by whom is this work taught? After three decades work on multiple continents with Fortune 100 companies I am willing to intuit that a good 99% of calls into the name brand PR agencies, which are all controlled by three corporations, are for perception management rather than Corporate Conscience/Governance work.

    *** Press officers have no concern with truth. truth and falsity are irrelevant to their work. ***

    This is spot on. PRSA pays lip service to ethics but without a revocable professional license, the service to the public is meaningless spin. And they do not want to pursue a licensing agenda. Rather they shame whistleblowers (contrary to policy).

    *** They withhold information from journalists in the hope of killing a story. ***

    How we have fallen from the management of information to withholding it altogether. Technically, still information management. Amazing what multitude of sins good phrasing can cover up, no? But let's not stop there. Let's consider what PR did for the tobacco industry or in the case of American Express vs. Edward Safra.

    *** I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion. ***

    You would have if you were in PR: Scott McClellan, Edward Bernays, Ivy Lee and others who are/were vilified. My mentor called for licensing and freely admitted his role in black public relations work for everyone: a real gun for hire. He wrote clearly worded books entitled Propaganda and Crystallizing Public Opinion. And that's where I get to the point that this trade will not be a profession – an independent symmetric voice for the public inside institutions to do the kind of work Glenn M. Broom and David M. Dozier detailed in Using Research in Public Relations.

    But there is no money in that kind of Corporate Conscience work when you get crowded out of a market managed by an oligarchy of corporations, DSM IV qualified sociopathic. Better financially to play ball and those university students have debt to pay. http://earthisnotround.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/the-10-companies.jpg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk WHERE ARE OUR FEARLESS VOICES? They are not working for the three corporations that own 90% of the industry.

    andygreencreativity

    July 6th, 2014
    1:07 PM

    Lively stirring up of debate here - and highlights the need for coherent, robust and relevant theory and definitions of what constitutes 'PR' and 'propaganda'. Can I alert you to an independent, not-for-profit global initiative which would help all sides in this debate, called #PRredefined. It currently covers issues such as 'truthiness', 'integrity' and 'values' and 'propaganda' and welcomes your input at wwww.prredefined.org

    wtloild

    July 3rd, 2014
    2:07 PM

    Fantastic piece on an point that doesn't get raised enough. I worked in local govt for 20yrs & the cancerous impact of this spin culture annoyed me throughout. However...I'll make one point in their defence - there are numerous instances where council clients go to the press attacking the authority with their very one-sided story, often a pack of lies, yet because of confidentiality rules, the council is unable to denounce those blatant untruths. I'd suggest that where an individual chooses to share their story, they then waive some right to confidentiality, and the public body can respond with the facts of the case.

    Mary WillowAnonymous

    July 3rd, 2014
    1:07 PM

    The problem is the definition of 'lie' is as difficult to pin down as a definition of 'truth' A witness under oath promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth- not simply to tell the 'truth'. PR is just PR speak for propaganda whenever its purpose is to deceive or mislead. If PR people had ever attended a Catholic primary school they would know from their catechism that it is perfectly possible to lie by omission and that St Peter at the pearly gates has no tick box for letting you off on a technicality.

    Anon

    June 27th, 2014
    10:06 AM

    If PRs were named by whoever quotes them the lies would reduce drastically. The anonymity they enjoy is the fuel that allows them to lie.

    Oldster

    June 27th, 2014
    9:06 AM

    'Twas ever thus, as you will recall from John Betjeman's poem "Executive" and Malcolm Muggeridge's description of PR as "organised lying".

    James Matthews

    June 27th, 2014
    8:06 AM

    Prostitutes should sue.

    reluctant_pseudonym

    June 26th, 2014
    5:06 PM

    "I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion." => Damian McBride?

    Tim Almond

    June 26th, 2014
    4:06 PM

    "Compare PRs with other despised trades. Journalists have blown the whistle on journalistic malpractice. Bankers have blown the whistle on financial malpractice. But I have never heard of a press officer going straight and coming clean by explaining how his government department or corporation manipulated public opinion." Know what else PRs do? They protect business people from giving a reasonable and honest interview that is twisted into a sensational story that paints them as a villain by pushing certain elements to the fore and omitting certain aspects completely.

    Julian Kavanagh

    June 26th, 2014
    4:06 PM

    I think Nick needs to have more faith in journalists and the democratic nature of information in the internet age. I work for a FTSE100 company as a corporate PR (Julian Kavanagh is a pseudonym, by the way). When I speak to journalists (and I do so most days) I push the company line - of course - but my main job is to help journalists navigate the vast swathes of information and opinion already out there and provide background detail and context (often political) to the news that we're announcing. The point about the Telegraph is interesting. In my experience, the woeful journalism at the Telegraph is a result of Telegraph journalists being chained to their desks providing web content rather than going our and getting stories. I should also add that while my loyalty to the company is clear, the first rule of a good PR is that there are no circumstances under which it is acceptable to lie. If you don't like a question or don't want to compromise yourself, then reach for 'no comment.' If my CEO asked me to lie to a journalist, I would resign. Finally, both Robert Peston and Nick Cohen have given the impression with their diatribes against PR that they are on the side of the angels. They and their fellow journalists are clearly not - journalists have their agendas too. If they were on the side of the angels, would CEOs and other feel there is a need for press officers?

    Harold

    June 26th, 2014
    3:06 PM

    But even worse are the 'journalists' who get a by-line for regurgiating a slightly altered press release.

    [Mar 21, 2015] The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert O. Paxton

    After Israeli elections and Ukrainian coup d'état the key question is "to what extent [...] the contemporary right [is] linked to classical fascism". And the picture is complex. As one reviewer of the book Fascism and Neofascism Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe noted "contrary to common perception, the Nazi movement was not repressive towards sex. In fact, it sneered at Christian morality much the same way that modern libertines and leftists do, and favored both premarital and extramarital sex. Attempts were made to discredit the Catholic Church by accusing priests in general of being homosexuals (sound familiar?). Much as modern feminists and other humanists, the Nazis accused Christianity of having a dislike for the human body and for showing disrespect towards women. This was supposed to be a carryover of "the Oriental attitude towards women." Similarly hate toward particular ethnic or racial group was never absolute: Among Nazi Germany fascist brass there were notable number of Jews. Also Italian fascism was quite different from German as well as the level of Social Darwinism adopted.
    Neofascism movement share with classic fascism the belief in the necessary of hierarchical (authoritarian) world with the dominant and subordinate groups, as well as ethos of masculine violence. It is deeply rooted in European culture with and as Adorno noted that "totality" is a mode of domination that lies implicit in the Enlightenment drive to de-mythologize the world. In this sense "totalitarism" in not unique to fascism and communism but also is inherent in "consumer capitalism", which, as such, represent a potent background for emerging neofascist groups and movements. Fascist myths were the means of constituting identity and as such not tat different form mass advertizing . That also entails deep similarities of Hollywood and Nazi films. At the same time, new radical right movement and groups are clearly distinct from fascist of the past. While fascism emerged partially as a reaction to brutalities and injustices of WWI, new radical right is in large part the result of unease with the neoliberalism. Several members of Western European far right groups fight in Donbass with Donbass militia as they consider Kiev junta to be Washington puppets promoting its globalization agenda. At the same time several members of white supremacist groups fight with Kiev junta para-military formations (death squads) which openly brandish Nazi symbols.
    Neofascist movements are using "invented historical context" or myths as a powerful means for making sense of human differences and organizing societies. Nationalism, based on however fictive consent of national identity, is powerful mean of organizing the society along of axis of domination and subordination, inclusion and exclusion. Racism and nationalism while not the same things are closely linked together. In a sense any political system that operate on the base of nationality of race is a neofascism in its essence. that includes Israel and Baltic states. In this sense neither the USA nor Russia can be classified as neofascist regimes became they do not adhere to the concept of "ingenious nationality" or white race supremacy. That does not exclude existence of groups that adhere to this mythology.
    It is extremely interesting those football fans, skinheads and hooligans, who often utilized the gesture of rebellition against the society to trigger predictable outrage against the general population were mobilized during EuroMaydan events. Behaviors once deemed antisocial and vandalistic were harnessed in the service of the nationalist discourse and the they served as a part of storm troopers for the coup of February 22, 2014. Ultimately like in Serbia before unruly football hooligans were recruited into paramilitary formations that played important role in civil was in Donbass (like Serbia paramilitary formation in wars of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) and committed the most horrendous crimes against civil population. .
    Ukrainian events definitely correlated with disillusionment of the neoliberalism in specific form of crony capitalism of Yanukovich regime. In a way marginalization of extreme right from 1945 to 1991 was more exception the a rule Western societies, especially European, tend to generate powerful extreme right movements. In a few states neofascist have chances of coming to power (Ukraine is actually is not a good example as events here were externally driven).
    Amazon.com

    Panopticonman on May 1, 2004

    Whose Reich Is It Anyway?

    The Marquis de Morés, returning to 1890s Paris after his cattle ranching venture in North Dakota failed, recruited a gang of men from the Parisian cattle yards as muscle for his "national socialism" project -- a term Paxton credits Morés' contemporary Maurice Barres, a French nationalist author, with coining. Morés' project was potent and prophetic: his national socialism was a mixture of anti-capitalism and anti-Semitism. He clothed his men in what must have been the first fascist uniform in Europe -- ten-gallon hats and cowboy garb, frontier clothes he'd taken a shine to in the American West. (Author Paxton suggests the first ever fascist get-up was the KKKs white sheet and pointy hat). Morés killed a French Jewish officer in a duel during the Dreyfus affair and later was killed in the Sahara by his guides during his quest to unite France to Islam to Spain.

    Morés had earlier proclaimed: "Life is valuable only through action. So much the worse if the action is mortal."

    Here assembled together are all of the elements of what Paxton would classify as first stage fascism: "the creation of a movement." Most fascist movements stall in this first stage he notes -- think, for instance, of the skinheads, the American Nazi Party and Posse Comitatus.

    Paxton's other stages are

    1. the rooting of the movement in the political system;
    2. the seizure of power;
    3. the exercise of power; and
    4. the duration of power, during which the regime chooses either radicalization or entropy.

    He notes that although each stage

    "is a prerequisite for the next, nothing requires a fascist movement to complete all of them, or even to move in only one direction. The five stages permit plausible comparison between movements and regimes at equivalent degrees of development. It helps us see that fascism, far from static, was a succession of processes and choices: seeking a following, forming alliances, bidding for power, then exercising it. That is why the conceptual tools that illuminate one stage may not necessarily work equally well for others." pg. 23.

    Paxton also tentatively offers a definition of fascism, but only after tracing the rise of various movements from their beginnings in the 19th century through the present day. Other historians and philosophers, he suggests, have written brilliantly on fascism, but have failed to recognize that their analyses apply to only one stage or another. He also notes that often definitions of fascism are based on fascist writings; he maintains that fascist writings while valuable were often written as justification for the seizure of power, or the attempted seizure, and that what fascists actually did and do is more critical to understanding these movements. Indeed, the language of fascism has changed little since the days of the Marquis De Mores.

    He hesitates in offering both his definition and his analytical stages, saying that he knows by doing so he risks falling into the nominalism of the "bestiary." He demonstrates that this is a common failing of definitions of fascism which are often incomplete or muddled as they typically describe only one or two typically late stages.

    Other historians, for instance, split fascism into Nazism or Italian fascism, avoiding the problem of understanding their common elements by concentrating on their differences, insisting that they are incommensurable. Finally in the last pages, Paxton offers up this fairly comprehensive and useful definition:

    "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

    Paxton is particularly strong in showing how the circumstances in post WWI Germany and Italy -- the demobilized mobs of young soldiers, sent to war by elites who had no conception of the destruction and suffering they had unleashed upon the younger generation -- were ripe for fascism's appeals. For many, liberalism, conservatism and socialism all seemed equally complicit in the crack-up of Europe in the Great War. Fascism, rising from the ashes, employed the socialistic tools of mass marches, the military techniques of terror learned in the war, and as they gained power, the new tools of mass communication and propaganda developed in the US during WWI.

    Fascists also reacted astutely to public discomfort toward the mass migrations from southern and eastern Europe coming in the wake of political and economic distress in those regions, using that fear to increase their power through scapegoating and its attendant rhetoric of purity.

    Fascism is both charged and blurry word these days, used by both the left and the right to assail their critics and enemies.

    The Nazi remains the evildoer par excellence in popular and political culture, invoked for a thrill of fear or the disciplinary scare or emotional incitement. In this masterful synthesis of writings in politics, history, philosophy and sociology, Paxton untangles the vast literature fascism has generated, establishes some essential ground rules for coming to grips with its many expressions, stages, and manifestations, and clears a space for further, better focused research.

    Although academic in its orientation, it is well and clearly written. Finally, for the reader who is not familiar with modern European history, it is a very useful and informative text as it takes into its scope by necessity much of European and American history over the past one hundred years. Absolutely required reading.

    [Mar 21, 2015] Guest Post How Putin Can Win The Economic War Against The West by Ron Holland

    Zero Hedge

    03/18/2015

    pravda.ru

    ... ... ...

    Some experts believe that the reason of economic crisis in Russia are not the Western sanctions, but decrease in oil price. What do you think?

    While I think it is an organized action by the US and Saudi Arabia, it's success to date in dramatically lowering oil prices has been possible because of the global recession and worldwide drop in demand for oil. The price of oil would have pulled back in any case but the policy has made the downtrend worse and of a longer duration.

    But understand this is a complicated situation not just aimed at Russia as this also dramatically cuts revenue for Iran another nation in opposition to US hegemony. Also Sunni Saudi Arabia rightly fears Shia Iran, as most of the Saudi oil resources are right across the Persian Gulf from Iran including the world's largest, the Ghawer field and most of the 15% Saudi Shite minority population lives in the area where the reserves are located. Remember the Shite/Sunni divide in Islam makes the Israel/Arab conflict pale in comparison and the Saudi Shites are treated quite badly so they and the Saudi oil reserves could become a fertile ground for Iranian actions.

    Is it an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia? If it is so, then Obama deliberately endangered the shale miracle in the US, didn't he?

    Yes, as I answered in the question above it is an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia but the leadership of Saudi Arabia jumped both at the chance to close the fracking and shale oil production competition in the United States as well as to put pressure on their arch enemy Iran.

    Also much of the oil production industry votes and supports Republican candidates rather than the Democrats so Obama is not paying a huge political price. Finally although shale oil production is not profitable unless oil is near $100 a barrel, the public had already loaded up on these junk bonds and Wall Street had made their money so it was time to fleece the unsophisticated investors. Regardless of US shale oil production or losses, the opportunity to bring financial pressure against Iran and Russia was worth the cost to the Washington political leadership.

    What is needed for the oil price starting to rise at last? Tyler Durden believes that it is Putin who should surrender Bashar al-Assad, who does not give permission for gas pipeline installation from Qatar to Europe. Do you agree?

    It is too late to surrender Bashar al-Assad and allow the Qatar pipeline as Washington has bigger fish to fry, ie. Russia and Iran the last major energy suppliers outside of US domination and control. Two events have to happen before oil gets expensive again.

    First, the price of oil will rise when the global recession has ended and the world economy picks up again. I believe the recession in China and the rest of the world is just starting and it is related to overhanging amount of government debt and bonds floating around the world. I really don't know how governments and the central banks get us out of the looming debt crisis without wholesale debt repudiation.

    Second, Washington must decide that the disadvantages of artificially low oil prices hurt the US economy more than the intended victims Iran and Russia.

    As for Germany and the EU, Hitler's violent goal of lebensraum for living spaces to farm, trade and grow food for the Reich at the expense of the Russian people has today been modernized to a longing for Russian natural resources ranging from timber, mining to oil and gas in order to benefit Europe and Washington. I believe their goal is economic rather than a military threat and this is just an expansion of an ongoing natural resource grab outside the Middle East as the long-term challenge for world supremacy between Washington & Wall Street VS China and the Asian tigers slowly develop.

    The issuance of unredeemable government debt and bonds are the ultimate control mechanism by the Western interests utilized in order to keep politicians, national leaders and nations in line and march in lockstep to their economic programs. Russia under Putin is not over indebted like almost all other western nations thus allowing Putin to exercise leadership independent of European and Washington demands and this makes Russia in their eyes a threat to the continuation of the fake debt democracy system across the West.

    The ultimate goal is to destabilize Russia by destroying the economy and limiting government revenue and growth by holding oil prices at historically low levels. To do this they must depose Putin, the national leader with the highest poll approval rating in the world and replace him with a compliant quisling type of leadership submissive to western interests as has been done in Ukraine. This goal could be achieved due to Russia's extreme over dependence on energy resource revenue.

    In my view it wasn't the arms race, total failure of Russian communism to benefit the masses nor the inability to compete with the western market economies that overthrew the communist party leadership in the former Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries. Rather it was the government debt burden of Moscow and it's other eastern European client states that eventually destroyed the Eastern Bloc as political leaders increasingly tried to improve their low standards of living and satisfy consumers through government borrowing from western banks.

    This policy worked for the West and the Soviet style communism is thankfully no more but this is the same policy used today by Washington and in the European Union in order to control the destiny and leadership of what should be independent national governments. As you see with Greece, even in voting democracies where the citizens demand a change, there can be no change because all politicians are subservient to powerful foreign banking interests.

    I would suggest that Washington is indeed acting rationally if their goal is to preserve their power base as well as the support of powerful banking and economic interests. The US Empire has indeed reached it's zenith of power and authority in the world and as America heads downhill as have all major empires in the past. Therefore it is crucial to buy time by attempting to conquer or control energy resources around the world hence why the US is involved across the Middle East and increasingly in the Ukraine and is surrounding Russia and Iran.

    Their goal for Russia, now the ultimate ally of a resurgent China is economic vassalage, territorial dismemberment and the development of "spheres of influence" just like Great Britain did to India and the western countries including Russia did to a weakened China in the 19th century.

    Will Putin go the length of it?

    Well this is a tough question for a non-Russian to comment on. He is the best politician on the planet evidenced by his poll numbers and there is no question he is a patriot and wants the best for his country, the people and of course your powerful oligarchs.

    I love the Washington propaganda always lambasting the evil Russian oligarchs because every country including the United States have their own powerful interests or oligarchs that seek to use government as a tool for their best interests. This is nothing new or sinister as government and politicians everywhere have always operated this way.

    Yes, I believe Putin and Russia will survive this attack on Russian sovereignty and it's over emphasis on energy resource revenue which is a mistake made by Russia not by western interests. This economic war will end in stalemate because Russia cannot be subdued by invasion, history shows us that and the increasing alliance with China and other BRICS will help with better economic growth.

    But I don't consider a standoff as a victory for Putin or Russia. It is just maintaining the status quo with Russia still at risk from western expansionism and the control of your natural resources. Russia is now engaged in an asymmetrical war with the American and European Union primarily over resources and the strategy and tactics really differ between the West and Russia. Washington failed in goading Russia into a military invasion of Ukraine as this could have drawn in other European nations thus further weakening the Russian economy but the economic, currency and financial warfare will continue hopefully short of military action.

    To date Russia only reacts to western sanctions and economic warfare against your energy industry thus there is neither real pain for the west nor any reason for them not to ratchet up the sanctions against individuals, banking and other interests. They are logically attacking your weakest link, the energy and financial sectors and they certainly do not expect a major response from your side. Still dumping Treasury debt by Russia or China would probably be counter productive and both nations would be smart of liquidate US dollar debt in an organized regular fashion during this near term period of tremendous dollar strength. This is probably your last chance to unload US Treasury debt at a profit.

    A defensive war strategy even in an economic war is not a recipe for victory but rather a guarantor of future wars or ultimate defeat. Putin and Russia can win this economic war quite easily if you think and act outside the box so to speak. The West is legitimately attacking your economy at its weakest link, your over dependence on the energy sector hence why low oil prices and the gas pipeline revolution in the Ukraine were smart moves by your energy adversaries.

    Utilize your strengths and western weaknesses in your peaceful economic and financial responses to the challenges they have made to your country. I've spent my entire career in the financial industry and this is not rocket science on how to successfully counter western political moves against you.

    The weakness of the Western banking and economic interests are massive government debt, the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency and nationalism within the EU. There is no way citizens or companies can escape the high taxes, massive debt service costs and the inability of citizens or companies within Europe to escape their high tax, regulatory environment that is killing the economy of Europe in order to defend the primarily German banking interests. Financial privacy and all wealth in Europe are at risk from future bail-ins where depositor's funds are used to pay for excessive bank lending losses. We've already seen it in Cyprus and soon it will happen in Greece and the PIGGS countries.

    To win, you must have other powerful economic interests outside Russia who can benefit and profit from a sovereign independent Russia. The US has destroyed financial privacy and confidentially around the world and no nation can stand up to their powerful threats to other banking interests which means the private wealth of the entire West will eventually be at risk of bank bail-ins, confiscation of retirement funds and confiscatory tax rates when the bond crisis finally hit because there is no secure alternative to protecting honest earned wealth

    As I've written in earlier editorials, Russia can win the financial/energy/economic war only by finding new sources of revenue outside the energy sector and playing on its unique strengths. A low tax rate and friendly regulatory environment to attract European/American industry and money is a start. It appears Russia is now moving to offer economic citizenships and tax advantages in order to attract entrepreneurs as I wrote a couple of months ago and this will help.

    For example, I'm a skier and where can you ski in the winter and enjoy a tropical climate the other 6 months outside of a couple of very expensive locations in Switzerland, Italy and France? You have skiing at Krasnaya Polyana less than an hour from Sochi on the Russian Riviera the site of the 2014 Olympics that could become another Hong Kong with the climate advantages and low taxes and secure banking opportunities. Plus you have a relatively empty Olympic village that could be remodeled into condos and flats for foreign entrepreneurs and investors.

    Finally Russia must get aggressive in the economic war. You can win this economic contest in 24 months, if certain special zones in Russia simply are allowed to copy Swiss banking rules and regulations, as wealth will always flow to secure locations where taxes are low. You know what banking privacy and security did for Switzerland, it made a poor country with few natural resources the wealthiest nation in the world. You will have foreign banks and financial institutions lining up to open offices in Russia if you can guarantee financial privacy to a degree and wealth protection in total.

    This will break the monopoly of West in financial and banking as well as their power to threaten you. The coming bond debacle guarantees this will work as I've written earlier every nation has wealthy interests and their own oligarchs so why not build support for Russia from wealthy foreigners as they transfer a portion of their wealth as taxable income at a very low rate to your nation. This will end the economic war.

    Will there be set peace in Ukraine in the near future? Which role will the US have in it?

    No the Ukraine is caught between competing sides in the East VS West conflict. Sadly it will likely end up like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as a battleground and non functioning state at least economically and maybe militarily caught between the US and EU verses Russia. Russia will protect the Russian speakers and likely will open a land route to the Crimea and maybe as far west as Odessa thus cutting off the Ukraine from the Black Sea. Still all Russia needs is a Ukraine non-aligned with the West or a member of NATO. The US will continue to promote instability in the Ukraine for the foreseeable future.

    Ron Holland

    Ronald Holland is the author of several books as well as numerous special reports and hundreds of articles on finance, investments, history and politics. He speaks and moderates frequently at financial and free-market conferences and has developed Swiss oriented financial products in the US and Switzerland and his lived and worked in the US, Switzerland and Canada. He was head of a bank trust department, president of an investment firm licensed in 47 states and involved in resort real estate marketing and sales. He consults with a wide range of individuals, corporations and entities.

    [Mar 21, 2015] Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror by George Washington

    Mar 18, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

    In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally or in writing:

    (1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the "Mukden Incident" or the "Manchurian Incident". The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: "Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the 'Incident' was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army …." And see this.

    (2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

    (3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

    (4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union's Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the "Winter War" against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

    (5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

    (6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called "Defenders of Arab Palestine", and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).

    (7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

    (8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

    (9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

    (10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

    (11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

    False flag attacks carried out pursuant tho this program include – by way of example only:

    (12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch "a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]".

    (13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

    (14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

    (15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

    (16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo."

    (17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

    (18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its "Cointelpro" campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

    (19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: "In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque." In response to the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, "I am giving an example".

    (20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted "escape tools" on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

    (21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi's compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

    (22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

    (23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

    (24) The United States Army's 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA's "Dirty Wars". And see this.

    (25) Similarly, a CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

    At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

    (26) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that "elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked".

    (27) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

    (28) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

    (29) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

    (30) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".

    (31) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

    (32) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime, that Cheney "probably" had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not 'doing their homework' in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous "lone wolf" claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).

    (33) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

    (34) Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester

    (35) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having "our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda's ranks, causing operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications."

    (36) United Press International reported in June 2005:

    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.

    (37) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

    (38) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

    (39) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

    (40) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

    (41) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

    (42) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls "Chechen" terrorists.

    (43) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

    (44) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian officials admit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to create maximum chaos.

    (45) Britain's spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out "digital false flag" attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

    (46) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

    (47) Similarly, police frame innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:

    In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.

    Newsweek reported in 1999:

    Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a "throwdown"–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.

    Wikipedia notes:

    As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division's anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.

    (As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

    So Common … There's a Name for It

    A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:

    Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.

    This might be an exaggeration (and – as shown above – the U.S. isn't the only one to play this terrible game). The point is that it is a very widespread strategy.

    Indeed, this form of deceit is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.

    "False flag terrorism" is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

    False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.

    The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy's flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a "false flag" attack.

    Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks. Specifically, the rules of engagement state that a military force can fly the enemy's flag, imitate their markings, or dress in an enemy's clothes … but that the ruse has to be discarded before attacking.

    Why are the rules of engagement so specific? Obviously, because nations have been using false flag attacks for many centuries. And the rules of engagement are at least trying to limit false flag attacks so that they aren't used as a false justification for war.

    In other words, the rules of engagement themselves are an admission that false flag terrorism is a very common practice.

    Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:

    "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
    – Adolph Hitler

    "Why of course the people don't want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
    – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

    "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".
    – Josef Stalin

    Reaper

    These false flags depend upon the trust of their underling sheeple in their leaders and media. Trust is an opiate of each nation's sheeple. Yes, fool, your government/king/media lie to you. Terrorist is word designed to elicit an emote from you Emoting prevents thinking. Power corrupts. Government power corrupts. Media power corrupts. Stupidity enslaves.

    "Cui bono" is thinking. Thinking negates blind obeying. There is no virtue, nor honor, nor self-respect in emoting to your leader's stimuli.

    I think; therefore I am. I emote; therefore I'm controlled.

    raywolf

    you missed out the London bombings in 2005, which are riddled with errors, mistakes and evidence of it being organised by military of Britain or perhaps CIA or Israel.... the train the attackers were meant to be on, was cancelled meaning they couldn't even get into London in time to do the bombings... it's all on CCTV and yet the 'official' report just skips over that part....

    George Washington

    There are scores of false flags I didn't address ... I only focused on the ones that were ADMITTED.

    [Mar 21, 2015] Germany riot targets new ECB headquarters in Frankfurt

    Quote: "Organisers were bringing a left-wing alliance of protesters from across Germany and the rest of Europe to voice their anger at the ECB's role in austerity measures in EU member states, most recently Greece. The bank, in charge of managing the euro, is also responsible for framing eurozone policy and, along with the IMF and European Commission is part of a troika which has set conditions for bailouts in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus. A spokesman for the Blockupy movement said the troika was responsible for austerity measures which have pushed many into poverty."
    BBC News

    Dozens of people have been hurt and some 350 people arrested as anti-austerity demonstrators clashed with police in the German city of Frankfurt.

    Police cars were set alight and stones were thrown in a protest against the opening of a new base for the European Central Bank (ECB).

    Violence broke out close to the city's Alte Oper concert hall hours before the ECB building's official opening.

    "Blockupy" activists are expected to attend a rally later on Wednesday.

    In earlier disturbances, police in riot gear used water cannon to clear hundreds of anti-capitalist protesters from the streets around the new ECB headquarters.

    Organisers were bringing a left-wing alliance of protesters from across Germany and the rest of Europe to voice their anger at the ECB's role in austerity measures in EU member states, most recently Greece.

    The bank, in charge of managing the euro, is also responsible for framing eurozone policy and, along with the IMF and European Commission is part of a troika which has set conditions for bailouts in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus.

    A spokesman for the Blockupy movement said the troika was responsible for austerity measures which have pushed many into poverty.

    Police set up a cordon of barbed wire outside the bank's new 185m (600ft) double-tower skyscraper, next to the River Main.

    But hopes of a peaceful rally were dashed as clashes began early on Wednesday.

    Tyres and rubbish bins were set alight and police responded with water cannon as firefighters complained they were unable to get to the fires to put them out. One fire engine appeared to have had its windscreen broken.

    Activists said many protesters had been hurt by police batons, water cannon and by pepper spray.

    Police said as many as 80 of their officers had been affected by pepper spray or an acidic liquid. Eight suffered injuries from stone-throwing protesters.

    Police spokeswoman Claudia Rogalski spoke of an "aggressive atmosphere" and the Frankfurt force tweeted images of a police van being attacked. They were braced for further violence as increasing numbers of activists arrived for the rally.

    Blockupy accused police of using kettling tactics to cordon off hundreds of protesters and appealed for supporters to press for their release.

    What is Blockupy?

    Europe-wide alliance of left-wing parties, unions and movements Vehemently against austerity polices of European Commission, ECB and IMF First Frankfurt protest attracted thousands in 2012 Activists from Greece's radical left governing party Syriza and Spain's anti-corruption Podemos are joining the rally
    Also includes Germany's Die Linke and Occupy Frankfurt

    Rallying call: "They want capitalism without democracy, we want democracy without capitalism"

    As the number of protesters grew in the streets away from the new ECB building, the bank's president, Mario Draghi, gave a speech marking its inauguration.

    Mr Draghi said that the it "may not be a fair charge" to label the ECB as the main perpetrator of unpopular austerity in Europe.

    "Our action has been aimed precisely at cushioning the shocks suffered by the economy," he said.

    "But as the central bank of the whole euro area, we must listen very carefully to what all our citizens are saying."

    The new headquarters, which had been due to open years earlier, cost an estimated €1.3bn (£930m; $1.4bn) to build and is the new home for thousands of central bankers.

    Blockupy activists said on their website that there was nothing to celebrate about the politics of austerity and increasing poverty.

    [Mar 20, 2015] Rethinking the National Interest by Condoleezza Rice

    If you compare this with Nuland's recent testimony, it's clear Condoleezza Rice was higher quality diplomat then Victoria Nuland. Both are neocons although Ms. Rise was less supportive of Israel. But true to neocon doctrine when she said "especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values." she means neoliberal values (aka "Washington consensus") under which Russia should play the role of vassal of the USA (like all other countries). A colony.
    You should replace "democratization" with "neoliberalization" globally in the text to understand the real interests she defends.
    July 1, 2008 | Foreign Affairs

    Listen to this essay on CFR.org

    What is the national interest? This is a question that I took up in 2000 in these pages. That was a time that we as a nation revealingly called "the post-Cold War era." We knew better where we had been than where we were going. Yet monumental changes were unfolding -- changes that were recognized at the time but whose implications were largely unclear.

    And then came the attacks of September 11, 2001. As in the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new urgency and with a new perspective on what constituted threats and what might emerge as opportunities. And as with previous strategic shocks, one can cite elements of both continuity and change in our foreign policy since the attacks of September 11.

    What has not changed is that our relations with traditional and emerging great powers still matter to the successful conduct of policy. Thus, my admonition in 2000 that we should seek to get right the "relationships with the big powers" -- Russia, China, and emerging powers such as India and Brazil -- has consistently guided us. As before, our alliances in the Americas, Europe, and Asia remain the pillars of the international order, and we are now transforming them to meet the challenges of a new era.

    What has changed is, most broadly, how we view the relationship between the dynamics within states and the distribution of power among them. As globalization strengthens some states, it exposes and exacerbates the failings of many others -- those too weak or poorly governed to address challenges within their borders and prevent them from spilling out and destabilizing the international order. In this strategic environment, it is vital to our national security that states be willing and able to meet the full range of their sovereign responsibilities, both beyond their borders and within them. This new reality has led us to some significant changes in our policy. We recognize that democratic state building is now an urgent component of our national interest. And in the broader Middle East, we recognize that freedom and democracy are the only ideas that can, over time, lead to just and lasting stability, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    As in the past, our policy has been sustained not just by our strength but also by our values. The United States has long tried to marry power and principle -- realism and idealism. At times, there have been short-term tensions between them. But we have always known where our long-term interests lie. Thus, the United States has not been neutral about the importance of human rights or the superiority of democracy as a form of government, both in principle and in practice. This uniquely American realism has guided us over the past eight years, and it must guide us over the years to come.

    GREAT POWER, OLD AND NEW

    By necessity, our relationships with Russia and China have been rooted more in common interests than common values. With Russia, we have found common ground, as evidenced by the "strategic framework" agreement that President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed in Sochi in March of this year. Our relationship with Russia has been sorely tested by Moscow's rhetoric, by its tendency to treat its neighbors as lost "spheres of influence," and by its energy policies that have a distinct political tinge. And Russia's internal course has been a source of considerable disappointment, especially because in 2000 we hoped that it was moving closer to us in terms of values.

    Yet it is useful to remember that Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is neither a permanent enemy nor a strategic threat. Russians now enjoy greater opportunity and, yes, personal freedom than at almost any other time in their country's history. But that alone is not the standard to which Russians themselves want to be held. Russia is not just a great power; it is also the land and culture of a great people. And in the twenty-first century, greatness is increasingly defined by the technological and economic development that flows naturally in open and free societies. That is why the full development both of Russia and of our relationship with it still hangs in the balance as the country's internal transformation unfolds.

    The last eight years have also challenged us to deal with rising Chinese influence, something we have no reason to fear if that power is used responsibly. We have stressed to Beijing that with China's full membership in the international community comes responsibilities, whether in the conduct of its economic and trade policy, its approach to energy and the environment, or its policies in the developing world. China's leaders increasingly realize this, and they are moving, albeit slowly, to a more cooperative approach on a range of problems. For instance, on Darfur, after years of unequivocally supporting Khartoum, China endorsed the UN Security Council resolution authorizing the deployment of a hybrid United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force and dispatched an engineering battalion to pave the way for those peacekeepers. China needs to do much more on issues such as Darfur, Burma, and Tibet, but we sustain an active and candid dialogue with China's leaders on these challenges.

    The United States, along with many other countries, remains concerned about China's rapid development of high-tech weapons systems. We understand that as countries develop, they will modernize their armed forces. But China's lack of transparency about its military spending and doctrine and its strategic goals increases mistrust and suspicion. Although Beijing has agreed to take incremental steps to deepen U.S.-Chinese military-to-military exchanges, it needs to move beyond the rhetoric of peaceful intentions toward true engagement in order to reassure the international community.

    Our relationships with Russia and China are complex and characterized simultaneously by competition and cooperation. But in the absence of workable relations with both of these states, diplomatic solutions to many international problems would be elusive. Transnational terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and instability stemming from poverty and disease -- these are dangers to all successful states, including those that might in another time have been violent rivals. It is incumbent on the United States to find areas of cooperation and strategic agreement with Russia and China, even when there are significant differences.

    Obviously, Russia and China carry special responsibility and weight as fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, but this has not been the only forum in which we have worked together. Another example has emerged in Northeast Asia with the six-party framework. The North Korean nuclear issue could have led to conflict among the states of Northeast Asia, or to the isolation of the United States, given the varied and vital interests of China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Instead, it has become an opportunity for cooperation and coordination as the efforts toward verifiable denuclearization proceed. And when North Korea tested a nuclear device last year, the five other parties already were an established coalition and went quickly to the Security Council for a Chapter 7 resolution. That, in turn, put considerable pressure on North Korea to return to the six-party talks and to shut down and begin disabling its Yongbyon reactor. The parties intend to institutionalize these habits of cooperation through the establishment of a Northeast Asian Peace and Security Mechanism -- a first step toward a security forum in the region.

    The importance of strong relations with global players extends to those that are emerging. With those, particularly India and Brazil, the United States has built deeper and broader ties. India stands on the front lines of globalization. This democratic nation promises to become a global power and an ally in shaping an international order rooted in freedom and the rule of law. Brazil's success at using democracy and markets to address centuries of pernicious social inequality has global resonance. Today, India and Brazil look outward as never before, secure in their ability to compete and succeed in the global economy. In both countries, national interests are being redefined as Indians and Brazilians realize their direct stake in a democratic, secure, and open international order -- and their commensurate responsibilities for strengthening it and defending it against the major transnational challenges of our era. We have a vital interest in the success and prosperity of these and other large multiethnic democracies with global reach, such as Indonesia and South Africa. And as these emerging powers change the geopolitical landscape, it will be important that international institutions also change to reflect this reality. This is why President Bush has made clear his support for a reasonable expansion of the UN Security Council.

    SHARED VALUES AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

    As important as relations are with Russia and China, it is our work with our allies, those with whom we share values, that is transforming international politics -- for this work presents an opportunity to expand the ranks of well-governed, law-abiding democratic states in our world and to defeat challenges to this vision of international order. Cooperation with our democratic allies, therefore, should not be judged simply by how we relate to one another. It should be judged by the work we do together to defeat terrorism and extremism, meet global challenges, defend human rights and dignity, and support new democracies.

    In the Americas, this has meant strengthening our ties with strategic democracies such as Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Chile in order to further the democratic development of our hemisphere. Together, we have supported struggling states, such as Haiti, in locking in their transitions to democracy and security. Together, we are defending ourselves against drug traffickers, criminal gangs, and the few autocratic outliers in our democratic hemisphere. The region still faces challenges, including Cuba's coming transition and the need to support, unequivocally, the Cuban people's right to a democratic future. There is no doubt that centuries-old suspicions of the United States persist in the region. But we have begun to write a new narrative that speaks not only to macroeconomic development and trade but also to the need for democratic leaders to address problems of social justice and inequality.

    I believe that one of the most compelling stories of our time is our relationship with our oldest allies. The goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace is very close to completion. The United States welcomes a strong, united, and coherent Europe. There is no doubt that the European Union has been a superb anchor for the democratic evolution of eastern Europe after the Cold War. Hopefully, the day will come when Turkey takes its place in the EU.

    Membership in the EU and NATO has been attractive enough to lead countries to make needed reforms and to seek the peaceful resolution of long-standing conflicts with their neighbors. The reverse has been true as well: the new members have transformed these two pillars of the transatlantic relationship. Twelve of the 28 members of NATO are former "captive nations," countries once in the Soviet sphere. The effect of their joining the alliance is felt in a renewed dedication to promoting and protecting democracy. Whether sending troops to Afghanistan or Iraq or fiercely defending the continued expansion of NATO, these states have brought new energy and fervor to the alliance.

    In recent years, the mission and the purpose of the alliance have also been transformed. Indeed, many can remember when NATO viewed the world in two parts: Europe and "out of area," which was basically everywhere else. If someone had said in 2000 that NATO today would be rooting out terrorists in Kandahar, training the security forces of a free Iraq, providing critical support to peacekeepers in Darfur, and moving forward on missile defenses, hopefully in partnership with Russia, who would have believed him? The endurance and resilience of the transatlantic alliance is one reason that I believe Lord Palmerston got it wrong when he said that nations have no permanent allies. The United States does have permanent allies: the nations with whom we share common values.

    Democratization is also deepening across the Asia-Pacific region. This is expanding our circle of allies and advancing the goals we share. Indeed, although many assume that the rise of China will determine the future of Asia, so, too -- and perhaps to an even greater degree -- will the broader rise of an increasingly democratic community of Asian states. This is the defining geopolitical event of the twenty-first century, and the United States is right in the middle of it. We enjoy a strong, democratic alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia, and with Japan -- an economic giant that is emerging as a "normal" state, capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond. South Korea, too, has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity. Finally, the United States has a vital stake in India's rise to global power and prosperity, and relations between the two countries have never been stronger or broader. It will take continued work, but this is a dramatic breakthrough for both our strategic interests and our values.

    It is now possible to speak of emerging democratic allies in Africa as well. Too often, Africa is thought of only as a humanitarian concern or a zone of conflict. But the continent has seen successful transitions to democracy in several states, among them Ghana, Liberia, Mali, and Mozambique. Our administration has worked to help the democratic leaders of these and other states provide for their people -- most of all by attacking the continental scourge of HIV/AIDS in an unprecedented effort of power, imagination, and mercy. We have also been an active partner in resolving conflicts -- from the conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the civil war between the North and the South in Sudan, to active engagement in the Great Lakes region, to the intervention of a small contingent of U.S. military forces in coordination with the African Union to end the conflict in Liberia. Although conflicts in Darfur, Somalia, and other places tragically remain violent and unresolved, it is worth noting the considerable progress that African states are making on many fronts and the role that the United States has played in supporting African efforts to solve the continent's greatest problems.

    A DEMOCRATIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT

    Although the United States' ability to influence strong states is limited, our ability to enhance the peaceful political and economic development of weak and poorly governed states can be considerable. We must be willing to use our power for this purpose -- not only because it is necessary but also because it is right. Too often, promoting democracy and promoting development are thought of as separate goals. In fact, it is increasingly clear that the practices and institutions of democracy are essential to the creation of sustained, broad-based economic development -- and that market-driven development is essential to the consolidation of democracy. Democratic development is a unified political-economic model, and it offers the mix of flexibility and stability that best enables states to seize globalization's opportunities and manage its challenges. And for those who think otherwise: What real alternative worthy of America is there?

    Democratic development is not only an effective path to wealth and power; it is also the best way to ensure that these benefits are shared justly across entire societies, without exclusion, repression, or violence. We saw this recently in Kenya, where democracy enabled civil society, the press, and business leaders to join together to insist on an inclusive political bargain that could stem the country's slide into ethnic cleansing and lay a broader foundation for national reconciliation. In our own hemisphere, democratic development has opened up old, elite-dominated systems to millions on the margins of society. These people are demanding the benefits of citizenship long denied them, and because they are doing so democratically, the real story in our hemisphere since 2001 is not that our neighbors have given up on democracy and open markets; it is that they are broadening our region's consensus in support of democratic development by ensuring that it leads to social justice for the most marginalized citizens.

    The untidiness of democracy has led some to wonder if weak states might not be better off passing through a period of authoritarian capitalism. A few countries have indeed succeeded with this model, and its allure is only heightened when democracy is too slow in delivering or incapable of meeting high expectations for a better life. Yet for every state that embraces authoritarianism and manages to create wealth, there are many, many more that simply make poverty, inequality, and corruption worse. For those that are doing pretty well economically, it is worth asking whether they might be doing even better with a freer system. Ultimately, it is at least an open question whether authoritarian capitalism is itself an indefinitely sustainable model. Is it really possible in the long run for governments to respect their citizen's talents but not their rights? I, for one, doubt it.

    For the United States, promoting democratic development must remain a top priority. Indeed, there is no realistic alternative that we can -- or should -- offer to influence the peaceful evolution of weak and poorly governed states. The real question is not whether to pursue this course but how.

    We first need to recognize that democratic development is always possible but never fast or easy. This is because democracy is really the complex interplay of democratic practices and culture. In the experience of countless nations, ours especially, we see that culture is not destiny. Nations of every culture, race, religion, and level of development have embraced democracy and adapted it to their own circumstances and traditions. No cultural factor has yet been a stumbling block -- not German or Japanese "militarism," not "Asian values," not African "tribalism," not Latin America's alleged fondness for caudillos, not the once-purported preference of eastern Europeans for despotism.

    The fact is, few nations begin the democratic journey with a democratic culture. The vast majority create one over time -- through the hard, daily struggle to make good laws, build democratic institutions, tolerate differences, resolve them peacefully, and share power justly. Unfortunately, it is difficult to grow the habits of democracy in the controlled environment of authoritarianism, to have them ready and in place when tyranny is lifted. The process of democratization is likely to be messy and unsatisfactory, but it is absolutely necessary. Democracy, it is said, cannot be imposed, particularly by a foreign power. This is true but beside the point. It is more likely that tyranny has to be imposed.

    The story today is rarely one of peoples resisting the basics of democracy -- the right to choose those who will govern them and other basic freedoms. It is, instead, about people choosing democratic leaders and then becoming impatient with them and holding them accountable on their duty to deliver a better life. It is strongly in our national interest to help sustain these leaders, support their countries' democratic institutions, and ensure that their new governments are capable of providing for their own security, especially when their nations have experienced crippling conflicts. To do so will require long-term partnerships rooted in mutual responsibility and the integration of all elements of our national power -- political, diplomatic, economic, and, at times, military. We have recently built such partnerships to great effect with countries as different as Colombia, Lebanon, and Liberia. Indeed, a decade ago, Colombia was on the verge of failure. Today, in part because of our long-term partnership with courageous leaders and citizens, Colombia is emerging as a normal nation, with democratic institutions that are defending the country, governing justly, reducing poverty, and contributing to international security.

    We must now build long-term partnerships with other new and fragile democracies, especially Afghanistan. The basics of democracy are taking root in this country after nearly three decades of tyranny, violence, and war. For the first time in their history, Afghans have a government of the people, elected in presidential and parliamentary elections, and guided by a constitution that codifies the rights of all citizens. The challenges in Afghanistan do not stem from a strong enemy. The Taliban offers a political vision that very few Afghans embrace. Rather, they exploit the current limitations of the Afghan government, using violence against civilians and revenues from illegal narcotics to impose their rule. Where the Afghan government, with support from the international community, has been able to provide good governance and economic opportunity, the Taliban is in retreat. The United States and NATO have a vital interest in supporting the emergence of an effective, democratic Afghan state that can defeat the Taliban and deliver "population security" -- addressing basic needs for safety, services, the rule of law, and increased economic opportunity. We share this goal with the Afghan people, who do not want us to leave until we have accomplished our common mission. We can succeed in Afghanistan, but we must be prepared to sustain a partnership with that new democracy for many years to come.

    One of our best tools for supporting states in building democratic institutions and strengthening civil society is our foreign assistance, but we must use it correctly. One of the great advances of the past eight years has been the creation of a bipartisan consensus for the more strategic use of foreign assistance. We have begun to transform our assistance into an incentive for developing states to govern justly, advance economic freedom, and invest in their people. This is the great innovation of the Millennium Challenge Account initiative. More broadly, we are now better aligning our foreign aid with our foreign policy goals -- so as to help developing countries move from war to peace, poverty to prosperity, poor governance to democracy and the rule of law. At the same time, we have launched historic efforts to help remove obstacles to democratic development -- by forgiving old debts, feeding the hungry, expanding access to education, and fighting pandemics such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. Behind all of these efforts is the overwhelming generosity of the American people, who since 2001 have supported the near tripling of the United States' official development assistance worldwide -- doubling it for Latin America and quadrupling it for Africa.

    Ultimately, one of the best ways to support the growth of democratic institutions and civil society is to expand free and fair trade and investment. The very process of implementing a trade agreement or a bilateral investment treaty helps to hasten and consolidate democratic development. Legal and political institutions that can enforce property rights are better able to protect human rights and the rule of law. Independent courts that can resolve commercial disputes can better resolve civil and political disputes. The transparency needed to fight corporate corruption makes it harder for political corruption to go unnoticed and unpunished. A rising middle class also creates new centers of social power for political movements and parties. Trade is a divisive issue in our country right now, but we must not forget that it is essential not only for the health of our domestic economy but also for the success our foreign policy.

    There will always be humanitarian needs, but our goal must be to use the tools of foreign assistance, security cooperation, and trade together to help countries graduate to self-sufficiency. We must insist that these tools be used to promote democratic development. It is in our national interest to do so.

    THE CHANGING MIDDLE EAST

    What about the broader Middle East, the arc of states that stretches from Morocco to Pakistan? The Bush administration's approach to this region has been its most vivid departure from prior policy. But our approach is, in reality, an extension of traditional tenets -- incorporating human rights and the promotion of democratic development into a policy meant to further our national interest. What is exceptional is that the Middle East was treated as an exception for so many decades. U.S. policy there focused almost exclusively on stability. There was little dialogue, certainly not publicly, about the need for democratic change.

    For six decades, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, a basic bargain defined the United States' engagement in the broader Middle East: we supported authoritarian regimes, and they supported our shared interest in regional stability. After September 11, it became increasingly clear that this old bargain had produced false stability. There were virtually no legitimate channels for political expression in the region. But this did not mean that there was no political activity. There was -- in madrasahs and radical mosques. It is no wonder that the best-organized political forces were extremist groups. And it was there, in the shadows, that al Qaeda found the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers in its millenarian war against the "far enemy."

    One response would have been to fight the terrorists without addressing this underlying cause. Perhaps it would have been possible to manage these suppressed tensions for a while. Indeed, the quest for justice and a new equilibrium on which the nations of the broader Middle East are now embarked is very turbulent. But is it really worse than the situation before? Worse than when Lebanon suffered under the boot of Syrian military occupation? Worse than when the self-appointed rulers of the Palestinians personally pocketed the world's generosity and squandered their best chance for a two-state peace? Worse than when the international community imposed sanctions on innocent Iraqis in order to punish the man who tyrannized them, threatened Iraq's neighbors, and bulldozed 300,000 human beings into unmarked mass graves? Or worse than the decades of oppression and denied opportunity that spawned hopelessness, fed hatreds, and led to the sort of radicalization that brought about the ideology behind the September 11 attacks? Far from being the model of stability that some seem to remember, the Middle East from 1945 on was wracked repeatedly by civil conflicts and cross-border wars. Our current course is certainly difficult, but let us not romanticize the old bargains of the Middle East -- for they yielded neither justice nor stability.

    The president's second inaugural address and my speech at the American University in Cairo in June 2005 have been held up as rhetorical declarations that have faded in the face of hard realities. No one will argue that the goal of democratization and modernization in the broader Middle East lacks ambition, and we who support it fully acknowledge that it will be a difficult, generational task. No one event, and certainly not a speech, will bring it into being. But if America does not set the goal, no one will.

    This goal is made more complicated by the fact that the future of the Middle East is bound up in many of our other vital interests: energy security, nonproliferation, the defense of friends and allies, the resolution of old conflicts, and, most of all, the need for near-term partners in the global struggle against violent Islamist extremism. To state, however, that we must promote either our security interests or our democratic ideals is to present a false choice. Admittedly, our interests and our ideals do come into tension at times in the short term. America is not an NGO and must balance myriad factors in our relations with all countries. But in the long term, our security is best ensured by the success of our ideals: freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law.

    The leaders and citizens of the broader Middle East are now searching for answers to the fundamental questions of modern state building: What are to be the limits on the state's use of power, both within and beyond its borders? What will be the role of the state in the lives of its citizens and the relationship between religion and politics? How will traditional values and mores be reconciled with the democratic promise of individual rights and liberty, particularly for women and girls? How is religious and ethnic diversity to be accommodated in fragile political institutions when people tend to hold on to traditional associations? The answers to these and other questions can come only from within the Middle East itself. The task for us is to support and shape these difficult processes of change and to help the nations of the region overcome several major challenges to their emergence as modern, democratic states.

    The first challenge is the global ideology of violent Islamist extremism, as embodied by groups, such as al Qaeda, that thoroughly reject the basic tenets of modern politics, seeking instead to topple sovereign states, erase national borders, and restore the imperial structure of the ancient caliphate. To resist this threat, the United States will need friends and allies in the region who are willing and able to take action against the terrorists among them. Ultimately, however, this is more than just a struggle of arms; it is a contest of ideas. Al Qaeda's theory of victory is to hijack the legitimate local and national grievances of Muslim societies and twist them into an ideological narrative of endless struggle against Western, especially U.S., oppression. The good news is that al Qaeda's intolerant ideology can be enforced only through brutality and violence. When people are free to choose, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq's Anbar Province, they reject al Qaeda's ideology and rebel against its control. Our theory of victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their interests peacefully -- to develop their talents, to redress injustices, and to live in freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global counterinsurgency: the center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the societies they are trying to radicalize.

    Admittedly, our interests in both promoting democratic development and fighting terrorism and extremism lead to some hard choices, because we do need capable friends in the broader Middle East who can root out terrorists now. These states are often not democratic, so we must balance the tensions between our short-term and our long-term goals. We cannot deny nondemocratic states the security assistance to fight terrorism or defend themselves. At the same time, we must use other points of leverage to promote democracy and hold our friends to account. That means supporting civil society, as we have done through the Forum for the Future and the Middle East Partnership Initiative, and using public and private diplomacy to push our nondemocratic partners to reform. Changes are slowly coming in terms of universal suffrage, more influential parliaments, and education for girls and women. We must continue to advocate for reform and support indigenous agents of change in nondemocratic countries, even as we cooperate with their governments on security.

    An example of how our administration has balanced these concerns is our relationship with Pakistan. Following years of U.S. neglect of that relationship, our administration had to establish a partnership with Pakistan's military government to achieve a common goal after September 11. We did so knowing that our security and that of Pakistan ultimately required a return to civilian and democratic rule. So even as we worked with President Pervez Musharraf to fight terrorists and extremists, we invested more than $3 billion to strengthen Pakistani society -- building schools and health clinics, providing emergency relief after the 2005 earthquake, and supporting political parties and the rule of law. We urged Pakistan's military leaders to put their country on a modern and moderate trajectory, which in some important respects they did. And when this progress was threatened last year by the declaration of emergency rule, we pushed President Musharraf hard to take off his uniform and hold free elections. Although terrorists tried to thwart the return of democracy and tragically killed many innocent people, including former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, the Pakistani people dealt extremism a crushing defeat at the polls. This restoration of democracy in Pakistan creates an opportunity for us to build the lasting and broad-based partnership that we have never achieved with this nation, thereby enhancing our security and anchoring the success of our values in a troubled region.

    A second challenge to the emergence of a better Middle East is posed by aggressive states that seek not to peacefully reform the present regional order but to alter it using any form of violence -- assassination, intimidation, terrorism. The question is not whether any particular state should have influence in the region. They all do, and will. The real question is, What kind of influence will these states wield -- and to what ends, constructive or destructive? It is this fundamental and still unresolved question that is at the center of many of the geopolitical challenges in the Middle East today -- whether it is Syria's undermining of Lebanon's sovereignty, Iran's pursuit of a nuclear capability, or both states' support for terrorism.

    Iran poses a particular challenge. The Iranian regime pursues its disruptive policies both through state instruments, such as the Revolutionary Guards and the al Quds force, and through nonstate proxies that extend Iranian power, such as elements of the Mahdi Army in Iraq, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon and around the world. The Iranian regime seeks to subvert states and extend its influence throughout the Persian Gulf region and the broader Middle East. It threatens the state of Israel with extinction and holds implacable hostility toward the United States. And it is destabilizing Iraq, endangering U.S. forces, and killing innocent Iraqis. The United States is responding to these provocations. Clearly, an Iran with a nuclear weapon or even the technology to build one on demand would be a grave threat to international peace and security.

    But there is also another Iran. It is the land of a great culture and a great people, who suffer under repression. The Iranian people deserve to be integrated into the international system, to travel freely and be educated in the best universities. Indeed, the United States has reached out to them with exchanges of sports teams, disaster-relief workers, and artists. By many accounts, the Iranian people are favorably disposed to Americans and to the United States. Our relationship could be different. Should the Iranian government honor the UN Security Council's demands and suspend its uranium enrichment and related activities, the community of nations, including the United States, is prepared to discuss the full range of issues before us. The United States has no permanent enemies.

    Ultimately, the many threats that Iran poses must be seen in a broader context: that of a state fundamentally out of step with the norms and values of the international community. Iran must make a strategic choice -- a choice that we have sought to clarify with our approach -- about how and to what ends it will wield its power and influence: Does it want to continue thwarting the legitimate demands of the world, advancing its interests through violence, and deepening the isolation of its people? Or is it open to a better relationship, one of growing trade and exchange, deepening integration, and peaceful cooperation with its neighbors and the broader international community? Tehran should know that changes in its behavior would meet with changes in ours. But Iran should also know that the United States will defend its friends and its interests vigorously until the day that change comes.

    A third challenge is finding a way to resolve long-standing conflicts, particularly that between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our administration has put the idea of democratic development at the center of our approach to this conflict, because we came to believe that the Israelis will not achieve the security they deserve in their Jewish state and the Palestinians will not achieve the better life they deserve in a state of their own until there is a Palestinian government capable of exercising its sovereign responsibilities, both to its citizens and to its neighbors. Ultimately, a Palestinian state must be created that can live side by side with Israel in peace and security. This state will be born not just through negotiations to resolve hard issues related to borders, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem but also through the difficult effort to build effective democratic institutions that can fight terrorism and extremism, enforce the rule of law, combat corruption, and create opportunities for the Palestinians to improve their lives. This confers responsibilities on both parties.

    As the experience of the past several years has shown, there is a fundamental disagreement at the heart of Palestinian society -- between those who reject violence and recognize Israel's right to exist and those who do not. The Palestinian people must ultimately make a choice about which future they desire, and it is only democracy that gives them that choice and holds open the possibility of a peaceful way forward to resolve the existential question at the heart of their national life. The United States, Israel, other states in the region, and the international community must do everything in their power to support those Palestinians who would choose a future of peace and compromise. When the two-state solution is finally realized, it will be because of democracy, not despite it.

    This is, indeed, a controversial view, and it speaks to one more challenge that must be resolved if democratic and modern states are to emerge in the broader Middle East: how to deal with nonstate groups whose commitment to democracy, nonviolence, and the rule of law is suspect. Because of the long history of authoritarianism in the region, many of the best-organized political parties are Islamist, and some of them have not renounced violence used in the service of political goals. What should be their role in the democratic process? Will they take power democratically only to subvert the very process that brought them victory? Are elections in the broader Middle East therefore dangerous?

    These questions are not easy. When Hamas won elections in the Palestinian territories, it was widely seen as a failure of policy. But although this victory most certainly complicated affairs in the broader Middle East, in another way it helped to clarify matters. Hamas had significant power before those elections -- largely the power to destroy. After the elections, Hamas also had to face real accountability for its use of power for the first time. This has enabled the Palestinian people, and the international community, to hold Hamas to the same basic standards of responsibility to which all governments should be held. Through its continued unwillingness to behave like a responsible regime rather than a violent movement, Hamas has demonstrated that it is wholly incapable of governing.

    Much attention has been focused on Gaza, which Hamas holds hostage to its incompetent and brutal policies. But in other places, the Palestinians have held Hamas accountable. In the West Bank city of Qalqilya, for instance, where Hamas was elected in 2004, frustrated and fed-up Palestinians voted it out of office in the next election. If there can be a legitimate, effective, and democratic alternative to Hamas (something that Fatah has not yet been), people will likely choose it. This would especially be true if the Palestinians could live a normal life within their own state.

    The participation of armed groups in elections is problematic. But the lesson is not that there should not be elections. Rather, there should be standards, like the ones to which the international community has held Hamas after the fact: you can be a terrorist group or you can be a political party, but you cannot be both. As difficult as this problem is, it cannot be the case that people are denied the right to vote just because the outcome might be unpleasant to us. Although we cannot know whether politics will ultimately deradicalize violent groups, we do know that excluding them from the political process grants them power without responsibility. This is yet another challenge that the leaders and the peoples of the broader Middle East must resolve as the region turns to democratic processes and institutions to resolve differences peacefully and without repression.

    THE TRANSFORMATION OF IRAQ

    Then, of course, there is Iraq, which is perhaps the toughest test of the proposition that democracy can overcome deep divisions and differences. Because Iraq is a microcosm of the region, with its layers of ethnic and sectarian diversity, the Iraqi people's struggle to build a democracy after the fall of Saddam Hussein is shifting the landscape not just of Iraq but of the broader Middle East as well.

    The cost of this war, in lives and treasure, for Americans and Iraqis, has been greater than we ever imagined. This story is still being written, and will be for many years to come. Sanctions and weapons inspections, prewar intelligence and diplomacy, troop levels and postwar planning -- these are all important issues that historians will analyze for decades. But the fundamental question that we can ask and debate now is, Was removing Saddam from power the right decision? I continue to believe that it was.

    After we fought one war against Saddam and then remained in a formal state of hostilities with him for over a decade, our containment policy began to erode. The community of nations was losing its will to enforce containment, and Iraq's ruler was getting increasingly good at exploiting it through programs such as oil-for-food -- indeed, more than we knew at the time. The failure of containment was increasingly evident in the UN Security Council resolutions that were passed and then violated, in our regular clashes in the no-fly zones, and in President Bill Clinton's decision to launch air strikes in 1998 and then join with Congress to make "regime change" our government's official policy in Iraq. If Saddam was not a threat, why did the community of nations keep the Iraqi people under the most brutal sanctions in modern history? In fact, as the Iraq Survey Group showed, Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated.

    The United States did not overthrow Saddam to democratize the Middle East. It did so to remove a long-standing threat to international security. But the administration was conscious of the goal of democratization in the aftermath of liberation. We discussed the question of whether we should be satisfied with the end of Saddam's rule and the rise of another strongman to replace him. The answer was no, and it was thus avowedly U.S. policy from the outset to try to support the Iraqis in building a democratic Iraq. It is important to remember that we did not overthrow Adolf Hitler to bring democracy to Germany either. But the United States believed that only a democratic Germany could ultimately anchor a lasting peace in Europe.

    The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East were thus linked. So, too, was the war on terror linked to Iraq, because our goal after September 11 was to address the deeper malignancies of the Middle East, not just the symptoms of them. It is very hard to imagine how a more just and democratic Middle East could ever have emerged with Saddam still at the center of the region.

    Our effort in Iraq has been extremely arduous. Iraq was a broken state and a broken society under Saddam. We have made mistakes. That is undeniable. The explosion to the surface of long-suppressed grievances has challenged fragile, young democratic institutions. But there is no other decent and peaceful way for the Iraqis to reconcile.

    As Iraq emerges from its difficulties, the impact of its transformation is being felt in the rest of the region. Ultimately, the states of the Middle East need to reform. But they need to reform their relations, too. A strategic realignment is unfolding in the broader Middle East, separating those states that are responsible and accept that the time for violence under the rubric of "resistance" has passed and those that continue to fuel extremism, terrorism, and chaos. Support for moderate Palestinians and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and for democratic leaders and citizens in Lebanon have focused the energies of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the states of the Persian Gulf. They must come to see that a democratic Iraq can be an ally in resisting extremism in the region. When they invited Iraq to join the ranks of the Gulf Cooperation Council-Plus-Two (Egypt and Jordan), they took an important step in that direction.

    At the same time, these countries look to the United States to stay deeply involved in their troubled region and to counter and deter threats from Iran. The United States now has the weight of its effort very much in the center of the broader Middle East. Our long-term partnerships with Afghanistan and Iraq, to which we must remain deeply committed, our new relationships in Central Asia, and our long-standing partnerships in the Persian Gulf provide a solid geostrategic foundation for the generational work ahead of helping to bring about a better, more democratic, and more prosperous Middle East.

    A UNIQUELY AMERICAN REALISM

    Investing in strong and rising powers as stakeholders in the international order and supporting the democratic development of weak and poorly governed states -- these broad goals for U.S. foreign policy are certainly ambitious, and they raise an obvious question: Is the United States up to the challenge, or, as some fear and assert these days, is the United States a nation in decline?

    We should be confident that the foundation of American power is and will remain strong -- for its source is the dynamism, vigor, and resilience of American society. The United States still possesses the unique ability to assimilate new citizens of every race, religion, and culture into the fabric of our national and economic life. The same values that lead to success in the United States also lead to success in the world: industriousness, innovation, entrepreneurialism. All of these positive habits, and more, are reinforced by our system of education, which leads the world in teaching children not what to think but how to think -- how to address problems critically and solve them creatively.

    Indeed, one challenge to the national interest is to make certain that we can provide quality education to all, especially disadvantaged children. The American ideal is one of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. This is the glue that holds together our multiethnic democracy. If we ever stop believing that what matters is not where you came from but where you are going, we will most certainly lose confidence. And an unconfident America cannot lead. We will turn inward. We will see economic competition, foreign trade and investment, and the complicated world beyond our shores not as challenges to which our nation can rise but as threats that we should avoid. That is why access to education is a critical national security issue.

    We should also be confident that the foundations of the United States' economic power are strong, and will remain so. Even amid financial turbulence and international crises, the U.S. economy has grown more and faster since 2001 than the economy of any other leading industrial nation. The United States remains unquestionably the engine of global economic growth. To remain so, we must find new, more reliable, and more environmentally friendly sources of energy. The industries of the future are in the high-tech fields (including in clean energy), which our nation has led for years and in which we remain on the global cutting edge. Other nations are indeed experiencing amazing and welcome economic growth, but the United States will likely account for the largest share of global GDP for decades to come.

    Even in our government institutions of national security, the foundations of U.S. power are stronger than many assume. Despite our waging two wars and rising to defend ourselves in a new global confrontation, U.S. defense spending today as a percentage of GDP is still well below the average during the Cold War. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have indeed put an enormous strain on our military, and President Bush has proposed to Congress an expansion of our force by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. The experience of recent years has tested our armed forces, but it has also prepared a new generation of military leaders for stabilization and counterinsurgency missions, of which we will likely face more. This experience has also reinforced the urgent need for a new kind of partnership between our military and civilian institutions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the provincial reconstruction teams that we deploy in Afghanistan and Iraq are a model of civil-military cooperation for the future.

    In these pages in 2000, I decried the role of the United States, in particular the U.S. military, in nation building. In 2008, it is absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come. But it should not be the U.S. military that has to do it. Nor should it be a mission that we take up only after states fail. Rather, civilian institutions such as the new Civilian Response Corps must lead diplomats and development workers in a whole-of-government approach to our national security challenges. We must help weak and poorly functioning states strengthen and reform themselves and thereby prevent their failure in the first place. This will require the transformation and better integration of the United States' institutions of hard power and soft power -- a difficult task and one that our administration has begun. Since 2001, the president has requested and Congress has approved a nearly 54 percent increase in funding for our institutions of diplomacy and development. And this year, the president and I asked Congress to create 1,100 new positions for the State Department and 300 new positions for the U.S. Agency for International Development. Those who follow us must build on this foundation.

    Perhaps of greater concern is not that the United States lacks the capacity for global leadership but that it lacks the will. We Americans engage in foreign policy because we have to, not because we want to, and this is a healthy disposition -- it is that of a republic, not an empire. There have been times in the past eight years when we have had to do new and difficult things -- things that, at times, have tested the resolve and the patience of the American people. Our actions have not always been popular, or even well understood. The exigencies of September 12 and beyond may now seem very far away. But the actions of the United States will for many, many years be driven by the knowledge that we are in an unfair fight: we need to be right one hundred percent of the time; the terrorists, only once. Yet I find that whatever differences we and our allies have had over the last eight years, they still want a confident and engaged United States, because there are few problems in the world that can be resolved without us. We need to recognize that, too.

    Ultimately, however, what will most determine whether the United States can succeed in the twenty-first century is our imagination. It is this feature of the American character that most accounts for our unique role in the world, and it stems from the way that we think about our power and our values. The old dichotomy between realism and idealism has never really applied to the United States, because we do not really accept that our national interest and our universal ideals are at odds. For our nation, it has always been a matter of perspective. Even when our interests and ideals come into tension in the short run, we believe that in the long run they are indivisible.

    This has freed America to imagine that the world can always be better -- not perfect, but better -- than others have consistently thought possible. America imagined that a democratic Germany might one day be the anchor of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. America believed that a democratic Japan might one day be a source of peace in an increasingly free and prosperous Asia. America kept faith with the people of the Baltics that they would be independent and thus brought the day when NATO held a summit in Riga, Latvia. To realize these and other ambitious goals that we have imagined, America has often preferred preponderances of power that favor our values over balances of power that do not. We have dealt with the world as it is, but we have never accepted that we are powerless to change the world. Indeed, we have shown that by marrying American power and American values, we could help friends and allies expand the boundaries of what most thought realistic at the time.

    How to describe this disposition of ours? It is realism, of a sort. But it is more than that -- what I have called our uniquely American realism. This makes us an incredibly impatient nation. We live in the future, not the past. We do not linger over our own history. This has led our nation to make mistakes in the past, and we will surely make more in the future. Still, it is our impatience to improve less-than-ideal situations and to accelerate the pace of change that leads to our most enduring achievements, at home and abroad.

    At the same time, ironically, our uniquely American realism also makes us deeply patient. We understand how long and trying the course of democracy is. We acknowledge our birth defect, a constitution founded on a compromise that reduced my ancestors each to three-fifths of a man. Yet we are healing old wounds and living as one American people, and this shapes our engagement with the world. We support democracy not because we think ourselves perfect but because we know ourselves to be deeply imperfect. This gives us reason to be humble in our own endeavors and patient with the endeavors of others. We know that today's headlines are rarely the same as history's judgments.

    An international order that reflects our values is the best guarantee of our enduring national interest, and America continues to have a unique opportunity to shape this outcome. Indeed, we already see glimpses of this better world. We see it in Kuwaiti women gaining the right to vote, in a provincial council meeting in Kirkuk, and in the improbable sight of the American president standing with democratically elected leaders in front of the flags of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the future state of Palestine. Shaping that world will be the work of a generation, but we have done such work before. And if we remain confident in the power of our values, we can succeed in such work again.

    [Mar 20, 2015] Alexander Lebedev gives up bankrolling Russia's Novaya Gazeta by Roy Greenslade

    Mar 20, 2015 | The Guardian

    Asimpleguest -> Havingalavrov 20 Mar 2015 15:00

    I found more lies and disinformation in the Western news than in the Russian news

    in fact the info found on Itar-Tass, Interfax, Sputnik, RT, russia-insider, etc - can be easily verifiable and is reliable...

    and another positive aspect - they do NOT use vitriolic aggressive hysterical language when writing about Western politicians - their approach is very PROFESSIONAL, polite, and down-to-earth

    the Western media would re-gain their audience if they will start to report HONESTLY from both sides, unbiased...

    after the lies we were fed when the press manipulated people to believe in the justice of US invading Afghanistan and Iraq - nobody in his/her right mind believe anything Western politicians said about Libya, Syria and Ukra

    enough is enough - we are sick of so many lies

    in Ukra the power was taken by the oligarchs after a violent armed coup staged by amer (the vulgar nullity said it clearly in the ''f**k EU'' conversation)

    the democratically elected president was threatened that he will be killed like Qaddafi and run away with his family (Obama recognized that US brokered the gov change in Kiev)

    President Putin - knowing that Crimeans are majority in the favour of being united with Russia and wanting to protect their military naval base in Crimea - helped Crimea to do a referendum to reunite with Russia - then US mafia was outfoxed - they imagined the NATO will easily take over Russia's base

    Biden recognized that US pushed EU to apply anti-Russia sanctions (Obama admitted that US has the habit to twist the arms to make the other countries do want they want)

    Donbass asked for the same rights as Crimea had with Ukraine's border
    criminal illegitimate Kiev gov launched ATO - sending the far-right punitive private battalions to kill Eastern Ukrainians

    Poroshenko promised PEACE and RECONCILIATION during his electoral campaign - after he was elected - he continued killing civilians in the Eastern Ukraine...

    Poroshenko, Yats and their criminal gang in Kiev LOST the moral right to govern the Eastern Ukrainians!

    Виталий Седин -> JohnNewcomb 20 Mar 2015 11:47

    "Estonia - a country that ranks a very high #10 on RSF's World Press Freedom Index 2015."(c)

    ...and where 15% residents do not have basic civil rights.

    Perfect example of Real Democracy (TM) for Russian Bloody Dictatorship (TM).


    ijustwant2say -> Виталий Седин 20 Mar 2015 11:14

    You still name nothing similar in UK/US, I note.

    Are you being serious? Almost every paper or news channel you care to mention in this country has at some stage attacked the government of the day (because governments here change). Just watch Fox News in the US and see what it says about the US President. Watch the Daily Show in the US. Read this newspaper, on which you spend an inordinate amount of time commenting. The Snowden revelations weren't revealed by a Russian newspaper - but by this one and the New York Times. Stop pretending that Russia's, Kremlin controlled media, which has some of the worst press freedoms in the world, is on the same planet as media in the West. In the global press freedoms index, the UK is ranked 34, the US 49 (neither perfect), but Russia comes in at an appalling 152 out of 180 countries . Must make you proud.

    ijustwant2say -> Виталий Седин 20 Mar 2015 10:45

    Here's one unstoppable national-wide source of anti-Putin hysteria: http://www.echo.msk.ru/

    You can only name one, I note. Most papers in this country will happily criticise the actions of the government if they feel it is justifiable. Most regard it as part of their raison d'etre. Don't try and pretend that Russia, which has some of the worst press freedoms in the world, is on the same level as the press over here. I know the press in Russia and I know the press in Europe and the US. The West has some appalling stations (e.g. Fox News) but there is a vast mainstream choice of factually based reporting. Not so much in Russia where most get their news from TV and each of the three major National TV stations are controlled by the Kremlin. How do you think Putin has managed to stay so popular in Russia, while being reviled and distrusted most other places?

    Renfrow -> kolarg 20 Mar 2015 10:07

    I know in Ukraine all the papers are bankrolled by various oligarchs and each one prints information in accordance with their owners' views and/or interests. Sort of like FOX and MSNBC t.v. stations in the U.S.A. piping their own particular outlook in the world events

    Виталий Седин 20 Mar 2015 07:52

    Is there smth. comparable with Novaya Gazeta in UK?

    ID075732 20 Mar 2015 07:45

    Lebedev is basically a thug. A black not a white swan.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxYuHySd0LY

    [Mar 18, 2015] Russia withdrew from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty

    marknesop , March 17, 2015 at 11:57 am
    Most here will be aware that Russia withdrew from the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, effective about a week ago. But I wonder how many were aware of the lopsided balance of forces Russia was expected to accept in order to ratify the treaty.

    "When Russia ratified the adapted CFE Treaty, the agreement's weapons limit for NATO was three times that established for the Russian army. However, NATO required the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnistria as a condition for the ratification of the treaty.

    "NATO countries were not in a hurry to ratify the adapted treaty," Alexei Arbatov said. "Although Russia had withdrawn almost all its troops, there remained some absolutely insignificant contingents and objects. The West sought to pursue its line. On the part of NATO, I think it was extremely short-sighted, it was a big mistake."

    In Arbatov's view, this decision by NATO was what "finished off" conventional arms control in Europe."

    So for Russia, it now no longer recognizes a balance of forces or limit on conventional arms it may deploy in reaction to what it considers NATO provocations. The temperature looks to be steadily rising.

    et Al, March 17, 2015 at 2:07 pm
    I advocated this as an option quite some time ago. The time is judged right by the Kremlin to do so. But, even the US has foreseen this:

    There was a very interesting article (which of course I cannot now find) from a day or two ago outlining the US military's response to the end of the CFE treaty. The underlining point was that the US could do quite a number of things that could make it more militarily threatening to Russia without breaching any CFE commitmets.

    Here's a few mil related stuff that is intersting:

    New Radars, IRST Strengthen Stealth-Detection Claims

    http://aviationweek.com/defense/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-detection-claims

    Counterstealth technologies near service worldwide

    Counterstealth technologies, intended to reduce the effectiveness of radar cross-section (RCS) reduction measures, are proliferating worldwide. Since 2013, multiple new programs have been revealed, producers of radar and infrared search and track (IRST) systems have been more ready to claim counterstealth capability, and some operators-notably the U.S. Navy-have openly conceded that stealth technology is being challenged.

    These new systems are designed from the outset for sensor fusion-when different sensors detect and track the same target, the track and identification data are merged automatically. This is intended to overcome a critical problem in engaging stealth targets: Even if the target is detected, the "kill chain" by which a target is tracked, identified and engaged by a weapon can still be broken if any sensor in the chain cannot pick the target up….
    ####

    I think the point is that stealth has its place, but given the nature of 30 operational lives of aircraft, they are not going to keep their advantage for long. If you follow the tech news, the world is going through a sensor revolution. Price has massively dropped, capabilities have grown hugely, efficiency has significantly increase, its just the case of tying all the data together to make use of it 'data fusion' as they say in the article above. My camera has gps. In the pet shop I've seen gps cat collars not to mention video collars that can record all day or be set by sensor motion. It's only going to get better, cheaper and smaller and continue to reach the consumer in ever more imaginative ways.

    Another 'gift' from the Ukraine, except this time to I-ran (the other I mentioned in a previous post of Su-33 naval prototype sold to China that ended up as the J-11B copy no to mention the copies Su-27SKs):

    AW&ST: Iran Produces First Long-Range Missile

    http://aviationweek.com/defense/iran-produces-first-long-range-missile

    TEL-AVIV - Iran has unveiled a domestically produced long-range land attack cruise missile, dubbed Soumar.

    Based on the Russian Kh-55, the Soumar is believed to have a range of at least 2,000 km. "This missile represents a significant leap in the Middle East arms race," says Col. Aviram Hasson of Israel's Missile Defense Organization.

    "It positions Iran among the world's leaders in missile technology," a Western intelligence source adds….

    …Iran secretly received the missiles in the first half of 2001 and began reverse engineering work. But unlike its publicly displayed ballistic missile program, Iran did not admit to having a cruise missile program until 2012. …
    ###

    It's old, subsonic tech, but adds another arrow to the quiver that needs to be countered. Nor does it have a nuke warhead.

    Defense Update: France to invest €330 million upgrading 218 Leclerc Main Battle Tanks

    http://defense-update.com/20150312_leclerc-2.html

    The planned modernization work will enable Leclerc MBTs to employ its heavy, direct firepower and mobility as part of the future "SCORPION" joint tactical groups (GTIA). The contract provides for the delivery of 200 "upgraded Leclerc" tanks and 18 "Renovated DCL" recovery vehicles from 2020….
    ####

    Yup, from 2020. That's a lot of money for an extra reverse gear!

    kirill, March 17, 2015 at 2:41 pm
    "Even if the target is detected, the "kill chain" by which a target is tracked, identified and engaged by a weapon can still be broken if any sensor in the chain cannot pick the target up"

    Total rubbish claim. It perhaps could be true if the "sensor fusion" system consisted of a couple of obsolete radars, but it would not be true for a system consisting of three or more obsolete radars. American idiots ripped off the stealth concept and mathematics from the Soviets and now prance around like they dictate physical reality. American idiots will not see what hit them when people with actual appreciation and skill in physics and mathematics will face their toys.

    [Mar 18, 2015] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31921011

    bbc.co.uk

    Warren , March 17, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    France and Germany join UK in Asia bank membership

    France and Germany are to join the UK in becoming members of a Chinese-led Asian development bank.

    The finance ministries of both countries confirmed on Tuesday that they would be applying for membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

    Last week, the US issued a rare rebuke to the UK over its decision to become a member of the AIIB.

    The US considers the AIIB a rival to the Western-dominated World Bank.

    The UK was the first Western economy to apply for membership of the bank.

    But German finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble confirmed on Tuesday that his country would also be applying for membership.

    France's finance ministry confirmed it would be joining the bank. It is believed Italy also intends to join.

    The US has questioned the governance standards at the new institution, which is seen as spreading Chinese "soft power".

    The AIIB, which was created in October by 21 countries, led by China, will fund Asian energy, transport and infrastructure projects.

    When asked about the US rebuke last week, a spokesman for Prime Minister David Cameron said: "There will be times when we take a different approach."

    The UK insisted it would insist on the bank's adherence to strict banking and oversight procedures.

    "We think that it's in the UK's national interest," Mr Cameron's spokesperson added.

    'Not normal'

    Last week, Pippa Malmgren, a former economic adviser to US President George W Bush, told the BBC that the public chastisement from the US indicates the move might have come as a surprise.

    "It's not normal for the United States to be publicly scolding the British," she said, adding that the US's focus on domestic affairs at the moment could have led to the oversight.

    However, Mr Cameron's spokesperson said UK Chancellor George Osborne did discuss the measure with his US counterpart before announcing the move.

    Some 21 nations came together last year to sign a memorandum for the bank's establishment, including Singapore, India and Thailand.

    But in November last year, Australia's Prime Minister Tony Abbott offered lukewarm support to the AIIB and said its actions must be transparent.

    US President Barack Obama, who met Mr Abbott on the sidelines of a Beijing summit last year, agreed the bank had to be transparent, accountable and truly multilateral.

    "Those are the same rules by which the World Bank or IMF [International Monetary Fund] or Asian Development Bank or any other international institution needs to abide by," Mr Obama said at the time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31921011

    marknesop , March 17, 2015 at 3:11 pm
    The USA's grip on Europe, against all odds, is loosening. Who would have thought it would be over money, considering it went meekly along hand-in-hand with Washington in imposing sanctions which had an immediate and deleterious effect on its bottom line? I mean, isn't that money, too?

    "The UK insisted it would insist on the bank's adherence to strict banking and oversight procedures. 'We think that it's in the UK's national interest,' Mr Cameron's spokesperson added." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…Oh, 'pon my word, yes, m'lud. The UK would be everyone's first choice to monitor strict adherence to banking and oversight procedures, after the £2.7 Billion in fines handed the Bank of England for currency rigging – which also resulted in the dismissal of its senior foreign exchange dealer – just a few months ago. Or the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) scam, in which banks greedy for more profit conspired to rig the deck so that insurance which cost more and more stood less and less chance of ever having a successful claim levied against it. And let's not even mention Libor.

    I don't think there's too much about crooked banking the Chinese will be able to teach the British.

    james, March 17, 2015 at 3:59 pm
    there is a straight line that runs from the boe to the federal reserve… moon of alabama has a post up discussing some of the changes afloat which can be read here –

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2015/03/the-end-of-the-us-dominated-international-money-system.html#comments

    davidt, March 17, 2015 at 3:14 pm
    My favorite Czech, Vlad Sobell, has an new article "The opportunity cost of America's disastrous foreign policy", which most of us here would agree with:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/17/4594

    He reminds us what could have been if Putin's vision for creating a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok had been realized. (George Friedman has already explained why this could not be allowed.)
    I don't think that anyone has mentioned an earlier article by Sobell that appeared as his contribution on the experts' panel on us-russia.org, His is the last contribution.

    http://us-russia.org/2982-why-the-minsk-2-settlement-of-the-ukrainian-crisis-will-hold.html

    If there were an award for clear thinking then Sobell would have to be a prime candidate.

    kat kan , March 17, 2015 at 5:14 pm
    Only problem is, this was written in February. And without regard for Poroshenko.

    The weapons withdrawals were more or less done. Nothing else was. The Special Status law proposal was based on September lines and not discussed with the Republics so is unacceptable to them. Not only was there no improvement of humanitarian access, but it has been tightened up, to the extent that virtually no medicines are getting through, and no food at all. Travel to and from the Republics involves permits that take 3 weeks to get. The gas got cut off once. No social payments have been made and no wages back-paid. All this is in Minsk2 and Kiev's actually gone backwards on these clauses.

    The reality is, Minsk2 will not succeed, because Kiev (and their masters) don't want it to. Poroshenko is carrying in like he can set conditions, as if HE HAD WON when in fact HE LOST.

    davidt , March 17, 2015 at 6:17 pm
    From memory, I think that Sobell would agree with your penultimate sentence- I don't think that he was very optimistic about Minsk2. (On the positive side, the gap between Europe and the US seems to have hardened.)

    [Mar 18, 2015] The 'Opportunity Cost' of America's Disastrous Foreign Policy by Vlad Sobell

    Mar 18, 2015 | Russia Insider

    Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy

    The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability instead of war and chaos.

    Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.

    Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming the ongoing global economic depression.

    All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?

    European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy

    In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.

    Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.

    This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy, the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment industry.

    Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.

    America, too, is a loser

    But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The "democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?

    Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.

    The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it

    US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom (as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.

    Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.

    Vlad Sobell teaches political economy in Prague and Berlin
    Europeans Look On as US Sows Discord on the Continent
    Wed, Nov 2

    Tom Welsh

    What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent. Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will - behave in that way?

    'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.

    - Paul Craig Roberts

    jabirujoe

    "Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".

    Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does

    Toddrich

    "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it."
    -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]

    "When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away."

    -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]

    The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.

    Is Putin ill? 'Everything is fine' despite cancelled meetings and old photos

    Looks like Putin has a fly by Guardian things otherwise ;-). I just love the twisted Guardianista thinking that we get on here from time to time....
    The Guardian

    BradBenson -> 14 Mar 2015 10:15

    Well young man, I only talk down to clowns. If you had something reasonable to say in your original comment, you might have avoided being patronized. You reap what you sow.

    The US is no better or worse than the Russia. You get zero news on our TV Media except that which 'unnamed government sources' claim. How is that any different than what the Russian People see? Moreover, YOU don't know what the Russians see or know and can't know it unless you are living in Russia, which you aren't.

    Right now, even as I type, the so-called 'liberal' station, MSNBC, is reporting that Putin hasn't been seen for a week, when, in fact, he was seen live and in person twice this past week and it was reported elsewhere in the European Media. But we have to keep him in the news because he's the current "evil enemy du jour" and until we can come up with some new 'outrage' committed by Putin, this is the best they can do.

    People on the 'All-Israel-all-the-Time' Station, CNN Amerika, have even gone so far as to suggest that Putin's been overthrown by hardliners bent on restoring the borders of the old USSR. Quick! Throw open the siloes. We have to take them out now before these hardliners attack poor innocent Amerika!

    At the commercial break, there will be yet another advertisement for Boeing or Northrup Grumman just to keep us in that Cold War mood until the talking heads come back on. Meanwhile, even though none of us could ever possibly buy a Boeing or Grumman product, 'liberal' MSNBC is bought off with advertising money so that they won't ever criticize the new Cold War. Nor will you ever see a negative story about Boeing or Grumman contract cost overruns, especially not during the coming war with Iran (which has no bomb vs. poor Israel, which has at least 250 bombs).

    Meantime, we are also being told that there is no mass surveillance. Of course not, it's just "bulk collection". I'm sure that you find that reassuring, but I've been around long enough to remember when this would never have been permitted--that is, of course, without a "new pearl harbor" (google it and learn something about PNAC, while you're at it).

    In a country in which:

    1. all of your communications are collected and analyzed;
    2. the regular police forces are now full-scale armed para-military units;
    3. the National Defense Authorization Act permits the President to impose martial law anywhere in the country and to actually house US Military Personnel in our homes as required;
    4. the new Patriot Act permits indefinite incarceration without habeas corpus for American Citizens; and,
    5. people are shot in the streets on a regular basis by uniformed thugs;

    you have no basis whatsoever to claim that life in Amerika is any better than it is in Putin's Russia.

    Finally, young man, I'm 64 and you can call me a "young man" any time you want. At my age, it's a compliment. In the future, should you want to discuss things, dispute something I've said or make a counter-argument to something I've said, as some do, you will be treated with respect. If all you bring is ignorance and snark, rest assured you will be patronized. After all, we have standards here in the threads and I'm not allowed to tell little punks like you to just F-off.

    sheikhoftheprairies Adabsiz1 13 Mar 2015 14:36

    The Gazprom is a sponsor of the `Echo of Moscow`, many newspapers (like `The New Izvestiya`) of the so called liberal opposition. The state-owned corp. supports the opposition! How can it be explained? The Kremlin masochism? Curioser and curioser! Wonderland! Who gonna be Alice?

    Adabsiz1 13 Mar 2015 14:29

    Amazingly, and despite Western sanctions on Russia, not to mention attacks on the person of President Putin ....
    GAZPROM, the largest Russian oil company, is the SOLE sponsors of not only the UEFA Champions League ...... but also FC Schalke 04 (a premiere German club) !!!

    (https://www.gazprom-germania.de/en/sponsorship/sports-sponsorship/fcschalke04.html)

    WOW --

    Do we speak with forked tongues ??

    Cigars -> sheikhoftheprairies 13 Mar 2015 13:27

    The Central Intelligence Agency was created to gather intelligence.

    Collecting intelligence through human sources and by other appropriate means, except that he shall have no police, subpoena, or law enforcement powers or internal security functions;
    Correlating and evaluating intelligence related to the national security and providing appropriate dissemination of such intelligence;
    Providing overall direction for and coordination of the collection of national intelligence outside the United States through human sources by elements of the Intelligence Community authorized to undertake such collection and, in coordination with other departments, agencies, or elements of the United States Government which are authorized to undertake such collection, ensuring that the most effective use is made of resources and that appropriate account is taken of the risks to the United States and those involved in such collection; and
    Performing such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the President or the Director of National

    sheikhoftheprairies -> psygone 13 Mar 2015 13:06

    CNN is a source for the masses. To be more or less informed persons need other sources of information. My choice is the Lloyd List. It writes nothing about policy, only marine industry, yet you can judge the real state of affairs in the international economy, cos maritime transportation is blood of the world`s economy. Even the FT is not very reliable for me. I prefer figures and graphs to the words.

    worried 13 Mar 2015 12:43

    "competent leaders who embraced the western world because they cared more about maximizing the prosperity of their people than stealing their national wealth"

    ....HO HO HO !!

    I just love the twisted Guardianista thinking that we get on here from time to time....NOT.

    Read all about it : ' they cared more about maximizing the prosperity of their people than stealing their national wealth" ....

    Does this win the 2015 Orwellianspeak prize of the year?


    BradBenson -> brendonn 13 Mar 2015 10:52

    Fact are facts. Are you part of the problem or part of the solution? Sounds to me as if you don't have the education or acquired knowledge to dispute what I said. Perhaps you should check out our standing against the rest of the world.

    Since I've traveled all of my life and lived as an expatriate in Germany for ten years, I've had the opportunity to see the differences myself. Since you've never been outside of your trailer park, let alone your state, you will have to go to the net to find out the truth.

    Make that your assignment for today young man and run along.

    HollyOldDog -> romans 13 Mar 2015 10:42

    By manning the Concentration Camps where their extreme brutality was noted by the Gestapo but the Ukrainians cowardice was evident when the Soviet forces discovered the Auschwitz Concentration camp where the Ukrainian guards discarded their uniforms and tried to hide within the prisoners. But they stood out like a sore thumb as they were overweight whereas the true prisoners were 'stick thin' and obviously starving and awaiting their place in the que for the gas chambers.

    jgbg -> huzar30 13 Mar 2015 10:29

    Strongmen always eliminate potential rivals, and surround themselves with competent sycophants.

    Yeah - the Russians could end up with someone weak, like Vladimir Zhirinovsky : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zhirinovsky

    Be careful what you wish for.

    (Strangely, despite giving the impression of being a complete madman, Zhirinovsky made a fairly accurate prediction on a Ukrainian TV programme in 2006, about what would happen in Ukraine if the nationalists and their far right chums in Svoboda seized power)

    Conniston -> romans 13 Mar 2015 10:27

    Romans, they sure got their revenge at the Treblinka death camp. They were Catholic Christians with a deep hatred of Jews, communists and Orthodox Christians. Just to rub it in the new prime minister was seen with the Pope only a few days after the coup in Kiev. It may be 70 years ago but they still believe in priestcraft. It's a good job they have a saviour-god who is going to forgive all the rotten things they do while on Earth.

    valeronfreza -> Daniel Simkins 13 Mar 2015 10:15

    It creates resonance. But it really stupid. He's a president, a busy guy, he has lots of things to do, which are way more important than making new photos. There are plenty of them, already, he's not a TV serial so people would wait a new portion of him every two days or so. In spite of intensions of medias to turn his life and actions into series.

    HollyOldDog -> Havingalavrov 13 Mar 2015 09:57

    It's probably due to Poroshenko asking for an emergency Asylum due to all the murders of Russian Speaking politicians in West Ukraine but the armed road blocks around Kiev are posing problems for his safe escape plan.

    samlebon23 13 Mar 2015 09:55

    The Cancer Inducing Agency is hard at work.

    StatusFoe -> RealityCheck2014 13 Mar 2015 09:42

    He has not busy working hard with Western nations to secure a mutually beneficial reconciliation

    What was he doing in Minsk a couple of weeks ago then?

    fully integrate Russia into the global economy, promote positive and respectful relationships with foreign markets for Russia's products,

    Under Putin Russia has become a member of the WTO, the Russian Middle Class has grown enormously. Sure, the bureaucracy is still stiffling and huge reforms are still needed to promote SMEs. On the other hand, Putin has stopped the western energy corps from taking over Russia's resources in the way they do in the third world, Nigeria for example. That resistance has irked the US led western corporate cabal and thus the campaign in western MSM to demonize Putin and vilify Russia as a whole.

    Ida Barnes -> Metronome151 13 Mar 2015 09:40

    Huge dollop of whataboutery

    Whataboutery. Newspeak noun: used as a desperate attempt by people with poor reasoning skills to deflect attention from their double standards

    VladimirM -> VladimirM 13 Mar 2015 08:10

    There were two other presidents in Russia. Everybody knew and could see themselves how healthy Yeltsin was. But I can't remember a single story about Medvedev's health during his tenure.

    The youth don't remember Politburo and even Yeltsin's presidency seems to be far away. So it's a bit rich to call it 'scares' and compare it to the early 80s.

    Dr_Delaney 13 Mar 2015 08:01

    One has to understand that Mr Putin has had to defend his nation from the war of economic aggression that a minority of US-connected countries have waged on his country. I say minority because their actions are not supported by the world community - far from it indeed.

    Mr Putin is also working hard on the 2018 World Cup - which is expected to be the bes so far in the competitions history.

    Socraticus -> SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:46

    Matt Lee is one of the few journalists that consistently challenges the official government narrative and points out their hypocrisy during press briefings. The MSM need many more individuals like him.

    SHappens -> linzter 13 Mar 2015 07:31

    The US would never lie, never do such things, check Psaki's statement:

    As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means."

    The response from reporters may surprise you.

    http://investmentwatchblog.com/journalist-cant-contain-his-laughter-when-white-house-spokesperson-says-the-us-has-a-long-standing-policy-against-backing-coups/

    Dr_Delaney 13 Mar 2015 07:29

    It's Nato that's empire-building, not Putin....Peter Hitchens in The Spectator magazine

    "Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding"?

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9459602/its-nato-thats-empire-building-not-putin/

    SirHenryRawlins -> tomash76 13 Mar 2015 07:16

    Crimea would have been flattened if the nationalists had invaded. Luckily the people of Crimea acted swiftly and succeeded from Ukraine. Yes, it was all illegal but lives were saved. Western liberal interventionists should have supported Russia.

    Dr_Delaney -> SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:13

    This is quite true. The western game of denegration of a whole nation has backfired on them.

    They appear NOT to have learnt from past mistakes from history: 1812 (France invaded Russia), 1914 (Germany invaded Russia) and 1942 (Germany again invaded Russia). On each occasion Russia came out stronger.


    SHappens 13 Mar 2015 07:08

    "Something remarkable is taking place in Russia, and it's quite different from what we might expect. Rather than feel humiliated and depressed Russia is undergoing what I would call a kind of renaissance, a rebirth as a nation. This despite or in fact because the West, led by the so-called neo-conservatives in Washington, is trying everything including war on her doorstep in Ukraine, to collapse the Russian economy, humiliate Putin and paint Russians generally as bad. In the process, Russia is discovering positive attributes about her culture, her people, her land that had long been forgotten or suppressed."

    Read more: http://thesaker.is/russias-remarkable-renaissance/

    Putin probably needed a break to look with satisfaction at what the West has achieved so far, and that is nothing constructive for the EU.

    sheikhoftheprairies -> gewillia21 13 Mar 2015 07:03

    Chechnya`s part of the Russian Federation. It was and is. South Ossetia was saved by Russia. Georgians planned their genocide. Ukraine became a victim of the coup d'état like in LA in the 70s. Crimea? Now we see what ordeal this peninsula would undergo if not Russia`s help. Ukraine is a part of the Russian world, Russian populated universe, and therefore the EU and US are wrong when they try to trespass this thin, invisible but real red line. It is not our business. Let the Russian (Ukrainians are the Russian too) do like they can, we should not interfere with their Civil war. `Mad Vlad` is a vocabulary of hongweibings and dazibaos, as to the white overalls they won`t move their fingers until paid for their service. Who will pay them, you? Vlad won`t do it.

    Putin is a great national leader and the best friend of Chechnya, that Muslim republic. Visit Grozny (capital of the republic), it`s a fairy tale in the mountains. Putin built it anew.

    StatusFoe -> SirHenryRawlins 13 Mar 2015 06:37

    Indeed, it's very scarry. Thankfully it's been relatively very quiet in East Ukraine these last few days.... the hawks are surely not happy. And now the US establishment's official mouthpiece, tyhe Washington Post is berating the UK for not spendiing more on defence and not being sifficiently aggressive:

    In the two conflicts that most directly imperil Europe today, Britain has been largely ­invisible.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/behind-tough-british-bark-on-russia-and-islamic-state-is-very-little-bite/2015/03/12/ae63a442-c727-11e4-bea5-b893e7ac3fb3_story.html?hpid=z4

    RoyRoger -> Chirographer 13 Mar 2015 06:29

    7 political imbeciles !!.

    Obama, Kerry, Rasmusseen, Nuland, McCain, Hague & Ashton. The '' hug a, Kiev, fascist'' - lets have a coup d' etat' in a sovereign and democratic country - gang.

    And, Putin, sat back whilst the above mentioned incompetence actions dropped into Putin's and the Russian's lap - Crimea and 20% of Ukraine.

    And now the fucking political imbeciles are planning a war with Russia.

    Socraticus 13 Mar 2015 06:25

    Good lord! Do any of you anti-Putin fanatics ever once bother to investigate the claims presented in the MSM rather than take them as fact at face value?

    A simple cursory check of the Russian Presidential website would have easily dispelled the disinformation being disseminated, as it provides a listing of Putin's various meetings held over the past week and beyond (including photos taken at those meetings and links to the press releases of same).

    Further, those meetings can also be validated via the video coverage of them found on YouTube (including the Women's Day on March 8th), as well as postings made on other governmental websites that pertain to the individuals he met with. Here are just a few of those links so you can see for yourself...

    http://eng.kremlin.ru/news
    http://gov.karelia.ru/gov/index_e.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3mbtEZcio0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBVwq8Xw64

    Conniston 13 Mar 2015 06:25

    Things have become clearer following the 'Yesterday' TV programme that told the harrowing story of the death camp at Treblinka in Poland - March 10th. The guards killing the Jews were Ukrainian. Many Ukrainians joined the German army when they attacked the USSR in June 1941.

    With this in mind we can now begin to understand why the Russians are, rightly or wrongly, calling those in Kiev Nazis.

    Pateric -> GreatMountainEagle 13 Mar 2015 06:24

    Why not, if even after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya....the Westerners believe in their
    "exclusive" democracy as they, obviously, believe in the above 108-124%.

    Vladimire_Poutine 13 Mar 2015 06:23

    Where's Wally? *

    *Wally = common Anglicization of Vladimir.

    sheikhoftheprairies 13 Mar 2015 06:04

    Churchill: `Stalin took over Russia when it had just a plough and left it with nuclear weapons`.

    Putin took over Russia when it had just plights, and now Russia is a liberal, democratic, capitalist country. Its only guilt is it does not want to be anybody`s fool, victim. Putin is a real leader, not just a formal President. I wish him every success. I`d recommend politicians of other countries to follow his example for the sake of their nations.

    [Mar 16, 2015] A Green Light for the American Empire by Ron Paul

    March 14, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    The American Empire has been long in the making. A green light was given in 1990 to finalize that goal. Dramatic events occurred that year that allowed the promoters of the American Empire to cheer. It also ushered in the current 25-year war to solidify the power necessary to manage a world empire. Most people in the world now recognize this fact and assume that the empire is here to stay for a long time. That remains to be seen.

    Empires come and go. Some pop up quickly and disappear in the same manner. Others take many years to develop and sometimes many years to totally disintegrate. The old empires, like the Greek, Roman, Spanish and many others took many years to build and many years to disappear. The Soviet Empire was one that came rather quickly and dissipated swiftly after a relatively short period of time. The communist ideology took many decades to foment the agitation necessary for the people to tolerate that system.

    Since 1990 the United States has had to fight many battles to convince the world that it was the only military and economic force to contend with. Most people are now convinced and are easily intimidated by our domination worldwide with the use of military force and economic sanctions on which we generously rely. Though on the short term this seems to many, and especially for the neoconservatives, that our power cannot be challenged. What is so often forgotten is that while most countries will yield to our threats and intimidation, along the way many enemies were created.

    The seeds of the American Empire were sown early in our history. Natural resources, river transportation, and geographic location all lent itself to the development of an empire. An attitude of "Manifest Destiny" was something most Americans had no trouble accepting. Although in our early history there were those who believed in a powerful central government, with central banking and foreign intervention, these views were nothing like they are today as a consequence of many years of formalizing the power and determination necessary for us to be the policeman of the world and justify violence as a means for spreading a particular message. Many now endorse the idea that using force to spread American exceptionalism is moral and a force for good. Unfortunately history has shown that even using humanitarian rhetoric as a justification for telling others what to do has never worked.

    Our move toward empire steadily accelerated throughout the 20th century. World War I and World War II were deadly for millions of people in many countries, but in comparison the United States was essentially unscathed. Our economic power and military superiority steadily grew. Coming out of World War II we were able to dictate the terms of the new monetary system at Bretton Woods as well as the makeup of all the international organizations like NATO, the United Nations, and many others. The only thing that stood in America's way between 1945 and 1990 was the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Significant events of 1990 sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire, with United States enjoying a green light that would usher in unchallenged American superiority throughout the world.

    Various names have been given to this war in which we find ourselves and is which considered necessary to maintain the empire. Professor Michael Rozeff calls it the "Great War II" implying that the Great War I began in 1914 and ended in 1990. Others have referred to this ongoing war as "The Long War." I hope that someday we can refer to this war as the "The Last War" in that by the time this war ends the American Empire will end as well. Then the greatness of the experiment in individual liberty in our early history can be resumed and the force of arms can be replaced by persuasion and setting an example of how a free society should operate.

    There are several reasons why 1990 is a significant year in the transition of modern day empires. It was a year that signaled the end of the USSR Empire and the same year the American Empire builders felt vindicated in their efforts to assume the role of the world's sole superpower.

    On February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union met and ceded its monopoly political power over its empire. This was followed in a short period of time with the breakup of the Soviet system with 15 of the 17 republics declaring their independence from Moscow. This was not a total surprise considering the fact that the Soviets, in defeat, were forced to leave Afghanistan in February 1989. Also later that year, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell. Obviously the handwriting was on the wall for the total disintegration of the Soviet system. The fact that the Communist Party's leaders had to concede that they no longer could wield the ominous power that the Communist Party exerted for 73 years was a seminal event. None of this could have been possible without significant policy changes instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev after his assuming power as president in 1985, which included Glasnost and Perestroika-policies that permitted more political openness as well as significant economic reforms. These significant events led up to the Soviet collapse much more so than the conventional argument that it was due to Ronald Reagan's military buildup that forced the Soviets into a de facto "surrender" to the West.

    The other significant event of 1990, and not just a coincidence, was the "green light" message exchanged between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Though the details of this encounter have been debated, there is no doubt that the conclusion of it was that Saddam Hussein was convinced that the United States would not object to him using force to deal with a dispute Iraq had with Kuwait. After all, the US had just spent eight years aligning itself with him in his invasion and war with the Iranians. It seemed to him quite logical. What he didn't realize was the significance of the changes in the world powers that were ongoing at that particular time. The Soviets were on their way out and the American Empire was soon to assert its role as the lone super power. The US was anxious to demonstrate its new role.

    When one reads the communications between Washington and Iraq, it was not difficult to believe that a green light had been given to Saddam Hussein to march into Kuwait without US interference. Without this invasion, getting the American people to support a war with Iraq would have been very difficult. Before the war propaganda by the US government and the American media began, few Americans supported President Bush's plans to go to war against an ally that we assisted in its eight-year war against Iran. After several months of propaganda, attitudes changed and President Bush was able to get support from the US Congress, although he argued that that was unnecessary since he had obtained a UN resolution granting him the authority to use his military force to confront Saddam Hussein. The need for Constitutional authority was not discussed.

    US ambassador April Glaspie was rather explicit in her comments to Saddam Hussein: "we have no opinion on Arab – Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The US State Department had already told Saddam Hussein that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." It's not difficult interpreting conversations like this as being a green light for the invasion that Hussein was considering. Hussein had a list of grievances regarding the United States, but Glaspie never threatened or hinted about how Washington would react if Hussein took Kuwait. Regardless, whether it was reckless or poor diplomacy, the war commenced. Some have argued that it was deliberate in order to justify the beginning of the United States efforts in rebuilding the Middle East – a high priority for the neoconservatives. Actually whether the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was encouraged or permitted by deliberate intentions or by miscalculations, the outcome and the subsequent disaster in Iraq for the next 25 years was a result of continued bad judgment in our dealing with Iraq. That required enforcing our goals with military intervention. The obvious failure of this policy requires no debate.

    On August 1, 1990, one week after this exchange between ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq occurred. Immediately following this attack our State Department made it clear that this invasion would not stand and President Bush would lead a coalition in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, that military operation began. The forced evacuation of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was swift and violent, but the war for Iraq had just begun and continues to this day. It also ushered in the climactic struggle for America's efforts to become the official and unchallenged policeman of the world and to secure the American Empire.

    President Bush was not bashful in setting the stage for this clearly defined responsibility to assume this role since the Soviet Empire was on the wane. A very significant foreign policy speech by Bush came on September 11, 1990 entitled, "Toward a New World Order." This was a clear definition of internationalism with United States in charge in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. In this speech there was a pretense that there would be Russian and United States cooperation in making the world safe for democracy-something that our government now seems totally uninterested in. Following the speech, the New York Times reported that the American left was concerned about this new world order as being nothing more than rationalization for imperial ambitions in the middle 1980s. Obviously the geopolitics of the world had dramatically changed. The green light was given for the American hegemony.

    This arrogant assumption of power to run the world militarily and to punish or reward various countries economically would continue and accelerate, further complicating the financial condition of the United States government. Though it was easy for the United States to push Hussein back into Iraq, subsequent policy was destined to create havoc that has continued up to the present day. The sanctions and the continuous bombing of Iraq were devastating to the infrastructure of that country. As a consequence it's been estimated that over 500,000 Iraqis died in the next decade, many of them being children. Yet there are still many Americans who continue to be mystified as to why "they – Arabs and Muslims – hate us." By the end of 1991, on Christmas Day, the final blow to the Soviet system occurred. On that date Gorbachev resigned and the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time, thus officially ending the Soviet Empire. Many had hoped that there would be "a peace dividend" for us since the Cold War was officially ended. There's no reason that could not have occurred but it would have required us to reject the notion that it was our moral obligation and legal responsibility to deal with every crisis throughout the world. Nevertheless we embarked on that mission and though it continues, it is destined to end badly for our country. The ending of the Soviet Empire was a miraculous event with not one shot being fired. It was a failed system based on a deeply flawed idea and it was destined to fail. Once again this makes the point that the use of military force to mold the world is a deeply flawed policy. We must remember that ideas cannot be stopped by armies and recognize that good ideas must replace bad ones rather than resorting to constant wars.

    It should surprise no one that a policy endorsing the use of force to tell others how to live will only lead to more killing and greater economic suffering for those who engage in this effort, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Twenty five years have passed since this green light was given for the current war and there's no sign that it will soon end. So far it has only emboldened American political leaders to robustly pursue foreign interventionism with little thought to the tremendous price that is continuously paid.

    During the 1990s there was no precise war recognized. However our military presence around the world especially in the Middle East and to some degree in Africa was quite evident. Even though President George HW Bush did not march into Baghdad, war against the Iraqi people continued. In an effort to try to get the people to rebel against Saddam Hussein, overwhelming sanctions and continuous bombing were designed to get the Iraqi people to rebel and depose Hussein. That did not work. Instead it worked to continue to build hatred toward America for our involvement in the entire region.

    Our secretive influence in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation had its unintended consequences. One was that we were fighting on the side of bin Laden and we all know how that turned out. Also, in an effort to defeat communism, the CIA helped to promote radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this was helpful in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This most likely is not true since communism was doomed to fail anyway, and the cost to us by encouraging radical Islam has come back to haunt us.

    It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare. When Madeleine Albright was asked about this on national TV she did not deny it and said that that was a price that had to be paid. And then they wonder why there is so much resentment coming from these countries directed toward United States. Then George Bush Junior invaded Iraq, his justification all based on lies, and another 500,000 Iraqis died. The total deaths have been estimated to represent four percent of the Iraqi population. The green light that was turned on for the Persian Gulf War in 1990 stayed lit and even today the proponents of these totally failed wars claim that the only problem is we didn't send enough troops and we didn't stay long enough. And now it's argued that it's time to send ground troops back in. This is the message that we get from the neoconservatives determined that only armed might can bring peace to the world and that the cost to us financially is not a problem. The proponents never seem to be concerned about the loss of civil liberties, which has continued ever since the declaration of the Global War on Terrorism. And a good case can be made that our national security not only has not been helped, but has been diminished with these years of folly.

    And the true believers in empire never pause. After all the chaos that the US government precipitated in Iraq, conditions continue to deteriorate and now there is strong talk about putting troops on the ground once again. More than 10,000 troops still remain in Afghanistan and conditions there are precarious. Yemen is a mess as is also Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine - all countries in which we have illegally and irresponsibly engaged ourselves.

    Today the debate in Congress is whether or not to give the President additional authority to use military force. He asked to be able to use military force anyplace anytime around the world without further congressional approval. This is hardly what the Founders intended for how we dealt with going to war with other nations. Some have argued, for Constitutional reasons, that we should declare war against ISIS. That will prove to be difficult since exactly who they are and where they are located and how many there are is unknown. We do know it is estimated that there are around 30,000 members. And yet in the surrounding countries, where the fighting is going on and we are directly involved, millions of Muslims have chosen not to stand up to the ruthless behavior of the ISIS members.

    Since declaring war against ISIS makes no more sense than declaring war against "terrorism," which is a tactic, it won't work. Even at the height of the Cold War, in a time of great danger to the entire world, nobody suggested we declare war against "communism." Islamist extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be, they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world endorse. But what we must do immediately is to stop providing the incentive for the radicals to recruit new members and prevent American weapons from ending up in the hands of the enemy as a consequence of our failed policies. The incentives of the military-industrial complex along with the philosophy of neoconservatism that pushes us to be in more than 150 countries, must be exposed and refuted. Occupation by a foreign country precipitates hatred and can never be made acceptable by flowery words about their need for American-style "democracy." People who are occupied are always aware of the selfish motivation of the occupiers.

    The announcement by President George HW Bush on September 11, 1990 about the new world order was well received. Prior to that time it was only the "conspiracy theorists" who constantly talked about and speculated about the New World Order. Neoconservative ideas had been around for a long time. They were endorsed by many presidents and in particular Woodrow Wilson with his goal of spreading American goodness and making the "world safe for democracy" – none of which can be achieved by promoting war. In the 1990s the modern day neoconservatives, led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, enjoyed their growing influence on America's foreign policy. Specifically, in 1997 they established the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for the specific purpose of promoting an aggressive foreign policy of interventionism designed to promote the American Empire. This policy of intervention was to be presented with "moral clarity." "Clarity" it was, but "moral" is another question. Their goal was to provide a vision and resolve, "to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interest."

    It was not a surprise that admittedly the number one goal for the New World order was to significantly increase military spending and to be prepared to challenge any regime hostile to America's interests. They argued that America had to accept its unique role as the sole superpower for extending international order as long as it served America's interests. Although neoconservatives are thought to have greater influence within the Republican Party, their views have been implemented by the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. First on PNAC's agenda was to continue the policy designed to undermine Saddam Hussein with the goal of eventually invading Iraq – once they had an event that would galvanize public support for it. Many individuals signed letters as well as the statement of principles and most were identified as Republicans. Interestingly enough, the fourth person on the list of signatories for the statement of principles was Jeb Bush, just as he was planning his first run for governor of Florida. The neoconservatives have been firmly placed in a position of influence in directing America's foreign policy. Though we hear some debate between the two political parties over when and whom to strike, our position of world policeman is accepted by both. Though the rhetoric is different between the two parties, power always remains in the hands of those who believe in promoting the empire.

    The American Empire has arrived, but there's no indication that smooth sailing is ahead. Many questions remain. Will the American people continue to support it? Will the American taxpayer be able to afford it? Will those on the receiving end of our authority tolerate it? All empires eventually end. It's only a matter of time. Since all empires exist at the expense of personal liberty the sooner the American Empire ends the better it will be for those who still strive to keep America a bastion for personal liberty. That is possible, but it won't be achieved gracefully.

    Though the people have a say in the matter, they have to contend with the political and financial power that controls the government and media propaganda. The powerful special interests, who depend on privileges that come from the government, will do whatever is necessary to intimidate the people into believing that it's in their best interest to prop up a system that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The nature of fiat money and the privileges provided to the special interests by the Federal Reserve makes it a difficult struggle, but it's something that can be won. Unfortunately there will be economic chaos, more attacks on our civil liberties, and many unfortunate consequences coming from our unwise and dangerous foreign policy of interventionism.

    Since all empires serve the interests of a privileged class, the people who suffer will constantly challenge their existence. The more powerful the empire, the greater is the need for the government to hold it together by propaganda and lies. Truth is the greatest enemy of an abusive empire. Since those in charge are determined to maintain their power, truth is seen as being treasonous. Whistleblowers and truth tellers are seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. This is why as our empire has grown there have been more attacks on those who challenge the conventional wisdom of the propagandists. We have seen it with the current administration in that the president has used the Espionage Act to curtail freedom of the press more than any other recent president. Fortunately we live in an age where information is much more available than when it was controlled by a combination of our government and the three major networks. Nevertheless it's an uphill struggle to convince the people that it is in their best interests to give up on the concept of empire, foreign interventionism, allowing the special interests to dictate foreign policy, and paying the bills with the inflation of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve. The laws of economics, in time, will bring such a system to an end but it would be nice if it would be ended sooner through logic and persuasion.

    If it's conceded that there was a dramatic change with the green light given by April Glaspie and President Bush in 1990, along with the collapse, almost simultaneously, of the Soviet system, the only question remains is when and who will turn on the red light to end this 25 year war. Sometime it's easier to establish an empire than it is to maintain and pay for it. That is what our current political leaders are in the business of currently doing and it's not going well. It appears that a comparatively small but ruthless non-government entity, ISIS, is playing havoc with our political leaders as well as nearly all the countries in the Middle East. Because there is no clear understanding of what radical Islam is all about -since it is not much about Islam itself - our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere will continue to drain our resources and incite millions more to join those who are resisting our occupations and sanctions. The day will come when we will be forced to give up our role as world policeman and resort to using a little common sense and come home.

    This will only occur when the American people realize that our presence around the world and the maintenance of our empire has nothing to do with defending our Constitution, preserving our liberties, or fulfilling some imaginary obligation on our part to use force to spread American exceptionalism. A thorough look at our economic conditions, our pending bankruptcy, our veterans hospitals, and how we're viewed in the world by most other nations, will compel Americans to see things differently and insist that we bring our troops home – the sooner the better.

    Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world. If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial, it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it's difficult to argue against it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American people in this effort won't work and should be avoided. If one understands what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part, a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States - as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.

    How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.


    Copyright © 2015 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    Related

    [Mar 15, 2015] British security services recruit Russian-language speakers again

    Mar 15, 2015 | The Guardian

    robertinjapan -> ErnestfromClapham 14 Mar 2015 11:14

    Funny you mention that, that bloke you shared an apartment with, did he play up front for Tranmere Rovers, occasionally head the ball in? Anyway I've heard he's operating out of Stamford Bridge these days helping logistics for hotel bookings when Chelsea play away ties in Europe. Rumour round the camp fire has it he got a promotion recently for his efforts in securing excellent booking rates for Chelsea fans in the Clichy-sous-Bois region of Paris. Now to section where you state:

    "We were all rather pleased about the end of the Cold War and it is a crime that it is being restarted over a bit of local trouble in the far corner of Ukraine"

    What makes you think the cold war ever ended? What peace treaty was signed? What new arrangements were agreed upon? Finally, if Russia agreed to the unification of Germany and essentially the rearming of a nation that twice in the twentieth century came close to obliterating Russia. What concessions did the West concede in this so called ending of the cold war?

    grubbedout -> HollyOldDog 15 Mar 2015 14:08

    Starting pay?

    Civil Servant pay isn't all that great, plus the new 'Alpha' pension scheme has all the credibility of supermarket fuel vouchers.

    Me109BfG6 -> Botswana61 15 Mar 2015 00:06

    These lands have traditionally been Russian with the Russian majority of the whole population.
    Now, what would you say if in Germany the Bavarian dialect should be forced as the only 'state language' instead of the standard German? Quite resembling the situation in the Baltics, where they have forced their aborigine languages while prohibiting the Russian: Less science, less culture, less medic, etc,


    Alexandra_Aleshina 14 Mar 2015 04:11

    "Russia's "aggressive behaviour" posed a significant threat to the UK"
    How Russian "aggressive behavior" poses a threat to the UK, please tell me?
    And what is the "Russian aggressive behavior"? Let's only leave aside, these absurd stories about Russian invasion of Ukraine. This lie has already made me pretty tired.


    ambivabloke 14 Mar 2015 00:44

    I started my Russian language degree in 88 when Russian departments were flush with cash. The bottom dropped out of the field with a little help from Gorby (no, not Ronny).

    The CIA was often rumoured to stalk the halls of academe, waiting to pluck students like me who were, unfortunately for the CIA, more interested in Oblomov than Star Wars (Reagan's moronic missile shield).

    Come to think of it that's exactly the demographic Mi6 and the CIA should recruit, Russian/English speakers whose only ideology is an appreciation for the depth and complexity of Russian history and culture.


    HollyOldDog transplendent 13 Mar 2015 21:53

    A Russian speaker from an English University cannot understand the Russian mentality from your stated standpoint. If that is one of the requirements by the British secret services then they can only attract poor quality students.


    HollyOldDog RichWoods 13 Mar 2015 21:42

    Well if the West Ukrainians started to pay off their gas payment debt instead of stealing gas then no warnings need to be made by Russia about possible interrupted gas supplies beyond Russian control.


    Antidyatel 13 Mar 2015 20:47

    Ok.OK. I will send my resume. Obviously my track record on this forum is enough to qualify for this job. Fluent English and Russian and good knowledge of history, including all the disgusting nature of western culture.

    Inhumanoid -> Speenhamland 13 Mar 2015 20:45

    However, these days the net is cast far wider. For a couple of days this week if you entered "Russian language" and "university" into Google's UK search engine, above the results popped a jaunty, paid-for advertisement. "Understand Russian?" it asked. "Help protect the UK." A link took you to MI5's careers website.
    Reading, eh? Who has the time?

    hogsback -> CaptainFlack 13 Mar 2015 20:08

    Erm, there is no tap on the shoulder any more. That's the whole point.
    You can apply for a job at any of the three agencies directly online:
    https://www.mi5.gov.uk/careers/
    https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers.html
    http://www.gchq-careers.co.uk/index.html


    hogsback -> Linguistician 13 Mar 2015 20:04

    No, they recruit from across the entire UK - it's just that if you are recruiting Russian language specialists you are pretty limited in where you can recruit from, but you can guarantee that the students at Durham, Oxford, Bristol, Exeter etc will also have been approached.

    hogsback -> Ilja NB 13 Mar 2015 19:46

    The only ghetto in which Arabic is widely spoken is Mayfair. Are you suggesting all those millionaire Saudis and Emiratis are up to something? (other than annoying the neighbours by revving their Ferraris at 1am).

    RichWoods -> puskascat 13 Mar 2015 19:17

    The CIA running shoulder-launched missiles to the Afghan mujahideen via Peshawar? Remind me how that turned out.

    ApfelD 13 Mar 2015 18:17

    "The war against Russia is an important chapter in the German nation's struggle for existence. It is the old battle of the Germanic against the Slavic people, of the defense of European culture against Muscovite-Asiatic inundation and of the repulse of Jewish Bolshevism. The objective of this battle must be the demolition of present-day Russia and must therefore be conducted with unprecedented severity.

    Every military action must be guided in planning and execution by an iron resolution to exterminate the enemy remorselessy and totally. In particular no adherents of the contemporary Russian Bolshevik system are to be spared"
    1941


    musubi transplendent 13 Mar 2015 17:26

    "I'd rather have Russia as an enemy than a friend. At least you know where you stand." So some people apparently feel a need to demonise others in order "to know where they stand".

    Oh dear, oh dear, there seems to be little hope for humanity.

    ApfelD 13 Mar 2015 16:14

    The cold war managed returns as farce
    Russians are buying our family brilliants, houses, football clubs and yachts
    zillions of Russian speakers are walking around
    the Internet is full of Russians
    we need spies
    LOL


    Linguistician Marc de Berner 13 Mar 2015 15:27

    I don't think they seriously expect them to be able to pass as Russian. I expect a lot of the job revolves around SIGINT these days, just listening and interpreting. The poster also indicates that they expect their linguists to have spent time in the country and/or have cultural knowledge, i.e. not just sat in a classroom having learnt the cases and conjugations.

    Grumpymiddleagedman ID6945587 13 Mar 2015 14:41

    I spent years learning German Russian and Portuguese on the back of government promises about employment opportunities in the early 90's. Never saw a single job I could apply for except translating in some awful agency. Stuff the security services. And Up Russia.

    CaptainFlack 13 Mar 2015 14:26

    I have a background in engineering, and speak Chinese after spending time in the far east when I was younger, but I never got a tap on the shoulder. The most important thing for the security services, like most of the senior military and civil service jobs, is that you come from the "right" schools, because they assume this makes you decent, upright citizens rather than the kind of oikish commonfolk that are the real enemy to them.

    Anette Mor 13 Mar 2015 13:34

    They already killed trade with Russia, now they are killing of the sources for the UK overseas students. Russia (and Kazakhstan) had state budget sponsored kids sent to universities here, forgot about them from next year. It is already impossible to chat in any of the Russian forums in the UK because of no stop pro-Ukrainian abuse. When you force somebody away so badly you eventually make them an enemy.

    Paranoia, abuse, total surveillance - great place to live the UK.

    [Mar 15, 2015] Why our leaders can't be heroes any more by Jonathan Powell

    Note the the author never used the word "neoliberalism" in the article. This is what "identity politic" is about. for example tony Blair essentially sold his party to banksters and was royally remunerated for that. He also served as lapdog for Bush II neoconservative adventures. Personalities serve as a smoke screen to hide issues of attack of banksters on wellbeing of people. And the key task of neoliberal politician is to deceive people. Quote from comments: "Beyond terrible, an irrelevant article. There is simply no point being made, just a slapdash bundle of clichés thrown out in sequence in the vain hope of forming an argument." and another "Mr Powell kindly take my advice and fuck off, give your old china another award for his international legacy, shut up and be grateful you'll never face a criminal investigation for your part in the Iraq war."
    Mar 13, 2015 | The Guardian

    We yearn for politicians to fill the shoes of their all-powerful predecessors. But there are terrible dangers in trying to be superman

    There is a general lament about the Lilliputian nature of our current leaders. Where are the towering figures of the past? Why do we have such uninspiring leaders who can't even eat a bacon sandwich, or resist chillaxing on the job, or, in the case of the Greens, even remember their policies?

    There is, of course, nothing new about this. If you look back at the newspaper columns of the 1960s you will find commentators demanding to know where were the current-day Churchills and Bevans, and in the 1930s they wanted to know where leaders of the stature of Gladstone and Disraeli had gone. It is the familiar syndrome – from which I suffer – that as you get older, policemen look younger and younger.

    Nonetheless it is indisputably true that at the moment there is an unusual lack of strong, charismatic leaders, not just in the UK but in Europe too.

    It has come to something when Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is the dominant figure in Europe. I admire her quiet and subtle style of leadership, and she towers over her colleagues, but she is scarcely a colossus in the mould of a De Gaulle or even a Kohl. I vividly remember the first time Tony Blair met her, in the new British embassy in Berlin in 2004. Then the leader of the opposition in Germany, the soon-to-be chancellor plonked herself down in front of him and said disarmingly, "I have 10 problems" – and then began to list them, starting with a lack of charisma.

    The dearth of strong leaders is more than just the usual feast and famine – or it wouldn't extend across the west

    ... ... ...

    So maybe we should be careful what we wish for. Maybe strong leaders are not quite as alluring as we think, and we should celebrate the fact that our leaders are just like us. Just because one candidate can't remember his whole speech and the other likes to put his feet up on the job doesn't mean they can't govern. It could be that in the more constrained environment of developed democracies and a globalised economy, we actually want and need leaders in shades of grey rather than the towering figures of the past.


    Dani123 15 Mar 2015 01:09

    I don't want a "Führer", it's good for war and bloodshed only.
    In peaceful times grey technocrat manager are maybe abit color- but also bloodless.

    People from the past would envy us for our oh-so-boring kind of politicians.

    You wish for interesting times with interesting "personalities", well I don't.
    I like my lame and uninteresting times quite well, thank you....

    VelvetRevolutionary 14 Mar 2015 12:44

    Do you want to know why our political "...leaders can't be heroes anymore."? Our 21st century leaders are sorely lacking in human integrity, and they have completely lost their moral compass. That's why.

    dilawar 14 Mar 2015 02:20

    The French political theorist Alexis de Tocqueville, a great observer of man's affairs, while witnessing the birth of democracy in America, thought that the age of democracy will be the age of mediocrity. There will be a dead level plane of achievement in almost every kind of activity. A democratic person, due to various reasons he explains lucidly, does everything in hurry. He is always satisfied with "pretty well" and does not pause for an instance to think what he is doing.

    "His curiosity is at once insatiable and cheaply satisfied; for he cares more to know a great deal quickly than to know anything well: he has no time and but little taste to search things to the bottom". To make matter worse, "men of democracy worship chance, and are much less afraid of death than of difficulty".

    Despite his strong attachment to democracy, Tocqueville took great pains to point out what he thought to be a negative side of democracy: it will be an unheroic age. Tocqueville maintained that there wont be heroes in democratic societies because democracies are inherently incapable of producing them.

    But modern democracies were not able to do without heroes and this was also foreseen by Tocqueville with much misgivings. He believed, rightly or wrongly, that unlike aristocracy, there will not be a proper place for heroes or hero-worshipers in democracies, and when they arose they would sooner or later turn into despots. Modern democracy may or may not do without heroes but they certainly can not do without leaders. And in this modern age, which breeds them in great profusion, the problem is to know what to do with them.

    Democracies are no longer restricted to Europe or United States. They are now in many parts of this world in their own peculiar forms. They have acquired some distinct features of the societies in which they are able to grow. Human societies value heroes or charismatic personalities but some among are always more obsessed with them. These days, people seems to be somewhat tired of their politicians but it is not that people are tired for charisma; it only moves from politics to other area of public life. People reserve their praise and transfer their adulation for movie starts, sadhus and sants, sports-personalities and sometimes, for man of sciences.

    Here in India and neighbourhood, charismatic people from various fields have been using their charisma in politics. Some have been quite successful. NTR missed becoming the prime minister of India, Imran Khan is trying the same in Pakistan. The appeal of charisma, by which I mean the personal quality that secure instant and unquestioned devotions to the leader of his followers, is in decline everywhere. Not only there is no Nehru today, there is no de Gaulle and Winston Churchill. The consideration of this for the prospect of democracy and health of its institutions deserves some serious attention.

    Banditolobster 14 Mar 2015 01:37

    I don't particularly want our leaders to be heroic or devastatingly charismatic, I would settle for them being quietly competent and un corrupt, it amuses me that Merkel gets some stick in this article, she strikes me as a better leader by simply getting on with it, than many other leaders who are trying to summon up shades of Churchill and De Gaulle

    danielarnaut -> StTrevorofIlford 13 Mar 2015 17:17

    Thank you for your interest, though I lived in Britain most of my life I am of Catalan origin so I have always been interested in the ill fortune of some of the men and women who scape the Franco regime on the other side of the Pyrenees, so I started visiting the many concentration camps the Vichy regime built for the republican Spaniards in French soil.

    My neighbour in Newbury told me a weird story of Austrians in Frith Hill, or Frimley, near Camberley in Surrey. I heard of concentration camps for Irish freedom fighters in Shewsbury and Bromyard. I haven't got any information about those apparently in Tipperary and Southend. However, there are lots of information and literature on several concentration camps near Douglas and Peel in the Isle of Man which were built during the II WW.

    The BBC reported about a concentration camp near Leicester, Donnington Hall.
    But the most bizarre discovery I made was this one : I was just driving in the Dordogne (France) in 2010 when I came across a program in France Inter (radio) called " La bas si j'y suis ", I was speechless.

    A British historian was being interviewed about thirty concentration camps where more than two hundred thousand unemployed British guys were deported and put to hard labour, after the 1929 crash; these camps were in use up to 1939 ; that means the period under the labour government of Ramsey MacDonald. The idea was called: a New Deal (does it remind you of Tony's campaign for power?)

    People were forced to go these camps maybe to stop riots in certain cities. If they refused to go to the camps they had their benefit stopped at once. The inmates lived under awful conditions. They were treated like slaves and put to work for ten hours a day, forced to build roads, chop trees and crack stones.

    These were the years previous to the II WW and these concentration camps provided cheap labour before being sent to fight for king and country.

    HolyInsurgent, 13 Mar 2015 23:06

    Jonathan Powell: In part this vacuum is the result of a familiar pattern that normally a strong leader is immediately followed by a weak one. Margaret Thatcher was followed by John Major, Blair by Gordon Brown, Ronald Reagan by George Bush Sr, and so on.

    The theory is obviously meaningless. In each case, which one was the strong leader and which the weak one? Who decides?

    Without a substantial army they cannot take a leading role in world affairs. And as part of Nato and the European Union, their scope for independent foreign policy initiatives is severely limited.

    Considering NATO is America's military branch to enforce its foreign policy, the UK is simply an American client state. There is nothing to stop NATO from being dissolved and the EU pooling its separate countries' militaries as a united force. But of course America won't allow NATO to be dissolved. Why would it?

    No one in Russia would complain that they suffer from weak leaders at the moment.

    The Russian people voted for Putin. The West can think what they like of him, but he was elected.

    In China, with "Papa Xi", the cult of personality has returned virtually to the levels under Mao.

    What does the author suggest be done about it?

    Beyond terrible, an irrelevant article. There is simply no point being made, just a slapdash bundle of clichés thrown out in sequence in the vain hope of forming an argument.

    VarmintRaptScallion 13 Mar 2015 14:11

    I don't think you can get through Michael Sandal's Justice lecture series without acknowledging that the battle between moral principles and moral utilitarianism forces a leader to wade into some pretty grey areas.

    As a society it is probably better that we accept the inevitable corruption that takes hold in leaders and design political systems that take account of this. The concept of heroes and villains is at the heart of propaganda and only serves the status quo.

    Just like the erroneous belief that the current political paradigm is somehow the pinnacle of human evolution.

    BlogAnarchist 13 Mar 2015 13:23

    Got up to here and realised this article was a joke piece.

    In part this vacuum is the result of a familiar pattern that normally a strong leader is immediately followed by a weak one. Margaret Thatcher was followed by John Major, Blair by Gordon Brown, Ronald Reagan by George Bush Sr, and so on. It is very hard for a new strong leader to grow up in the shadow of an existing strong leader. Their successors are nearly always lower-key figures.

    Nathaniel P -> Cape7441 13 Mar 2015 13:21

    I noticed this. Politicians are basically allowed no respite, and their very characters are dissected in the media. It is almost as if they are not allowed to be human. It seems to me that the rivalry is just too strong- while debating and having different views is of course central to democratic politics, politicians should never be spiteful and nasty to rival politicians because they have a different political view- they should even feel comfortable complimenting their rivals' ideas and promises if they feel the need, but this never happens because the rivalry was too strong.

    Apparently, PM Stanley Baldwin used to politely chat to politicians in Parliament buildings, regardless of their party- maybe if this kind of thing was increased, politicians would be followed and seen as 'heroes' as they would be seen as human beings like the rest of us and not participants in slagging matches!

    greyskies 13 Mar 2015 13:15

    A politician should be a hero. They have the power to affect the lives of millions and should feel the weight of that responsibility every day. There are thoughtful and responsible MPs in our current parliament: Rory Stewart, Douglass Carswell, David Davis, Sarah Wollaston, Tom Watson, Margaret Hodge to name a few that I can respect. Unfortunately thoughtful MPs are rarely seen because they feel they should be loyal to their party or because they are rightfully afraid of being misunderstood. We need our MPs to be more heroic and put themselves out there and argue for their visions of the future of the country.

    socialistnotnulabour -> TwigTheWonderKid 13 Mar 2015 13:01

    You don't live in the real world if you think anyone just basing their arguments on evidence.

    I make my arguments based on evidence but I'm not so conceited to believe my beliefs don't have some effect on how I view the evidence.

    Zealots seem to believe they are the ones with the only correct view of evidence and are inflexible to believe anything else despite being shown they have come to the wrong conclusion.

    You should always be open to the fact that your conclusion from the evidence may actually be wrong.

    Even in the scientific world, evidence and facts are not always used in a truthful way.


    Bryced 13 Mar 2015 12:38

    The Labour Party. A man of the stature of Nye Bevin to the likes of puppet Tony B-lair and his collaborators. Yikes. Times have certainly changed. Deep, no deeper than that, endless bloody sigh. Makes you want to weep.

    HumanistLove 13 Mar 2015 12:17

    Accountable, intelligent, promise keeper, not beholden to special interests, consensus oriented, domestic issues as priority, sensitive to the most vulnerable in society...a mensch for, by and of the people.

    I believe a leader's personal life should be respected as private, as we all wish for ourselves.

    kippers 13 Mar 2015 11:42

    The Butler Report into the lack of WMD in Iraq criticised "sofa government". This was a polite way of criticising the way decisions were taken by Tony Blair and a small group of unelected advisors without the knowledge of Cabinet (and sometimes contrary to what had been decided in Cabinet). Jonathan Powell was one of those advisors. His response to that criticism was that this was the way things were done these days.

    Few people want leaders to be heroes. They want accountable government. That would reduce the risk of small groups of people seizing the controls and making erroneous assumptions like "it is an established fact that Iraq has WMD" and "the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan will be short and sharp".

    Krishnamoorthi 13 Mar 2015 11:20

    This a typical syndrome affecting every aspect of capitalist society. Individuals have their limitations and it is the system of government and the state apparatus which makes or unmakes an individual! Even if Churchill was not there there would have been another one to replace him. Giving too much of credit to individuals is just flattery! Individuals like Mandela are products of a wider Picture! To reduce the achievements or failures on a single person is just a simpleminded argument!

    stuartMilan 13 Mar 2015 11:07

    and the Graun stands up for British decency again..?

    Mr Powell kindly take my advice and fuck off, give your old china another award for his international legacy, shut up and be grateful you'll never face a criminal investigation for your part in the Iraq war.

    Ricardo111 13 Mar 2015 10:50

    Competent would be good. And honest. And principled.

    Instead what we have is corrupt, two-faced snake-oil salesmen in posh style.

    As for the "superhero" politicians of the past, they were no such thing: only the ignorant of history and weak of spirit would deify past leaders.

    weematt 13 Mar 2015 10:36

    We do not need leaders.It is silly to expect politicians to be leaders in the class struggle.

    Politicians are elected to run capitalism in the interests of the business class 1-5%. In a representative democracy this is diametrically opposed to the interests of workers 95-99%.

    All the economic clout is with the corporations and landowners, owned by a tiny minority of people, possibly around 5 percent. Owning the means of production allows them to cream off a profit or a surplus for themselves, and they do this by exploiting the rest of us. Their economic power is backed up by political power. The state is there to try and manage the status quo, and protect the interests of those with all the wealth. This doesn't mean that they have control over the economy, though. Market forces fluctuate between growth and slump regardless of what politicians and corporate strategists want.

    This arrangement leads to massive inequalities in wealth, not just within this country, but across the globe. Goods and services only go to those who can afford them, not to those who need them. Those who can't afford the basics risk falling into a lifestyle of poverty it's hard to escape from. Living in an unequal world where everything is rationed creates divisions between us, leading to prejudice and discrimination. Even those of us with a reasonable standard of living never have enough real involvement or sense of ownership in where we work and live.

    To solve the problems in society, we have to change the way society is structured. This means going from our world where the means to produce and distribute wealth are owned by a minority, to one where those resources and facilities are owned by everyone in common. Then, goods would be produced and services would be run directly for anyone who wants them, without the dictates of the economic market. Industries and services would be run just to satisfy people's needs and wants.

    All this could only be achieved by fundamentally changing the way society is organised, a revolution. The kind of revolution we want is one which involves the vast majority of people across the world. Every country now is part of an integrated global economy and class structure. So, people across the world would have to want to change society. The only legitimate and practical way this could be achieved is by organising equally and democratically. This means voluntary, creative work, with decisions and responsibilities agreed through everyone having an equal say. This would mean a much broader and more inclusive use of democracy than we're used to today. Different democratic organisations or procedures would apply in different circumstances. This doesn't mean having leaders or groups with more authority than others.

    "I would not lead you into the promised land if I could, because if I led you in, some one else would lead you out. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition; as it is now the capitalists use your heads and your hands." Eugene Debbs

    mespilus 13 Mar 2015 10:14

    If you are one of the 1%,
    there have been several Supermen in the last 5 years;

    George Osborne has lowered the upper rate of income tax, and given a bountiful tax break to hedge funds.

    Andrew Lansley has made it much easier to divert public funds towards contracted out private health care providers.

    Michael Gove has given away untold wealth by handing over school premises to Academy chains, and diverted local authority destined funds towards 'Free School's.
    Vince Cable sold the Royal Mail for a song, and the share in Eurostar will soon join HS1 in private hands.

    Supermen one & all.

    I'm sure you can add a few more.

    Matthew2012 13 Mar 2015 10:14

    I think that our modern politicians read Nietzsche and decide that they are supermen (ubermensch) not men.

    It matters little to them what we want - if they can get our vote.

    The problem is that they don't think that they need to listen

    ClericPreston 13 Mar 2015 10:09

    Leaders are not leaders of much any more.

    They don't have to be strong, they have to be fair, consistent and honest. The difficulty arises in the 2 dimensional thought that they have to do something big, stamp their mark, start some war or other to be the Big man (or woman in the case of Thatch).

    Cameron will never appear strong because he's obviously a bought man, too many vested interests leaning on him. How can you look up to a person who can be "swayed" so readily for donations and has lied on so many occasions?

    A lot of the day to day business of the country is now run by outsourcing companies, they don't answer to any elected leader, you would think this would allow a leader to develop in a more focused way, but this hasn't materialised, far from Cameron rolling up his sleeves at an appropriate time (rather than an opportunistic moment) and getting on with something for the people he seems to have spent his entire premiership publicising his party and raising funds to further drive that process not just for the last month or two but since the day he took office, 5 years! I don't think that even at the height of Thatcher's time can it be said that so much time has been spent on such things by a PM.

    Our leader, imho, is a Publicity machine first, a Tory second and a PM last. To me that is the wrong way around.

    Caroline Kennedy 13 Mar 2015 10:09

    As we all know, Jonathan Powell is one of Tony Blair's most simpering apologists. He, like many other Blair sycophants, ended up on the board of Save the Children.

    Hence the tainted "Global Legacy Award" for Blair, a man responsible for the deaths, injuries and long term disabilities of literally tens of thousands of children in Iraq, Afghanistan and across areas of the Middle East. Not to mention the number of orphans he has created.

    To compare Tony Blair with any politician other than those we already despise for their despotic rule, such as Robert Mugabe, Emperor Bokassa, Ferdinand Marcos etc is to insult those we admire such as Roosevelt, Kennedy and Mandela.

    Matthew2012 JayEnn 13 Mar 2015 10:09

    or about Gordon Brown being ugly?

    Media influence and vacuums in real substance.

    In WWII no one really cared what Churchill looked like in comparison to his policies.

    When we see so little integrity in our politicians, no accountability, ignoring expert advice and influence of vested interests? How do we judge the difference in our politicians?

    We have issues such as climate change where we are being failed in the most fundamental respect by politicians everywhere. And rather then debate it - we are faced with a 3 party agreement not to discuss it.

    The ideologies have become stale and the centre vote is all that is pursued. So whether you agree with issues or not it is no longer a matter of principles but about getting voted in.

    The UK government is being treated like a middle manager job and we don't see a great deal of proven competence by any of them.

    danielarnaut 13 Mar 2015 09:32

    Quite ingenuously, or lack of knowledge, Churchill is described by most of you as a great war leader. I am surprised people don't remember the famine provoked in southern Asia, the threat of military heavy handed action against the miners, or simple his own declarations admitting adhering to fascism. Without a Furher, Britain could have easily slipped into a dictatorship. And we had all the ingredients such as inflicting fear, massacres, starvation, imposition of twisted rules, concentration camps built even in the north of England for the unemployed and wherever a country fell on the hands of the sacro saint british empire people were forced to change behaviour, culture, language... to embrace the new deal and be civilised. Human loss was considerable. Churchil could have continue this trend.

    excathedra 13 Mar 2015 09:20

    Thatcher wasn't a strong leader, she was a lunatic hell bent on destroying the working class and the social advantages the post war consensus had brought.

    As for leaders I, and I suspect many others, just want honesty, decency and an end to the greed, hubris and vanity projects. If they want war then they ought to be in the front not organising and garnering contacts for future use.

    Wishful thinking I know but the alternatives are not worth continuing with.

    tobymoore 13 Mar 2015 08:57

    Trapped in an economic system which is clearly no longer capable of providing the society that people want, or could have if it we were solely limited by human ingenuity, the main job of our so-called leaders is to "manage expectation", i.e. to tell us what we can't have.

    There is no room left for visions of a better future. In any case, the obsession with leaders is infantile and leaves the door wide open for frauds and demagogues.

    crinklyoldgit 13 Mar 2015 06:56

    This article is hopeless. The issue here is that politicians and their appointees have become able to evade accountability by legal clever stepping . Blair is untouchable, legally speaking, but no one is under illusions about his abuse of privilege. All else is meaningless drivel until we can claw some meaningful accountability into the way affairs are managed, and make those who would abuse their powers think twice.

    Jimcomment 13 Mar 2015 04:50

    The difference with the Press shows the key difference here - international corporations have huge power these days. Politicians whose interests do not align with theirs find that media and funding strategies quickly go against them.

    Right or wrong, previous leaders held firm convictions. Cameron shows very clearly that he has none - he is a PR man with no interest in working as a politician, let alone being PM. But this suits those who wield economic and media power, and so he is financially backed and applauded by much of the Press.

    JonPurrtree 13 Mar 2015 04:23

    I'm not sure Hollande ever was on a pedestal. And if it wasn't for those pesky americans, Strauss-Kahn would have been President, no questions asked about his wandering hands and worse.

    But how on earth did we end up with the likes of Hollande and Milliband2 ?
    I'd be happy with boring yet competant looking people like Darling or Major, but such people seem to have been culled.

    [Mar 14, 2015] The Damage to U.S. Interests Abroad of Domestic Political Intemperance

    A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nation's interests. ...A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nations interests. ..."
    "... A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States. ..."
    "... instead the prevention of a second term for the incumbent U.S. president. ..."
    Mar 11, 2015 | The National Interest Blog

    The connection between the sort of behavior we are talking about and the standing of the United States overseas, however, is even broader than that and extends to the handling of domestic policy. Foreigners and foreign governments observe how the United States, the superpower with the world's largest economy, handles its own affairs, and they draw conclusions about how viable and reliable an interlocutor the United States would be on international matters. The foreigners are looking to see whether there is consistency and rationality in how the U.S. political system pursues U.S. national interests. If they do see those things, then the United States is someone they can do business with, whether as a rival or as an ally, even if U.S. interests differ from their own. If they do not see those things, then opportunities are lost for doing business that would benefit both the United States and the foreign state.

    A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nation's interests. As an outsider we encounter such situations in, say, Iraq, where sectarian loyalties and hatreds make it impossible to rely on a government in Baghdad consistently pursuing an Iraqi national interest. We also see it in Bangladesh, where the personal animosity between the "two begums" who head each of the major political parties there have made Bangladeshi politics so dysfunctional that in the recent past the military has had to step in.

    A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States. Foreigners could hear the then minority (now majority) leader of the United States Senate state a few years ago that his number one priority was not any particular U.S. national interest in either domestic or foreign affairs but instead the prevention of a second term for the incumbent U.S. president.

    Foreigners then were able to see the senator's party act along the same lines, using extortionate legislative methods to push a partisan agenda even at the expense of damaging the country's credit rating and causing disruptive interruptions to government operations. Once the same party achieved a majority in both houses of Congress there was much talk about how this would lead to newly responsible behavior, but the opening gavel of the new Congress had hardly fallen when once again there was the tactic of holding the operations of a government department hostage to press a specific partisan demand (this time on immigration) in opposition to the president's policies.

    [Mar 14, 2015] Russia warns US against supplying 'lethal defensive aid' to Ukraine

    Mar 14, 2015 | RT News

    Moscow has warned Washington a potential policy shift from supplying Kiev with "non-lethal aid" to "defensive lethal weapons", mulled as US Vice President visits Ukraine, would be a direct violation of all international agreements.

    A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that reports of possible deliveries of American "defensive weapons" to Ukraine would be viewed by Russia as a "very serious signal."

    "We heard repeated confirmations from the [US] administration, that it only supplies non-lethal aid to Ukraine. If there is a change of this policy, then we are talking about a serious destabilizing factor which could seriously affect the balance of power in the region," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich cautioned.

    His remarks follow US deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken Wednesday's statement at a hearing before the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, in which he said that Biden may offer the provision of "lethal defensive weapons" as he visits Ukraine. Lethal assistance "remains on the table. It's something that we're looking at," Blinken said.

    "We paid attention not only to such statements, but also to the trip of representatives of Ukrainian volunteer battalions to Washington, who tried to muster support of the US administration," Lukashevich said.

    The Ministry made it clear that such a move by Washington would violate a number of agreements.

    "This is a very serious signal for several reasons. First of all, this is a direct violation of agreements, including the ones achieved in partnership with the United States. I mean the Geneva Declaration from 17 April," said the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman.

    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko requested lethal aid from the US during a visit to Washington in September.

    READ MORE: Obama declines to give Ukraine 'lethal aid' despite Poroshenko's plea

    The American Vice President who has arrived in Kiev late Thursday has not yet made any official announcement, but Reuters' sources point to the possibility that US might increase a "non-lethal" aid package to Kiev instead of opting to supply arms.

    Under the non-lethal aid package, the US could deliver to Ukraine first Humvee vehicles and radars but as officials pointed out such deliveries would unlikely alter the conflict. Previous non-lethal aid to Ukraine announced in September included military equipment such as counter-mortar detection units, body armor, binoculars and other gear worth $53 million.

    At the same time the US diplomatic branch announced that it will continue to send advisers to Kiev and has allocated funds to Ukraine to battle what both the US and Ukraine see as a threat from Russia.

    SOIC 2 hours ago
    This Slavic, territorial 'domestic' conflict must be approached with extreme prudence.

    The US interests (real or manifested) do not justify inciting unrestrained escalation of force in proxy.

    Despite what social antagonisms are perpetrated and the 'trajectory' of global sentiment, the Russian Federation will stand united and abreast, not in opposition to Ukraine but to the United States.

    War has an intoxicating effect on nonobjective and narrowly fixated policy makers in industrial military nation states!

    Robin Bolt 5 hours ago

    P.S. Mustafa Masi Nayyem is still breathing because??? I have no respect for men anywhere when people like this can cause thousands to die on both sides, and then he is given a high profile job in the new Ukrainian government, and continues to work the media? He should be charged with inciting a war, not given a free pass & citizenship, what is wrong with people????

    Robin Bolt 5 hours ago

    Manuel Garcia

    God have mercy...The worst is yet to come. Prepare for the worst on both sides.

    I think we are worrying for nothing.... the people of Russia & the USA are far greater than these foreign invaders who are inciting wars everywhere...

    If people would set their "religions of peace" aside for a minute & stop feeding the animals, they'd see some of the main issues... Mustafa Masi Nayyem for instance.... How is this not a topic of interest????

    Robin Bolt 5 hours ago

    Unreal.... Complete ignorance. EU, UN & NATO should step-off, same with the US. It amazes me how so many ignore the plain truth. The people in change of Ukraine now, are no better than our own typical American street gangs & deserve 0 support, they caused 1000s of people on both sides of this issue to suffer a great deal, all so they could illegally take office & not have to pay what was owed to Russia. I am grateful for whoever got rid of Nemtsov, it kept them from trying to create the same ordeal they did in Ukraine, in Moscow.... 1 vs. 100s of 1000s, I'm all for it. I don't agree with certain things about Russia, but what happened in Ukraine is completely insane... I hold the EU, UN & Nato responsible for what happened, and the rest of the world is just as bad for staying silent or neutral. Ignorance isn't always bliss... As much as I don't like our current US President, I would never agree to illegal activity that overthrew the Government and replaced the Obama Administration with people who respect laws even less.... why then are people ignoring that this happened to the Pro-Russian leaders who were in office, and that crooks are running Ukraine now & would rather create more strife than pay their bills & act like men?

    [Mar 14, 2015] Michael Hudson on the IMF's Tender Ministrations in Ukraine and Greece naked capitalism

    Mar 14, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

    This RT interview with Michael Hudson focuses on the appalling state of the Ukraine economy and the role of the IMF, both in its policy-violating rescue package there and on a more general basis. Hudson points out that the IMF was always a vehicle of policy, and is operating as an adjunct to the Pentagon. What is left unsaid is that the IMF loan is being used as an alternative to a Congressional appropriation to fund the government in Kiev against the aspiring breakaway region in the east.

    The section with Hudson starts at 13:45.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLM9PqxxRjQ

    Yves Smith Post author March 14, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    They are not alone. Ukrainians are fleeing the country in record numbers: since February 2014, 600,000 Ukrainians have sought asylum or other forms of legal stay in neighboring countries, and thousands more have moved to the U.S. and the European Union. Others have fled illegally: Poland reported a 100 percent increase in the number of detentions of illegal Ukrainian immigrants last year.

    But the emigrants are not only asylum seekers. They are the Western-leaning intelligentsia, the professional classes with relatives abroad, and the students of the Maidan who first organized protests against former President Viktor Yanukovych's kleptocratic and violent government in November 2013.

    Mark, March 14, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Interesting long comment at that article by one of the people interviewed for the article..

    part of which was

    "yeah, well, the only thing which they conveniently left out, is that everybody in this article decided to leave long ago before the revolution."

    [Mar 14, 2015] The Coming Chinese Crackup

    Mar 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    TheFourthStooge-ing

    Giving the boot to US NGOs like USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, et al., would make an ideal pressure relief valve.

    YHC-FTSE

    Sounds like one of those articles you see as a prelude to a colour revolution being cooked up in a corner office at Langley to get the public to accept that the chaos they create is real and spontaneous. Funny how these things pop up just after the Chinese deals with Russia, announcing to the world the future implementations of CIPS and the BRICS New Development Bank (Alternative to the IMF & World Bank).

    I think the chinese already got the memo about Operation Gladio B and the shit the CIA sponsored Turks are pulling with the Uighurs. If they don't have contingency plans for a "spontaneous" colour revolution then they're all idiots. I thought the neo-cons would use Japan to start a pivot in the East, but I guess they are going to try the cheap and cheerful propaganda crap they used on HK first.

    These days all you have to do is follow the US State Dept travel itinerary to predict where riots, wars, murders, and terrorists will strike in the next few months.

    reader2010

    From what I read online it seems the student protest in Hong Kong last year was financed and supported by a major foreign power. The Chinese state-controlled media capped the casualty data of a numerous Islamic suicide attacks on civilians and police in Xijiang region (rumor mill saying about 400 people had died since the beginning of 2015). There are credible sources pointing to a major western power that is financing and training those Chinese Islamic militants in the nearby boarding countries.

    Apostate2

    Hmm, 'what you read online". Well perhaps you didn't read that the HK Federation of Students who funded the campaign have opened their books to show no foreign donations or influence. The internet is a dangerous and faulty source without due diligence. And the Xinjiang attacks and response have not been verified, though many reports in the Chinese press. If anyone is training those militants it is the Islamists not your so-called 'west'.

    YHC-FTSE

    You might want to do a bit of due diligence yourself.

    Leaders of the HK occupy movement have been busted. GW did a good expose of them here. The student leader Mr.Wong spent some time as a guest in Macau in 2011 at the invitation of the American Chamber of Commerce. Where did this meeting take place? Venetian Macao owned by the Sands Corp - yep the very one owned SHELDON ADELSON, the American oligarch behind Benjamin Netenyahu. Sometimes I seriously cannot believe these zionists popping up at the centre of every disgusting criminal plot to make this world even more unpleasant than it already is.

    As for the Uighurs, you might want to google "Sibel Edmonds - Operation Gladio B" to verify beyond any doubt that there is a serious concerted effort to foster terrorism in NW China by the CIA Although I don't share her views on Edward Snowden, her research is very thorough and verifiable on the subject of Gladio B.

    Here's a youtube interview to get you started: Sibel Edmonds interview. It was a shocking revelation for me when I first saw it.

    WhyWait

    No doubt the Empire is cooking up a color revolution in China. And we have to ask, what on earth were they doing letting a WSJ reporter into their inside conversations?

    Yet, the elite moving themselves their money and their children out of China is certainly telling us something, and the story of officials and Party members speaking the party line without conviction is eerily familiar.

    Missing from this article is the fact that this all is happening in the context of what is shaping up to be a global economic collapse of historic proportions, which China as a country that has jumped into capitalism with both feet is about to experience full force.

    If China were about to experience a collapse like that of the Soviet Union, the elite would be preparing to inherit it, jockying for their place, looking forward to the great plundering of public resources and the remaining state-owned companies begins. But instead they're fleeing en masse. Evidently they're expecting something else.

    Deng Jiao Peng proposed that China had to undergo capitalist accumulation first, then build socialism. The coming collapse of the world and Chinese economies is just what Marx predicted - and Marx is part of China's state religion. The hard-pressed over-worked and over-exploited millions in China's privately owned factories, and the Communist Party members among them, have that doctrine as part of their legacy. They are by all acounts already in a state of pre-revolutionary ferment and anger, as witnessed by thousands of strikes and protests per year, and they are about to get thrown into a crisis of survival.

    The resulting revolutionary upheaval may make the Cultural Revolution look like a dress rehearsal.

    Foreseeably this will open huge opportunities for the US and Japan to engage in mischief, and will put Russia in a very difficult position with its new strategic partner incapacitated.

    WhyWait

    Elaborating a bit on how I'm framing this:

    China and Russia have both already had profound anti-capitalist revolutions followed by a kind of counterrevolution and a partial restoration of capitalism. In Russia this counterrevolution was marked by the collapse of Communist Party rule. In China it involved a takeover of the leadership of the Communist Party by capitalist kleptocrats and oligarchs. Thus the collapse of Communist Party rule in China, while inevitable, will be of an entirely different character. Without the global collapse of the capitalist economic system it might have devolved into a liberal democratic system more like those of Western Europe. In the present context that is not an option and what we will see instead is a counter-counter-revolution, i.e. a revolution.

    goldhedge

    "The elites getting their kidz out of China" is probably more to do with Chinese Expansionism.

    These will be rich and therefore powerful ppl in their new found homes and still have "some" allegiance to their motherland.

    Its all by design.

    silverlamb

    "A more secure and confident government would not institute such a severe crackdown. It is a symptom of the party leadership's deep anxiety and insecurity"...

    A government that feels safe should not militarize the police and try to control the Internet ... but USA is doing . There are not good countries, only good people and corrupt or weak governments ...

    shovelhead

    Norinco. The PLA's corporate face of the Chinese MIC. They own our West Coast port facilities under various shell co. names.

    I imagine, like any army, that political factions in Govt. can only purge dissident military leaders after carefully assessing that they have a majority in the clique of power that will remain loyal.

    I also imagine that the political /miltary power structure is a fluid balance of interlocking sheres of influence and interests. When it becomes unbalanced in the US, you end up with dead Kennedys.

    reader2010

    China embraced liberal market ideology right after the collapse of the Soviet Union thanks to the propaganda engineered by Wall Street. However, in the Aftermath of 2008 financial meltdown, China finally realized that was purely a bullshit. And particularly after the Pivotal to Asia led by Washington, China was made to understand that Washington sees it as the "rogue state". So they started to engage the West in a different light completely. Getting rid of the 5th column (many of them came to study in the US in the 70s and early 80s) is what Xi has been doing in the name of anti-corruption. That's what's happening in real time, folks.

    Md4

    We cannot predict when Chinese communism will collapse, but it is hard not to conclude that we are witnessing its final phase. The CCP is the world's second-longest ruling regime (behind only North Korea), and no party can rule forever."

    China is in the mess its in mostly because the west, having outsourced much the its middle class wealth producing jobs to the east, is mostly broke, and suffering a dramatic and on-going decline in income with which to consume. While life has never been easy for the mostly poor peasant class of Chinese, they were led to believe an insatiable appetite in the west for the goods once produced there would endlessly enable them to enjoy a rising (even if very modestly by western standards) standard of living.

    When you come from rice paddy, rural and antiquated agrarian poverty for generations, even a shanty town life in the shadow of new and empty high rises and mega factories are a step up. At least you're working, making a steady wage and eating a little meat once in awhile. If this keeps up, you think, you might actually be able to have something for yourself one day...

    But then, that's not how it's all turning out.

    What the idiots, in a bonsai rush to outsource western manufacturing and middle class wealth-producing industries apparently never considered, is, what do workers in an emptied-out west do for income when the old jobs are gone, and how will western spending-dependent economies inheriting those former American industries survive without western spending?

    Eventually, like the west, the east will implode, of course.

    And that's what we're seeing. China is the most visible because it's the largest, most talked about of the beneficiaries of western outsourcing. But it is certainly not the only EM in trouble. What's worse are all of the commodity spin offs heavily dependent on supplying the giant manufacturing engine China became. They, too, are beginning to suck air, as China doesn't need production inputs if the outputs aren't selling much.

    The outputs are seriously declining in demand because western incomes are in serious decline. We're witnessing a global train wreck, with each car beginning to slam into the one ahead of it. Eventually, and because of the state of affairs that bonsai outsourcing set into motion, these cars will derail.

    The world has never been here before. It is clear to me it doesn't know what to do about what is a checkmate. All of the old easy monetary games aren't working because they can't work. If anything, they're making the inevitable collapse just that much tougher to overcome. This cannot be fixed, but it sure as hell can be screwed up more.

    My gut tells me the world will likely fracture into smaller and smaller pieces when the calamity finally takes hold. Human nature more often circles wagons into tighter groups under extreme pressures of disintegration. That may ultimately look like the break up of the Warsaw Pact, or it may look more like the north and south of antebellum America. Much depends upon what any people feel is their best shot at some kind of peaceful prosperity while weathering an unprecedented storm.

    But...the collapse HAS to happen first.

    The world remains checkmated until it does, and there is no way back to before.

    m

    scatha

    What a crap. ZH could do better then re-posting WSJ excretions. Did author ever read anything about China's history or US for that matter? The Chinese Xi guy's just doing what his predecessors were doing for thousands of years namely purging old clique, replacing it with new clique who helped him to power.

    This happens everywhere where there is any REAL change of power. Not in US where the same regime continues for almost 240 years without any change. Not one iota. Nothing, the same British imperial aristocrats with support by courtiers and domestic slaves from Britain colonies like Kenya.

    China is much further from collapsing then these US where hordes of oligarchs escape US to Asia to find shelter for their money and their families before this whole shit collapses, joined there by tens of thousands of US expatriates looking for better life in Asia or even Russia or Europe.

    Thanks to Japanese renewed militarism and fascist leaning government as well as US aggressive behavior vs. Russia average Chinese learn to stick to evil they know. The popularity of so-called communist party but actually nationalist party surged over last 10 years but not due to economics since it raised standard of living for only about 100 millions (8% of population) but because they learned a lesson that they cannot be divided by the West, never again, otherwise they know they'll return to western slavery as it was for several centuries.

    This is Chinese philosophy of life. It hard to believe but vast majority of Chinese are ready to put on gray uniform and jump on a bike dropping all those western useless gadgets at a whim. And if WSJ does not know about it, it does not know anything about China.

    So we have to judge this piece for what it is, pure propaganda, unleashed to prep brain damaged Americans for dying for.. few rocks in the ocean or nothing.

    Free_Spirit

    Unlikely, the instant catastrophic collapse vis USSR was caused by the leaders (drunk yeltsin) choosing to write the nation into history, and wasn't caused by the people. Granted a spineless Gorbachev fataly weakened the system, but what really destroyed the soviet system was lack of reliable food and basic consumer goods supply. Teachers couldn't attend school because they had to queue for food all day. Nor factory workers, whose factories closed for lack of attending workers. Food rrotted in railway sidings because there were no reliable drivers and locos to keep the supply chain going. This above all else was the breakdown of the system. So long as China avoids such a breakdown of supply and basic services, and retains focused leadership the CPP will survive. I don't see any senior CCP leader who rivals Gorby for spinelessness or Yeltsin for drunken stupidity. If we ever do, then it'll be time to talk collapse.

    [Mar 14, 2015] A Review of 'Frontline Ukraine' by Richard Sakwa

    Mar 05, 2015 | hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk

    You might have thought that a serious book on the Ukraine crisis, written by a distinguished academic in good clear English, and published by a reputable house, might have gained quite a bit of attention at a time when that country is at the centre of many people's concerns.

    But some readers here now understand that publishing, and especially the reviewing of books, are not the simple marketplaces of ideas which we would all wish them to be.

    And so, as far as I can discover, this book :

    'Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands , by Richard Sakwa. Published by I.B.Tauris

    …though it came out some months ago, has only been reviewed in one place in Britain, the Guardian newspaper, by Jonathan Steele, the first-rate foreign correspondent whose rigour and enterprise (when we were both stationed in Moscow) quite persuaded me to overlook his former sympathy for the left-wing cause (most notably expressed in a 1977 book 'Socialism with a German Face' about the old East Germany, which seemed to me at the time to be ah, excessively kind).

    Mr Steele's review can be read here

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/feb/19/frontline-ukraine-crisis-in-borderlands-richard-sakwa-review-account

    I have said elsewhere that I would myself be happier if the book were more hostile to my position on this conflict. Sometimes I feel that it is almost too good to be true, to have my own conclusions confirmed so powerfully, and I would certainly like to see the book reviewed by a knowledgeable proponent of the NATO neo-conservative position. Why hasn't it been?

    But even so I recommend it to any reader of mine who is remotely interested in disentangling the reality from the knotted nets of propaganda in which it is currently shrouded.

    Like George Friedman's interesting interview in the Moscow newspaper 'Kommersant' ( you can read it here http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/01/20/2561 ) , the book has shifted my own view.

    I have tended to see the *basic* dispute in Ukraine as being yet another outbreak of the old German push into the east, carried out under the new, nice flag of the EU, a liberal, federative empire in which the vassal states are tactfully allowed limited sovereignty as long as they don't challenge the fundamental politico-economic dominance of Germany. I still think this is a strong element in the EU's thrust in this direction.

    But I have tended to neglect another feature of the new Europe, also set out in Adam Tooze's brilliant 'The Deluge' – the firm determination of the USA to mould Europe in its own image (a determination these days expressed mainly through the EU and NATO).

    I should have paid more attention to the famous words 'F*** the EU!' spoken by the USA's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, in a phone call publicised to the world by (presumably) Russian intelligence. The EU isn't half as enthusiastic about following the old eastern road as is the USA. Indeed, it's a bit of a foot-dragger.

    The driving force in this crisis is the USA, with the EU being reluctantly tugged along behind. And if Mr Friedman is right (and I think he is), the roots of it lie in Russia's decision to obstruct the West's intervention in Syria.

    Perhaps the key to the whole thing (rather dispiriting in that it shows the USA really hasn't learned anything important from the Iraq debacle) is the so-called 'Wolfowitz Doctrine' of 1992, named after the neo-con's neo-con, Paul Wolfowitz, and summed up by Professor Sakwa (p.211) thus: 'The doctrine asserted that the US should prevent "any country from dominating any region of the world that might be a springboard to threaten unipolar and exclusive US dominance"'.

    Note how neatly this meshes with what George Friedman says in his interview.

    Now, there are dozens of fascinating things in Professor Sakwa's book, and my copy is scored with annotations and references. I could spend a week summarising it for you. (By the way, the Professor himself is very familiar with this complex region, and might be expected, thanks to his Polish ancestry, to take a different line. His father was in the Polish Army in 1939, escaped to Hungary in the chaos of defeat, and ended up serving in Anders's Second Corps, fighting with the British Army at El Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then through Italy via Monte Cassino. Then he was in exile during the years of Polish Communism. Like Vaclav Klaus, another critic of current western policy, Professor Sakwa can hardly be dismissed as a naif who doesn't understand about Russia, or accused of being a 'fellow-traveler' or 'useful idiot'.

    He is now concerned at 'how we created yet another crisis' (p xiii) .

    But I would much prefer that you read it for yourself, and so will have to limit my references quite sternly.

    There are good explanations of the undoubted anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathies of some strands in Ukrainian politics. Similar nastiness, by the way, is to be found loose in some of the Baltic States. I mention this n because it justified classifying the whole movement as 'Neo-Nazi', which is obviously false, but because it tells us something very interesting about the nature of nationalism and Russophobia in this part of the world. No serious or fair description of the crisis can ignore it. Yet, in the portrayal of Russia as Mordor, and the Ukraine as Utopia, western media simply leave out almost everything about Ukraine that doesn't appeal to their audiences, the economic near collapse, the Judophobia and Russophobia (the derogatory word 'Moskal', for instance, in common use), the worship of the dubious (this word is very generous, I think) Stepan Bandera by many of the Western ultra-nationalists, the violence against dissenters from the Maidan view ( see http://rt.com/news/ukraine-presidential-candidates-attacked-516/). The survival and continued power of Ukraine's oligarchs after a revolution supposedly aimed at cleaning up the country is also never mentioned. We all know about Viktor Yanukovych;s tasteless mansion, but the book provides some interesting details on President Poroshenko's residence (it looks rather like the White House) , which I have not seen elsewhere.

    The detailed description of how and why the Association Agreement led to such trouble is excellent. I had not realised that, since the Lisbon Treaty, alignment with NATO is an essential part of EU membership (and association) – hence the unavoidable political and military clauses in the agreement.

    So is the filleting of the excuse-making and apologetics of those who still pretend that Yanukovych was lawfully removed from office: the explicit threat of violence from the Maidan, the failure to muster the requisite vote, the presence of armed men during the vote, the failure to follow the constitutional rules (set beside the available lawful deal, overridden by the Maidan, under which Yanukovych would have faced early elections and been forced to make constitutional changes) .

    Then here we have Ms Nuland again, boasting of the $5 billion (eat your heart out, the EU, with your paltry £300 million) http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm which the USA has 'invested in Ukraine. 'Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We've invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.

    It's worth noting that in this speech, in December 2013, she still envisages the supposedly intolerable Yanukovych as a possible partner.

    Other points well made are the strange effect of NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, which has created the very tension against which it now seeks to reassure border nations, by encouraging them, too, to join, the non-binding nature of the much-trumpeted Budapest memorandum, the lack of coverage of the ghastly events in Odessa, the continuing lack of a proper independent investigation into the Kiev mass shootings in February 2014 .

    Also examined is the Russian fear of losing Sevastopol, an entirely justified fear given that President Yushchenko had chosen to say in Georgia, during the war of August 2008, that Russia's basing rights in the city would end in 2017. The 'disappearance; of the 'Right Sector' and 'Svoboda' vote in recent elections is explained by their transfer to the radical Party led by Oleh Lyashko.

    Professor Sakwa also explores Russia's behaviour in other border disputes , with Norway and China, in which it has been far from aggressive. And he points out that Ukraine's nationalists have made their country's life far more difficult by their rigid nationalist approach to the many citizens of that country who, while viewing themselves as Ukrainian, do not share the history or passions of the ultra-nationalists in the West.

    Likewise he warns simple-minded analysts that the conflict in the East of Ukraine is not desired by Russia's elite, which does not wish to be drawn into another foreign entanglement (all Russian strategists recall the disastrous result of the Afghan intervention). But it may be desired by Russian ultra-nationalists, not necessarily controllable.

    He points out that Russia has not, as it did in Crimea, intervened decisively in Eastern Ukraine to ensure secession. And he suggests that those Russian nationalists are acting in many cases independently of Moscow in the Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Putin seeks to control them and limit them, but fears them as well.

    In general, the book is an intelligent, well-researched and thoughtful attempt to explain the major crisis of our time. Anybody, whatever he or she might think of the issue, would benefit from reading it. It is shocking that it is not better known, and I can only assume that its obscurity, so far is caused by the fact that it does not fit the crude propaganda narrative of the 'Putin is Hitler' viewpoint.

    How odd that we should all have learned so little from the Iraq debacle. This time the 'WMD' are non-existent Russian plans to expand and/or attack the Baltic states. And of course the misrepresentation of both sides in the Ukrainian controversy is necessary for the portrayal of Putin as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis, and opponents of belligerence as Nazi fellow-travellers. The inconvenient fact , that if there are Nazis in this story , they tend to be on the 'good' side must be ignored. Let us hope the hysteria subsides before it carries us into another stupid war.

    March 5, 2015 Comments (54) Categories: Cold War , History , New Cold War , Russia , Ukraine | Permalink

    Comments

    LornaJean | 10 March 2015 at 09:00 AM

    There should be a proper inquiry into who really started this conflict I recall watching on TV as the boxer who was leading the Kiev mob came out of lengthy negotiations with the 3 EU ministers and the crowds booing and erupting The infamous Julia also appeared on the scene. this was of course after only a few hours previously that Obama announced that he had agreement with Putin to have a peaceful resolution and elections in 3 months.

    As I watched the eruption of the mob I Thought this will end badly and at that point the EU should have withdrawn. However the subsequent violence and the removal of the elected leader followed. All interviews with the people in the East and Crimea showed their distrust of the Kiev crowd and it was clear that the oligarchs on the East who had many workers and controlled the manufacturing would not support the East. Putin is a nasty man but to suggest that he deliberately caused this situation is a travesty.Russia with refugees pouring over the border reacted to the situation and who can blame them.? Now a less belligerent and frankly dishonest approach needs to be taken by the EU I can not see that the Kiev regime can ever win the loyalty of the East after this bitter war.the only solution is some sort of autonomous regios that allows the Esst of Ukraine to rule themselves.

    Bill Jones | 10 March 2015 at 01:28 AM

    This made me smile:

    " I would certainly like to see the book reviewed by a knowledgeable proponent of the NATO neo-conservative position. Why hasn't it been? "

    Because to be knowledgeable is not to be a Neo-conservative.

    Mr Rob | 09 March 2015 at 02:45 PM

    @Mike B

    "I haven't responded to your comments on McCain and Nuland because I thought that I had made it clear that I thought external interference from any quarter was undesirable and I accept that there has been such interference from both sides."

    Oh really? You do not remember writing this then?

    "It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych. They should be allowed to deal with their internal disputes and decide their future alliances and associations."

    or this?

    "However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU) did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter and, whatever the faults on either side, should have been left at that."

    And on this thread you had not even mentioned the USA involvement. You have been consistently dishonest by omission. Well, at least you're consistent.

    And now you manage the immortal words

    "I do maintain, though, that the interference of the EU and USA" [well done for mentioning them at last],"which cannot be denied" [but can, it seems, be ignored...] "and which was reflected in Russia's own behaviour cannot be compared with Russia's subsequent blatant military involvement in a sovereign country's internal conflict."

    So on the one hand the EU and the USA have interfered, but on the other it is an "internal conflict".

    Priceless.

    Roy Robinson | 08 March 2015 at 05:48 PM

    @Alan Thomas By my reading of certain facts I deduce there is a de facto alliance between Russia and China. These facts being that Russia trades arms to China but the USA will not trade arms to either. On May 8th Xi Jingping will attend the Victory Day celebrations in Moscow accompanied by his junk yard dog Kim Jong Un of North Korea. No Western leaders as far as I know will be in attendance. De facto alliances such as the one Britain had with France in 1914 are always hard to call because unlike formal ones such as Nato there is nothing in writing. I also suspect that one reason China has not tried to match America in nuclear weapons so far is because Russia already does so. North Korea is also very useful in that it can be used to threaten Japan without China appearing to be the aggressor.

    Mr Rob | 08 March 2015 at 11:16 AM

    @ Mike B

    I see you have ignored my request to answer the questions I posed to Hector (who has also yet to respond) about the US presence at the Maidan. Perhaps you needed to ignore my request in order to write this drivel with a straight face:

    Re Yanukovych: "However, the EU, whatever its faults (and, believe me, it is not my "beloved" EU) did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter and, whatever the faults on either side, should have been left at that."

    Some Ukrainians carried out the WW2 massacre at Khatyn (not Katyn) - does that mean that all Ukrainians are responsible for it, approved of it, or that it was carried out on behalf of Ukrainians? Of course not.

    You have also studiously avoided mention of the presence at the Maidan of US Senator McCain and US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, and the latter's meetings with the Maidan leaders, co-ordinated with US Ambassador Pyatt.

    You have also somehow omitted to mention Yatseniuk's ("Yats") lightning visit to Washington days after the overthrow of Yanukovych, or the visit of CIA Director Brennan to Kiev.

    And just for the record, I have first-hand oral evidence of people in Minsk, Belarus, being offered money to go to the Maidan - so even that the Maidan crowd was completely Ukrainian is probably untrue.

    You accuse Mr Klimenko of bias, and yet you yourself give and repeat a dishonest account of what is known to have happened at the Maidan.

    Such behaviour has no place in proper debate.

    Ian | 08 March 2015 at 11:04 AM

    To Mike B and others...

    It's all very well to agonize about what Ukrainians may or may not want. We could all weep huge quantities of crocodile tears over Ukraine's thwarted "self determination", but the essential fact is that Ukrainians are not agreed about what they want. Some appear to want closer ties with the EU, some appear to want to maintain the status quo and some appear to want closer ties with the Russian Federation.

    All of which is "interesting" until different factions within Ukraine start calling on their preferred partners to back them up. It seems to me that the US and the EU have contributed more than one would reasonably expect to the discord in Ukraine and silly expectations in a great many Ukrainians. To describe this as "irresponsible" is something of an understatement.

    We are now in a situation where the "preferred partners" might come to blows over the confused and discordant expectations of Ukraine. In such a situation. it would be hard for me to care less about what Ukrainians want especially when some of Ukraine's politicians sound as though they would happily see the world burn if only it ensures "territorial Integrity" for Ukraine.

    It's a very old trick for which "socialists" should be famous. Describe a group as deserving, noble and disadvantaged... and use this supposed circumstance to justify the most ridiculous, regressive and destructive policy the human mind can invent. Of course, with our own "socialists", the all important thing is that they are not only well rewarded with a reputation for being "caring sharing human beings"... but also very well paid for the disasters they inflict on us.

    Edward Klimenko | 08 March 2015 at 10:50 AM

    @MikeB

    'did not organise his removal. It was carried out by, and on behalf of, Ukrainians. It was an internal matter'

    What the EU did was the equivalent of persuading one party in a Mexican stand-off to lower his weapon so that the other can shoot him safely. Yes, the EU most certainly organized Yanukovich's removal - the EU normally takes a dim view of governments established by putsch, but recognized this particular band of putschists almost immediately.

    And why was it not an internal matter when Ukrainian police were attempting to clear Maidan of the lawless occupying mob, but instead a human rights crisis demanding sanctions against everyone from the Prosecutor-General to Yanukovich's barber?

    'You should note, however, that he fled his country on the same day that he announced an agreement with his opponents.'

    You are mistaken, he did not flee the country the day the agreement was made. He left the city of Kiev for Kharkov, his motorcade coming under fire as he did so. As the putsch developed, he called a conference in Kharkov of regional governors still loyal to the rightful president, the participants agreeing to administer their own regions until lawful authority could be reestablished in the rest of the country.

    Two factors brought about the failure of this effort: the first was the success of Valentin Nalivaichenko's takeover of the SBU, and the second was the cowardly betrayal by Kharkov regional governor Mikhail Dobkin and Kharkov city mayor Gennady Kernes, who panicked and fled when they heard that the SBU was after them (both would later cut deals with the Maidan regime for their own survival). Fearing capture by the SBU and feeling unable to trust anybody, Yanukovich then departed for the Crimea.

    You might think this would be safe place for him to make his stand. You would be wrong - the mood in Crimea at the time was one of utter disgust for Yanukovich and the Regions Party on account of their utter failure to defend the state and the people, which only grew after it came to light that the scum Yanukovich had appointed as mayor of Sevastopol had been conspiring to surrender the city to the Right Sector. Crimea wanted out of the Ukraine, and had no interest in helping Yanukovich get his seat back. Out of options, he finally fled to the Russian mainland on or about February 26.

    As for the rest, I'll say it again: the 'Holodomor' is a fiction, an attempt to portray a famine that affected a vast swathe of the USSR as campaign against Ukrainians specifically, when in truth it most heavily affected the non-Ukrainian Donbass region. It is invoked by western Ukrainians whose ancestors did not experience it to justify their racial hatred for eastern Ukrainians whose ancestors did. You ought to be ashamed of spreading such rot, and you should stop trying to frame your own biases as 'objectivity'.

    Grant | 07 March 2015 at 08:32 PM

    I listened to that.

    Everything Peter said was spot on. That other bloke who was challenging you is a dangerous idiot. You pointed out to him that we do not call Chinese regime tyrants, or the Saudis, yet he immediately replies calling Putin a vile tyrant. Totally obvious to what you just told him like he is a brainwashed stuck record.

    NATO is now the armed wing of EU expansion. They intentionally sent Russia that message during the Kosovo war by including the Luftwaffe bombing in previous Russia spheres of influence.

    mikebarnes | 07 March 2015 at 07:13 PM

    @ Edward Klimenko

    If nothing else I like your style . Many contributors here think they know. And a few think you know more than them. I think on this subject you certainly know more than I . Whether your correct is unknown at least by me . But.

    Oh that our snot brained, could have need for the dentistry they so deserve.

    No matter whose in the right here , and I suspect neither are. Its their business and that of the federation they once belonged . Just as northern Island was our business . But Clinton poked his snout in .

    The compromise, killers and bombers running the country might well be repeated with a split country just like the many created since the chaos following WWII.

    Roy Robinson | 07 March 2015 at 05:42 PM

    @Alan Thomas The Eurasian hard men such as Putin, Erdogan , Modi and XI Jinping all seem to understand one another and are doing business together.

    They all lead countries which have been on the receiving of Western aggression over the last few centuries Modern Westerners with their naive PC outlook like to overlook this but the people in those countries have not forgotten from which direction the threat to them has usually come from and the past losses and humiliations which resulted.

    When someone sees themselves as a benefactor to mankind but others see as a thief with a violent history there is always going to be room for a big understanding.

    Alan Thomas | 07 March 2015 at 03:44 PM

    Roy Robinson

    Perhaps, when it comes to China, the 'west' cannot see a solution, in which case hurling - or even simply registering - criticism might be seen as a waste of time and effort. In any case, since when did it make sense to ignore lesser villains simply because one can't take on the bigger ones?

    Steve Jones | 07 March 2015 at 03:11 PM

    I suspect the neocons are now looking at the General Patton play of outsourcing a war against Russia to Germany.

    Germany should leave the EU together with France and the PIGS using the euro as an excuse. Their departure might shake out a few others like Croatia, Hungary and Austria plus a few more. Let the banks fail then go in with Russia and the other BRICS.

    Edward Klimenko | 07 March 2015 at 02:04 PM

    @MikeB

    ' Are you so sure that Ukrainians wanted their now ex-president?'

    Almost twelve and a half million Ukrainians voted for him in 2010, and that is a far better indicator of what Ukrainians wanted than the actions of around ten thousand Nazi terrorists in February 2014.

    ' It was Ukrainians, not the EU, who ousted Yanukovych'

    What a nonsensical and disingenuous remark. Yanukovich was the democratically -elected president(most likely the last that the Ukraine will ever have). EuroMaidan was an assembly of Nazi terrorists and their apologists. Europe used threats and blackmail to prevent Yanukovich from doing his duty and protecting the country from this violent mob. Europe then tricked him into signing a 'peace agreement' and pulling back the police from their positions, allowing the terrorist mob and its sponsors to rampage freely through Kiev and seize the institutions of the state.

    You will probably cite the lack of an immediate militant response to the putsch as proof that Ukrainians wanted this abomination of a government. Well, there we have democracy according to Mike! No need for elections, might makes right and proves the existence of an underlying consensus! Brilliant.

    Let's take your logic a bit further. The rebellion now rules in Donbass, and no armed movement has arisen there to demand the return of the region to Ukrainian rule. Do you accept this as evidence of the people's wish not to be ruled by the Maidan regime? If the rebels break the Ukrainian lines, and take control of the rest of the country, will you shrug and conclude that Ukrainians wanted to be with Russia after all?

    ' , I would prefer people to be aggressive with me by throwing money in my direction, rather than launching rockets,

    Throwing money at the Ukraine enables the Maidan regime to throw rockets at Ukrainian citizens. Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk have no legal authority to rule over anybody, yet your beloved EU insists that these putsch-installed thugs are the government of the Ukraine, and that all Ukrainians must obey them or die.

    ' Nothing the EU has done, though, justifies Russian military intervention in Ukraine'

    Everything the EU has done justifies everything Russia has done, and would justify a good deal more. The European officials who formulated European policy toward the Ukraine in the past year are responsible for the war and for all the crimes of the Maidan regime, and they should all face the death penalty - starting with Ashton.

    Think on this: if not for the Crimea operation, all the depravity that the Ukraine has heaped upon Donetsk would have been visited upon Crimea. You think that Crimeans would have been better off being shelled, shot, raped and tortured by the Ukrainian military? Go and tell them so!

    Just make sure that your health insurance covers reconstructive dentistry first.

    Paul Taylor | 07 March 2015 at 12:00 PM

    Hector. You clearly have no idea about Hitler and Germany in the late 1930s.Germany was just taking back land that was stolen in June 1919. Hitler had mass support from the Germanic people in those parts and in some areas such as parts of Austria he was even more popular than he was in Germany itself.

    It was madness that we went to war against Germany,we should have remained neutral like Spain or Switzerland and let Hitler defeat Stalin on his own.

    Paulus M | 07 March 2015 at 10:46 AM

    @ kevin 1

    "Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from view remain constant. But that's just my opinion."

    It all depends on whether the facts/evidence supports the hypothesis. If they don't then no matter how erudite it appears - it's wrong. What our media don't want you to question or look at is who started this conflict. From day one, I've never been in doubt that Washington is the main driver and the EU the junior partner. The Nato alliance acts as a bind and a figleaf. Time and again the facts sindicates that the "west" is an aggressor bloc which tramples over sovereignty and makes a mockery of supposed international law.

    Mr Rob | 07 March 2015 at 10:08 AM

    Are you claiming that prior to the "removal" of Yanukovych

    US Senator McCain did not appear at the Maidan,

    and that US Assistant Secretary of State Nuland did not appear at the Maidan,

    and that she did not hold a series of meetings with its leaders,

    and that she and US Ambassador Pyatt did not co-ordinate these efforts with a clear aim as to who they wanted to see in power (our man "Yats"),

    and that only days after Yanukovych fled,

    Yatseniuk was not shaking hands with US President Obama at the White House

    and that US Director of the CIA Brennan was not in Kiev?

    Do you claim that the US was leaving Ukraine to "sort out it's [sic] own issues"?

    Please do respond rather than lapse into silence, I'd be fascinated to see how you have reached your conclusions in the face of the known facts.

    Kevin 1 | 07 March 2015 at 09:27 AM

    @ Ronnie

    I think you'll find that, in circumstances such as those you describe, PH tends to quote the famous retort attributed to Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" I'm just surprised that he hasn't done so (yet) in this instance.

    Personally, I have difficulty with this quote because I don't think facts do change, that's why they are called facts. New information may come to light but the facts though temporarily hidden from view remain constant. But that's just my opinion.

    N.Belcher | 07 March 2015 at 01:28 AM

    Dear Mr Hitchens

    In December 2011 The U.S Federal Reserve bailed out European banks to the
    tune of Billions of Dollars.
    It is reported that they tried to keep this bailout a secret at the time.

    Do you think that this , and the latest E.U initiative to have The Ukraine
    are linked ? i.e that it was a condition of the U.S bailout or expected of The
    E.U that they continue to expand into The Ukraine in return for these U.S Dollars?
    Yours N.Belcher.

    Roy Robinson | 07 March 2015 at 01:04 AM

    While the West obsesses about the supposed threat from Putin it seems totally oblivious to the rise of Xi Jinping a Chinese leader who looks like being of the magnitude of Mao.

    He has described himself as the leader of a party wedded to the ideology of Lenin, Stalin and Mao and is concentrating all the power in his own hands.

    There is no Western propaganda campaign against him yet although think about it, ten years ago there wasn't one against Putin.

    Xi has stated that he gets on well with Putin as they have similar personalities.

    Edward Klimenko | 06 March 2015 at 08:44 PM

    'Might there be the slightest chance of Ukrainians' wishes being given some consideration?'

    Capital idea. But you know what the Ukrainians wanted? They wanted Viktor Yanukovich as President and they wanted the Parliament they elected in 2012. What scant regard America and Europe gave their wishes!

    Bob | 06 March 2015 at 06:42 PM

    Ronnie that purported paper was presented in early Feb 2014 well after Maidan was underway, not exactly planned from day one. It was also Kiev at the behest of the US who started the ATO, resorting to violence away from the Franco-German and Russian negotiations.
    I might add the anti Russian propaganda in the media had started well before Sochi started. This was all planned a while back and not by Russia.

    Ian | 06 March 2015 at 03:49 PM

    It does not seem to me there is a "change of mind" or any inconsistency implied in Mr Hitchens's recommendation of Richard Sakwa's book. There may be a slight change of emphasis but it was always understood and mentioned that the US of A was an additional driving force to events in eastern Europe. It does not alter the validity of the view that the EU is "Germany by other means" and that the EU/Germany covets "lebensraum" in the east. So far as I can see, it can only be of academic interest whether the developing crisis is primarily EU or US led.

    Nor has Mr Hitchens ever attempted to exonerate President Putin or Russia, giving more than sufficient emphasis to "Russian interests" and "Russia's perceived sphere of influence" ... to crudely paraphrase. It does not matter if Russia is or is not entitled to these perceptions. That the perceptions exist should be a major consideration in the policy of any other "player" who would prefer a continued, peaceful existence.

    What is important is whether either side can afford to "back down" and which side is "most guilty" with regards creating this crisis. It seems fairly obvious that it is the US and the EU who can best afford to "back off"... and it is the US and the EU whose posturing and behavior have contributed most to the current situation.

    For those who adhere to the "bad Putin"/"Naughty Russia" model, rest assured that the US and the EU are unlikely to give up on this one. They are determined to give the big bad bear a spanking.

    I fear that they have got it badly wrong, seriously misjudged Russia's president and relied to heavily on dated intelligence about Russian capabilities.

    Posted by: Incognito | 06 March 2015 at 12:41 PM

    John,

    I think it's an oversight on PH's part (we're all human, right?) to have placed so much emphasis on Germany in his analysis of the the crisis, and, in so doing to have tacitly downplayed the role of the US. Plainly put Germany-although it is the de facto seat of power in the EU- doesn't have the brass to so flagrantly antagonise Russia without back-up.

    Moreover, if anyone doesn't think the EU is 'briefed' on foreign policy by the US state department, they are living in an alternate reality. America is a continuation of the British Empire by other means.

    Grant | 06 March 2015 at 12:23 PM

    Pat Davers "Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were genuinely dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine"

    I do wish people would study the comments made by the EU leaders when initial proposals for third way consultations with the Russians was proposed, they said things like "the last people we would speak to over this would be the Russians".

    The EU leaders detest everything Russia stands for, as they are enlightened supra nationalists. It was precisely their arrogant and dismissive attitude that led to armed conflict and only after thousands had died did they come to meet Putin in Russia to seek a peace.

    Pat Davers | 06 March 2015 at 11:46 AM

    "Are we witnessing a Hitchens change of mind?"

    I think we are seeing a shift of opinion as to who has the been the main driver behind the Ukraine conflict; it was not so much EU (ie German-led) expansionism as NATO (ie US-led) imperialism that brought us where we are now, as of course many people have been saying all along.

    Indeed, I think that European leaders acted naively in aligning with the US, and were genuinely dismayed at the outcome of their tacit support for the coup in Ukraine, and are probably now regretting their actions. The fact that is was Merkel and Hollande who brokered the Minsk agreement without US involvement would seem to support this.

    Bob | 06 March 2015 at 10:51 AM

    Ronnie you have clearly have never done any scenario planning or read position papers, obviously the Kremlin would have several plans of action for the breakdown of the Ukraine. Regardless of the document's validity, the title is invalid. "Direct interstate relations" cannot exist between Moscow and regions annexed to Russia, the plan is obviously talking about a political breakup of Ukraine, not annexation. Even then though, i dont entirely believe it.

    If Russia's plan was to break up Ukraine into statelets, I see no reason why it still hasn't recognized the independence of LPR and DPR and instead continues to treat them, in both language and action, as regions of Ukraine seeking federalization. A federal and perhaps confederate Ukraine would obviously be to Russia's interest. Complete breakup of Ukraine -maybe but it's difficult to see how.

    Weak.

    Daniel | 06 March 2015 at 07:25 AM

    Dear Peter,

    Thank you for another thought-provoking article. It's nice to have some measured thinking amongst the media-mob's clamour.

    A little off the current topic but I was expecting to see a comment on the recent ACMD report in which the scientist's covering letter states: 'international evidence suggests many popular types of prevention activity are ineffective at changing behaviour, and a small number may even increase the risks for drug use' . Paradoxically, thought not unexpectedly, the report ends up stating the that the solution is more drugs education in schools.. Just thought it may be worth flagging as it reminded me of your previous posts regarding sex education and its supposed 'benefits'.

    S. Coleman | 05 March 2015 at 09:36 PM

    I would not be alone here in welcoming PH's recognition of the importance of the role of the US. I think Brian Meredith also expressed this view.

    Michael Hudson (the American economist) expresses it up pithily: the US is saying to Europe, 'Let's you and Russia fight' and Europe in going along with this invitation is damaging her own vital interests.

    Edward Klimenko | 05 March 2015 at 08:31 PM

    The Ukrainian Parliament has already moved 'Defender of the Fatherland Day' to October 14th - the official founding date of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. If anybody thinks that this is a coincidence, they haven't been paying attention.

    This very Thursday the Parliament of Ukraine reached a milestone - honoring with a minute's silence the memory of UPA genocidaire Roman Shukhevich. I won't bother listing in detail the depravities that Shukhevich organised in his capacity as a UPA commander - suffice it to say that women and children were favourite targets, and blades were generally preferred to bullets - but those not familiar with the subject are encouraged to look it up. In particular, search the name 'Zygmunt Rumel' to find out what comes of trying to negotiate with Ukrainian nationalists.

    The only consolation is that the Maidan project is less a political movement than organised mental illness, and that failure is written in its DNA.

    [Mar 14, 2015] The Damage to U.S. Interests Abroad of Domestic Political Intemperance

    A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nation's interests. ...A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nations interests. ..."
    "... A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States. ..."
    "... instead the prevention of a second term for the incumbent U.S. president. ..."
    Mar 11, 2015 | The National Interest Blog

    The connection between the sort of behavior we are talking about and the standing of the United States overseas, however, is even broader than that and extends to the handling of domestic policy. Foreigners and foreign governments observe how the United States, the superpower with the world's largest economy, handles its own affairs, and they draw conclusions about how viable and reliable an interlocutor the United States would be on international matters. The foreigners are looking to see whether there is consistency and rationality in how the U.S. political system pursues U.S. national interests. If they do see those things, then the United States is someone they can do business with, whether as a rival or as an ally, even if U.S. interests differ from their own. If they do not see those things, then opportunities are lost for doing business that would benefit both the United States and the foreign state.

    A nation does not represent itself as a viable interlocutor, whose execution of policy can be trusted by other nations, if passionate internal divisions supersede sober pursuit of the nation's interests. As an outsider we encounter such situations in, say, Iraq, where sectarian loyalties and hatreds make it impossible to rely on a government in Baghdad consistently pursuing an Iraqi national interest. We also see it in Bangladesh, where the personal animosity between the "two begums" who head each of the major political parties there have made Bangladeshi politics so dysfunctional that in the recent past the military has had to step in.

    A pattern that is similar in some respects has, tragically, come to prevail in the United States. Foreigners could hear the then minority (now majority) leader of the United States Senate state a few years ago that his number one priority was not any particular U.S. national interest in either domestic or foreign affairs but instead the prevention of a second term for the incumbent U.S. president.

    Foreigners then were able to see the senator's party act along the same lines, using extortionate legislative methods to push a partisan agenda even at the expense of damaging the country's credit rating and causing disruptive interruptions to government operations. Once the same party achieved a majority in both houses of Congress there was much talk about how this would lead to newly responsible behavior, but the opening gavel of the new Congress had hardly fallen when once again there was the tactic of holding the operations of a government department hostage to press a specific partisan demand (this time on immigration) in opposition to the president's policies.

    [Mar 13, 2015] Ukraine or the Rebels Who Won in Minsk The National Interest Blog by Nicolai N. Petro

    Rebels got a temporary pause from shelling and destruction of infrastructure. Everything else while Turchinov and Co sits in Kiev is wishful thinking. They are hell-bent on military victory.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk , Interior Minister Arsen Avakov , and the former speaker, now head of the National Security and Defense Party, Oleksandr Turchinov , are on record as committed to military victory in Donbass. ..."
    "... This concession by Kiev allowed the negotiations to proceed without getting bogged down in disputes over territory which, in any case, are supposed to be resolved by the Law on "Temporary status of local self-administration in certain regions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast," commonly referred to as the Law on Special Status. ..."
    "... after full implementation of the peace plan.--[ which will never happen while turchinov an co sit in Kiev] ..."
    "... whether the sides are actually willing to withdraw to their respective demarcation lines. ..."
    "... broader question of President Poroshenko's ability to deliver on the promised constitutional reforms, ..."
    "... There is intense political infighting within the current parliamentary coalition and, at this point, it is hard to imagine a majority in the Rada agreeing to designate which territories fall within the Law of Special Status, and therefore where local elections under Ukrainian law ought to be held. Point Four of the "Package of Measures," however, stipulates that this must be done within thirty days, and this will be the first real test of the political feasibility of these accords. ..."
    "... Past evidence suggests that it will not. ..."
    "... n the willingness of the members of the Trilateral Contact Group to put direct pressure on their respective constituencies (the EU and United States on Kiev; Russia on Donbass) to abide by the political and economic portions of this agreement. ..."
    Feb 13, 2015 | nationalinterest.org
    Comparing the "Package of Measures to Ensure the Implementation of the Minsk Accords" to the Protocol Document submitted by the representatives of the Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples Republics, it is readily apparent that the document signed on February 12 is largely based on the rebels' proposals.

    The only omission worth noting is the absence of any mention of ending the military campaign in the East, which is referred to by Kiev as the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO). This is understandable, since it is highly unlikely that such a measure could pass in the Ukrainian parliament, where several influential political actors, including Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk, Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, and the former speaker, now head of the National Security and Defense Party, Oleksandr Turchinov, are on record as committed to military victory in Donbass.

    The most significant rebel achievement was getting Kiev to recognize a second de facto demarcation of force line, and a withdrawal of forces to the maximum line of separation of forces, which will now be between 70 and 140 kilometers. This concession by Kiev allowed the negotiations to proceed without getting bogged down in disputes over territory which, in any case, are supposed to be resolved by the Law on "Temporary status of local self-administration in certain regions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblast," commonly referred to as the Law on Special Status.

    Yet, it should be noted that the proposals presented by the rebels in their Protocol Document made a number of significant concessions to Kiev at the very outset. Among these:

    • No mention of federalism or autonomy. The rebels even used Poroshenko's own term-"deep decentralization"-to define regional self -government.
    • No mention of language, cultural, or religious rights;
    • Specific dates for the withdrawal of forces, passage of the Law on Special Status, and passage of an amnesty law. These laws have already been passed by the parliament, just not signed into law and implemented;
    • The holding of internationally monitored local elections under Ukrainian law , specifically the Law on Special Status;
    • OSCE monitoring of border between Ukraine and Russia now under rebel control, after full implementation of the peace plan.--[ which will never happen while turchinov an co sit in Kiev]

    It so happens that language rights, a key issue in this conflict, were added into the notes in the Package of Measures, but they were already mentioned in the Law on Special Status.

    Thus, one might say that, while the latest accords follow the blueprint laid out by the rebels, that blueprint was already quite favorable to Kiev. Angela Merkel suggests that this was due, at least in part, to Putin's pressure on the rebels.

    The most vexing issue that now remains is whether the sides are actually willing to withdraw to their respective demarcation lines. Power abhors a vacuum, and, frankly, it is surprising that some sort of external peacekeeping forces were not a part of this agreement. Their absence is clearly a weak point, since the implementation of the original Minks accords broke down almost immediately because of the unwillingness of the parties to disengage.

    Second, there is the broader question of President Poroshenko's ability to deliver on the promised constitutional reforms, which involve decentralization and special status for these regions. In fact, his foreign minister already appears to be walking away from this crucial commitment.

    There is intense political infighting within the current parliamentary coalition and, at this point, it is hard to imagine a majority in the Rada agreeing to designate which territories fall within the Law of Special Status, and therefore where local elections under Ukrainian law ought to be held. Point Four of the "Package of Measures," however, stipulates that this must be done within thirty days, and this will be the first real test of the political feasibility of these accords.

    Will this new agreement prove to be the long awaited road map to peace in Ukraine? Past evidence suggests that it will not. The willingness of the conflicting parties-Kiev and Donbass-to reach a settlement is still absent. The key to success lies, first, in placing a peacekeeping buffer force on the ground between the two armies; and second, in the willingness of the members of the Trilateral Contact Group to put direct pressure on their respective constituencies (the EU and United States on Kiev; Russia on Donbass) to abide by the political and economic portions of this agreement.

    [Mar 13, 2015] Europe's Desperate Hail Mary to Save Ukraine by Nikolas K. Gvosdev

    February 13, 2015 | The National Interest
    Left unaddressed in the Minsk talks, of course, are U.S. proposals to begin training and equipping Ukrainian government forces. The United States did not take part in the Minsk process, and while the cease-fire may be cautiously welcomed, it will not diminish the momentum, particularly on Capitol Hill, for shipping arms to Ukraine. The separatists cannot be unmindful of the Croatian precedent, where a long-term program to strengthen the Croatian military facilitated the operation that destroyed the Serbian separatist entity in eastern Croatia. Already some separatists are grumbling that Ukraine is not committed to a settlement, but will use the time to strengthen its forces and go back on the offensive later this year. Those suspicions, in turn, may cause them to be less than thorough in their own observation of the agreement's provisions. The Germans and the French hope that the accord will cause Washington to put its plans on hold.

    And what does Vladimir Putin hope to gain? All the reports suggest that Putin put enormous pressure on the separatists to accept the deal. In turn, he may be expecting that once the cease-fire takes hold, the Europeans will move on sanctions relief. But if that is not forthcoming, what will be his continuing commitment to the agreement? Also left unaddressed are Russian demands for the "neutralization" of Ukraine. The deal as currently structured would not give the eastern regions veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy.

    The Minsk deal appears to be the last hope for any sort of a political settlement. If this agreement breaks down-and it has many vulnerabilities-there will not be a fourth attempt. We will see if all sides have the political will to make it work.

    Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.

    Image: Wikimedia Commons/Mstyslav Chernov/CC by-sa 3.0

    [Mar 13, 2015] The Most Outlandish Empire Semantics

    Looks like the US elite decided that it's time for regime change in Venezuela
    Mar 13, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

    The government of the Unites States (GDP US$ 16,768,100 million) declares that the situation in Venezuela (GDP US$ 371,339 million):

    ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States

    This, the White House says, requires to:

    ... declare a national emergency to deal with that threat

    "Why," ask the Venezuelans, including the U.S. sponsored opposition, "do you think we are an unusual and extraordinary threat which requires you to declare a national emergency?

    "We do not believe for a moment that you are an unusual and extraordinary threat which requires us to declare a national emergency", is the answer:

    Officials in Washington said that declaring Venezuela a national security threat was largely a formality.

    "A formality?" ask Venezuelans. "Why is it a formality to see us as an unusual and extraordinary threat to your national security? That does not make sense. What's next? Will it be a simply a formality to kill us?"

    "It is formality needed to be able to sanction some of your government officials," an anonymous U.S. senior official explains. "To do so the law requires that we declare you to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security which requires us to declare a national emergency."

    "But we ain't no such threat. You yourself says so. So why would you sanction our officials when you yourself say that there is no real basis for this? On what legal grounds are you acting? Why these sanctions?"

    "Because the the situation in Venezuela ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States which requires us to declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

    "That is like declaring war on us. That does not make sense".

    "Well, it's just a formality."

    ---

    On might have hoped that the above would be the "most outlandish" nonsense the U.S. government could produce. But that is not yet the case.

    The Venezuelan President Maduro responded in the National Assembly:

    "The aggression and the threat of the government of the United States is the greatest threat that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, our country, has ever received," he said to applause, [...] "Let's close ranks like a single fist of men and women. We want peace."

    He spoke of past American military interventions in Latin America and warned that the United States was preparing an invasion and a naval blockade of Venezuela.

    "For human rights, they are preparing to invade us," he said, ...

    During the last 125 years the U.S. intervened in South America at least 56 times through military or intelligence operations. This ever intervening country is the same country that just declared Venezuela to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States that requires to declare a national emergency.

    It is certainly not outlandish for Maduro to believe that such a declaration will be followed by one of those continued interventions. Especially not when disguised U.S. officials travel around Venezuela and distribute money to opposition parties. Maduro is not alone in seeing the threat of another U.S. intervention. All South American nations have condemned the U.S. declaration and even pro-American opposition politicians in Venezuela were outraged about it.

    But for the ever anonymous U.S. officials it is the victim of their outlandish exaggerations that doth protest too much:

    "It's remarkable that the [Venezuelan] government can say the most outlandish things about the U.S. government - what is this, the 16th or 17th coup attempt that we're doing? And now we're invading?" the official said. "The shelf life of all of these accusations is what, a day or two? Even the dullest of media consumers is going to see that there is no invasion."

    Noting the U.S. doublespeak in this whole affair it advise to be very careful in believing that "there is no invasion" claim.

    Posted by b on March 12, 2015 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    nmb | Mar 12, 2015 11:31:02 AM | 1

    Venezuela: A plan for coup d'état and assassination of Maduro

    Wayoutwest | Mar 12, 2015 12:09:23 PM | 2

    I doubt the US is going to be invading or blockading Venezuela any time soon. This asinine proclamation was necessary for the increased sanctions the US has imposed and it is definitely a ratcheting-up of pressure and intimidation. It also appears to be designed to cause the Maduro government to overreact and institute decisions that can be demonized as harsh and undemocratic.

    I hope the people of Venezuela and the other progressive countries of SA are ready and willing to really confront these aggressive US moves.

    Dan | Mar 12, 2015 12:20:15 PM | 3

    The current government of Venezuela is a clear threat to the financial interests of the oligarchs who control the US government.

    Wayoutwest | Mar 12, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 11

    For me the most interesting part of the US proclamation was not the National Security threat but the claim of a threat to US Foreign Policy. This illustrates the power of the Bolivarian Revolution to sever much of SA from US dominance and the level of US Ruling Class fear because of their diminishing power and influence worldwide.

    Some Guy | Mar 12, 2015 3:02:11 PM | 16

    Ah yes. The old tried and true "making the economy scream" in preparation for a coup ploy. Venezuela has held out so far but I have confidence in The Empire®. Their psychopathic persistence should be able to turn that country into what Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia are--a chamber of fucking horrors.
    Piotr Berman | Mar 12, 2015 3:50:30 PM | 17
    As a geography Nazi, I would insists that the list that was linked showed only four cases of interventions in South America. Indeed, interventions in Central America and Caribbean are dime a dozen, and probably the count was partial, South America is more distant and the countries are a bit too large for open interventions. Diplomacy was almost always friendly to non-leftist military regimes or death squads, but a direct engagement like coordination of the attempt to depose Chavez by military means were rare.

    For some reason, it is almost 15 years that Jihad was declared in USA against Venezuela, and formal fatwa proclaimed on TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DykgMyTjWU4 (this video was from 2009, when Rev. Robertson wonder why Chavez was not assassinated yet). Since USA is a democracy, and the people are Christian, it is a duty of the government to follow the will of the Christian folks and at least attempt to execute fatwas of Christian clerics. However, I do not know enough about Robertson's Christianity to figure out how the fatwa came about.

    diogenes | Mar 12, 2015 4:04:41 PM | 19
    According to a link from the website of TeleSUR, a Venezuelan television station, on Feb. 28, 2015 an employee of NED (ie American agent) travelled to Venezuela for a secret meeting with opposition figures (ie bought and paid for greedy foreign stooges) to settle an argument about the distribution of millions of dollars previously contributed by NED.

    The agent used a forged or stolen passport in a false name, and disguised her appearance to match with the photo in the passport; and travelled to the meeting in a vehicle with forged or stolen plates.

    This agent, whose real name is Sarah Kornblith, a few months previously had written an article in NED's "scholarly journal" denouncing the Chavez and Maduro regimes and also:

    "lauding the political arrangement that existed in Venezuela before Chavez. Known as the Punto Fijo Pact, under that system, two traditional parties would alternate in power, deliberately excluding the voices of Venezuela's poor majority."

    You mean like Democrats and Republicans? You can't make this stuff up!

    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/NED-Official-Meets-With-Venezuelan-Opposition-Figures-20150312-0007.html

    lysias | Mar 12, 2015 5:43:03 PM | 22

    I'm just now reading a book about Gen. Vernon Walters, Der Drahtzieher: Vernon Walters -- Ein Geheimdienstgeneral des Kalten Krieges, by Klaus Eichner and Ernst Langrock, which details all the coups and secret chicanery that general was involved in, both in Latin America and in Europe.

    Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 12, 2015 11:40:14 PM | 29

    In 2002 I thought Chavez was toast. Given the last century of US intervention in South America it seemed obvious that Chavez would be over thrown by the US. But then the war in Iraq went very badly. The US was was distracted and had to focus its energy on the Iraq war. Chavez was spared the focus of US imperialism. For some time I thought the silver lining in the failed US war in Iraq was that it distracted our interests away from South America. This permitted a number of Latin American countries to drift away from US influence, not just Venezuela but also Bolivia and Nicaragua and some of the other countries elected left wing governments.

    The US has spent the last century trying to prevent governments arising that actually represent all of the people and not just the upper middle classes that are eager to please US corporations. I think what we are seeing today is that the US is now refocusing on South America and are willing to devote resources towards removing those governments that have arisen that attempt to represent the poor and not just the bourgeois elements. This has been happening over the last few years. In Obama's first few years he threw his support (behind the scenes as it developed) behind the Honduran upper classes that removed the popularly elected government of Manunel Zelaya.

    In any case, I think the Manuela government in Venezuela is going to be deposed through US intervention and next will be the government in Bolivia. And there is little that the rest of world can do to stop it. After all, the Monroe Doctrine has given the US that right and there is no outside force that can stop us unless they are willing to engage in nuclear war.

    However, the more the US flexes its muscle in Latin America, the less effective it will be in pushing its policies in Ukraine and towards the 'pivot to Asia' that was supposed to be one of Obama's signature policies. And this is not to mention Obama's efforts for more war in Iraq and Syria. So to the extent that Venezuela might suffer today other parts of the world will be provided some respite from US attention. The US is thoroughly over committed.

    [Mar 12, 2015] Eurosceptics playing into Vladimir Putin's hands, says Labour

    Mar 12, 2015 | The Guardian

    ID5868758 12 Mar 2015 00:49

    I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today had the advice of that "evil Putin" been followed by the "exceptional Americans" and their allies. He was opposed to the war in Iraq. He was opposed to the attacks on Ghaddafi and Liibya, but overruled by Medvedev, who was president at the time. And of course he was against the US and their obsessive campaign against secular Assad and Syria.

    But somehow we are supposed to believe that this man is the danger in the world, that everything would be fine and dandy if we could just get rid of Putin? Please.

    Me109BfG6 11 Mar 2015 19:58

    Stop better the mad house of s.c. "Ukraine". Until you can't find it on a map, you can't argue anything. I personally know a brigade of house constructors of 6 persons, of which 2 are Ukrainians and who have procured their passports somewhere is the Baltics for money. Now, do realize how you would once have to notice those 45 M Ukrainians standing on all street crossings in the UK and in the EU as well while beggaring. Yes, do realize that instead of any abstract demagogy and propaganda insulting Russia and Putin along with all the Russians in the s.c. "Ukraine". Stop the Nazis over there instead. The West Ukraine will elong to the Poland. The East Ukraine will belong to Russia or remain independent in order to speak freely Russian instead of that South Russian dialect called "Ukrainian" which is spoken - to the Forbes - by some 17% of the whole population in Ukraine only.

    T_Wallet 11 Mar 2015 18:46

    This article is nonsense. If there was no such thing as NATO then maybe it would have a credible point.

    The EU is about as Democratic as Russia. Both want, like US and China, to extend their spheres of influence. Empires by other names.

    JoseArmando0 -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 01:24

    Money money money only thing yanks understand cant take it with you in the end anyway poetic justice

    HARPhilby -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 16:04

    Rockefeller and JP Morgan financed hitler in 1929, 1931 and 1933. Read free pamphlet HITLER'S SECRET BACKERS by Sidney Warberg which came out in Holland in 1933 and was suppressed after 4 days.

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Warburg_Hitler's%20Secret%20Backers.pdf

    vr13vr -> Damocles59 11 Mar 2015 14:31

    UN chapter or not, but not everything in life is done according to legal interpretations. It's shouldn't be about bunch of lawyers arguing about legalese, it's about 10 million people. Why does UN chapter give more rights to 1.5 million people in Lithuania than to 10 million people in Donbass and South Ukraine?

    It's about principles, not about legalese.

    irishmand -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 11:11

    The largest trading partners of both China and India: the EU and the US.

    But not the exclusive partners. India and China will continue to trade with everybody. They are making honest money and don't care about US ambitions for world domination and its bad habit of toppling governments.

    Don't take me wrong, I don't hate americans. The most of you are just brain washed regular citizens. It is not your fault, except for what you allowed your government to do with your school system. But I also see the extremism is growing in american society and that is the result of people being told about how exceptional they are comparing to the rest of the world. Germans started the same way in 30's...

    anewdawn 11 Mar 2015 10:19

    Listen to the Victoria Nuland tapes.
    Other evidence that the Ukraine is a US military coup

    And more from the Guardian.

    Russian aggression from the Blairites is about as believeable as Iraqs weapons of mass distraction.
    I am a Labour supporter - I feel ashamed of them. They should be kicked out just like militant was - and for much better reasons - lies and war criminality. The Libdems and Tories are no better.

    Ross Vassilev -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:56

    Jezzam, you're either an idiot or a liar. NO ONE in the US wants a war with Russia except the neo-cons in Washington. And the dismembering of Serbia is proof that not all countries are entitled to territorial integrity, including Ukraine.

    Ross Vassilev jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:52

    At least Russia is only invading neighboring countries. There's hardly a country in the world the US hasn't bombed or invaded.


    Калинин Юрий Bosula 11 Mar 2015 09:22

    The guys there always need somebody to blame. They have to justify their existence by pointing their fingers to an enemy. The enemy unites the nation and you can sell to this nation all kind of junk as a needed stuff to fight this enemy.

    People love to believe is some mystic junk - invisible Russian threat, coup theory of communists in Moscow against Washington DC, etc.


    igoraki Sceptical Walker 11 Mar 2015 08:14

    Would like to recommend you a book to read, "L'Europe est morte à Pristina" by Jacques Hogard.You can learn a lot about all the good West and NATO did on Kosova and also you will see how the Albanians treated Serbs once our army retreated from Kosova.


    madeiranlotuseater jezzam 11 Mar 2015 08:03

    I am NOT a Kremlin supporter. The corruption sponsored by the state at home in Russia is appalling.
    That is not my point. The USA has intervened in countless countries since the end of WW2. The problems in Ukraine are of the USA's making. It hasn't gone well for you. Europe (apart from Desperate Dave) doesn't want to use your hawkish methods to achieve a solution. How lovely of you to believe that you can have a war in our back yard. People such as Merkel and Hollande almost certainly did not get it okayed by your lot. More probably they told you how is was going to be, so get used to it.

    America believes that killing people is the answer to find peace. It isn't.


    Babeouf 11 Mar 2015 07:26

    Well who would have guessed it the the Labour Party doesn't recognize US imperialism anywhere on planet earth. And if Labour form a government and the US/Iran negotiations fail they will happily join the next US coalition of the Shilling. On the substantive point apparently the I.MF won't loan Ukraine the billions of Euros unless the truce holds together. Now that really does help Vlad'the West is led by US sycophants and outright morons' Putin. But so has the entire US coup in Ukraine. There certainly is some Russian agent helping to formulate US State Department policy.


    Orangutango 11 Mar 2015 07:14

    It is utterly incoherent for our prime minister to call for tougher European action against President Putin in one breath and then threaten to leave the EU in the next. Security is the unspoken dimension of this European debate.

    "This is no time for democratic nations to consider breaking from their allies. While Eurosceptics crave the breaking of ties to the EU, the security situation demands common action and resolve."


    The Origin of the 'New Cold War'


    http://rinf.com/alt-news/featured/origin-new-cold-war/

    Eric Zuesse


    decaston 11 Mar 2015 04:57

    Euroscepticism (sometimes Euroscepticism or Anti-EUism) is the body of criticism of the European Union (EU), and opposition to the process of political European integration, existing throughout the political spectrum.
    A survey in 2012, conducted by TNS Opinion and Social on behalf of the European Commission, showed that, for the European Union overall, those who think that their country's interests are looked after well in the EU are now in a minority (42%) About 31% of EU citizens tend to trust the European Union as an institution, and about 60% do not tend to trust it. Trust in the EU has fallen from a high of 57% in 2007 to 31% in 2012, while trust in national governments has fallen from 43% in 2007 to 28% in 2012.
    Trust in the EU is lowest in the United Kingdom (16% trust, 75% distrust)

    Spain is ranked the second most distrustful of the European Union, making it one of the three most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, along with the UK and Greece. 72 per cent of the Spanish people do not trust the EU, comparing to only 23% that trust this Union.
    Portugal is the 8th most eurosceptic country in the European Union (not counting with Croatia) as shown by the "The Continent-wide rise of Euroscepticism", with 58% of the people tending not to trust the EU, behind Greece (81%), Spain (72%), UK (75%), Cyprus (64%), Sweden (62%), Czech Republic (60%) and Germany (59%).[57] The Eurosceptic parties currently hold 24 out of 230 seats in the parliament. The Euroscepticism of the left wing prevails in Portugal.
    The Irish people voted no to initial referendums on both the Nice and Lisbon Treaties. There were second referendums held on both of these issues, and it was then, following renegotiations that the votes were swayed in favour of the respective 'Yes' campaigns.
    In relation to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties, the decision to force second referendums has been the subject of much scrutiny and widespread criticism. It is claimed that rejection of the Irish peoples decision to vote no stands testament to the European Union's lack of regard for democracy and lack of regard for the right of people of nation states to decide their futures.
    In Italy The Five Star Movement (M5S), an 25.5% of vote in the 2013 general election, becoming the largest anti-establishment and Eurosceptic party in Europe. The party also in 2013 the party was particularly strong in Sicily, Liguria and Marche, where it gained more than 30% of the vote.
    In France in the European Parliament election, 2014, the National Front won the elections with 24.85% of the vote, a swing of 18.55%, winning 24 seats, up from 3 previously.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism


    Ilja NB Tom20000 11 Mar 2015 03:32

    You can't even clean up your own mess ( Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, former Yougoslavia ).


    Parangaricurimicuaro PlatonKuzin 11 Mar 2015 03:28

    Victoria Nuland is looking for a way out for her and her politics (save face). She realizes that Europe is not happy with the way that the State Department hijacked the whole Ukrainian crisis


    Budanevey 11 Mar 2015 03:22

    The emergence of Redneck Labour is one of the genuine mysteries of our politics that historians will one day ponder, a Party that adopted American Sub Prime finance, State Department Foreign Policy, neo-liberal corporatism, neo-con wars, NSA total surveillance, waterboarding, secret prisons, secret justice, indefinite detention, Anglophobia, TTIP and a de facto Eurodollar, and now the fear tactics of Commies and Terrorists everywhere to keep us servile to the interests of Washington and their agenda for an expanding US empire via a cloned United States of Europe, fears that were similarly misused during the Cold War when the American umbrella was first being used to envelop us.

    Didn't Labour learn anything from WW2 when we went to war to protect Polish independence, only to have Washington give it to Stalin, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, and then surrender our own commonwealth and independence to Washington's creature in Brussels? Who is pulling the strings when we see demands for the UK to subordinate its interests to EU expansion in the East, just as we see northern Eurozone interests being compromised to keep hold of southern Europe - Washington.

    The largest country on Earth, Russia, has long been a sub prime performer because of its own extreme history of imperialism and arbitrary government, which makes it an investors' nightmare and a paradise for corporate, criminal and political gangsterism preying on its long-suffering people and their unfortunate neighbours. The Yeltsin Privatisation era following the White Revolution compounded the problem by making new oligarchies and dubious billionaires, leading to the latest twist in Putinism.

    The answer to these differing examples and extremes of imperialism is not to join in new imperialisms, but to re-assert the value of honesty and accountability in business, government, the rule of law, and international relations. Redneck Labour has completely lost the plot.

    madeiranlotuseater 11 Mar 2015 03:21

    Soap Box Dave really believes he can hold onto power by scaring Europe into believing there is a threat from Russia. Past UK Premiers have done well with wars, Maggie, John and Tony all got re-elected. But Dave pitched for free flights on Air Force One and sucking up to POTUS whilst many of us felt that the whole game plan in Ukraine was of the CIA making. Poke the Bear enough and you will get a response. Germany and France saw through this and quickly side lined Davy and Kerry. Result: Dave, at a stroke, has reduced Britain's influence in the world to little more than not a lot.

    elias_ 11 Mar 2015 02:19

    All organisations are judged on the results of their actions. In the court of world opinion we can apply this logic to states. So let's see:
    1. Iraq. We lied, killed a million people and now it is haven for Isis.
    2. Libya. Far far worse now than under gadafi.
    3. Syria. We wanted war but putin stopped it.
    4. Egypt. Worse now than when we intervened.
    5. Ukraine. Supporting neocon Victoria f*** the EU nuland doing violent regime change on Russia's borders and expecting Russia to sit idly by. Yes the protests were about oligarchy but then got hijacked by hired goons without which power would have transitioned peacefully.

    Q. Is it any wonder we are losing credibility outside the west? Especially as many of these actions went without UN approval.


    Peter Schmidt UncleSam404 11 Mar 2015 02:14

    There is no British 'foreign policy'. They do as the US says.


    irishmand jezzam 11 Mar 2015 02:13

    Proof that Putin planned to annex Crimea and invade E Ukraine before Yanukovych was deposed.

    Who said it is truth, it is propaganda, I don't believe a word of this bull.... The western media lied so many times, there is no credibility.


    irishmand SystemD 11 Mar 2015 02:10

    One might ask you for proof of CIA plots, except that there is none. Are you prepared to provide the same standard of proof of your allegations that you demand of others?

    One might. We got Crimea, that's right. And Russia is helping the rebels. Well, US is helping the nazies in Kiev, so to make the chances equal...
    Now, CIA What was CIA director doing when he was secretly visiting Ukraine? A vacation... And those CIA operatives in Kiev Speigel wrote about? A vacation...


    Калинин Юрий jezzam 11 Mar 2015 01:48

    Putin sending his troops to Ukraine? Then you know way much more then CIA, MI-5, Mossad, etc all together. Finally all these countries do not have to spent billions on the intelligence since you alone do all the job and have all the possible evidences to present to the world.

    By the way yesterday the Russian troops used secret space waves on the drivers in Ukraine so 2 of British old APC's are out of service and in a ditch outside the road. This is the proof of the Russian regular army and thousands of dead Russian soldiers as well as billions of wounded in the Russian hospitals. Russia sends trains to Donetsk to take out all of them and OSCE at the border crossing station inspect them together with the Ukranian customs. Those, that have no chances to escape are captured by the Ukranian army and been exchanged for the Ukranian soldiers in front of hundreds of journalists. Anyway, Russian army is the most invisible army in the world.


    Goodthanx 11 Mar 2015 01:20

    According to McFadden, are we to presume that like NATO, one of the EU functions was/is the 'containment' of Russia?

    A sign of EU immaturity is that member countries cant voice independent views and questions of sovereignty, without the scaremongers reducing their arguments to todays bogey man, Putin.


    irishmand jezzam 10 Mar 2015 23:43

    What you say is entirely true, To Kremlin supporters though, facts don't have any objective reality. They believe that facts are simply tools in the propaganda campaign. Thus in their eyes inventing "facts" is perfectly OK. They believe that the West does it as well - the depth of cynicism in Russia is hard to fathom.

    What facts were invented?
    ultra right coup in Kiev supported by US
    bombardments of Donbass civilians by Kiev
    relentless russophobic campaign in US and EU
    Nuland saying F...the EU
    Nazi elements in the Ukranian government
    Crime voting to join Russia


    BorninUkraine irishmand 10 Mar 2015 23:36

    The objective of current US propaganda campaign is to prevent EU and Russia from cooperating to the point of creating a credible US competitor. As you could have noticed, this BS for European consumption works admirably: Europe just lost its last chance of becoming something of consequence.


    irishmand MentalToo 10 Mar 2015 22:50

    It is only an expense to Russia preventing other urgent investments to improve living conditions of the people in Russia. Russian leaders urgently needs to realize cooperation based on mutual respect of both sovereignty of nations as well as civil rights of individuals is the only way to improve relations to Europeans countries. Trying to use military force either directly or by coercion harms Russia more than anything. Russia is not in a competition to win over it neighbor states. Russia's mission is to win over it's own past through gaining trust of it's neighbors by peaceful cooperation.

    It is a declaration of good will, which, unfortunately, is not supported by any actions in reality.
    What have US/EU did recently:

    • organized a coup in Ukraine,
    • imposed sanctions,
    • unleashed shameless wild russophobic propaganda campaign in the media,
    • issued countless insults about Russians and their President.

    Where is the mutual respect you are talking so much about? Where is your freedom of speech?
    How can Russians trust you when you behave like bunch of liars and bullies, threatening to destroy Russia and celebrating every time something bad happens in Russia?
    To get respect from Russia you have to show your respect too.
    What saved Russia from american/NATO invasion? The very same army and the nuclear weapons. If it wouldn't be for them, americans would attack 6-8 months ago.
    So, before you start teaching Russia manners turn around and look in the mirror of your society. You are not a democracy anymore. You became a bunch of power drunk, profit greedy warmongers who only understand "I want" and ready to sacrifice other people's lives in other countries for your personal well being.

    [Mar 12, 2015] This Is a Declaration of War by Bruce K. Gagnon

    March 12, 2015 | informationclearinghouse

    At times I feel completely overwhelmed by the current US-NATO military operations aimed at Russia. It's growing rapidly - one can't help but wonder if the recent 'victory' of the self-defensive forces in eastern Ukraine wasn't allowed by Washington and Kiev as a way to get public opinion behind the already well established plans for even more NATO escalation.

    It's all just far too neat and tidy to be seen otherwise. This is not a conspiracy but a well designed military plan to take down Moscow. They are playing with fire. In some respects the 'project' is now impossible to stop. The question for the moment is how long will this attack on Russia go on and what level of conflict will result? Will it go nuclear? If so the world is fucked.

    The Pentagon role now is to send legions of NATO trainers into Ukraine to "push Kiev's [reluctant] troops forward" in order to "deter Russian aggression." It's a long term military operation that is going to be exceedingly expensive. It's got to be sold to the American people and folks throughout Europe. In order to make this public relations campaign successful the perpetrators have to flip the switch - turn the story ass backwards - blame the other side for doing what US-NATO are in fact doing.

    The source of the aggression is quite clear to me. US-NATO are all over Russia's border. I learned today that the current right-wing Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves grew up in New Jersey and went to Columbia University. It's funny how the US is able to continually put their agents into office in key nations around the world.

    Go back to post WW II and note how fascist Syngman Rhee lived in the US and was then put in power in South Korea to ensure Washington's control. Recall the many fascist dictators that the US repeatedly put in place in Vietnam, Iran, Indonesia and throughout Latin America and the African continent. It's called good corporate planning.

    More recently in 2008 we saw Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili (also trained in the US at George Washington University) launch an attack on Russian speaking republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia along Russia's border. Russia responded to the Georgian military strike against the people there by counter-attacking Georgia. The fighting took place in the strategically important Transcaucasia region which borders the Middle East.

    I'll never forget watching the first US politician to arrive in Georgia after the 2008 shooting war subsided. It was then Sen. Joe Biden who made that visit, just months before being selected as Obama's running mate. Biden came back slinging much anti-Russian rhetoric and most importantly threatened Russia with dire consequences if it did not do as instructed by Washington and Brussels. Biden of course also led the effort in the Senate to send more weapons and US military 'trainers' to Georgia. So this is all a familiar story.

    Just this morning NPR (National Public Radio) had an interview with a Russian woman who 'fingered' Putin as the one who called for the killing of Boris Nemtsov this past weekend in Moscow. It's all so damn convenient - the pieces just keep tumbling into place as the case is made for war with Russia in order to contain the 'evil Putin'. Can you see Manuel Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), and Muammar Qaddafi (Libya) all over again? It's a tried and true twisting of the truth in order to set up supposed 'obstacles' for take down. It's always sold though as the mighty super-moral US swooping in to protect 'freedom and democracy'. Walt Disney couldn't have done this any better.

    The US-NATO expansion of the conflict in Ukraine is indeed a declaration of war against Russia. And from what I can make out the Russian people see the writing on the wall - they can hear the train coming. Sadly the American people have no clue what is going on nor do most of those in Europe.

    This project has been set up with criminal precision. After all the CIA and the Pentagon have had alot of practice over the years. This is what Washington does best.

    Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He offers his own reflections on organizing and the state of America's declining empire. http://space4peace.blogspot.ca/

    [Mar 12, 2015] Victoria Nuland Knowingly Deceives Senate, Displays Ardent Support For Fascist Junta by Andrew W. Griffin

    In Robert Parry words "Nuland offered not a single word of self-criticism about how she contributed to these violent events by encouraging last year's coup, "
    Mar 12, 2015 | themillenniumreport.com

    Neocon Nuland spins wild tales for Senate Foreign Relations Committee; plays into fascist hands

    OKLAHOMA CITY – Neoconservative warmonger Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland, America's Assistant Secretary of State, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – with a straight face – that Crimeans are "suffering a reign of terror" under the control of the Russians.

    Nuland, who makes a living deceiving lawmakers and anyone else who crosses her path, told the committee this week: "Today Crimea remains under illegal occupation and human-rights abuses are the norm, not the exception, for many at-risk groups there."

    The "at-risk groups," Nuland said, included Crimean Tatars, Ukrainians who refuse to surrender their passports, gays and lesbians, journalists and "others," according to an AFP report.

    Additionally, Nuland, an apologist for the pro-Nazi Svoboda and Right Sector fascists who are the actual ones leading a reign of terror against innocents in eastern Ukraine, said pro-Russian separatists in the those areas of Lugansk and Donetsk "unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."

    However, the exact opposite is true.

    Sputnik News, a Russian news outlet, offered a tongue-in-cheek article today headlined "Life 'Under a Reign of Terror': What Nuland Doesn't Want You To See," countered each statement from Nuland with recent photographs of the beautiful Black Sea coast, including a fantastic photo of a "sand sculpture" celebrating the 70th anniversary of the February 1945 Yalta Conference (aka Crimea or Argonaut Conference) with the Big Three – Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt – there in Crimea, which was a part of the Soviet Union, and a traditional vacation spot for the czars and later for other Russian leaders and workers. (As historian Webster Griffin Tarpley has reported, Roosevelt was assassinated shortly after the conference and Truman – who replaced pro-Soviet, peace-seeking VP Henry Wallace – leading to the kick off of the Cold War).

    A year after Crimea became part of Russia once again, "82-percent of those polled said they fully supported Crimea's inclusion in Russia, and another 11 percent expressed partial support. Only four-percent spoke out against it," reports Sputnik News.

    Additionally, despite Nuland's denunciations, 51-percent of Crimeans "reported that their well-being had improved in the past year" and that Crimean retirees "have started receiving much higher Russian pensions."

    And believe it or not, as Nuland claims that Moscow is salting the earth of Ukraine, Sputnik News reports that the Crimean peninsula will "receive 47 billion rubles (equivalent to $705 million in US dollars), or 75 percent of its budget, from Russia." The news report notes that when Crimea was under Ukrainian control they never financed Crimea at anything near that level.

    And yet the US/Kiev axis continues to deny they are behind the crimes in the Donbass region, while claiming those aforementioned thuggish Ukrainian Nazis (friends of John McCain's, of course) are liberating democrats. And it certainly doesn't help that the Obama administration is infested with Nuland-esque neocons and raving Russophobes, particularly as NATO ramps up military maneuvers in the Black Sea and the US sends 600 paratroopers to Ukraine to train that country's fascist army. Russia, meanwhile, has flatly stated that any efforts to threaten Russia's security, bad things will start to happen. Are we seeing a new Cold War or are we rapidly heading to a hot war?

    And let's not forget, Ms. Nuland, that your Ukrainian "freedom fighters" – namely one crazed Ukrainian MP named Yuriy Bereza brazenly promised – on Ukrainian national television – to "burn down Crimea, with all of its residents if needed." It starts to make sense that the Crimeans are far happier under Russian rule.

    And as Webster Griffin Tarpley stated on World Crisis Radio this week, Victoria Nuland is an "embarrassment" to the United States and our anti-fascist traditions. He added that Nuland is "crude, scurrilous, ignorant and boiling over with venom." #ImpeachNuland.

    German Historian Tells Poroshenko 'Be Careful of American Support'

    Sputnik International

    German professor of history Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which he advised the Ukrainian President not to expect a long-lasting friendship with the United States, as the White House could change its attitude towards him in the blink of an eye when political trends shift Washington.

    German historian Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which he told the Ukrainian president not to get too cozy with the White House, warning him that being a close ally of the United States might not be the beginning of a long-lasting friendship.

    "You should be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably ends with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill your enemies," said Pesek, who teaches courses in history and political science at the University of Hamburg and Free University of Berlin.

    Pesek went on to compare Poroshenko with other dictators, who were puppets of the United States in the past, but then became the enemies of the White House after the tides shifted in Washington.

    In particular, the historian reminded Poroshenko of Saddam Hussein, who was Washington's close ally in the Middle East during the 1980s. However, after Cold War ended and the Americans changed their views on the Middle East, Hussein was useful as an enemy rather than as a friend. The rest is history: the former dictator was captured sitting in a hole and soon hanged in the dark of the night.

    Pesek also talked about Mobuto Sese Seko, the long-standing former ruler of the Congo, and Manuel Noriega of Panama who were both initially supported by the United States when its interests were at stake, but were quickly disposed of when US political trends changed their direction.

    "Lesson learned? You can kill as much as enemies of the US as possible, you can sell your natural resources, but it will not shield you, when the storm from Washington takes another direction," Pesek said.

    On a final note, the German historian told Poroshenko that at the end of the day he will always be an outsider in the United States, "a useful idiot in your best days" and a "burden" when the White House changes its priorities or loses its interest.

    "As a former apparatchik you will never know if your conversion to a democrat and capitalist is taken seriously by your American allies. You will be under suspicion as all the other converted ex-terrorists, ex-Marxists, ex-dictators, who bow to the American flag." – concluded Pesek.

    See also:

    [Mar 12, 2015] NATO Lies and Provocations by MIKE WHITNEY

    Mar 12, 2015 | CounterPunch

    ... ... ...

    While it's easy to get swept up in the Spiegel's narrative of a rabid militarist dragging Europe closer to World War 3, the storyline is intentionally misleading. As anyone who's been following the Ukraine fiasco for the last year knows, there's nothing particularly unusual about Breedlove's distortions. Secretary of State John Kerry has made similar claims numerous times as have many others in the major media. The lies about "Russian aggression" are the rule, not the exception. So why has the Spiegel decided to selectively target Breedlove who is no more deceitful than anyone else? What's really going on here?

    Clearly, the Spiegel is doing Merkel's work, that is, undermining the credibility of Washington's chief commander in Europe in order to discourage further escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. But while Merkel wants to humiliate Breedlove to show that Germany will not sit on its hands while Washington plunges the region into the abyss; she has also shown considerable restraint in limiting her attack to the General while sparing Kerry and Obama any embarrassment. This is quite an accomplishment given that –as we said earlier–virtually everyone in the political establishment and the media have been lying nonstop about every aspect of the conflict. Merkel doesn't want to discredit these others just yet, although the Spiegel piece infers that she has the power to do so if the "bad behavior" persists.

    The Spiegel article is part of a one-two punch designed to force Washington to change its confrontational approach. The second jab appeared late Sunday afternoon when EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced that Europe needed to field its own army. Here's the story from Reuters:

    "The European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats as well as restore the bloc's foreign policy standing around the world, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told a German newspaper on Sunday…

    "With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighboring state.

    "One wouldn't have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values." (Juncker calls for EU army, says would deter Russia, Reuters)

    Can you see what's going on? On the one hand, the Spiegel delivers a hammer-blow to the credibility of NATO's top officer and on the other, the President of the EU Commission blindsides US powerbrokers by announcing a plan to create an independent EU fighting force that will render NATO redundant. These are big developments that have undoubtedly left the Obama troupe reeling. This is a full-blown assault on NATO's role as the primary guarantor of EU regional security. Maybe the European people are gullible enough to accept Junker's absurd claim that an EU army will "send an important message to the world", but you can be damn sure that no one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue believes that nonsense. The move is clearly designed to send a message to Washington that Europe is fed up with NATO and wants a change. That means it's "shape up or ship out time" for Breedlove and his ilk.

    Ironically, these developments align Merkel with Putin's view of things as stated in his famous Munich speech in 2007 when he said:

    "I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue … The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way … And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, 43rd Munich Security Conference, 2007)

    How can the US possibly cast itself as "steward of the global security system", when its interventions have left a trail of decimated failed states from the southernmost border of Somalia to the northern tip of Ukraine, a chaotic swathe of smoldering ruin and agonizing human suffering that rivals the depredations of the Third Reich.

    Europe's security requirements cannot be met by a belligerent, warmongering US-controlled entity that acts solely in Washington's interests. At present, NATO gets 75% of its funding from the US, which is why the alliance is less interested in peacemaking and security than it is in internationalizing its imperial war of aggression across the planet. Prior to the crisis in Ukraine, European leaders didn't see the danger of this idiotic arrangement (even though interventions in Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan should have brought them to their senses) But now that NATO's recklessness could vaporize Europe in a nuclear firestorm, leaders like Merkel and Hollande are starting to change their tune. Keep in mind, the ideal scenario for the US would be a limited war that levels large parts of the European and Asian continents, thus restoring the US to its post WW2 heyday when the "rubblized" world was Washington's oyster. That would be just fine for genocidal maniacs and armchair warriors who rule the globe from the safety of their well-stocked DC bunkers. But for Europe, this is definitely not a winning strategy. Europe doesn't want a war, and it certainly doesn't want to be used as cannon fodder for the greater glory of the dystopian NWO.

    Putin advisor, Sergei Glazyev, figured out what Washington was up to long before Kiev launched its wretched "anti terrorism" campaign against federalist rebels in the East. Here's how he summed it up:

    "The main task the American puppet masters have set for the (Kiev) junta is to draw Russia into a full-scale war with Ukraine. It is for this purpose that all of these heinous crimes are committed – to force Russia to send troops to Ukraine to protect the civilian population…

    The bankruptcy of the US financial system, which is unable to service its foreign debt, the lack of investments to finance a breakthrough to a new technological order and to maintain America's competitiveness, and the potential defeat in the geopolitical competition with China.

    To resolve these problems, Americans need a new world war." (Sergei Glazyev)

    Bingo. The steadily-declining empire, whose share of global GDP continues to shrivel with every passing year, has wanted a war from the get go. That's the only way that the US can reverse its precipitous economic slide and preserve its lofty spot as the world's only superpower. Fortunately, EU leaders are beginning to pull their heads out of the sand long enough to grasp what's going on and change their behavior accordingly.

    It's worth noting, that no one in the Merkel administration or anyone else for that matter, has publicly challenged the allegations in the Spiegel article. Why is that, do you think?

    Doesn't their silence suggest that they knew all along that all the anti-Putin propaganda hullabaloo was pure bunkum; that "evil" Putin didn't send tanks and soldiers across the border into Ukraine, that Putin didn't shoot down Malaysian Airline 17, that Putin didn't have a political opponent gunned down gangland style just a few hundred yards from the Kremlin? Isn't that what their silence really says?

    Of course, it does. The reason no one in power has spoken out is because –as the Spiegel cynically admits–"A mixture of political argumentation and military propaganda is necessary."

    "Propaganda is necessary"?

    Whoa. Now there's an admission you're not going to see in the media too often. But it's the truth, isn't it? The Euro-leaders have been going along with the lies to keep the public in line. In other words, it's a healthy dose of perception management for the sheeple, but the unvarnished truth for our revered overlords. Sounds about right. Only now these ame elites have decided to share the facts with the lumpen masses. But, why? Why this sudden willingness to share the truth?

    It's because they no longer support Washington's policy, that's why. No one in Europe wants the US to arm and train the Ukrainian army. No one wants them to deploy 600 paratroopers to Kiev and increase US logistical support. No one wants further escalation, because no one wants a war with Russia. It's that simple.

    For the first time, EU leaders, particularly Merkel, understand that the United States' strategic objectives (the pivot to Asia) do not align with those of the EU, in fact, Washington's geopolitical ambitions pose a serious threat to Europe's security. Regrettably, it's not enough for Merkel to simply understand what is going on. She needs to huddle with her EU colleagues and take positive steps to derail Washington's plan now, otherwise the US will continue its incitements and false flags until Putin is forced to respond. Once that happens, a broader and, perhaps, catastrophic conflagration will be unavoidable.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

    [Mar 12, 2015] Who is Aleksandr Dugin

    Mar 12, 2015 | Crooked Timber

    bob mcmanus 03.10.15 at 8:24 pm

    Oh my, an interesting day of posts on Crooked Timber! Is there a link to the Vinyard of the Saker in there somewhere?

    "(hence he sometimes goes so far as cast Sunni extremists as if they were allies of the West)"; "Sunnis aligned with the West, it would seem"

    Out liberal-capitalist-rationalist-pluralist allies in Saudi Arabia, I presume.

    Looking more like war everyday.

    Hidari 03.10.15 at 8:32 pm

    As regards the Ukraine (and many other countries round the world), I have noticed that even (or especially) to liberals who are prepared to admit, in a highly abstract way, that the United States is an imperial power, there is a distinct unwillingness to think through what that means, and what it implies about the way the US will probably behave, in most situations.

    It may be true (or it may not) that Putin is 'reasserting' Russian imperial ambitions, but when did the US ever unassert its own?

    Cian 03.10.15 at 8:33 pm

    While I dislike Putin immensely, yeah the Ukraine government pretty much was asking for it. First of all they stoked ethnic tensions needlessly. An ethnicity that happens to be the same as their powerful neighbor. Then when this resulted in moves towards secession – rather than defusing it politically, they attacked them with the army.

    So yeah, Putin might be an opportunist (though one in this case who's being pushed from multiple segments of the Russian elite – it's not entirely clear who's driving) – but who gave them an opportunity, then presented it in such a way that Russian public/elite opinion meant that he really had no option but to take it.

    Harold 03.10.15 at 8:44 pm

    Hmm. What it means to be an imperialist? Let us turn to wikipedia to find out:

    The Grand Chessboard

    The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives is one of the major works of Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski graduated with a PhD from Harvard University in 1953 and became Professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University before becoming the United States National Security Advisor during 1977-1981 under the administration of President Jimmy Carter.

    Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence.

    Much of his analysis is concerned with geo-strategy in Central Asia, focusing on the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass in a post-Soviet environment. In his chapter, dedicated to what he refers to as the "Global Balkans", Brzezinski makes use of Halford J. Mackinder's 1904 Heartland Theory [Also known as the Geographical Pivot Theory of History.]

    §See also
    American imperialism
    Geopolitics
    Geostrategy in Central Asia
    The Great Game
    Zbigniew Brzezinski
    *****
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
    The Geographical Pivot of History
    EXCERPTS:
    The Geographical Pivot of History, sometimes simply as The Pivot of History is a geo-strategic theory, also known as Heartland Theory.

    "The Geographical Pivot of History" was an article submitted by Halford John Mackinder in 1904 to the Royal Geographical Society that advanced his Heartland Theory. In this article, Mackinder extended the scope of geopolitical analysis to encompass the entire globe.
    **********
    Influence of the theory on foreign and military policy

    In Germany up to 1945
    Some influential Germans, such as Karl Haushofer both before and during the Third Reich, found this theory compatible with their desire to control Mitteleuropa and to take Ukraine. The intention to take the latter was indicated by the slogan Drang nach Osten, or "drive to the east".

    In the Western powers
    Mackinder identified the geopolitical nightmare that was to haunt the world's two sea powers during the first half of the twentieth century - Great Britain and later on the United States. The nightmare was that if Germany or Russia were allowed to control East Europe then this could lead to the domination of the Eurasian land mass by one of these two powers as a prelude to mastery of the world.

    Jeff Martin 03.10.15 at 9:47 pm

    But then it turns out to be an excavated piece of Dissent anti-communism adapted to the enemy of liberalism of the day. Meh.

    There must always be a reason to avoid confronting the fact of the American Empire, to spoon with it for just a little while longer. If that reason cannot be an actual geopolitical threat, a marginal intellectual figure will do, provided his oeuvre can be conflated with the strategic doctrine of a nation-state. Look, I think it's simple: some on the Left are terrified of going back to the Seventies, when the Right, and the media, demonized them as unpatriotic and anti-American; hence they try to confabulate ways of being both progressive and indirectly supportive of the American Empire, which is rather unprogressive. But whatever.

    Harold 03.10.15 at 10:25 pm

    Q OP, "Why would any sane person want to do it all over again…"

    A. There's a lot of money to be made in the short run.

    http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/02/27/kredite-aus-steuergeldern-saatgut-konzerne-kaufen-land-in-der-ukraine/

    Excerpt: Seed producers have a strong interest in Ukrainian lands (Google translated):

    Ukraine is one of the promising growth markets for seed producers Monsanto and DuPont. It is feared that Monsanto has exerted great pressure on the authorities in Ukraine to enforce its demands for an expansion of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Last year, Monsanto has invested 140 million to increase the potential for future production. "

    German companies are also benefiting this Ukrainian land grab.:

    Examples of German companies that profit from land grabbing in Eastern Europe include AGRARIUS AG, founded in 2007 and headquartered in Bad Homburg, which "offers investment in farmland" and "services related to the purchase of land"; Hamburg-based German agricultural CEE GmbH lures investors with returns of 100 percent from the "most attractive agricultural market in the world"; and KTG Agrar SE, also based in Hamburg, advertises organic products that promise to yield "much higher profit margins".

    Multinational and national companies receive financial, development, and EU subsidies, enabling agricultural corporations to build in Ukraine for ten years, and more for the production of rape seed oil, due to the EU's growing demand for biofuels. About 90 percent of rape seed is exported to the EU and processed there. The German Federal Government reports that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) awarded 2,014 loans to a total of 131 Ukrainian and 55 international agroholdings.

    The German Federal government did not specifically respond to the Left Party's question as to whether DuPont and Monsanto would receive KfW loans for its operations in Ukraine. The government's response states:

    "The publication of information on lending by the KfW bank group involves trade and business secrets of the undertakings concerned. The public response to the question of whether and to what extent a company finances its business activities, and over which type of loan generally serves to give competitors information not only about the financial resources of a company, but also about its strategy and positioning in the market. "

    [Mar 10, 2015] Frontline Ukraine: How Europe failed to slay the demons of war by Richard Sakwa

    March 10, 2015 | The Guardian

    In an extract from his new book, historian Richard Sakwa argues that the current conflict has its roots in the exclusion of Russia from genuine partnerships since the end of the cold war

    In 2014, history returned to Europe with a vengeance. The crisis over Ukraine brought back not only the spectre but the reality of war, on the 100th anniversary of a conflict that had been spoken of as the war to end all war. The great powers lined up, amid a barrage of propaganda and informational warfare, while many of the smaller powers made their contribution to the festival of irresponsibility.

    This was also the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the second world war, which wreaked so much harm on central and eastern Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years earlier and the subsequent end of the cold war had been attended by expectations of a Europe "whole and free".

    These hopes were crushed in 2014, and Europe is now set for a new era of division and confrontation. The Ukrainian crisis was the immediate cause, but this only reflected deeper contradictions in the pattern of post-communist development since 1989. In other words, the European and Ukrainian crises came together to devastating effect.

    The "Ukrainian crisis" refers to profound tensions in the the country's nation and state-building processes since it achieved independence in late 1991, which now threaten the unity of the state itself.

    These are no longer described in classical ideological terms, but, in the Roman manner, through the use of colours. The Orange tendency thinks in terms of a Ukraine that can finally fulfil its destiny as a nation state, officially monolingual, culturally autonomous from other Slavic nations and aligned with "Europe" and the Atlantic security community. This is a type of "monism", because of its emphasis on the singularity of the Ukrainian experience.

    By contrast, Blue has come to symbolise a rather more plural understanding of the challenges facing Ukraine, recognising that the country's various regions have different historical and cultural experiences, and that the modern state needs to acknowledge this diversity in a more capacious constitutional settlement. For the Blues, Ukraine is more of a "state nation", an assemblage of different traditions, but above all one where Russian is recognised as a second state language and economic, social and even security links with Russia are maintained. Of course, the Blue I am talking about is an abstraction, not the blue of former president Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions.

    The Blues, no less than the Orangists, have been committed to the idea of a free and united Ukraine, but favour a more comprehensive vision of what it means to be Ukrainian. We also have to include the Gold tendency, the powerful oligarchs who have dominated the country since the 1990s, accompanied by widespread corruption and the decay of public institutions.

    Since independence, there has been no visionary leader to meld these colours to forge a Ukrainian version of the rainbow nation.

    The "Ukraine crisis" also refers to the way that internal tensions have become internationalised to provoke the worst crisis in Europe since the end of the cold war. Some have even compared its gravity with the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. The world at various points stood close to a new conflagration, provoked by desperately overheated rhetoric on all sides.

    The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system. The failure to establish a genuinely inclusive and equal security system on the continent imbued European international politics with powerful stress points, which in 2014 produced the international earthquake that we now call the Ukraine crisis.

    There had been plenty of warning signs, with Boris Yeltsin, the Russian Federation's first leader, in December 1994 already talking in terms of a "cold peace". When he came to power in 2000, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin devoted himself to overcoming the asymmetries.

    In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow

    The major non-state institution at the heart of the architecture of post-communist Europe, the European Union (EU), exacerbated the tensions rather than resolving them. The EU represents the core of what could be called "Wider Europe" – a Brussels-centric vision that extends into the heartlands of what had once been an alternative great-power system centred on Moscow. The increasing merger of Wider Europe with the Atlantic security system only made things worse.

    Russia and some European leaders proposed not so much an alternative but a complementary vision to the monism of Wider Europe, known as "Greater Europe": a way of bringing together all corners of the continent to create what Mikhail Gorbachev in the final period of the Soviet Union had called the "Common European Home". This is a multipolar and pluralistic concept of Europe, allied with but not the same as the Atlantic community.

    In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow. In the absence of the tensions generated by the post-cold war "unsettlement", the peace promised at the end of the cold war would finally arrive. Instead, the double "Ukrainian" and "Ukraine" crises combined with catastrophic consequences.

    For me, this is both personal and political. The cold war division of Europe is the reason I was born and grew up in Britain and not in Poland, but, even before that, war and preparations for war had scarred my family. In the inter-war years my father, an agronomist by profession but like so many of his generation also a reservist in the Polish army, marched up and down between Grodno and Lwów (as it was then called).

    He told of the 25kg he had to carry in his backpack, with all sorts of equipment and survival tools. The area at the time was part of the Second Polish Republic, and for generations had been settled by Poles. These were the kresy, the borderlands of Europe grinding up against the ever-rising power of the Russian empire. With the partition of Poland in the 18th century, Grodno and what is now the western part of Belarus was ceded to Russia, while Lemberg (the German name for Lwów) and the surrounding province of Galicia became part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

    On gaining independence in 1918, and with Russia and the nascent Ukrainian state in the throes of revolution and civil war, the various armies repeatedly marched back and forth across the region. In the end the Polish state occupied an enormous territory to the east of the Curzon Line.

    These were the lands occupied by Joseph Stalin, following the division of the area according to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939. Poland was invaded on 1 September and against the overwhelming might of Adolf Hitler's armies the Polish forces fell back, only for the Soviet Union to invade on 17 September.

    My father's unit soon came up against the Soviet forces, and when greeted initially by the Poles as coming to support them against the Germans, they were asked to disarm. My father escaped to Hungary, but many of his reservist comrades were captured, and eventually murdered in Katyn and other killing sites.

    My father subsequently joined the Polish second corps under General Anders, and with the British eighth army fought at El Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then all the way up Italy, spending six months at Monte Cassino. At the end of the war Poland was liberated, but it was not free. Unable to return to their homeland, the family was granted refuge in Britain. In the meantime, the Soviet borders were extended to the west, and Lwów became Lvov.

    These were territories that had never been part of the Russian empire, and when Ukraine gained independence in 1991 they became the source of the distinctive Orange vision of Ukrainian statehood. Today Lvov has become Lviv, while its representation of what it means to be Ukrainian is contested by other regions and communities, notably the Blues, each of which has endured an equally arduous path to become part of the modern Ukrainian state.

    As for the political, being a product of an ideologically and geographically divided Europe, I shared the anticipation at the end of the cold war in 1989–91 that a new and united Europe could finally be built. For a generation the EU helped transcend the logic of conflict in the western part of the continent by binding the traditional antagonists, France and Germany, into a new political community, one that expanded from the founding six that signed the Treaty of Rome in March 1957 to the 28 member states of today.

    The Council of Europe, established in 1949, broadened its activities into the post-communist region, and now encompasses 47 nations and 820 million citizens, as its website proudly proclaims. The European Convention of Human Rights and its additional protocols established a powerful normative framework for the continent, policed by the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. Russia in the 1990s actively engaged with the EU, signing a Partnership and Cooperation agreement in 1994, although it only took effect on 30 October 1997 following the first Chechen war, and the next year Russia joined the Council of Europe.

    However, another dynamic was at work, namely the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato). Also established in 1949 to bring together the victorious western allies, now ranged against the Soviet Union in what had become the cold war.

    Nato was not disbanded when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the cold war came to an end. This was the source of the unbalanced end to the cold war, with the eastern part dissolving its alliance system while Nato in the 1990s began a march to the east.

    An East German border guard looks through a hole in the Berlin Wall on 19 November 1989.

    This raised increasing alarm in Russia, and, while notionally granting additional security to its new members, it meant that security in the continent had become divisible. Worse, there was an increasing perception that EU enlargement was almost the automatic precursor to Nato expansion.

    The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist order generated what some call a new cold war

    There was a compelling geopolitical logic embedded in EU enlargement. For example, although many member states had reservations about the readiness of Bulgaria and Romania to join, there was a fear that they could drift off and become western versions of Ukraine. The project of European economic integration, and its associated peace project, effectively merged with the Euro-Atlantic security partnership, a fateful elision that undermined the rationale of both and which in the end provoked the Ukraine crisis.

    The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist political and security order generated what some took to calling a "new cold war", or, more precisely, a "cold peace", which stimulated new resentments and the potential for new conflicts.

    It became increasingly clear that the demons of war in Europe had not been slain. Instead, the Ukraine crisis demonstrates just how fragile international order has become, and how much Europe has to do to achieve the vision that was so loudly proclaimed, when the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, of a continent united from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

    The Ukraine crisis forces us to rethink European international relations. If Europe is not once again to be divided, there need to be new ideas about what an inclusive and equitable political and security order encompassing the whole continent would look like. In other words, the idea of Greater Europe needs to be endowed with substance and institutional form.

    Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite will happen: old ideas will be revived, the practices of the cold war will, zombie-like, come back to life, and once again there will be a fatal dividing line across Europe that will mar the lives of the generation to come. This is far from inevitable, but to avoid it will require a shift in the mode of political intercourse from exprobration to diplomacy, and from denunciation to dialogue.

    Thus the personal and the political combine, and this book is much an exploration of failed opportunities as it is an account of how we created yet another crisis in European international politics on the anniversaries of the start of two world wars and a moment of hope in 1989. My father's generation suffered war, destruction and displacement, and yet the European civil war that dominated the 20th century still inflames the political imagination of the 21st.

    To order Frontline Ukraine for £15.19 (RRP £18.99), go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846

    Richard Sakwa is professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent

    See also:

    • The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war | Seumas Milne
    • Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa review – an unrivalled account



    jakartamoscow Bud Peart 10 Mar 2015 10:44

    When an objective article shows up, expect another 3500 anti-Russian article the following two months. SOP.


    DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 10:29

    The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system,

    Which only served to accelerate the Russian pivot to China.

    With the Chinese publicly and explicitly in the past week saying that they agree and support Russia's actions in Ukraine, battle lines are being drawn.

    Today brings further confirmation of the rubicon being crossed........

    China's long-awaited international payment system to process cross-border yuan transactions is ready, and may be launched as early as September or October, three sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters.

    "The CIPS is ready now and China has selected 20 banks to do the testing, among which 13 banks are Chinese banks and the rest are subsidiaries of foreign banks," one of the sources told the agency.

    For a while China has been exploring methods to cut dependence on the dollar and other hard currencies in international trade, hoping to settle more deals in yuan.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-china-yuan-payments-exclusive-idUSKBN0M50BV20150309?irpc=932


    Absolutely fascinating times......


    SHappens 10 Mar 2015 10:27

    Now that you are about to become a close ally of the US and a dictator at the same time, you should be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably ends with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill your enemies, with the warm feeling of security because your American advisers taught your people how to get rid of your opponents, and with standing ovations at the UN Security Council for whatever you will say against Russians and other foes.

    This is a little history lesson to remind you that the weather in Washington is much more capricious than the continental climate of Eurasia.

    The US certainly won Cold War, but not necessarily their Allies. One of the first to experience that fine difference was Saddam Hussein, Washington's close ally in the Middle East for much of the 1980s. Hussein was a CIA asset to overthrow the Qassim-Regime, which was for the Americans too close to Soviet Union.

    http://original.antiwar.com/michael_pesek/2015/03/06/an-open-letter-to-petro-poroshenko/ . A must read.

    aprescoup 10 Mar 2015 10:22

    The first narrative on Ukraine and Russia that makes sense to me. Why don't the others get it? Obama, Kerry, Nuland, Bildt, Merkel, Hollande? Because they are thick? Or because they don't want to get it?


    irishmand -> Oskar Jaeger 10 Mar 2015 10:17

    Russia has been demonised during the last year, yes, but deservedly so.
    The ruins of Ukraine are the reason.

    Who decides about Russia deserves demonising? The people who can possibly profit from it, because they want to supply more arms?

    foolisholdman -> jasonbirder 10 Mar 2015 10:16

    jasonbirder

    Only after Stalingrad did the US President decide to circumvent the US Congress' specific ban in getting involved in the European War and help the UK

    I'm confused...didn't the US declare war on Germany in December 1941...whereas the German Forces were defeated at Stalingrad in early 1943...over a year later!

    Yes, you are confused. I think you have been deliberately confused. The USA did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on the USA.

    So it is not President Rooseveldt whom we have to thank for bringing the USA into the war on the side of democracy and decency but Herr Hitler!


    MoneyCircus Jonathan Stromberg 10 Mar 2015 09:46

    An intelligent and detailed argument shot straight over your head, didn't it.

    In his article Sakwa says that conflict was inevitable (if not over Ukraine, then over some other point) because - primarily - of the failure of countries and blocs to adapt to changing realities.

    It has been clear for 20 years that the EU has forgotten its origins as a way to prevent war and has become a tool of commercial, mercantile and territorial expansion. The phrase "fortress Europe" is a clue.

    I'll add to Sakwa's point - that the centenary of the outbreak of WW1 was not marked by the sort of reflection and self-analysis that many of us expected. And this was for good reason.

    The build up of arms, the great game for resources and the alliances (launching wars of proxy terror against each other) recall the run up to WW1, far more than they do WW2.


    oalexander BunglyPete 10 Mar 2015 09:44

    This is your so-called western freedom of press:

    http://thesaker.is/full-videos-of-the-cnn-and-ard-interviews-with-putin-in-russia-and-with-english-subtitles-updated/

    The rest is lies and half-truths as can be found in the so-called pluralistic western media. There may have been a time in the past, but this has gone a long, long time ago.

    Please also compare Cuba crisis and Kosovo with Nato east expansion and Crimea.

    vr13vr jezzam 10 Mar 2015 12:10

    "This crisis was triggered by Ukraine moving towards EU membership rather than Putins's Eurasian Union. Since EU rules require such things as recognition of the rights of minorities, it is hard to see how this could be any threat towards ethnic Russians in Ukraine."

    From having the EU requirements to the mood on the street, the difference was huge. Whatever the requirements could have been, the mood on the street at the moment wasn't meeting those requirements. That "rather than Putin's Union" further instigated the anti-Russian mood.

    That piled up on top of the fact that those areas never wanted to be part of Ukraine anyway. So you have the areas that were reluctant to be in Ukraine to begin with, coupled with the nationalistically energized mood on the streets elsewhere that would result in West Ukrainian desire to finally make those areas loyal. Even if it is against the EU rules.

    And of course the fact that the government voted for by the East and the South voters was overthrown in violent uprising (for the second time in a decade) didn't give much confidence in the stability either.


    TOR2000 jezzam 10 Mar 2015 11:50

    "The Kremlin then proposed to Brussels that negotiations be conducted between the EU and the Eurasion Union -- directly between the two blocs of power. But European Commission President José Manuel Barroso refused to meet with the leaders of the Eurasion Union, a bloc he considered to be an EU competitor.

    "One country cannot at the same time be a member of a customs union and be in a deep common free-trade area with the European Union," the commission president said on February 25. He said that Kiev had to decide which path it wanted to take. The message was clear: Kiev had to choose either Brussels or Moscow." (Summit of Failure: How the EU Lost Russia over Ukraine http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706.html)


    John Smith Sceptical Walker 10 Mar 2015 11:47

    As for Libya, it was not a US business as you like to portray it. A large number of states were willingly involved to stop Khadaffi (like Assad) from killing his own people.

    HaHa nice fairy tale )
    Maybe they killed him because he wanted to sell oil in other currencies, and also wanted 160 bn$ from Goldman Sachs and more from other financial institutions back.
    Libya under Gaddafi:
    GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
    * For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants.
    * Unemployment - $ 730.
    * Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
    * For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
    * The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
    * At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
    * Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
    * Education and medicine are free.
    * Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
    * Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
    * For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention
    * Part of pharmacies - free
    * For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
    * Rents - none.
    * Fees for electricity for households -none!
    * Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited - prohibition.
    * Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
    * Real estate services were prohibited.
    * Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, militia fighters - 65%.
    * Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $
    -If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
    - A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens
    -Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country

    TOR2000 psygone 10 Mar 2015 11:41

    Weren't Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, the main rebel leaders in Chechnya, trained in CIA-sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan?


    DIPSET irishmand 10 Mar 2015 11:30

    @irishmand

    You nationality will, justifiably, make you wary but there is no evidence of them "stabbing" your lot in the back. China fully understand that after the Yanks try and crush you, they are next.

    Call it a marriage of conveniance of you must.

    A common enemy (hello America "exceptionalism" lol) has sharpened minds. As the little incident with Hong Kong last year showed, "freedom and democracy" is what they are itching to bring to the Chinese mainland.

    Incidentally, the way they banned the UK officials from entering Hong Kong was hilarious as our MP's were reduced to moaning and whining on twitter that China was not playing fair lol.

    In Lavrov you have a master diplomat who has ridden this redeo before and knows how to deal with the European puppets.

    In Putin you have a man that will never allow Russia to be subjugated. Ever.

    The rest is just semantics as they say......

    2015 is that year, either way

    BorninUkraine -> DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 11:24

    Unipolar world is dead, RIP. Right now, China, India, much of the rest of Asia, and most of Latin America and Africa are happy to let Russia take the flak for standing up to the bully.

    But they know that soon they will have to defend their own interests. That's why they side with Russia not so much because they support its policies, but because it is giving a black eye to the US.

    geedeesee 10 Mar 2015 11:19

    Professor Richard Sakwa can point to history, as if Obama was handed a difficult legacy, but it doesn't justify or mitigate the crisis which erupted in 2014. Obama had the opportunity to shed any past mistakes. Indeed, he recognised this with the "Re-Set' of US-Russian relations soon after taking office.

    The current crisis has its beginnings well within the Obama administration. When, in November 2013, the Yanukovich government and civil-servant advisers decided the Russian offer was better than the EU offer, someone in the Obama administration decided they were going to overturn it. Victoria Nuland's speech the following month at the US/Ukraine Foundation in Washington, in which she revealed US had spent $5 billion, demonstrated their resolve to overrule the government of Ukraine:

    ...it would be a huge shame to see five years' worth of work and preparation go to waste if the AA [EU deal] is not signed in the near future. So it is time to finish the job.

    Time to finish the job! A statement like that has the backing of senior level policy decision. Obama has to have authorised that policy given the impact on Russia. And so it played out. Victoria Nuland, again, caught out choosing the personalities in a new government in January. And then in February there was a coup!

    This crisis begins in the Obama administration and, more specifically, in Obama's second term.


    RudolphS ID075732 10 Mar 2015 11:15

    'Why was Russia excluded from true partnership with Europe after 1989? By the same reasoning why was NATO not disbanded after the fall of the Berlin wall? The reason probably lies in the continued need for the US to maintain control and influence in Europe.'

    Well, the reason is quite simple. As the victor of a 60 year-old cold war (communism vs. capitalism) you're of course temped to capitalize on it. But honest, the West should've known better. They should've gone the way how Germany was treated after WWII: Helping to re-build and intergrate the country within the international community, with as a result that the germans rapidly became the most loyal and valuable ally the West could hope for.


    John Smith Havingalavrov 10 Mar 2015 11:14

    (Reuters) - Western powers should take into consideration Russia's legitimate security concerns over Ukraine, a top Chinese diplomat has said in an unusually frank and open display of support for Moscow's position in the crisis.

    Qu Xing, China's ambassador to Belgium, was quoted by state news agency Xinhua late on Thursday as blaming competition between Russia and the West for the Ukraine crisis, urging Western powers to "abandon the zero-sum mentality" with Russia.

    He said the "nature and root cause" of the crisis was the "game" between Russia and Western powers, including the United States and the European Union.

    He said external intervention by different powers accelerated the crisis and warned that Moscow would feel it was being treated unfairly if the West did not change its approach.

    "The West should abandon the zero-sum mentality, and take the real security concerns of Russia into consideration," Qu was quoted as saying.

    His comments were an unusually public show of understanding from China for the Russian position. China and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues but Beijing has generally not been so willing to back Russia over Ukraine.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-china-yuan-payments-exclusive-idUSKBN0M50BV20150309?irpc=932


    irishmand psygone 10 Mar 2015 11:12

    After the collapse of communism, where was Russia's attempt to truly diversify its economy away from the power oligarchs, commodities and oil/gas?

    After the collapse of communism the oligarchs like Khodorkovsky were too busy helping US/EU corporations to plunder Russia. It was the moment Russians lost their trust in US/EU democracy.

    [Mar 10, 2015] Vladimir Putin describes secret meeting when Russia decided to seize Crimea by Agence France-Presse

    Mar 09, 2015 | theguardian.com

    NotRevJimJones

    I should have read the comments before posting mine. The extent of russophobia is mad, like when the pot was being stirred for the invasion of Iraq.

    But then, Putin is the new Hitler, just like Saddam was.

    As my maternal grandmother would have stated, all youse antiputinistas are feckin eejits...

    normankirk -> NotRevJimJones 1h ago

    Apparently you can fool most of the people most of the time
    You'd think theyd learn!

    TOR2000
    A total of 82% of the population of the Crimea fully support Russia's annexation of the peninsula, according to a poll carried out by the GfK Group research institute in Ukraine, Ukrainian online newspaper Ukrainska Pravda reported on Wednesday. Another 11% of respondents said that they rather support the annexation of Crimea, while 4% were against it.
    The poll was conducted on January 16-22, 2015
    http://www.unian.info/politics/1040281-poll-82-of-crimeans-support-annexation.html

    NotRevJimJones -> TOR2000

    Begorrah! Yis talking sense, so the eejits are sure to ignore yer... TOR2000

    Has someone hoped that sanctions would change Russia's behavior? Fire your advisers, Russia's anti-American fever goes beyond the Soviet era's: More than 80 percent of Russians now hold negative views of the United States, according to the independent Levada Center, a number that has more than doubled over the past year and that is by far the highest negative rating since the center started tracking those views in 1988.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russias-anti-us-sentiment-now-is-even-worse-than-it-was-in-soviet-union/2015/03/08/b7d534c4-c357-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html
    The anger seems different from the fast-receding jolts of the past, observers say, having spread faster and wider.

    The years of perceived humiliations have "led to anti-Americanism at the grass-roots level, which did not exist before," said Vladimir Pozner, a journalist who for decades was a prominent voice of the Soviet Union in the United States. More recently, he has to explain the United States inside Russia. "We don't like the Americans, and it's because they're pushy, they think they're unique and they have had no regard for anyone else."

    NotRevJimJones -> TOR2000, 46m ago

    Justified antiamericanism, no?

    NotRevJimJones, 2h ago

    The military operation was initially kept secret and despite the increasingly obvious actions of unmarked Russian forces on the ground, Moscow insisted that only locals were involved in the upheaval. Later, the Kremlin conceded that it had been behind the power grab.

    This is false. Repeatedly, translations from Russian to English are manipulated to imply emphasis that is not apparent in the original Russian.
    Crimean opolchenie blockaded Ukrainian military installations, with Russian forces ensuring there was no conflagration, and once Crimeans voted for secession, 70% of Ukrainian armed forces in Crimea chose to transfer to Russian authority. All the Kremlin admitted to was the deployment of forces to ensure the peaceful transfer of authority from rejected Kiev, first to Simferopol, and then by referendum, to Moscow.
    Of course this accorded with the wishes of the Kremlin, but to puncture the conspiracy theorists' wild accusations, this transfer of authority happened to concur with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Crimea.

    So, ultimately, we have a populace, Crimeans, who are overwhelmingly Russian, who overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia, who have by plebiscite become part of Russia, and have avoided the carnage of Donbass because, unlike in Donbass, Russian forces were in situ to stop Kiev's punitive attacks.

    And this is a bad thing?

    normankirk -> NotRevJimJones, 1h ago

    Well said.
    NotRevJimJones -> normankirk, 49m ago
    Yet no matter how frequently the obvious is stated, it feels like pissing in the wind...

    luc001, 2h ago

    Ukrainian commies did not take a vote to Annex Crimea from Russia, so none is required to Re-Unite Crimea with Russia.

    Kaiama, 7h ago

    The other side's point of view...via yandex machine translation superior to google.

    According to the Russian President, "the ultimate goal was to give people the opportunity to Express their opinion about how they want to live". "We are the results of the referendum know", - said Vladimir Putin.

    MOSCOW, 9 Mar RIA Novosti. Russian President Vladimir Putin told the details of the events of March last year, when the result of the referendum Crimea was joined to Russia. In the documentary "the Crimea. The way Home", a fragment of which showed the channel "Russia 1", he told me that shortly before the referendum conducted a sociological survey to find out how the idea of returning to the Russian Federation are Crimeans themselves.

    "It turned out that those wishing to join Russia there 75% of the total composition. You understand, was held closed poll, outside the context of a possible accession. It became evident to me that if we get to it, the level or amount of those who would like to this historic event has occurred, will be much higher," said the Russian President.

    "The ultimate goal was to give people the opportunity to Express their opinion about how they want to live.... I thought to myself, if people want, then so be it. It means that they will be there with greater autonomy, with some rights, but as part of the Ukrainian state. So let it be. But if they choose differently, then we can't leave them! We are the results of the referendum know. And we did as you were obliged to do," said Putin.

    Crimea and Sevastopol became the Russian regions after held there in March 2014 referendum in which the majority of residents were in favour of joining the Federation. According to the Treaty of accession, all residents of Crimea are recognized as citizens of Russia, wrote a statement that I want to leave the citizenship of Ukraine. According to the FMS, the disclaimer from Russian citizenship filed only 3 427 people. Just Crimea is home to about 2 million people. Kiev, despite the results of the referendum, still considers the Crimea territory.

    Crimea did not recognize the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian authorities decided to hold a referendum on the future of the region. The vote was held on 16 March 2014. In the Bulletin were made to two questions: "are You for the reunification of the Crimea with Russia on the rights of the subject of the Russian Federation?" and "are You for the restoration of the Constitution of the Republic of Crimea in 1992 and over the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?"

    The majority of voters (96,77%) when appearing in 83.1% of voted for reunification with Russia. The corresponding agreement was signed on 18 March, he was subsequently approved by the state Duma and the Federation Council. They also took the Federal constitutional law on the formation of two new subjects of the Russian Federation - Republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed both documents. Previously, Putin said that the referendum in Crimea is consistent with international law and the UN Charter.

    [Mar 10, 2015] A Europe-U.S. Divorce Over Ukraine

    Mar 10, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

    The German government finally wakes up, a little bit at least, and recognizes the obvious fact that U.S. neocons want to drag Europe into a war. It is now openly blaming certain circles within the U.S. government and NATO of sabotaging the Minsk ceasefire agreement. Especially offensive is the fantasy talk of U.S. and NATO commander General Breedlove:

    For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.

    The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.

    But Breedlove hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.

    Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel's diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove's bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

    The U.S., including Obama, wants to strengthen the U.S. run NATO and thereby its influence in Europe. And Europe, by losing business with Russia and risking war, is supposed to pay for it.

    The German public, despite tons of transatlantic propaganda, has well understood the game and the government can not escape that fact. It has to come back to some decent course and if that means trouble with Washington so be it. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and the U.S. are currently meeting in Paris and Secretary of State Kerry will not like what he will hear:

    In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing goals.

    Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow's influence in the region and destabilize Putin's power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow.

    Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government and leader then the largely liberal Putin.

    The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States. If production capabilities in Europe get destroyed through war the U.S. could revive its export industries.

    It seems that at least some European leaders now understand that they got played by Washington and they are pushing back. A Eurasian economic sphere is in Europe's interest. Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance with Europe? A first sign looks positive. The U.S. called off, on short notice, a plan to train Ukrainian National Guard (i.e. Nazi) forces:

    [O]n Friday, a spokesman for US forces in Europe, confirmed the delay in a statement and said: "The US government would like to see the Minsk agreement fulfilled."

    "The training mission is currently on hold but Army Europe is prepared to carry out the mission if and when our government decides to move forward," the statement said.

    Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But the surge in Afghanistan, the destruction of Libya, the war on Syria and the trouble in Ukraine have all been run by the same propaganda scheme: Obama does not want war, gets pushed and then reluctantly agrees to it. It is a false view. The buck stops at his desk and Nuland as well as General Breedlove and other official hawks concerned about their precious bodily fluids are under Obama's direct command. He can make them shut up or get them fired with a simple 30 second phone call. As he does not do so it is clear that he wants them to talk exactly as they do talk. Obama is the one driving the neocon lane.

    The Europeans should finally get this and distance themselves from that destructive path.

    Posted by b on March 7, 2015 at 01:09 PM | Permalink

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 7, 2015 2:05:22 PM | 1

    Great analysis b.
    Loved this bit...

    The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.

    It's rather insulting to the EU that the dumbass, gutless, Yankees would appoint a war-mongering chicken-hawk called Breedlove to lecture them about The Importance Of Being Ernest - about hating Putin.

    jayc | Mar 7, 2015 2:47:21 PM | 2

    "the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action."

    Insisting that the "threat of military action" always be present during the practice of international diplomacy is a fundamental repudiation of international law as proscribed by the United Nations at the end of WW2. In the current Orwellian situation, the foreign policy hawks (in particularly the Anglo 5 Eyes countries) articulate policy informed by this repudiation while on the other hand insisting that they are motivated by upholding mid-century international law. Here is John Boehner speaking for a bi-partisan Congressional committee quoted today in the Washington Times:

    "It is even more than simply a component of a revisionist Russian strategy to redraw international borders and impose its will on its neighbors,it is a grotesque violation of international law, a challenge to the west and an assault on the international order established at such great cost in the wake of World War II."

    ToivoS | Mar 7, 2015 2:59:09 PM | 3

    When this crisis in Ukraine first broke out last year it made no sense at all for Obama to have let Nuland carry on as she was doing. He could have defused the whole thing simply by firing Nuland or I thought. However, his actions over the past year seem to show that this was his policy as b says here.

    It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against Russia.

    So why did we do it? I will guess. Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US. Fear of losing or at least lessening US hegemony over Europe was probably a major factor in deciding to 'pivot back to Europe'. Our influence there must have seemed much more important than Asia or even the ME. Ukraine provided an opportunity to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe or so US power brokers thought. As a secondary reason, at least one that brought the US military on board with the new policy, is that a new cold war with Russia provided an opportunity to reinvigorate NATO, that has always been a favorite play thing the army and airforce. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was very difficult to justify NATO's existence.

    It would be ironies of ironies if this crisis now forces Germany to declare its independence and work harder to rebuild relations with Russia and in the process become a major player in the Eurasian Union. This is what Pepe Escobar just suggested this last week is a possibility.

    Laurence | Mar 7, 2015 3:04:18 PM | 4

    Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But ...

    You may be correct. But:

    You haven't established that the evident appearance of `reluctance' is a "false view". In theory, "The buck stops at his desk". The obvious fact that it hasn't, however, is -- at best -- by no means creditable.

    I can hardly wait 'til the `progressive' Twittercrats start calling for Obama to "go nuclear" with Putin. ...

    Colinjames | Mar 7, 2015 3:05:26 PM | 5

    #2, I guess he's taking his cues from Noodles, here's some highlights from her Match 4 address to Foreign Affairs Committee, lifted from Stephen Lendman
    • calledd murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."
    • ...called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at peace.'
    • Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs "peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."
    • "They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms."

    Claims-

    • "enhance(d) (Ukrainian) transparency in public procurement, reduce(d) government inefficiency and corruption, (laws) making the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate for business"
    • "it's "building a peaceful, democratic, independent" nation
    • ... Crimea "under illegal occupation"
    • in Eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."
    • "MH17 was shot down. Hundreds of Russian heavy weapons and troops poured across the border, fueling the conflict."
    • "Sixteen Russian uninspected 'humanitarian convoys' entered Ukraine in violation of agreements with the Ukrainian government, the ICRC and the international community."
    • "Donetsk airport was obliterated…Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the ceasefire lines, fell to separatist and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed…"
    • "This is a manufactured conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons; financed at Russian taxpayers' expense and costing the lives of young Russians…"

    Bizzaro world. Completely upside down from reality. And no I'm not trying to one up you #2! It's just crazy stuff coming out of the mouths of every politician and official and media whore, I've never seen anything like it.

    Wayoutwest | Mar 7, 2015 3:07:24 PM | 6

    Good report, b especially including the fact that this is a bipartisan project led by the Liberal Democrats.

    The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.

    james | Mar 7, 2015 3:25:46 PM | 7

    thanks b.. some good points in your post which i strongly share, this one in particular - The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States.

    when does this nightmare called us foreign policy die?

    Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 4:47:47 PM | 8

    "Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government and leader then the largely liberal Putin."

    What is wrong with those two sentences? First, "Europe", a landmass in western Eurasia usually demarcated by the crests of Ural and Caucasus mountain chains and Ural river. The text refers mostly to the governments of France and Germany. Who are "NATO hawks"? Danes and Norwegians, latter day Varangians? Or Latvians and Estonians who would like to have a re-match of Battle on Ice? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice_(Lake_Peipus)

    Second, "The result …" This has to be a joke. "Europe" has many headaches with the governments of Greece and Hungary, but can they change them? Actually, in the case of Greece, this sentence could make sense, because in Greece they have a real opportunity of causing a government crisis and getting a more extreme government. But in the case of Russia, it is only a question of having a long-term gain in mutually assured economic destruction, or not.

    Double-talk is bread and butter of diplomacy, but we simple folk can afford to express ourselves more directly. The real problem in arming Ukraine is that the government there is untrustworthy and it would probably use the aid to further neglect the economy and concentrate even more on futile military endeavor, and it could also commit some atrocities as it would be at it. Being "a little bit Nazi" is perfectly fine with Baltic governments and Croatia, plus USA and Canada, could be fine with Hungary but the leader there is constantly on the prowl for good deals and just now got one from Putin, and causes mixed feeling elsewhere.

    So the trillion dollar question for most responsible European leaders is if US is more trustworthy than Poroshenko crew?

    jfl | Mar 7, 2015 5:09:32 PM | 11

    Yes, good analysis. Especially the Empire of Chaos' goal of reimplementing the aftermath of WWII : everyone outside North America flat on their backs and the US the colossus by virtue of still standing. But ...

    ' Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance with Europe? ... Obama is the one driving the neocon lane. '

    Whether it's the neocon line or in the neocon lane, Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.

    The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the actors actually implementing it by turn are identified. The Nihilist Nobel Peace Prize Laureate gets dunked everytime, hauls himself out of the tank, climbs back up on the stool, makes faces and jeers at the crowd throwing balls at the trip target ... all absurdly trying to effect a change in policy.

    It's just a job ... 2,236 days down, 686 days till payday.

    Mar 7, 2015 5:21:18 PM | 12

    @8,9,10

    Thanks for the analysis with Russia at the center rather than the USA. Catchy restatement of the difference between 'the chicken then the egg' vs 'the egg then the chicken'.

    I'm rooting for Russia, and Putin's been in charge there. Of course, I'm really rooting for my USA, but for my USA to survive the present oligarchy must be defeated : the Chicken's neck must be wrung and its carcasse flung into the stew pot.

    dan of steele | Mar 7, 2015 6:31:13 PM | 13

    it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. There was quite a lot of support for Tymoshenko from Merkel including her drive to boycott the Ukraine when Tymoshenko had been imprisoned for embezzlement.

    she was also promoting Vitaly Klitschko for the longest time abruptly ending when Vickie Nuland let it be known that he was not accceptable as a leader of Ukraine.

    The German government has been a very willing stooge of the US in causing or continuing the unrest in Ukraine. That many people in Germany have suffered due to this behavior from sanctions and embargoes on both the European side as well as the Russian side might be a consequence that the German elite decided they could live with rather than simply something forced upon them from the US.

    As far as I can tell, the fecal matter hit the air moving device right after Yanukovich decided to maintain close economic ties with Russia rather than throw in with the EU. EU for all intents and purposes Germany.

    just a thought. ymmv

    JohnH | Mar 7, 2015 7:16:23 PM | 19

    "The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United States."

    And it does not appear that the US cares what happens to Europe, either. If sanctions on Iran hurt European business, meh. If sanctions on Russia push Europe back into recession...meh.

    Maybe someday Europe will get a clue...

    Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:02:30 PM | 20

    I felt like I was reading the lyin-ass New York Times. (How do these so-called journalists get ANY work done with all that CIA/StateDept/JSOC cock in their mouth? Inquiring minds want to know. Anyway…)

    Germany is presented like an old grandma, wringing her hands and saying, "Oh, mercy me! Can't we all just get along?" … If it wasn't for that dang Gen. Breedlove…except, well, he's actually right, don't you know, except, OK, he exaggerates a bit. There's LOTS of Russia aggression, and we have proof we won't show you…but not as much as he says. I mean, credibility, and all, right?…And that Vicki Nuland, well, she's bitch we all agree, but she gets things done and sometimes you need to get tough, don't ya know. She "loves Russia" (yeah, I bet…like I love a nice rare steak….sliced sooooo thin.) So…come on, dial it back a little won't you guys over in Langley…?

    This seemed to me like CIA drizzle from Der Spigot!

    A few carefully breaded pieces of True served with a piquant sauce of Lies and a side of Dissembling and Disinformation. One of those articles that is structured like, "yeah, true…BUT!"

    ToivoS @ | 3

    Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US.

    So says Mike Whitney in an important post re Nemtsov's assassination over at Counterpunch. I agree with you and him. I wonder what Uncle Ruslan thinks? He must have some ideas, having lived with Graham Fuller for all this those years.

    Colinjames @ 5

    Those excerpts really infuriated me. I have the most terrible desire to bitch slap Vicki Nudelman until she falls down and begs me to stop. I see her face and my hand itches. I need to stop watching Jess Franco movies.

    Wayoutwest @ 6

    The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.

    Ayuh. I agree, with you (see above) --and dan of steele's very excellent and needful post at 13. Germany's in this shit up to their eyeballs. I recall reading in "The Brothers" that after WW2 the CIA just basically took over (and presumably still owns) German intelligence. Took their Nazis in and kept all the spy lines and assets. Gladio was an outgrowth of that, I guess.

    But I don't think the blood-thirsty vampires in the US can dial it back. They are all up in that snatch (to slightly paraphrase a vulgar version of the Petraeus bio's title that actually got shown on US news.)

    Piotr Berman's delightful rants at 18 @ 19

    What interesting ideas and insights you bring to the discussion. If you don't mind saying, are you German? If I was a German citizen I would be very upset and I have read that, like here in the States, this Ukraine shit combined with NSA spying combined with that book about how all the media are CIA assets has caused a crisis of confidence between reasonably-informed citizens and dissembling government, media, military, etc.


    I agree with all the posters here saying that Obama has never had hold of the levers of power. A few, yes. But what with the "tunneling" of political appointees transformed into civil servants at the end of the Bush admin…yeah, no. And that's not the only reason…just one.

    jfl | Mar 7, 2015 8:11:20 PM | 21

    @13

    Certainly Germany is covetous of Russia/the Ukraine. And Merkel, like Obama, knows how to get along by going along with the ones who brung her. Used to be the Russians in East Germany, are now the Americans in West/Unified Germany.

    Both are puppets, 'loyal' to the their puppeteers. The rest of the EU apparat are in the pocket of the US, and dance to the same tune piped to Obama.

    Germany on its own is not capable of subduing Russia, yet hopes to be in position to reap the benefits of the US' destruction of same.

    They're all losers, betting on making a killing, benefiting from their neighbors' collapse. Their neighbors have other ideas ... must have to survive. TIAA.

    Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:33:21 PM | 22

    jfl @ 21

    Love your vampires and vultures scenario. Tolstoy's Vourdalak or the folkloric Russian
    Волколак or Volkolak is what I've been thinking of late, because I am a Mario Bava kind of gal.

    You know, Russia is one of the few countries NOT 110% indebted to German/London/Wall Street/Brussels banks. Seems to me that definitely has something to do with all this. They've got something to plunder. (Lotta gold. yum!) I bet there's some truth to the assertion that the flaming tire of blame for global economic collapse is being readied for Russia's neck...just in case. We're very close.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 7, 2015 9:02:57 PM | 25

    Demian @ 23

    WTF did Germany THINK was going to come of this?

    But perhaps there is no one Germany. I can only suppose that it must be like it is here in the US...different factions with their own power bases pulling their own levers.

    Benu | Mar 7, 2015 8:48:57 PM | 24

    @24 I think the plan was for a rapid victory in Ukraine and Putin just stomping his feet. Keeping Crimea, the uprisings, and the general thuggery/incompetence in Kiev weren't in the plans. The Chinese didn't defend Russia against accusations about flight #mh17, the Chinese openly scoffed at the West not even giving fools like Kerry the time of day.

    German firms were supposed to win contracts replacing Russian firms not see the SCO grow and face losses from self-imposed sanctions. Merkel and people in her sphere overdid the rhetoric. Voters won't forget a major propaganda change, and Merkel and her ilk know this but can't see how to get out of the mess especially with Kiev in need of European cash.

    PBenu | Mar 7, 2015 9:19:53 PM | 26

    NotTimmeh @ 25

    So, you seem to be saying that this is rather like what WoW maintains...an offering of an exit ramp to the US...because Germany really, really wants off this highway to hell.

    Hideous to think they were all for it when it looked like easy rapings and little to no consequences.

    International finance needs to be dismantled. That's what's behind all this shit. Bankster's wars.

    Helena Cobban | Mar 7, 2015 9:31:25 PM | 27

    The practices of Ms. Nuland (taking cookies out to support the demonstrators during the "Maidan" actions) echoed exactly those of Amb. Robert Ford in Syria. In both cases it was a strange perversion and repudiation of traditional standards of diplomatic practice. It was not just a Nuland aberration.

    And we've seen the outcome, a few years later, in both these war-ravaged countries. God help the people of both countries.

    Pluto | Mar 7, 2015 9:52:56 PM | 28

    @3 ToivoS

    Interesting points you make. I believe what we have here IS the pivot to Asia, - through the backdoor. The US is haunted by the inevitable rise of Eurasia as a superpower. And, the fact is, the "pivot" was unrealistic and a rather silly strategy. China's New Silk Road Economic Belt, both rail and maritime - stretching from Beijing through Russia and across Europe to Madrid (with spurs to India, Iran, the ME and down the African continent) - was a preemptive strike that neutered US aspirations. Even worse, it's already funded.

    Picture the US on the globe: Isolated and alone, separated from the lively Eastern Hemisphere by two vast oceans. Adrift, stewing in its own juices, in desperate need of a world war to elevate it once again out of its economic doom and into super-stardom.

    This is further evidenced by the US desperation over the TPP and TTIF. It has reached a fever pitch, with endless negotiations inside the super-secret US "cone of silence." For the US, these corporate-ruled trade agreements are their last hope for hegemony over global trade, especially now that the Petrodollar is dead. (Another consequence of the Ukraine stupidity.) But, both trade treaties seem to be failing badly (there are anti-TTIF demonstrations throughout Germany today). In any event, China rendered them both irrelevant with APEC and the New Silk Road, which popped into existence the very instant that the US stepped into the Ukraine tar pit. For China, they are done deals. Even Australia and New Zealand have come to their senses and seem to be climbing on board.

    Surely, Europe already knows this. They've seen many empires decline. I suppose its only prudent to string the US along and contain the chaos....

    Demian | Mar 7, 2015 9:58:02 PM | 29

    @Helena Cobban #27:

    God help the people of both countries.

    Well, no one knows whether either one of them will continue to exist, do they? The Kremlin's intention is clearly to keep Ukraine's territory as it is (sans Crimea; that question is closed), but Ukraine is increasingly entering into full-spectrum social collapse, so wha the outcome will be is unpredictable, especially since the Ukraine was an artificial country to begin with, patched together from the territories of other countries.

    As for Syria, I am all for secular states in the Islamic world, like Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya before the US destroyed them. Our fan of the Islamic State Wayoutwest can say much more about this than I can, but it is possible that states created by Sykes-Picot will disappear, to be replaced by a caliphate. In the larger scheme of things, that would be a good thing because

    (1) even though the caliphate would initially have a regressive form of Islam, once Arabs are in control of their own destiny, they will not fear engaging in reforms;

    (2) a caliphate would create one more pole for the emerging multipolar world.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 7, 2015 10:13:03 PM | 30

    @26 They are giving Obama an out and blame can be heaped on Nuland and Breedlove. Rasmussen didn't make the Der Spiegel article, and he is completely deranged as anyone outside of GOP politics.

    IMHO Obama only responds to extreme embarrassment. Offering him an out won't work without tying Obama and Nuland at the hip.

    It's overlooked, but in 2012 when Obama came out for gay marriage, he cloaked his support in nonsense about state rights but only after his campaign machine had worked against an effort in North Carolina to defeat anti-gay/woman/child referendum. There were political reasons, but there was a growing anger. Biden saw this and just randomly announced Obama's pro gay marriage views. It took three days, but Obama got around to tepidly endorsing a form of gay marriage. Obama only acted because Biden forced his hand. It took almost two weeks after everyone in the U.S. knew Shinseki from the Veteran Affairs Department for Obama to dismiss him when Shinseki should have been fired right away, but Obama only acts when faced with total embarrassment.

    fast freddy | Mar 7, 2015 10:14:08 PM | 31

    Obama is a puppet. Cheney, Kissinger, Negroponte, GHWBush and friends, CIA, Brzezinski, Rockefeller, etc. Deep State pulls his strings. Obama was himself a CIA protege at BIC. There are no pesky principles to contend with.

    And he is not allowed to fire Nuland or any other neocon warmonger.

    Did you see what they did to JFK for stepping out of line?

    @ jfl | 11

    But exactly!

    Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.

    The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the actors actually implementing it by turn are identified.

    Pluto | Mar 7, 2015 10:45:33 PM | 34

    Although it seems there are two schools of thought about that around here, this has been my assumption from the beginning.


    @3 ToivoS

    Forgot to mention,: You spoke of consequences. That is of particular interest, I believe, and speaks to the destiny of the US as it stumbles about on the world stage, without future awareness.

    It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against Russia.

    There are more than a few significant unintended consequences that have come in short order as a result of the Ukraine blunder. For example:

    • Certainly killing the Petrodollar is a big one, which was the natural result of pushing China and Russia into the biggest oil/gas deal in world history, specifically written to bypass the dollar.
    • Compelling Gazprom to divert the destination of the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea from Bulgaria to Turkey, with the distribution hub ending in Greece. So now Turkey and Greece control the fuel coming into West and South Europe. That's quite the geopolitical accomplishment.
    • Pushing Iran into the BRICS. Russian allies are pulling together in many interesting ways these days. US sanctions have become toothless.
    • The oil pricing scheme backfiring on the US economy. I'm of the school that oil overproduction was a direct attack on Russia and the usual suspects: Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. I'm also of the opinion that the US has lost control of OPEC.

    The US is paying a mighty high price for its neocon folly.

    Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 10:55:20 PM | 35

    In response to questions, I used my real name, I am Polish citizen living in USA.

    European elite, including Germany and France, are almost instinctively aligning themselves with American elite, but they take exception to a favorite American trick: penciling a grandiose plan to be paid by EU.

    Russian counter-sanctions fall on Europeans, and it is pointless to quibble if "dollar is dead" -- it is not, but USA will not pay to integrate Turkey and Ukraine with EU, to cite some of the grandiose ideas. German conservatives in particular are notorious bean counters, they generously paid to integrate Eastern Germany, but are much less enthusiastic to have foreign beneficiaries. (In Poland, the consensus is that it is OK to help Ukrainians, provided that it will not cost anything. There is also a minority that hates Ukrainians more than Russians, and younger folks seem not to care at all.)

    As it is, EU duly enacted sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia, and Merkel is resolute at sending mixed signals, so to some extend there is no "divorce". If anything, they are on the same wavelength as Obama. Recall how Europe resisted joining Bush jr. war in Iraq. "New Europe", including Poland, provided a bunch of little contingents, and that proved to be quite unpopular domestically. Even so, regime change in Libya was accomplished mostly by Europeans, and this is perhaps one of the unique successes in history that has a dearth of claimants. On the heals of that feat, even ever supine Brits rebelled when they had a chance to repeat the success in Syria. The belief that "Americans surely know what they are doing" is eroding even as we scribble. But so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".

    I guess Putin will graciously lift sanctions on Hungarian and Greek produce, Ukraine will get some weapons and training, but not a hell lot -- seriously, what scale of military aid would truly make a difference?

    TikTok | Mar 7, 2015 11:42:48 PM | 36

    Harper has given citizenship to Yatsenyuk in case 'something goes wrong'. Fcuk. http://www.pravda.ru/news/world/formerussr/ukraine/06-03-2015/1251452-yacenyk-0/

    james | Mar 8, 2015 12:02:59 AM | 37

    @35 piotr.. thanks for pointing out euro's role in libya and how nothing is going to change, as i personally believe just like the usa is bought and paid for, so is germany and france.. to suggest there will be much of a fracture is to suggest the international banker mafia don't have these politicians on the same page. i think they do.. whether they get elected again, or the required politicians to do the job of the bankers do - i think they do..

    as for obama being anything other then a rubber stamp - i agree with @31 fast freddy.. step out of line and look what you will get.. it is hard not to be cynical..

    @36 tiktok.. what a pathetic pos we have for a leader here in canada, but like i say about most of these western leaders and to which i include harper - they are all beholden to the same narrow interests that have nothing to do with the common people's interest.. they continue to think we are stupid or worse..

    Demian | Mar 8, 2015 12:04:56 AM | 38

    @Piotr Berman #35:

    so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".

    There does not need to be any European alternative. And the EU is dominated by Germany, the intelligence services of which, as someone here observed recently, are infiltrated by the CIA (although there was a report that Germany is now setting up a branch of its intelligence service independent of USG). The alternative is Russia. It is too late for Europeans to come up with alternatives. (They did that first with Hegel and then with Marx, but neither attempt held.) Europeans just need to realize that since the world is becoming multipolar, they belong in the Eurasian pole, not a contrived Atlanticist one.

    Russia has grave flaws, an Europeans can help Russians fix those, if Europeans make a break with the predatory and anti-human Anglosphere.

    Nana2007 | Mar 8, 2015 12:16:52 AM | 40

    The push back is far too late. The gorgon Nuland and Dr Strangelove himself Zed Breszinski testifying before the mouth breathers of the foreign affairs committee this week continued to ratchet up the rhetoric:
    "I wonder how many people in this room or this very important senatorial committee really anticipated that one day Putin would land military personnel in Crimea and seize it. I think if anybody said that's what he is going to do, he or she would be labeled as a warmonger. He did it. And he got away with it. I think he's also drawing lessons from that. And I'll tell you what my horror, night-dream, is: that one day, I literally mean one day, he just seizes Riga, and Talinn. Latvia and Estonia. It would literally take him one day. There is no way they could resist. And then we will say, how horrible, how shocking, how outrageous, but of course we can't do anything about it. It's happened. We aren't going to assemble a fleet in the Baltic, and then engage in amphibious landings, and then storm ashore, like in Normandy, to take it back. We have to respond in some larger fashion perhaps, but then there will be voices that this will plunge us into a nuclear war

    I'll tell you what Brezinski's real horror night dream is dying before the US attempts a full on takeover of Russia. Whether Germany likes it or not they'll continue to be a pawn in the dark lords 8 dimensional chess game. It's a little late to be thinking twice now that the breadbasket of Europe is a basket case. The hope is that the whooping that's coming to the USSA shakes out the aristocracy that brought it about and sends them fleeing with nothing but their assholes.

    Harold | Mar 8, 2015 3:48:14 AM | 43

    Oddly, Brzezinski himself not too long ago recommended the "Finlandization" of Ukraine. The neo-cons and armaments industry have adopted a cartoonish version of his theories -- which, in any case, hark back to the Geographical Pivot theory dating to 1904! It's become a crude dogma that doesn't even rise to the level of ideology.

    Prosperous Peace | Mar 8, 2015 5:20:41 AM | 44

    Decent analysis but misses two important points:

    1) "Special British-US relationship" - US has been a British colony for at least last 100 years, ie. a muscle-man for the Rothschildes-Jewish-Zionist cabal with its HQ in the City of London, Israel plays a "mad dog" role for them, Canada, Australia, and many other in the Commonwealth have their parts to play too. Because Obama since the evening of his reelection turned against the Crow Corporation, they have been forced to increasingly rely on themselves and other subjects - notice rapidly intensifying British military presence in the Central (Poland, which is situated at the very heart of the continent) and Eastern Europe (Baltic republics), as well as in the ME - Bahrain, police force now on the Turkish-Syrian border. Also British lying propaganda has been very intense, by far the worst in the EU. The neocons, McCain, Soros et al respond to the Rothschildes, always have. The British have been leading the charge recently and you will see more and more of this soon.

    2) Obama's team has been under the threats form the global criminal cabal many times itself. Security breaches at the White House, warnings of assassination, "third force" trying to start a civil war in the US by abusing the police powers and killing the police officers, fake social movements menacing the White House with "marches" like the one of Jewish Adam Kokesh...

    Summing up - it's been the City of London pulling the strings all along and Obama have been in danger of a violent overthrow already for some time.

    somebody | Mar 8, 2015 5:40:49 AM | 45

    RE: Piotr Berman | Mar 7, 2015 10:55:20 PM | 35

    You are right about the issue of paying for grandiose plans.

    Seems though that Europeans are really pissed off.

    Jean Claude Juncker calls for European Army with headquarters in Brussels

    Key sentence

    Juncker wies zugleich auf die organisatorischen und finanziellen Vorteile des Vorhabens hin. So würde es zu einer intensiven Zusammenarbeit bei Entwicklung und Kauf von militärischem Gerät führen und erhebliche Einsparungen bringen.

    Brief translation: Juncker highlighted the organizatorial and financial advantages. Cooperation in the development and procurement of military equipment could be shared and save considerable amounts.

    jfl | Mar 8, 2015 8:13:07 AM | 46

    German official says Saudi Arabia top 'terror exporter' in Mideast
    [Vice President of the German Parliament (Bundestag) Claudia] Roth called Riyadh "the top terror exporter in the Middle East," adding that "a large portion" of extremist militants in Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq hail from Saudi Arabia.

    Germany's guidelines on weapons exports make it "crystal clear that deliveries cannot be made to such countries," she stressed.

    "Besides the weapons deals, Germany is also discussing other trade ties with Saudi Arabia," she said. "Pressure could certainly be brought to bear using these."

    The results of a recent survey conducted for German daily Bild have shown that 78 percent of Germans believe Berlin should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, while a further 60 percent favor breaking off trade relations all together with the Persian Gulf monarchy due to its human rights violations.

    Great place for the crack to open up/spread from/to Ukraine.

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 10:42:49 AM | 49

    I would note that Merkel working with Timoshenko was more likely a tactical move - one in which Germany would get some leverage vs. Russia regarding natural gas moving through Ukraine as well as benefits within Ukraine.

    This is very different than the American tactic of exaggerating ethnic tensions on order to create a failed state a la Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, ad nauseam. American doesn't necessarily intend to create a failed state - the correct view is that the goal is a puppet regime, but a failed state in someone else's backyard is almost as good...or good enough.

    I'd also note that this is different than the British Empire tactic - the British would also arm "their" rebels, but they would put skin in the game (soldiers on the ground) in order to ensure that they wound up with the correct puppet regime.

    It is still unclear to me whether the American abridgement of Byzantine/Ottoman/British Empire tactics is an evolution or a devolution.

    dh | Mar 8, 2015 11:02:42 AM | 50

    @49 I think America has always attempted to maintain the 'good guy' facade. Since 911 it's been more like 'no more Mr. Niceguy'.

    guest77 | Mar 8, 2015 11:05:10 AM | 51

    If the EU and Russia can edge the United States out of the situation, it is a win/win for everyone except the US, who will have seen $5B and an old Cold War dream go up in smoke.

    If the US can be ejected, it will be the EU and especially the Germans who have gained the most mightily by the Maidan. The partition of Ukraine - getting rid of those parts that did vote more heavily for the Party of Regions and the Communists, leaves the EU with a "Orange", oligarchical Ukraine forever. A Ukrainian horse that the EU can hitch their currently broken cart to, a huge area for Germany to dominate in the heart of Europe - (one of Germany's oldest dreams). It's not something I'd personally wish on the Ukrainian population, but Ukraine becoming a proper EU member would require the suppression of the Nazis who, if they are not, would at least be loud, violent, internal opposition allied with the trouble-making USA, or at worst would try and wage a disruptive terrorist war over Crimea and the East.

    Would this situation be acceptable to Russia? Wins there would be the retention of Crimea with no question as to its return to the rump Ukraine, plus the advantage of having the US out of the Ukraine completely and having caused an EU/US fissure. The status of the East would have to be determined, but it would seem that independence or becoming part of Russia would be the best bets there now that they'd no longer be able to offset the vote of the far west.

    Anyway, that's all details. The real good thing here - for people all over the globe - would be that the war-making US elite would have been ejected from another region where they've been making trouble.

    chalo | Mar 8, 2015 11:26:00 AM | 52

    Ah, the utopian dreams of the unwashable internet junky. Germany will never reject the US. You heard it hear first. LOL

    Scott | Mar 8, 2015 11:42:29 AM | 53

    So far when it comes to any "divide" all I've seen is rhetoric and posturing. Considering the Fourth Reich and it's vassals are owned and controlled by the same puppet-masters I don't see any actual schism happening. Small European countries that actively resist will find a "color" revolution brewing. Large nations who actually push back will be hit with economic warfare. The courage to stand up for their people and stop the lunatics in D.C. doesn't exist in the currant political actors in Europe. I truly hope I'm wrong, but until we see DEEDS instead of mere WORDS...the steady slide toward war will continue.

    rufus magister | Mar 8, 2015 11:43:22 AM | 54

    ...To get back on topic, Russia Insider considers the broader question of the regime's attitudes; the open fascism of the junta is I think at root of much of European unease. Kiev's Drive to Dehumanize East Ukrainians is certainly a key component of that mentality.

    purple | Mar 8, 2015 11:59:18 AM | 55

    All the European leaders are compromised in some way, the NSA probably has everything they have written, said, or done in a database. Merkel looks to have been involved in some shady activities in East Germany if you look closely enough. Don't expect Europe to break from Pax Americana.

    Wayoutwest | Mar 8, 2015 12:24:05 PM | 56

    RM@54

    I think that the unease in Europe about the rise of open fascism is superficial and more a PR concern than true opposition at least among the Ruling Class. So long as fascism serve their purposes and feeds their true agendas but remains obscured it is supported and protected.

    OT again, many of us Oldies experienced music somewhat differently than today where albums or sides of albums were how we enjoyed the performances. Even radio DJs were judged by the way they programmed their shows and we were always in search of the perfect segway.

    Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 12:40:07 PM | 57

    Divorce? Hardly. EU want an EU army, http://rt.com/news/238797-eu-joint-army-threat/

    Another US puppet idea.

    rufus magister | Mar 8, 2015 12:53:42 PM | 58

    ...On topic -- the fascism by itself is not too great a worry. That they're incompetent and it will cost someone lots of money to fix things more so. Events may not break up "the Allies" now, but with the proper moves and missteps by the varied parties involved.... Someone's planning a few moves ahead, and I don't think it's DC. Sadly, we can't overlook the power of short-sighted deviousness.

    diogenes | Mar 8, 2015 1:20:48 PM | 60

    It looks to me as if the differences between Obama and Merkel on Ukraine are tactical not strategic, viz:

    Merkel doesn't have to deal with the infamous American "bottom line" every 90 days, and this gives her leisure to actually think about what she is doing.

    German voters have a mind of their own and are not compliant stooges like American voters, who only require a few weeks of cheap propaganda to go along with the most crackpot of schemes. The saying "the burned child fears the fire" does not apply in their case.

    The goal from Merkels point of view must be the neoliberal exploitation of Russia - not bringing Ukraine into NATO, which is only useful in an aggressive war against Russia; or for use as a provocation resulting in the removal of Putin.

    Therefore Merkel has no qualms about putting the Western project against Russia on hold until a more opportune time.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 1:25:48 PM | 61

    Hm, excellent article b, as always, though my first thoughts were, 'overly optimistic' ...

    However, upon some reflection and reconsideration, there does seem to be a confluence/pattern of events occurring recently, which may signal that a real 'Newer Great Game' may be afoot, in our currently Unipolar, sole superpower, Empire dominated world.

    The Minsk agreement was done without US involvement, in fact explicitly excluded US involvement, and the subsequent events of the EU players give every indication of having continued in that vein ... ie. Germany and France clearly acting independent of the Empire ... Poroschenko exposed as a powerless puppet, purely a pawn, a mere agent of influence of the US.

    Now there are firm calls for no new sanctions by the EU, 'give Minsk a chance' ...

    The reports re Breedlove/NATO and German governments new 'perspective' re Ukraine/Russia in this thread ... effectively denouncing the Empires warmongering, baseless propaganda, and willingness to have the EU 'go fuck itself' re Russia/Ukraine for no-ones benefit except the US. History, and US geopolitical strategy repeats ...

    Now the EU (President Junckers) calling for the creation of an EU Integrated Army ... with only the UK and France so far having expressed concerns. France has always had a firm view to an independent military, regardless of NATO. UK view is irrelevant as they are merely viewed as the US suborned 'spoiler' in the EU, so again no surprise and no leverage/clout. Reports are Germany support the EU/Junckers proposal ... claims an integrated EU army would be far more effective and significantly less costly, as well as utilizing EU resources for the EU's benefit, not that of the US. Which would be quite true if micro and macro duplication at all levels was reduced by allocating specific functions and roles to relevant EU nations militaries within such a 'truly integrated' force ... for example, German Armored Corps, French Naval/Marine forces, Spanish Airborne/Airmobile, Italian Air Defence, a smaller member state to speciliaze as MPs, etc. The very proposal implicitly and explicitly would result in the dissolution of NATO, which has only ever been a US political-military agency within Europe serving exclusively the US interest. Such a proposal is NOT for the Empires benefit and very far from a trivial event. The Empire appears to have completely missed this coming ...

    Reports the German government has created a new 'independent' offshoot of the BND, ie. a true German Intelligence service (or the seeds of ?) actually serving German National interests, as opposed to the US created and ever since suborned BND since the end of WWII ... is this also happening 'under the radar' in other EU states ?

    Escalation of explicit diplomatic rhetoric calling out the prime US ally and Empire linchpin in the ME, Saudi Arabia, as the major source of terrorism, in the War on Terra ...

    The extensive Snowden revelations, and fallout (latest blatant example - GEMALTO sims), re AUSCANUKUSNZ (Five-Eyes), could probably have led to the actual realization that there is the US and its four privileged 'Vassals', Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand, first and foremost actually comprising the 'West' as far as the Empire is concerned, and only then so called 'third tier' pseudo allies, such as Germany, France, etc (which are treated as actual 'potential hostiles' by the five eyes), and then lastly all the rest of the 'Barbarians' in the world ... all the Empires sweet words and false comforts/assurances over the years may have finally come home to roost.

    China and Russia, are clearly progressively entering ever closer into an integrated Political/economic/defence anti Empire bloc at multiple levels ... significant overtures between Egypt and Russia, Russia and Iran ... the BRICS economic and South American economic 'exit' from the domination of the Empires Petrodollar and previous economic/political exploitation/dominance.

    Perhaps the Empire and the five eyes have been so busy attempting to 'collect it all' and endlessly pivot from here to there and back again, whilst playing divide and rule from one nation state to the other, filled to the brim with their own exceptionalism, that they have missed the bigger picture, missed seeing the new 'forest' emerging, having paid far to close attention to their brushfires and all those individual trees ...

    OTOH, however, there would appear to be enough concurrent events occurring quickly enough to envisage the ground moving from under the feet of the Empire and the five eyes ... and in plain view ...

    Peace. Salaam. Shalom.

    Noirette | Mar 8, 2015 2:13:07 PM | 63

    .. it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. -- dan of steele at 13.

    You bet. Merkel is an unexamined mover in these stories. (Germany has paid penance and is so cool…not.) Recall the break-up of Yugoslavia, under the radar Germany was the no 1 champion and mover, with the US.

    Merkel has been meddling in Ukraine since forever, due to for a large part to up EU expansionism (Germany is the only country that benefits from the Eurozone, not in an evil or illegit way, all the other countries agreed..), to stretch out again, for more territory, cheap labor, factories run at low labor costs, the well-off in 'satellite' countries and elsewhere buying German products, finance ad loans, and so on. See Poland.

    German expansionism! (Not that France is any better but they have less clout so are wimpy followers.) The Eurozone works like that: lend, give, money to poor 'southern' countries so that they buy your goods, when they stop buying or believing, you cut them off, and look for new markets. Or downscale etc.

    Re. Ukraine, the fantasy was it could join the EU (not considered realistic by any reasoned analysts or actors unless talking about 20 years down the road without war) and Merkel pushed that.

    Cuddled up to the US who had other aims, to make it short, provoke Russia, the whole thing was to be wrapped up with a lot of love-handshakes, as the Coup-Kiev Gvmt. was expected to maintain it's hold on a 'unitary' country which would be, it goes without stating, open to new 'industrialism', 'farming', 'reforms' (open up for foreign capital to make huge profits), and/or from the Nuland-type side, attack Russia by cutting ties, banning trade with Russia (see sanctions), forbidding Russian influence, media, commerce, and pushing for war, etc.

    Donbass ppl objected, rose up, and it turned out that the Ukr. Gvmt could not deliver, - no army that could perform, no will, incompetence, also thieves...

    These completely contradictory aims, of the EU and the US, are now public.

    - one pov there are many others

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 2:40:02 PM | 64

    @ Okie Farmer

    Many 'perhaps's and certainly not clear yet what the EU Army proposal truly indicates yet, but Germany is clearly behind and for it ... Ultimately the EU is Germany-France and there are many new possibilities emerging.

    The geopolitical consequences of the reality of the Snowden revelations re the five-eyes conduct/actions/objectives and falsity of supposed alliances for 'mutual' as opposed to exclusive benefit of the Empire at every level may well have triggered recalculations amongst the 'pseudo allies' governments, this may well be the case with Germany, at least.

    Usually very pessimistic, in this instance 'overly optimistic', or momentarily envisioning an alternate possible ?

    Is it really in the EU interests to take a hit for the Empires benefit re Cold War 2.0 or the possibility of WW3 or move towards a less Atlanticist future ?

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 3:21:11 PM | 65

    @dh #50
    With the single exception of the Romans - because they literally ruled everything - every other empire always tries very hard to present the best front.

    The British had their "White Man's Burden", the US had the "American Dream" but which has since been switched with the "War on Terror".

    No doubt because only the least informed believe that old lie anymore.

    Ed Lozano | Mar 8, 2015 3:25:29 PM | 66

    Anonymous #57

    An European Army would be the final act of the divorce from US, since it would be a de facto ending of NATO. No wonder why both US and their major "European" puppet UK radically oppose the idea. NATO's purpose was not only to counter Soviet military, but also to make sure Germany would never "rise again". That purpose is still biding and Germans know it. But under NATO umbrella, there's not much they can do to restore even a glimpse of the military power they had in the past. They "voluntarily" abdicate from developing nuclear weapons and most of their military spending is restricted to defensive air/ground capabilities, instead of means of projecting power such as naval vessels and long-range missiles. However, in an European unified defense system most of these restrictions should be lifted so to allow Germany to fulfill its obligations to the European allies. Most of American military bases would be rendered futile, and it's almost certain that NATO's nuclear silos stationed in Europe would have to be redeployed elsewhere, since an European defense agreement would demand full control of all military assets in European territory. Finally, Eastern Europe would turn to Germany and France instead of US when dealing with Russia, thus bringing more political stability to the region (violent "Maidans" would be less likely in the presence of foreign troops who, unlike Americans, have to answer for their actions when they come back home).

    Needless to say, all these events would be catastrophic for US global domination strategy, since they would lose not only military control over strategic assets in Western Europe, but also major influence in the only part of the European Union they are actually welcome today. But one should remember none of this is new: since its creation European Union was conceived to have its own unified defense system, but this part of the European pact was sabotaged by British and Americans from the beginning. Even French nationalist leader De Gaulle became fond of the idea, but his efforts would be futile while Germany was not reunified and European Union was still a project. And one should notice an unified Europe is still a project today. Eurozone is crumbling, resentment among the periphery is running high and both Germans and French know it. One of the necessary solutions for preserving European Union is a unified defense system, for it would lift the minor associates defense spending burden while allowing the major ones to exert much more effective political influence among them, so to prevent that every economic crisis in those countries become a threat to the stability of the entire bloc itself.

    Noirette #63

    Undoubtedly Germany played a role in Maidan and there's enough evidence of that, but I don't think their objective was to produce a violent divorce between Ukraine and Russia. As far as I know German ambassadors were the major force in bringing to the negotiating table both President Yanukovitch and the opposition groups, who then signed the 21st of February agreement for Constitutional reform and anticipated elections. This agreement was also supported by Russia, and since Germany is the natural interlocutor for Moscow in "European" affairs, I assume the whole thing was arranged by Berlin. Problem is, no one really expected what happened the day after - except of course the Americans who had already decided to sabotage the deal and take it all for themselves, bypassing both Europe and Ukrainian "moderates" (like Yulia Timoshenko) through bribing the major oligarchs and former members of Yanukovitch's cabinet and the use of Right Sector thugs to attack Government buildings and seize power at once.

    Germany won absolutely nothing with this outcome. Sure, Ukraine turned to West, but at what price? Now it's a devastated and bankrupted country with no control over a large portion of its own territory. And guess who will have to pay for their reconstruction? Yes, Germany. Merkel is anything but stupid. She knew from the beginning how Russia would react if threatened in her most sensitive interests. Georgia is not a far off memory for them. So yes, Germans would sure act to topple Yanukovicth if they had the chance, but only in a way "negotiated" with Russia. And that's exactly what they thought they had achieved in February 21st, 2014. Yanukovicth would be turned into a powerless President; there was to be new elections and Merkel's favorite Timoshenko would certainly win; Ukraine would join EU soon; and Russia would have to be satisfied with her Crimea's bases, and nothing more than that. The German plan was going too well, until Vic Nuland decided to f.. the EU once again. And here we are now.

    Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 3:26:40 PM | 67

    Outraged

    Did you miss that the EU mentioned Russia as the reason why EU wanted a EU army? Again, nothing but a US puppet proposal.

    @63,64

    jfl | Mar 8, 2015 4:20:37 PM | 68

    It seems obvious to me that the EU - Germany - is much better off with Russia, the junior partner, than it is with the USA, the dominant partner.

    Ok... but that's the way Germany sees itself vis a vis Russia and the way the US sees itself vis a vis Germany.

    I guess the only question is on the downside of the switch ... how much pain can the US inflict on Germany thereafter?

    And that's relative to how much pain the US' vicious, one-sided schemes can elicit for Germany (the EU) from the Russians. And that seems, everyday in every way, to be increasing.

    I imagine that if the US does get a real war going with Russia they will have tipped the balance ... everything will then get unfrozen and move really quickly.

    The reality will be apparent before news of it reaches our ears. Supersonically.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 4:25:08 PM | 69

    @ Anonymous

    If the intent is to replace NATO would you declare it or justify it 'falsely' by using the Empires propaganda justifications as a false cover ?

    Again with the US puppet proposal crap, and why would the US want to create such a force when it would undermine nay invalidate NATOs very reason for existence for the last 60 plus years. NATO has been a political-military Trojan within Europe effectively controlled and literally commanded by the US, serving US interests for all that time.

    Respectively, and reluctantly your 'point' suggests you are either naive, a fool or trollish, perhaps. Ed Lozano #66 touches on some relevant history and context if you are not aware of it ...

    Ultimately nations only have and act on thier 'interests'.

    okie farmer | Mar 8, 2015 4:53:54 PM | 70

    Too much optimism in this thread. Heads of NATO, both European and US, have been urging NATO countries to "spend more on defense" - also many US politicians. There is a faction in Germany that have 'dreams' of their own MIC. Ukraine offers the chance to fulfill those dreams, they're pushing hard while they see the chance.

    All but two of NATO members are headed by neoliberal scumbags, Greece and Hungary are the exceptions. France and Germany lead the way. Merkel has always been a neoliberal, Hollande has come to it only slightly reluctantly.

    Neoliberalism is what US and EU have most in common - politically/economically. Very important. I don't think Germany has given up on buying up and privatizing as much of Ukraine as they can; and certainly the US based multinational corps are already buying Ukraine's assets - probably those corps in Europe too.

    Perhaps the Spiegel article is a kind of false flag - or not; nonetheless it airs out what I see as a false resistance meme. Merkel, like Thatcher before her, is a committed neoliberal. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE!

    Ed Lozano | Mar 8, 2015 5:15:02 PM | 73

    @Anonymous #71

    The fact that the main "cause" for EU Army is the need containing Russia changes nothing on the discussion about EU-US "divorce". Containing Russia has always been the issue of any Western alliance. Problem is, US and EU have major divergences about how to do it. US favors a far more provocative and offensive approach, by positioning military bases, missile shields and naval fleets around Russian border, and encouraging Russia's neighbors to cut their ties with Moscow and join Western partnerships. Europe on the other hand advocate a strictly defensive pact, that respects Russia's interests and influence over its near abroad.

    The main reason for this divergence is quite easy to understand. European leaders know that in the event of war with Russia, the battlefield will be in their own lands. US on the other hand has nothing to risk and much to gain with a conflict between Russia and Europe, unless of course Russia decides to end the World (but for some odd reason that possibility never comes into account for neocons). But again, the divorce between US and EU is quite clear in this case. And I believe it's needless to say Russia would strongly support an European Army proposal, even if it's main purpose was to counter Russian military. For threats should be perceived not by one's alleged purposes, but by the means one employs to achieve those purposes.

    lysias | Mar 8, 2015 5:16:45 PM | 74

    Yes, the powers that be did that to JFK when he stepped out of line. But they must know that, if they did the same thing to Obama, there would be riots all over the country. So Obama has power that JFK never had, but he's too cowardly or opportunistic to use that power.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 5:23:09 PM | 75

    @ jfl

    Agreed, though the US has always been cowardly, has always avoided risking open conflict with first world countries. It far prefers to have others fight it out between or amongst themselves and benefit from picking up the spoils at little cost afterwards. Everyone else is weaker thier economies damaged and the US relevant power enhanced.

    See the Iran-Iraq war, see the US conduct in WWI, profiting handsomely throughout and only entering the conflict at the last moment once Germany was already on her knees and France and UK were crippled. Rinse and repeat in WwII letting the Nazis and Japanese Empire do their worst and handsomely profiting from all sides until they were dragged in on Dec 07 41. The cost exacted from 'helping' the UK was a takeover of their former empire and relegation to junior poodle vassal status. The UK was required to pay every single last dollar owed including interest accrued for Lend Lease during WWII and they only cleared the debt a few years ago.

    The US doesn't want actual war with Russia, however, ongoing conflict both economic and low-medium military in Europe weakens all the europeans at no cost to and for the further benefit of the Five-eyes.

    Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) works, unless miscalculations happen ...

    It would seem the economic cost to Germany and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU regarding Russia is more than acceptable to the US, which ultimately has little skin in the game, for the US its a win-win, though apparently Germany and the EU? may be developing an entire different perspective, again all comes back to national 'interests'. And there appears to be no upside for Europe's interests re 'fuck the EU' ... even the somewhat rabid Poles are questioning the economic cost of Russia baiting re sanctions which are only hurting Russia and EU, US cost/pain=nil.

    Anonymous | Mar 8, 2015 5:28:06 PM | 76

    okie farmer

    You are right, too much naive folks here suddenly. When people say that the EU army will somehow be "defensive" and will go against America's policies its just get too much to even comment further.

    Outraged | Mar 8, 2015 7:21:58 PM | 78

    @ Okie Farmer

    The Military Commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe - *barf*) is always a US General Officer and says publicly exactly what he is instructed to say by DC (ie. Breedlove), his counterpart the NATO Secretary-General supposedly speaks for all NATO members however due to the US largely rigging the appointments has most often been little more than a rabid Atlanticist warmonger also receiving his talking points from DC, former Anders Fogh Rasmussen having been one of the worst, and the current Jens Stoltenberg is no better (he's a champion for NATO getting its very own Nukes, yay), hence there isn't much room for other individual members of NATO to even get airtime re issues relative NATO.

    Yes, the US Commander of NATO and the effectively US appointed Secretary-General sockpuppet and lots of US politicians want the Europeans to spend a lot more of their Euros on an expanded NATO military that the US commands, especially if its US armaments, and even more so if that caused the Russians to have to waste more money to further counter/offset a NATO expansion, for the benefit of US interests. Cost/pain to US=nil.

    However, there has been little discernable success because of sustained resistance to this call for some time now by NATO member countries, regardless of the over-the-top US propaganda re Russia and Ukraine, as NATO members have better things to do with those Euros given the state of the EU economy (austerity - public antipathy to military expenditure) since the GFC and the only beneficiary would be the US including indirectly by further weakening the EU economy to further US economic advantage globally. The indications are that even the UK poodle intends to further cutback, not expand, its military budget after the upcoming election.

    The selling points of this possible EU Army apparently being put forward by Junckers/Germany are an EU Commander (ie. Not a US officer, rotating national appointment ?), under EU command serving EU interests, supposedly greater effectiveness/efficiency/reduced duplication, and therefore purportedly costing less Euros overall re current military expenditure (compared to US controlled NATO ?).

    Nah, can't for the life of me see why the UK and US would be adamantly opposed ... *cough*

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 8, 2015 10:07:10 PM | 80

    I would separate German policies in the rest of the EU/world with German policies within their own borders.
    A strong proxy for the presence of neoliberal economic policies is property prices. Nations which undergo a property bubble - are almost always neoliberal. Germany in this respect had pretty much the lowest property price growth of any EU nation.

    Debs is dead | Mar 8, 2015 10:08:00 PM | 81

    If American foreign policy can engineer a war based around the Ukraine where European troops fight russian troops at the same time as a major schism develops in Europe between the 'new Europeans' of the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech republic and the old Europeans of France germany italy and spain, the amerikan empire will have killed two birds with one stone.

    I reckon the European schism won't be splintering along such neat and tidy fault lines if it splinters at all, however.

    While the old school euro politicians may be reluctant to go to war, I am unsure their military leadership shares that view.

    For too long Nato command structures have been trained with an American ethos and a value set likely to see war as being 'a good thing'. The alacrity with which Nato tossed its European defense goal aside to jump into Afghanistan and then encouraged Nato members to deploy to then, despite both deployments being at odds with the wishes of their fellow citizens, ably illustrates the fault line between political and military leadership which successive euro pols have desperately tried to conceal from their voters

    In the immediate post war period the euro governments had little say in the matter but with the occasional exception of france the bulk of european pols have been content to let amerika pick up the training tab for staff officers. With the short term goal orientation typical of elected leaders, most euro pols chose to believe they were getting 'free' training for their military commanders, rather than the truth - that europe was paying vast sums for a military whose commanders would dance the washington jig.

    The short-sightedness of europe's pols has them choking their Greek brothers and sisters while the euro continues to decline yet the US$ arcs ever upwards, and never asking themselves "why are we working so hard to help amerika at the expense of fellow europeans?"

    I have no doubt however much Merkel and co claim to oppose a full on war with Ukraine; instigated at least in part by their own military leaders whose patriotism must be open to question, that in the end they will acquiese to Nuland's strategy.

    Not to do so would rquire vision and personal courage both of these in short supply among euro neo-liberals.

    Especially for Merkel there is an easy out. All she needs to do is to tap into the just below the surface and rarely enunciated beliefs of a substantial number of her fellow citizens - that Germany has the 'right' to expand its influence further east.

    whack | Mar 9, 2015 5:15:16 AM | 85

    @Outraged 78

    What a relief to see finally somebody who gets it. Bravo!

    (Some hasbara trolls here pretend not to, in order to spread fear and disnfo).

    Prosperous Peace | Mar 9, 2015 2:25:19 AM | 84

    I think you give Obongo way too much credit.

    He is "President" yes, but is he really? Or is he just a token face for the McCain´s and the other white House plantation owners to hold up for the 99%, a mere House n*gger?

    Everytime the man open his mouth accompanied as always by his Telepromter or advisors, even then puerile stupidities ansd ridicolous threats comes out. I think he is doing a better characterization of himself than the North Koreans possibly could imagine...

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/north-korea-trolls-obama-compares-us-president-monkey-tropical-jungle

    Anonymous | Mar 9, 2015 6:17:16 AM | 87

    @ Debs is Dead

    The whole purpose of NATO from inception was to undermine and suborn the military command of the NATO members military forces to US control for the benefit of the Empire. To have leverage of those militaries and direct command influence outside of their 'sovereign' governments. To keep Germany 'down'. Many Non-US-UK NATO officers are very aware indeed of what NATO really is, US provided 'training' or not. De Gaulle was well aware of the threat and gave NATO 'the finger' many times.

    Five-eyes military officers are routinely utilized by their intelligence agencies to actively and aggressively cultivate and suborn any military officer who is not Five-eyes. The same process is aggressively pursued by the intelligence agencies against their counterparts amongst their tier three and four pseudo-allies such as Germany, France, Italy, etc. This has been going on for many decades.

    The Chinese learnt this lesson during WWII and under no circumstances allow any officer with Operational/Line command in the PLA to have direct contact with US military counterparts except under very strict circumstances. The PLA has a dedicated corps of officers to conduct such interaction and liasion who will never be given PLA Operational/Line commands in their career as a result. To say the least, this really pisses the US off no end. A PR/Liaison officer in the PLA is of no use as an agent or future agent of influence given such policies, bummer.

    These 'harmless' military-military and intelligence-intelligence interactions have been the very basis/foundation stone of the vast majority of the coups and destabilization operations the US has conducted on every continent since WWII.

    There is the Five-eyes and then every other country on the planet, who are merely given different ratings of 'hostile' or 'enemy' and treated accordingly, regardless of any public utterings re so called 'alliances' and 'partnerships'.

    'Old Europe' has dragged its feet and more many times despite dictats from the US. Latin America provides many examples of where the US polices/actions are ultimately counter-productive, compare its current state to the 60's-70's-80's absolute US dominance.

    Regardless of US Neoliberal politics/virus the serving militaries of NATO as a whole would be bound more tightly to their own communities and individual national interests, should push come to shove, me thinks, given histories lessons.

    IF the EU is to get out from under US domination/control/influence which is more and more counter to its own and europes interests (and many of its individual nations interests), it has to create separation of its intelligence services from the Five-eyes and take back control of its own military commands and agencies. A very big IF indeed ...

    Outraged | Mar 9, 2015 5:38:28 AM | 86

    More proof for the naive folks here:
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/03/09/400990/Russia-MP-calls-EU-army-idea-provocative

    [Mar 09, 2015] Boris Nemtsov ally: Islamist speculation over murder 'useful for Kremlin' by Shawn Walker

    They still want to play the war propaganda game. Here we go. Shawn Walker writings. Foreign Office talking points. What not this Illya Yashin (not sure if he was co-leader of Nemtsov's opposition party then), involved with distribution to protesters several millions in West-supplied cash that were discovered at Ksenia Sobchak apartment during Russian color revolution of 2012 ?
    Mar 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    founderchurch

    The NEW Cold War is back with a vengeance. Similar lineup but very different ideologies in conflict. Before you had atheistic communism against religious capitalism, now the roles are reversed. America and England are now resembling the old socialist USSR and Red China, while Russia and China are now increasingly coming to resemble the formerly religious and capitalistic America and England. What irony... OMG one thing is the same, eminent Nuclear War...

    richiep40 -> Jose C. Sandoval

    We will never know who started the fire in Odessa, The Guardian.

    What happened to the open and transparent investigations into the shootings in Maidan, the fire in Odessa and the downing of the Malaysian aircraft I wonder ?

    VladimirM

    "Putin has said he has taken "personal control" of the investigation"

    The phrase has sparked a sort of controversy here, some people are even using it as a proof of conspiracy. It's mainly because they are not aware of what this expression actually means.
    The phrase "взять под личный контроль" in Russian does not mean that Putin is personally in charge of the team of investigators giving orders which line to follow or not, who to charge or arrest or not.

    It simply means that police and security service are informing him regularly about the progress in the investigation, meetings or briefings may be held, reports are being made, etc., etc. The importance of the case is unprecedented, so the people, resources, etc. must be involved, engaged in the same unprecedented scale. The highest level of control is just facilitating all this as well as cooperation and coordination of law-enforcement agencies.
    That's what this eye-catching phrase means.

    Laudig, 2015-03-10,00:16:54

    This is what a political assassination looks like American-style. "After two years of guerrilla warfare, leading Péralte to declare a provisional government in the north of Haiti, Charlemagne Péralte was betrayed by one of his officers, Jean-Baptiste Conzé, who led disguised US Marines Sergeant Herman H. Hanneken (later meritoriously promoted to Second Lieutenant for his exploits) and Corporal William Button into the rebels camp, near Grand-Rivière Du Nord.[1]:215-217" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_P%C3%A9ralte

    Solongmariane 9 Mar 2015 14:41

    Contrary to JFK & Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Isaac Rabin .!!!! .we get a lot of arrested suspects. It's a conjuration, and with so much complices it will possible to get informations. Objectivily, I don't see why Putin will need to eliminate physically Nemtsov, because he didn't exist before his assassination.

    It was so easy to destroy him politically, with the kind of life he has ( too much women). It's the west who created a anti-Putin heros, for his propaganda..

    Andrew -> Oldtruster

    I think Ramzan Kadyrov said the truth. He illustrated the motivation of the killer. The killer seems a simple-minded person. It was easy to convince him that Nemtsov had outraged the prophet. This have nothing to do with real motives of the murder but we will never get to know them as a man who convinced the killer has died. Investigators are off the trail, case closed.

    susandbs12 9 Mar 2015 14:38

    Rather than speculation we should wait for the results of the investigation to be published.

    The Russia haters are too quick to expect instantaneous results, and jump to preposterous conclusions based on nothing.

    Wait for the investigation to be completed. This constant sniping will not have a positive effect on those who are doubtlessly working very hard to find out what happened and why.

    seaspan -> Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 15:13

    Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev.

    Or Muslims...

    The list was rather short for Sherlock, and you cant convict them all. Muslims are the perfect patsie and the crazy fundies can and are indirectly connected to any number of third "western" parties already. So all in all, a good choice. I can just see the conspiracy loons at RT and elsewhere busy connecting the dots, to defend their main man Putin.

    Ciarán Here 9 Mar 2015 14:38

    Boris Nemtsov ALLY and the guardian make fine cocktail Islamist speculation over murder 'useful for Kremlin' ....but not useful for the USA UK EU....

    Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves

    Ciarán Here -> tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:34

    Yes you spotted it, it is called pointing the finger away from oneself - look over there! No not there in Detroit or Greece for example but there in Russia we need to demonize a enemy to distract the plebs from our mistreatment of them...and to justify our wars against those who simply say no and that we are a sovereign state not a vassal of your greed ...


    aucontraire2 MasonInNY 9 Mar 2015 14:19

    You are not naive if you are from NY. You know that the Putin saga is all a made up story to hide the failures of the west on the international scene.

    The US is a failed leader now because it has failed the world in not providing justice to Palestinians. The world needs a moral leader. Obviously the Chinese aren't interested at becoming the world's moral leader, Russia can't become a moral leader for obvious reasons, Canada was on its way to take the leadership, but the US republicans saw to it by forcing a nutcase called Harper who hides in a closet at the first sound of firecrackers.

    tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:18

    The Guardian Trusts's new way of keeping privileged access to governmental news is to promote propaganda pieces for the government. The Guardian had to do a 180 after Snowden, so we'll forever more get the likes of subjective opinions of young idealists from a Russian political party that couldn't afford a security detail for its leader.

    I guess with the ceasefire in Ukraine and the arrests of two conspirators so far from Chechnya, they are running out of angles to spread the BS around with.

    How about switching over to the not-so breaking news that globalization is devastating currencies and economies, politics and human rights and resources and environmernts; the monetising and marketing on everything worldwide.

    Why report on the failure of politics and economics in one lousy country, when there's a "failure du jour" everyday caused by globalization.

    Why not cover the wars resulting from it on a daily rotation?

    Who could have predicted that World War 3 would be a protracted economic war that would plunge the world into a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years?

    The real wars are now suicides where people, who can't stand the stifling boredom of repititous consumer product variations, sign up to commit suicide en mass in a foreign country. That, adversely, is video gaming creating its own reality...

    Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 14:12

    A predictable approach, but it misses something rather important. If the murder is indeed brought home to the Chechens, then that is very convenient for all the other and much more likely suspects - Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev. Putin had no motive, but each of those three had much to gain from a Nemtsov assassination, and have been gleefully cashing in ever since.

    If Putin wanted to deflect blame onto someone else, why on earth wouldn't he choose one of those? If Russia is the gangland state so many seem to think, then it would be simple to 'do a Kiev' and stage a 'confession' implicating the CIA, Poroshenko, or anyone it wanted. So why hasn't it?

    Unless of course the investigation is genuine and the Chechens did it after all...

    irishmand -> seaspan 9 Mar 2015 15:06

    It is my understanding that his area of influence and political activity was limited to Moscow, the place Stalin over defended as he correctly surmised it was the brain of the USSR. Yeltsin also understood Moscow as the place to agitate to shake up the national leadership.

    If you want to start a coup, you have to do it in Moscow. Nemtsov was losing his influence in Moscow. He was an member of the local duma in Yaroslavl'.

    therealbillythefish 9 Mar 2015 15:05

    Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly quickly and at least one has already confessed.

    So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.

    irishmand McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:03

    I have no shame. Sorry, I lost it somewhere on my way... Maybe, after reading the western press for a while, I started mimicking them.

    But, in my defense, I only troll the trolls. If somebody wants to have a meaningful discussion I am ready to have it too..

    artdeco McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:02

    Yeah, suspected so (Not that there's anything wrong with being Russian!, to paraphrase Seinfeld) - the frequent absence of the little word the in sentences is a quite reliable "tell"...
    ;)

    seaspan -> 1waldo1 9 Mar 2015 15:00

    Why would he have to be in the "western press" to be considered important by the Kremlin? He was involved in Moscow and was assassinated for his political activity there, not in Chechnya or London. Doesn't Russia have its own independent domestic political dynamic?

    No one else outside that venue should have given a damn about him.

    rodney9 -> UBX525AEZ 9 Mar 2015 14:58

    They even had a snow removal truck come by there to obstruct any potential witnesses at that exact moment of the murder.The snow truck seemed to be slowed down at the point of the murder to provide the killer or killers cover

    You clearly belong to the Gary Kasparov school of en passant criminologists.

    McStep -> crystaltips2 9 Mar 2015 14:55

    mate, there are so many apparatchik trolls on this and other related threads, it's a joke. the laughable thing about them is that most Russians know their media system is woefully centrally controlled and censored, but they actually agree with this because they think the function of news media is to tell the people want they want to hear in order to maintain solidarity in times of trouble.

    in essence, they know, or a part of them knows, that they're talking utter **** but i guess like some poor domestically abused partner it's a case, of, " SHUT UP, WHAT DO YOU KNOW??? HE LOVES ME!!!!!"

    but it's understandable. if your leader is perpetuating generations of the indoctrinated notion that the tsar has every right to pillage the state, murder its people and incite conflict on a whim, then its probably is very difficult to come to terms with the abject sense of shame they should be feeling.

    therealbillythefish

    Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly quickly and at least one has already confessed.

    So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.

    Fromrussia1976 -> therealbillythefish

    Or you'd better to investigate who has downed that plane in the Ukraine... Half a year has left, but no result!

    vr13vr

    We don't know yet all the details and we are not sure what is behind this Chechen link. But no matter what the working hypothesis are and what the results are, this opposition is going to criticize it. That's why he is in anti-government opposition. There is no need to put his doubts into a front page article.

    SonnyTuckson

    Scripted by the Kremlin. Again. Nothing new here. Getting rid of one opponent by blaming another.

    irishmand -> SonnyTuckson

    Scripted by CIA Again. Nothing new here. Stage a murder, blame on somebody else.

    rodney9

    Perhaps it would be more to the point, and better journalism, to elaborate and contexualise the comments made by Nemtsov on Charlie Hebdo, or the German cartoon he published on his facebook side, as well as Nemtsov's personal attack on Kadyrov, rather than blanket denials that it has anything to do with insulting the prophet Mohammed. Fortunately, following a few links here in the comment section makes that all possible. That they are ignored here in the article is evidence once again of poor journalism, it's almost like being told don't bother to go there, it's not worth it, just keep on believing it was Putin. The Guardian published an editorial not so very long ago about " a cynical post-modern media strategy" all those Kremlin controlled channels manipulating the truth for daring to suggest 5 (sic) lines of enquiry, and how truth itself was "vanishing" in a flurry of what they called "weaponised relativism". CCTV cameras were conspicuously inoperative, some bigots speculated that a snow plough had been strategically sent in (Gary Kasparov) to mask the actual footage of the moment of the killing.

    We realise that this must be very disppointing for all those who wanted this to be a sure fire mafia hit in a "mafia state" carried out by a mafia boss, rather than an act of Islamic terrorism from fanatics that we have recently seen elsewhere in Paris and Copenhagen.

    We shouldn't forget that hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Chechnya against Charlie Hebdo, finding it all very provocative. I will probably watch France 24, that news channel might not be so hostile to looking at the real connections and Nemtsov's comments in depth rather than denials by an English newspaper.

    Simon311 -> rodney9

    Well the Guardian and others who have spent months telling us that the Russian media is not worth reading and watching, now quotes the Russian media when it agrees with thier view.

    This is almost mental illness in its inconsistency.

    Ludicrous - the Russian media is always wrong, until it says someting we like, then it is completely right.

    MentalToo

    Saw this headline at TASS:

    First suspects in Nemtsov murder identified - Federal Security Service

    Surprisingly it turned out the suspects was not FSB after all, but some of Kadyrov's lunatics arrested by FSB. Who could have guessed that.

    It seems they have found some, who are even more crazy than he is.

    daltonbernard

    ...some of Nemtsov's associates ... do not believe fanatics acting alone could have shot someone dead so close to the Kremlin.

    I mean, that's just dumb. It's not hard to shoot somebody. I don't see how the proximity to the Kremlin makes it any more difficult. You just ... do it. It takes all of a second or two to pull a trigger a few times. Unless the Russians have installed some kind of electromagnetic field around the Kremlin that magically stops guns from firing. But the article doesn't say they have, so I'm at a loss as to how "some of Nemtsov's associates" could be so irrational.

    seaspan -> daltonbernard

    Rumour's are flying in Moscow, and lazy journalists will report whatever they hear without putting it into a more understandable context or making better sense of it. What I've heard that makes more sense is that a Chechen fanatic muslim "motive" doesn't make any sense, even though someone from there could have been hired to kill Nemtsov -- the important point is that the motive remains open and officially obscured...

    Simon311 -> Havingalavrov

    Howd o you know

    a) He was a "complete professional"?

    b) Criminals make mistakes all the time

    c) You appear to be beleieving Russian media which you have said is full of lies.

    So self contradictory pompous rubbish.

    Yes you do not like Putin - got it.

    BunglyPete

    Make of this what you will but this seems to be the official line so don't expect much else

    In 2007 Boris Nemtsov gave an interview to the magazine "Expert", in which he stated that all the measures of President Vladimir Putin are aimed at increasing the birth rate, primarily in the regions populated by Muslims, and it is "extremely dangerous for the future of Russia". After that Nemtsov was accused by well-known representatives of the Muslim world of Islamophobia.

    In January 2015, the year after the execution of cartoonists from the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, the politician in his blog on the website of "Echo of Moscow" had justified the actions of the cartoonists, and wrote that "Islam is stuck in the middle ages", and called recent events the "Islamic Inquisition".

    A few days later, Nemtsov said that "Everyone is tired of Kadyrov's threats", and "it is time to arrest him". This happened after the head of Chechnya said very unflattering things about the opposition leader Mikhail Khodorkovsky and journalist Alexey Venediktov because of their support for the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo.

    Zaur Dadaev decided that Boris Nemtsov offended Muslims, and out of a false sense of patriotism and defense of religion decided to punish the politician

    http://www.rosbalt.ru/moscow/2015/03/08/1375743.html

    Simon311 -> BunglyPete

    The US, Russia and Germany - you can't beat any of them for producing weird types.

    Simon311 -> RedTelecaster

    Whatever a "Putinbot" may be. SOunds like a new word for "commie" as it was used 40 years ago.

    Renfrow

    Reading the posts here it is clear to me that people that blamed Putin for this will continue to do so regardless of what evidence to the contrary is presented simply because it suits their agenda.

    FrancesSmith -> RedTelecaster

    go on help the neocons destroy eastern europe. do nuland and breedlove pay you are or do you do it for free?

    but in truth you just reveal the ugliness that lies at the heart of the demonisation of putin, and repel people. keep it up..................

    midnightschild10

    It's the silly season again. The Obama administration is demanding a thorough investigation of Nemtsov' s death. They don't want a whitewash. The US certainly knows a whitewash when it sees one. Our Justicell Department looked high and low in the White House and couldn't find one banker or CEO to hold responsible for the housing crises. ( They all hang out on Wall Street.) Given a second chance to do their job, they couldn't find any military/industrial contractor who committed fraud in either not building incinerators on US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan or built them but they could not be used because of shoddy workmanship. ( Should have asked soldiers returning home with respiratory problems due to trash pits.) And finally the DOJ was unable to find anyone responsible for the torture and rendition programs ( could have found Cheyney on Fox News continuing to do interviews.)

    So it shouldn't be too difficult for Russia to do a better job investigating the death of Nemtsov, since the US has set the bar so low.

    irgun777

    Shaun Walker writes about " Islamic speculation convenient for Kremlin '

    One of the suspects blow himself in traditional Islamic suicide tradition, others were charged in court hiding their faces from reporters. This is where Mr Walker, the speculation stops.

    [Mar 08, 2015] Russia's Most Notorious Hitman Claims Nemtsov's Killers Were Amateurs

    Mar 08, 2015 | Sputnik International
    Boris Nemtsov's killing last week was probably not a political assassination, as it was carried out by amateurs, said former professional assassin Alexei Sherstobitov.

    Gunmen who killed Russian politician Boris Nemtsov last week in central Moscow were amateurs and the pattern of the murder indicates that it was carried out unprofessionally, former hitman Alexei Sherstobitov, currently serving a prison term for 12 assassinations, told Russian news site Gazeta.

    Every hitman, first and foremost, is concerned about one thing – how to carry out an assassination with the least amount of risk of being exposed. The most logical choice for a killer would have been to shoot the victim from as far as possible. In Nemtsov's case, given where the killing took place, the simplest way to execute the assassination would have been to drive along the street, on which the victim was walking, park the car and wait until he approached.

    Once he was at a shooting distance, the shooter should have slightly opened the car's window, shot the victim and escaped without putting himself at the risk of exposure. Even an average shooter should be able to hit a person's head at the distance between 15 and 25 meters. The fact that Nemtsov's killers made six shots, while only hitting him four times, at a close distance shows their unprofessionalism, Sherstobitov told Gazeta.

    "A professional shooter, who often uses his weapon, is unlikely to fire this many shots," said the former assassin. One of two shots are usually enough.

    Sherstobitov said the killing reminded him of incidents that frequently occurred during the 1990s, when gang members accidentally came across someone from a rival gang in a public place. In situations like that, killings were often carried out on short notice, without much preparation.

    Those, who spotted a member or members from a rival gang, made a phone call and killers would soon arrive, take positions near the victims' car or outside of a restaurant, where their victims were. Assassinations like this were often ill-organized, chaotic and took place in public places, Sherstobitov explained.

    The former hitman concluded that Nemtsov's killing was likely a non-political assassination.

    "In my opinion, this [Nemtsov] is not a politician who could really influence something. Many people had already forgotten about him," Sherstobitov said, adding that there are more important and influential politicians out there to assassinate, if one really wanted to cause a real political chaos in the country.

    The killing of Nemtsov was not even carried out professionally, the former hitman said, ruling out the political version of the last week assassination.

    Sherstobitov was a member of one of Moscow's organized crime groups during the 1990s, when he became known as one of Russia's most notorious assassins. In 2008, he was found guilty of assassinating 12 people and currently serving a 23-year prison term.

    [Mar 08, 2015] US Hawks Undermine Berlin's Peace Efforts in Ukraine - German Newspaper

    Mar 08, 2015 | Sputnik International

    The civil war in Ukraine has exposed a fundamental rift between the US and Europe in terms of vision and goals for the region, as powerful US hardliners are working tirelessly to escalate the crisis with a broader agenda in mind, Der Spiegel news magazine said.

    US hawks, including the likes of Victoria Nuland, the head of European affairs at the US State Department, and General Philip Breedlove, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, are seeking to destabilize Russia and undermine its influence. To that end they are trying to heighten tensions between the West and Russia over Ukraine, undermining peace efforts led by Germany and France. Although the US president currently supports the European initiative, he has "done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine," Der Spiegel said.

    A relatively calm situation in Ukraine's eastern regions following the latest Minsk agreements does not play into the hands of US hawks. So instead of being cautiously optimistic that the ceasefire holds, General Breedlove warned in late February that the situation "is getting worse every day."

    These and many other remarks made by the top NATO European commander with regard to Russia's alleged involvement in the Ukrainian crisis "stunned" and "alarmed" German leaders, since these claims are often not supported by the data provided by Germany's foreign intelligence agency BND, the news magazine said.

    General Breedlove "repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements," Der Spiegel pointed out. However, he refused to revise them telling the media outlet that "it is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide."

    Berlin is concerned that Breedlove's stance "could harm the West's credibility," Der Spiegel said. Consequently, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is determined to discuss the issue with his American counterpart John Kerry to rule out any possible misinterpretations in the future. However, on Saturday, Steinmeier downplayed the US-German differences highlighted in Der Spiegel's article by emphasizing that German officials "have no interest in any dispute emerging from this."

    Indeed, German authorities "have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding, but the dispute [between Germany and the US] is a fundamental one - and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful without the threat of military action," Der Spiegel said.

    Moreover, while Germany and France seek to stabilize situation in Ukraine, US hardliners seem to have a different goal in mind. "For them, the dream outcome would be regime change in Moscow," the magazine said.

    See also:

    [Mar 07, 2015] Russian Opposition Putin Did NOT Assassinate Opposition Leader

    Notable quotes:
    "... U.S. media is quick to blame Putin for the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov. ..."
    "... This is a classic sacrificial lamb, textbook case. Good job Americans, good job Nazis, good job liberals. I dont know who of them did this. But it was done beautifully. ..."
    "... Even the U.S. governments Voice of America states – in an article entitled Could Nemtsov Threaten Putin in Death as in Life? – that Putin loses much more than he gains by the assassination: ..."
    March 1, 2015 | WashingtonsBlog

    U.S. media is quick to blame Putin for the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

    But Itina Khakamada – a top ally of Nemtsov in the opposition – said the killing was "clearly not in Putin's interest. It's aimed at rocking the situation."

    Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev agrees.

    Mikhail Delyagin – a top advisor to Nemtsov for a year and a half – said that Putin didn't do it, and compared it to the shoot down of Malaysian Flight 17 over Ukraine:

    The fact is obvious: this is a Malaysian Boeing, shot down by the Nazis at the walls of the Kremlin.

    ***

    This is a classic sacrificial lamb, textbook case. Good job Americans, good job Nazis, good job liberals. I don't know who of them did this. But it was done beautifully.

    ***

    We have to be prepared that Ukraine will be brought to Russia a lot faster then I thought just recently.

    Before I thought that we are safe from Maidan until November, now it is clear that Maidan may be lit up already in the spring. The sacrificial lamb has been slaughtered.

    Even the U.S. government's Voice of America states – in an article entitled "Could Nemtsov Threaten Putin in Death as in Life?" – that Putin loses much more than he gains by the assassination:

    With the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, gunned down on a Moscow street, the fiercest critic of President Vladimir Putin has been removed from the political stage. But it remains to be seen whether, in death as in life, Nemtsov will remain a threat to Putin's rule.

    Already, city authorities have approved a mass march for up to 50,000 people in central Moscow on Sunday. The march, expected to be far larger than the scheduled protest rally it replaces, will provide a powerful platform for Kremlin critics who suspect a government hand in Nemtsov's death.

    Even officials in Putin's government seem to sense the danger that the former first deputy prime minister's martyrdom might pose, hinting darkly that Friday night's drive-by shooting may have been an deliberate "provocation" ahead of the planned weekend rally.

    Dr_NOS

    Apparently Jen Psaki is pregnant. Let's blame Putin for this

    [Mar 07, 2015] Washington's Cloned Female Warmongers By Finian Cunningham

    What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Smear Campaigns, Bullying, Flattery ... All set of tricks of female sociopaths...
    February 09, 2014 | Information Clearing House

    What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender. But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in American male politicians - aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.

    Take Victoria Nuland - the US Assistant Secretary of State - who was caught using obscene language in a phone call about the European Union and the political affairs of Ukraine. In her previous posting as a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Nuland had the demeanor of a robotic matron with a swivel eye.

    Now in her new role of covertly rallying anti-government protesters in Ukraine, Nuland has emerged to sound like a bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll. In her leaked private conversation with the US ambassador to Kiev, the American female diplomat is heard laying down in imperious tones how a new government in Ukraine should be constituted. Nuland talks about "gluing together" a sovereign country as if it is a mere plaything, and she stipulates which members of the US-backed street rabble in Kiev should or should not be included in any Washington-approved new government in the former Soviet republic.

    We don't know who actually tapped and leaked Nuland's private call to the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt. It could have been the Ukrainian or Russian secret services, but, regardless, it was an inspired move to reveal it. For the disclosure, which has been posted on the internet, lays bare the subversive meddling agenda of Washington in Ukrainian internal affairs. Up to now, the Americans have been piously pretending that their involvement is one of a bystander supporting democracy from afar.

    But, thanks to the Nuland's foul-mouthed indiscretion, the truth is out. Washington, from her own admission, is acting like an agent provocateur in Ukraine's political turmoil. That is an illegal breach of international rules of sovereignty. Nuland finishes her phone call like a gangster ordering a hit on a rival, referring to incompetent European interference in Ukraine with disdain - "F...k the EU."

    What we are witnessing here is the real, ugly face of American government and its uncouth contempt for international law and norms.

    Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle for a brain.

    Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose and moronic than her male American peers.

    Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.

    Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world.

    Programmed Sherman accused Iran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons. "We share the same goal [as the warmonger Menendez] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And she went on to repeat threadbare, risible allegations that Iran is supporting international terrorism. That is a disturbing indication of the low level of political intelligence possessed by the US chief negotiator.

    "Iran also continues to arm and train militants in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Bahrain. And Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah continue," asserted Sherman without citing an iota of proof and instead relying on a stale-old propaganda narrative.

    The number three in the US State Department went on to say of the interim nuclear deal with Iran: "What is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms of a final deal or not. We have made it clear to Iran that, if it fails to live up to its commitments, or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask the Congress to ramp up new sanctions."

    Remember that Sherman and her State Department boss John Kerry are considered "soft on Iran" by the likes of Menendez, John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Mark Kirk, and the other political psychopaths in Washington. So, we can tell from Sherman's callous words and mean-minded logic that the scope for genuine rapprochement between the US and Iran is extremely limited.

    Sherman finished her performance before the Senate panel with the obligatory illegal threat of war that Washington continually issues against Iran: "We retain all options to ensure that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon."

    In the goldfish-bowl environment of Washington politics, perhaps such female officials are to be even more feared. The uniform monopoly of America's political class is dictated by militarism – weapons manufacturers, oil companies and Zionist lobbyists. The only way to "succeed" in this cesspool is to be even more aggressive and imperialist than your peers.

    Nuland and Sherman illustrate the cold-hearted logic at work in American robotic politics: it's a system programmed for imperialism and war, and it doesn't matter whether the officials are Democrat, Republic, male or female. They are all clones of a war criminal state.

    Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism.

    This article was originally published at Press TV

    [Mar 07, 2015] Lithuania signs US deal to replace Russian gas

    What about the cost of those deliveries?

    Feb 28, 2015 | presstv.ir

    Lithuania said Saturday it had signed a trade agreement to buy liquified natural gas from the United States in a move aimed at reducing the EU Baltic state's heavy dependence on Russian gas deliveries.

    Under the deal with Houston-based Chenier Energy company, the first LNG fuel is expected to arrive in Lithuania as early as next year, state-owned company Litgas said in a statement.

    "This agreement entered into with Cheniere ... will provide us access to the prolific US natural gas market," Litgas General Manager Dominykas Tuckus said.

    Lithuania's first floating LNG terminal started commercial activity in January, becoming the first such facility to sever Moscow's grip on gas deliveries to the Baltic states.

    The nation of three million will initially import 0.54 billion cubic meters of gas from Statoil in 2015, covering about one-fifth of its demand.

    The first US LNG export terminal is expected to starts its operations later this year.

    The Baltic states' reliance on Russia for gas is a legacy of its five decades of Soviet rule, which ended in 1991.

    Members of the EU and NATO since 20014, Lithuania and fellow Baltic states Latvia and Estonia are concerned about Russia's actions in Ukraine and fear that Moscow could attempt to destabilize its Soviet-era Baltic backyard.

    "LNG exports by the US may weaken the position of Russia which uses its energy resources as an energy weapon to blackmail countries dependent on Russian gas," Lithuania's Energy Minister Rokas Masiulis said this week.

    [Mar 07, 2015] Germany Has Had Enough With US Neocons: Berlin "Stunned" At US Desire For War In Ukraine

    Nuland somewhat reminds Madeleine Albright. Both are so fund of bulling their opponents, that probably might be classified as female psychopaths... As one commenters noted "I take it that "hard-charging" is an American euphemism for foul of mouth and coarse of temperament?"
    Mar 07, 2015 | zerohedge.com

    While Russia's envoy to NATO notes that statements by the deputy head of NATO testify to the fact that the leaders of the bloc want to intervene in Russia's internal politics, and are "dreaming of Russian Maidan," Washington has a bigger problem... Germany. As Der Spiegel reports, while US President Obama 'supports' Chancellor Merkel's efforts at finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, hawks in Washington seem determined to torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either with sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous propaganda."

    ... ... ...

    And as Der Spiegel reports, The Germans are not happy.

    ... ... ...

    Nuland Diplomacy

    Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back the White House in next year's presidential election, is an important voice in US policy concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia, even saying "I love Russia." Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.

    She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been known to take on an undiplomatic tone -- and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov, who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan protests. "No violence against the protesters or you'll fall," Nuland told him according to Asarov. She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the country's leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public.

    Nuland has also been open -- at least internally -- about her contempt for European weakness and is famous for having said "Fuck the EU" during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.

    When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe's resistance to arming Ukraine.

    On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who began coaching. "While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians defend against these systems," Nuland said. "It is defensive in nature although some of it has lethality."

    Jurassic

    general Breedwar or Breedhatred? Hes war maniac!

    cossack55

    Typical wingnut general. Notice you don't hear the grunts talkin' shit. Gotta go. Dr. Strangelove is about to start.

    XqWretch

    Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

    Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

    Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

    bania

    Breedlove? Heading up an army? Can't make this stuff up!!!

    Took Red Pill

    "Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine." We all are!

    chunga

    Hmmm...Nudelman and Kagan aren't from Mars or Venus are they?

    Urban Redneck

    Frau Ferkel is just a muppet cocktease, and so is the "concern". It's nothing but political cover for the political whores. If they were seriously alarmed, they would simply revoke General Ripper's diplomatic credentials and issue an arrest warrant for the psychopath.

    Lumberjack

    Read this:

    The Obscenely Easy Exile of Idi Amin

    https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/164/28440.html

    On a reporting trip to Saudi Arabia seven years ago, I went to Idi Amin's house. I had heard that Mr. Amin, the former Ugandan dictator who died last weekend at the age of 78, was living in Jidda, the Red Sea port, and I wanted to see for myself. Was it possible that a man who, in the 1970's, had ordered the deaths of 300,000 of his countrymen, raped and robbed his nation into endless misery and admitted to having eaten human flesh was whiling away his time as a guest of the Saudi government?

    It was. There, in a spacious villa behind a white gate, Mr. Amin made his home with a half-dozen of his 30 or so children. He was not there the day I rang (a son said he was out of town), but locals said he could often be seen pushing his cart along the frozen food section of the supermarket, being massaged at the health club, praying at the mosque. He had long ago abandoned his British-style military uniform for the white robe of the Saudi man, but as an African measuring 6-foot-3 and nearly 300 pounds, he did not exactly blend in.

    A former Sudanese colonel who worked as a manager at the local supermarket said, "People greet him and say, `Hello, Mr. President.' " Why? Wasn't he a savage dictator?

    "Oh yes" he used to eat people," the manager replied, laughing. "But this is our nature. We forget."

    But what would prompt the Saudi government to play host to such a man?

    The answer, when the question was posed to Saudi officials, was an excursion into the desert habits of hospitality, and Mr. Amin's conversion to Islam. His support for the Arab boycott of Israel in the 1970's certainly also endeared him to his hosts.

    During the nearly quarter-century of his soft exile, no nation tried to bring Mr. Amin to justice. A few years ago, after Spain's government went after Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet, Human Rights Watch did bring up Mr. Amin's case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, but to no avail. Under international law, any nation, including Saudi Arabia, could have and should have prosecuted Mr. Amin.

    But, as Reed Brody, special counsel for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch, says, "If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get political asylum." Mr. Brody keeps a melancholy map on his wall of other tyrants gone free: Alfredo Stroessner, dictator of Paraguay, lives in Brazil; Haiti's Raoúl Cedras is in Panama; Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia is in Zimbabwe; Hissí¨ne Habré of Chad lives in Senegal. Today there is the International Criminal Court, which can bring a future Amin to justice, although the United States is among 100 countries that have shortsightedly declined to participate in the court.

    I was sorry not to have had a chance to talk to Mr. Amin directly. But those who did speak with him suggest that I missed little. An Italian journalist, Riccardo Orizio, asked him in 1999 whether he felt remorse. No, Mr. Amin replied, only nostalgia. Six years earlier, a British writer, Tom Stacey, saw him. At one point, Mr. Amin pulled from his pocket a paraphrase of Psalm 22 and commented: "Remember we are special to God. He sees a beauty in us few see."

    Harbanger

    "The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist LEFT to the camp of American conservatism."

    -Straight from the definition for the morons that don't know how to do research..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

    August

    I continue to believe that the US goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars, and thousands of Ukrainian lives, both of which are truly dirt cheap in Washington's calculus. This is to be followed by the USA's ultimately just walking away, leaving a broken Ukraine for its neighbors, chiefly Russia, to reconstruct.

    Every now and then, though, some US spokes-toady makes statements that imply that the USA actually wants a major war... with Russia. I hope and pray that this is merely Grand Chessboard Theatre, but I am starting to have doubts. For a taste of the motivational fare now offered to US "conservatives", you might want to take a look at the recently posted anit-Russia piece posted at National Review, which openly calls for regime change in Moscow. It's a well-written polemic which makes some sense... provided that you accept that Washington and Brussels are citadels of freedom and human rights, Russians are ignorant, drunken blockheads, and Putin is evil incarnate.

    sunaJ

    "I continue to believe that the US goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars,"

    In your estimation is the second part of this Kansas City Shuffle being Syria and pipelines to Europe, or are they also symptoms of some greater neocon fear, ie. Russian oil dominance in a petrodollar world?

    Jack Burton

    Breedlove is talking his book. His glory and promotions would increase and his power would expand the more he can talk the NATO into war. Breedlove will be secure in the command bunker, and like the Iraq war command, be fully secure while his men faced possible death and mutilation.

    The text book for this is Yugoslavia. Europe had brokered a few peace deals, but the USA stepped in and undercut them all with lies and flase intelligence, leading to several bloody wars. Right now Washington seeks the Yugoslavia solution, a long bloody war.

    Ignatius

    "According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public."

    Did Nuland also say that about Occupy to the Obummer administation?

    Escrava Isaura

    Ohh Boy.

    The US military industrial complex doesn't care about European press, or America press, for that matter. US military industrial complex doesn't' even care who the President is.

    Do you think the US military complex cares if the US government bails out lots of big lemons-banks, insurance, auto makers, airlines, and food stamps to the working poor? No, they could care less, because US military industrial complex is immune to budget constraints and they are the biggest supporters of failing industries and projects.

    Do you think that the US military complex cares for what industries the analysts and brokers at an investment firms such as JP Morgan, Goldman, or Rothschild's picks as winners for government contracts or a stock market bubble? Hell no, because they are the biggest winners.

    So, the Germans are stunned about NATO? Are you kidding me?

    Germany and NATO are branches of the US military industrial complex.

    johngaltfla

    Obama is a Neocon?

    Who'dathunkit!??!!?

    In reality, the world is sick of this bullshit. I'm sick of it. Rand Paul's approach is 1000% correct; quit meddling!

    Germany is correct to object to this because if we get involved in the Ukraine with Poland then Russia will be outside of Berlin with several brigades of tanks in days. The US nor NATO are ready for a major multi-front conflict unless they use nukes.

    Which wouldn't be all that bad because some of the US cities we would lose are a major part of the economic drag and societal/political problems we have at this time....

    Never mind. Fire away boys.

    krage_man

    The instutute of US presidency is shockingly weak.

    Basically, very little can Obama do if all career burocrats continue doing what they always doing.

    Obama is not able to get control of the goverment staff which demonstrate how weak leader he is and how unimportant any political office change is for foregn policy.

    Dems or Reps - no matter who is there will always be criminal actions on the world scine.

    sunaJ

    Germany needs to wake up NOW to the fact that this country is commanded by psychopathic, warmongering neocons, mitigated only by a willfully cluless and gutless president. NATO will prove a deathtrap for Germany.

    max2205

    Don't expect a lot of help from the old axis countries, Germany Italy Japan......neutered

    Questan1913

    Good point...but let's elaborate further: The US wrote the constitutions of Japan and Germany after the end of WWll. It also continues to occupy, militarily, both countries with approximately 50,000 military personnel in each and a huge naval presence in Japan.

    Neither conquered country has been able to recover a shred of its former sovereignty for 70 years! They are vassal states subject to the most ruthless hegemonic power since the Roman empire.

    ebworthen

    If Germany were really concerned about NATO they'd kick the U.S. Armed Forces out.

    This is political banter; the Germans need Russian NatGas and are playing both sides.

    They have guilt over the death of 20+ million Russians in WWII, but Russia is en export market - and they don't want their Eastern flank open.

    Just like Greece; they feel bad about WWII, but they want a downtrodden island to vacation on too.

    And Neocons? Both the Left and the Right are war happy pumpers of the M.I.C. here in the U.S.A.

    nope-1004

    Dude.... it's US hegemony at risk here. Pipelines and what not. Read up, pull your head out of the sand, and watch US foreign policy implode on itself. After all, WTF is the US meddling in Europe for anyway? Why are they there? What does the Ukraine have that the US or Russia needs?

    It's all about energy and how it flows to customers. The US has the most to lose, which is why they created the coup to overthrow the previously elected government in Ukraine.

    They are, without question, the most hypocritical government to ever grace God's green earth. They say one thing publicly and do the opposite in practice. And it appears they've got you sucked in too.

    malek

    Two points:

    1. The headline to me seems to indicate the path for the usual whitewash towards the "Democrats": currently a few US Neocons came to head the "Democratic" party like wolves in sheep clothing, but overall the leftists still hold the moral highground!

    2. It is curious German magazine Der Spiegel doesn't mention it's own role in this, posting a headline STOP PUTIN NOW on it's frontpage after MH-17 had been shot down.

    JustObserving

    The Nobel Prize Winner and the Neocons have always wanted to put Russia in its place and the destabilization of Ukraine was the starting point. It was payback for Putin protecting Assad and granting asylum to Snowden. USA wants Russia on its knees and complete full spectrum domination with no one to question US hegemony and infinite spying. Unfortunately Putin stands in the way and he must be demonized and destroyed.
    Victoria Nuland Lied to US Congress about Phantom Russian Hoards in Ukraine

    On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.

    She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."

    She absurdly called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at peace.' "

    Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia's heartland – with menacing US bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.

    Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs "peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."

    "They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political reforms."

    Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych's police showed remarkable restraint.

    Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and other violence.

    Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy whatever.

    Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.

    Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a US-installed fascist dictatorship.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/victoria-nuland-lied-to-us-congress-about-p...

    The Neocons have killed millions in Iraq and got away scot-free:


    US Sponsored Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012. Killed 3.3 Million, Including 750,000 Children

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/victoria-nuland-lied-to-us-congress-about-p...

    Ignatius

    The basis of neocon philosophy is a LIE, that if you don't have a real enemy just make shit up.

    How then can one "debate" a neocon with anything other than a baseball bat?

    Their starting point is that neocons will lie if they have to and probably also just for the fun of it.

    Psychopaths.

    JustObserving

    The Nobel Prize Winner has bombed 7 Muslim countries, destabilized Ukraine, attempted a coup in Venezuela, lied about sarin use in Syria to almost start a war, assassinated US citizens without a trial, regularly drones women and children and wedding parties and yet is the most admired man in the world in a Gallup poll in 2014. I would cry at humanity's stupidity, cruelty and corruption but I prefer to laugh. You love your lying war criminals then you will get lot more war.

    yogibear

    Meet Neocon "Doughnut Dolly" Victoria Nuland

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/12/18/meet-neocon-doughnut-do...

    Nuland's career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the interests of Russia's ally, Serbia.

    markar

    Angie needs to end her triangulating charade and choose sides. Keeping a foot in the Russian door while appeasing her Neocon masters in the West won't work much longer. She knows Obama is a spineless puppet who won't back her and Ukraine is a failed state run riot by neo Nazi thugs and oligarchs.

    What's it going to be Angie, an act of heroism or taking Germany down with the Western ship?

    lesterbegood

    Angie like Obama, Nuland, et al, is another political puppet/spokesperson for the power behind the money.

    Winston Churchill

    Which means her puppet masters are changing horses mid race.

    No honor amongst thieves and/or psychopaths.

    HowdyDoody

    I wonder what on earth the CIA/NSA has on her that keeps her putting the interests of the US above her own country.

    Wile-E-Coyote

    Come on Germany tell the USA to fuck right off............................. won't happen.

    css1971

    35 US military bases in Germany say you are absolutely correct.

    Son of Loki

    Simply look at the quality of our State dept -- Nuland, etc -- The average IQ and emotional intelligence there has to be at an all-time low.

    Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thoroughly versed in history, politics, economics and debate.

    yogibear

    "Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thorougly versed in history, politics, economics and debate."

    People are used to dumb and dumber DC. It matches the rest of the country.

    Stumpy4516

    The statespeople may have been more intelligent at one time but their actions (covert murders, regime change, wars, etc.) have always been the same.

    [Mar 07, 2015] Meet the Big Wallets Pushing Obama Towards a New Cold War By Christian Stork

    February 25, 2015 | Alternet
    As for those in the K Street elite pushing Uncle Sam to confront the bear, it isn't hard to see what they have to gain. There's a familiar ring to the U.S. calls to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That's because the same big-money players who stand to benefit from belligerent relations with Russia haven't forgotten a favorite Cold War tune.

    President Obama has said that he won't rule out arming Ukraine if a recent truce, which has all but evaporated, fails like its predecessor. His comments echoed the advice of a report issued a week prior by three prominent U.S. think tanks: the Brookings Institute, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and the Atlantic Council. The report advocated sending $1 billion worth of "defensive" military assistance to Kiev's pro-Western government.

    If followed, those recommendations would bring the U.S. and Russia the closest to conflict since the heyday of the Cold War. Russia has said that it would "respond asymmetrically against Washington or its allies on other fronts" if the U.S. supplies weapons to Kiev.

    The powers with the most skin in the game -- France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine -- struck a deal on Feb. 12, which outlines the terms for a ceasefire between Kiev and the pro-Russian, breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine. It envisages a withdrawal of heavy weaponry followed by local elections and constitutional reform by the end of 2015, granting more autonomy to the eastern regions.

    But not all is quiet on the eastern front. The truce appears to be headed the route of a nearly identical compromise in September, which broke down immediately afterward.

    Moscow's national security interests are clear. Washington's are less so, unless you look at the bottom lines of defense contractors.

    As for those in the K Street elite pushing Uncle Sam to confront the bear, it isn't hard to see what they have to gain. Just take a look below at the blow-by-blow history of their Beltway-bandit benefactors:

    No Reds Means Seeing Red

    Following the end of the Cold War, defense cuts had presented bottom-line problems for America's military producers. The weapons dealers were told that they had to massively restructure or go bust.

    Luckily, carrots were offered. Norm Augustine, a former undersecretary of the Army, advised Defense Secretary William Perry to cover the costs of the industry mergers. Augustine was then the CEO of Martin Marietta -- soon to become the head of Lockheed Martin, thanks to the subsidies.

    Augustine was also chairman of a Pentagon advisory council on arms-export policy. In that capacity, he was able to secure yet more subsidy guarantees for NATO-compatible weapons sales to former Warsaw Pact countries.

    But in order to buy the types of expensive weapons that would stabilize the industry's books, those countries had to enter into an alliance with the U.S. And some members of Congress were still wary of shelling out money to expand a military alliance that had, on its face, no rationale to exist.

    Enter the NATO Expansion Squad

    Enter the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Formed in 1996, the Committee wined and dined elected officials to secure their support for NATO enlargement. Meanwhile, Lockheed buttressed its efforts by spending $1.58 million in federal contributions for the 1996 campaign cycle.

    The Committee's founder and neocon chairman, Bruce Jackson, was so principled in his desire to see freedom around the globe that he didn't even take a salary. He didn't have to; he was a vice president at Lockheed Martin.

    By Clinton's second term, everyone was on board. Ron Asmus, a former RAND Corporation analyst and the "intellectual progenitor" of NATO expansion (who would later co-chair the Committee to Expand NATO), ended what was left of the policy debate in the State Department. He worked with Clinton's diplomatic point man on Eastern Europe, Strobe Talbott.

    Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were all in NATO come 1999. The Baltic States would soon follow. By 2003, those initial inductees had arranged deals to buy just short of $5 billion in fighter jets from Lockheed.

    Bruce Jackson began running a new outfit in 2002. It was called the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

    (36 F-16s are currently slated for delivery to Iraq at an estimated $3 billion.)

    Rivers of Cash

    Brookings is Washington's oldest think tank. For most of its existence, its research was funded by a large endowment and no-strings-attached grants. But all of that changed when Strobe Talbott took the reins.

    Strobe Talbott, President

    Talbott sought to bolster Brookings' coffers with aggressive corporate fundraising. He took it from annual revenues of $32 million in 2003 to $100 million by 2013. Though always corporate-friendly, Brookings has become little more than a pay-to-play research hub under Talbott's reign.

    Among the many corporate donors to Brookings are Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin and cyber-defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.

    David M. Rubenstein, Co-Chairman of Board of Trustees

    Rubenstein is co-founder and co-CEO at the Carlyle Group, a massive private equity firm. Among the companies in which Carlyle has a controlling stake in is Booz Allen Hamilton -- a military and intelligence IT firm that is currently active in Ukraine.

    Booz, which both sells to and operates within the U.S. military and intelligence apparatus, counts four former Carlyle executives among its directors. Ronald Sanders, a vice president at Booz, serves on the faculty of Brookings.

    Atlanticists

    The Atlantic Council was formed in 1961 as a "consolidation of the U.S. citizen groups supporting" NATO, according to its website.

    Stephen Hadley, Director

    A former national security advisor for George W. Bush, Hadley doubles as a director for Raytheon. He was also the driving force behind the creation of the U.S. Committee on NATO, on whose board he sat, and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

    Prior to joining the Bush White House, Hadley was a lawyer for Shea & Gardner, whose clients included Lockheed Martin.

    James Cartwright, Director

    A retired general and former vice chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, James Cartwright has an active work life. He's "an advisor to defense and intelligence contractor TASC, defense consulting firm Accenture, and Enlightenment Capital, a private equity firm with defense investments," according to the Public Accountability Initiative. He's also on the board of Raytheon, which earned him $124,000 in 2012.

    Other notables include:

    Nicholas Burns – former diplomat and current senior counselor at The Cohen Group, which advises Lockheed Martin, among other defense companies

    James A. Baker III – Bush 41 Secretary of State and partner at law firm Baker Botts. Clients include a slew of defense companies

    Thomas R. Pickering – former senior vice president for Boeing

    Chi-town Chickenhawks

    Founded in 1922, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs has since served as the premier voice of Midwest business leaders in American foreign policy. Jeb Bush recently made his "I am my own man" speech, outlining his foreign policy priorities, to the council:

    Lester Crown, Chairman

    The chair of Henry Crown & Co., the investment firm that handles the fortune started by his father, Henry Crown. Henry put the "dynamic" in General Dynamics, helping to turn it into the world's largest weapons manufacturer by the time Lester became its chairman in 1986. The defense behemoth remains the single largest source of the family's treasure; they're currently the 35th richest clan in America. General Dynamics produces all of the equipment types proposed for transfer to Ukraine in the think-tank report.

    Ivo Daalder, President

    A co-author of the report, Daalder is a former diplomat and staffer on Clinton's National Security Council. He later served on the Hart-Rudman Commission from 1998-2001. It was chartered by Defense Secretary William Cohen -- later to become a Lockheed consultant -- and tasked with outlining the major shifts in national security strategy for the 21st century. Among its commissioners was none other than Norm Augustine.

    The commission concluded that the Department of Defense and intelligence community should drastically reduce their infrastructure costs by outsourcing and privatizing key functions, especially in the field of information technology.

    The main beneficiaries have been America's major defense contractors: Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Booz Allen Hamilton and Lester Crown's outfit, General Dynamics.

    General Dynamics' revenue tripled between 2000 and 2010 as it acquired at least 11 smaller firms that specialized in exactly the sort of services recommended for outsourcing. Roughly one-third of GD's overall revenue in 2013, the same year that Daalder was appointed president of the Council by Crown, came from its Information Systems and Technology division.

    So even without a Cold War Bear to fuel spending, the re-imagining of that old foe is oiling the revolving door between the government and defense contractors.

    [Mar 07, 2015] CIA Urged Rebels to Assassinate Their Own In Order to Create "Martyrs" by George Washington

    03/03/2015 | zerohedge.com

    A CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause.

    The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government.

    The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other media that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

    At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

    Indeed, this is just one of scores of admitted false flag attacks by governments all over the world.

    P.S. We're SURE this has nothing to do with this completely unrelated story:

    Russian Opposition: Putin Did NOT Assassinate Opposition Leader

    Budd aka Sidewinder

    George, much respect but the Lincoln quotes have got to go

    Son of Captain Nemo
    CIA Urged Rebels to Assassinate Their Own In Order to Create "Martyrs"

    Owned and managed by the same "LLC" that gave us the Patrot Act(s) and the NDAA and 4 going on 5 wars of choice!!!!

    Whole lotta 9/11 love!

    VWAndy

    This killing of guys on your team practically guaranties the leader of a revolution will be a psyco killer too. A win win deal.

    It would work best if they kill the centrist/moderates. Right out of the commie handbook.

    JoJoJo

    Dont forget the Kerry Committee in 1985 where Sen Kerry fawned over dictators who promised they were not Communists - before they allied with communist Soviet Union.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1219935/posts

    Radical Marijuana

    Thanks for trying to stay on top of these kinds of stories, George Washington! More and more, it is practically impossible for any individual to keep up ... I appreciate articles that have organized a presentation of crucial information that one could review!

    SoilMyselfRotten

    Would love to know how Reagan answered that one

    shovelhead

    Thank Dog we have the CIA

    Imagine the trouble they could cause if we had an organization that was competent?

    peanuts

    This revelation feels like nothing compared to the other shit that was in that manual, along with all the training that was done at the School of the Americas at Ft. Bening, Georgia to carry out what was in the manual down in Nicaraqua in the 80's.

    dexter_morgan

    OK, lets look at these alleged terrorists. What the hell is it they want anyways?

    If their goal is to eliminate Israel as megalomaniac nuttyyahoo wants us to believe - THEN WHY THE FUCK DO THEY ATTACK AND KILL EVERYBODY BUT ISRAELI'S????????

    If it's global redistribution of wealth, then WHY DON"T THEY ATTACK THE ROTHSCHILDS, MEMBERS OF THE BILDERBERGERS, DAVOS ATTENDEES, BANKSTERS IN GENERAL, etc.

    Seriously, either they are the stupidest fucking people in the world, or they are playing someone elses game for fucks sake.

    amanfromMars

    If their goal is to eliminate Israel as megalomaniac nuttyyahoo wants us to believe - THEN WHY THE FUCK DO THEY ATTACK AND KILL EVERYBODY BUT ISRAELI'S????????

    If it's global redistribution of wealth, then WHY DON"T THEY ATTACK THE ROTHSCHILDS, MEMBERS OF THE BILDERBERGERS, DAVOS ATTENDEES, BANKSTERS IN GENERAL, etc.

    Seriously, either they are the stupidest fucking people in the world, or they are playing someone elses game for fucks sake. ...... dexter_morgan

    Possibly, and therefore quite probably, an active work in progress, d_m, and something to look forward to in the near future as intelligence takes over from stupidity?

    WTFRLY

    New Anonymous op as White House still ignores murder of American reporter Serena Shim in Turkey

    UN Chief: Israel may have purposely targeted UN base in Lebanon, killing Spanish soldier – VIDEO

    Reaper

    Trust in his government masters is the enslaving opiate of the patriotic fool. The greater his government lies, the more the patriotic fool emotes.

    Reptil

    This is interesting: Former advisor to Nemtsov, Mikhail Delyagin comment.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eACsWwJgoa0

    Rollo57

    An even more interesting question; "How did they manage to make those 'T'-Shirts so quickly?

    http://fortruss.blogspot.ca/2015/03/were-props-and-slogans-for-nemtsovs....

    In less than 24 hours, a four colour shirt complete with logo's in Ukrainian and Russian?

    Obaminator

    Yeah, GW can go live somewhere else and see if he can write stuff like this from all the GREAT countries he likes to defend...like Russia, and see how far he gets.

    Not only that, but his quotation isnt even a Question, it was a STATEMENT.

    Doooooooh

    btdt

    no need to wait!

    habara are standing by!

    -------------

    glad to see your operation now has harbara version 3.4 so you can post at the top.

    [Mar 07, 2015] The killing of my friend Boris Nemtsov must signal the death of appeasement by Garry Kasparov

    This man can do anything for money. What a low-lifer. Looks like talent in chess does not extend to other human qualities. Of cause NED/IRI money does not smell, and that means its quite natural for Gary Kasparov to become a buddy of neocons. From comments: "The constant attacks on Putin from the MSM, are an indicator of just how desperate the elite are to instigate some form of rebellion against him in Russia -- hence the Nemtsov assassination. "

    March 6, 2015 | The Guardian

    ID4534229

    Kasparov, you should be ashamed of yourself. A shill of the west, much like Klitchko. Are you really complaining about Russia when you share a platform with Saakashvili ? A man who is wanted back home for corruption? You are a useful idiot, like Klitchko and like Saakashvili. The only difference between you and the criminal and corrupt billionaires expelled from Russia is that you don't have the money.

    Why do these "Russian" dissenters, once they leave their country, immediately end up in US Senate hearings and with US politicians who would love to see Russia reduced to a mess? Have you no shame?

    caotama 6 Mar 2015 17:47

    "Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped". So you are buddies with the neocons? Case closed.

    "Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili..." Isn't that discredited IMF puppet on some wanted list?

    "Russian forces nearly reached Tbilisi before they turned back". Why did they turn back, Gaz?

    irishmand -> Treabhar Mac Oireabaird 6 Mar 2015 17:31

    If you don't like the West, why are you staying here?

    I don't like what americans did to the west. The democracy we heard so much about is being dismantled quickly. The school education is ruined. University education is becoming less and less affordable. Medical system in US is almost the genocide of poor. The media are lying on industrial basis. The moods in the society are pro war, people want blood. I am trying to fight it explaining that the west is walking towards abyss but you don't want to listen. Many people call me a Kremlyn troll. I don't care, but it demonstrates the points I just made.

    BMWAlbert

    Meanwhile in Odessa, far from the front lines, all is tranquil...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HacQe4GYIY#t=138

    MarVas

    The "More than 100,000 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow" line links to a page that says "Police put numbers at 7,000, while those involved said the protest drew 50,000."

    After the event police adjusted their numbers to 21,000 but apparently it is not worth mentioning.
    Even if provided by promoters' numbers are correct, it's still less than 0.5% of Moscow population.
    Is it a good reason to openly lie?

    HollyOldDog -> MarVas

    Strange how foreign newspapers always try to clutch at invisable straws. Protestors usually overestimate their numbers but the police on viewing airborne video have the advantage when estimating crowd numbers.

    There was supposed to be a protest march in a city in Siberia where the protestors informed the police that thousands would turn up but only 12 were present on the day. The Police could be still searching for someone to pay for the extra police overtime for the non event.

    PlatonKuzin

    "Boris Nemtsov's whole career was not aimed at helping Russia, but at the interests of foreign states," said Nikolai Starikov, one of Anti-Maidan's leaders. "Boris Nemtsov is the first victim of the Maidan in Russia… He was killed by his American curators."

    I also think so.

    Obfusgator

    Anti-negotiator Kasparov sounds like your proto-typical war and conflict addicted general, always ready to sacrifice millions of chess piece lives. He should stick to what he does best (playing games) and let his anger at Putin's Russia subside.

    We're all seeing bloody red at the moment Garry, but aren't you sick of war? You could have mentioned in your article the US funded coup in the Ukraine that led to Russia moving to protect assets there and you omitted important details regarding the increasing encirclement of Russia by US/NATO forces.

    In case you haven't noticed, when the US sticks its nose into rival countries' business (sanctions first closely followed by militarily assistance) things get out of control.

    We don't need that playing out again, now do we?

    Russia's problems are hers to sort out.

    notEvenNibling -> Obfusgator

    Ukraines problems are "hers" to sort out.

    Obfusgator -> notEvenNibling

    Ukraine's US coup problem.

    Parangaricurimicuaro

    Do you remember Iraks Ahmed Chalabi? The guy that pushed for the war? Kasparov is the 2015 version

    Russia will always be my country, but it is difficult to imagine returning while Putin is still in the Kremlin.

    EugeneGur

    No, it aren't, my friend. Russia isn't you country - you betrayed it, you are openly inviting foreign powers to attack it. Just because you say "Putin" instead of "Russia", you think it makes a difference? Assuming the policy of "isolation and condemnation" is successful, do you think Putin will suffer or do you even suspect that ordinary Russians will feel the pain? Do you care?

    This is a good article showing very clearly what kind of "opposition" this is. For the life of me, I cannot imaging an opposition of any kind, say, in the US or any European country, inviting foreign countries to start a war against the homeland and surviving. But it's perfectly fine in Russia. He is downright pleading with the West: don't be afraid, you won't have to defeat the entire Russian army or start WWIII. Just "inflict enough damage". The man is disgusting. He is also lying. It would be necessary to defeat the entire Russia, if it comes to that. Russia is not populated only by Karparovs.

    The opposition movement that Boris and I believed in, and that Boris died for, should be openly supported, the way the west once championed the Soviet dissidents.

    So, the "opposition" is a Western-paid performer, a.k.a. a whore.

    Ronald Reagan told those of us behind the iron curtain that he knew it was our leaders, not us, who were his adversaries.

    I do believe that. Personally, Garry did very well as did Nemtsov. But the rest of Russia did turn out to be Reagan's adversary, at least, it was treated as such.

    I do hope you Westerners understand now and believe us when we say that this 'opposition" has absolutely no influence in Russia, and most people have nothing but contempt for them. You are wasting your money paying them.

    PeregrineSlim

    "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts…The United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way….And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this - no one feels safe." Vladimir Putin, Munich 2007

    willpodmore

    The Minsk peace agreement's terms included 'Withdrawal of all foreign armed groups, weapons and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory'. In direct violation of the agreement, the US government announced in late February that it would send 300 troops to Ukraine to help train Ukraine's forces, and Prime Minister David Cameron announced on 24 February that 75 British troops would also be sent to help train Ukraine's forces.

    AlexUspen

    Kasparov: "More than 100,000 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow last Sunday, a number that gives the lie..."

    Well, it really does.

    The link gets you to a Guardian story, putting the number of rally participants somewhere between 7,000 and 50,000. The 100K figure is repeated in the picture caption… This is some very strange math.

    PeregrineSlim

    The opposition in Russia will go nowhere as long as they function as errand boys for the american empire.

    MyDogLikesPorridge

    With Nemtsov gone, Kasparov and his ilk will be again trying to sell Navalny as the next saviour of Russia. Below is an excerpt from an article published in May/2011. It is both frighteningly relevant and prescient of events to come.

    "But the following interview was much more interesting. It's with The New Times, a Russian magazine... Navalny says "I think that the power in Russia will change not by an election process; they can elect whoever they like in March of 2012, but everything will be finished by April", and then clarifies – "by something like a Tunis scenario". Answering the question "Do you expect the wave from the bottom", he says – "No, I don't wait for it, I'm organizing it. We don't know when it will happen, but it's within our power to bring it closer. The current Russian authorities are thieves and swindlers. We must fight against them, exert pressure on them, create problems for them, and involve more and more people in creating problems. This pressure can be of different kinds – from simple negotiations to mobs on the streets that drag civil servants from their cabinets and hang them. And the faster authorities realize that and start negotiating, the less plausible the violent scenario becomes. I don't think that any political technologies or twitter can make people come out on the streets and chase away thieves and swindlers, so normal people could take over." (emphasis mine) .

    Well… first of all, let's just recall that every state has the right to defend its constitutional system by force, and such citadels of democracy as the UK and the US have no qualms about invoking it. Secondly, the Russian criminal code has the article "Violent takeover of power or violent retention of power", punishable by from 12 to 20 years in prison. And I don't remember anything in the Constitution that says that hanging of government officials is a legitimized feature of a democratic process. The code also has the article "Calls to extremist actions". But let's leave that aside for a moment.

    Navalny clearly states that he's working towards a typical colour revolution. First, I don't know what can be more undemocratic than a handful of raucous people changing power by riots and violence, simply because they don't like the government, the outcome of some election or any other quality. The opinion of the rest of the people is commonly ignored. It's also usually accompanied by tens or hundreds of corpses. Second, a common misconception is that power is transferred from bad authoritarian groups to "the people". That's a brazen lie; power simply gets transferred from one group to another, and the benefactor is well-known beforehand. Did anyone doubt that Yuschenko would become president when the Orange revolution succeeded? Or Saakashvili in Georgia? Third, and this is the most important point – there have been plenty of such revolutions. Has a single country benefited from it? Saakashvili's more and more authoritarian rule and the unleashed war are something that the Georgians dreamed of in 2003? Yuschenko's rating lying in the gutter is what the Ukranians stood in Maidan Square for? The deposing of Bakiev in 2010 by yet another revolution was worth launching the first one in 2005? Navalny suggests that "normal people will take over". Needless to say, that one statement will inspire laughter in any politologist worth his salt. Will these "normal people" spontaneously inherit another law framework and its institutions? Obviously, no. Then we have to take their word that after they come into power, these mysteriously benevolent "normal people" will start to limit their own authoritiy in favour of common people. Please remind me; how often has that happened in history? But OK, let's be believers for a while, so let's assume that they really are that incorruptible. In order to improve governance, the state should have better institutions and laws, so after the coup someone will have to write them. But what's stopping "normal people" from drafting them now, even promoting them? Maybe the current power will adopt them, so there will be no need for a revolution! And finally, who will determine the suitability of these people? Navalny?

    I sincerely hope that this whole interview is just idle thoughts, and Navalny doesn't vest any serious meaning in them. But alas, evidence suggests the contrary. All the traditional components are present – branding authorities as hopelessly corrupt and despotic, the government's consummate demonization and alienation; praise from abroad of one group, presenting them as progressives; the preparing of key people in the West. It's also useful to attach to the big picture the recent interview of Kasparov, in which he repeats Vice-President Joe Biden's threat that if Putin should be reelected in 2012, the US will topple him with a colour revolution.

    PeregrineSlim

    The Washington War Party is shipping off its troops to the Ukraine in the coming week in defiance of the Minsk agreement.

    sensitivepirate

    It is not about right or wrong, because in this case there are wrongs on both sides.

    Here we see the United States located on the other side of the world, standing up for its interests and investments in owning and controlling Ukrainian oil, gas, coal, manufacturing, transportation, strategic location, and agricultural resources in a country without any Americans.

    Here we see Russia standing up for Russians.

    Be careful what you wish for. With Russia, your ideals may never be realized.

    henrihenri -> sensitivepirate

    We live in world deprived of ideals. Money!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q&feature=player_detailpage

    therealbillythefish

    "with the belief that the days of changing Europe's borders by force"

    The Serbs of Kosovo were disabused of that belief by NATO.

    therealbillythefish Sceptical Walker

    The KLA started a campaign of murder and were suppressed with much less brutality than the yanks showed in places like Fallujah.

    NATO handed Kosovo to the human organ traffickers of the KLA with the result that non-Albanians have been driven out and the economy is a basket case with thoussnds of Kosovans attempting to claim asylum in the EU every month.

    johnbonn

    Sanctions are not appeasement, so what is he talking about. Kiev has already done its best to destroy the east where ethnic Russians live.

    If he wants something stronger, don't worry. The UK and the US are preparing for the invasion by restarting the civil war.
    The Guardian does not report that the largest oil companies in the west have paid large amounts of money to Ukraine for the rights to drill off the Crimean coast.

    These companies can't get their money back, so the west must invade.

    McCain and Kerry and Cameron will insure that he and Europe will soon get their war with Russia. Sadly this will bring a major realignment of the middle east to this major war.

    frombrussels

    ....Elephants NEVER forget, they say ......People however are the worst "forgetters"!.....

    The Ukraine mess and all its horrible consequences started when Nuland b*tch and CIA decided to orchestrate a coup against a democratically elected, yet pro russian president, as a consequence of which Putin took back HIS Crimea and people in E Ukraine decided they wanted to belong to Russia ......

    It s as easy as that....let s make it complicated though, to justify deliverance of lethal weapons to Ukraine by "godfather" USA !

    amcalabrese2

    Or maybe we (the US in particular and the West in general) needs to realize that this is not our war. Is Russia really a threat to the us? Russia is not the Soviet Union. Unlike the days of the USSR, there are no armies of people in the west willing to do the party's bidding. Those days the Soviets were a deep threat to us. Had the Soviets won, freedom would have been extinguished. And the Soviets could have won. The Russians are having trouble paying their state employees.

    nnedjo

    Given that we are talking about a chess genius, and with regard to this very eloquent text that he wrote now, Garry Kasparov, without a doubt, is an extremely capable man. That is why it is a very pity that such a man has not found the right way to help his country. As I already said, this text of Kasparov is really very eloquently written, but besides that, it's full of nonsense. That a man of such intelligence can write so many things contrary to common sense, can only be explained by his blind hatred against Putin's Russia.

    But, for now, I will mention only one of the nonsense that Garry Kasparov wrote here.
    He says, "police state is very good at keeping the monopoly of violence for themselves, and given that prominent opposition politician was killed in the immediate vicinity of the Kremlin, the chances that this occurred without any involvement of Russian security services is vanishingly small."

    So, if the goal was to remove a vocal critic of the Kremlin, why was it necessary to do so near the very Kremlin? Does the state that holds the monopoly of violence could not do it in any other, less significant place. I do not see any sense in it, that the security services killed prominent opposition leaders at also prominent places, and not in some other places.

    Especially those security services who are trying to maintain a monopoly of violence, as they are also trying to maintain the illusion of safety in the country, even when it is not like that. So, for Kasparov probably would not look anything absurd, even that Boris Nemtsov was killed at the same time when Putin and his entourage crossed the Red Square, and that the bullets that are missed Nemtsov whizzed around Putin's head. Or, perhaps Putin's involvement in the murder would be even more apparent for Kasparov that Nemtsov was killed in the lobby of Putin's office, and there would be no wonder that the Russian security services have not thought of it first.

    I will repeat once again. In addition to being the chess genius Garry Kasparov is obviously a very talented writer. However, if he intends to devote to such a profession even more, I would recommend him not to write crime stories, but of another type, or from some other genre.

    SalmanShaheen

    It seems unlikely Putin had Nemtsov killed. What would he have to gain?

    dropthemchammer -> SalmanShaheen

    It would send a message to other around him.
    If the sanctions are starting to bite and people close to Putin muttering then this action would get them to hold their tongues.

    Oskar Jaeger -> SalmanShaheen

    No man, no problem (J V Stalin).

    henrihenri -> Oskar Jaeger

    There was a man, true, but there wasn`t a problem.

    FrancesSmith

    I'm wondering. Here in the UK we could do with a better opposition, and we could also do with a better electoral system, and the ownership of the press is a serious issue, and the current government has appointed its close associates to run the BBC. And what about the way our political parties are funded, corrupt or what?

    But what if there was some rich UK chess player went to the USA and started writing articles in the foreign press asking them to intervene and remove our elected government.

    ok, we haven't invaded anywhere recently, and we haven't had an opposition leader shot dead, no need really they can't get past the tory press.

    But just imagine how you would feel, putin demonisers, if there was someone from the UK talking about our government like this, and asking for intervention, and trying to impose a new government on us that has minimal support in the country.

    ApfelD

    The opposition movement that Boris and I believed in, and that Boris died for, should be openly supported

    Kasparov makes me laugh
    He is asking for the open support from the US
    It's like Alex Salmond will ask Putin about the missile strike on London

    PSmd

    For all Kasparov's ideals for liberal transparency and a capitalist economy, what our press seems to not emphasise is that the Communists are the big opposition in Russia. They are the ones kept out possibly by United Russia, certainly by Yeltsin. They are big in towns and cities, among pensioners. In fact, theire following is a bit like UKIP, they recognise the grimmer past, but the certainties that came before the deracinatiing effects of globalisation.

    BunglyPete

    Its worrying just how easily history can be rewritten.

    This BBC report titled Georgia 'started unjustifiable war' says

    The shelling of Tskhinvali (the South Ossetian capital) by the Georgian armed forces during the night of 7 to 8 August 2008 marked the beginning of the large-scale armed conflict in Georgia," the report says.
    It adds later: "There is the question of whether [this] use of force... was justifiable under international law. It was not."
    It also says Georgia's claim that there had been a large-scale Russian military incursion into South Ossetia before the outbreak of war could not be "sufficiently substantiated", though it said there was evidence of a lower-level military build-up.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8281990.stm

    Now it does go on to say that Russia's response was over the top and illegal too, but the key point is it began with Saakashvili, Kasparov's ally, shelling a city.

    Now we are told the conflict was provoked by Putin, is proof of his imperialistic plans, and that Saakashvili is a person we should take seriously.

    If you want to do so I won't stop you, but to do so is foolish given the evidence against the Georgian regime from 2008.

    Renfrow

    Wow. Gary had turned into quite a radical. This article is definitely designed for the far right western audience. No wonder his support in Russia is close to 0.

    aprescoup

    Navalny is the first Russian opposition figure of any stature. Kasparov lost his credibility amongst Russians by becoming an obvious lackey of the West. Nemtsov never had any credibility amongst Russians because he could never clean himself of the tarnish of being associated with the Yeltsin years.

    Navalny has an altogether different stature, and does have credibility with Russians, but probably only in the Moscow region. Navalny does not lick Western arses as much as Kasparov and Nemtsov because he knows what arse-licking of Westerners will do to his credibility amongst Russians.

    In an October 2014 interview with Ekho Moskvy, Navalny said that he would not return Crimea to Ukraine if he were to become the President of Russia but that a "normal referendum" should be held in Crimea to decide what country the peninsula belongs to. Interestingly the West does not listen to the only Russian opposition figure with any proven credibility amongst Russians, hence Western policy-making towards Russia is becoming ad-hoc and ineffective.

    MacCosham -> aprescoup

    No, Zyuganov is the first opposition figure in Russia. The fact that he is not a US government stooge does not change this.

    FrancesSmith -> MacCosham

    But he's a communist! I just have a feeling, though I may be wrong, that these right wing neocons in the US wouldn't want to see Zyuganov replace Putin.

    Though they should perhaps be a little careful what they wish for as according to wikipedia Boris Nemstov and others said after the 1996 election that the communists should have won.

    http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html

    geedeesee -> Germaan

    "The fact is that Putin unleashed war against Ukraine..."

    Except it was Kiev regime which sent tanks over to Donbass to attack the separatists, and we saw the people come out and plead with the tank crews not to attack them. Then the Kiev regime sent aircraft to bomb the civilians - bombing their own people! Putin didn't tell the Kiev regime to send tanks and military aircraft to deal with civilians. The Kiev regime called it an anti-terror operation.

    elias_ -> richard1

    AFAIK the ruskies didn't invade georgia in 2008. Georgians attacked and killed numerous russian soldiers operating under UN mandate. In response russians gave the georgian military (partly trained by nato) a jolly good spanking before going back to where they were before.

    aprescoup

    Mexico's human rights crisis is even worse than Russia's, but no one in the West cares. The real reason Putin is so disliked by the West is not because Russians suffer under Putin, but because Russia under Putin (unlike Russia under Yeltsin) no longer takes orders from Washington. China's human rights crisis is also worse than Russia's, and again no one in the West cares, because everyone in the West knows that China is more powerful than the US, and that China will never take its orders from Washington. What particularly upsets Washington is that the US is losing its soft-power: the US has no soft power over China, no soft power over Russia under Putin, and no soft power over Israel under Netanyahu.

    ID5868758

    Is Kasparov's support in Russia 5%, or.5%?

    MacCosham -> ID5868758

    0.05%

    JohnMc2015

    I respect Mr Kasparov as an outstanding chess master very much, but his biting a cop in 2012 tells me that a chess player's skill has nothing to do with a serious opposition leader's decent behaviour who really could lead people. Even if such leader finds appropriate words, there appears to be some doubts concerning his adequacy in a critical situation. An opposition leader is supposed to be a cool cucumber.

    PeregrineSlim

    Kasparov seems to have lost sight of the fact that the chess board is in Ukraine and he is a long way from being able to move any pieces.

    BloodOnTheWattle -> PeregrineSlim

    he is still upset at Deep Blue...he cried rivers over the loss. so you must forgive him.

    ID5868758

    What the hell is the matter with the US Senate, hosting such a fringe politician from Russia, and one calling for the overthrow of the elected leader of a sovereign nation? Despicable behavior from the "land of the free", apparently you're "free" only if your opinion is in line with that of the US, otherwise we will make sure we help you change your mind.

    StatusFoe ID5868758

    What the hell is the matter with the US Senate

    What do you mean? He's the US establishment's man in Russia, a Carrier of the Flame and honoured Bilderberger.

    ApfelD Magyar2lips

    let us nuke Hungary and Russia and that's all
    wait a minute
    and Azerbaijan
    and Iran
    and Ukraine (the most corrupted country according to Graun)
    and Saudi Arabia (for gay rights)
    and North Korea
    and Switzerland+Lichtenstein (for the tax avoidance schemes)
    and France (Madonna said that they looks like Nazis)
    and Germany (they don't speak English)

    BloodOnTheWattle ApfelD

    and Germany (they don't speak English)

    most germans do..but lets nuke 'em all the same...the bastards tried to talk to Putin about peace...peace imagine that Merkel escaped our firewall..

    geedeesee

    Russians are questioning events:

    "Since the current US ambassador arrived in Russia, they killed Nemtsov, while he was in Georgia they killed Zhvaniya, and in Ukraine-Gongadze. Coincidence?"

    Each of the three was a prominent opposition figure, and in each case his death had led to political upheaval. To quote Ian Fleming, "once is a happenstance, twice--a coincidence, three times--enemy action."

    dmitryfrommoscow

    Garri, why didn't you address the U.S. Congress with philippics in the 1990's when the oligarchs who propped up Yeltsin were pumping tens of billions of dollars out of Russia every month? When millions of your fellow-countrymen had to live from hand to mouth because the economy was totally divested of funds and lay dysfunctional? When people were dying at hospitals because there was nothing except aspirin there? When selling a bunch of homegrown dill or parsley at a local market was a matter of life and death for innumerable babushkas on a vast space from Vladivostok to the Baltic shores? Give us an answer...

    aprescoup

    As long as Russian opposition figures are arse-lickers of the West, cosying up with MPs, MEPs and Congress members, they will not mobilise Russians against Sistema Putin. The struggle between the West and Russia is between the West's idea of a Post-Westphalian order and Russia's (and China's and Israel's) preference for staying put with the Westphalian order that has been around since 1648. Anyone who does not understand the difference between a political Westphalian order (based around nation-States) and a technocratic Post-Westphalian order (based around technocratic organizations, eg Swift for finance payments, BIS for banking regulation, ICANN for Internet), and the consequences of the West's attempt to change its imperial control over the world from a Westphalian Empire to a Post-Westphalian Empire, is a fool. Ironically, it may have been the USSR that launched Post-Westphalianism with Comintern (Third International, 1919-1943).

    willpodmore

    Kasparov is another warmonger. NATO continues its march to the east. NATO aims to seize control of Ukraine, to complete the hostile glacis to Russia's west. The US government considered it had exclusive rights to run Ukraine: senior US diplomat Richard Holbrooke absurdly declared that Ukraine was part of 'our core zone of security'.

    The US government is pursuing Zbigniew Brzezinski's strategy of trying to draw Russia into a 'prolonged and costly' war in Ukraine. Brzezinski had used this strategy in the 1980s, when he armed Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan as part of a proxy war against the Soviet Union. The US government aimed to do to Russia via Ukraine what it did to the Soviet Union via Afghanistan. Ukraine would become another wasteland of death and destruction, with the constant risk of a wider war, and Russia would descend into chaos.

    US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the head of both the US European Command and NATO in Europe, insisted that we could not 'preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option' in Ukraine. At the Munich Security Conference, Republican senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham poured scorn on European negotiations with President Vladimir Putin. McCain summed up Merkel's speech at Munich, which included a statement of opposition to arming Ukraine, with one word: 'foolishness'. He added, "I can assure you that [Putin] will not stop until he has to pay a much higher price."

    Vadym Prystaiko, Ukraine's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for 'full scale war' with Russia. Military spokesman Andriy Lysenko stated, "there is no ceasefire, and so there is no precondition for a pull-back of heavy weapons." Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh announced that his private army and the Azov Battalion would ignore the agreement and fight on.

    PeregrineSlim

    As Milne points out, the West is already in the process of violating the Minsk agreement:

    But it's certainly grist to the mill of those pushing military confrontation with Russia. Hundreds of US troops are arriving in Ukraine this week to bolster the Kiev regime's war with Russian-backed rebels in the east. Not to be outdone, Britain is sending 75 military advisers of its own. As 20th-century history shows, the dispatch of military advisers is often how disastrous escalations start. They are also a direct violation of last month's Minsk agreement, negotiated with France and Germany, that has at least achieved a temporary ceasefire and some pull-back of heavy weapons. Article 10 requires the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Ukraine.

    ApfelD -> StatusFoe

    it's difficult to understand why Russians don't like Kasparov

    StatusFoe -> ApfelD

    He certainly can come accross as an arrogant prick.

    MacCosham -> richard1

    What bollocks. Putin is not coming close to anyone. What is happening is that anti-establishment parties in Europe, whether left-wing (Die Linke, Podemos, Syriza), centrist (Five Stars) or right wing (FN, Fidesz) are following public opinion which sees that the establishment parties (socialists and conservatives) are puppets of US-based big money.

    guster86

    "I will continue to do whatever I can to draw support to the cause of returning Russia to the path of democracy."

    Possibly sacrifice a few pawns.

    dropthemchammer -> guster86

    You say this after Putin had his opposition assassinated lol

    Simon311 -> dropthemchammer

    Did he? You have certain knowledge of this? Cause Global warming too did he.

    jonno61

    Kasparov has absolutely not credibility on this matter. Why the Guardian choose to publish his propaganda is beyond me ?

    RobHardy -> jonno61

    Fits into a general pattern of propaganda propagation by the Guardian in the last few years, probably much longer. no shortage of fellow travelers for the US management of Vichy Britain.

    altergeist

    "But we must cease to be surprised by the violence and hatred emanating from Russia today if we are to combat it successfully."

    I am ceaselessly amazed by the near-complete unity in the chorous of anti-Russia/Putin propaganda.

    " prominent critic of the regime,"

    With roughly 5% popular support, and quite widely reviled for his part in the Yeltsin era pillage of Russia, when male life expectancy fell about 10 years in just 10 years - a spectacular collapse in living standards. 'Prominent' indeed. And certainly hardly a plausible electoral threat, his prominence and influence is largely hyped to western audiences. One could easily argue he was worth more to western sponsors dead than alive, while Putin had very little to gain from his murder, since it would be eagerly and predictably be blamed upon him... as we have seen: Many western media outlets were ready with their accusations.

    "such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili - discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime."

    Says the belligerent in the recent, if brief, South Ossetian military adventure.

    " cite the official statements of a dictatorship "

    An elected dictator. Whatever next!?

    Look I'm not saying Putin didn't do it, nor that I don't think he's capable of murdering his opponents, nor that I don't think he has murdered any in the past, but even the Russian opposition has quite broadly said it doesn't think he's responsible, that this is a 'provocation.' But shall we wait for some evidence to be in this time? It's all starting to smack a bit of MH17, Assad's chemical weapons, Iraq's WMDs, 45 minutes etc... Accusations without evidence, or bare-faced lies. It certainly does fit with a pattern of CIA led destabilization but then again, maybe Putin has used that plausibility as a cover. Who knows!?

    What I do know is that this wholly unnecessary, largely western provoked West-East showdown is easily and singularly the most potentially dangerous geopolitical situation of my lifetime. Fascinating, but terrifying. Can't the US and Russian leadership just realise that they have a lot in common (democratic deficit, corrupted oligarchic rule, surveillance state, a long history of brutality) and get along?!

    Socraticus

    How much credence can be given to any of Kasparov's claims when he grossly exaggerates that "more than 100,00 people rallied to mourn Boris in Moscow last Sunday"?

    According to the Guardian, the "Police put numbers at 7,000, while those involved said the protest drew 50,000".

    Meanwhile, in other international publications the figure has been cited to be closer to 21,000 and "not tens of thousands as reported by some media outlets", further elaborating that "The reason why official estimates are closer to the real numbers is because all demonstrators had to pass through metal detectors before joining the march and were registered by computers".

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/01/boris-nemtsov-marchers-moscow-honour-murdered-opposition-politician-live-updates)

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/mar/01/boris-nemtsov-marchers-moscow-honour-murdered-opposition-politician-live-updates#block-54f305cde4b011581586e731

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/03/simple-murder-boris-nemtsov-150302081839658.html

    uracan

    Kasparov really is an idiot.

    If Putin for whatever reason is deposed, does he really think the traitorous liberals will get into power.

    It is the communists with their 20% of the vote that will gain the most.

    It will take decades for the liberals to regain any credibility amongst the Russian general population.

    CharlesBradlaugh

    I'm on the left of politics and view the USA's imperialism with disdain and fear, but I agree 100% with this article, you have to be blind not to see that Putin is a dangerous adventurer who will undertake any aggression that will bolster his position.

    SirHenryRawlins -> CharlesBradlaugh

    I don't believe for one second you are on the left. You view the USA's imperialism with disdain and fear, US meddling in Ukraine, the backing of government that took power after the coup, and then say Putin is the adventurer and the aggressor.

    Gooddoggy -> CharlesBradlaugh

    Absolutely true, I am still sickened by Milnes atrocious view that Putin Imperialism is somehow acceptable whereas US Imperialism is not....clearly any sane and decent human being knows that both are unacceptable and need to be fought against with the tools of liberal social justice and liberal left democratic values.

    johhnybgood

    More propaganda. The constant attacks on Putin from the MSM, are an indicator of just how desperate the elite are to instigate some form of rebellion against him in Russia - hence the Nemtsov assassination. However, my reading of the situation is, that the general public across Europe are not buying the rhetoric. It seems that people are becoming far more discerning in their analysis of the propaganda headlines -such as "Russian forces invade Ukraine", with no supporting evidence. The PTB are losing the information war; the genie is out of the bottle, and cannot be put back. At last people's BS meters are now on full alert.

    Time for the MSM to start some independent reporting, especially where Russia is concerned.

    aprescoup

    Kasparov, you completely overestimate the influence that the West, even with its all-powerful dollar refinancing sanctions and quasi-monopolies on advanced technologies, can have on nudging Russians, both oligarchs and ordinary voters, into overthrowing Sistema Putin. If pathetically weak North Korea can continue to defy the West in the ways it does, then don't you think it more likely that a Russia isolated by further sanctions will become more like North Korea? Get real: Putin will not be pushed out of power by sanctions.

    It is time for the West to ignore the Russian opposition: not because the opposition is wrong to condemn Putin as a dictator, but because the Russian opposition completely underestimates the total power that Sistema Putin already has, and the absolute impotence of the West to undermine that total power. The likes of Kasparov, Nemtsov and Navalny are fools: they have underestimated what they are up against, and they are paying for that underestimation with their lives, alternatively with exile or house arrest and an accompanying fear of assassination.

    henrihenri

    Garry Kasparov was afraid of attending Nemtsov`s funeral under the pretext of being killed in Russia. As he explained he was nit ready to buy one-way ticket! Wow! Now every single leader of opposition says, I`m next! It is so ridiculous that even `The Ekho Moskvy`, their radio, laughed at this trend of theirs for a while. The matter, however, is none needs them. It`s just their coquetry. As to Mr. Kasparov none remembers him in his fatherland. Too many new, much younger and more handsome male stars!

    ID5868758

    Same propaganda, different mouthpiece. And don't you find it ironic, Kasparov complaining about "Putin's oligarchs", when he himself is in league with the all the oligarchs who escaped Russia with their stolen billions, and now fight from places like London and Tel Aviv for a return of Russia to the "good old days" of Boris Yeltsin, when the assets and resources of the Russian people were being sold off to the banks and the multinational corporations for pennies on the dollar.

    Junkets

    For a start, the assumption that Putin was behind Nemtsov's murder still remains to be proved. Jumping to conclusions based on political agendas is not the way a good investigator would go about things. After a bit of light from Seumas, didn't you just know that the Guardian would revert to type.

    Appeasement suggests Nazis. Are there concentration camps in Russia? Is Putin engaged in a process of mass-extermination? I remember when Saddam Hussein was compared to Hitler and Tony Blair was praised for his 'Churchillian' qualities. The hyperbole is all getting a bit too transparent.

    Keep on banging the war-drums, Graun, you might just get what you are looking for.

    FOHP46

    Mr Kasparov and Mr Saakashvili..wow! what a tandem, poor sods! Was it not Mr Saakashvili who started a war with Russia in 2008 when his army killed some Russian peace keepers? Is he not wanted for crimes in his country of origin Georgia? Nevertheless, he now lives in Boston, USA, the land of the free. Unbelievable.

    underbussen

    What a terrible article. Sorry but what the hell has happened to journalism these days? Why is "Putins Russia" responsible of this murder? This is like saying "Obamas America" is responsible for all the police shootings in the USA - clearly ridiculous. This article has Putin tried, drawn and quartered before the investigations even get really started. This is NOT journalism, this is propaganda. Shame on you Guardian.

    dropthemchammer Evgeny Petrov

    its quite easy to outsiders but the RUssian people have little access to free media

    Simon311 dropthemchammer

    You mean Rupert Murdoch? Lucky them

    Continent

    Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped. Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili – discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime.

    global danger ... how shocking. I haven't realized it. I has been thinking that ISIL and its terror acts, the violant instability in Afghanistan and North Africa (especially in Lybia), the wars in Iraq and Syria, the atrocities in Nigeria and Sudan, Ebola and the aftermath left on the economic and society of Liberia were the global dangers we would have to deal with.

    Rialbynot

    Kasparov: "Yesterday I was in Washington DC, speaking to a US Senate subcommittee about how and why the Russian dictator must be stopped. Nearly every head in the room nodded in agreement as I and other invitees – such as the former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili – discussed the global danger presented by Putin's increasingly belligerent regime."

    Groupthink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

    RobHardy richard1

    Has Britain ever been substantially different? We have Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind happily willing to sell their access to Chinese businesses. Media almost entirely controlled by corporate influences. Parliament and Civil Service increasingly manned by corporate lobbyists and loan staff. Our defence policy just a subdepartment of Pentagon policy making, GCHQ an outstation of the NSA.

    Yes, we are different, there is the possibility of democracy in Russia, but nothing but a empty sham illusion of democracy in this country.

    UnclePatsy -> dropthemchammer

    Let's first agree on a definition for "invade". Possible definitions may include:
    1. To enter by force in order to conquer
    2. To move into
    3. To infest or overrun.
    4. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate.

    I see civil internal strife within Novorussia and Kievan Ukraine aggravated by external forces, but not an outright invasion by NATO or Russia. Crimea was ceded to Ukraine SSR as a province along with Novorussia only in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev.

    uracan -> jezzam

    Don't you realize that what Putin is doing will consign Russia to poverty for a decade at least.

    This is just wishful thinking.

    Moreover Putin has destroyed any respect for Russia in the world

    If your world consist of US/UK and assorted lackeys.

    There is a bigger world out there than just the West and now that Russia has used the sanctions as an opportunity to do its own pivot to the cash , growing economies of the East, the future of Russia looks a whole lot better than the debt overburdened, decaying economies of the West.

    cherryredguitar

    The problem with the way that America has continually meddled in countries around the world for at least the last century is that every opposition leader in every country that America doesn't like starts looking like a neocon stooge. Because that's how the neocons work. It's their fault, not mine, that I think that way.

    Ilja NB

    Kasparov is a worthless peace of trash, he traveled all around the world on expense of Russian state, and then he suddenly decided he wanted to become a big shot politician, but instead of coming with some idea's that would benefit the country he only was bashing Mr. Putin while Mr. Putin was putting Russia on it's feet.

    Pedro Garcia

    That seems to be a law of life: you are good for one thing, you are bad for another. Kasparov is a despicable man, however a genius in chess. Just reading what he wrote, make me despise him. You don't like Putin, fine, but do you have to run into the US, too?

    Nemtsov as a Politician was null for many years, Putin didn't need to do anything to him, because he didn't represented any threat: his popularity was less than 1%. Nobody, even in Russia, knew who he was till he was shot dead. Politkovskaya was shot dead on Putin's birthday, Nemtsov shot dead aside the Kremlim, don't you see it? The killer is desperately trying to point out Putin. This are not bread crumbs this are the whole chain of bakeries pointing at Putin.

    This has happened before: Nisman in Argentina, to get rid of President Kirchner Party just before the elections, the killing of Hariri in Lebanon to blame Syria.

    Look who is profiting from it and you'll find who's to blame.

    Johhny Efex

    With the end of the USSR the 'free west' had a golden opportunity to disband NATO. This would have given breathing-space for other democratic forms to develop naturally in all sorts of places, including Russia. But instead the USA thought they would go for broke with Full Spectrum Dominance and other ridiculous utopian plans like PNAC to 'install' democracy around the world. Too paranoid and power-hungry to relax their suffocating grip one tiny bit. This is one of the unfortunate consequences.

    dropthemchammer Johhny Efex

    "Full Spectrum Dominance"? NATO is a defense organisation. why disband it when USSR died. there were and are other threats around the world.

    cherryredguitar dropthemchammer

    NATO is a defense organisation


    So why are Nato military generals continually making aggressive comments about Ukraine, which is not a member of Nato? Why is Nato defending non-member states? Because it is an expansionist organisation.

    The original poster is right - Nato should have been disbanded at the end of cold war.


    SASOVIET Johhny Efex

    The North American Terrorist Organisation (NATO) has a new role since fall of USSR:
    1. Terrorize Russians by annoying presence in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
    2. Gang up against third world countries to remove leaders that doesn't support US foreign policy like Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc...

    Old_Donkey

    Mr Kasparov's views can be compared to the open letter which descendants of the white emigration published in France.

    The white emigres declare their "Solidarity with Russia during the Ukrainian Crisis". They also object to the way in which "Russia has been accused of every kind of crime, without any proof, it is judged to be guilty a priori, whereas other countries benefit from a particularly disgusting leniency, in particular, where human rights are concerned."

    The emigres go on to protest against "the calumnies which day after day are heaped on modern-day Russia, its leaders and its President, who have been subjected to sanctions and vilified in defiance of all common sense."

    The descendants of the white emigration are prepared to give a KGB Colonel the benefit of the doubt. So why can't Garry Kasparov? At this point, no one can prove whether Boris Nemtsov died for the Russian opposition movement or not. The law is no respecter of persons and everyone should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, even the President of the Russian Federation.

    http://www.russkymost.net/spip.php?article70&lang=fr
    http://stanislavs.org/descendants-of-the-white-emigration-against-russophobia-in-western-msm/

    Standupwoman

    This is very sad. We must make allowances for the fact that Kasparov was brought up in the old USSR and is clearly unable to shake off that way of thinking, but he must have had a good mind once, and it's hard not to wonder if he mightn't be ill.

    His arguments are frighteningly bad. First he claims Putin is a murderer on the sole ground that a lot of US senators and a discredited war criminal (Saakashvili) agree with him - the kind of argument we would expect from the lowest CiF troll. It's absolutely true that there have been politically-motivated and gangland style murders in Russia, but I have no idea if Putin was responsible for any of them - and neither can Mr Kasparov. What we do know is that if the West had even the slightest shred of evidence against him they'd have plastered it over the media long ago.

    Then he starts rewriting history. After the initial rush of 'blame Putin' in 2008, even the EU was forced to admit that Georgia was not only the aggressor but also responsible for serious war crimes. A good piece in the Guardian gives links to much of this, including some excellent reporting by the BBC. Kasparov is basing his entire argument on a history of 'Russian aggression' which never happened.

    Then worst of all, he sweeps away any concept of fairness and justice. Putin has no motive for killing Nemtsov, he had every motive for not doing so, and there is not the slightest evidence against him - but to even mention these things (as the BBC does) is to be Putin's 'defence lawyer'. There is no need for the presumption of innocence, no need for evidence and a trial, and finally no need even for 'investigation'. Putin is guilty because Kasparov says so, and anyone who disagrees is a Kremlin troll.

    This is frightening on many levels, but not least for where it leads. The sub-headline echoes the hate-filled argument that the only thing that matters now is making Putin look like a loser - and it is precisely for that argument that people are dying. The conflict in Ukraine could stop tomorrow, but the US can't allow anything that suggests Putin has 'won'. Crimea could be resolved instantly by a second, properly monitored referendum, but (as the Lords Report pointed out) this would imply we were 'condoning' Putin. People must go on suffering and dying for as long as it takes - just to ensure the US doesn't lose face.

    That's chilling. In a world where people care about both Russians and Ukrainians, it isn't even sane. So yes, to hear someone like Kasparov come out with this dribbling hate-rant is very sad indeed.

    BunglyPete -> Standupwoman

    Very well written as usual sir/m'am :)

    I don't get why its such a big deal if Putin 'wins' either. If the case against him is so strong, even if pulling out the UAF leaves swathes of Ukraine in Russian control, you can sort it out through the UN later.

    The primary goal has to be the end of violence, not the removal of Putin.

    VladimirM

    It has never occured to me how aggressive [neo]liberals may be, how radical and prone to violence they are. Peacemongering efforts of hawks of peace, whose hatred is so blind that they are not fussy about the means to pursue their agenda, will lead to chaos rather than to prosperity of Russia. They are ready to attack BBC presenters if they are on their way, they are close to calling names when it comes to the EU leaders not living up to liberal expectations when dealing with Russia.


    "I will continue to do whatever I can to draw support to the cause of returning Russia to the path of democracy. "

    You are too agressive, tov. Kasparov. I don't like it. Please, make revolutions somewhere else. For example somewhere you live in, there are problems over there no doubt.

    If you really want to do something, start a charity to help children of Donbass instead of begging for weapons. That would be a decent move.

    SHappens

    Despite all attempts by Kasparov to revive Nemtsov through mouthpiece for the US/NATO, it will not change the fact that on a political point of view Nemtsov was a nobody. Sure he didnt deserve to die but we must ask whom this crime profits.

    It is obvious that Putin has been the target of this attack, together with all of Russia and, being the target, it is highly unlikely that he has been the author of this assassination.

    So now we have Kasparov going for his propaganda by calling Putin a dictator, and Russia a dictatorship, and advocating a full war to defeat the Russian army. Seems that Kasparov didn't learn anything during in glory years as a chess player because that is not a good strategy, this is a loosing strategy for him and the West, Europe in particular, and Ukraine with certainty.

    Nemtsov's death will fall in oblivion in a few months, that is, he will return where he came from. Nobody at least in the West knew this guy before the media rant. He was not even popular in Russia except for the 3%. Nothing to worry the Kremlin.

    ElmerFuddJr

    Astoundingly poor quality commentary in this thread. Y'all sound like American Republicans, or Bibi defenders...utterly incapable of dealing with complex subjects which, given that blood is being shed, require a modicum of understanding of world history these last 40 years (at least) and a bit of nuance here and there...

    Viktor Gofman ElmerFuddJr

    Serious commentary is for a serious article. Kasparov's article is a circus... So there is a circus in the thread as a result.

    PeregrineSlim

    Engagement with Russia has never been tried.

    Since the fall of the Soviet Union the policy has been to drive NATO tanks to the Russian border.

    American democracy is in a death spiral due to its militarism.

    And America is hindering the peaceful and democratic development of other countries due to its interference in their domestic politics.

    MacCosham

    It is telling how Putin, who has got where he is by competitive elections is described as a "dictator" while president Mikheil Saakashvili who:

    • -Got his presidency by overthrowing the previous, democratically elected, government.
    • -Ran a sham election where he got 95% of the vote (no joke)
    • -Killed his main political opponent ("gas poisoning")
    • -Got kicked out as soon as real elections were held

    is described as a former "president"

    [Mar 07, 2015] Russia detains two men in Boris Nemtsov murder inquiry by Chis Johnston

    Note: Guardian did not risked to open comments for this article. Should somebody put a tattoo on Chis Johnston right arm with the words "Cue Bono", the classic Roman approach to such crimes. Why Putin on peak of his popularity would decided to eliminate political cadaver by converting him into real, much more dangerous cadaver. But there are two parties who can benefit from this killing. As the guy who with Chubais and his friends from Harvard sold Russia assets, he incite such level of hate in Russia that even 1% of votes (that means strictly Moscow fifth column of neoliberal globalization) are way too much for him. Why Chris Johnson is so shy to name them is understandable and despicable. Even presstitutes should sometimes behave... Also analogies with Politkovskaya killing and Litvinenko killing are way to obvious to ignore. The USA now try to fight off the challenge that Putin version of state capitalism and Chinese version of "neoliberalism within communist dogma" present and rising tide of nationalism in Europe, which threatens the fundamental postulates of neoliberalism and the USA role as Kremlin of neoliberalism (if we consider this neoliberal globalization as replay of Communist International ideas on a new level). Ukrainian nationalists, while reasonably good at destruction of the economy, proved to be incapable to rule the country and face financial default. They can resort to desperate means to postpone the day of reckoning. Russian newspaper Vzglyad noted that version of the involvement of Chechens fighting in the Ukraine was one of the most plausible. "Izvestia" citing law enforcement sources reported that the organizer of the assassination could be the Ukrainian security services, and assassins - Chechen militants from the so-called battalion named Dzhokhar Dudayev, which fights in Ukraine against DND and LNR.
    .
    By the way, the commander of this detachment Adam Osmayev was previous held as defendant in the case of the preparation of the assassination of President Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the plan was to discredit the Russian government and destabilize the political situation in the country.
    Mar 07, 2015 | The Guardian

    Russian authorities have detained two men in connection with the murder of the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

    The pair were named as Anzor Gubashev and Zaur Dadayev, both from the North Caucasus, a volatile region of southern Russia plagued by insurgency.

    Nemtsov was deputy prime minister in the 1990s in the government of Boris Yeltsin.

    ... ... ...

    Putin has called the killing a "provocation", vowing that everything would be done to convict those who committed a "vile and cynical murder".

    [Mar 05, 2015] The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war by Seumas Milne

    Lebensraum was the ideology behind Drang Nach Ost. This EU expension is just more modern version of the same. This describes what EU/Nato is currently up to.
    Mar 05, 2015 | The Guardian

    yoron_ -> AlanC 5 Mar 2015 18:36

    "The U.S. and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, ready to launch with only a few minutes warning. High-alert status permits the launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of a perceived nuclear attack.

    Early Warning Systems (EWS), high-alert nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and nuclear command and control systems, all working together, provide the U.S. and Russia the capability to Launch-on-Warning.

    When Early Warning Systems warn of an impending nuclear attack, then decisions have to be made very quickly because the flight times of the missiles are very short. 30 minutes or less are required for a nuclear-armed land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) to travel between the U.S. and Russia and vice versa; 15 minutes or less for a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) to reach its target.

    Thus, once the attack is detected, evaluated and passed up the chain of command, the U.S. and Russian president would have at most 12 minutes to make the decision to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack.

    In the event an attack is believed to be real, the president must decide whether or not to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike before the arrival of the perceived attack is confirmed by nuclear detonations. To launch a retaliatory nuclear strike based only upon electronic information derived from Early Warning Systems is to Launch-on-Warning. If the perceived warning turns out to be false but a retaliatory nuclear strike has already been launched, then accidental nuclear war will have occurred.

    The US and Russia are the only two nations believed to have the capacity to carry out Launch-on-Warning (they both have nuclear C3I systems connected to their nuclear weapon systems which enable them to carry out LoW). "

    Arthur_Pendragon 5 Mar 2015 18:46

    There isn't any invasion of Ukraine. There hasn't been an invasion. And there never will be an invasion.

    The Crimea incident wasn't an invasion or annexation at all. It was the will of the people - a popular uprising just like the one in Kiev. Self-determination is a right according to the UN. Well, that right was upheld on March 16th 2014.

    The problems in East Ukraine, also, are connected with a popular uprising of the peoples who live there. They have been attacked by their own government and many civilians have died because Kiev and its western backers did not have the balls to give those people what they initially and peacefully requested - a referendum.

    The people of Crimea have acted in the true spirit of democracy. The people of Donetsk and Lugansk have acted within the true spirit of democracy. The only party that didnt act within this spirit was Kiev. There was no vote to remove Yanakovych. There was no vote to join Europe.

    The west has turned black into white again.

    codeinesunrise -> Skalla 5 Mar 2015 18:41

    Your arrogance betrays your historical ignorance. These 'old powers' that you refer to largely have the Marshall Plan to thank for their economic prosperity - an injection of money that dwarfs current EU investment (and that's what it is, investment - many European companies benefit from these contracts) in Eastern Europe.

    It is important to also remember that a lot of the 'wealth' these countries created often came at the expense of its colonies, which it raped mercilessly. At least our 'poor little' Eastern European countries don't have this shameful legacy upon our conscience.

    You would also do well to remember that Britain itself was bailed out by the IMF in 1976 when it was little better than a failed state. Have a little humility, nothing is more embarrassing than misplaced, fatuous triumphalism.

    str8shtr -> Dzomba 5 Mar 2015 20:00

    1. And of course NATO couldn't say "Sorry, we already have an important agreement, we can not include countries from Warsaw pact"? And wasn't it told to Hungary and others that joining NATO is the shortest way to become a part of EU and west?

    I wonder about complains of Russian invasion after WWII. So u preferred to be under Nazi Germans and soviet solders paid their lives in vain? Or Russian troops had to go home leaving everything for US? Yes, you suffered from soviet framework and communist system, but it wasn't only Russian framework, it was soviet. You couldn't choose any other ideology except communist? So nobody in Ussr could. Everyone was equal in that)) In soviet Russia the regime was much more strict then in Warsaw pact countries. In east European countries national languages were taught, they had their own party (communist, of course), their own leaders (communist of course), constitution (communist) etc and the union invested a lot in recovering after the war and developing it economies. It doesn't look like a devastating invasion.

    2. Everything is on the contrary. The problem was that Russia did not give a damn about Ukraine after the fall of communism, coz it had it's own huge problems till 2001. Meanwhile Ukrainian nationalism was rising. Communists invented country "Ukraine" in the beginning of the 20th century and started nationalism there, but during USSR existed it was under control. Also US started to invest in changing Ukrainian loyalty to anti-Russian in early 90s, same as in east Europe ("red invasion", "you were their slaves", "they used you", "you suffered enough" and so on), it was a bit more difficult then in east Europe but time and nationalism of west Ukraine helped them much.

    3. Yanukovich was a weak president. He was trying to balance between EU/US, Russia and ukranian billioners interests trying to trade the best conditions for his country (for his family first of all). He played to much in that game.

    4. I didnt read the text of the Minsk agreement, but if the advisers have ranks and are a part of military forces don't they are a military help?..

    gnorblitz 5 Mar 2015 19:58

    This is the ultimate fantasy for these threads. The Right and the Left actually spilling blood over ideology instead of the typers here on Guardian Commentary spitting bile at one another. No matter what camp you're in or who you think is the good guy, war is always murder. And the people in this region are the ones suffering. The rest of you are just ghouls, looking on and stroking your political peckers.

    BloodOnTheWattle Strangest 5 Mar 2015 19:56

    I am not sure actually, you make it sound like President Obama is more than a match for President Putin. I mean, he has sanctioned the killing of 5000 people by killer drones during the last 4 years, created havoc in Ukraine, cheerlead and assisted NATO in what is today a cauldron of terrorism in Lybia, picked the wrong guys (yet again in Syria), institutionalized, torture and kidnapping and arm twisting of nations by not acting on the perpetrators of these criminal acts.

    So there you have it apparently Obama makes Putin look like a choir boy.


    irishmand sikaniska 5 Mar 2015 19:42

    The demonization of Russia risks paving way for a credible military defence capability in Europe.

    Which will be a waist of money and will only help to US MIC. Russia is not going to attack any of the european countries. It doesn't need it.

    geedeesee psygone 5 Mar 2015 19:50

    It speaks volumes when you keep dodging these opportunities to show the Russian Army invaded Ukraine. :-)

    irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:37

    Moscow's ambitions are an obvious threat to the whole world because the Kremlin's aggressive tactics may not be limited to just Ukraine. If the EU and NATO fail to stand up to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, later Russia will very possibly turn against the Baltic states and/or Moldova.

    Why are you not working hard to bring the Ukrainian economy back from ruins? You should be doing that instead of trying to create more hatred and fear in people. Or you only good at jumping?

    geedeesee LiamIrl 5 Mar 2015 19:47

    Ha ha - the protesters were nowhere that many. The Guardian said about 30,000. The more thuggish the protestors became, the smaller the crowd. The ultra-nationalist thugs appeared to number about 5000. But as I said, it's called a Coup when a government is overthrown violently by a small group. The democratic way is through elections, which were scheduled for later in the year.

    irishmand LesiaUkrainka 5 Mar 2015 19:45

    The Russian plan is clear. They will seize more of Ukraine and depose the government in Kiev if not checked in time. Only the swift and immediate action of the West to train and equip the Ukrainian army can stop Putin's strategy to deconstruct the trans-Atlantic architecture, to deconstruct the post-cold war order. Like a cancer, Putin and his elites, must be cut out.

    1. How are you going "check" Russia?
    2. Russia already had a chance to take over Ukraine and didn't do it. I don't see why it will decide to do it in the future.
    3. Train ukis so they could kill more people and more efficiently?You want more blood? More dead bodies?


    geedeesee -> Kamil Piwko 5 Mar 2015 19:16

    Of course, we watched many reports of Ukraine Army defecting and joining separatists. Kiev lost many military barracks, depots and arsenals. We know Ukraine Armed Forces totalled around 220,000 men (and maybe some women). The head of the Ukraine Navy went over. Elite forces went over. We read the reports; we saw the TV. Over and over again it happened. We know all this. Just type "Ukraine Army defects" into Google or your search engine. Also type in "Ukraine Army defectors" for more. This is why anti-democratic Kiev Regime of ultra-nationalists passed new draconian law to shoot soldiers who do not obey orders

    BUT - you have replied to a call for evidence showing and proving this huge Russian Army has invaded Ukraine, and yet you don't take the opportunity to reply with the evidence. Instead you tell us what is already known.

    Rossiya 5 Mar 2015 16:25

    What a wonderful and truthful article. Surprised it was published in so anti-Russia country/times/hysteria.

    Every evening the meteorologists remind us how the bad weather always comes from Siberia, it never comes from Scandinavia or North Pole for instance...

    Simply the Anglo-Saxons are born with 'hate Russia' genes unfortunately.
    Perhaps it is right time to press Reset button and return to the Stone Age (?!)

    yoron_ -> AXWE08 5 Mar 2015 17:15

    AXWE. There are no clean hands in this. It's about geopolitical power and who will exploit what. Putins Russia is definitely no cleaner than USA, both though are superpowers, both have nuclear missiles, some of them modernised recently, directed at Stockholm some minutes away, with one of those superpowers calling itself democratic, making its moves at another continent.

    No clean hands, and those that will lose to this stupidity are firstly Europeans, secondly Americans.

    Pavel Prokofiev -> Roguing 5 Mar 2015 17:13

    Ukraine was a colony of Russia?? What?? So, Russia was ruled by Georgian Stalin, by Ukraininan Khrushev and Brezhnev from Moldau, i.e. people from colonies?

    We will discuss you question once a person of indian origin will become a king of the UK.

    ID1439675 -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 17:12

    But yeah, the few instructors of another country is a major violation.

    Although it's hard to disagree with much of what you have to say, you are incorrect on this point. The presence of British and US instructors does not violate the Minsk2 package of measures for two reasons. First, by virtue of the Budapest memorandum the US and the UK are both guarantors of Ukrainian territorial integrity and sovereignty. That means, amongst other things, they are obliged to provide whatever support is deemed necessary to restore Ukrainian territorial integrity when it is adjudged to have been breached. Although not parties to the Minsk2 agreement it could be argued that by sending instructors the US and British are violating the UNSC resolutuon which amongst other things urged all parties to observe the Minsk2 package. However, a UNSC resolution cannot override an existing treaty obligation or agreement unless the resolution specifically allows for that. Secondly, were this matter taken before a court for adjudication the most likely judgement would be that the Minsk2 reference to the removal of foreign troops relates primarily to the disputed area and to Ukraine's demand during the agreement's formulation that Russian troops leave Ukrainian territory. It was never intended to refer to instructors from other countries invited in by the Ukrainian government to train its troops in areas well away from the line of contact and the disputed area.

    Of course all this a moot point since neither the Russian Federation nor its proxies have fulfilled their obligations since the agreement was signed. Minsk2 is a convenient fiction for all but those who are still being killed, maimed and made homeless by the fighting. Those who believe otherwise should consult the OSCE sitreps and the Ukrainian casualty announcements (which are anyway widely believe to be understating the true figure). The hardcore fighting will resume when the Russian proxy army has reorganised its forces in preparation for the next part of its offensive - the capture of Mariupol, further territorial gains in the Donbas region and the capture of Kharkiv.

    Evgeny Skorobogatko -> Pavel Prokofiev 5 Mar 2015 17:12

    1) You changed topic from neo-nazis to something else. You lost.
    To your other topic of anti-Russia rhetoric - what kind of rhetoric would you expect vis-a-vis an invading nation? Pro-invasion? The rest is unclear and unsubstantiated narrative that I can hardly understand. Can you try to first at least make a statement before you try to prove it?
    2) Agreed, and Putin is one of those enemies, he's a dictator.
    3) If only were you able to quote an article from the Minsk-2 agreement that allowed killing the army inside the self-defined encirclement past the start date.
    4) both statements flat out lies. Prove them. Some of the many politicians participating in Maidan (incl. Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk) got a lot of popular vote in the coming general elections. Also, no one is forcing Ukraine into NATO (even if Ukraine wholeheartedly wanted that, it's like a ~10-year journey)
    4') Another lie, no one is marching into any cities which haven't been invaded by the Russian army, special forces and paramilitary fighters.
    5) See 4'. Didn't get the rest of the post re. population growth, not relevant to Russian invasion
    6) Thanks for sharing your dreams.

    wheresmewashboard -> Smileyosborne12 5 Mar 2015 17:05

    Russians generally have such confidence in Putin that they believe that however difficult the problems may be that their president will find a way to overcome them.

    I don't doubt that this is true, but the point that I was making is that if the Russian economy ends up suffering terribly due to the sanctions, both as they are now and how they may increase, then it is inconceivable that over time the Russian people wouldn't start to think that there are other options.

    The admiration for Putin is mostly as a result of the fact that he brought stability to Russia. The force of his personality is not to be taken for granted I admit, but it is relatively superficial compared to the stability he and Medvedev have brought. If, however, this stability is lost, and Russia enters a protracted period of economic slump, or potentially worse, then his approval ratings, over time will surely begin to collapse. This has happened in every example of economic calamity within a democracy in history. Admittedly, it may take longer in Russia than in most Western countries, but to think that the Russian people will continue to support Putin regardless of the depths of economic hardship and for how long it goes on for is naive, to say the least. Russian people may well be stoical, but they are not masochists.

    The potential problem from Putin's point of view, is that his actions in Ukraine are isolating him and therefore his country. The SEC rules the world of financial regulation, like it or not. No foreign banks / financial institutions will deal with Russian banks or businesses whilst they remain persona non grata with the SEC. Russia's reserves will see them right for a while longer but not forever. The new structure of the world financial system places a lot of power in the hands of American regulators, and this will cause all manner of problems for those who are blacklisted. Russia cannot hope to win in an economic battle with America.

    Ukraine is a regional dispute in America's eyes. They are probably not likely to get involved in a proxy war with Russia. The damage they can do to Putin economically is enough.

    Pavel Prokofiev -> Evgeny Skorobogatko 5 Mar 2015 16:48

    To 1) What for Svoboda is needed, if Yatzenyk and Poroshenko have taken its role with "Heil Ukraine!" and full anti-Russian rhetoric. Who would vote for Tyagnibok if they see that he is not tolerated by the Europe and U? If Europe and US would make clear that they do not support violence of nazi on Maidan - there would be no nazi coup. If Europe and US would not support killings of civilians there would be civil war. Even Venediktov warned Ukrainians that "tituschkas" and "policemen" are also citizens and have rights and own views, but very well educated journalists ignored and ignore this. One can got an impression that such journalists represent the common view, but the truth is that they are in a minority. The truth is that the durty work including fighting with Kalashnikovs is done by other type of people. It is possible to ignore the reality for some time, but one day there will be a hard confrontation with it.

    2) Murder of Nemtsov benefits only enemies of Russia.

    3) Debaltsevo is just one of the cases of confrontation with reality. Poroshenko believed that there was no encirclement - reality proved to be different.

    4) NATO expansion is ok, but why to use nationalistic minority (who could not get even 5% of votes) to make a coup and force a country into NATO?

    4') Poroshenko promised that there would be no civil war and any fighting would end within hour after his election - same lies as all stories and policy itself in the current Ukraine. Uncontrolled bataillons are marching into your city - your action? This what people in Eastern Ukraine were doing. Trying to protect themselves from uncontrolled Nazi battalions.

    5) Military solution?? Russia will pay high price? But it is the population in Eastern Ukraine, who disagree with Kyiw policy - they are the driving force. If do not want that some Nazi battalions are marching on their streets, you want to force them at any price? The question is, what price will then pay the Ukrainian people on both sides of the conflict, to make Russia to pay high price? This is the main question. The result will be the following: by birthrates Ukraine with 40 million people is now on the same level as Somalia with population of 10 million. During Soviet times each year almost one million people were born in Ukraine, now it is about 400 thousand. 60 years ago population of Ukraine was equal to population of Nigeria or Pakistan (was 1 to 1). Today in Nigeria or Parkistan each year are born 10 to 20 times more children. In Nigeria alone are born more children than in entire EU+Ukraine. At the end of the day we have now Ukraine and Russian and Europe with 30% population of pensioners, and in other countries we see for 40 years now non-stop demographic revolution. Western values against family values? Do you see, who will be the winner? Certainly not Russians, Ukrainians or Europeans.

    6) Neutrality? No Neutrality but united and mutualy beneficial block from Roca to Dezhnev.

    MysticMegsy -> Tonterias 5 Mar 2015 16:33

    US bases are a relic of the cold war - they are of absolutely no strategic importance now - how could they be without tanks?

    Both the US and Russia will have a large number of SLBMs parked off the coast of the other's country, so whining about bases and NATO encroachment in Europe is irrelevant. NATO and Russia could wipe out each other's cities regardless of how many bases they have, no matter how close to the other's border.
    This argument that Putin 'feels threatened' by Ukraine joining the EU is a total smokescreen to justify his own expansionist agenda (to secure power at home), when the real danger lurks under the Barents Sea regardless.

    nnedjo -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:28

    Ukraine didn't want to be a part of Putin's Eurasian Union which triggered Russian invasion Russian Eurasian Union is a non starter without Ukraine, and Putin knows it.

    Read what former Ukrainian prime minister says on this subject:

    Top EU officials, rather than Russia, threatened Ukraine with a coup d'état if Kiev refused to sign an association agreement in 2013, Nikolay Azarov, Ukraine's former prime minister, said.

    "I've never heard neither Putin nor Medvedev saying that if you sign an agreement with the EU, you'll have a different government. But I've heard [EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy, Stefan] Fule, repeatedly saying that if you don't sign then the other government will sign it," Azarov said at the presentation of his book 'Ukraine at a crossroads. Prime Minister's notes' in Moscow.

    EugeneGur 5 Mar 2015 16:27

    The great writer Anton Chekhov wrote a short story "A letter to a learned neighbor ". The story has a personage whose favorite argument was: "It cannot be because it can never be". A lot of people commenting here strongly remind me of that personage. No amount of evidence or logic can possibly convince them of anything they prefer not to see.
    Example:
    Crimea referendum was under the gunpoint. You can point them to multiple perfectly anti-Russian sources showing that Crimeans voted not only willingly but happily - not, it was annexation, referendum illegal (because we say so), Crimea is occupied, and so on.

    One question. If Crimea is occupied, and the population was forced to vote to join Russia, how come the West sanctions Crimea? Just recently the US said Crimea will be under sanctions until it returns to Ukraine. Does it make any sense to punish occupied people for something they had no control over?

    I don't think even the US is that stupid. I think they know perfectly well that Crimea is heavily pro-Russian; they knew it before the referendum, after the referendum, and they know it now. They are punishing Crimeans precisely for that: for their desire to reunite with Russia, a.k.a. self-determination. A round of applause for our "democratic leader of the free world", please.


    OldStickie Wolfsz 5 Mar 2015 16:16

    Lebensraum was a component of Drang Nach Ost which describes what Nato is currently up to.

    BorninUkraine -> richard1 5 Mar 2015 16:14

    Because it's not Russians, it's the people of Donbass fighting for their freedom.

    Before you ask, I grew up in Lugansk, I have lots of friends and relatives in Donbass. Every one of them knows that their cities are shelled and women and children are routinely killed by Kiev Nazis.

    BunglyPete

    A letter published from a NATO representative in the Guardian today disputes this articles assertions about NATO expansion

    In an interview published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta on 15 October 2014, former Russian president Mikhail Gorbachev said: "The topic of 'Nato expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years." As the man to whom the promise is said to have been given, his words carry weight.

    This conviently misses out the rest of the interview

    Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and Genscher talked about it.

    "Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. ...

    "The decision for the US and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed."

    http://m.rbth.co.uk/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html

    While there was no written agreement the implication was that the US wouldnt take advantage,

    Matlock recalled that Baker began his argument saying something like, "Assuming there is no expansion of NATO jurisdiction to the East, not one inch, what would you prefer, a Germany embedded in NATO, or one that can go independently in any direction it chooses." [emphasis added]

    The implication was that Germany might just opt to acquire nuclear weapons, were it not anchored in NATO. Gorbachev answered that he took Baker's argument seriously, and wasted little time in agreeing to the deal.

    Ambassador Matlock, one of the most widely respected experts on Russia, told me "the language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no 'taking advantage' by the U.S."

    https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/15/how-nato-jabs-russia-on-ukraine/

    Barry Klinger

    I agree that there's been a lot of knee-jerk propaganda against Russia, and that NATO should not have expanded into the former USSR, and that arming Ukraine is probably a bad idea. But...

    Last spring President Putin said that the "green men" in unmarked green uniforms were not Russian soldiers. Then a few weeks later he admitted that they were. Now he says Russia is not helping Ukraine... except for some volunteers going on their own initiative. Press reports of Russian hardware rolling into Ukraine, circumstantial evidence of war-fighting capability surprising for a revolt that just started months ago... Balance of forces have consistently looked to be in rebels favor, especially if they have Russia literally at their back. So who is more likely to be breaking the cease-fire, the ones who stand to gain or the ones who stand to lose?

    To me, all this points to Russian aggression to shrink the independence of neighboring countries, independence that the US foolishly encouraged to be too aggressive. It looks like Russia started and continues to stoke the war in Eastern Ukraine, which is not a minor offense compared to any complicity US had in unrest in Kiev last year.

    PlatonKuzin -> Barry Klinger

    I guess that the most appropriate answer to all the questions you have raised in your post are the words said more than 130 years ago by genious German politician Otto von Bismarck. They refer to the economic relations with Russia but the general principles stated there are universal and absolutely every word in it is of great significance. Please, read carefully what he said:

    Do not expect that once taken advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come – they will not rely on the Jesuit agreement you signed, that supposedly justify your actions. They are not worth the paper it is written. Therefore, with the Russians you should use fair play or no play.

    Erik Lyng

    Thank you. Is about time someone actually talked about this.

    BorninUkraine -> Erik Lyng

    Yes, it's the first sensible and balanced comment from the Guardian staff in a long time. It shows that not everyone in the media is blind (or paid enough to play blind). Thank you, Seumas Milne!

    PlatonKuzin

    I hope that shifting to a more balanced coverage of developments in Ukraine and Russia is caused both by the author's commitment to truth and change of the editorial policy in favor of truth.

    PlatonKuzin

    This is the first article written by a Western author in which he bona fide tries to provide the audience with a balanced and unbiased view on what happens in Ukraine, Russia and relations between Russia and the West. Bravo, Mr. Milne. For the first time ever I personally agree with major author's conclusions and ideas. A rare case for me with respect to the Guardian publications.

    EugeneGur

    Russia had been compliant with the West for far too long. And look where it got it? The fault line was, of course, the bombing of Yugoslavia. That was the first time Yeltsin opened his mouth and objected to anything the West did. Overnight he was transformed in the Western press from the glorious Russian leader into incompetent drunkard, which he undoubtedly was. Russians have been weary of NATO ever since.

    That NATO operation is justified by many that it stopped genocide. Pardon me, but NATO killed people in Belgrade that weren't engaged in any genocide. It's like targeting civilians in a war or killing hostages. Both could be quite effective in a military or terrorist operation. But we wouldn't condone them, would we?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't recall a single defensive operation by NATO, although plenty of offensive ones. Beauty is as beauty does, isn't it?

    Demi Boone

    Putin is merely reacting to NATO expansionism that began with the Administration of Bill Clinton in 1993. He broke the promise of George Bush (I) who said he would not encroach on the boarders of Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union by bringing Poland into NATO and arming them with missiles.

    Then Clinton began talking about bringing in other countries as well as Ukraine. This was all done seeking little or no advice from experienced High ranking US Foreign Policy advisers and after it was done he received much criticism for doing it because it infuriated and alienated Russia's Western oriented politicians.

    if NATO pushes into Ukraine then Putin will push back

    this is what has been occurring (simmering) since the time of Clinton what the US is trying to tell the world is

    if Putin pushes into Ukraine then NATO will push back

    they are two completely different arguments......research the topic historically.

    irishmand -> richard1

    He's alienated Ukraine, EU and USA and strengthened NATO, meanwhile unleashing strong nationalist forces in Russia. He cannot win in Ukraine and if he's seen to loose Ukraine, in the Russian mind, (inevitable) these forces are going to "come for him" and his billions.

    US/EU alienated Russia by sponsoring a nazi driven coup in Kiev and unleashing a wild russophobic propaganda campaign.

    bokhar

    Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

    SEUMUS WAKE UP! If you care about Russia and its future you should recognize that Putin is bad for Russia - he has done nothing but suppress and kill political opposition, independent media, all the while maintaining an ever tightening noose around the necks of ordinary Russian citizens.

    EugeneGur -> bokhar

    Somehow, ordinary Russia citizens disagree with this appraisal - but, of course, you know better, being an enlightened European as opposed to them zombies. Do you people even read what you've written before you post or does it come straight from the heart?

    irishmand -> bokhar

    Peace in Russia (see Nemtsov murder on the Kremlin steps), Ukraine and its neighbouring countries will only occur when the zombies who enable Putin and his cronies are woken from their slumber and realize how much Putin has stolen from the Russian state and how many innocent people he has killed (including many Russians - see Donbass, Moscow apartment bombings, Georgia).

    How much? Give us numbers and maybe we will believe you. Or maybe we won't. Look how many people US/EU killed, are they sorry?

    NaMorris

    But we want war. It's our not so secret desire. We want to live, not watch, our favorite action and war movies. In war everyone can be a hero. In war there are only good and evil, nothing in between, no middle men. War is blissful simplicity. This is why we pave the way for war.

    Eaglesson

    Victoria Nuland just few days ago smiling shaking hands with Andriy Parubiy the same founder of Ukrainian Social National Party and also the founder of Joseph Goebbels Institute. The white supremacist was invited in US and he came back with promises that Pentagon will supply them with weapons very soon (as he declared)
    Some people have no shame!!

    SirHenryRawlins -> Eaglesson

    Nuland is a neoconservative. Birds of a feather Parubiy and Nuland.

    Danish5666 -> Hucker

    "have a right as independent countries to choose who they see as their friends"

    Russia is rank dilettantes when compared to the US. Covert United States foreign regime
    change actions:

    1949 Syrian coup d'état
    1953 Iranian coup d'état
    1954 Guatemalan coup d'état
    1959 Tibetan uprising
    1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion
    1963 South Vietnamese coup
    1964 Brazilian coup d'état
    1973 Chilean coup d'état
    1976 Argentine coup d'état
    1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone
    1980 Turkish coup d'état
    1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

    Smileyosborne12

    Come ON the red arrows! I am an unashamed supporter of Vladimir Putin.

    When one realises the severe problems,financial,military,politically,ecumenically and territorially the man faced when he took over I have a lot of time for him.Firstly he was preceded by a succession of Premiers who generally in succession just served to weaken the country.

    Lenin,Stalin,Khruschev,Pavlov, Kosygin and the drunken megalomaniac Yeltsin, left Russia as weak as at any time in its modern history. Putin gave up the Muslim states which had weakened Russia since the days of Stalin and finally came to an understanding with Ramzan Kadyrov of Chechnya the most militant of them all. In spite of the best attempts of the UN,Nato, President Obama,Angela Merkel,David Cameron and Francois Hollande to ruffle and destabilise him he has almost twice the approval rating of any of them and survived a litany of attempts to tie him to murders of his "opponents" without any concrete evidence brought against him. Pretty good record I would suggest.

    willpodmore

    Matthew Parris wrote in The Times ('It's time we washed our hands of Ukraine', 28 February, p. 21) "Ukraine? With an inward groan, I write again what I wrote about Saddam's Iraq, about Gaddafi's Libya and about Assad's Syria. Intervention almost always makes things worse."

    adoeli -> no_ref

    Gas disputes are resolved in an international court of arbitration. Head of the Energy Commission of the European Union recognized the guilt of Ukraine in non-payment of supplies. Kiev just doesn't it, till won't come the Z-day. Russia itself depends on the supply of gas through Ukraine. The pipe goes through Ukraine to Europe. Moscow concerns about the reputation of the honest supplier. Moscow's role as an unscrupulous suppliers is profitable for US. Ukraine, that had become a puppet of the United States, is capable for any provocation. Moscow was glad to be rid of such an intermediary that it did in fact, has planned a new gas pipeline project with Turkey. Now are you happy? Neither Ukraine nor Bulgaria nor the other will depend on Russian gas supplies. What are the problems?

    SHappens -> jezzam

    Russia did not make a fuss on all those Eastern countries joining NATO even if, of course, it might not pleased them. The red line was passed with Ukraine. Crimea in particular.

    In the past deals were made, promises were made, tacit agreements if you will and everybody was coping. But when the US decided to come and play in Russia's backyard with the intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia, well Putin said stop. Now the US dont want to listen thus the assault on everything Russian through the conciliatory mass media.

    If you think about it all objectively you can only agree that without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already.

    ToddPalant -> Andrew Baldwin

    Fight for reform? With the dissolution of the USSR Yeltsin had a tabula rasa. They could start from the beginning by founding a truly democratic Russia. Unfortunately Mr. Nemtsov presided, along with other western proteges, over the looting of the Russian public wealth, virtually delivering it in the hands of the "chosen" few. Nemtsov although pro western, was no reformer. In his later years he was, to put it simplistically, a repeater of Mrs. Nuland's and her husband's aggressive narrative (the "f**k soft politics, bring in the troops" kinna thingy )

    jezzam -> SHappens

    No. I still don't get it. If Russia did not make a fuss about all the other countries joining NATO, why make a fuss about Ukraine?

    What does your statement that the US "intend to literally rob Ukraine to threat Russia," mean? In what way were the US intending to rob Ukraine? In what way would this have threatened Russia?

    "without the US meddling, Ukraine would have sorted its differences already". I find it hard to agree with this statement as it is again difficult to understand. Do you mean that by now Putin would have imposed his will?

    SHappens -> jezzam

    I'll try to make it short, you know I can be prolific.

    Crimea base lease, Fuck the EU coup using Maiden revolt, installation of a government chosen by her in Kiev.

    Rob resources, gas Biden, cereals Monsanto, install NATO, control Russia and why not annihilate it + cheap human labour flooding in Germany and the EU for a more low leverage of EU wages.

    By now there would have been the regular vote as planned in May 2014.

    gnorblitz

    This is Kiev and Moscow using centuries old blood feuds and nationalist fervor in a struggle over territory and its concomitant resources, infrastructure, tax revenue and political power. Washington is fueling it in order to widen its sphere of influence in the region, sell arms, entrench political back home and further contain Russia politically and economically. All three governments have the blood of the people in the region on their hands.

    gnorblitz -> gnorblitz

    That should read entrenching political support back home. Since the Second World War, standing up to Russia is guaranteed political currency in the U.S.

    ToddPalant -> gnorblitz

    If it were simply an isolated power play on the part of the US, although atrocious, it would not be as threatening as it is now. It seems like a culmination of a plan hatched in the late 40's.

    It also looks like an act of desperation as the US having lost its economic "power house" status relies solely on its still impressive war machine, certainly a policy that has an expiry date.

    When the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the US will have reached the point of no return. All three have blood on their hands, true. But the instigator, the accessory before the fact, is draped in stars and stripes

    EugeneGur

    A reasonable article in the Guardian? Sounds like an oxymoron. Someone must be sick on the editorial board to allow this.

    The alternative is a negotiated settlement which guarantees Ukraine's neutrality, pluralism and regional autonomy. It may well be too late for that.

    This was an alternative more than a year ago but it is no longer on the table. Under no circumstances Donbass will be a part of the present day Ukraine no matter how many sanctions are applied to Russia. Besides, the US wants a conflict with Russia, which means Kiev will fight on. What the US will do when Kiev gets its ass kicked for the third time, which will undoubtedly happen, I don't know. But everything they've done so far is bringing us all closer to the real possibility of a war.

    jezzam -> EugeneGur

    If what you say is true, it is obvious what will happen. E. Ukraine will effectively become part of Russia. Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically and left to stew in their own juice. Is it worth it just to grab a useless piece of devastated territory?

    EugeneGur -> jezzam

    What I always admire is the "humanitarian" zeal of out western friends. They lecture us relentlessly on human right, European values, etc, but when it come to opposing Russia, all humanitarian concerns disappear like the smoke they really are.

    This "useless piece of devastated territory" is populated by 8 millions of human beings, and it wasn't devastated by itself but by our Ukrainian brothers that claimed for some mysterious reason that land for itself. Russia didn't grab anything - Russia is helping these people to survive. Got something against it?

    StanislavCh -> jezzam

    Russia and its ill-gotten gains will be isolated culturally and economically

    It's the most amazing part of Western narrative. Isolated from whom ? The whole world wants to cooperate with Russia , does it and will continue. If US and EU do not - fine, nobody cares , just piss off, but it's so ridiculous to call it isolation!

    bananasandsocks

    There was no democratic outcome ebcause there was no democratic vote.

    There was a vote. And objective evidence from polling indicates that Crimeans overwhelmingly consider it free and fair. So there is democratic confirmation of its validity.

    No option to vote for the status quo.

    According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    No independent oversight of vote counting.

    According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    No campaigning allowed for the Ukrainian side.

    According to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    Voters intimidated by masked armed thugs.

    Nonsense. But according to objective data, Crimeans don't care.

    Roguing -> bananasandsocks

    Do non-Russian populations currently living in Russia have the right to transfer sovereignty of their territory from Moscow to another state?

    [Mar 05, 2015] euractiv: Mogherini's timid 'mea culpa' on EU neighbourhood policy

    Mar 05, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al, March 5, 2015 at 5:10 am

    First up:

    euractiv: Mogherini's timid 'mea culpa' on EU neighbourhood policy

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/europes-east/mogherini-makes-timid-mea-culpa-eu-neighbourhood-policy-312631

    EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini has timidly acknowledged that the neighbourhood policy of the Barroso Commission may have been naïve or confrontational.

    But she stressed that would be remedied in four months' time, when the consultation on the future of the Union's neighbourhood policy, launched today (4 March), was completed.

    Asked if the EY's neighbourhood policy has often been naïve and if Brussels has underestimated the Russian response to Ukraine's association with the EU, Mogherini said she would not be "over-critical". The EU is currently locked in a political stand-off with the Kremlin…

    …"The sense of a process of review is evaluating what didn't work, with partners and also internally. Self-criticism will be part of it. I would not be over-critical of the past," said Mogherini. She added that the new Commission could "clearly see the negative limits" of the policy so far.

    "I'm not skipping the question, but it's not fair to, on the day we launch the process of dialogue with our partners, access if the policy has been naïve or confrontational. Maybe this is a question to be asked in four months, after we would have completed the process of consultation," Mogherini said….

    …"The ENP has not always been able to offer adequate responses to these recent developments, nor to the changing aspirations of our partners. Therefore, the EU's own interests have not been fully served either," the ten page consultation paper says….

    ####

    It must be a quiet news day for Brussels to slip out the obvious that its neighborhood policy is a total failure, but of course no one will be punished nor is responsible for the EU taking the driving seat (willing idiots) in creating the current disaster in the Ukraine.

    It's the system, man!

    Barrosso, van Rompuy and a lot of others have blood on their hands for what they have done and are certainly not naive. They knew very well they were picking a fight with Russia but assumed the Russians a) were complaining only for effect – i.e. not serious; b) would do nothing.

    The reality is that Brussels pushed for the Association Agreement sooner, rather than later because they feared that it was slipping away from them as Russia continues to grow in strength and return to the role of a powerful european country. They still thought they held all the cards and deliberately forced the issue on Kiev. But no, they'll be receiving their blood pension money long in to retirement content that they'll never see the inside of a prison cell. This is Brussels exceptionalism, every bit as extraordinarily arrogant as Washington's exceptionalism.

    Damn them all to hell.

    [Mar 05, 2015] Nuland ensconced in neocon camp who believes in noble lie

    From comments: "Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick, Bennett, as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their crimes against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the Federal Reserve, IMF, and ECB.
    Mar 05, 2015 | rt.com

    Victoria Nuland's anti-Russian rhetoric comes from the neocon camp of US politics, seeking to stir the Ukraine crisis, thrilled by the prospect of defense industry expansion and more arms sales, Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Peace Institute told RT.

    RT: World leaders and international monitors agree the situation in Ukraine is generally improving. Why are we still witnessing aggressive rhetoric from some US officials?

    Daniel McAdams: Because the US does not want peace to break out. The US is determined to see its project through. But unfortunately like all of its regime change projects this one is failing miserably. Victoria Nuland completely disregards the role of the US in starting the conflict in Ukraine. She completely glosses over the fact that the army supported by Kiev has been bombarding Eastern Ukraine, as if these independent fighters in the east are killing themselves and their own people. Victoria Nuland was an aid to Dick Cheney; she is firmly ensconced in the neocon camp. The neocons believe very strongly in lying, the noble lie… They lied us into the war in Iraq; they are lying now about Ukraine. Lying is what the neocons do.

    RT: Nuland listed a lot of hostile actions by Russia without providing any reliable proof. Do you think she can she be challenged on these topics?

    DM: Maybe she is right but the US hasn't provided one piece of proof, except for Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt's Rorschach tests he passes off as a satellite photo. Maybe they are true but we have to present some evidence because we've seen now the neocons have lied us into the war. This is much more serious than the attack on small Iraq. This has the potential for a global nuclear war. So I think they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny. Thus far they have not provided any. We do know however that the US is providing military aid. As the matter of fact this week hundreds of American troops are arriving in Ukraine. Why is that not an escalation? Why is it only an escalation when the opponents of the US government are involved?

    RT: How probable is that the Western nations ship lethal aid to Ukraine?

    DM: It is interesting because Victoria Nuland this week spent some time with Andriy Parubiy, one of the founders of the fascist party in Ukraine and I believe one of the founders of the Joseph Goebbels Institute. She met with him this week and had a photo taken with him. He came back to Ukraine and assured his comrades that the US will provide additional, non-lethal weapons - whatever that means - and felt pretty strongly that they would provide lethal weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey has been urging the US government to provide lethal weapons as has the new US defense secretary [Ashton Carter], both of whom come from the military industrial complex which is thrilled by prospect of a lot more arms to be sold.

    RT: Nuland has said the State Department is in talks with EU leaders for another round of sanctions on Russia. Do you think the EU will agree?

    DM: I think they will be pressured into agreeing. It is interesting that Nuland said that the new Rada, the new Ukrainian parliament, in this first four months has been a hive of activity. I was just watching some videos from the fights in the Ukrainian parliament. So that was one bit of unintentional humor probably in her speech. It looks like a fight club over there.

    Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. He served as foreign affairs advisor to US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) for 12 years.

    Frank Wolstencroft

    Victoria Nuland was appointed as an assistant US Secretary of State by none other than Killary Klinton.

    Armand Geddon

    Tony Blair

    May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us. Texas , california & new mexico.more...

    There no need. Obama and our corrupt Congress have already opened the border for the illegals to just walk right in and take it!

    "Neo-con" is a polite term for "Neo-Nazi". They are all Nazi sympathizers - Nueland, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Kagan, Kristol, Abrams, Woolsey, Armitage, Zoellick, Bennett, as well as the Bush family - and all should be tried, convicted and hung as such for their crimes against humanity. But even they take their orders from the central bankers who own the Federal Reserve, IMF, and ECB.

    ifigeniaa

    She is responsible for the thousands of death in eastern Ukraine.

    Tony Blair

    May be europe should start financing mexico to retrieve its stolen land from the us.Texas , california & new mexico. These jews in the white house like victoria newlandberg, john kerrberg & the rest of them look like ugly vultures sitting on the branches of a dead tree.

    Brigitte Meier

    Nulands lies are only a very complicated way of saying that the US policy in Ukraine failed. It was based on the assumption that the Ukraine army would make short shrift with the rebels. When that didn't work there really wasn't any plan B. That all what Nuland says is lies is already confirmed with the false photos Kiev sent to the US Congress of Russian tanks - which turned out to have been photographed in Georgia. "Who cares, its the only picture we've got of them Russian tanks". Good enough to admit under cover that Kiev lost the war and with it the US lost its policy goal. Russia isn't faltering despite the sanctions. Putin has a 86% positive rating. And Kiev is bankrupt and really can't move anymore. Time for the US to think of getting Ukraine's riches and split until more neo-Nazis can be trained in Poland to destabilize both the EU and Ukraine which hopefully will then be enough to throw Russia into turmoil too.

    Nuland was funny: the destruction caused by the rebels in Donbas - not the destruction caused by the Ukraine army who attacked Donbas! The rebels destroyed the airport - but the Ukraine army did most of the destruction to make the airport unusable for the rebels. Now they have to go fight for Mariupol - I'm sure the Ukraine army wants to destroy the port there too so as not to leave it for use by the rebels. And Nuland can then describe it all again in inversions. What she was really saying is that the Ukraine army caused abhorrent devastation, specifically of residential areas - in the winter - to prevent the population of Donbas from staying in the Donbas. Clearly, an action of ethnic cleansing as the Israelis do in Palestine. it is also clear that the Congress understood that and is dismayed. It destroys the image of the US as the great bringer of democracy and freedom - especially with the bankruptcy, the cut in payments on all levels and hyperinflation of 272%. Genuine freedom to starve. And Kerry still wants to believe that the problem is just that the US isn't spending enough on PR! Does he really think that the Russians will look at US PR rather than at the reality in Donbas and Kiev? Why would any Russian still believe in the positive intentions and influence of the US? At best, people will make fun of the US ingenuity to invent PR.

    [Mar 04, 2015] Were the props and slogans for Nemtsov's memorial march prepared before or after his death

    From comments: "The "Propaganda Kills" slogan is especially interesting because, well, whom exactly has propaganda killed?"
    March 2, 2015 | Fort Russ

    March 2, 2015
    El Murid
    Translated by Kristina Rus
    ... ... ...

    A t-shirt with quality four-color print and the words in the Ukrainian language. March on March 1st. The murder took place almost at midnight on February 28. A little more then 24 hours before this photo.

    That is, someone choking on tears, had to on February 28 run to order a batch of these t-shirts, and prudently - a batch in the Ukrainian language. He had to do a layout, divided by colors, to make the t-shirt, pick it up from the shop and organize the distribution to the right people - you will not hand out such an expensive item to random people. Ukrainian for Ukrainians, Russian for non-Ukrainians.

    At the same time to place an order for standard pictures of the deceased, to make a large number of the same posters. While some of the posters (again typographic quality) was created on the basis of slogans suggested on the evening of February 28 (i.e., a half a day before the March), suggested by Khodorkovsky's "Open Russia" on Twitter:

    ... ... ...

    I wonder, were these t-shirts and all these posters ordered exactly on February 28 or before? So to speak, during his lifetime?

    Kristina Rus: This entire circus looks like a part of one big production, were the picture is the goal and media is a part of the act

    J.Hawk

    The "Propaganda Kills" slogan is especially interesting because, well, whom exactly has propaganda killed? Had Nemtsov lived, that slogan would have looked totally out of place, and the Boris/Fight one like a product of an ego trip.

    Oh, and there's no mention of Ukraine in any of these slogans, even though the whole event was billed as an march against Russia's "invasion" of Ukraine! It's as if Nemtsov was the last one to find out what the March 1 event was really going to be about him. Everyone else knew.

    kolokol

    A genuine screen print would take too much time, however with modern machines, for instance plastisol printing or even inkjet heat transfers, it can be done. Still, considering the posters and everything else combined it does seem like a well oiled production. Haven't we seen this elsewhere with obscure flags suddenly appearing en masse, identical slogans in English, etc.

    Nexusfast123

    As an external observer the whole thing to me comes across as a paid for rent a crowd and set-up which obviously included the assassination. In such a short space of time to slick, too rapid and too well organised to be a purely a spontaneous response.

    JahbJoan

    I made exactly the point in the above article two days ago on a post under another story about the march. These products (the shirts, the posters, all the identical flags, the banner carried in the front of the march) were all professionally done and, in the mass, would have been quite expensive. So the questions are: who paid for them and how'd they get them out there so fast (unless they knew ahead of time that he was going to be killed)! I wonder, whenever I see these "spontaneous" marches, where the get (i.e. who pays for) all the expensive trappings.

    AMHants > JahbJoan

    It normally leads back to Soros and no doubt his new buddy Kolomoisky lent a helping hand?

    A Simple Guest

    this was my first thought: a meeting with A LOT of Nemtsov pret-a-porter banners and Tshirts

    I think the Russian opposition has a great industry of banners and Tshirts, and a great amount of money to produce them personalized when needed :)

    very well prepared... in advance!

    KM

    I have also been thinking about the flower bouquets after Maidan in Kiev. We all know how much a big bouquet of imported flowers costs in the middle of the winter. People of Ukraine were not rich before Maidan either. But looking at the pictures we can see thousands of bouquets of imported flowers packed in plastic, all exactly the same. It would have cost many, many thousands of euro/dollar. And not a single "simple" flower och twig or anything a poor person could offer. Who paid for all these imported flowers -- and so quickly, only a few hours after the killing stopped....

    Forever

    They did know. They are masters at lying, and these props prove the lies.

    skuppers

    They MUST have been made in The West and shipped to Moscow before-hand because, you know, "Russia doesn't make anything..."

    [Mar 02, 2015] Whodunnit?

    From comments "Live by the sword, die by the sword. Nemtsov oversaw Russia's transition to a lawless, wild west where tens of millions suffered and died from crime, drugs, depression and privation - and now he met the same fate he helped condemn so many to during the 1990s. The same fate he was actively working to condemn tens of millions more to."
    Mar 02, 2015 | Moon of Alabama

    So someone killed Boris Nemtsov while the 56 year old man walked with his 22 year old Ukrainian "model" on a bridge in Moscow. There is some CCTV coverage of the crime scene.

    As vice-premier under Boris Yeltsin Nemtsov was at least partially responsible for the mafiazation of the Russian economy. Everyone but some oligarchs and the "western" neoliberals was happy when he and the Yeltsin gang had to leave.

    After he was kicked out and until yesterday Nemtsov was a very minor opposition politician polling at some 1%. The communists, the real opposition party in Russia, poll at about 20%. No one in the government had reason to care about or fear Nemtsov.

    The former Soviet president Gorbachov points to those who will gain from Nemtsov's death:

    Asked if he thought anti-Russian forces abroad might exploit the crime in pursuit of their own ends, he argued this would definitely happen.

    "Of course, certain forces will try to take advantage of this crime for their own ends - all of them are thinking how to get rid of Putin, aren't they? But I don't think, after all, that the West will go as far as that, that it will use that crime to attain its own purposes. However, that was unquestionably the goal of the criminals who murdered Boris," he said.

    "Crimes of this kind are taken on by executors who are hard to find. All efforts must be made to find the criminals," the ex-president said.

    Gorbachov still uses rose colored glasses when locking at the "west". The "west" would never use a crime to attain its purpose? That is laughable naive.

    And what about all those legitimate and popular opposition politicians currently getting suicided in Ukraine?

    So whodunnit?

    Someone with relations to the "model"? Someone hurt in the gangster "privatizations" executed under Nemtsov's rule? Some Ukrainian oligarch interested in creating more schism between the "west" and Russia? Some "western" government plotting the destabilization of Russia?

    Your guess is as good as mine.

    Posted by b on March 1, 2015 at 08:41 AM | Permalink

    ALAN | Mar 1, 2015 9:25:21 AM | 3

    LaRouche Says the Murder of Russian Opposition Leader Nemtsov "Smells Like Nuland"
    https://larouchepac.com/20150301/larouche-says-murder-russian-opposition-leader-nemtsov-smells-nuland

    somebody | Mar 1, 2015 9:33:09 AM | 5

    Nemtsov's complicated Romantic life

    Nemtsov considered asking for political asylum in 2012

    Putin in 2012 - Opposition is looking to turn someone into "involuntary martyr"
    coming across in body language across as absolute villain.

    x | Mar 1, 2015 9:33:25 AM | 6

    Who pulled the trigger, or who paid to have it pulled?

    My bet, it was a little pay back to Putin (by proxy) from Kiev ... which means a combo of underworld murk and politically convenient 'fact' on the ground to distract msm from the US arms sales thru the ME -- which means Soros, McCain, and the DC 'cookie' Gang et al.

    Who pulled the trigger? One the best money can buy obviously -- Mossad would be in the top list of the usual suspects.

    He was obviously a man who liked to access all areas... photo

    Harry | Mar 1, 2015 9:54:27 AM | 10

    I dont believe in coincidences, hence timing points to a political hit. I'm quite sure Russia will eventually find who did it, but it will be just a man-for-hire, real masterminds will remain unknown, we just can make an educated guess - look who benefits the most. As well as history of those potential culprits.

    Scott | Mar 1, 2015 10:24:30 AM | 11

    OK here's my take on it before I read the latest updates. Nemtsovs murder was either because of a personal grudge or it was a sponsored false flag. You can combine the two as well. What bothers me is again, the timing and location. My gut tells me that tends to exclude the strictly personal. Would you whack a guy 200 yds. from the White House? I wouldn't. So I look at the symbolism and perhaps red herrings.

    I see a stolen car with Ingush plates. A subtle warning of trouble in the Caucus? I see the creation of a martyr and shrine in Red Square. Message? Look what we can do on your doorstep Putin.

    Why Nemtsov? Minor player who has value as a martyr but not as a "leader". He was a spent force trying to remain relevant. This clears the way for Navalny to step up. Whether it was a professional hit? A pro can make it appear any way he wishes.

    So before I start to ramble...I think timing, location, messages sent, and who benefits. Who did it? It could be the result of a personal grudge instigated by shadowy figures who promise protection to the shooter, who could be anywhere including a landfill by now. This was a bit too convenient and bold to be strictly personal. So...for what it's worth...that's my thinking as of right now.

    AMomyMous | Mar 1, 2015 10:33:07 AM | 12

    As Raisa Gorbachev allegedly said: Youth is a mistake that is soon over.

    But not soon enough for Mikhail, perhaps, because his vision still appears rosy and not clouded by reality or cataract.

    Or maybe he is just speaking in diplomat-ese for public consumption- language wasted on a neanderthal opponent that uses all levers on the force gauge.

    Gorbachev was urged by China's wiser leaders not to glasnost before perestroika.
    The circumstances of USSR at that time were critical then. But had Gorbachev not succumbed to naivete and the Western forked tongue, the night would not have been as long and desperate for post-Soviet Russia.

    The collapse of Red Moscow turned Washington's cross-hairs on the Balkans and West Asia, ie, Iraq - a narrow time frame that gave China to complete Stage A of its spectacular rise.

    The next level is a bit harder to reach, with the West whipping up the fog of war, from Ukraine to the Asian seas.

    Putin and Xi Jinping are now helmsmen on the same boat.

    denk | Mar 1, 2015 10:34:45 AM | 14

    here's the long ans....

    *Boris Nemtsov's last appeal
    Boris Nemtsov, Putin's vocal critic and opposition leader, was murdered late Feb. 27 in Moscow in what is said to be a contract hit by his Kremlin adversary.

    Here is Boris Nemtsov's last story he wrote in Facebook:

    "Putin annexed Crimea while giving away Siberia to Chinese* [1]

    +nemtsov is a fierce critics of putin,
    +he parrots the zwo meme of *yellow peril gonna overrun russia*,
    a typical divide n conquer ploy in fukus playbook.
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/03/where-do-borders-need-to-be-redrawn/why-china-will-reclaim-siberia

    this smells like another zwo smear job on putin, right after the mh17 ff.
    by martyrising nemtsov, it boost the image of putin the *ruthless dictator who silence his critics* in the western sheeples mindset , [see the moron at (2)]

    it also serves to subvert putin's supporters base, many of whom might be led to believe that *putin the traitor who give siberia to the chinese* silence nemtsov for *blowing the whistle*

    here's the no brainer ans....
    zwo rule 1
    *who else but the UsualSuspects ?*


    [1]
    http://zik.ua/en/news/2015/02/28/boris_nemtsovs_last_appeal_568549

    Noirette | Mar 1, 2015 10:39:06 AM | 15

    He is now a person who becomes famous after death. I had only heard of him vaguely a few times and paid no attention. OK, as a Kreminologist I suck, yes.

    He was not an important person, or not in any public way in years past, imagining that murdering him would achieve any political objectives, either national within Russia or world-wide, is completely loony, be it from Putin's side, the liberal-oppo-Russian side, or the West, including Israel.

    Focussing on him shows only that the media has sway and shunts the debate onto trivia, pointed to individuals, away from finance and geo-politics.

    In a previous post, I argued that the first causes of these street shooting deaths should be top of the line: from being a thief, a traitor to one's group, in deep financial trouble, to stealing a woman, even mistaken identity, etc.

    ben | Mar 1, 2015 10:59:07 AM | 19

    "What would The West have to gain from this assassination? "

    One has only to tune in to America's MSCM ( Main Stream Corporate Media), and the headline "News" programs, to answer that question.

    Pat Bateman | Mar 1, 2015 11:34:17 AM | 22

    If I had spent months fighting in East Ukraine for "New Russia", having seen what I'd seen, done what I done, and returned to find this guy bumping his gums on the radio rubbishing my fallen comrades and my beloved President, I'd have no qualms about putting a bullet in his back either.

    But then again, isn't the image of a dead political opponent lying on a bridge overlooked by the Kremlin a bit rich? I mean, short of a dagger lodged between his shoulder blades with the inscription "if found, please return to Mr Putin", I can't think of a more over-egged attempt at trying to implicate the Government. And on the night before an opposition rally Nemtsov hoped to lead. I mean, come on.

    Surely even an enraged nationalist would not have missed this.

    ohmyheck | Mar 1, 2015 11:35:57 AM | 23

    Fort Rus is all over this. They have translated conversations from a wiretap. Wonder where they got those? Anyway, heeeeeeeere's Boris:

    http://fortruss.blogspot.de/2015/02/nemtsov-wire-taps-how-to-organize.html

    And everything else: http://fortruss.blogspot.de/

    guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 12:05:08 PM | 25

    Live by the sword, die by the sword. Nemtsov oversaw Russia's transition to a lawless, wild west where tens of millions suffered and died from crime, drugs, depression and privation - and now he met the same fate he helped condemn so many to during the 1990s. The same fate he was actively working to condemn tens of millions more to.

    B makes a great point. Nemtsov, like Navalny, are only "opposition figures" in the mind of their boosters inside the Beltway. Neither are well loved. Neither have the best interests for Russia in mind - Navalny would like to split the country on ethnic lines, Nemtsov would have like to sent it back to the 1990s dark ages. Both are intent on delivering Russia over to the west - whole, or in bite-sized pieces.

    The New York Observer has an interesting piece entitled "Slain Russian's Complicated Romantic Life May Be Key to the Case". Nemtsov comes off accurately as a foul-mouthed, oversexed Bill Clinton³ (though, I have to say, Nemtsov at least has better taste). The man had three beautiful wives, yet was still out trying to score with 19 year olds. Good for him - though one gets the distinct impression that maybe he has more interest in power for the sake of the young women it attracts than anything else (I don't know if anyone has searched the Epstein/Clinton flight manifests for his name, but it would probably be wise). In any case, this is not the kind of behavior Russians like to see in their leaders, any more than Americans would accept it in theirs.

    I suppose we might look at his young Ukrainian girlfriend (worth a peek anyway). She had just arrived from Kiev and is now missing so cannot be questioned by police. Did she lead him to his death? Killing off their own supporters to score political points certainly is the MO of Right Sektor, Yats, and that beast Nuland - that we do know.

    Though there are many open questions, yet we get these kinds of headlines we see in the Western media:


    • Boris Nemtsov Exposed Putin's Corruption-And Paid With His Life
    • Boris Nemtsov's murder is another dark sign for Russia
    • 'They shot Nemtsov. He is dead.' Fierce Putin critic reportedly gunned down in Moscow

    guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 12:15:24 PM | 28

    It's all propaganda coming from the US and the US is at war with Russia. So nothing more needs to be said. They don't know what happened- though their trolls like are working double time to capitalize on his death, here and in Russia. The American people will no more be allowed to know the truth about this incident anymore than we were told the facts about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

    Lies and propaganda is the order of the day. To expect anything less from the United States at this point would be like expecting the sun to suddenly rise at midnight.

    In my reading, I have found it amazing the distinct muted response by the USSR to the deaths of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, and RFK. These were all events that the Soviets could have capitalized on wildly but did not.

    And of course we should consider the high caliber of those men - especially of Martin Luther King - compared with Nemtsov. MLK's murder set off an insurrection that spanned the country. No doubt the US would like to see the same thing - but it won't happen. Few love Nemtsov and he certainly did not love Russia.

    I noticed CNN couldn't resist doing a little "product placement" as the odious Wolf Blitzer brought up Nemtsov's CNN interview with Anthony Bourdain.

    ben | Mar 1, 2015 12:17:14 PM | 29

    guest77 @ 25:

    "Lies and propaganda is the order of the day. To expect anything less from the United States at this point would be like expecting the sun to suddenly rise at midnight."

    Excellent post, and summation.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 1, 2015 12:21:25 PM | 31

    @22 Wanting a particular outcome can cloud judgement, and even a "Russian nationalist" or a hold over communist might be expected to be hailed as a hero for offing the servants of international bankers.

    Given the set up, the location might have been picked as a known location where a hooker from Kiev could bring her John with a way for the gunmen to get away. If they chose an apartment or hotel, they run the risk of construction or trucks unloading in alleys. The Kremlin is an open area. It's accessible which means there are people at any time of day, and that means the police can't tear through the roads or even shut down raids just to get one car despite what movies try to teach us. The Los Angeles police "chases" last so long because they are clearing the roads.

    In the aftermath of the Boston marathon, everyone saw a person with a package, and the two were only nabbed because one shot a random cop in a spot where blending in might not be possible.

    Personally, I believe the CIA/Kiev element was involved which is why the description of "opposition leader" was out there so early. With no evidence or more than anyone else, I could come up with a rationale explanation as to why a Putin ally might be behind the operation. An ally might think Putin is still wavering between Europe and Eurasia and needs to be forced into an irrevocable separation and knowing the western media the murder might do the trick.

    Alberto | Mar 1, 2015 2:40:15 PM | 45

    When the Ukraine putsch offensive starts in March it will be a short lived Charlie Foxtrot*.

    Let me ask you this Question. What do John Kerry, Joe Biden, Brzezinski and quite possibly Kissinger have in common? I believe they are all either Jesuit trained or actual Jesuits. ALL WWII Fascist States were Roman Catholic. The Kiev putsch junta bears all the trappings of Roman Catholic savagery, assassination of opponents, displays of pseudo crucifix insignia, crude assassination of opponents and Fascist military trappings.

    The Church of Rome is the antithesis of the Constitution of the United States of America.


    *Cluster F*#K

    Just my opinion. I could be right.

    guest77 | Mar 1, 2015 3:49:10 PM | 49

    Meanwhile, in Ukraine: Lvov KPU Cadre Rostislav Vasilko in Kiev: "They Drove Needles under My Fingernails, Beat Me with Clubs"

    But no matter that. He's not a neo-liberal US ass kisser so who cares, right?

    PeteCaroll | Mar 1, 2015 3:53:12 PM | 51

    http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/news/international/324295/ally-of-ousted-ukraine-leader-found-dead-in-apparent-suicide

    Kiev--Ukrainian police on Saturday said a leading ally of former president Viktor Yanukovych was found dead after falling from his 17th storey Kiev flat in an apparent suicide.

    Former lawmaker Mykhaylo Chechetov -- one of the most prominent politicians during Kremlin-backed Yanukovych's time in power -- was facing criminal charges for abuse of power over attempts to crush protests that eventually toppled his former boss.

    Investigators said that Chechetov, 61, was found dead late Friday in front of his home after apparently throwing himself from his apartment window.

    Piotr Berman | Mar 1, 2015 3:56:35 PM | 52

    I think that Demian read the same comment in Russkaya Vesna as I did. Slightly bizarre, seemingly written in "been there, done that". Like, "when we were putting together a hit squad, we would insist on a control shot". However, the killer was not a novice, he pumped six shots without slightest hesitation. However, only four shots hit the torso, and the killer sloppily made no control shot once the body hit the pavement. One interpretation is that the hit man did not care too much if Nemtsov would survive or not, and that is consistent with some scenarios, like "mess up Russian politics" or "stop him from messing with this girl".

    The location of the hit was very brazen, police was there in less than 2 minutes. That points to authorities, but the sloppy style does not. My first girlfriend and her friend were in a shooting club, if you train, a carefully aimed shot hits a man's eye from 80 feet (for 10, you must have mostly 10s to be competitive), and quickly aimed shot hits a spot on the torso with the size of a fist (10) or somewhat larger (9). A person trained for inter-collegiate competitions or special forces would not miss a shot.

    My impression was that while Putin is not a "model democrat", he has a certain style of dispatching his opponents that does not involve killing. Lower level criminal organizations may have local political ties, and inconvenient people may get shot. If someone would cross certain Kadyrov in a bad way, a gold-plated pistol would be dropped by a hit man (after the hit), that guy is definitely special.

    Alberto | Mar 1, 2015 5:55:13 PM | 57

    "These chinks in the Freemason brick wall are spreading and the City of London is becoming increasingly desperate."

    ALAN comment 46 ...

    What about this?

    "
    It speaks to the globalist agenda of a one-world-economic system and a one-world-government and how it is being achieved. I remind you that the House of Rothschild has been the "Fiduciary" agent for the Vatican's money-lending activities since back to around 1823. The Vatican and the Rothschild's have been interlocked ever since. The Rothschild's are the bankers for the Vatican. The Vatican is the headquarters of the old Holy Roman Empire. The sitting pope is the 'Pontifex Maximus', the office of the last Caesar of the old Roman Empire."

    AND THIS ...

    "The Bank of England and Vatican split the take 40/60; 40% to the Bank of England and 60% to the Vatican."

    source - http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/sep2014/pastorbob913-10.htm

    Google search 'Vatican 60% City of London 40%

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Vatican+60%25+City+of+London+40%25

    Ulster | Mar 1, 2015 7:13:29 PM | 58

    I can imagine "b" writing about the death of Trotsky in 1940. It would go something like this:

    So someone killed Leon Trotsky in Mexico. Whodunnit?

    Trotsky was a marginal politician. No one would vote for him in the USSR. It would be ridiculous to call him "opposition". He posed no threat to Stalin.

    Also, Stalin would not gain anything from it. The public image of USSR would only suffer from this provocation.

    (Oh, I know Trotsky received numerous death threats from Kremlin, but it's irrelevant here, they were just talking)

    Also, if NKVD wanted to kill Trotsky, can you imagine them using an... ice axe? Why would the most sophisticated secret service in the world use an ice axe?

    And can you imagine a person called Ramon Mercader to be a Soviet agent? Did you notice that his name is an anagram to Acme Armor Nerd?

    Mexico is far from the USSR. And USA is close to Mexico.

    So, whodunnit? Your guess is as good as mine.

    Lone Wolf | Mar 1, 2015 8:41:32 PM | 62

    @Ulster@58

    I can imagine "b" writing about the death of Trotsky in 1940. It would go something like this:

    I am flabbergasted at your utter lack of historical perspective. How can you compare a larger-than-life historical figure such as Trotsky, to this Russian neo-liberal loser whose greatest achievement in life was to be deputy minister to a depraved drunk, appointed to manage the massive theft of Russia's energy sector? Boris Nemtsov compared to Lev Davidovich Trotsky, leader of the 1905/1917 revolutions, commander of the glorious Red Army, who defeated the US/Eurostan-supported White Armies and secured the existence of Russia, surrounded as it was on all sides by the same old same old bastards who are going at it again. Whatever opinion anyone has of Trotsky, his contribution to the survival of Russia is undeniable, and comparing him to a political whore is not only blatantly disgraceful, it is the ultimate show of historical ignorance.

    Demian | Mar 1, 2015 9:09:51 PM | 63

    @Lone Wolf #62:

    Lev Davidovich Trotsky, leader of the 1905/1917 revolutions, commander of the glorious Red Army, who defeated the US/Eurostan-supported White Armies

    A year ago, I probably would have been upset by that. But not anymore. We are all reconciled now.

    @ALL:

    I'm back to my original view that this was a US false flag. As Tony Carlucci points out, the timing was suspicious: a color revolution style protest was planned for today. The reason the hit was not professionally done is that the US is now so out of its depth in Russia that it can't even find a decent hit man.

    Speaking of hit men, this is what the real ones are like. This is one of my favorite trailers. (I usually avoid trailers altogether.)

    Get Carter music trailer

    And lest anyone has forgotten, The Human League in their epochal Dare did a cover of this.

    Demian | Mar 1, 2015 10:18:57 PM | 68

    @jfl #67:

    Are 80% of the Russian people still behind their government?

    I can't remember where I read this, I believe it was an opinion piece in a British newspaper, but most Russians now believe that the US has declared war against Russia. Under such circumstances, the "liberal opposition" has no chances. I am not even bothering to read about this demonstration, to find out how many people showed up.

    If the hit on Nemtsov really was ordered by the CIA, that indicates that the US foreign policy elite has no understanding of Russia. The State Department has this model of color revolutions. Since they have worked in Arab countries and in ex-Soviet ones, the State Department figures that they can work in Russia, too. So it keeps on trying. It just can't let go, like a nasty dog that has bitten your leg. But Russia is not like those countries. Russians have a memory of the USSR being a superpower and a rival of the US. Thus, this idea of coming to the "American side" simply is no longer appealing to Russians (with the exception of a small corrupt or brainwashed "liberal" minority), as it still is to Poles and Ukrainians, for example. China is like Russia in this respect, so it's not as if Russia is special.

    The Western press says that Victoria Nuland is fluent in Russian. I somehow doubt that. She shows no understanding of the country, which I think a person would have just by virtue of knowing the language.

    Vintage Red | Mar 1, 2015 11:50:39 PM | 72

    jfl asked @ 65/67:

    "Will there be anti-anti-government follow-up, of any size? ... Better, I should say a pro-government follow-up?"

    Even better--from Fort Russ:

    The "Russian Maidan" turns into a "Rally of the Patriots"

    Lone Wolf | Mar 2, 2015 12:37:06 AM | 73

    Fort Russ question from Vintage Red link (thanks for the breaking news!): Was Nemtsov's murder fruitless?

    Not at all, not at all. Ukinazis will now begin to understand they are Russia's enemy, and that's no joke for anybody.

    Odessa Massacre organizer comes to Moscow to "pay his respects" to Nemtsov, gets arrested

    Demian | Mar 2, 2015 1:01:48 AM | 75

    A Russian blogger writes that the hit is part of the US project to remove Putin from power. Destabilizing Russia by means of the Ukraine has not worked.

    Google translation

    Thirdeye | Mar 2, 2015 2:55:24 AM | 80

    I'm guessing associates of Nemtsov who felt they had been wronged, taking advantage of the timing to make the hit look like a political hit. A vigilante hit from the Duginite nationalist fringe isn't out of the question either. IMO the hit was carried out in a manner too unprofessional and risky to be the work of true cloak-and-dagger professionals. It wasn't too long ago that oligarchs used Mafiya goons to do their dirty work, and the Nemtsov hit seems to fall within that M.O. Nowadays, that sort of thing is one of the side jobs of the volunteer battalions in Ukraine.

    Nemtsov was a hustler and a swindler who probably made a list of enemies as long as your arm. His association with the opposition reeked of opportunism - a gambit to revive a fading political career. He acccepted grants for "opposition research" then treated himself to lavish, whoremongering vacations in Dubai. His funders, including Kiev, had nothing to show for their largesse. And we haven't even considered the possible enemies gained in shady business "deals."

    Young Anna may just be a very lucky innocent bystander, or she may have been part of the setup. She seems to be having memory problems. Her lawyer from Kiev seems nervous.

    [Mar 01, 2015] US Pushes For Escalation, Arms Kiev By Laundering Weapons Through Abu Dhabi

    Notable quotes:
    "... Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power. ..."
    "... The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships: ..."
    "... The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them? ..."
    "... Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical. ..."
    "... Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato. ..."
    Mar 01, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

    The U.S. is circumventing its own proclaimed policy of not delivering weapons to Ukraine and is thereby, despite urgent misgivings from its European allies, increasing the chance of a wider catastrophic war in Europe.

    The Ukrainian coup president Poroshenko went to an international arms exhibition in Dubai. There he met the U.S. chief military weapon salesman.

    ABU DHABI – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is expected to meet with U.S. defense companies Tuesday during a major arms exhibition here even though the American government has not cleared the firms to sell Kiev lethal weapons.

    Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition executive is scheduled to meet with a Ukrainian delegation Monday evening, however Poroshenko is not expected to be there. Kendall, in an interview, said he will be bringing a message of support from the United States.

    "I expect the conversation will be about their needs," Kendall told Defense One a few hours before the meeting. "We're limited at this point in time in terms of what we're able to provide them, but where we can be supportive, we want to be."

    Poroshenko, urged on by his neocon U.S. sponsors, wants total war with Russia. Porosheko's deputy foreign minister, currently on a visit in Canada, relayed the message:

    Ukraine's deputy foreign minister says he is preparing for "full-scale war" against Russia and wants Canada to help by supplying lethal weapons and the training to use them.

    Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power.

    In the mind of these folks waging a "full-scale war" against a nuclear superpower like Russia is nothing to be afraid of. These are truly lunatics.

    Russia says that U.S. weapons delivered to Ukraine would create real trouble. They mean it. To hint how Russia would counter such a move it just offered a spiced up S-300 missile defense system to Iran:

    Sergei Chemezov, chief executive of the Russian defense corporation Rostec, said Tehran is considering its offer to sell an Antey-2500 anti-ballistic air defense system,

    The Antey-2500 is a mobile surface-to-air missile system that offers enhanced combat capabilities, including the destruction of aircraft and ballistic missiles at a range of about 1,500 miles, according to its manufacturer, Almaz-Antey.

    The system was developed from a less advanced version -- the 1980s-generation S-300V system -- which has a 125-mile range. A 2007 contract to supply the S-300 system to Iran was canceled in 2010, after the U.S. and Israel lobbied against it, ...

    Such a system in Iran would, in case of a conflict, endanger every U.S. airplane in the Middle East.

    But that threat did not deter the U.S. As the U.S. arms dealer in Abu Dhabi said: "where we can be supportive, we want to be". The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships:

    Christopher Miller ‏@ChristopherJM

    Poroshenko, UAE agree on "delivery of certain types of armaments and military hardware to #Ukraine."

    The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them?

    This is again a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Ukraine by U.S. machinations. It comes at the same moment that Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine meet in Paris to push for faster implementation of the Minsk 2 accord for a ceasefire and for a political solution of the civil war in Ukraine:

    On Monday spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Yevhen Perebyinis said that during their Paris meeting, the foursome of foreign ministers will focus on the implementation of the Minsk agreements and withdrawal of heavy artillery in Donbas.

    The Ukrainian government has said that it will not withdraw its artillery as long as there are still skirmishes around a few flashpoints along the ceasefire line. In Shirokyne east of Mariupol the government aligned neo-nazi battalion Azov continues to attack the federalists. The Ukrainian propaganda claims that the federalists plan an immediate attack on Mariupol. That is nonsense and the federalist have denied any plans for further fighting. Unlike the Ukrainian government the federalist started to pull back their artillery and will continue to do so.

    The Ukrainian government is breaking the Minsk 2 agreement by not pulling back its heavy artillery from the ceasefire line. The U.S. is arming the Ukrainian army and will soon train its volunteer neo-nazi "national guard" forces.

    The major European powers, Germany, France and Russia, try to tame the conflict down. The U.S. and its poodles in Kiev continue to poor oil into the fire. If the Europeans do not succeed in pushing back against Washington the Ukraine with burn and Europe with it.

    In Further Escalation U.S. Delivery Of Weapons To Kiev Will Be Laundered Through Abu Dhabi

    Posted by b at 10:20 AM | Comments (53)

    Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 11:20:39 AM | 1

    @b

    Thanks for a very good summary of the whole guacamole.

    Another reason not to withdraw the artillery, being also used by Kerry to crank up the "let's-give-weapons-to-Ukraine" line, is the mopping of the Debaltsevo pocket, which Ukraine & Co. decided to ignore from the beginning, to use it now as a justification not to fulfill Minsk 2.0. The false-flag attack in Kharkov was a prelude of the up and coming internal repression, which will drown in torture, suffering and blood the little resistance there is to the continuation of the war and the IV Mobilization.

    Whoever said that foreign policy is only an extension of domestic policy?

    gersen | Feb 24, 2015 12:24:12 PM | 3

    RE: Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 11:20:39 AM | 1

    I commented about a week ago that the ceasefire might hold if both sides in Ukraine pulled back their artillery - unless Obama acted to sabotage it. Now he has done so - not withstanding the withdrawal of federalist ordinance - by offering to rearm the gun-crazy fascists of the Ukrainian gov't, with not even a fig leaf of "plausible deniability" to cover his assets.

    Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical.

    As for Poroshenko, he doubtless has a helicopter gassed and ready, and a nice little hidey hole in Switzerland all prepared, and conveniently close to his billions. That's why he sent his family out of the country, because when he has to get out - he has to get out fast.

    shargash | Feb 24, 2015 12:29:18 PM | 4

    Re: (2) IhaveLittleToAdd

    Like most criminal organizations, the US tries to take very good care of its agents that do what they're told and to be very brutal to those who don't. For examples of the former, check out all the South American criminals living in Miami as well as the perhaps more relevant example of Mikheil Saakashvili, who is strutting around Ukraine rather than being on trial in Georgia. For examples of the latter, check out Noriega, Saddam, or Bin Ladin.

    While I suspect Porky is wondering how he got himself into this mess, I don't think he has much choice but to stick it out to the end. At least his family will be well taken care of.

    sleepy | Feb 24, 2015 2:08:47 PM | 10

    Re: IHaveLittleToAdd no. 2

    Re: shargash no. 4

    I have read recently in an article on another blog that in 2012 Poroshenko was being politically groomed for his future role by Germany's Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute, a think-tank wing of Merkel's Christian Democrats, as was Vitali Klitschko the present mayor of Kiev in 2011.

    Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/greece-dead-man-walking-2.html

    Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 3:19:08 PM | 14

    @sid_finster@5

    "Ukraine will go to war in late March"--Zakharchenko


    ..."We are beginning the withdrawal of heavy equipment, while Ukraine is bringing it up from Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk. Seems to be there will be a provocation. Ukraine will go to war in late March or Early April. Ukraine needs war," Zakharchenko said during a Monday briefing.


    J.Hawk's Comment: ...Because, to my mind, there seems to be a pattern of Ukrainian conflict activity: it is most likely to escalate when it just received foreign financial aid, and is the most likely to seek peace just as it needs another tranche...

    sid_finster | Feb 24, 2015 8:42:45 PM | 22

    $350m is not going to buy you many US weapons, especially as Parashka's contract is for $2.4 billion, less delivery, middlemen, financing, etc..

    The IMF is another source, but that money hasn't arrived yet, and there are a lot of conditions attached. That's why the Fund is the lender of last resort.

    Since arms are invariably sold subject to strict limits on resales, I suspect that either:
    1. The sale is for domestic Ukrainian consumption, i.e Parashka's attempt to look like he is doing something;
    Or
    2.The US is secretly financing the sale, directly or indirectly. Such financing may be in the form of "we promise to aid your ISIS friends, or look the other way, if you 'sell' Ukraine these weapons and take a lenient attitude regarding repayment."

    Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 9:20:09 PM | 23

    @Alberto@11

    This is not because they disagree with his politics, but because Saakashvili is wanted on a multitude of criminal charges.

    "Criminal charges?" Bingo! He fits the credentials for the job as Porky's "adviser." In reality, Saakashvili, a CIA crooked rat, is the CIA man in Ukraine, overseeing the entire anti-Russian effort, weapons needs, false-flag operations, internal repression, Ukinazi death squads, intel gathering and coordination, etc. Georgia's complaint to Ukraine was more of a wink to Saakashvili's newly found job, a show for domestic consumption, otherwise, Interpol would be looking for him, wouldn't it?

    ProsperousPeace | Feb 24, 2015 9:37:53 PM | 24

    Re: Isaakashvili sudden involvement with the "Ukrainian government": Kiev Snipers: Mystery Solved

    It was reported several weeks ago in Interpress News that four of the snipers in Kiev were in fact Georgian nationals. The source for this story was Georgian General Tristan Tsitelashvili (Titelashvili), who later confirmed this in an interview with Rossiya TV.

    Tsitelashvili claimed that at least four of the snipers shooting at people in Maidan Square were under the command of former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who is doing his best to destabilize his own country, and others if necessary, to find a way back into power.

    Piotr Berman | Feb 24, 2015 11:28:51 PM | 25

    How long did Saakashvili's war with Russia last? 48 hours? 72 hours? Good advisor to have.

    Posted by: Crest | Feb 24, 2015 8:34:15 PM | 20

    According to Wikipedia, the war started on Aug 8, minutes after midnight, and it definitely lasted at least 4 days. On fifth day, Georgians left a key city, Gori, and Russians entered on sixth day. On the other hand, the war was lost within 24 hours. The only chance of victory for heavily outnumbered Georgia was to surprise the Russians and Ossetians and take control of the only tunnel between South Ossetia and the Russian Federation (North Ossetia), which they did not. Thus Russian could retake all territory gained by Georgia on day one within two days, rather than a week. Georgia concentrated almost all forces against Ossetian, leaving the second border with good roads, with Abkhasia, practically undefended. Thus the only way to score a victory lasting more than one day was to risk loosing big majority of Georgian military in a cauldron -- Georgian forces in Ossetian mountain valleys would have Russian forces behind them, as only police checkpoints were delaying Russian advance from Abkhasia, (posting detours, issuing tickets for parking violations, violation of weight limits on bridges for tanks etc.???).

    As a history buff, I have hard time finding a strategic plan of equal stupidity. To give the creator of that plan a key advising position seems suicidal. An anti-Russian Georgian owns a large (??? impressive web site) newspaper in Kiev.

    Demian | Feb 25, 2015 3:02:07 AM | 28

    Foreign Affairs poll of experts about whether the US should arm Ukraine:

    4 strongly agree
    5 agree
    0 are neutral [they're experts, after all]
    8 disagree
    10 strongly disagree

    brian | Feb 26, 2015 4:59:48 AM | 52

    You can read the whole article for free if you register. You get two free articles per month. FA should be of interest to MoA readers.

    By George Galloway. a great discussion about the Russian_Western struggle; its history and recent development.;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNaSGdYxm8M

    guest77 | Feb 26, 2015 1:47:24 PM | 53

    @52 Thanks for the Galloway show. His al Mayadeen show has always been difficult for me to find - and it is considerably better, I feel, than both Sputnik and Comment (which are fine shows themselves).

    [Mar 01, 2015] The second level, more expensive, starts at $1500 for an evening -- or how Nemtsov rolled

    Neoliberal playboy with criminal connections who controlled some part of the flow of money to the opposition.
    Jan 25, 2012 | Fort Russ

    Nemtsov took a vacation with a new escort-virgin, and was photographed by unknown operators in all the private places. Apparently the travel company which he used sold him out.

    Nemtsov did not part with the 25-year-old woman even for a minute. The hot sand of the Persian Gulf only warmed up his sexual activism. Political activism did not grow cold, either.

    Nemtsov had time to count his supporters' donations. Hundreds of Russian citizens voluntarily transferred money to his electronic account over a period of two months, to help the fighter for justice publish his oppositionist research.

    Nemtsov collected 320 thousand rubles, just enough for a week in a chic room for two in the Zabele Saray hotel.

    "It is a new, luxurious VIP hotel, built on a palm island," according to a tourist agency employee. "There is everything necessary for a good rest at Zabele Saray! The room resembles sultan's apartments, only the freshest cuisine: there are 16 restaurants for even the most demanding of tastes. The hotel was built specially for the elite, the top floor hosts families of the sheikhs themselves. Only the best, believe me."

    The 52-year-old leader of the PARNAS took with him for a serious spin on the UAE beaches the faithful companion of his recent adventures, Anastasiya Ognyeva. Hotel staff whispered: "He is an important politician from the '90s", but neither the staff nor the long-time guests saw any extraordinary behavior.

    The pair practically never left their heavenly nest, having grown weary of hanging out with Russian tourists-that's the electorate, after all. They ordered meals to their room: the most sophisticated Japanese dishes and the local seafood. They had breakfast around dinnertime, and they observed the sunset from the balcony.

    A night in the royal de-luxe apartments of the hotel located on the Jumeira Palm island with a view on the ocean costs over 50 thousand dollars. Even though half a million is small change for Nemtsov, he and his red-headed companion nevertheless received a discount for their romantic journey.

    Of course his last official wife was not invited along, but was instead left in frozen Moscow. Nemtsov also did not have the blessing from the parents of his lover Anastasiya Ognyeva.

    "What gave you the idea that my daughter is hanging out with Nemtsov?!" Nastya's mom was surprised. "We know nothing about her life, she does not live with us."

    Nevertheless, Nemtsov already boasted to his numerous past wives about his w young girl.

    "I am very happy for him, he looks happy next to her," told Life News one of Nemtsov's wives, Ekaterina Odintsova. "He showed me her photos, she's good-looking. He told me something about her, but we have many other topics to discuss."

    Of course they have other topics: Nemtsov and the journalist Odintsova had two children together.

    Life News learned where lovebirds like Nemtsov obtain their madams.

    The Russian democracy promoter's muse first made herself known through the Escortmodeli agency, when Nemtsov was looking for a VIP-girl to accompany him to Israel. It seems that fortune, in the person of a wealthy revolutionary, smiled on Nastya: she has grandparents in Israel. In other words, one can find a companion with the preferred nationality, visa, and level of education.

    "The well developed talents of our VIP-girls can ensure not only relaxation," promises the web site, where the Redhead was on the honor roll prior to her acquaintance with the politician.

    One can even find a companion at the escort service with a beauty title, provided you have money.

    "Prices depend on the girl's level, starting price is a $1000," explains the agency's manager Aleksandra. "The second level, more expensive, starts at $1500 for an evening."

    It's clear that the provincial girl conquered not only Moscow, but also the heart of a Muscovite political leader.

    After his vacation with a lover on the Persian Gulf coast, Nemtsov returned to work-his battle for justice, since everyone knows that his electorate cannot avail itself of such a vacation.

    J.Hawk's Comment:

    I mean, Russian "opposition" certainly has it tough these days. When will the persecution stop? The poor guy could afford only one week in Dubai...

    On a more serious note, these "escort services" are pretty much part of the shadow economy since prostitution is illegal in Russia. However, if you have dealings with such agencies, you are also dealing, however indirectly, with organized crime. Assuming that Anna "actress-model" Duritskaya belonged to the same category of companion (which appears rather likely--Nemtsov seems to have had a thing for 20-somethings...), it's not implausible that somebody took offense to Nemtsov "spoiling the goods", so to speak, because how much money will a pregnant "escort" fetch? It's also yet to be explained who paid for Duritskaya's Switzerland abortion.

    [Mar 01, 2015] Russia's opposition: who is left to take on Vladimir Putin? by Shaun Walker

    The Guardian rather weirdly lists Igor Strelkov as one of the 'opposition figureheads'. As one commneter noted: " But it's hardly a serious survey or analysis. It's just a tossed-off random list, comprising nationalists, celebrity game players and wealthy robber barons, none of whom seem to have any real support in Russia. It's no more a parade of the brave, decent and worth saluting - as if it's any business of Brits or Americans anyway - or relevant than a list comprising Nick Griffin, Russell Brand, Nigel Farage, Noel Edmonds and Bez would be in respect of this country."
    Mar 01, 2015 | The Guardian

    Pavel Prokofiev -> AlexSurname 1 Mar 2015 20:50

    This is only partially correct. Mr Nemtsov was and to some extent remained part of the systemic opposition. Yesterday there were several demonstrations in Moscow, including communist's demonstration demanding resignation of the goverment (7 thousand participants). There were more than 50 thousand participants in the Nemtsov mourning march.

    Generally, Russians are shocked that it is possible to scream on the streets of Ukraine "Heil Ukrain! etc", that it is possible to bomb Lugansk and Donetsk and Western press and politicians are supporting this! Real shock.

    It is also correct to say that Russian state and official press are presenting opposition and supporters of Maidan, which after use of "Heil Ukrain!" will never be accepted in Russia and after Odessa and bombings of peaceful cities will be rather hated.

    chemicalscum -> R. Ben Madison 1 Mar 2015 20:04

    Novorossiya = Sudetenland.

    The analogy holds insomuch that the German Nazis invaded the Sudetenland. While the Kiev Nazi government invaded the South East of the Ukraine after the people had risen up against the US backed and organized coup government that had violently overthrown the legally elected president and the government of the country.

    If you don't believe that the Ukraine is now under a Nazi dictatorship look for example at the "Volunteer" Azov brigade with all its Nazi symbols and remember the Odessa massacre. Look at the current suppression of free speech in the Junta controlled areas.

    Towards the de-Nazification of the the Ukraine. There are Novorossiyan news videos on youtube that start showing a militia tank with "To Lvov" on its side. They are fighting again the battles of seventy years ago again.

    They have dug trenches where there grandfathers did and buried their dead in the tombs of Saur Mogila under the shattered remains of the Soviet war memorial. The sooner the tanks reach Lvov the better. The sooner we will nip in the bud the US sponsored re-introduction of Nazism into Europe the better.

    dumbwit 1 Mar 2015 20:21

    The more relevant question would be, what happens to Russia post Putin ? He is untouchable at the moment and has no real opposition.

    As if a billionaire living in exile is someone the people will respond to. Navalny is acceptable to Putin because he is not a threat. They lock him up now and then and play games with him but it changes nothing. The only popular, charismatic leader with resources in Russia is Putin.

    The only hope for real change is after Putin and that could be interesting times for Russia but also could be a long wait. Russians also seem to prefer the devil they know.

    AlexSurname 1 Mar 2015 19:20

    Russian "non systemic" opposition got greatly radicalized over years of failures to get political power. They have no hope to win popular support, their support base only diminishes year after year. They used to manage 100k rallies 3 years ago, which is absolute top they can ever hope. Yesterday they only managed 25k.

    Years of frustration made them hateful to their own country and people. Which is not helping with getting popular support at all. This vicious circle of hate, frustration and failure is the best picture of this "opposition".

    chemicalscum Socraticus 1 Mar 2015 19:20

    Sergei Udaltsov: Only 23% know who he is and of those <1% trust him, while 8% don't.

    Why no mention of either Vladimir Zhirinovsky or Gennady Zyuganov

    Udaltsov acted as Zhuganov's campaign manager at the last presidential election. After the election rumour had it that he was not prepared to stand again for president and was planning to put the Communist Party of the Russian Federation support behind Udalsov at the next presidential election. The combination of a young charismatic leader attracting youth with the solid voting numbers of elderly CP-RF supporters would put him in with a winning chance.

    This was why Putin had him framed. The liberal Atlanticist 5th column is hopefully doomed to failure. If Putin sells out Novorossiya he is toast. There are a lot of armed detachments of Left Communists, National Bolsheviks and pan-Slavic Nationalists in the liberated areas of the Ukraine who would be gunning for him.

    Boris Kagarlitsky puts Putin's position as being similar to Tsar Nicolas in 1915, we wait for 2017. Personally I think that if that if he breaks with neo-liberalism and adopts the economic Eurasian policies of his advisor Sergei Glazyev with capital controls he stands a chance of survival providing, he can keep the oligarchs under control and is able to maintain social programs. The future isn't written.

    Joseph Rozen 1 Mar 2015 19:04

    Russia's opposition: who is left to take on Vladimir Putin?

    Are we to understand that the ex-Yeltsin neo-liberal, who played a major role in the systematic corporate asset-strip of the Russian economy, its infrastructure and manufacturing base, and who was scoring 1% in recent opinion polls was position to take on Putin and the current leadership.

    I suspect that Guardian's talking heads and narrative makers will find the vast majority of Russians a tad too savvy to fall for the Yeltsin's nightmarish shock therapy, plunder and mass pauperisation....

    Smileyosborne12 -> domeus 1 Mar 2015 18:46

    domeus,you appear to have been absent from the earth on some other planet during the whole of the 1990s when Boris Yeltsin in his usual drunken haze brought a once strong, secure Russia to its knees! Are you trying your damnedest to rewrite history?

    Another point. You are extremely presumptuous to believe that every poster on here is part of your "We" as liberals. In Russia as well as the UK there are some very serious doubts in many quarters as to the sense and safety of being "liberal", it is mostly used by those who have a worrisome hidden agenda. It certainly hasn't worked in Russia even under Gorbachev and wont work in the future.

    Colin Robinson -> Hektor Uranga 1 Mar 2015 18:25

    You seem to think the Russian government is guilty not only of suppressing political opposition, but also of allowing the wrong sort of opposition to emerge...

    I doubt that any political platform would be illegal in the US itself, where the First Amendment operates... On the other hand, US has often worked in other countries to ban platforms it didn't like, e.g. the communist and socialist parties in Chile...

    I'm aware that open use of Nazi symbols in banned in Germany. This hasn't stopped the German government from backing the Banderist régime in Ukraine, which today has armed men with SS insignia patrolling Mariupol.

    Socraticus 1 Mar 2015 18:06

    It's rather curious to see that of the 5 individuals cited, 2 of them aren't even officially recognized as opposition leaders (Khodorkovsky and Strelkov), while the remaining 3 are conveniently pro-western in their politics, as too was Boris Nemtsov (as well as Khodorkovsky).

    As can be seen by a poll taken in January last year, none of them hold any major influence in Russian politics (though all, with the exception of Strelkov, want to overthrow Putin)...

    • Garry Kasparov: Only 28% know who he is and of those, only 1% trust him while 7% don't.
    • Alexei Navalny: Only 32% know who he is and of those only 3% trust him while 10% don't.
    • Sergei Udaltsov: Only 23% know who he is and of those <1% trust him, while 8% don't.
    • Nemtsov himself ranked at 45% as being a recognizable name with a trust factor of 1% versus 17% of distrust.

    Why no mention of either Vladimir Zhirinovsky or Gennady Zyuganov who are both well known with stats of 68% (with a trust factor of 12% vs 19%) and 62% (with a trust factor of 17% vs 11% respectively)? Is it perhaps because they are not pro-western in their politics and therefore disinclined to become puppets to the U.S.?

    http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=IE8Activity&a=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.levada.ru%2F07-02-2014%2Fuznavaemost-oppozitsionnykh-politikov

    AlexSurname -> R. Ben Madison 1 Mar 2015 19:08

    "Jew question" in Russia is way overblown by western propaganda and is not really a part of political agenda of even most radical nationalists.

    Putin is praised not for standing against something, but for standing for the Russian interests.

    MACLANE 1 Mar 2015 17:44

    Whoever wants to take on Putin, must know better, how to undo Yeltsin's oligarch-creations, of which Nemtsov, inspired by Thatcher, was participant and complicit. As long as there remain a majority of Russians to be lifted out of poverty, with traditional believes even, neocon-inspired well to do bourgeois liberals with LGBT exuberance must wait; first things first. We must place enlightened humanism before bourgeois cultural arrogance.

    AlfredHerring

    Thanks for the survey Guardian. It seems there are some very brave and good people in Russia. Let's hope they keep breathing and walking free.

    NedHH AlfredHerring

    But it's hardly a serious survey or analysis. It's just a tossed-off random list, comprising nationalists, celebrity game players and wealthy robber barons, none of whom seem to have any real support in Russia.

    It's no more a parade of the brave, decent and worth saluting - as if it's any business of Brits or Americans anyway - or relevant than a list comprising Nick Griffin, Russell Brand, Nigel Farage, Noel Edmonds and Bez would be in respect of this country.

    Ilja NB

    **Mikhail Khodorkovsky**

    The guardian just hit beyond rockbottom for even naming this criminal.

    JohnNewcomb

    Interesting perspective from Nikolay Petrov and Michael McFaul about Russia's "managed democracy":
    Managed democracy controls society while providing the appearance of democracy. Its main characteristics are as follows:
    1. A strong presidency and weak institutions
    2. State control of the media
    3. Control over elections allows elites to legitimize their decisions
    4. Visible short-term effectiveness and long-term inefficiency
    The result is an "unstable stability" based on the president's personality. He is actually a hostage of the system.
    The Essence of Putin's Managed Democracy

    Canigou -> JohnNewcomb

    This sounds uncomfortably close to a description of U.S. politics.

    Canigou

    This article bemoans the lack of electable leaders among the "beleaguered liberal opposition" in Russia.

    Americans should be able to relate to that. The possible liberal candidates for President are Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (who says she won't run) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (a socialist who is too old and not well known, and has no chance whatever).

    That leaves U.S. voters with a choice between Hillary Clinton------ a faux-liberal friend of Wall Street, big corporations, oil companies, defense contractors, and a jingoistic foreign policy to support the American empire-----and a group of neocon radical Republican warmongers committed to dismantling the remnants of the modern welfare state.

    The left-wing opposition is more than beleaguered, it is screwed, I'd say more so in the U.S. than in Russia.

    yanburgh -> Canigou

    At least in the US nowadays you don't get shot if you're a critic of the current regime.

    Bosula -> yanburgh

    It is just that the rest of the US is armed and shooting at each other. More homocides and gun related deaths that any other country. Somethings not right there.

    GriseldaLamington -> yanburgh

    Unless you're Malcolm X, or MLK, or any number of members of the BPP. Actually, the USA has developed a new technique of killing people who might be critics of the regime by incinerating them (and anyone else who happens to be in the vicinity) by remote control.

    CefimarPark

    Presumably only the suicidal or terminally ill who have little to lose.
    Perhaps it may begin to dawn on people who could not understand the lack of active resistance against Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Gadafi or indeed any other despot, just how simple it can be to stifle opposition once you have absolute power. A few strategic, high profile hits are usually quite effective.

    PlatonKuzin -> CefimarPark

    Once, I said to my US opponent: "Saddam Hussein, a bloody dictator killed (presumably) about 40,000 people within 30 years of his dictatorship. You, Americans, for the sake of your domocracy and the rule of law, have killed in Iraq about 500,000 people within 10 years only. And a human life, as known, is the highest value on this earth. So, maybe it is much much better for Iraq to have Saddam rather than your bloody democracy in power? This way, much more people will stay alive in Iraq." My American opponent stood fully silent, not knowing what to answer.

    [Mar 01, 2015] Reconsidering Russia and the Former Soviet Union

    In recent weeks, renowned veteran Russia scholar, Professor Stephen F. Cohen, and his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, have been at the center of a controversy involving the Association of Slavic, Eastern European, and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES).

    Much has already been written about this matter. For some background, see the article published in The New York Times on 28 January here and a listing of articles related to the situation, compiled by Sean Guillory, here.

    However, within the context of this controversy, I would like to focus on one specific issue, i.e. that of Ukrainian academics, their reaction to Cohen's work, and their suspected role in the ASEEES affair.

    It is true that Cohen is not a specialist on Ukraine, though he does have some background on the country. Overall, though, within Russian and Soviet studies, his primary focus has been, and continues to be, Russia itself rather than the other ex-Soviet republics.

    Nevertheless, some Ukrainian academics in North America have used this perceived "weakness" as a means of discrediting Cohen's views on Ukraine. One observer cited two Ukrainian-American scholars in this regard, Alexander Motyl and Serhii Plokhii, both of whom are known for their more nationalistic views. The observer alleges that such "aggrieved" Ukrainian-American academics have likely been at the forefront of the ASEEES' considerations regarding Cohen. This may be correct, but it is important to clarify some significant aspects of this issue.

    The narrative of Cohen being a Russianist who is "disconnected" from Ukrainian affairs and the post-Soviet republics is exceedingly problematic and over-simplistic. In fact, to criticize Cohen on his views on Ukraine simply on the basis that he does not specialize on the country is misleading and unfair.

    Knowing Cohen personally, I can say that during this entire crisis, he has carefully and scrupulously consulted Ukrainian sources and made contact with specialists on the post-Soviet republics for his writings. As someone who studies the former Soviet republics and the history of the Soviet nationalities policy with a tangential interest in Ukraine, I can confirm that what he has written on domestic developments in Ukraine is indeed factually sound.

    Volodymyr Ishchenko
    -Volodymyr Ishchenko, lecturer of Sociology in the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy

    Further, the narrative of the "disconnected" Cohen also excludes dissenting views on the dominant narrative within Ukrainian studies. In fact, at least two Ukrainian academics, Ivan Katchanovski of the University of Ottawa and Volodymyr Ishchenko of the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, would agree with many of Cohen's viewpoints on Ukraine's domestic politics.

    Indeed, while many Ukrainian academics have hailed the Maidan as a "liberationist" movement, the more skeptical Ishchenko has instead characterized it as a "pro-neoliberal [and] pro-nationalist" movement led by elites who do not necessarily represent the interests of the people. Both Katchanovski and Ishchenko, like Cohen, have also been highly critical of the presence of the far-right in the Maidan Revolution.

    They are not alone. There are other Ukrainian academics who have dissented from the prevailing narrative as well. In their search for an objective reality of events, they often contradict nationalist viewpoints which have found a warm reception among influential anti-Russian hawks and members of the war party in the US political establishment. Indeed, the works of Motyl and the Canada-based, OUN-affiliated Taras Kuzio are prominently featured in Foreign Affairs, the main publication of the US foreign policy establishment. By contrast, dissenters, like Katchanovski and Ishchenko, have not received such privilege, despite the more objective and factual nature of their research.

    Given their views, dissenting Ukrainian academics have often found themselves in difficult positions. Not only do they face difficulties with their more nationalistic and ideological colleagues in Ukrainian Studies in North America and Europe. They also face repercussions in post-Maidan Ukraine as well.

    Ivan Katchanovski
    -Ivan Katchanovski, professor of Political Science at the University of Ottawa

    For instance, the over 100-year-old Czech-built family home of Ivan Katchanovski in Lutsk, the center of historic Volhynia in northwestern Ukraine, has been unlawfully appropriated by the Kiev government. The beleaguered professor believes that his research on Ukraine's far-right and on the Odessa and Maidan Snipers' massacres was most likely the reason for this action. The aim, he believes, is to prevent and intimidate him from conducting further research on these subjects in Ukraine. His thorough investigation into the Maidan Snipers' massacre is especially significant. It found that the snipers who shot and killed both protestors and police on the Maidan were most likely far-right activists. This inconvenient truth contradicts the official Kiev line which blames the massacre on former President Yanukovych. On 11 February, a report by the BBC World Service seemed to corroborate Katchanovski's investigation.

    Katchanovski suspects direct involvement from officials in Kiev in the seizure of his property due to the fact that the original decision came from higher-ups. Further, according to Katchanovski, Mykola Sorokopud, the head of the lawyers' association of the Volyn Oblast, was directly involved in falsifying evidence against him in order to confiscate his property. Sorokopud is affiliated with the far-right group Right Sector (Praviy Sektor) as well as Ihor Palytsia, the current governor of the Odessa Oblast. Another Lutsk native, Playtsia is also connected with Right Sector. He runs the foundation "New Lutsk", headed by Sorokopud's wife, that finances members of Right Sector fighting in the Donbas in the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.

    As these facts demonstrate, the ASEEES-Cohen affair is not strictly about issues relating to free speech, censorship, and much-needed funding for a much-needed but neglected discipline. Ironically, this debate is also indicative of how the Ukraine crisis has divided the Slavic, Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian academic communities, much like in Ukraine itself. These divisions exist on multiple levels, whether they are between those willing or unwilling to take into account Moscow's point of view, or between those who are pro-Kiev or anti-Kiev.

    Indeed, in their official correspondences, the ASEEES has expressed concern regarding "splits within the organization." One hopes that these "splits" are not so profound as to affect the objective judgment of the ASEEES, an organization that professes to encourage discussion and debate among its members. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case. Evidently, the crisis in Ukraine has cast a long shadow over a respected academic association that should know better.

    Full disclosure: I am a proud member of the ASEEES and a MA graduate student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, focusing on the history of the Caucasus (especially Armenia and Georgia) in the Soviet era. My academic advisor is Ronald Grigor Suny, one of the signatories of the ASEEES letter in defense of Cohen and of the reply to the ASEEES. Like Cohen, he is a fellow scholar in the revisionist school of Soviet and Russian historiography.

    Crawford Henriques on February 17, 2015 at 1:18 pm said:

    There are good reasons for criticising the actions of NATO, the EU and the US before and during the crisis, as there are for condemning the post-Yanukovych government and the role of the far right in Ukrainian politics. However, too often such critiques, as is true of those by Stephen Cohen, come with a poor understanding of Ukrainian history and politics, questionable methodologies and an uncritical stance on Russian national myths.

    "As someone who studies the former Soviet republics and the history of the Soviet nationalities policy with a tangential interest in Ukraine, I can confirm that what he has written on domestic developments in Ukraine is indeed factually sound."

    So, as a non-specialist you are confirming that another non-specialist is correct. Not a ringing endorsement.

    "Alexander Motyl and Serhii Plokhii, both of whom are known for their more nationalistic views".

    Motyl yes, but Plokhii? He certainly doesn't sign up to many of the nationalist views of Ukrainian history, for example not seeing the 1932-33 famine as a genocide.

    "[Katachonovskis's] thorough investigation into the Maidan Snipers' massacre is especially significant. It found that the snipers who shot and killed both protestors and police on the Maidan were most likely far-right activists. This inconvenient truth contradicts the official Kiev line which blames the massacre on former President Yanukovych".

    I find it a tad methodologically naive to believe in "truth". Katchanovski raises some interesting questions, but his version is full of gaps too. For example, he acknowledges that the police were shooting live ammunition at the protesters at a point when many died, yet says there is no evidence that that they killed anyone.

    This overview of Cohen's views is much better:

    http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2014-09-05-koposov-en.html

    Pietro Shakarian, February 17, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    These are valid and welcome critiques.

    As for Plokhii, yes, I do concede that many of his views do not correspond to those held by traditional nationalist Ukrainian historiography. Yet, at the same time, some do, such as his immediate judgement that the Donbas war constituted a "Russian invasion" (in fact, evidence indicates that Russia did not intervene to support the rebels until August). He may not be as nationalist as, say, Motyl or Kuzio, but there are some aspects of his work that led me to my conclusion.

    As for Katchanovski's study on the Maidan Snipers' massacre, he has written a response to critics of his study and he is also working on a revised edition of his work, which should be out soon.

    Crawford Henriques, February 17, 2015 at 2:27 pm

    Regarding Plokhii, I think a premature judgement on the nature of Russia's involvement in the Donbas, so shortly after Russia had just invaded and annexed the Crimea, hardly makes him a nationalist (unless you think that summary of what happened on the penninsula makes me a nationalist?). He is, after all, Ukrainian; perhaps we can allow him to have some emotional attachment to his country of birth, which might cloud his judgement when he feels that it is under attack.

    I found Katchanovski's reply barely answered any of the criticisms of him; instead it only opened up new questions: for example, he claims that the Russian government had evidence backing up his version of events, yet sat on it (despite the fact that this had long been their position); he does not provide any answer as to why they would take such a contradictory position.

    You are correct to say that the Cohen affair reveals how the Ukrainian crisis has split academia. However, Cohen is reaping the rewards of a polarisation to which he has himself contributed through decidedly unscholarly public interventions. I admit that Motyl and Kuzio are no better, and Snyder has not covered himself in glory. Still, I can muster little sympathy for Cohen.

    By the way, you can hardly point to Kuzio as typical of "pro-Kyiv" scholars, as a quite vehement hate seems to exist between them and him.

    Pietro Shakarian, February 17, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    Again, I appreciate these comments.

    In academia, you must view situations dispassionately and make conclusions based on objective evidence. If, as you say, Plokhii is making conclusions based on emotions connected with national feelings, then this becomes problematic. Further, if he is making emotional conclusions, then they are indeed based more on national feeling than place of birth because Plokhii was not born in Ukraine at all, but rather in Nizhny Novgorod in Russia. Certainly, other Ukrainian scholars, who were born in Ukraine, such as Ishchenko and Katchanovski who I cited, have been able to assess the situation dispassionately.

    As for Kuzio, yes, there is conflict between him and other Ukrainian studies scholars. This is a well-established fact. For example, Anton Shekhovtsov, a very pro-Kiev scholar, has been openly in conflict with him. But this is entirely beside the point I was trying to make. I was not saying that Kuzio is a "typical pro-Kiev scholar." Rather, I was highlighting the bias of Foreign Affairs in selecting a writer who is overtly nationalist and overtly pro-Kiev in covering events.

    In any case, as gentlemen, we can agree to disagree. Once, again, I appreciate the feedback.

    Ca, February 18, 2015 at 6:43 am

    You claim there is a gap in the narrative if Katchanovski "acknowledges that the police were shooting live ammunition at the protesters at a point when many died, yet says there is no evidence that that they killed anyone." There is no gap as there are a number of explanations for this. One is that the police simply missed their targets. Another is that the police were not shooting live ammunition. The most likely one (corroborated by intercepted radio communications) is that the police were shooting at the snipers, who were firing from behind the protesters (in the Trade Union) up the hill (both toward police and toward protesters). This scenario makes a lot of sense because if you planned this Hollywood-style, you would plant cameras perfectly so that you would see the police firing in one set of shots (but not at what), and the victims being hit in another angle (but not by whom). You then release both videos and let people connect the dots – just like you did. Indeed I am certain not only the snipers but the video team was part of the black op. By the way one of the videos I have showing police firing from the top of ulitsa Institutskaya shows them clearly shooting straight or even slightly up (even though, having walked and jogged up that steep hill quite often, I know that the protesters were significantly lower in elevation than the police)

    CalDre, February 18, 2015 at 6:48 am

    I should mention there is another video that clearly shows this – there are protesters only a short distance down the hill from some police who are mostly up but not at the top of the hill. The protesters are being regularly hit (it appears sometimes from behind, sometimes from side, perhaps from Hotel Ukraine where the opposition was holed up and lots of videos exist of people saying snipers were firing from there, including a BBC video) and the police are firing, but clearly not at the protesters (fairly close) who are being hit. Those police also seem to be firing at whoever is firing at the protesters.

    I think the police were firing to protect themselves (they were also being fired at – the "third force" hits both sides to try to get an actual fight between them started) and the protesters.

    [Mar 01, 2015] Democracy Now interviews Stephen Cohen concerning the Ukrainian crisis

    Feb 3, 2015 | Democratic Underground

    "Democracy Now" interviews Stephen Cohen concerning the Ukrainian crisis.

    Professor Cohen describes what the situation in Ukraine means for that country, and for our own.
    The full interview is available here:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/3/is_ukraine_a_proxy_western_russia

    [Mar 01, 2015] Defaming Stephen Cohen

    Seemorerocks

    NY Times, 28 January, 2015

    Since the crisis in Ukraine began, the Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen has cast himself in the role of the unbowed dissenter, whose sharp criticisms of America's foreign policy in the region have earned him denunciations as "Putin's American toady," as The New Republic put it, and worse.

    But Mr. Cohen is also a man of means, whose wife's charitable foundation has donated large amounts of money to support Russian studies, which have been hard hit by declining government funding.

    Now, his largess and his divisive reputation have collided, opening a rift in the main scholarly association covering the post-Soviet world and spurring charges that the polarizing politics of the Ukraine crisis are stifling free speech and compromising the group's scholarly mission.

    The affair began amicably enough two years ago, when Mr. Cohen and his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of The Nation, began discussions with the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies, about ways to support research.

    Ms. vanden Heuvel's Kat Charitable Foundation had previously funded a dissertation prize named jointly for Mr. Cohen and his mentor, the eminent political scientist Robert C. Tucker, who died in 2010.

    Last spring, the couple hit on the idea of creating the Stephen F. Cohen-Robert C. Tucker Dissertation Fellowship Program. They committed an initial $413,000 to support up to 18 projects over three years, with potentially millions more to come for a permanent endowment.

    The gift would have almost entirely replaced key State Department grants that had ended in 2013, to broad dismay in the field. But in September, the couple canceled the gift after some association members objected to having Mr. Cohen's name on the fellowships.

    After a board meeting and other last-minute efforts at compromise, the conflict broke into broader view last week, when a long, indignant letter by Mr. Cohen recounting his version of events began leapfrogging across colleagues' email inboxes. It was soon followed by a letter in support of Mr. Cohen, signed by more than 60 scholars and sent to the association's leaders on Monday, calling the apparent politicization of the group "a profound embarrassment."

    "This thing has really snowballed," said David Ransel, a retired historian at Indiana University, who drafted the letter of protest. "What has happened is really unfortunate."

    The association, which includes some 3,000 members around the world, has often been divided by sharp debate since its founding in 1948. But the Ukraine crisis, scholars say, has prompted especially intense divisions.

    And standing at the center is Mr. Cohen, 76, a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University who regularly airs his views in the pages of The Nation - "Distorting Russia," read one headline - and in television and radio interviews.

    "Steve Cohen is singular," said Ronald G. Suny, a historian at the University of Michigan. "He's not only a scholar of note, but a very controversial public intellectual whose views often rub people who are hostile to Russia the wrong way."

    That didn't seem to worry the association initially. On Aug. 11, Ms. vanden Heuvel signed a memorandum of agreement on the planned gift, and received an email describing the board's reaction as "unanimously positive."

    But a week later, the couple received another message lamenting that "every action is being viewed through an ideological lens," given the deteriorating situation in Ukraine, and saying approval would be postponed until the board's annual meeting in November.

    It remains unclear who objected to the gift as proposed. Stephen Hanson, the group's president at the time, declined in an interview to confirm any threatened resignations, or to identify any individuals who raised questions. But he said that proceeding would have risked "serious splits" within the group.

    "It's no secret that there were swirling controversies surrounding Professor Cohen," said Mr. Hanson, the vice provost for international affairs at the College of William and Mary. "In that context, consulting with a wider community of scholars was the prudent thing to do."

    After being informed of the delay, Mr. Cohen and Ms. vanden Heuvel withdrew the gift offer, protesting what Mr. Cohen summed up as the "intolerant politics" involved.

    "It's an obscenity," Mr. Cohen said in an interview. "This wasn't just about me, or even primarily about me. These people were doing something very, very wrong. If I didn't withdraw, this would fester and get worse."

    At the November meeting, the board voted to approach the couple about reinstating the gift offer, under what Mr. Hanson called a "compromise name." To some, that proposal smacks of censorship. In an email to the association on Jan. 13, Ms. vanden Heuvel rejected what she characterized as the demand to drop Mr. Cohen's name, calling it a "political act" that violated "free journalistic and scholarly inquiry."

    The letter signed by the 60-plus scholars said that the treatment of Mr. Cohen "reeks of a censuring of public discourse."

    But some scholars questioned any claims of censorship. Yoshiko M. Herrera, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said while she would have voted to support the gift, submitting it to board review was part of a necessary democratic process.

    "I think it's unreasonable for a donor to say, 'You cannot subject my gift to approval by the full board,' " Ms. Herrera said. She added: "What's happening is that people who disagree have essentially voted against him."

    Serhii Plokhii, the director of Harvard's Ukrainian Research Center, said he had been unaware of the incident until last week, but that the association leadership was right to worry about splits in the group.

    "The frustration caused by Stephen Cohen's pieces and statements on television is deep and quite serious," Mr. Plokhii said. "The concerns are not so much about politics per se, as about the partisan nature of his interventions, the way he just blames one side."

    Mr. Cohen rejected that characterization, saying his intent has been to give "a balanced picture" by offering a "factually, historically correct" account of the Russian perspective on Ukraine. "That doesn't make me pro-Russian," he said.

    Others defended Mr. Cohen's scholarship, if not his conclusions. "I don't agree with many of Cohen's recent positions on Ukraine," said Michael David-Fox, a professor at Georgetown, who signed the letter. "It's precisely because he is in a minority that this is an especially important case."

    Stephen F. Cohen -- The NYT is Guilty of Journalistic Malpractice

    Stephen Cohen at the annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, January 2, 2015. He accuses the NYT and Washington Post of "journalistic malpractice" for demonizing Vladmir Putin.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4WORGsT6k

    [Feb 28, 2015] Putin threatens to cut gas to Ukraine as showdowns shift to economy

    Feb 25, 2015 | The Washington Post

    ...Putin's warning raised new troubles for Ukraine's economy, which is on the verge of collapse. Among the problems: dangerously low reserves of foreign currency needed to pay for the critical natural gas supplies.

    Putin also said that any cutoff could also hit Europe, raising the prospect that the continent could again face shortages with warmer weather still months away.

    Ukraine is a vital throughway for Russian gas deliveries to Western Europe. Russia has in the past cut off gas to nations with which it was having geopolitical disputes, although it has always denied using energy as a weapon.

    The tough line by Russia underscores its growing tensions with the West during the nearly 11-month uprising in eastern Ukraine by pro-Moscow rebels.

    Ukraine's Western-backed government and its allies claim Russia has sent troops and weapons to aid the separatists in Europe's bloodiest conflict since the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

    Russia strongly denies the charges but has been a key political voice for the rebels - with significant influence over their adherence to a cease-fire pact reached earlier this month.

    "We hope that things won't get as far as these extreme measures and that the gas supply won't be interrupted," Putin said Wednesday. "But this doesn't depend on us alone. It depends on the financial discipline of our Ukrainian partners."

    "Naturally this might create a certain threat for gas transit to Europe," he added.

    The energy dispute stems in part from gas supplies to territories of eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian rebels.

    Rebel leaders say that they have been cut off by Kiev, although Ukrainian government authorities deny it. Russia, in turn, has started to deliver energy directly to the breakaway territories, and it is charging Ukraine for the service.

    The cutoff of gas to eastern Ukraine, Putin said, "smells of genocide" given the bleak conditions there.

    Russia says that Ukraine has paid for only three to four more days of delivery.

    The new tussling over gas came on the first day in several weeks in which no Ukrainian soldiers were killed on the front lines, a military spokesman said. Rebel leaders also said that the conflict had largely quieted.

    Both sides agreed to a cease-fire starting Feb. 15, but in the days that followed, fighting grew fiercer near the crucial Ukrainian-held railway hub of Debaltseve. Kiev surrendered the town last week in a chaotic retreat.

    Nearly 5,800 people have died in the fighting, according to U.N. estimates, and more than 1 million people have been displaced from their homes.

    As the violence has calmed, Ukraine's economic problems have worsened.

    Ukraine's currency has been shedding value against the dollar, and policymakers in recent days have imposed strict limits on foreign currency transactions in the hopes of stanching the losses. A weakened currency makes everything from energy to weapons to food more expensive for the Ukrainian government and its citizens.

    The currency has lost more than 40 percent of its value this month alone.

    Ukrainian policymakers say they need up to $40 billion in assistance. And although Western nations have promised aid, it has been slow in coming, a stark signal to Ukraine that it may be largely on its own against its far more powerful neighbor.

    Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko said Wednesday that the heads of the International Monetary Fund would meet March 11 to decide whether to approve new loans to the troubled country. But that suggests Ukraine will be left to scrape by until then, and possibly longer.

    Russia has sought to exploit splits in the Western response to the conflict, and on Wednesday Putin met in Moscow with Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades to sign cooperation agreements that again highlighted European disunity.

    Cyprus, an European Union member, has long been a Russian banking haven, and it took Russian financial support during its 2013 financial crisis. Anastasiades has opposed further E.U. sanctions against Russia even as others in Europe are raising the prospect of more.

    The Russian and Cypriot foreign ministers on Wednesday signed an agreement to allow Russian naval ships to dock at Cypriot ports. The deal was a stark sign of the differences of opinion in Europe about how to handle Russia, since other Western nations have boycotted any military cooperation with Russia

    ... ... ...

    Michael Birnbaum is The Post's Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent and an education reporter.

    [Feb 28, 2015] Russia Robbed of a Brave, Authentic and Distinctive Voice Against Endemic Russian Corruption

    Comments are from Zero Hedge
    Feb 28, 2015 | The Guardian

    HowdyDoody

    Luke Harding is MI6. The Guardian is a Zionist controlled propaganda outlet.

    Quinvarius

    Ukraine makes me laugh. Everything is always about them and the millions of invisible Russian paratroopers and armored divisions invading their country. Once again they come up with some unproven claims about evidence.

    What is really fkd up is almost everyone immediately thought the US did it as soon as Kerry opened his mouth. The Obama administration has zero credibility and a track record of foolish moves. They really are the number one assumed culprits.

    geotrader

    Did Obama say "transparent"? Wonder which definition he's referring to.

    JR

    "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is the latest commandment top officials continue breaking with their direct inference that Putin is responsible for Nemtsov's murder. The American public, of course, has for years encouraged politicians to lie about and attack their opponents.

    America has clearly lost the high ground for morality that it once had and it is now even government policy to break God's commandments; supporting atheism in school, work and community as free speech on religious themes is outlawed.

    "Thou shalt not kill" went by the boards long ago. And the American president is now authorized to murder anyone he chooses. Most of the other Ten Commandments are broken with U.S. official policy: "Not steal (ask the Fed who gets the billions in private property it steals from Americans everyday); "Don't commit adultery (all legal ramifications removed)," "Do keep the Sabbath Holy (just another day for commerce and pleasures)," "Honor thy father and thy mother (the State assumes the responsibility of your parents)," "Don't take God's name in vain ('Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!'"

    Check the newsstands, watch television, read a book, listen to the teacher…you have to admit the Ten Commandments officially are ruled out-of-date in America. The trouble is, so is morality. You have seen its decline in your community and in its place the rise of pornography, abortion, euthanasia, rape and murder, pedophilia, and of course, divorce and court-ordered destruction of the sanctity of marriage (with the sanctioning of homosexual marriages with the right of adoption of babies and children).

    How dare, then, the American president, the secretary of state, and all the rest condemn Russia for her sins when America 2015 is the leading moral cesspool of the world?

    The Stalinists may no longer control Russia, but their Bolshevik operatives are highly placed in American life and culture, fulfilling Stalin's goal to corrupt America morally as one means of conquering her.

    KGB boss Lavrenti Beria was thinking of Stalin's goal when he addressed a visiting delegation of American Communists (Bolsheviks) : "Degradation and conquest are companions. By attacking the character and morals … by bringing about, through contamination of youth, a general degraded feeling, command of the populace is facilitated to a very marked degree. By perverting the institutions of a nation and bringing about a general degradation … a population can be brought psychologically to heel."

    Knowing this and to preserve the power of its own nation, "Britian's Daily Mail reports China banned TV and movie scenes of adultery or one-night stands. Depictions of rape, masturbation, prostitution, and necrophilia must also be cut. 'The move has sparked fears that the regulations means audiences in China will have very few television dramas or films to watch.' Next, China should outlaw abortion, sodomy, and contraception" –James G. Bruen, JR., Culture Wars.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    When you know even members within the hierarchy of the tribe are fair game because the "shit" is flying in every direction and at the end of the day it's every shylock for himself!...

    Would not doubt whatsoever that Nemtsov was probably sacrificed by the Soros/Kolomoisky/Rothschilds LLC to promote a World War!!!

    Zerohedge fan

    **************NEWS******************

    Ukrainian army turns against Ukrainian goverment

    (Russian only)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFQO-waFJBQ

    They say, they are ready to go on Kiev

    Phuk u

    ZF those boys werent very happy to be there and very critical of Poroshenko

    but all four of them to go on to Kiev ? Cmon

    forputin

    Video of killing Nemtsov at Kremlin:

    http://youtu.be/jqFdS332BQg

    Volkodav

    good post

    search with English subs when available, for ZH audience

    Chuck Knoblauch

    How long has the CIA hit order on Putin been outstanding?

    DutchBoy2015

    Shall we discuss Michael Hastings? and there are many more

    Anunnaki

    COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT

    How about Obumfuck deal with corruption in his own miserable country before he starts pointing middle fingers

    I hope Putin obliterates The 5th column traitors once and for all.

    Putin has been like Gandhi to resist the urge those fockers Obama and Kerry

    Droning isn't enough. Shooting down Asian planes isn't enough. Now casual assaination of manufactured martyrs

    Even Bush wasn't that craven

    Circle of DNA

    Well the corruption in the US is legal – it is called lobbying, and bribes called donations or contributions…

    Fix It Again Timmy

    Putin is also behind the Lincoln assassination, the Lindberg baby kidnapping, the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa and he even knows what happened to Amelia Earhart ....Hey, Putin is a leader that particular part of the world needs and is lucky to have - it's that simple..

    Anunnaki

    I am 100% Sure it was Pol Pot Shenko and Yat the Rat. Ukrainians are only any good when it comes to shooting unarmed people in the back.

    MrSteve

    Anunnaki the Uk(r)annian, showing your self-loathing here?? Anagrams suggest you are a Ukie :)

    If you can't say something nice about somebody, then you shouldn't say anything at all.

    nowhereman

    What the western media translate as provocation, in Russian it also means "false Flag"

    http://thesaker.is/nemtsov-murder-putin-warned-about-exactly-this-type-o...

    messystateofaffairs

    Putins not stupid. If he needed the politically insignificant color revolutionary Russian traitor dead it would have been done more appropriately. I think the lying, cheating, murdering, theiving, scheming, blood sucking members of satans brood had more use for him dead than alive. Watch their little helpers, yourself included, jump all over this. And we all know Putin is in Ukraine doing what needs to be done in the way it needs to be done, get used to it.

    Cui bono

    [Feb 28, 2015] Putin Spokesman Says Nemtsov Murder Was 100% Provocation

    Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Nemtsov murder was "100% provocation... It looks like a contract killing."
    Feb 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Just a few short hours after the terrible murder of Russian opposition politician and outspoken Putin critic Boris Nemtsov, US' John Kerry was quick to condemn the actions of the "reformer" and demand Russia's "expeditious investigation," and President Obama has since issued a statement "admiring [Nemtsov's] struggle against corruption." The undertone was clear - 'Putin did it'. Furthermore, President Poroshenko has claimed that Nemtsov was on the verge of "exposing direct Russian links to the Ukraine conflict." As many realise the futility of trying to determine whether it is a Russian act, a CIA act meant to look like a Russian act, or a Russian act meant to look like a CIA act, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Nemtsov murder was "100% provocation... It looks like a contract killing."

    As RT reports,

    Opposition politician Boris Nemtsov died in the center of Moscow after he was shot at four times. A number of leading figures from all sides of political spectrum called his murder a "provocation".

    Boris Nemtsov, a veteran opposition figure in Russia, was gunned down in a drive-by attack in central Moscow on Friday night. The murder triggered worldwide condemnation and calls to bring the killers to justice.

    Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov explains...

    ....

    As The Telegraph reports, President Poroshenko has stated that Nemtsov planned to reveal Russian links to the Ukraine conflict...

    Iryna Baliacheva, a Russian political migrant living in Ukraine told reporters Putin was to blame for the murder.

    "Putin opened Pandora's box and released dangerous powers: non-acceptance of a different opinion (from his), representatives of the opposition were called traitors, while we (Ukrainians) are considered US Department of State agents.

    "And now people who believed in Russia's television lies may also believe that some robbers killed him, but I think that this was organised by Putin in order for him to stay in power."

    The gathering in Kiev came as Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, said on Saturday Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was murdered because he planned to disclose evidence of Russia's involvement in Ukraine's separatist conflict.

    Poroshenko paid tribute to Nemtsov, who was shot dead late on Friday, and said the fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin had told him a couple of weeks ago that he had proof of Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis and would reveal it.

    "Boris Nemtsov, a big friend of Ukraine and big patriot of Russia has been killed. He was like a bridge connecting Ukraine and Russia, he built the kind of relations between our countries that I would like to see," said Poroshenko.

    "To me Nemtsov is a symbol of a Russian citizen that connects (Ukraine and Russia) and sincerely respects Ukraine."

    "Boris had declared that he would provide the clear evidence of Russian Armed forces' participation in (the war) in Ukraine.

    "Somebody was afraid of this, Boris wasn't afraid. Killers and executors were afraid."

    * * *

    Secretary Kerry: February 2015 " Murder of Boris Nemtsov

    I am shocked and saddened to learn of the brutal murder of former Russian Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov in central Moscow. Boris Nemtsov committed his life to a more democratic, prosperous, open Russia, and to strong relationships between Russia and its neighbors and partners, including the United States. He served his country in many roles – in the federal government, in the parliament, as Governor of Nizhniy Novgorod, and as a political leader and activist. In every post, he sought to reform and open Russia, and to empower the Russian people to have a greater say in the life of their country. His absence will be deeply felt in Russia and around the world. The United States urges the Russian authorities to act expeditiously to investigate and bring to justice those responsible. Our thoughts are with the Russian people and with Mr. Nemtsov's family and friends as we mourn his loss.

    Statement by the President on the Murder of Boris Nemtsov

    The United States condemns the brutal murder of Boris Nemtsov, and we call upon the Russian government to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of his murder and ensure that those responsible for this vicious killing are brought to justice. Nemtsov was a tireless advocate for his country, seeking for his fellow Russian citizens the rights to which all people are entitled. I admired Nemtsov's courageous dedication to the struggle against corruption in Russia and appreciated his willingness to share his candid views with me when we met in Moscow in 2009. We offer our sincere condolences to Boris Efimovich's family, and to the Russian people, who have lost one of the most dedicated and eloquent defenders of their rights.

    It appears - no matter who or what was responsible - we're back at near-Cold War levels of hostility between the USA and Russia.

    Donatan

    Putin 2012 - Opposition is looking to turn someone into "involuntary martyr"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Qwju5nJ-w&feature=youtu.be

    Abitdodgie

    If that had been in America it would of been ruled suicide.

    nope-1004

    John Kerry is "shocked". lmao. Eric Holder is this times 1,000.

    I love how Boris' Wiki profile was updated within minutes of his death. Now if that's not a planned event by those "evil terrorists".

    The west is salivating at the desperation to start war and the false flag attempts are predicatable.

    Bunch of hyporcrites. The propaganda is immense.

    COSMOS

    Shootings like this did wonders in Maidan. We all know the CIA playbook. Folks in Moscow better be careful walking around the city. The CIA is funneling killers into Moscow via this guy

    http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/06/24/ukraine-jewish-billionaires-batalli...

    Interesting that our friend was walking with a Ukrainian woman when he got killed. Maybe she brought him to a designated hit area.

    Pinto Currency
    Putin's popularity is running 80% in the polls.

    You don't shoot your political opponent in that situation.

    strannick

    The danger of being a CIA asset is they eventually make you a martyr for their cause.

    Manthong

    "Putin Spokesman Says Nemtsov Murder Was "100% Provocation""

    Latina Lover

    This hit has the hallmarks of the typical CIA color revolution aka Gene Sharp tactics. Why, for example, does the USSA care about the murder of a Russian has been politician in Russia? Isn't this an internal matter of the Russian State?

    Imagine Putin calling upon the US to investigate the murder of Paul Wellstone, Senator....as if Russia should care.

    This provocation won't work in Russia because the Russians, unlike the Americans, better understand deep state politics. Unfortunately, it is another opportunity for the USSA controlled media to rubbish Putin.

    This hit shows weakness, the smell of desperation and failure, since the Ukraine CIA coup is unravelling before our very eyes.

    The USSA State Department and EU poodles must be insanely desperate to destabilize Putin by resorting to such an obvious false flag. I'll bet conditions are worse in the Ukraine, and EU than we are told. After all, wasn't it an EU president who said that when things get serious, you have to lie?

    Crazed Weevil

    "Poroshenko paid tribute to Nemtsov, who was shot dead late on Friday, and said the fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin had told him a couple of weeks ago that he had proof of Russia's role in the Ukraine crisis and would reveal it."

    Huh? We live in an age of almost instantaneous communication to nearly everyone on Earth and he doesn't release his 'proof' despite having it for a couple of weeks?

    Anusocracy

    If I had to bet on it I would go with a Ukrainian op green lighted by the US.

    disabledvet

    "Oh, shoot. I left the computer in the car."

    Russians have really hot police spokeswomen after you are murdered too.

    Took Red Pill

    FALSE FLAG IN MOSCOW

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/2015/02/breaking-news-false-flag-in-mos...

    jbvtme

    is it true nemtsov and vickie nuland were seen taking a selfie moments before the shots were fired?

    Thirst Mutilator

    they were dancing on top of a van.

    toys for tits

    Isn't Putin's MO for dissidents to imprison them?

    I seem to remember that billionaire oil guy. I think he likes to see them humbled.

    CCanuck

    Weevil,

    Why does Porkoshenko need proof?

    It is well known that Russia has invaded Ukraine five, six ,seven times already. There are satilite images, youtube videos, and the word of trolls to prove Putin shot down that Malaysian airliner and invaded Ukraine riding on the back of a bear, shirtless, shooting Madian women and children.

    What more could this guy have shown?

    Thirst Mutilator

    he was about to release fotos of the mass graves of 6,000,000 puppies killed.

    Anusocracy

    Make it kittens and you've got a deal.

    Max Steel

    Let me enlighten you about Nemstov : https://www.facebook.com/anna.almarusa/posts/10200379181758271

    look for both photos .

    In 1998 Nemstov had a 8 year old girlfirend . Another rapist and child molester among politicians . His present gf who recently had an abortion in Switzerland (Nemtsov's child by the way) and came for a dinner with Nemtsov . Nemtsov had oficially 3 mothers of his children, why is there nothing about them in the press?

    His private life is his own business, not ours though


    Mr Nemtsov was a spent force – he had a real following in the 1990s, where he was briefly a major player. Unlike Navalny, who is opportunistic, smart and frankly dangerous, Nemtsov's following was largely limited to foreign journalists and a small group of Russian liberals.

    Had the Kremlin wanted him out of the way there were other ways – especially in Moscow. A car crash. An (induced) heart attack. Poisons. Why do a public hit within sight of St. Basel's Cathedral on Red Square so as to provide a public feast for the foreign press picture editors?

    The timing is equally suspicious. Perfectly timed to draw maximum attention to the upcoming opposition March which had risked falling flat. The March itself is no conceivable threat to Mr Putin – who now enjoys the sort of popularity common to wartime leaders in any country – but it is the best shot the West has, knowing thatany political murder in Moscow will be systematically attributed to the Kremlin by the tame Western press – whether of a Putin opponent (Politkovskaya) or a fervent supporter (Paul Klebnikov, Forbes). By some odd coincidence, several of these killings took place immediately before President Putin was to address some particularly high-profile international meeting.The fact that this horrific murder is most beneficial to the anti-Russian factions does not, of course, prove that Washington was in any way involved. It suggests it - which is a very different matter altogether…

    There is another – less conspiratorial – theory. The Kiev regime – openly supported by Mr Nemtsov and his followers - is genuinely very unpopular in Russia. Live television coverage of the savage bombardment of Lugansk and Donetsk has evoked some strong passions.

    There is a hardline, nationalist faction, and Russia can be a violent place. It is entirely possible that someone decided to take revenge for the people of Novorossiya, answering one barbaric crime with another.
    There is only one certainty: this murder will be exploited by the Western press which will largely not even bother to formally attribute it to the Kremlin – but simply do a quick montage – Red Square, Putin opponent lying dead. It's an easy sell.

    Lea

    "Mr Nemtsov was a spent force"

    Yes, and that's why he went. He ran 1% in the polls, not more, against a 86%-strong Putin. He was no-one in the Russian political scene anymore.


    So he served America one last time.

    Navalny is supposedly "smart" and "dangerous", but as it becomes harder and harder to hide he's a crook, he's on his way to become another spent force. If I were him, I'd take off to some place where America's alphabet soup agencies couldn't find me, to protect my skin.

    Karaio

    Obummer could destabilize Putin ....

    In the USA!

    Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!

    Putin has 85% approval of the Russian way, they think Putin is being "loose", which should have sent bullet in Ukraine.

    Neither Lula in Brazil had so much support ....

    Anyone out there ever read "Club-Orlov" ?:

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.com.br/2015/01/peculiarities-of-russian-nation...

    "You guys want a war, you will have a war ...."

    Very interesting reading about how the Russians think and act.

    You have 140 million people wanting to give change to the West abuses, only Putin has patience to endure the slaps in the face.

    Get ready, the shit will grab soon.

    hehe.

    August

    >>>I'll bet conditions are worse in the Ukraine, and EU than we are told.

    For an update on the Ukrainian economy, the following article (Russian source, in English) is a pretty harrowing depiction:

    http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Ukrainian%20national%20...

    gallistic

    "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic"

    -Misattributed to Josef Stalin

    Paveway IV

    "...The danger of being a CIA asset is they eventually make you a martyr for their cause..."

    That's why those bastards murdered Spock! He knew too much.


    Of course it was.

    Unfortunately, one aspect of being in the psychopath murderer/facilitator/enabler class is that there is little to no conscience or empathy, so we will likely never know who really did the dirty deed.

    Son of Loki

    "People are often more shocked over the death of one person, as opposed to the murder of 1 million."

    ... or something like that.

    COSMOS

    Certainly the thousands of dead women and children shelled by Kiev in Donbass did not elicit such outrage from the western media and politicians.

    gallistic

    "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic"

    -Misattributed to Josef Stalin

    Paveway IV

    "...The danger of being a CIA asset is they eventually make you a martyr for their cause..."

    That's why those bastards murdered Spock! He knew too much.

    LLAP [sniff]

    nmewn

    "I've never...felt...so...alive!" - William Shatner (Spocks CIA handler)

    HowdyDoody

    World leaders silent over mass murder and ethnic cleansing by Nazis in East Ukraine.

    The value of the western leaders is clearly marked by these positions.


    [Feb 28, 2015] World leaders condemn murder of Russian politician Boris Nemtsov by Shaun Walker & Chris Johnston

    Why Guardian presstitutes are so afraid to ask "Cue Bono" question, the key question in any crime investigation? It might going to be the second MH17 shooting coverage.
    Feb 28, 2015 | The Guardian

    BenjamintheDonkey

    Always, always ask yourself Cui Bono, to whose benefit-who benefits from this horrendous murder so close to the Kremlin. To those who think it is not the much maligned Vladimir Putin. For with all of the bad Western press that he has been getting lately, brought about by his opposition to the Western backed coup in the Ukraine, why would he have anyone killed in such a theatrical fashion ,a fashion designed to horrify right minded people and turn them even further against Russia and the Russian President.

    If someone, in power, with any sense wished to have someone killed they would have it done surreptitious, quietly, without any fuss: perhaps a car crash in a tunnel, or a suicide as in the case of Dr David Kelly, a death that could not be associated with the powers that be- unless like me you are untrusting and cynical.

    So again who benefits? It has been suggested that he had offended some Nationalists, another suggestion pointed to some Muslim group or other but to commit murder in a fashion that enables groups hostile to Russia to suggest that Putin may have been involved, nay to accuse him ,suggests to me that, unless lesser personal motives are involved, that we should look to the Ukraine and beyond for the perpetrators of this provocative outrage.

    MoneyCircus -> tanyushka

    Americans and British won't understand this.

    I've seen the security around Putin and it's something to behold when he arrives. (I was at the Central Bank of Russia at the time).

    But otherwise you feel free walking around the city in a way you never would in Washington or London.

    Fact: I can walk up to the Duma and knock on the door. I can wander through the gates of the Kremlin, sidle up to a security guard and ask where I buy tickets. I have no gun shoved in my face and no fear of being wrestled to the ground.

    Michael -> Bluth raffine

    Actually. what you mean is it's not a theory if it's a fact. Which is quite true. But currently it's not a fact. Because there's no evidence. You have just jumped to a conclusion that fits in with your world view.

    What am I? I'm a western guy who deplores the one-sided presentation of world events in the western media, and who has been galvanised from his usual depressive torpor to comment on the new spate of Russophobia out of a fear that this latest warmongering venture could get out of hand and spark a major global conflagration.

    Canigou -> Theethou

    Is America a former democratic society?

    ILikePolls
    Its not completely inconceivable that Nemtsov has made a few enemies over his views on Ukraine, and that a group has acted independently of Putin and killed him, but the CIA theory is just bonkers I think (on this occasion)..................

    http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/why-does-putin-wage-war-on-ukraine-362884.html

    he wrote that

    robrabbit , link
    In the video, the US Ambassador Mr.Tefft has called Nemtsov "a great Russian patriot" which is really far from truth.

    In fact, Nemtsov was a pro-western political activist, a Moscow liberal type, acting on his own without wide public support in Russia.

    Adabsiz1

    You must admit that there has been an "orchestrated" and consistent attack on Russia's president for the past EIGHT or so months, even before the Crimea episode !

    Amazingly, not to say ironic, GAZPROM is still the main sponsor of UEFA's Champions League despite the so-called "sanctions" ....

    The UEFA message is "We like the colour of your money, thank you very much" !

    Kaspersky is another story !!

    When will the Western media stop using words like "Oligarch" and "Regime" etc. ??

    We don't say "the Cameron regime" or call Gran Schapps an "oligarch" ...

    We call OUR "oligarchs" CEOs instead !!

    Farcical !

    Albatros18 lynxruf

    if he had proof he would have given to his comrades or to US embassy in Moscow. It is a clear CIA job, as the Americans sacrificed their boy for a greater cause. Snowden's existence in Russia still hurts Washington.

    salexandra2014 djw215

    I truly understand the laugh or never stop crying part even though our circumstances are different. I actually do not mind the cold here in Russia as long as it stays at -2 C or above. Colder than that and I as yet must learn to acclimate. It happens more quickly than I expected though. And most of the russians around me wish the ponds would stay frozen! We want to go ice skating which is possible everywhere here unlike in the west.

    Esmerelda Kerr

    So many possible reasons and people who would want to kill this man. RIP. You did your best.

    However, the "condemnation" of the Western Elites is now even more meaningless than it may have been if the aggressive tactics used to alienate Putin had not become the preferred approach. The Chinese as an example of lack of PC and democracy has never been treated with the scorn and arrogance which Russia has reaped due to refusing the same two conditions. Western governments work with leaders of countries who have no respect for their populations but continue to try and encourage small advances. What has happened to the relations with Russia is a danger to world peace and will most probably encourage rogue behavior NOT discourage it.

    Ro Ma -> LetsBeClear

    There are problems all over the world. Russia is just one country. It just a country. The biggest problem is the US's World Dominance Mania.

    The West applies its vested interests philosophy over the little people of the world within the western Empire and outside the Empire. Collateral damage, support of Nazis or extremist Islam, false flags, cannon fodder, divide and rule, and Orwellian speech are all allowed and practiced to fullest extent to further the interests of the Western Empire. The West Empire continues on its march to destroy the world in quest for World Dominance. The West is destroying millions of peoples lives throughout the world in the Empire and outside the Empire. Austerity is one example how it is destroying the little people in the Empire. Outside the Empire what I mentioned above.

    What ever happened to the middle east? Destroying whole countries for the US's MIC world Dominance mania. Libya to Afghanistan has been destroyed in the past 23 years of the lone wolf World Dominance of the US's MIC. The middle east is destroyed completely, so the US's MIC looked around. Gee, the Ukraine. Divide and conquer. Another place to destroy and conquer. Sent the American singing group Biden, Nuland and McCain to sing about War and Misunderstanding. Poof, the magic Chaos Dragon appears and civil war. Hopefully Europeans will wake up and say NO. We will not allow this destruction pattern on our continent.

    ID075732 28 Feb 2015 11:26

    Strange how jingoism works.

    80 plus innocent civilians are murdered in the Odessa Pogrom and virtually not a squeak from western MSM.

    A old politician out with his young Ukrainian lover murdered in Moscow and the world leaders all react.

    Jesus, something is wrong with western democracy.

    Spiffey -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:26

    Yes of course, putins Russia have never assassinated any opponents. Oh wait, what about litvinenko or Anna Politkovskaya?

    One thing I notice about putin supporters - they love putin above all and every Russian opponent is a corrupt western traitor.

    The rest of the democratic world has opposition parties, different leaders and different points of view, people with different loyalties.

    But not putin fans, they would have you believe there can't be a credible Russian dissident ever, not a one, they are all corrupt.

    dralion -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:26

    And completely delusional.

    The Americans probably could have Putin dead by now if they really wanted. Don't you know that the kremlin is filled with their "sleepy" agents who can be activated at anytime. On top of that the klingons are ready to invade mother russia with one phone call to the mothership.... OOPS still thinking about spock's world....

    Lenthelurker -> mrbaker11 28 Feb 2015 11:26

    Disagreeing with your President doesn't make you a traitor - it makes you a citizen of a free society...ahh, there we are then...

    ucasavi -> Comrade666 28 Feb 2015 11:25

    "he caused trouble for Putin"

    You are kidding me, right?

    ILikePolls 28 Feb 2015 11:25

    I see the bacchanalia of conspiracy theories goes on. Who is winning CIA or FSB?

    coldwarsubvet 28 Feb 2015 11:25

    So now its the CIA who killed him? The Kremlin either needs to get better security or the Russian propaganda is 19th century

    tanyushka -> Comrade666 28 Feb 2015 11:25

    he didn't cause any problems to Putin, who has 85% approval rating in Russia, more than any other leaders in the world...

    Putin even warned that something like this could happen...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Qwju5nJ-w

    lynxruf 28 Feb 2015 11:24

    With the time zone advantage, the disciplined disinformatchiks rise early and blow smoke in comment threads on every bit of news out of Russia. And so they blame the CIA, or Obama, or Islamic terrorists, or Maidan, or Fifth/Six/Seventh Column, or the mice in my cellar. They tell us to look everywhere but at Russia.

    Sehome 28 Feb 2015 11:24

    Putin would gain nothing from this crime ; he is riding high in polls, is supported with renewed patriotism by the Russian population, is admired for his achievement at Minsk 2 and his ability to outfox the USA.

    Only the Americans stood to gain from this killing, to throw Putin off his stride, as the US tries to restore the level of War in Ukraine.

    Of course, plenty of ordinary Russian politicals could have wanted Nemtsev to die, but the US Embassy, headed by a Russia-Hater and overseeing a mob of CIA apparatchiks and trained killers, could have pulled this off - just Murder-By -Hire. No American hand actually on the trigger.

    outsiderwithinsight -> geedeesee 28 Feb 2015 11:24

    Nope many were cynical with regards to WMD Russians believe the west was behind the assassination and that's all that matters to the kremlin of course the russian state also knows that people in the west will rush 2 put forward the conspiracy against Putin theory all in all a good days work from the kremlin's point of view

    Solar Do Inglês -> Despertaferro 28 Feb 2015 11:23

    You still haven't actually responded to the, yes, verifiably true points about Iraq never being secular, Bush not reducing Iraq to rubble, the vast majority of deaths in Iraq being down to Islamists and or their proxies and that people in the Middle East have free will.

    You state these are anything but plain,y true. Which ones are false and why?

    davidncldl -> Alan Jones 28 Feb 2015 11:23

    Alan Jones said of President Putin:

    (I refuse to add a deferential arse licking Mr)
    Tut-tut Mr Jones. The honorific "Mr" is simple British good manners, British Values really. It is never considered to be "arse licking". Perhaps you need to learn some good manners? Mr Putin is a great Russian leader and this is acknowledged by even those who betrayed the Russian people in the past. Take the kindly-but-bumbling Mikhail Gorbachev, for example, in his recent book he has to eat humble pie when he says

    "...he had known and been impressed by Putin before the latter became president and that he Gorbachev had made many mistakes because he had operated on the assumption that he had everything under control..."

    It seems that the push by the US/EU superpower for a "hot war" with Russia has started in earnest and that the anti-Russian agents operating inside Russian borders will kill to cause maximum confusion and to try to undermine the loyalty of the people.

    MoneyCircus 28 Feb 2015 11:23

    I'm sure a lot of you will laugh when I post from Infowars but this article by Tony Cartalucci is actually one of the most insightful that I've read -

    Of course, it demands that you are honest with yourself about U.S. policy in places like Panama as well as Georgia and Ukraine. If your eye's aren't open, nothing's gonna make sense.

    http://www.infowars.com/russia-us-backed-opposition-leader-gunned-down-in-moscow/

    dannykeighobadi -> hatstan 28 Feb 2015 11:22

    Why not? We live in such a confused and unexplainable world anyway. it could have easily been an agent, while everyone will be staring at Putin. Or at least, that's what the Western Media will portray it as. Nothing but weak propaganda.

    midnightschild10 28 Feb 2015 11:22

    It is unfortunate that Mr. Nemtsov lost his life. All violent deaths are tragic. I wonder if the world leaders condemn the over 30,000 Americans shot to death by fellow Americans each year. We reach the same number of those killed on 9/11 every six weeks throughout the year. Perhaps Holder could provide the names of those shot to death to the world news organizations, since all lives are precious to somebody. The same could be done for the Palestinians and Ukrainians and victims of Boko Harem and ISIS. African nations could also submit the names of warring tribesmen. Egypt could add the names of the Muslim Brotherhood as well. Perhaps the world leaders could meet to discuss this issue as well. For each victim, families and friends are left to grieve.

    michealvernon -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:22

    Putin is popular because Russians have been brainwashed by his propaganda machine. Not very different from North Koreans who are mesmerized by Kim junior and who consider him to be God incarnate.

    Epivore -> Alexandra_Aleshina 28 Feb 2015 11:22

    All of the opposition in Russia is weak. And he was walking alone in probably the most policed location in Moscow; when I went to see St Basil's years ago, there was a highly visible police presence in the entire area and CCTV cameras (visible ones) on every building, entrance and high point. I'm sure it's even more secure now, so why wouldn't he feel (relatively safe.)

    Comrade666 -> geedeesee 28 Feb 2015 11:22

    PutinBot answer? get lost

    pointersAREpointless -> knight802 28 Feb 2015 11:22

    race-hating, gay-bashing, bully-boy society

    Where is your evidence for any of that.

    In fact, only show me evidence of an event that has not also happened the USA.

    Like the Winter Olympics that were held in Mormon country Salt Lake City. Because Mormons are very tolerant of gays aren't they.

    WardwarkOwner -> EmperorTrejanus 28 Feb 2015 11:20

    Yeah lets get it on!!! We are all in the right and Putin and Russia must be guilty. We don't need to base decisions that could lead to nuclear war on evidence!

    Can't wait to see the world end in a nuclear in a global nuclear winter and snowball earth or die before from a nuclear blast or radiation sickness.

    What a total idiot you are.

    mrbaker11 -> knight802 28 Feb 2015 11:20

    Yes, and the added fear factor, as reinforced quite clearly by Peskov's remarkably clear message, which is, quite frankly an incredible, blatant threat

    UnsleepingMind 28 Feb 2015 11:20

    'Moscow city authorities meanwhile have given permission to Russian opposition leaders to hold a march to commemorate Nemtsov after they canceled a planned protest rally due to the murder. The Sunday rally will cross the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge where the politician was shot dead.'

    I say: God damn that vile, anti-democratic state known as Russia! How dare it allow people to march in the streets! This isn't the totalitarian image of Russia that I'm used to (thanks to the 24-7 drip, drip, drip of anti-Russian propaganda from the corporate media)! No, I'm used to 'Putin is a gangster', 'Russia is backward', 'Putin is a warmonger', 'Go Pussy Riot', 'I *heart* Navalny', etc., etc. And now I just don't know what to think.

    Comrade666 -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:20

    Yes yes it was Americans who did it, they wanted him dead because he caused trouble for Putin, smart thinking right off RT

    brokenbritan -> Michael Bluth 28 Feb 2015 11:20

    your economy is down the toilet, your life expectancy is f... all, your birth rate is a minus . your best brains are going to the USA .

    russia will be an empty country in 50 years.

    no one cares what you think. go and drink some more vodka from your bath.

    eastnorfirestarter -> knight802 28 Feb 2015 11:20

    Political threats are conditions on the ground as they freshly apply. Not from early internet days of young mentored men who will mature to be quite different.

    sasha19 -> tanyushka 28 Feb 2015 11:19

    And Putin was hired by and worked with Yeltsin....

    supergroovegod -> SHappens 28 Feb 2015 11:19

    Government and taxpayers rarely share interests. You're starting to get somewhere, but you still have failed to tell me how the UK benefits. By supporting the US against our own interest in the EU? What? Anyway, no one said Russia is going to invade Europe apart from you just there, and the thing with arms and MH17, well, everyone suspects, clearly even you, but there has been no direct accusation, and other things keep happening and shifting the focus. "Facts is that NATO expanded towards Russia breaking all promises" - this isn't really a fact though, is it? What "all promises"?

    The UK has a dark history in the same way that every country has, with many bright and great things to recommend it like every country has. Our colonial past is not a part of our current psyche in the same way that the Soviet period characterises part of the current Russian psyche, it's a matter of time and living memory.

    Now then, are you going to answer my question with real, tangible benefits, or shall we keep dancing?

    Comrade666 , ink

    Isn't it just amazing this could happen a stone throw away from the Kremlin? with all the security, cameras and secret police roaming the streets. Something smells like dead fish, and my hope for the Russian people is that it puts more doubt on the Putin reign and that it puts even more pressure on his corrupt government

    tanyushka Comrade666

    obviously you have never been in Moscow... there's not such heavy security there... the Kremlin is a public square full of people most of the day, where even a so called performance artist can nail his testicles to the pavement... i bet there are many times more security services & stuff like that around the White House in Washington...

    tanyushka

    i am not going to speak evil of a murder victim, at least not now, although it should suffice to say that he was Yeltsin's Deputy Prime Minister... i only want to say the obvious: Putin has nothing to win with this murder...

    Nemtsov wasn't even a popular figure of the opposition, Putin is right now at the highest point of his popularity in Russia & the murder is committed at steps of the Kremlin, automatically turning the spot into a place of pilgrimage, ideal for a new Maidan organized by the American Secret Services to overthrow the Russian Government & replace it by a puppet like Yeltsin was...

    LetsBeClear

    Obama calls for "prompt, impartial and transparent" investigation – in the 136th (of 175) most corrupt country on the planet? Good luck with that.

    ContraryToDogma -> LetsBeClear

    Yes it's like asking Obama to prosecute Wall Street or Bush-Cheney war criminals eh? Just move on, don't look back. Pot calling the kettle black.

    ContraryToDogma

    The US frenzy of Putin demonization is so pathetic. Like the US needs another enemy and another war? Capitalism has been deformed so badly that instead of just making money they want endless wars to steal resources. Let's have some in-depth reporting instead of these silly hit pieces.

    Alexandra_Aleshina

    Everything what happened looks like a painfully obvious provocation, Nemtsov was a very weak opposition. It made no sense to kill him. This death allowed to turn the weak opposition in Martyr and a symbol of opposition.

    Moreover, it looks very illogical. He made a loud statement that he feared for his life, but was walking alone with a young girl in the middle of the night . What did they do there at this hour?!

    SonnyTuckson

    Funny to see how all these Putin lovers here shout that the USA did it. Putin lovers blame everything bad on the USA - their automatic and predictable reflex - but that is nonsense. Sprung from a huge Russian inferiority complex towards the prosperous Land of the free.

    Why don't they understand that Russia is a non-entitiy for the US? To the USA Russia is just a regional European power with nukes and an economy in tatters.

    For Europe, Russia as a neighbour and gas provider may be more relevant, but to the USA Russia is a far away irrelevant maffia state.

    Xenkar -> SonnyTuckson

    I like the fact that you mention nukes casually!

    GameOverManGameOver -> SonnyTuckson

    So why don't you keep your noses out of it's business then?

    [Feb 28, 2015] To launch a color revolution the sacral victim is not enough

    If to start a color revolution was so simple, the "Maydan" would regularly happen in all countries of the world, and the election would have been abolished as unnecessary. If all we need for starting another "Maydan" is just a "sacred victim" that would be extremely easy to accomplish. And now Boris Nemtsov was declared such a victim. Will the events now flow this way? No. For a "color revolution" or the "Arab spring" is necessary not only and not so much the victim. It still needs the population which is tired of and distrustful to the authorities, lack of prospects, the decomposition of the elites in the country and strong presence of Western MSM, NGO and intelligence services in the country. They also need a well prepared, financed and trained core, the passionate group of young people (far right nationalists are perfect canon fodder ), willing to risk their life for the cause. They also need noninterference of the army and carefully orchestrated paralysis of law enforcement agencies (or bribing the key figures and/or infiltration of them by CIA and friends as was the case in Kiev), as well as several other factors that simplify the task (Yanukovich was essentially "on the hook" by Americans, as his and his son capitals were abroad). "Sacred victim" in this list, while helpful at certain stages to ignite or sustain the protests, is far from the first place.
    Feb 28, 2015 | vzglyad.ru

    Among supporters (and even some opponents) of the "Maydan" color revolution in Moscow there are people who believe that "now we're going to do as they - and we, too, will succeed." For the "Maydan" style color revolution supposedly needed "sacred victim": and now we have such a "sacral victim". But for a "color revolution" or the "Arab spring" is necessary not only and not so much the "sacral victim".

    Death on the bridge

    With a difference of a few hours in Moscow and Kiev have been two deaths. In Moscow on the bridge opposite the Kremlin was shot and killed the member of the Yaroslavl regional Duma Boris Nemtsov. In Kiev jumped out of the window a prominent figure of the Party of regions Mykhailo Chechetov, which the new government was accused of abuse of power. This strange suicide of members of the "old regime" reminds us events that occurred after the last victory of the Maydan in 2005. For example, a strange suicide using two shots to his own head of the ex-interior Minister Yuriy Kravchenko. The cause of his death, by the way, was announced by the current head of the Ukrainian Security Council Oleksandr Turchynov, who in 2005 was the head of Ukrainian Security Services (SBU).

    Unlike those strange suicides, in the case of Boris Nemtsov, there is are clear circumstances of his murder and witnesses of the event. And for whatever reason it was done it looks like a political assassination. Because even if you kill politicians on domestic or economic reasons, even if he died after overheating with sauna or on his head accidentally drops a brick, still his death will have political consequences and it will be tried to be used iether by government or the forces oppositional to government.

    I want to believe that the investigation will find out why Nemtsov was killed and who did that. Two similar political murder, the murders of Sergei Yushenkov and Galina Starovoitova had been solved, the first completely, the second in part. In the case of Sergei Yushenkov Mikhail Codenew ordered the killing wanting to intercept the Yushenkov the leadership of the party "Liberal Russia". The contractor now serves his jail term. In the case of Galina Starovoitova, the contractor was also found quite quickly, and in April 2014 Duma Deputy Mikhail Glushchenko confessed, but the court hearing still are ahead.

    Also were found and convicted killers of lawyer Stanislav Markelov and journalist Anastasia Baburova.

    So there is hope that the killer Boris Nemtsov, unlike murderers Vladislav Listyev, will be found and punished.

    To put forward plausible versions and comment on them is a matter of investigation. The current range of version voiced in media is really extremely broad - from "the help" by the Ukrainian security services in the organization of the Moscow Maydan to "act of vengeance" of someone who returned from the Donbass militia. In the Yaroslavl region for a time a member of the Parliament Nemtsov also managed to amass a lot of enemies, and some of them could "hurry up" and try to solve all problems at once. Investigators have information that the German authorities know that he received threats in connection with his position regarding the execution of the staff of the magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris. And even private life connected version though unlikely, cannot be ruled out. Again, this is not essential from a policy perspective.

    On February 10, "Interlocutor" published an interview with Boris Nemtsov, in which he among other things mentioned that his 87-year-old mother (that's who is suffering the loss the most now) expressed the fear that Putin can kill him "because of the his political activities".

    Most likely, the killer of this interview was read. Because the murder was definitely a highly symbolic and highly provocative political act, as were the place and time under the walls of the Kremlin, on the eve of this year's first mass opposition rally.

    So far Western politicians are not jumping to assign the blame, including Senator John McCain, one of the first to respond to the incident. McCain, by the way, worried about the safety of Boris Nemtsov in 2013: "I'm a little concerned about the personal safety of Boris Nemtsov. Of course, I told him that something must happen."

    ... ... ...

    Among supporters of the "Maydan in Moscow" there are some people who think that "Now the events start to flow like in Kiev - and we, too, will succeed."

    If to start a color revolution was so simple, the "Maydan" would regularly happen in all countries of the world, and the election would have been abolished as unnecessary. If all we need for starting another "Maydan" is just a "sacred victim" that would be extremely easy to accomplish. And now Boris Nemtsov was declared such a victim. Will the events now flow this way? No. For a "color revolution" or the "Arab spring" is necessary not only and not so much the victim. It still needs the population which is tired of and distrustful to the authorities, lack of prospects, the decomposition of the elites in the country and strong presence of Western MSM, NGO and intelligence services in the country. They also need a well prepared, financed and trained core, the passionate group of young people (far right nationalists are perfect canon fodder ), willing to risk their life for the cause. They also need noninterference of the army and carefully orchestrated paralysis of law enforcement agencies (or bribing the key figures and/or infiltration of them by CIA and friends as was the case in Kiev), as well as several other factors that simplify the task (Yanukovich was essentially "on the hook" by Americans, as his and his son capitals were abroad). "Sacred victim" in this list, while helpful at certain stages to ignite or sustain the protests, is far from the first place.

    That means that in the current circumstances the death of Boris Nemtsov can't become the ignition point for the new Russian color revolution (Moscow Maydan), even if someone in the West might passionately desire to use it this way...

    The attack on Russia or back in the 60s

    Regardless of whether you killed a staunch supporter of the current government or the opposition the murder of a politician is stronger blow to the legitimacy of power. And the murder of the opposition figure is more so than the murder of an official or a Pro-government deputy.

    And we need quicly solve this murder, not because after the assassination of the opposition, Western leaders are lining up with condolences and demand to punish the perpetrators. No. Simply because a strong state should be able to provide security to all its citizens and will never stoop to power persecute their unarmed opponents. The country where killings of famous people - politicians, businessmen, cultural figures - remain unsolved is a weak country. And the citizens in this country will view the government accordingly.

    In connection with the murder Nemtsov many people start to mention Yeltsin's period anarchy and lawlessness in 90th, but there is another, less obvious, but quite appropriate to the occasion analogy. The USA in 1960th. In less than five years in the USA were killed President John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, militant fighter for the rights of black people Malcolm X, peaceful fighter for the rights of blacks, Martin Luther King and some less well-known politicians.

    In those years, the US experienced a difficult period because of the Vietnam war, ending the economic boom of the 1950s, mass involvement of youth in escapist movement. The state was weak and politicians were killed. But out people detached from reality could spoke in those circumstances about the collapse of American States and the urgent need to organize a revolution.

    The last echo of this weakness was the murder of John Lennon in 1980 and the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1981. After this "landmark murders" and attempts on politicians life came to full stop, and former hippies graduated from their universities, have started to be engaged in politics and very quickly converted from the pacifists to the "hawks".

    Russia now is also experiencing is not the easiest historical period. Therefore, efforts of those who want to check the country's strength and at the same time to solve some personal issues are intensified.

    The murder of Boris Nemtsov is a challenge to the law-enforcement system, it is a challenge to the authorities, it is a challenge to the whole of Russia. So it should be solved.

    Political life and political death

    Many commentators on both sides say that it is denigrating to use the death of Boris Nemtsov for political purposes. It is not so. Yes, PR on spilled blood is one of the worst things invented by human civilization. But the tragic death of a politician always is not only death. It is a political event. Therefore, the desire of like-minded people from opposition to get PR points from Nemtsov death, aas well as desire of the government to avoid RP-losses is quite natural. It has always been, and always will be, as long as on the Earth live people and politicians. So the efforts should be made on eliminating those RP benefits and solving the crime is the best way to do so. There should be unsolved political assassinations in this country and on Earth in general.

    [Feb 25, 2015] Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa review – an unrivalled account

    Notable quotes:
    "... It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions. ..."
    "... the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all. ..."
    "... "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence". ..."
    "... Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. ..."
    "... Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this. ..."
    "... Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance. ..."
    "... Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows. ..."
    "... A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available. ..."
    "... I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east. ..."
    "... There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army. ..."
    "... As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. ..."
    "... I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine. Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence. ..."
    Feb 19, 2015 | The Guardian

    When Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's prime minister, told a German TV station recently that the Soviet Union invaded Germany, was this just blind ignorance? Or a kind of perverted wishful thinking? If the USSR really was the aggressor in 1941, it would suit Yatsenyuk's narrative of current geopolitics in which Russia is once again the only side that merits blame.

    When Grzegorz Schetyna, Poland's deputy foreign minister, said Ukrainians liberated Auschwitz, did he not know that the Red Army was a multinational force in which Ukrainians certainly played a role but the bulk of the troops were Russian? Or was he looking for a new way to provoke the Kremlin?

    Faced with these irresponsible distortions, and they are replicated in a hundred other prejudiced comments about Russian behaviour from western politicians as well as their eastern European colleagues, it is a relief to find a book on the Ukrainian conflict that is cool, balanced, and well sourced. Richard Sakwa makes repeated criticisms of Russian tactics and strategy, but he avoids lazy Putin-bashing and locates the origins of the Ukrainian conflict in a quarter-century of mistakes since the cold war ended. In his view, three long-simmering crises have boiled over to produce the violence that is engulfing eastern Ukraine.

    The first is the tension between two different models of Ukrainian statehood.

    • One is what he calls the "monist" view, which asserts that the country is an autochthonous cultural and political unity and that the challenge of independence since 1991 has been to strengthen the Ukrainian language, repudiate the tsarist and Soviet imperial legacies, reduce the political weight of Russian-speakers and move the country away from Russia towards "Europe".
    • The alternative "pluralist" view emphasises the different historical and cultural experiences of Ukraine's various regions and argues that building a modern democratic post-Soviet Ukrainian state is not just a matter of good governance and rule of law at the centre. It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions.

    More than any other change of government in Kiev since 1991, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all.

    The second crisis arises from the internationalisation of the struggle inside Ukraine which turned it into a geopolitical tug of war. Sakwa argues that this stems from the asymmetrical end of the cold war which shut Russia out of the European alliance system. While Mikhail Gorbachev and millions of other Russians saw the end of the cold war as a shared victory which might lead to the building of a "common European home", most western leaders saw Russia as a defeated nation whose interests could be brushed aside, and which must accept US hegemony in the new single-superpower world order or face isolation. Instead of dismantling Nato, the cold-war alliance was strengthened and expanded in spite of repeated warnings from western experts on Russia that this would create new tensions. Long before Putin came to power, Yeltsin had urged the west not to move Nato eastwards.

    Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine.

    The hawks in the Clinton administration ignored all this, Bush abandoned the anti-ballistic missile treaty and put rockets close to Russia's borders, and now a decade later, after Russia's angry reaction to provocations in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today, we have what Sakwa rightly calls a "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".

    The third crisis, also linked to the Nato issue, is the European Union's failure to stay true to the conflict resolution imperative that had been its original impetus. After 1989 there was much talk of the arrival of the "hour of Europe". Just as the need for Franco-German reconciliation inspired the EU's foundation, many hoped the cold war's end would lead to a broader east-west reconciliation across the old Iron Curtain. But the prospect of greater European independence worried key decision-makers in Washington, and Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. From Bosnia in 1992 to Ukraine today, the last two decades have seen repeated occasions where US officials pleaded, half-sincerely, for a greater European role in handling geopolitical crises in Europe while simultaneously denigrating and sidelining Europe's efforts. Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this.

    Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance.

    Within the framework of these three crises, Sakwa gives the best analysis yet in book form of events on the ground in eastern Ukraine as well as in Kiev, Washington, Brussels and Moscow. He covers the disputes between the "resolvers" (who want a negotiated solution) and the "war party" in each capital.

    He describes the rows over sanctions that have split European leaders, and points out how Ukraine's president, Petro Poroshenko, is under constant pressure from Nuland's favourite Ukrainian, the more militant Yatsenyuk, to rely on military force.

    As for Putin, Sakwa sees him not so much as the driver of the crisis but as a regulator of factional interests and a temporiser who has to balance pressure from more rightwing Russian nationalists as well as from the insurgents in Ukraine, who get weapons and help from Russia but are not the Kremlin's puppets.

    Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows.

    The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians.

    Equally alarming, though not new, is the one-sided nature of western political, media and thinktank coverage. The spectre of senator Joseph McCarthy stalks the stage, marginalising those who offer a balanced analysis of why we have got to where we are and what compromises could save us. I hope Sakwa's book does not itself become a victim, condemned as insufficiently anti-Russian to be reviewed.

    • Jonathan Steele is a former Guardian Moscow correspondent, and author of Eternal Russia: Yeltsin, Gorbachev and the Mirage of Democracy. To order Frontline Ukraine for £15.19 (RRP £18.99), go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846

    Susan O'neill -> Steve Ennever 25 Feb 2015 07:11
    It must have because I remember that Moscow requested a special meeting of the UN security council in accordance with a treaty in Geneva. This was an attempt to negate the need for intervention in a foreign state by Russia (which would have delighted the US). Furthermore, both sides of the horror were armed to the teeth. Some perspective would be nice.
    Susan O'neill -> willpodmore 25 Feb 2015 06:47
    A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available.

    Until Britain decides to distance itself from the US anti Russian thinking (that means criticism of the McCarthy era) we will still be looking to root out "Reds under the beds" and routing anything(or anyone) who might seem to be pro-Russian. Thanks for the contribution.

    AenimaUK -> jezzam 25 Feb 2015 05:12
    I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started.

    Yes, before the undemocratic, right-wing, NATO-backed coup, it was.

    It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.

    So your alternative is that the EU up its defence spending to match the absurd permanent war-economy levels of the US? And will the resources for that come from tax increases or public service cuts to match the US? Wasn't the point about the end of the Cold War that it was supposed to be the 'end' of the 'war'? Of course, those in charge of the US military-industrial complex and their chums in the DoD failed to get that memo (or rather, read it, decided it would threaten their economic and geo-political imperialism, and shredded it).

    willpodmore -> MiaPia2015 25 Feb 2015 04:24

    Not true MiaPia - Leading scholars of Russian history have refuted the claim that the famine was an act of genocide.

    Terry Martin concluded, "The famine was not an intentional act of genocide specifically targeting the Ukrainian nation." David Shearer noted, "Although the famine hit Ukraine hard, it was not, as some historians argue, a purposefully genocidal policy against Ukrainians. no evidence has surfaced to suggest that the famine was planned, and it affected broad segments of the Russian and other non-Ukrainian populations both in Ukraine and in Russia." Diane Koenker and Ronald Bachman agreed, "the documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially against the peasants of Ukraine." Barbara Green also agreed, "Unlike the Holocaust, the Great Famine was not an intentional act of genocide." Steven Katz commented, "What makes the Ukrainian case non-genocidal, and what makes it different from the Holocaust, is the fact that the majority of Ukrainian children survived and, still more, that they were permitted to survive." Adam Ulam agreed too, writing, "Stalin and his closest collaborators had not willed the famine."
    Tauger explained, "The evidence that I have published and other evidence, including recent Ukrainian document collections, show that the famine developed out of a shortage and pervaded the Soviet Union, and that the regime organized a massive program of rationing and relief in towns and in villages, including in Ukraine, but simply did not have enough food. This is why the Soviet famine, an immense crisis and tragedy of the Soviet economy, was not in the same category as the Nazis' mass murders, which had no agricultural or other economic basis." He summed up, "Ukraine received more in food supplies during the famine crisis than it exported to other republics. Soviet authorities made substantial concessions to Ukraine in response to an undeniable natural disaster and transferred resources from Russia to Ukraine for food relief and agricultural recovery."

    Hans Blumenfeld pointed out that famine also struck the Russian regions of Lower Volga and North Caucasus: "This disproves the 'fact' of anti-Ukrainian genocide parallel to Hitler's anti-semitic holocaust. To anyone familiar with the Soviet Union's desperate manpower shortage in those years, the notion that its rulers would deliberately reduce that scarce resource is absurd Up to the 1950s the most frequently quoted figure was two million [famine victims]. Only after it had been established that Hitler's holocaust had claimed six million victims, did anti-Soviet propaganda feel it necessary to top that figure by substituting the fantastic figure of seven to ten million "

    Ellman concluded, "What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy of genocide against Ukraine."

    Vaska Tumir -> Vladimir Boronenko 24 Feb 2015 21:23

    I beg to differ: there was nothing the matter with the Budapest Memorandum of Agreement of 1994 which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Unfortunately, in November 2013, the EU decided to violate the terms of the Budapest Memo by presenting the then government of Ukraine with an economic ultimatum (something expressly forbidden by Article 3 of that international document several EU countries were signatories to).

    Had the EU honoured the terms of the Budapest Memo and had it agreed to the trilateral economic deliberations both Ukraine and Russia were asking for, nothing of the subsequent mess and the slaughter Kiev's brought to Donbass would have happened.

    The situation can still be rectified by recognizing the new Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as parts of a federal state, along the lines of Switzerland, say, thus preserving Ukraine as a country. Such a solution to the chaos NATO and the EU have brought about would be part of what Jonathan Steele suggests by saying that "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine".

    HollyOldDog Ecolophant 24 Feb 2015 17:44

    America does not have a language of its own, it is more correctly called a Dialect of English.

    HollyOldDog Dreikaiserbund 24 Feb 2015 17:33

    Russian invasion? What invasion? It's just a myth created by the incompetent.

    Colin Robinson 24 Feb 2015 17:04

    I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east.

    If the terms "monist" and "pluralist" come to be used more widely in discussion about the conflict, the world may begin to get more of a handle on what has been happening.

    Kalkriese -> senya 24 Feb 2015 14:38

    And you mean no-one on the US/Ukrainian side is not lying ?

    There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army.

    Putin is merely playing back by their rules and the fact he is successful in reclaiming Crimea is the cause of all the sour grapes emanating from Kiev.

    Kalkriese -> jezzam 24 Feb 2015 14:30

    "His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow."

    Are you really so naive ? Or just disingenuous ?

    Kalkriese -> prostak 24 Feb 2015 14:26

    "Russian troops have been proven many times"
    Really? By whom ? Where?
    Let's have some proof...

    StopPretending -> MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 14:08

    there was no 'Ukraine' state until Stalin created it. Perhaps that was the problem?

    MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 13:31

    Steele's analysis, and Sakwas book have one fatal flaw. The origins of this crisis did not start in 1991 with the end of the cold war, but rather its end allowed tensions that had been simmering since the Holodomor of the 1930s when millions of ethnic Ukrainians were starved to death by Stalin in an orchestrated genocide that then allowed ethnic Russians to move into Ukrainian territory. The desire to have an independent, Ukraine-speaking nation have always been there and are no different from the desire of any other country. What we have now is almost an exact repeat of what happened then.

    Steve -> Ennever 22 Feb 2015 19:57

    An interesting article indeed.

    The Odessa massacre if nothing else was evidence of the MSM's bias on this subject.

    50+ people being burnt alive for expressing their opinions seems a choice topic for our "je suis charlie" fanatic press. And yet we heard.... crickets - because it didn't suit their "we support Kiev" agenda.

    But Odessa wasn't the only atrocity in May 2014. The victory parade in Mariupol, May 9th. The National Guard arrive, possibly expecting a town full of Russian terrorists, but find civilians celebrating, understandably irate at the intrusion of military hardware and troops, who then open fire on them anyway.

    Did this get reported in the west?

    jezzam 22 Feb 2015 14:49

    A serious commentator like Steele putting Russia's case is much needed. His comments about Yatsenyuk do not add much that is new though. Yatsenyuk is very anti-Russian - this was already known. His popularity has in fact been much boosted by anti- Russian feelings in Ukraine induced by Putin's military agression. His party is now the largest in the Ukraine parliament.

    Steele's discussion of the Monist and pluralist views is all very well, but he does not discuss the kleptocratic view favoured by Putin and Yanukovych. The main cause of the revolution in Kiev was not the conflict between Monist and pluralist views, but the massive corruption and subversion of democracy in Ukraine, modelled on that of Russia. In Russia the ruling elite cream more than 30% of state income into their own pockets by corrupt practices. Yanukovych had established the same system in Ukraine. He was also well on the way to corrupting the judiciary. He had already locked up his main political opponent on a trumped up charge - again following the Putin model of government.

    Steeles's solution of "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status" sounds good. Is this to be imposed on Ukraine though? What does it mean? I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started. They already had guarantees of their territorial integrity from Russia, the US and UK as well. Fat lot of good that has done them.

    His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow. It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.

    As to Steele's claim that Putin is being demonised, insults between countries are not productive and leaders should be treated with respect by other countries. However it is difficult to treat with respect someone who does not keep his word and lies to your face, particularly when these lies are so transparent. Brezhnev and Andropov never did this - at least not so blatantly.

    tiojo 22 Feb 2015 12:50

    "......that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".

    Now if only the Guardian's current journalists would read this book we might get some decent coverage of events in Ukraine and Russia.

    Marilyn -> Justice 21 Feb 2015 22:37

    My only argument would be the assessment of blame re the snipers - 3 studies have shown them to be from 'the new coalition' and not old gov't, which is in line with the telephone call of Catherine Ashton and Urmas Paet,

    Standupwoman 21 Feb 2015 21:02

    Excellent, balanced article, and I really have to buy this book. I only wonder why the Guardian hasn't included this on its 'Ukraine' page for 19th February...

    GuyCybershy -> sbmfc 21 Feb 2015 17:06

    Especially in the US the public needs every issue distilled to good vs. evil. Anything more complex and they will reject it. This is the result of decades of "divide and conquer" politics.

    Vladimir Boronenko 21 Feb 2015 08:21

    "Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine." No it wouldn't. It is nothing but wishful thinking and delusion all over again. Ukraine had had that status already, and only scrapped it in December by a constitutional Parliament vote exactly because it showed its complete uselessness and impotence at the face of real-life threats. Just like the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 guaranteeing security of Ukraine, with one of the guarantors attacking and the other two looking on, although, if one was to stick to the letter of the Memo, of course, they are not bound to be involved unless its a nuclear threat.

    Johnlockett 20 Feb 2015 19:21

    Excellent article. Very balance and very near to the truth. Thank you
    John Lockett

    Statingobvious 20 Feb 2015 14:28

    An exceptionally unbiased piece where otherwise Russia and Putin bashing (& twisting of facts & outright lying) is the rule.

    mike42 20 Feb 2015 10:04

    "The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians."

    Need more be said?

    Dreikaiserbund Les Mills 20 Feb 2015 09:14

    Challenging the 'MSM script' does not make you a Putinbot. Deriding anyone who supports Ukrainian sovereignty, who is opposed to the Russian invasion and trumpeting Vladimir as a great and wise leader - that is what makes you a Putinbot.

    EnriqueFerro -> theshonny 19 Feb 2015 19:57

    Thank you for the info on 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King. I'll look for it, because even if it is pro-Putin, it is nonetheless interesting in order to check the rabid and massive anti-Putin and Russia-hating disease spreading out there.

    EnriqueFerro -> Mari5064 19 Feb 2015 19:53

    Mari, I'm afraid you read too many tabloids.

    EnriqueFerro 19 Feb 2015 19:51

    This is an excellent book, of which I'm finishing its reading now; it can be read avidly, because it says the truth, in a dispassionate and academic narrative, far from the typically stupid accounts in the Western media and in the mouths of our gullible and ignorant politicians. Read it and learn a lot about Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US/NATO.
    Usually interesting books which don't follow the official record are not displayed in the mass bookshops such as Floyds or Waterstones (to name two of the more serious in the UK). It is a way of censorship, to make it difficult for the public to find critical stuff. I found a lone copy well hidden in the history section at WS. A miracle! I took it quickly, and wonder if it was replaced!!!

    Les Mills -> leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 19:34

    As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. Incidentally, I'm surprised that this article has only a handful of comments. I came here via a link on Google news so I can only assume that the Guardian have it hidden away on their site, which definitely fits the anti-Russian agenda.

    leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 17:37

    By far THE best analysis of what sounds like a most insightful book. The reviewer has done us all a great service, since without it we would have never heard about the book from any other "NATO-Western" source. Even worse, the author of the book would be accused of not being "real" as is often the accusation when a comment appears that does not swallow Western propaganda line-hook-and-sinker.

    John Hansen 19 Feb 2015 14:31

    Jonathan Steele:

    Superb analysis of a significant book.

    :-)

    theshonny 19 Feb 2015 13:15

    Bought 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King a short while ago, and found it going so much pro-Putin that it lost its impact. So now I hope for a more balanced account.

    I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine.

    Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence.

    sbmfc 19 Feb 2015 07:31

    I think the demonisation of Putin stems from the influence of Hollywood narratives in our societal perception.

    The idea of the villain is so commonplace that is widely assumed that anyone with a different agenda to ones own is perceived to be attempting to working directly against our own personal interests rather than in aid of their own different and completely independent interests.

    Essentially everything has been so dumbed down that only a good/evil narrative can be comprehended and the labels are only fit one way. The facts themselves are irrelevant.

    AnyFictionalName 19 Feb 2015 05:50

    When PM Yatsenyuk said:

    I don't want Ukrainian youths (i.e. those who consider their native language to be Ukrainian or Russian) to learn the Russian language, I want them to learn the English language.

    Is that kind of racism, inferiority complex or just sheer stupidity?

    [Feb 24, 2015] UK Journalist Calls Out Fraud on Readers in Coverage of HSBC

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered credentialed journalists in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap. ..."
    "... JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks ..."
    "... ying and yang ..."
    Feb 24, 2015 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

    "An editorial operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will be undermined...

    The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril."

    A 'principled resignation' is a phenomenon somewhat unfamiliar to US readers. Rarely does a public figure or a politician resign because they is something they won't do to get along. They resign because they get caught doing something that is so repugnant to public sentiment that they are finished, at least for a while. We have a marvelous way of excusing and ignoring behavior in the selected elite that would shame a garbageman into changing their name and moving.

    And so a decline in journalistic standards is not as great of an issue in the States, because the major media was captured by a handful of corporations in the 1990's, in part thanks to Bill Clinton's change in ownership rules.

    So one might ask, what standards? What were the standards that allowed the lies that have led to war, that covered up mass spying and torture, and that allowed one of the greatest thefts of the public trust in history to occur in the 'bank bailouts,' with a coordinated suppression of any meaningful protest?

    In the recent World Press Freedom Index, the US ranked 49th, in same tier as Romania, El Salvador, and Niger.

    Their standards have long been so low that journalist may be more of a hollow title on a business card than a calling to a profession with time-honored standards.

    In the States, journalistic independence and integrity were some years ago led down a blind alley, and quietly strangled.

    The capture of key institutions of democracy are already well underway or in place. Where this leads, one cannot say. But it does not bode well.

    Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered 'credentialed journalists' in good standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.

    Related: JP Morgan Tops New List of Risky Banks

    Why I Have Resigned From the Telegraph

    Peter Osborne

    17 February 2015

    ...With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed...

    This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power, big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to tell their readers the truth.

    It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury, as director of communications in 10 Downing Street...

    This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged. HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is "the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.

    Read the entire article at OpenDemocracy here.

    Here are some selections from financial television. I do not mean to pick on CNBC. Bloomberg and Fox are certainly no better, and in many ways probably worse.

    And the mainstream media now pretty much follows the same patterns on its high gloss coverage whether it be on television or in print.

    But if you watch the shows on Sunday morning where very serious people come to discuss important public and foreign policy issues of war and peace, basic freedoms, the economy, what you find is a pre-sorted selection of talking heads hurling the latest ying and yang of corporatist spin at each other, with the occasional honest individual, never to be invited again, who is harangued by the network 'journalist.'

    [Feb 24, 2015] The Battle Behind the Fog of Propaganda US Suffers Crushing Defeat in Debaltsevo by Mike Whitney

    Feb 23, 2015 | Strategic-Culture.org

    In less than a year, the United States has toppled the democratically-elected government of Ukraine, installed a Washington-backed stooge in Kiev, launched a bloody and costly war of annihilation on Russian-speaking people in the East, thrust the economy into a downward death spiral, and reduced the nation to an anarchic, failed state destined to endure a vicious fratricidal civil war for as far as the eye can see.

    ... ... ...

    That paves the way for a second Ukrainian coup in less than a year, a grim reminder of the tragic failings of US policy in Ukraine. Check out this blurb from a post at the Vineyard of the Saker:

    "Looks like the Nazi death squads are on the march again, this time they are looking at Kiev. Thirteen death-squad (aka "volunteer battalion") leaders have now declared that they are forming their own military command under the command of the notorious Semen Semenchenko. Officially, they are not in any way opposed to the current regime, so said Semenchenko, but in reality their rank and file members are pretty clear about what they want to do: organize a third Maidan and toss out Poroshenko. What makes these 21st century version of the SA so dangerous for Poroshenko it that he, unlike Hitler, does not have a 21st century version of the SS to eliminate them all overnight. In fact, according to many reports the entire southern part of the rump-Ukraine is now "Kolomoiski-land" fully under the control of the oligarch who finances these death-squads. Add to this the fact that most of the Rada is composed of the very same battalion commanders and assorted Nazi freaks, and you will why Poroshenko is now very much in danger…… The sad reality is that there is simply nobody in the Ukraine capable of disarming these so-called "volunteer battalions". There are now thousands of uniformed Nazi freaks roaming around with guns who can now impose their law of the jungle on everybody. It sure looks like the future of Banderastan will be something like a mix of Somalia and Mad Max – a failed state, a comprehensively destroyed economy, a collapsed social order and the law of armed gangs of thugs." (The Vineyard of the Saker)

    ... ... ...

    Washington has largely won the information war, having persuaded Congress and the American people that US policy in Ukraine is "just", but on the ground, where it counts, Washington has encountered one catastrophic failure after another. This process will undoubtedly persist until the costs are too exorbitant to bear.

    Mike Whitney, 4thmedia.org

    [Feb 23, 2015] On the way to war on Russia By Brian Cloughley

    Quote: " This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia trying to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such a thing. But it makes good propaganda.
    Feb 18, 2015 | Asia Times Online

    Since the Soviet collapse - as Moscow had feared - [the NATO] alliance has spread eastward, expanding along a line from Estonia in the north to Romania and Bulgaria in the south. The Kremlin claims it had Western assurances that would not happen. Now, Moscow's only buffers to a complete NATO encirclement on its western border are Finland, Belarus and Ukraine. The Kremlin would not have to be paranoid to look at that map with concern. - Stars and Stripes (US Armed Forces newspaper), February 13, 2015.

    The Minsk Agreement of February 12, 2015, was arranged by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine and contained important provisions concerning future treatment of citizens in the Russian-speaking, Russia-cultured eastern districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Ukraine where there has been vicious fighting between separatist forces and government troops supported by militias.

    Most Western media did not report that the accord was signed by the leaders of the provinces (oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk as well as representatives of Russia and Ukraine, but the former two matter greatly in implementation of its provisions.

    To the disappointment of much of the West, and especially the United States, it appears that the great majority of the inhabitants of these regions are to be granted much of what they have been seeking (with robust support by Russia), which includes the right to speak and receive education in their birth-language; restitution of pension payments and other central revenue moneys that were stopped by the Kiev government; constitutional reform of Ukraine including "approval of permanent legislation on the special status of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk"; and free local elections in the oblasts.

    The way to peace will not be easy but the substance of the accord will go far to convincing the people of the eastern oblasts that they will not in future be treated as second-class citizens. They will be permitted an appropriate degree of decision-making in their regions, and if there is goodwill on the part of the Kiev government there is reason to believe that fair governance could apply. A major problem, however, is the attitude of the United States and Britain concerning Russia and Ukraine.

    Neither the US nor the UK was privy to discussions between participants in the Minsk talks except through technical intercept by their intelligence agencies and more intimate but necessarily partial description by Kiev's President Petro Poroshenko, whose subordinates reported through US and British conduits.

    London and Washington were excluded from negotiations because neither wishes a solution that could be agreeable to Russia and the Russian-cultured regions of east Ukraine.

    Both are uncompromisingly intent on humiliating Moscow, and although Britain is verging on irrelevance in world affairs except as a decayed and limited associate of the US in whatever martial venture may be embarked upon by Washington, the US Congress and White House are for once in agreement and are determined to destroy Russia's economy and topple its president and are being provocatively challenging in pursuit of that aim.

    There hasn't been such deliberate squaring-up politically and militarily since the height of the last Cold War. President Barack Obama's speeches about Russia and President Vladimir Putin have been bellicose, abusive and personally insolent to the point of immature mindlessness. He does not realize that his contempt and threats will not be forgiven by the Russian people who, it is only too often overlooked, are proud of being Russian and understandably resent being insulted.

    Obama claimed last year that the US "is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world", which was regarded with mild derision by many nations; but now Russians are realizing what he meant by his chest-pounding, because America has fostered the Ukraine mess in attempting to justify its stance of uncompromising aggression against them.

    But Ukraine has nothing to do with the United States. It is on the border of Russia, not the US. It is not a member of NATO. It is not a member of the European Union. It has no defense or political treaty of any sort with the US. It is 5,000 miles - 8,000 kilometers - from Washington to Kiev and it is doubtful if more than a handful of members of Congress could find Ukraine on a map.

    In March 2014, the province of Crimea declared itself to be separate from Ukraine. There was a referendum on sovereignty by its 2.4 million inhabitants. The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe was asked to monitor and report on the referendum, but refused to do so. Both referendum and declaration were strongly condemned by the United States.

    Some 60% of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and Russian-educated, and they voted to rejoin Russia from which they had been separated by the diktat of Soviet chairman Nikita Khrushchev - a Ukrainian. It would be strange if they did not wish to accede to a country that welcomes their kinship and is economically benevolent concerning their future.

    Russia's support for the people of eastern Ukraine - and there is indubitably a great deal of assistance, both political and military, similar to that of the US-NATO alliance for the people of the breakaway Kosovo region of Serbia in 2008 - is based on the fact that the great majority of people there are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and discriminated against by the Ukrainian government, just as Kosovans were persecuted by Serbs.

    So it is not surprising that the majority of inhabitants of the eastern areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts want to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" and be granted a large degree of autonomy - or even join Russia. The US refuses to admit that they might have even the slightest justification for their case.

    There has been a US-led media campaign attempting to persuade the public, in the words of John Herbst, former US ambassador to Ukraine, that President Putin's "provocations against the Baltic states, against Kazakhstan, indicate his goals are greater than Ukraine. If we don't stop Mr Putin in Ukraine we may be dealing with him in Estonia."

    This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia trying to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such a thing.

    But it makes good propaganda.

    In similar vein, President Putin's statement to Ukraine's President Poroshenko that "If I wanted, in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw and Bucharest" was reported by Britain's Daily Telegraph as "President Vladimir Putin privately threatened to invade Poland, Romania and the Baltic states" - which was malicious misrepresentation of what he said.

    Putin was making the point that Russia's armed forces could easily have taken successful military action against neighboring countries had they been ordered to do so - but he has no intention of doing anything so rash and stupid. What he and the Russian people want is justice and political choice for the ethnically Russian people in eastern Ukraine, as well as increasing bilaterally lucrative trade arrangements with adjoining countries. It would be insane for Moscow to hazard commercial links with any of its neighbors. Washington, on the other hand, is trying to break them.

    Following the Minsk agreement, Canada, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, (together with France and Germany, the Group of Seven) mildly welcomed it - for of course they had no public alternative - but took the opportunity, according to the White House, to "again condemn Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea which is in violation of international law".

    It appears that the US-stimulated nations of the G-7 demand that Crimea, with its 60% ethnic Russian population, should be in some fashion taken over by the Kiev government against the will of the majority of the people of that longtime Russian region.

    This would satisfy the aim of the US-NATO alliance, which wished and still wishes Ukraine to become a member of that organization, joining those already positioned on Russia's border. For US-NATO, the problem, now, is that the massive seaport at Sevastopol is independent of Kiev and will therefore be denied to US-NATO as a base from which to dominate the Black Sea.

    The US-led anti-Russia alliance continues to extend its influence along Russia's borders, and it is obvious that no matter what happens in Ukraine's eastern oblasts there will be continuing confrontation with Russia, led by Washington.

    Mikhail Gorbachev - the man whose empathy with president Ronald Reagan so helped to end the first Cold War - observed about the stance of US-NATO that "I cannot be sure that the [new] Cold War will not bring about a 'hot' one. I'm afraid they might take the risk."

    Given the intemperate and increasingly confrontational posture of the US and some of its NATO alliance supporters, the risk seems high. They are hazarding the lives of us all.

    Brian Cloughley is a former soldier who writes on military and political affairs, mainly concerning the sub-continent. The fourth edition of his book A History of the Pakistan Army was published last year.

    /neocons.shtml matches

    (Copyright 2015 Brian Cloughley)

    [Feb 20, 2015] Debaltsevo fallout in Banderastan

    I think Gary (see comments below) forget about one interesting side effect "reaction of Ukrainian to the attempt to depose Kiev junta by military force". Now after Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014, crimes committed by Right Sector, and territorial battalions of neo-Nazis (such as Azov) indiscriminate shelling of Donbass by Ukrainian army, killing woman and children this reaction on South East will be completely different. People saw the real danger with their own eyes. Russia now have at least 2.5 million people who are ready to die fighting with her. And neutrality of approval of majority of the rest of South East. That's a big, big difference with the situation in February 2014, when Russia occupying Ukraine would look ore like aggressor then liberator.
    Also the fact that the US weapons and foreign fighters were captured in Debaltsevo put the USA in vulnerable position now, as blood of woman and children of Donbass cry for revenge.
    Quote: In the Russian view, US overt recognition and support for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, its support of an unconstitutional coup in Kiev, and its defense of it later, is not only an insult but also a betrayal. It was seen not only as an act of breaking all norms and laws and in posing a direct danger for Russia and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but also as a betrayal of the worse kind in which the other side has shown clearly that it holds nothing sacred.
    The Vineyard of the Saker

    An EU Coalition of the Willing?

    When I first heard of Poroshenko's latest idea about sending peacekeepers to the Ukraine, I had figured that he was talking about UN peacekeepers, the only ones with any possible legality for such an operation. Turns out I had "misunderestimated" Poroshenko. His idea is even crazier: he wants *EU* "peacekeepers"! This is what the official website of the President of the Ukraine says:

    Ukraine considers the EU mission in the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy the best option of peacekeeping operation in Donbas, as stated by President Petro Poroshenko at the meeting with Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn in Kyiv.

    The Head of State has outlined clear position: "Russia, as country-aggressor, cannot and will not take part in the peacekeeping operation". "Ukraine will not agree to a peacekeeping format, which threatens to legalize thousands of Russian militaries – we already have enough such "peacekeepers"," Petro Poroshenko noted.

    The President has informed on the decision of the National Security and Defense Council to appeal to the UN Security Council with a request for an international peacekeeping mission to ensure the preservation of peace in Donbas and control the Ukrainian-Russian border in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. "The format of the European Union Police Mission is preferable," the President added.

    Am I the only one who is detecting a distinctly American "handwriting" behind this latest idea? Look again: the idea is this - first go to the UN and when the Russians and Chinese veto it, then turn to the EU and use EU states to make a "coalition of the willing". Why? Let me spell out the rationale here:

    The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger a continental war. Now that this has clearly failed, they want the Europeans to enter the Donbass with exactly the same goal. Once the EU peacekeepers are deployed, all it would take is a bloody false flag (an artillery strike, or a bomb) killing enough EU peacekeepers to raise the immediate need to protect them. Except that the EU does not have any "EU armed forces" so can you guess who would be sent it? Exactly - NATO.

    Will the Europeans fall for that? I doubt it. Even the Eurocretins seemed to have lost their taste for crazy US Neocon schemes. Besides, Russia is not Serbia and there is no way the EU will bypass the UNSC for a military operation, not without triggering a huge political crisis inside Europe. To me this latest plans smacks of something McCain and Saakashvili could have cooked up and not something coming out of this White House. God knows I have no sympathy for the Obama Administration or for the Eurocretins in Brussels, but this latest stunt is dumb even by their standards.

    Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen! SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt. (The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed! The SA march with quiet, steady step. Horst Wessel Lied - Nazi anthem)

    Looks like the Nazi death squads are on the march again, this time they are looking at Kiev. Thirteen death-squad (aka "volunteer battalion") leaders have now declared that they are forming their own military command under the command of the notorious Semen Semenchenko. Officially, they are not in any way opposed to the current regime, so said Semenchenko, but in reality their rank and file members are pretty clear about what they want to do: organize a third Maidan and toss out Poroshenko. What makes these 21st century version of the SA so dangerous for Poroshenko it that he, unlike Hitler, does not have a 21st century version of the SS to eliminate them all overnight.

    In fact, according to many reports the entire southern part of the rump-Ukraine is now "Kolomoiski-land" fully under the control of the oligarch who finances these death-squads. Add to this the fact that most of the Rada is composed of the very same battalion commanders and assorted Nazi freaks, and you will why Poroshenko is now very much in danger.

    The next leaders of Banderastan?

    Poroshenko can try to present the Debaltsevo disaster as a huge victory, but apparently everybody in the Ukraine knows the truth and that, in turn, designates Poroshenko as the ideal scape-goat and culprit for what happened. The sad reality is that there is simply nobody in the Ukraine capable of disarming these so-called "volunteer battalions". There are now thousands of uniformed Nazi freaks roaming around with guns who can now impose their law of the jungle on everybody. It sure looks like the future of Banderastan will be something like a mix of Somalia and Mad Max - a failed state, a comprehensively destroyed economy, a collapsed social order and the law of armed gangs of thugs.

    In a couple of days it will be one year since the US-backed Nazis took power in Kiev and when I think of what they have "achieved" in such a short period of time I wonder if the idiots who were jumping on the Maidan and screaming "he who does not jump is a Moskal" and "glory to the Ukraine! to the heroes glory!" had any idea that their actions would completely destroy the country which they wanted to bring into the EU.

    pug

    Interesting and extensive interview with Ukrainian Azov Battalion POW, with English subtitles.
    NAF is treating its prisoners humanely.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOv_KSWRRc

    Kat Kan

    "[none]...had any idea that their actions would completely destroy the country which they wanted to bring into the EU..,".

    And now never will.

    Yanukovich should have laid it out in detail what the real costs would be.

    Any decent government should be straight with its people about what they're doing. Every minister should be able to do a one hour Q&Am dont expect them to go 4 hours like Putin. In "democracy" they talk, debate, avoid or answer questions, to sell themselves as the best candidate. Then their press secretaries do everything to keep them from giving a straight answer. What they should do is give account of themselves afterwards, twice a year.

    There may be a small number of potentially acceptable people in the Rada. Everyone else would have to be from the people who know things, not those who just want stuff.

    Russia, old or new, would have to have a hand in a change, it won't happen just by itself.

    andrei put:

    EU peacekeepers are not a new idea.

    EU have been present in ukraine since 2005 as the EUBAM european bored Assistance Mission and have bee in Palestine as

    "EUPOL COPPS - POLICE AND RULE OF LAW MISSION FOR THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES"

    This is a document you can get from European union External Action site and is part of Common Security and Defence Policy

    nothing new here.

    Penelope:

    What a Machiavelian mind you have, Saker! Sucker the EU in for peacekeeping in order to attack them w a falseflag. You're probably right.

    What's more, Porky wants the EU to monitor the Rus-Donbas border to prevent supplies reaching Donbas, while US supplies to Kiev wd be completely unmonitored since they don't occur at the ceasefire line.

    The Kiev kleptocrats recently sold off the last of the grain reserves. Agricultural inputs for Spring planting are not available yet-- fuel, lubricants. I suppose Monsanto will be supplying GMO seed & will be allowed to buy up the land of all the bankrupt farmers.

    Usual Ukrainian crops are wheat, barley, vegetables, sugar beets, sunflower seeds. Monsanto makes GMO seed for sugar beets and for wheat and a few vegetables.

    One hates to see the chaos of fullscale rebellion, especially because CIA, Mossad, etc might use it to destroy the infrastructure. But the only other possibility for escape from Ukraine's dismal future wd be a benevolent countercoup.

    Anonymous

    Let's hope they get at each others throats BEFORE they send in the UN or EU peacekeepers. And I do believe that the US is stupid enough to play this game after all they pulled the coup didn't they. American's act with impunity because the their is no price for failure born by those who promote the failed polices in fact many of them get promotions just to cover up the failure. Something like Pornoshenko is trying to do now only thing is he is not John MCCain sitting in the US Senate he is in Kiev....and puppets don't matter to anyone.
    RR

    Penelope

    Martijn, interesting about Eurocorps. I understood that the Maastricht Treaty that created EU provided for an independent military force, but tha the US had such a prolonged hissy-fit that EU gave up & put it under NATO command.

    It is not obvious from the Wikipedia entry that Eurocorp is under NATO command but it does say "From 1 July 2006, to 10 January 2007, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 7." It then has its "headquarters" at other NATO Response Forces. So I doubt that it is independent of NATO.

    Gary said...

    Saker said, "The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger a continental war."

    This assertion keeps being made with no logical argument to back it up. Saker is always challenging us to back up our assertions. I return the favor.

    This assumes NATO would enter Ukraine to fight against Russian troops, therefore fulfilling US plans to engage Europeans against Russia in Europe. Right? Who else would be engaged in a continental war against Russia?

    Let me grant the Saker, Starikov, Putin the benefit of the doubt. They have far more inside info, experience, and insight than any of us mere mortals. Seriously, I mean it.

    Russia succeeded in its mission to help defend Donbass without sending its own military. Mission accomplished, for now. I'll grant them that.

    Novorossia can have national pride that it defended itself without big brother stepping in. That is probably worth a lot.

    So this is a moot point for now, until next time NATO/Kiev attack Novorossia. So the question must be asked. What should they do next time?

    Consider the cost of all the dead civilians. Was it necessary to allow this?

    Strelkov says no. I agree with him.

    Here is why.

    Every bit of Western media and every public figure in every Western country says Russia invaded. So what difference would it have made if Russia actually did? None.

    If Russia invaded why is there even debate about sending weapons, and/or NATO troops to Ukraine? According to argument above, Russian invasion would immediately trigger "continental war". It didn't, therefore proving the above statement is wrong. The public believes Russia invaded. Every single person I have talked to says they did. So as far as the west is concerned Russia did invade.

    The statement above is premised that NATO or someone would have invaded Ukraine to defend against Russian "aggression", therefore triggering a continental war. There is NO WAY US/NATO would engage with Russia. The US is a bully, and bullies only attack the weak. Russia is not weak.

    Would Europe go along with an invasion of Ukraine even if US wanted to? I doubt it. Ukraine is far more important to Russia than to Europe, and you can see Europe backtracking now that the blitzkrieg wasn't a cakewalk.

    Estimates were that Russia could have rolled back the Kiev attack on Donbass in anywhere from 48hrs to one week. What would US/NATO do in that time? I doubt they could make a decision that fast.

    In the psychological warfare game, I think the US scored one point, maybe losing others. Using its standard reverse projection (McMurtry-blame others for what you are doing), the US put Russia on the defensive and influenced it NOT to invade, so as not to be thought an "aggressor". So they fell for this psy-op to prevent them from invading as a defensive anti-genocide force.

    Starikov claims that the advocates of Russian invasion in Russia were pointed to by US as evidence of "Russian Aggression". This assertion is totally wrong. US doesn't need any evidence. STarikov needs to read McMurtry.

    Russia could have gone to the security council and called for UN troops to protect Donbass from ethnic cleansing. This would have been vetoed by US. Russia could then claim R2P and sent troops to protect civilians in Donbass, and clear out the NAZIs.

    I will concede to opponents of this position that Russia succeeded without invading Ukraine. But was it necessary to allow ethnic cleansing to take place? I don't think so.

    If anyone can refute what I'm saying, please do. I could be wrong.

    Luca K said...

    Banderastan?
    More like Neoconistan, no?

    This whole thing in the Ukraine has the the neocons's fingerprints all over it.

    Does Mr.Saker know that Neoconservatism is a Jewish political and intectual movement?

    Main themes; Israel and whats good for the jews..

    The "nazis" in the Ukraine are paid by a Jewish/israeli oligarch... right. And the nationalists want to actually join the most anti-nationalist organization in the world, the freakish EU.

    American Kulak said...

    @ Alien Tech 20 February, 2015 04:31

    On the whole NATO troops thing and the NAF saying they overheard English, Polish and Flemish (? Belgian language) on the UAF radio sets: I think after 'outta my face' guy got caught on camera in Mariupol OPSEC was tightened up. I also do not believe the Poles are present in the numbers they were used in the late spring and summer phases of the 'ATO' when we know they were deployed around Slavyansk and some may have died on board the IL-76 full of elite paratroopers that was to land in Donetsk but got shot down due to the UAF's poor intel about NAF MANPAD capabilities.

    Jim Willie told the Ontario resident Paul Sandhu on his Wake Up and Live radio show this week that the NATO mercs were evacuated as part of the quid pro quo between Merkel, Hollande and Putin. Although VVP is a good poker player the unconcealed glee on Putin's face to me suggests a man who had Poroshenko and his sponsors by the gonads and knew it. Foreign mercs after all the howling about '#RussiaInvadedUkraine' getting exposed in a big way would not be a game changer but it would make US/UK media take the bleating about #RussiaInvadedUkraine slightly less seriously.

    I am still waiting for the Polish version of Glenn Greenwald to publish about the 'vacationers' especially from the country's elite GROM special forces sniper unit and among Poland's Su-25 pilots who didn't come back. But that's far off. I doubt the Lithuanians would've provided enough numbers to make much of a difference except for the very early, limited number battles around Slavyansk and Kramatorsk where Strelkov's group was outnumbered 20 to 1. It is far safer for the foreigners to have units with which they can blend in but we also know from UAF defectors/deserters to the NAF that the American mercs were kept segregated from the Ukrainians at their base and did as little speaking as possible, probably to train the men against a sudden native English speaker outburst like 'outta my face' guy who 90% was from the northeastern U.S. Regrettably some even on the pro-NAF side on Twitter seem confused or to conflate outta my face guy with the Brit Azov Battalion Nazi volunteer Chris "Swampy" Garrett but Swampy has a beard in the footage where he's looking for munitions in Mariupol whereas outta my face guy was clean shaven. That's an American merc and I would place his place of being raised as between Philadelphia and Buffalo, NY.

    Alien Tech said...

    Gary said...

    "The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger a continental war."

    Well that is the first goal. Get Russia to accept the tar baby after which Europe will split. Russia being the biggest European market means a lot more American goods. No more Russian gas means a lot bigger market for US gas. US would also be able to point out what Russia did to other countries and get them to turn against Russia.

    Until now there is no evidence that Russia invaded. They all come down to Russia invaded Crimea.. Which is why people believe Russia invaded Ukraine. Earlier it was mentioned that thousands of Russians were in the NAF forces, I am thinking the actual number of people who took time off from the RF forces are very few. Remember, anyone with soviet passport can get a Russian passport, does not mean they are Russian, Only in technicality they are Russian so we can say everyone fighting in Ukraine are Russian, either they hold a Russian passport or speak Russian or have relatives in Russia. But it wont hold up in court that they acted on behalf of the Russian government which is a huge stumbling block, Propaganda does not affect court proceedings. Just like the mayor of London cant be considered an American even though he was born in the US and hold a US passport.

    Many of the things you mentioned works because like 911 where the US forced everyone to accept their version of things, without showing any proof. They mostly force the justice department to reject anyone questioning the governments version but that only works in the US for now. The EU is neck deep in this fiasco considering it was merkels plan for a greater German empire. The world has their own legal system, but they need proof.. US has no proof so only thing they can do is use force against those with them to go along. The world is not just the US/EU.. I am sure even the Chinese would be careful since they also have a restless population that ants their own country, siding with another country that foments such things would make them nervous. India another such country, When Russians tell Indian leaders they are not doing it, its taken as money in the gold vault. There has to be honesty and trust.. If Russia is doing a Pakistan, no one will trust them.

    Also remember, in time the truth will come out. We know not to take anything the US says at face value. Now we dont even take what the EU says at face value, in fact we believe they are lying about everything and without proof nothing they say matter. More and more people will now not take it for granted when Europeans come bearing gifts.. Most will wonder what poison is in the cookies..

    In less than 10 years, an entire race of people have turned in lying deceitful cretins and the people living there let it happen without a fight. Even their allies are very nervous because they don't know where they stand. Nice reassuring words are meaningless.

    When Iran says, invading Syria is an act that would be the same as invading Iran. Anyone doubt that? I highly doubt the convictions of EU/nato....

    Alien Tech said...

    Gary said... and here is a far better answer... The underlying tactics of each side.. And why one side does something and the other does things differently. Even if both wants the same outcome.

    While US support for the coup in Kiev could be analyzed from the perspective of traditional imperialism with the US seeking to impose its will and ensure that its will overrides others, even that of regional powers, the way it has managed to convince many in the West of the righteousness of its cause and in its support of the Kiev post-coup government, was due to an appeal to the Western sense of justice and law with Russia being presented as an aggressor and violator. Furthermore, Russia was presented as practicing the "laws of the jungle" as Angela Merkel put it, and therefore as a barbarian.

    If one wishes to understand the crisis and its nature, it is necessary to analyze the respective mentalities of each side.

    The rule of law is held sacred as it is the mechanism by which the market operates, even when the law serves to strengthen the control of corporations over the lives of ordinary people. Within this framework, the creation of an independent, rational actor, who must live for his or her own sake and seek to express his worth via his external accomplishments, is the hallmark of the Western civilization. and yet does not have the support of a larger community to a degree more common in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

    The individual in the West is judged solely on his accomplishments and not on his internal value as a human being. For this reason, he is constantly insecure and seeks to prove himself. The easiest way one can feel secure about himself, therefore, is by seeing how he is better than others, and ways in which he is superior. Therefore, by pointing at how he is better than others, more moral than them, more professional and so on, he feels better about himself and is secure.

    Western history, especially of the UK, US, Germany, it is replete with aggressive expansion, imperialism, bloodshed, colonialism, exploitation and slavery. wars conducted by the US and UK have continued and intensified in recent decades. The Western mentality, still holds that the West is better than all other 'oppressive' countries, despite the fact that the latter did not engage in bombing campaigns of 'backward' countries.

    Therefore, it is all too convenient for it to point a finger at Russia for violating international law By blaming Russia, the West feels better about itself.

    Although strong ties in the community have weakened in Russia in the past two decades, the individual is still not viewed wholly as an atom who lives for his own fulfillment, but as one who belongs to a community and a nation, and must live for a moral purpose.

    Russians tend to be very critical of themselves in how well they live up to certain standards and are not too comfortable with themselves in the way Westerners tend to be.

    In Russia, despite the image of immense corruption that is common in how Westerners view it, friendship usually comes before career. People will go out of their way to help a friend in most cases, even at their expense of their professional development, in the Russian mentality, basic decency is to be generally respected and people are not to be humiliated or mocked without mercy unless in exceptional cases as a response to an aggressive action.

    What is true for the individual is also true for the society at large.

    Alien Tech said...

    Gary said... and here is a far better answer... The underlying tactics of each side.. And why one side does something and the other does things differently. Even if both wants the same outcome.

    While US support for the coup in Kiev could be analyzed from the perspective of traditional imperialism with the US seeking to impose its will and ensure that its will overrides others, even that of regional powers, the way it has managed to convince many in the West of the righteousness of its cause and in its support of the Kiev post-coup government, was due to an appeal to the Western sense of justice and law with Russia being presented as an aggressor and violator. Furthermore, Russia was presented as practicing the "laws of the jungle" as Angela Merkel put it, and therefore as a barbarian.

    If one wishes to understand the crisis and its nature, it is necessary to analyze the respective mentalities of each side.

    The rule of law is held sacred as it is the mechanism by which the market operates, even when the law serves to strengthen the control of corporations over the lives of ordinary people. Within this framework, the creation of an independent, rational actor, who must live for his or her own sake and seek to express his worth via his external accomplishments, is the hallmark of the Western civilization. and yet does not have the support of a larger community to a degree more common in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

    The individual in the West is judged solely on his accomplishments and not on his internal value as a human being. For this reason, he is constantly insecure and seeks to prove himself. The easiest way one can feel secure about himself, therefore, is by seeing how he is better than others, and ways in which he is superior. Therefore, by pointing at how he is better than others, more moral than them, more professional and so on, he feels better about himself and is secure.

    Wstern history, especially of the UK, US, Germany, it is replete with aggressive expansion, imperialism, bloodshed, colonialism, exploitation and slavery. wars conducted by the US and UK have continued and intensified in recent decades. The Western mentality, still holds that the West is better than all other 'oppressive' countries, despite the fact that the latter did not engage in bombing campaigns of 'backward' countries.

    Therefore, it is all too convenient for it to point a finger at Russia for violating international law By blaming Russia, the West feels better about itself.

    Although strong ties in the community have weakened in Russia in the past two decades, the individual is still not viewed wholly as an atom who lives for his own fulfillment, but as one who belongs to a community and a nation, and must live for a moral purpose.

    Russians tend to be very critical of themselves in how well they live up to certain standards and are not too comfortable with themselves in the way Westerners tend to be.

    In Russia, despite the image of immense corruption that is common in how Westerners view it, friendship usually comes before career. People will go out of their way to help a friend in most cases, even at their expense of their professional development, in the Russian mentality, basic decency is to be generally respected and people are not to be humiliated or mocked without mercy unless in exceptional cases as a response to an aggressive action.

    What is true for the individual is also true for the society at large.

    In the Russian view, US overt recognition and support for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, its support of an unconstitutional coup in Kiev, and its defense of it later, is not only an insult but also a betrayal. It was seen not only as an act of breaking all norms and laws and in posing a direct danger for Russia and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but also as a betrayal of the worse kind in which the other side has shown clearly that it holds nothing sacred.

    http://syncreticstudies.com/2015/02/15/the-battle-of-wills-between-the-west-and-russia-which-side-will-win/

    Gary said...

    Perhaps Russia feared another Afghanistan quagmire, where US/NATO could launch a guerrilla war against them and keep attacking them and costing them. That would be a logical fear to keep out.

    But if they moved in-moved out, turned over border defense to Donbass, that wouldn't happen.

    McMurtry calls Ukraine, "the biggest ethnic cleansing operation of the millennium."

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41051.htm

    And that doesn't justify military intervention? If not what does? I keep going back to the talk I heard from Romeo Dallaire, head of UN in Rwanda.

    Put the shoe on the other foot. If Americans or US business interests in, I don't know, say Panama, Grenada, or Cuba were threatened, would the US hesitate to invade to protect them? Oh yeah I forgot, they DID invade those countries.

    eimar clark

    Very well said. I wonder if the obsession with 'proving oneself' as a superior individual (the ubermensch who must make untermensch of others, since this valuation must be relative) has it's roots in aristocratic primogeniture?

    Once the heir was produced, the 'spare' - or more - had no entitlement. Many of then went abroad to colonize other lands as a result. That insecurity led to am obsession with control - and the political pathologies of, lets say, the apartheid state of South Africa. The absence of roots or sense of belonging and the lack me connection to family may very well have generated a 'race' of the 'rootless' - and so became ruthless.

    It's a possibility, don't you think ?

    Selected comments form M of A Biden Donates Counter Mortar Radar To Russian Weapon Exhibition

    Charles | Feb 20, 2015 5:29:47 PM | 8

    The loss of Debaltsevo is an enormous and well-deserved embarrassment for Kiev. But my feeling is that it's not quite the disaster the rebels are claiming. Here's my analysis, which I admit is just a layman's read of the situation. I'm guesstimating 30% KIA/WIA/captured, with most of the discrepancy being due to desertion, and a loss of 50-70% of their mechanized equipment and heavy weaponry.

    Meanwhile, it's the rebels and their families whose homes have been destroyed and who are surviving on crumbs. It doesn't look like a great victory to me. Though it might be enough to force Kiev to grant limited autonomy to the Donbas, as prescribed in Minsk 2.

    Anyway, I am outsourcing further analysis to Moon. This is a very difficult story to follow, especially for this non-Russian speaker.

    Demian | Feb 20, 2015 5:43:36 PM | 11

    Edifying video in which one first sees Ukrainian soldiers alive, and then one sees them dead. Ukrainian soldiers make football hooligans come across as opera goers.
    Demian | Feb 20, 2015 6:15:54 PM | 15
    Here's a Polish map of what Europe will look like. According to this conception, a rump Banderastan centered around Kiev will remain. But it remains to be seen whether any trace of Banderastan will remain. By allowing themselves to be tricked by Obama and Victoria Nuland, thus showing their true fascist nature, Ukrainians lost their right to having any kind of country, no matter how tiny.
    Demian | Feb 20, 2015 6:34:24 PM | 17

    @S-true #14:

    If I were Russia, and WW3 does indeed come (which it seems it will), I'd target Germany first.

    Yes, but you're not Russia. The Russians are inveterate Germanophiles. Even though I have said that Merkel's conduct in this crisis has been more disgusting than Obama's, I still can't hold anything against Germany.

    Germany and Russia have deep cultural affinities, whereas the Anglosphere is alien to both of them. This has been obscured by Germany's nature being temporarily effaced by its current American occupation.

    S-true | Feb 20, 2015 6:35:11 PM | 18

    Here's a Polish map of what Europe will look like. According to this conception, a rump Banderastan centered around Kiev will remain. But it remains to be seen whether any trace of Banderastan will remain. By allowing themselves to be tricked by Obama and Victoria Nuland, thus showing their true fascist nature, Ukrainians lost their right to having any kind of country, no matter how tiny.

    Screw that!
    Kiev is "the mother of all Russian cities", and ending up in "Banderistan" ain't feasible. Many mighty empires throughout history have fallen, and the Bandera/ISIS/Israel backers are no different...they'll fall too.

    Besides, anything that's coming from Poland or has an "Euro" prefix isn't something that should be taken seriously. It's Monty Python stuff.

    This whole Ukraine/Syria/Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia mess was a true eye-opener for me!

    Demian | Feb 20, 2015 7:11:41 PM | 23

    @Lochearn #16:

    I see some young guys laughing and joking

    Yes, that is a large part of the problem. Ukrainians see exterminating Russians as fun and a laughing matter. There are countless posts on social media in which Ukrainians laugh and express glee about Ukrainians massacring innocent Russian civilians. That began with the Odessa Union Building massacre, in which Ukrainians joked on social media about the Colorados getting barbecued. This is what makes Ukrainians more ineffably evil than the original Nazis.

    @chuckvw #20:

    Look like the guys I served with many moons ago, trying to laugh off an effed up situation. Pawns in a game over which they have no control.

    This is not like US grunts killing Vietnamese. It is like boys from New Jersey thinking that killing Bostonians is a fun joke. Would you have any sympathy with such people? Their being branewashed by their educational system and mass media does not exculpate them. If they had any grain of basic human decency, they would not think that killing their own people is a joke.

    [Feb 18, 2015] CrossTalk: Cold-shoulder War (ft. Graham Allison)

    Feb 18, 2015 | https://www.youtube.com
    Warren , February 18, 2015 at 1:12 pm

    Published on 18 Feb 2015

    Is the West and Russia face off over Ukraine, it is fair to ask whether this conflict represents a much larger struggle. Are we actually witnessing the Third World War being played out? If this is in fact true, what kind of war is it and who is winning?

    CrossTalking with George Szamuely, John Laughland, and Graham Allison.

    [Feb 18, 2015] Debacle at Debaltsevo Calls For a New Approach to Ukraine

    February 18, 2015 | CIPS
    Before coming up with solutions it is first advisable to determine the nature of the problem. Right now the United States is considering sending arms to Ukraine, while here in Canada the Defence Minister, Jason Kenney, has been mulling the deployment of Canadian soldiers to train the Ukrainian Army. But is a lack of arms or training the real reason for the Ukrainian Army's defeats?

    Western countries' obsession with Russia has deluded them into thinking that Ukraine's problems are entirely the fault of Russian malevolence, and has blinded them into ignoring the role played by the Ukrainian government's incompetence.

    To answer that question, it is worth looking at what has been happening in the town of Debaltsevo, where a large Ukrainian contingent, possibly several thousand strong, was encircled by rebel forces. The government in Kiev has repeatedly denied that its troops were surrounded, but even Ukrainian military journalists acknowledge that the main road out of Debaltsevo is in rebel hands and that troops of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics have captured most of the town, as well as a substantial number of prisoners. On the night of February 17-18, a large part of the garrison escaped through gaps in rebel lines, but Ukrainian sources report heavy casualties in the process. Substantial quantities of equipment have been destroyed or have fallen into rebel hands. Ukraine has suffered a serious defeat.

    How did the Ukrainians end up in this mess? The answer is not a lack of weapons. They had plenty in Debaltsevo and the surrounding area. Nor is a lack of training to blame. For sure, the Ukrainian soldiers are not as well trained as those of Western armies, but neither are the rebels. The evidence suggests that those surrounded in Debaltsevo fought bravely and for the most part effectively. It is not the fault of the soldiers that they were encircled.

    Rather, it is the fault of Ukraine's highest level political and military leaders. The rebel plan to cut the supply lines to Debaltsevo was no secret. The rebels proclaimed it openly. Moreover, their plan did not succeed instantaneously, but took several weeks.

    The Ukrainian high command had plenty of time to withdraw its troops to safety long before it did. Instead, it buried its head in the sand and repeatedly denied that there was a problem. Reports suggest that during the recent peace negotiations in Minsk, President Poroshenko of Ukraine and President Putin of Russia spent many hours arguing over whether Debaltsevo was encircled. Poroshenko insisted that it was not and claimed, therefore, that no provision was needed in the peace settlement for the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops. After the agreement at Minsk was signed, the rebels offered the Ukrainians safe passage out of Debaltsevo. The offer was rejected. Ukraine's leaders had the opportunity to save their men, but they did not take it, incorrectly believing that they could still hold onto the town. They could not. Many lives were lost unnecessarily.

    This is not a unique occurrence. Last July, Ukrainian soldiers were similarly surrounded in a zone which the rebels called the 'southern cauldron', a thin corridor about 60 kilometres long south of the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk. Again, this disaster was not only predictable but predicted. As early as the start of July, the Ukrainian General Staff warned of a coming 'catastrophe' and suggested that the army abandon the sector in question. It was overruled, the troops were surrounded, many were killed, hundreds more surrendered, and large quantities of equipment were lost.

    In short, Ukraine's defeats are the result of dismal leadership rather than a want of weapons or training. Unfortunately, Western countries' obsession with Russia has deluded them into thinking that Ukraine's problems are entirely the fault of Russian malevolence, and has blinded them into ignoring the role played by the Ukrainian government's incompetence.

    To date, the policy of Canada and its allies has been to change Russian behaviour by means of sanctions. But Ukrainian behaviour also needs changing: in particular, Kiev has to abandon all hopes of military victory and face the reality that it must negotiate directly with the rebels in order to enact the constitutional reform required in the latest Minsk agreement. Our influence on Russia is very limited. We do, however, have leverage over Ukraine, and can hope to change its behaviour. Rather than giving unconditional support, we should start trying to effect that change.


    Canada's Sharpest International Affairs Commentary
    Don't miss future posts on the CIPS Blog. Subscribe to our email newsletter.

    See also:

    [Feb 15, 2015] Ron Paul: Ukraine Coup Planned By Nato And EU

    Ron Paul: "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out." Quote from comments: "That is where anyone who does not believe that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent mess Ukraine has become."
    Feb 15, 2015 | zerohedge.com

    As Ron Paul recently exclaimed, the war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American citizens. So we thought the followingg 90 seconds of 'pure Paul' would provide a refreshingly different perspective as he explains, "I'm not pro-Russia, I'm not pro-Putin, I'm pro-facts."

    "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G93SlyJIQSg

    As Ron Paul previously concluded:

    Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military presence in this region than Brian Williams.

    Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives and the military industrial complex.

    ...

    The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it's in the Middle East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.

    ekm1

    Where are the facts Mr Ron Paul?

    Ron Paul is making up stuff in order to sell products to disciples.

    Coup in Ukraine was staged by Putin via Yanukovych. Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.

    Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.

    What happened was the counter coup, which yes, was urged by USA and nato

    cigarEngineer

    EKM1, how is the air conditioning at US Misinformation Warfare Headquarters? Do you get paid weekly or bi-weekly? Then again, at $15/hr, who cares, right...

    Ignatius

    Lying for a living. Don't he know that politics pays better? Maybe he's just packin' his resume.

    Winston Churchill

    EKM just graduated to my do not bother to read comment list.

    Maybe PPT really stands for Piss Poor Trolls.

    Calmyourself

    British Battalion 77 peter puffers have arrived.. EKM, which barracks you out of? I am sure you will tell us next multiculturism is strengthing Britain..

    Jack Burton

    Winston, I don't know if you have noticed, but over the last few months the State Department Internet posters have moved away from ZH. Perhaps they consider us a lost cause. But some months back they were still very active here, posting sometimes dozens of State Department talking points, but winning no converts. As of late, they have withdrawn to troll more mainstream blogs and News Paper comments sections.

    The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one channel propaganda. Never before has media told so many demonstrable lies in so short a time. The transparent lies have begun to catch many people's attention. The script they read from is not at all clever or well thought out. The script is terribly transparent, and so easily proved to be lies.

    So, will this new war propaganda win? So far I say it's 75 yes, 25% no. So many Americans just lap up the lies without trying to get the real story. Fools have been

    TungstenBars

    "The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one channel propaganda."

    I agree 100% with this; more and more people are seeing the US state sponsored propaganda for what it is.

    In regards to "So, will this new war propaganda win?":

    I stated here before that the secondary objective of modern state sponsored propaganda in the west is to gain popular support, but the main objective is to send out the "offical accepted version of world events", meaning that it does not matter if 99% of Americans do not believe it. So long as America does not erupt in a civil war, what the state sponsored media says stands and nothing else matters and will be ignored. Anyone asking questions or causing trouble will be pointed to or judged based on that propaganda as if it was truth. Pretty much 1984.

    angel_of_joy

    He's from Toronto... the navel of the Universe (in their own opinion). Their view of the world is somewhat distorted, and "potted"...

    TungstenBars

    The state-sponsored anti-russian propaganda in Canada is in overdrive. Harper has gone full retard and traitor to appease to certain foreign interests.

    Most people don't believe the nonsense whatsoever. EKM, I don't get why he is so special as to actually believe it. He speaks for no-one.

    Jack Burton

    Canada just happened to be where the allies shipped the Ukrainian Nazis and SS veterans after World War II. The allies knew their strong anti communist and anti Russia bent, so figured to save as many as possible to form the useful agents they and their families now are. Harper is feeding those Western Ukrainian trolls and they in turn help ramp up public opinion into fever pitch.

    I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!

    Why does the west feed this war fever, and why the coup in the first place? War allows the public to be stripped of tax revenues, it allows national security to trump privacy and freedom, and it allows politicians to claim a patriotic mandate to rule us. Plus corporate profits and stocks are off the charts money makers.

    Spitzer

    This is true. They are scattered all over alberta and Sk. I met one recently that was bragging about cross burnings in Provost. Provost is a nazi ukranian KKK town

    Latina Lover

    Quoting Jack Burton:

    "I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!"

    I couldn't have said better myself. As a former grunt who saw some action when I was young and very stupid, any idiot advocating violence against others should put their money where their mouth is and lead by example.

    Instead we have this hypocrite drone army, spewing endless BS to induce others to die for their shabby causes, cowards hiding behind keyboards. To hell with all of them!

    schadenfreude

    http://www.kas.de/ukraine/en/publications/21063/

    This is from Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung a NOG from Germany. So this mght be propaganda or not. In fact there never were real elections Ukraine ever. Lawful was not one government there.

    giovanni_f

    Konrad-Adenauer-Siftung is anything but an unbiased organisation. Actually it is a transatlantic networking group in the business to spread neocon messages in Germany. The page you refer to does not contain ANY actual, proven issue but just the general out-of-the-air claim that the elections didn't meet demoratic standards.

    Try harder, Neocon troll.

    El Vaquero

    Are you claiming that Ron Paul was wrong when he said that we had a recording of the assistant US secretary of state and the US ambassador to Ukraine discussing who is going to take power in Ukraine BEFORE the coup in Ukraine?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIvRljAaNgg


    ekm1

    Nuland did the right thing. It prepared the counter coup against Putin's coup

    El Vaquero

    Yes, Nuland took part in starting a civil war that has killed innocent people. That is obviously the right thing. Civil war is good for the people, or didn't people realize that?

    JESUS! FUCK!

    EU-Ukraine-Russia trade deals are NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS!

    BlindMonkey

    so the Nazi Ukies could have gone about their protests by peaceful means but Nazis gonna Nazi and tortured, burned, raped and stole their merry way across the countryside. Even the Ukies have had enough of their shit and have tried to pull them back at various times just to see the Nazis flex and storm the buildings of their own gov.

    As I write this I am wondering what ahit are you trying to pull? You don't seem to be a satire artist like MDB. Paid troll? Maybe. I don't see how anyone can objectively read the news and come to the same conclusions as you.

    El Vaquero

    That is some seriously fucked up reasoning. The US did the right thing by kicking off something that was inevetable and accomplished nothing except putting the US and Russia closer to war, which, BTW would go nuclear. You call that the right thing?

    You're fucking nuts. This should be none of the US's fucking business. I'm sick of sending our soldiers over to die for somebody else's cause. Why don't you Eastern Europeans solve your own fucking problems?

    ekm1

    USA is now the business of world police. Becoming a soldier is the safest way of employment.

    World security is USA's export now. There is no other way, for now.

    Soldiers know very well they will end up in interventions, but they like the money and the thrill of it.

    Nobody forces young people to enroll. The money and the thrill entice them to

    El Vaquero

    So you want the USA to solve your problems? Being globo-cop is proving to be an unethical gig for the US, and should stop.

    And have you ever heard a US soldier talk about how they were defending the US in our interventionist wars? I have. They actually believe it. Young people don't know what they are signing up for, and often they fail to realize what they have done after they are finished.

    So, again, why can't you Eastern Euroopeans solve your own fucking problems? You know that the US is not going to be able to backstop you forever. What then?

    ekm1

    Yes. I've spoken with many. Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it

    El Vaquero

    Gee, that must explain the excessively high suicide rate amongst US vets.

    ThroxxOfVron

    "Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it "

    I believe it. Oh, the gory glory. Oh, the rush of being tough and exerting power.

    ...& dumb women love a douche with a paycheck in a tidy uniform.

    angel_of_joy

    That love generally stops suddenly when they come to suffer the consequences of their choice (i.e. the possibility of getting maimed or dying in combat).

    The military is a wonderful (state supported and encouraged) vehicle for crass freeloading, until a war happens. Then, a soldier's personal ROI becomes dramatically (even terminally, for many) NEGATIVE !

    The_Prisoner

    Course they do. They're sociopaths like you to whom only personal gain, even at the cost of murdering others whom just want to live their lives is justified.

    g speed

    A lot of these kids just do what their parents want them to do---very sad---kids come home with no legs and look at dad and ask why?

    green888

    Dispute resolution ? Kill someone is your only way- look at your films, entertainment; there is a bad guy and then the "good guy" kills him. It has all become part of your psyche, as ultimately any of your disputes has to be resolved in this way; but the resentment you leave behind has a price.

    If you complain about others, you should go home and conduct a self examination.

    RichardParker

    EKM1:

    You want to know what your masters think of the military?

    POS Kissinger actually told the truth for once when he explained how ""Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy."

    JustUsChickensHere

    Somebody seems to have hacked the ekm1 account. He was always sort of necon, but never this blatantly wacko before.

    El Vaquero

    He's Eastern European. I suspect that some deep cultural hatred of the Russians going back a century or 5 has something to do with it. I want nothing to do with that tribal mentality bullshit when it comes to a potential US-Russia confrontation because I don't want to see mushroom clouds over Kirtland AFB with my own eyes. Call me crazy for that.

    TheFourthStooge-ing

    He's Albanian, which makes him half Latvian, half Polack, and half Bulgoslovenakian.

    OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

    WTF you fascist, the world does not want or need American storm troopers telling them how to run their lives for the benefit of America. History is a story of lesser powers uniting to oppose tyranny and eventually winning, this will be no different. Get the fuck back in your cave deep in exceptionalist Anglo-American fantasy land and leave the rest of the world the fuck alone.

    reload

    @EKM

    'world security'

    Right: let's have a little stock take shall we of those recent lucky nations receiving the security export.

    • Iraq
    • Libya
    • Egypt
    • Yemen
    • Ukraine
    • Somalia

    Notice the trend? All places of great insecurity due to US led attempts to insert or maintain puppet client governments whose purpose is to loot their host countries.

    You used to make sense on some issues, even when you were needlessly cryptic you were thought provoking. Hell, you even called for oil to trade with a $40 handle even though your reasoning was off, it Has happened.

    You have lost the plot tonight.

    Libertarian777

    because... Putin wants to rule a basket case? that's why he started a civil war?

    I haven't heard any logical arguments for why Putin would want to take over the Ukraine. Next I'll hear he wants to take over Greece. For what purpose? Cos he wants their monuments? Or does he like their national debt and 30 hour workweek?

    The Russians are saying they are intervening to protect Russian people. The West claims Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet Union.

    On the other hand the west is trying to expand NATO up to Russia's border (think of it as a 'western union').

    So even if Putin wants to recreate the USSR, why is it 'bad' when he wants to do it, but 'OK' when the west wants to do it? What is the distinction? Let me guess... human rights? Well the USA with a population of 330 million has MORE people incarcerated than CHINA with 1.2 BILLION people. (4x). Where's the 'human rights'?

    How many countries has Russia invaded. I'll even give you Crimea, so Crimea and Georgia.. that's 2.

    How many countries has the USA invaded... Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia.

    I can't follow the logic.

    LocalBoy

    NATO / IMF controlling Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, is instant suicide for Russia.
    Their choice was give in or fight. War became inevitable when NATO expanded toward Russia -

    It is well known that Russia will not give up Sevastopol, will not give up Ukraine to a foreign military alliance.

    lasvegaspersona

    'Nuland did the right thing'...sure...unless you believe in that whole 'democracy' thingy.

    An elected government was overthrown in violent protests that it appears the US organized and aided.

    This was done because NATO was displeased that the Ukes were not willing to move closer to the EU.

    NATO has shamelessly disregarded the agreements made way back when Gorby was in charge. They have place missiles in Poland fer-cryin-out loud.

    I think if I were Putin (and Russia) I'd be worried.

    chinoslims

    That's a bingo!!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5pESPQpXxE

    will ling

    ah, nuland, mccrazy, kristol, et al , are "just soft" war criminals.

    ebworthen

    Oh ekm 1, puhleease! Yanukovych was elected by the people of Ukraine.

    How is an elected leader ousted by pro a EU Maidan which is supported by: the EU, NATO, our State Department, and meddling U.S. Senators - a coup by Putin?

    What is it you are smoking to make you believe such a thing?

    El Vaquero

    Observable facts do not matter to the narrative. Most will not look at them anyway. Putin could be the most evil sonofabitch the world has ever seen, and that still would not justify our destabilizing Ukraine.

    Element

    You realize Ukraine was totally broke well before any of this? Deeply in debt, big bills to pay, pooched economy? That sound stable to you?

    The reason Yanukovych was trying to obtain an association with the EU at all was because Ukraine was so broke and desperate for a new sugar daddy.

    And Yanukovych definitely would have gone that way too, if the IMF had not tried to fuck Ukraine so badly that Yanukovych was forced to walk away as it was national financial suicide to accept the terms Legarde wanted to inflict.

    The real source of the instability was Ukraine's own mess.

    What came next was just the rush to get the best bits of the carcass.

    So who was doing, or rather had already done, the destabilizing of the country?

    El Vaquero

    Yes, Ukraine was a corrupt broke mess. Why the fuck were our politicians over there? Why were they acting as though they knew that "Yats" was going to be the new PM? Why the fuck was John Brennan over there? What fucking business is it of ours?

    Miffed Microbio...

    The time will end for us as Global Cop as it always has in history. This is assured. However, only after millions have died during the posturing. And those who have played this role have never risen to that status again.

    This country will pay, including the innocents who were against the whole thing in the first place. We just get to watch while others distract themselves with amusements and trinkets.

    It is not our business now nor ever was. Why Ron Paul wasnt elected just blows my mind. That was our last hope for redemption.

    Miffed

    chinoslims

    It's not global cop. It's global robbery.

    El Vaquero

    Haven't you been paying attention to policing in the US lately? Civil asset forefitures plus shooting people because they dared to turn their back on the police while holding a plastic spoon means that cops and robbers are often one in the same.

    TheFourthStooge-ing

    The term you're looking for is protection racket.

    Element

    Nicely said, I see you have no trouble coming to terms with it, must be trauma ward experience kicking in.

    Miffed Microbiologist

    I accept the reality of it but this is no means a personal relief of my own responcibilities as a participant nor is it an escape into futility of action. Yes, if omnipotent, I would end this fast but since I am woefully lacking in such power I must content myself to personal and local rebellion. I hope others will join me at some point but it is always unwise to count on others.

    Americans have become slothful and content in their status in the world. It is ending now but few truly perceive it being subtle at this stage. When one is unconcerned about the atrocities this country is perpetuating on its own citizens or those in other nations, be it overt attacks or political maneuvering, then ones humanity is lost. I am not sure if it can be truly recovered. We brand our leaders as psychopathic but we should examine our own hearts as well.

    Yes, the inward trauma ward is not very pleasant. ;-)

    Miffed

    Element

    You don't really need a lesson on how geopolitics is played do you? I'll give you credit and presume you don't. But you better start to get real about this ElV, it isn't going to go away via wishes and idealism.

    It is real, and it is ugly, and it is about survival, or else not, and you do have to accept that it's happening and face it as it is, not how you would wish it to be.

    And that's all the slack I'm ever cut you on this topic.

    El Vaquero

    Serious question: Do you support a war with Russia? Because that is a very real danger with the kind of geopolitics being played today.

    Element

    Of course not.

    That said, it appears one key Russian does support war with NATO, given actions speak louder than words. It won't take long to find out if Putin is effectively suicidal. I think he's certainly become erratic over the past year, and made unexpectedly bad choices and extraordinary mistakes. I've been amazed by how badly he's done. So if this goes pear-shaped his recent judgement and decision-making under pressure doesn't inspire confidence.

    There's a moderate to reasonably good chance we're stuffed.

    The_Prisoner

    That's very magnanimous of you.

    You must have patience with us peons. Not all of us went to Duntroon and had the honor of serving the Empire.

    Thanks again, milord.

    Calmyourself

    Yanukovych pivoted to Russia for a saving loan and then what happened when he did not take money from EU bankers to prolong their party, that's right Nuland showed up to kick his ass out.. Get with the everlasting gobstopper of debt program or get "destabilized"

    Volkodav

    Yanuk was only thief, not open murderer... He also Ukrainian, not outsider alien passport gang

    Hefar lesser heavy handed than the "Red" mafia now in Kiev..who prove themselves killers.

    schadenfreude

    With all the propaganda dished out to the people it's difficult to know who staged what. But at least there are some facts, where eyerybody can draw conclusions.

    • French, German and Polish foreign ministers negotiated a deal with Yanukovich to have elections in September 2014. In the evening after this deal people on Maidan Sq. got shot. This caused the putsch against the government.
    • So the trigger was the shooting on Maidan Sq. which was never really investigated.
    • All actions afterwards was reaction and counter-reaction by the involved parties.
    • Nulands phone call is fact as well. This is an evidence of US involvement. Whether they initiated the shootings or Yanukovichs people for me is not proven, but likely. Why should Yanukovich do this, a couple of hours after he signed a deal with EU?

    Chupacabra-322

    Let's also not forget Criminal Psychopath / Sociopath Nuland's 5 Billion Dollar Fascist investment

    Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs

    US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: "Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine's European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. " Nuland said the United States will continue to "promote Ukraine to the future it deserves."

    HowdyDoody

    Not to mention the repeated strange coincidence that the Nazi violence ramps up after visits from major US/CIA gov actors.

    geno-econ

    Nuland has admitted publicaly that State Dept has spent $ 5 Billion influencing Kiev regime change over last several years. Granted much of this was in form of encouraging ex-patriots here in States, propaganda directed towards Ukrainian citizens and aide money. Only people in government know how much was allocated for actual arms but everyone knows the activities of Neocons in Washington.

    The point is the US encourages regime change and recently has had a dismal record of failure and huge wasteful spending.

    Just look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Georgia, Yeman and now Ukraine. Ron Paul is correct.

    nailgunnin4you

    Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.

    I think coup d'état is a little strong here, which American talking head has you recycling this verbal diarrhoea? Only a war-mongering murrican would say establishing a better trade deal for your country is a coup d'état.

    Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.

    So, in your bubble, a country's leader can only establish trade deals/policies/legislature et cetera that he campaigned on, and anything else he did not take to a previous election is a coup d'état even if it is a simple trade deal benefitting the people?

    You're not this stupid, please stop.

    JustObserving
    Ron Paul: Ukraine Coup Planned By Nato And EU

    Of course. Maidan terrorists were trained months before in Poland:

    Ukraine: Poland trained putchists two months in advance

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article183373.html

    And now USA and Ukraine are destroying the new ceasefire:

    US and Ukrainian officials seek to torpedo Minsk cease-fire agreement

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/02/14/ukra-f14.html

    q99x2

    If the NWO is successful in killing Ukranian's it won't be long before they start killing Americans. Globalists are traitors against all nations.

    Element

    Great sentiments and rhetoric, not much else, as what he's calling for is the end of US involvement in NATO. OK, what then?

    US forces have to leave Europe ... completely, the lot. But Europe is most definitely not going to butt-out of the changing of borders in Ukraine using Russian force and support.

    He seems to want to ignore that Russia is in fact attacking Ukraine, has stolen its navy, has taken Crimea, and has tried to carve off more and more of Eastern Ukraine, even in the past couple of days.

    "I'm pro-facts."

    OK, but are you also prepared to accept the implications and imperatives that those facts, Ron?

    SMC

    OK, what then?

    PEACE

    Element

    Peace since WWII involved the "balance of terror" of MAD. It is a BALANCE of forces and strategy and position.

    Change the balance radically and the strategic game changes radically, i.e. not-peace. And it happens in multiple locations.

    rejected

    Fact: Crimea was 'gifted' to Ukraine in the 1950's by crazy Khrushchev without a plebiscite.

    Fact: Crimea voted for reunification when given the chance.

    Fact: Ukraine only owned the Sevastopol Navel base by the graciousness of Russia.Russia even paid for a lease.

    Fact: The Ukrainian Navy was allowed to exit Sevastopol after the reunification vote. Why would Russia want their junk?

    Fact: Sevastopol would never have been given up by Russia regardless of the reunification vote just as the USSA refuses to leave Guantanamo.

    Fact: Russia has given Ukraine control of all the borders including the break away provinces with the new Minsk agreement.

    Fact: You are full of shit.

    Element

    Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.

    Fact: Crimea being Ukrainian territory is recognized by the overwhelming majority of countries on Earth.

    Deal with it.

    angel_of_joy

    UN does not recognize the Kosovo entity, but it still exists. UN din't sanction the entire war against Serbia, but it still took place.

    Reality is different than UN's view of the world, and the realities on the ground in Ukraine are changing as we speak. Deal with it !

    rejected

    Fact: The UN is not a sovereign state.

    Fact: The UN is funded mainly by the U.S

    Fact: The UN has no authority to recognize any state.

    Fact: The UN 'supposedly' supports self determination by it's very charter.

    Fact: You are still full of shit.

    Element

    Chancellor Merkel: (a few days ago)
    "One particular priority was given to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia this morning. We stand up for the same principles of inviolability of territorial integrity. For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if we give up this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of Europe that we've been able to achieve. This is not just any old point, it's an essential, a crucial point, and we have to stand by it. And Russia has violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine in two respects: in Crimea, and also in Donetsk and Luhansk.

    So we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of a mediator, but we also stand up for the interests of the European peaceful order. And this is what the French President and I have been trying to do over the past few days. We're going to continue those efforts.

    And I'm very grateful that throughout the Ukraine crisis, we have been in very, very close contact with the United States of America and Europe on sanctions, on diplomatic initiatives. And this is going to be continued. And I think that's, indeed, one of the most important messages we can send to Russia, and need to send to Russia.

    We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks. These days we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. I've always said I don't see a military solution to this conflict, but we have to put all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. ..."

    i.e. Europe doesn't want the US to leave, and Washington does not want the US to leave either.

    SO THE USA IS NOT LEAVING EUROPE

    Get it?

    Both consider this to be in their vital interests.

    So these also are the facts of the situation, and you can try to ignore these facts, because you do not like them, you do not like the ugliness of geopolitics, but that changes nothing about geopolitics.

    All I'm doing here is pointing that out.

    So cry a river of tears if you think it changes anything, or that if merely I changed my mind, it would make you less pissy and aggrieved.

    But those facts of this situation, will remain.

    That's where Ron Paul, and people like you, have your heads rammed firmly up your butts, screaming to mother to make it all go away.

    And I understand (perfectly) why you would want the world to be different than it is, but it simply isn't going to be.

    Now seriously, grow up and try to cope with that, rhetorical fantasies don't help.

    Volkodav

    bored. Chancellor Merkel sang differently about Kosovo.

    Victory_Garden

    "Both consider this to be in their vital interests."

    Good sir, who's interests? Certainly you do not refer to the average American.

    From this heart, how does the extreme waste of manpower and money and MIC profit pumping for moar bankster profits become a "vital interest" to we, the average Americans? How is that "in their vital interest" to the rest of the world? All the warmongering for profits, world domination, and population elimination is NOT interesting, or in the better "interests" of America and the world's people at all.

    How can you justify the out right blatant murder of innocents, women, and children for the moneygod? Whose really vitally interested in that? Constant never ending warmongering in foreign lands is NOT the choice of real truth following Americans at all, nor in their best interests. It is ONLY for evil zionist/luciferian/sataninc interests and NO covering up that FACT will change this truth.

    Darn, never thought about disagree with you before, for your truth really lit the Way for many here once ago.

    From this perspective, if they were to go after the evil bankster empire of chaotic dust in Europe, THAT would be of "vital interest" to the freedom loving American people. In fact, the world would rejoice if ALL these evil things were rounded up and placed on an island in the middle of the ocean to do what they will. Good riddance say we all! War is of NO vital interest to anyone. It just does not work.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGpwKQo5_Z0

    Ventnor

    Element,

    Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours. He will play his long game and he will prevail.

    It could mean the end of your beloved NATO, which will have no viable purpose if it cannot dragoon Ukraine into its ranks so as to encircle and ultimately destroy Russia.

    It could also mean the end of the the EU, but that appears to be coming apart at the seams anyway.

    You say Europe is dead keen on having the US remain in Europe. That's true of the elite -- largely because Paris and Berlin are terrified of the vacuum that would be created by US withdrawal. Paris knows Germany would have the whip hand; Germany is afraid of being alone at the top.

    Nevertheless, our murderous and immoral Ukraine policy is earning us lots of new enemies among European populations. We are playing with fire. Not sure if we don't know that, or just don't care.

    Element

    Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours.

    • I am not taking a side.
    • I am totally non-partisan.
    • I am pointing out what is going to happen.
    • Not what people want to happen.
    • I am pointing it out to >>95% partisans. You are one of them.

    Partisans usually do not like how things will develop to be stated plainly, as it often goes against the way they want things to develop.

    So partisans then shoot the messenger, rather than take the warning, on its face value.

    Miffed Microbiologist

    Element, I happen to agree with you though it does bother me personally. Sometimes hard facts are unpleasant to truly face and hopes of alternative choices are seductive though not likely relevant in these games of power.

    My only grief is this is being played with a participant that is rotting from within. Given up its manufacturing base. Economically in the crapper and showering many with money just to live day to day. An aging sick population. We see this farce play out everyday. We are being drained dry internally and will soon be unable to fill this role losing our strong foundation. And when it ends, another will assume the role as it always has been throughout history. Can you blame us for wanting an end to this?

    As a small player in this, one who will be likely swept away when the power shifts, I can only watch it unfold. And this gives me no pleasure to admit such a thing.

    Miffed

    YHC-FTSE

    Mrs.M, if you examine his post it's quite easy to see that he is suffering from a condition called, "Fatalism".

    "Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine stressing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate. Fatalism generally refers to any of the following ideas: The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do."

    His argument that the convolutions of geopolitics are a natural result of survival and therefore beyond the scope of our control or wishful thinking is both wrong and indifferent to the real crimes being committed in our name.

    • We know who is involved in supporting the neo-nazis and zionists in Ukraine: Victoria Nuland of the US State Dept.
    • We know thousands of innocent people have died as a result. We know wholesale looting is taking place by the Israeli oligarchs.
    • We know, from their own words, from the mouth of the current Ukrainian Prime Minister that those who oppose the coup are being threatened with being burnt alive - in fact many Russian language speaking Ukrainians in Odessa and Mariupol have actually been murdered in this way.

    What else could they do but fight against the nutjobs in Kiev and ask for help from Russia? Be burnt alive or become refugees?

    Yet to brush all this aside with glib remarks about geopolitics and national survival with quite insane philosophies on death lacking in any depth of analysis or empathy for the victims of these horrendous crimes is, I think, quite revolting. Yes, control of our fate is an illusion, but we are also the cumulative sum of all of our decisions.

    So, Mrs.M, you keep your compassion alive. Your empathy and reason do you credit in a world full of cold sociopaths. Without such sweet and bitter experiences to guide our moral values in life, life would be very dull and useless indeed.

    YHC-FTSE

    "I am not taking a side.
    I am totally non-partisan."

    For a guy who believes he is non-partisan you sure do have a LOT to say about it for one side.

    "I am pointing out what is going to happen."

    For a guy who thinks he is a realist or pragmatist, you sure are delusional about being able to tell what is going to happen. Newsflash: NOBODY knows the future. Not even you.

    What's wrong with you? There's nothing coherent in your "message" at all - perhaps that's why you're getting junked.

    angel_of_joy

    Americans shouldn't leave, but stay there and keep paying for (and subsidizing with manpower and equipment) the European "security".

    That would be a sure way toward self-destruction of contemporary US, which is already practically bankrupt (and not only from a moral point of view...).

    LocalBoy

    Ukraine's government was functioning under a Constitution. Within the Constitution was allowances for Crimea to remain autonomous. The Ukrainian Constitution was trashed when the overthrow occurred allowing Crimea to vote for independence.

    How can you argue rule of law when the existing government is outside the rule of law while Crimea is within the law ?

    Good point about stealing your Navy - and the fact is there is very little that CAN be done about it. Russia took it and nothing will change that. Destroying Russia to give Crimea back to an illegitimate government will not fly - its all about price discovery. What price CAN be forced on Russia........so far very little.

    What price has the US already paid

    Red Lenin

    Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.

    Fact: Yugoslavia was recognized by the UN as a sovereign country. It no longer exists.

    Volkodav

    UN is worthless except for fill pockets with US taxpayer $.

    same as your opinion:

    • Crimea seceded
    • Crimea is peaceful
    • Crimea is free

    The_Prisoner

    Now you're fronting. Next thing you'll say Israel is legitimate

    Urban Roman

    "... and has tried to carve off more and more .."

    Really? The Russian Army has been fighting a random bunch of warmed-over nazi skinheads for almost a whole year, and can't manage to take a couple of oblasts west of the Don?

    Whatchoo smokin' over dere? Login or register to post comments

    angel_of_joy

    There was no Ukraine prior to 1991. Contemporary Ukraine is an artificially induced state, created in a moment of maximum weakness of the Russian state. As a result, it has no future, and no amount of US propping will change the facts on the ground. Crimea is populated by Russians in vast majority, who decided they don't want to be rulled by Kiev after the US led coup. More so, the Ukrainian "fleet" was built during USSR so it represents a Russian asset too. Your narrative is as dumb as this entire war... which will end badly for US.

    Volkodav

    Ukraine has never been a sovereign nation.

    Victory_Garden

    Darn Element, what happened to you?

    In the past, you were so spot on about all the fuckyoushima tragedy and offered much light for many who listened intently to your truth. We are grateful for all that light.

    Now, it seems as if you have been co-opted, or banned and someone else is using your handle to put out the same trash the organized criminal lame stream media propagandists are putting out for public consumption. It's ONLY regurgitation of the filthiest yukkity-muck ever.

    We all miss the truth bearing Element and wonder, are you really another dis-informationist? It would be a shame and big loss to find this out, as your great intelligence is needed to combat the evil that has run rampant over the planet for centuries. Is it money or love you quest after, dear One?

    Ask, would you rather have a Ron Paul for president, or the evil illegal usurping alien bushonian bankster puppet we have now? Truly, the puppet soterobama is absolutely the most vile evil and destructive worst president America has ever had.. History will reflect this fact. We may not see another righteous president ever again in America's coming to an end history. Sad to ponder that, eh!

    WE WANT GOD BACK IN AMERICA NOW!

    (Side-swiping truth, God is Love. Period!)

    new game

    hmmm, then silence...

    schadenfreude

    You are correct. All germans I spoke to said, that they should leave Russia with Crimea and the Donbass region.

    You are incorrect, that Ukraine is Russia. It is not. After WWII Stalin made the deal that he could enlarge Russia to the West. So he deported the polish to what was once Germany. This artificial enlargement divides Ukraine and is a rated break point that runs through the country. So both sides have a legitimate claim.

    Victory_Garden

    The latest rant on the GW story.

    Ron Paul WAS America's last chance to remain free from the horridness of the banksteronian evil that runs rampant over the land like diarrhea running out of a goose's arse.

    HowdyDoody

    NATO was created to force the USSR to target two widely separated entities (Europe and continental US) before the time of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This was to keep the USSR focused on Europe. In any envisioned war, Europe and USSR would be destroyed or severely weakened, strengthening the US position.

    steelhead23

    There is but one thing in all of this that is perfectly clear to me. The situation is quite confusing, lying is rampant, and unnecessarily provoking the Russian Bear is about the most dangerous thing anyone could do.

    My preference for U.S. policy is neither isolationism nor militarism. It's diplomacy. Further, the U.S. should abandon its use of economic sanctions against the Bear for his annexation of Crimea because Putin would never leave Crimea, meaning this economic cattle prod will continue to annoy the Bear.

    Instead, the U.S. and NATO should be willing to trade some form of recognition of Russian presence in Crimea for ending the war in eastern Ukraine. I would also hope that Kiev and Washington would be willing to see an autonomous region, perhaps more aligned with Moscow than Kiev and agreement not to place NATO troops or materiel in Ukraine.

    But of course, none of this is likely - everyone is lying and the trust needed for real diplomacy is nil.

    Herdee

    I guess that the CIA Director,Stephen Harper, Victoria Wench Nuland were only in Ukraine for a nice vacation?

    It shows anyone with a grade 2 education how the world still works.

    Bunga Bunga

    We couped some folks.

    655321

    RP gives me the impression he a form of controlled opposition, almost like a pressure release valve, giving people false hope and at same giving people false conclusions on key issues such as 9/11.

    Savyindallas

    You can't take on too many issues. Paul knows 911 was an inside job. His supporters know. Someday he will go public. I don't agree with the way he handles this, just as I don't like the politics of rand paul on many issues. TPTB would have loved RP to come out as a Truther - they would have detroyed him and his credibility as the sheeple just have no idea what is really going on.

    LeftyGoldblatt

    LiveLeak.com

    Ross Kemp Extreme World. Ukraine

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=98d_1423931054

    Berspankme

    Watched it. The nazi's are taking over west ukraine. Porkoshenko better watch his back.

    HowdyDoody

    Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far right Pravy Sektor group (financed by Kolomoisky) has brought together the remnants of the Nazi volunteer battalions as one entity, under his control. He has also stated that they (again) will not comply with the ceasefire. These will be the shock troops in the next stage of this saga.

    Victory_Garden

    Yup!

    (use subtitles)

    TeaClipper

    This is how they do business in Ukraine parliament, whichever government is in

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9c7HbeKpeM

    gcjohns1971

    If the US were isolationist, a lot of Dead Ukrainians would likely be alive right now.

    With that said, there are plenty of intrigues to go around even the US were somehow frozen.

    There are many powerful entities who have their fingers in the Ukraine. Not the least of them are the Ukrainians themselves, both Eastern and Western variety.

    Neither the West's position, that everyone should account all Ukrainians both East and West to be homogenous, nor the East's position, that the East Ukraine is Russia, and the West Ukraine is an illegitimate province of Poland or LIthuania and therefore unworthy of self rule, is workable.

    Both of those positions lead to dead ends. The Ukrainians are Ukrainians because they are the descendants of those who followed the Kiev 'Rus' (Russians). The Russians are those who followed the Prince of Moscow. All of Russia and part of Ukraine was conquered by the Mongols. The part not conquered are the West Ukrainians. The part conquered are the East Ukrainians...plus many soviet era Russian imports.

    Russia's stake is control of the Black Sea Basin...which will cement Russia as mandatory near monopoly energy supplier to Europe. Europe's stake is to have access to non-Russian energy. The US's and NATO's stake is to prevent the re-arming of Europe by ensuring they have no REASON to re-arm.

    Pick your outcome:

    If Russia gets both Crimea and East Ukrainian land routes to Ukraine, then they decisively control energy to Europe. Europe's choices are then to EITHER a) Trust the US to ensure their economies and access to energy b) Ensure European access to energy themselves - militarily c) Become Russian colonies.

    Russia's choices are: a) Commit Russia to militarily conquering Ukraine and then use the economic benefit of that position to arm themselves for the inevitable world war that will result b) Resign itself to open competition for energy by surrendering either East Ukraine or Crimea.

    The US's choices are: a) Incrementally increase pressure on Russia via economic and/or military means until they allow Europe to have access to non-Russian energy b) Ignore Ukraine with the cost of later involvement in a world war in europe c) Ignore Ukraine and then withdraw from the transatlantic alliance.

    The fact is that the US is over-extended and should not have given Putin a reason for overt involvement. The fact is that Europe is un-prepared to militarily deter Russia from turning them into energy-plantation slaves. The fact is that EUrope is too proud and powerful for Russia as currently composed to force into energy submission simultaneously detering Europe from contesting the matter militarily.

    In the next 20 years there will be a major war in Europe, on the scale of WWII. Russia will be facing all of Western Europe.

    Russia propaganda seems confused about the organization of Power in the West, presenting it as a US-led top-down organization. In fact it is led by powerful European interests who act through governments. This is all highly observable. What did you think the eminence of the CFR was all about? What did you think Bilderberg was for??? When the European governments were decimated after WWII those interests acted through the US government.

    Europe is no longer decimated, and the shift of power from US to European entities has been historic and EASILY observable. What do you think the Eurozone and EU are all about??

    There's a lot of high-time preference going on - on every side of this, as each side too heavily weights the desirability of the fruit they see before them, and overly discounts the later costs of that fruit - both Europe and Russia wanting the Ukrainian fruit for the energy power it gives them, and the US in underestimating the costs of their chosen course to placate Europe via meddling in Ukraine.

    This is not going to end well for anyone in Europe no matter how it plays out. The stakes are too big for too many big powers.

    The US would be better off isolationist, and preparing to re-open ellis island. A lot of war refugees will need a home soon.

    China need only wait to inherit Eurasia from those who plan to foolishly decimate themselves.

    Rusputin

    So that would be a US/NATO/EU coup on a US/NATO/EU coup?

    Isn't one coup normally enough for a few years? The first one lasted 12 months and obviously the backstops weren't placed carefully enough, me thinks the bribery money is running out (has run out)!

    Catullus

    Here's Ron Paul in 2002 asking why the US was meddling with Ukrainian elections...

    http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=5688

    Armed Resistance

    Here you go: Victoria Nuland admitting that the US spent $5B to have regime change..

    http://youtu.be/U2fYcHLouXY

    Flybyknight

    Off the wall? That is where anyone who does not believe that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent mess Ukraine has become.

    [Feb 15, 2015] Europe's Desperate Hail Mary to Save Ukraine by Nikolas K. Gvosdev

    February 13, 2015 | http://nationalinterest.org/feature/europes-desperate-hail-mary-save-ukraine-12244

    It is never a good sign when differences in interpretation as to what an agreement means arise before the ink is even dry. The cease-fire accord reached in Minsk between the Ukrainian government, the eastern separatists and Russia, under the aegis of the good offices of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Francois Hollande of France, could stop the fighting and lay the basis for a political settlement-but it requires that all parties be prepared to implement its provisions. With two previous cease-fires failing amidst mutual recriminations about violations, the newest agreement contains similar problems that could torpedo its implementation.

    First and foremost, the cease-fire calls for an exclusion zone where heavy weapons are to be withdrawn. As we've seen in the past, it can be quite easy to cheat-to hide weaponry and not to give up optimal firing positions. The first challenge will be what happens to the cease-fire when we see that not all heavy weapons have been removed; will one violation cause the collapse of the cease-fire, or will the emphasis be on a "ninety percent" solution-that is, if most weapons are pulled back, will that be considered sufficient?

    The fate of the Ukrainian government pocket at the key railway junction of Debaltseve is also unclear. Will the town remain in Ukrainian hands, even if forces and equipment are withdrawn-as the government prefers? Or will the government surrender control, as the separatists prefer? Given that the cease-fire will not begin until Sunday, the race is on to see who can determine the status of Debaltseve.

    Beyond the immediate cease-fire, there are contentious political questions. The agreement commits Ukraine to pass legislation that effectively gives the two separatist regions special status, including the ability to organize their own police forces and to be able to trade directly with Russia. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko will face a tremendous challenge getting the Rada to pass the necessary laws-and the risk here is that Ukrainian lawmakers, in an effort to save face, will insert provisions in the draft legislation that will be unacceptable to the separatists. Poroshenko has already stressed that the deal does not commit Ukraine to accept federalization or decentralization. But separatist leaders have argued that the agreement is the last chance for Ukraine to consider major constitutional changes.

    In turn, the separatists are committed, under the terms of the agreement, to rehold elections according to Ukrainian law so that the Donetsk and Lugansk authorities can be properly constituted. What is not clear is how people displaced from the region will be able to vote. Kyiv will insist that internally displaced refugees living in other parts of Ukraine should be able to cast ballots. The separatists, in turn, are not going to want any sort of process that challenges their position. If elections are held that the Poroshenko administration declines to certify as valid, what then?

    Finally, the agreement sets up a process by which the central government would regain control over the border with Russia. However, this will not occur if the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk has not been set up. Again, we have a challenge. If the Ukrainian legislation falls short of what the separatists-and Moscow-have envisioned, then the border question will be stalemated.

    Left unaddressed in the Minsk talks, of course, are U.S. proposals to begin training and equipping Ukrainian government forces. The United States did not take part in the Minsk process, and while the cease-fire may be cautiously welcomed, it will not diminish the momentum, particularly on Capitol Hill, for shipping arms to Ukraine. The separatists cannot be unmindful of the Croatian precedent, where a long-term program to strengthen the Croatian military facilitated the operation that destroyed the Serbian separatist entity in eastern Croatia. Already some separatists are grumbling that Ukraine is not committed to a settlement, but will use the time to strengthen its forces and go back on the offensive later this year. Those suspicions, in turn, may cause them to be less than thorough in their own observation of the agreement's provisions. The Germans and the French hope that the accord will cause Washington to put its plans on hold.

    And what does Vladimir Putin hope to gain? All the reports suggest that Putin put enormous pressure on the separatists to accept the deal. In turn, he may be expecting that once the cease-fire takes hold, the Europeans will move on sanctions relief. But if that is not forthcoming, what will be his continuing commitment to the agreement? Also left unaddressed are Russian demands for the "neutralization" of Ukraine. The deal as currently structured would not give the eastern regions veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy.

    The Minsk deal appears to be the last hope for any sort of a political settlement. If this agreement breaks down-and it has many vulnerabilities-there will not be a fourth attempt. We will see if all sides have the political will to make it work.

    Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.

    [Feb 15, 2015] What does Russia want? by James Meek

    February 12, 2015 | lrb.co.uk
    1. Sharoni says:

      13 February 2015 at 1:27 pm

      "The evidence so far is that what Russia actually wants is indirect influence over the whole of Ukraine, and for the West to pay for it."

      But the West and Ukraine have understood this perfectly and it is this that's rendering the conflict impossible to resolve. There's just too many Ukranians who will not accept.

    2. Aminra Cludjee says:

      13 February 2015 at 3:46 pm

      "There is a dangerous false assumption" that the US and the EU are innocent of interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine previous to this crisis beginning, and that the US/EU have not, since the fall of the USSR, been pressing missiles and influence right up to the borders of Russia.

      There is a further dangerous false assumption that "we" are the good guys, who never do anything evil and that Putin is an expansionist monster, whereas the US in the 70 odd years since WWII has bombed, invaded, subverted and otherwise interfered in upwards of 60 nominally independent countries, the most recent being of course, Iraq and Syria.

      As Goebbels indicated, the bigger and more astounding the lie, the better. This article follows his guidance.

    3. [email protected] says:

      13 February 2015 at 5:20 pm

      What Russia wants is to not have an enemy alliance on its 2300 kilometre border. This point is obvious to the point of painful : )

    4. kadinsky says:

      13 February 2015 at 6:36 pm

      You're right. The idea that Russia bears sole responsibility is about as convincing as the suggestion that Merkel cannot tolerate injustice.

    5. Alejandro_Reza says:

      14 February 2015 at 5:19 am

      I do not know what to think of all this: Eisenstein and S. Bandera put together in the same celebratory piece by Mr. Pomarentsev, Mr. Meeks supporting the cutting of the pensions of the citizens of Lugansk while making vows for the next coming together of "nationalist and neo-Soviet nostalgists", the tone of the LRB actually undistinguishable on this issue from the tone used in right-wing publications…

    6. keith smith says:

      14 February 2015 at 6:46 am

      Former contributors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are writing far more measured and intelligent things than are appearing in the LRB at present. See:

      http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault
      and
      http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/09/how-not-to-save-ukraine-arming-kiev-is-a-bad-idea/

    7. Mike_Eckel says:

      14 February 2015 at 12:46 pm

      Fact: Russia is winning because they care about Ukraine more than the West does.
      Fact: when your entire system is built on sand, paranoia is easy to come by.
      Fact: "When insecurity is the taproot of a state's revisionist actions, making threats just makes the situation worse." (Stephen Walt)
      Fact: the West will ultimately thrown the Ukrainians under the bus. Sadly.

    8. sol_adelman says:

      14 February 2015 at 1:51 pm

      There is no evidence to substantiate the neo-con narrative that Putin is another Hitler, set upon reclaiming former territories of the Soviet Union. All his actions of the past year have been reactive / defensive in nature. Russians could not tolerate the prospect of NATO naval bases being established in Crimea, proud historic home of the Russian fleet. Nor could they ignore the merciless bombardment of Russian-speaking separatists in the Donbass region, by an army with a heavy neo-Nazi contingent. (The so-called Bandera Brigade from western Ukraine, whose forebears massacred Jews and communists in WWII).

      A little empathy is surely required here. Since the collapse of communism in '89-'91, NATO has continually reneged on a promise not to expand any further east than the old east Germany. To make an equation that even the chickenhawks might comprehend, imagine if the Soviets had attempted to incorporate Canada or Mexico into the Warsaw Pact at the height of the Cold War. For all our sakes, just leave the Bear be, you warmongering fanatics.

    [Feb 14, 2015] The useless agreement which everybody wanted

    Feb 14, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker
    Fourth, the agreement not even signed by Poroshenko, but by Kuchma on behalf of the Ukraine.

    Fifth, check out this section:

    9. Restoration of full control over the state border of Ukraine by the government throughout the conflict zone, which should begin on the first day after the local elections and be completed after a comprehensive political settlement (local elections in some areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions on the basis of the Law of Ukraine and constitutional reform) at the end of 2015, subject to paragraph 11 - in consultation and agreement with the representatives of individual areas of Donetsk and Lugansk regions in the framework of the Three-Party Contact Group.
    Do you see what I see? Nevermind that the border is supposed to get back under Kiev's control only after "something" happens, but check out the "something" itself: constitutional reform in consultation and agreement with Novorussian leaders!!!! Does anybody seriously believe that the Rada will participate in anything even remotely looking like this? Liashko? Farion? Tsiagnibok and Iarosh all working together with the "subhuman colorads" from the Donbass to change the Ukrainian Constitution? Of course not!

    So so far, let's sum this up. M2A was:

    1) signed by a person with no authority
    2) on behalf of a junta with no powers
    3) it does not say a word about the main reason for the meeting in Minsk
    4) it contains clearly impossible sections

    How is that for a brilliant text?

    In truth, there is a short section of the document which does contain one realistic elements: a ceasefire followed by a withdrawal of heavy weapons. That's it. The rest is nonsense. See for yourself

    #4: local elections organized by the junta and Novorussians together. Nonsense
    #5: pardons and amnesties. Blanket amnesty for all the war crimes (including MH-17 and Odessa "barbecue"). Disgusting.
    #6: exchange of "all for all". Except that most folks in the junta hands are long dead.
    #7: humanitarian assistance. Empty statement, the assistance is already coming in.
    #8: payment of pensions: the junta does not have the money anyway. Will not happen.
    #9: Constitutional reform. Will not happen
    #10: Withdrawal of all foreign forces. Nonsense: those who are there (NATO countries) will stay, those who are not there (9000 Russian soldiers) cannot "leave" since they are not there to begin with.
    #11: Constitutional reform including the creation of "The creation of people's militia". LOL - apparently, that will be the new name for the Novorussian armed forces.
    #12: Elections if all of the above happens first. Since it ain't, they won't.
    #13: Creation of "working groups". Right. Keep dreaming.

    The fact is that what is the most interesting about M2A is not what it says, but what it does NOT say:

    1) not a word about Debaltsevo
    2) not a word about the junta actually sitting down to negotiate with the Novorussian authorities
    3) not a word about the future status of the Ukraine
    4) not a word about the Ukrainian economy (which is still in free fall)
    5) not a word about any peacekeepers (which are indispensible to make any ceasefire stick)
    6) not even a word about the fact that the Novorussians are not "terrorist" but people seeking national independence. Poroshenko has still not spoken to them directly.

    It is possible that these issues were, in fact, discussed, but that this will not be revealed to the general public. There might be secret clauses to M2A. However, it is at least as likely that these issues were discussed and that no agreement whatsoever was found, hence they were set aside.

    But if nothing really important was decided, why did everybody participate to this exercise? Simple: everybody got something from it (assuming any parts M2A are actually implemented):

    1) The Novorussians:
    a) a stop of the terror attacks by the junta on Novorussian cities.
    b) the recognition of the line of contact
    c) the assurance that Voentorg remains open (control of border)
    d) time to mobilize and train their planned 100'000 extra men
    e) the recognition by all parties (including the Europeans) that they deserve a special status

    2) Poroshenko:
    a) the apparent and symbolic support for world leaders
    b) a stop of the Novorussian advance
    c) a vague hope that junta forces will be allowed to leave the Debaltsevo cauldron
    d) money from the IMF (not nearly enough, but better than none).

    3) Merkel and Hollande:
    a) the illusion of relevance of a EU foreign policy
    b) the (probably misguided) hope to stop the crazy Americans
    c) the hope to an easing of the economic war with Russia (Mistrals?)

    4) Putin:
    a) the right to control the border until the constitutional reforms are made, in other words ad aeternam.
    b) the recognition that without him no solution can be found
    c) the hope for some easing of sanctions

    Everybody got what they wanted and left with a smile on their face. Good for them, but none of that does anything to really settle the conflict or even begin to seek a solution.

    The reality is that nothing at all happened in Minsk, at least nothing of any importance. The Novorussians won the latest battle (yet again) so they came in a position of strength and they got the junta to promise to stop the crazy shelling, and since Debaltsevo was not even mentioned, it looks to me that the junta forces there will be allowed to quietly withdraw as long as they leave their weapons behind. So the Debaltsevo cauldron will be controlled by Novorussia. Putin got political recognition and the hope of at least no more sanctions (remember after Minsk 1 the EU immediately imposed more sanctions on Russia). The Europeans got a little something too, mainly some good PR, and the big loser is most definitely Poroshenko who will now have the highly unenviable task of "selling" M2A to a totally crazy Rada (which, by the way, is currently considering an law proposed by Poroshenko's party to make the denial of the Russian aggression against the Ukraine a criminal offense).

    Conclusion:

    Just like in a chess game, time is a critical factor. M2A gave everybody a little time-out, but the conflict will resume and the only thing which will stop this conflict will be a double collapse of the Ukrainian economy and armed forces which I believe will most probably happen this summer. Until then, the conflict will be more or less frozen, though I will believe in a junta withdrawal of heavy weapons systems only if/when I see it. Also - remember that one can very well fight with tanks, mortars and infantry.

    Nazi Baderastan and Novorussia are two civilizationally different project which cannot and will never coexist under one roof. Yes, for tactical reasons there might be the need to pretend that this is possible, but the reality is that it will not. The only way to keep Novorussia inside the Ukraine is to denazify the latter and until that is done, Novorussia will never really return to the Ukraine. That is a hard fact which nobody in the West is willing to accept. In Kiev, they fully understand that, but their "solution" is to empty Novorussia form Novorussians and to give this much needed Lebensraum to the "Ukr" Master Race of western Ukraine. And that is something which Russia will never allow. Which leaves only two possible outcomes: the EU gives up and the Ukraine is denazified, or the US starts a full-scale war against Russia in a desperate attempt to prevent that outcome.

    Two more things I want to mention here:

    In purely military terms the withdrawal of heavy systems is entirely to the Novorussian advantage. Remember that Kiev used these systems to try to terrorize the Novorussian population while the Novorussians used their artillery to try to suppress the junta's artillery. The Novorussians could never use their artillery to attack because they were liberating their own land and did not want to murder their own civilians. So, in other words, if both sides really withdraw their heavy guns the junta will lose a crucial capability while the Novorussians will lose an almost useless one.

    [Feb 11, 2015] The Bout Opening – Stick to Checkers, America. Not Up In Here

    See also comments to Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters by Shaun Walker
    Notable quotes:
    "... Take a look at this exposure of Grauniad bias: ..."
    "... "We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to" ..."
    "... Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target: rising dissent in western Ukraine. ..."
    Feb 11, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , February 11, 2015 at 8:38 am

    Take a look at this exposure of Grauniad bias:

    Luhansk Women Curse Ukrainian Rocket Attack – Guardian Blames "Pro-Russian Rebels"

    patient observer, February 11, 2015 at 9:02 am

    Per:

    http://rt.com/news/231279-obama-foreign-policy-power/

    Our Nobel peace prize wiener says

    "We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to"

    and if arm twisting does not work we will murder your families, embargo food and medicine, destroy your economy, lay waste to a generation of your children, and blacken your name for all history.

    He is truly a stinky turd in the cesspool that is Washington DC. But fear not, Hillary Clinton will be a worthy successor and will out-stink, out-murder and out-destroy Obama.

    Who in America can stop this madness? (rhetorical/trick question, no one can).

    Warren, February 11, 2015 at 6:53 am

    Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target: rising dissent in western Ukraine.

    - Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) February 11, 2015

    Moscow Exile , February 11, 2015 at 1:10 am
    Another Walker special:

    Ukraine: draft dodgers face jail as Kiev struggles to find new fighters

    The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military incursion. Part of the reason for this is the fact that Kiev would have trouble securing a much-needed support package from the International Monetary Fund if it was officially at war.

    A series of gruesome videos, sometimes shown on Russian television, has increased the psychological pressure on Ukrainians. One, released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them.

    Shit! I must have missed that one!

    "A friend of mine told me his friend was down there in the east and they ran into Chechens, who sliced off all their testicles. There were about 100 of them, and the Chechens castrated the lot of them. If I get called up, I think I'll go into hiding. I want a family and kids."

    'Kin' hell!!!!!!!

    karl1haushofer , February 10, 2015 at 11:21 pm

    "It may have escaped your notice, but Putin and Moscow have been calling for a ceasefire all along"

    I have grown to hate the whole word of "ceasefire" during this war. A real ceasefire would be great. But it is not going to happen until Kiev military is fully defeated!

    Another bogus "ceasefire" in Minsk means the following:

    1. Kiev gets to withdraw its men AND WEAPONS out of the Debaltsevo cauldron and the rebels will not be allowed to stop it..
    2. The rebels will not be able to give a big blow to the Kiev military by either annihilating or at least capturing the most competent part of their military in Debaltsevo and their weapons.
    3. The thousands of Kiev troops in Debaltsevo cauldron AND THEIR WEAPONS will be used in the future against Novorossiya.
    4. The shelling of civilians will continue as it was before. The "ceasefire" will not be applied to Kiev side, only to rebels.
    5. NATO will start the training and arming of Kiev troops. Next offensive will start next spring.
    6. The morale of the rebels will take a bit hit. They will realize that their military efforts and success is meaningless as they are not allowed win this war.

    Moscow must not allow Kiev to withdraw its troops and weapons out of that cauldron in any circumstances. That would be a treason against the troops that fought to create that cauldron. And that would be a treason against the whole Novorossiya.

    This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya. Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military defeat for Kiev.

    marknesop, February 11, 2015 at 8:00 am

    "This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya. Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military defeat for Kiev."

    On the contrary, the war could continue for many years yet without either side firing a shot, in much the same way the Georgian government never accepted the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and even designated a ministerial position for winning them back into the fold. Disagreement over the borders within Ukraine will keep them out of NATO for the foreseeable future, while their ruined economy will keep them out of the EU. A future government may mend its ties with Russia, but if it does not, Ukraine is doomed to decades of poverty and a steady drain of its population for better prospects. It can thank the west for that, and its own population's extremist element.

    Once again, there is no reason for Putin to become "the most hated man in Novorossiya" if it shakes out as you describe. The rebels must accept the deal on their own behalf, and it is not for Putin to agree to anything; Russia is simply acting as a sort of guarantor, by being part of the agreement but kind of like an honest broker, to ensure the western countries keep their word.

    I agree the Ukrainian forces should not be permitted to withdraw from Debalseve with their weapons, after getting cauldroned for the second time due to their own stupidity, lack of tactical knowledge and poor leadership. but i doubt that will happen, unless the rebels are idiot negotiators, because Semenchenko's battalion had to leave their weapons behind when they were allowed out of the southern cauldron, and it plainly did not teach the Ukies anything. Why would they be allowed to keep their weapons this time? But even if they do not, weapons are not going to be a problem to replace, and you know it.

    [Feb 10, 2015] Merkel to meet Obama amid growing US scepticism over Ukraine peace talks

    Notable quotes:
    "... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
    "... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
    "... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
    "... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
    "... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
    Feb 10, 2015 | The Guardian

    sodtheproles ID1439675 10 Feb 2015 16:51

    Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.

    caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52

    Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U., NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements? More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground & leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history books on how not to be a "world leader".

    Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12

    And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.

    Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.

    Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support fascist government Poroshenko.

    EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46

    Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin

    Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.

    What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.

    Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the Ukraine crisis

    Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is. People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.

    Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53

    As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!

    This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the trapped army may be NATO. !

    Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked civilian targets.

    If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.

    Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!

    This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken captive, what then?

    Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland, Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.

    Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29

    Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should it Invade the Region

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/07/powerful-documentary-on-the-people-of-donbass-and-why-nato-will-be-in-a-tough-fight-should-it-invade-the-region/

    And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and now here in Ukraine."

    Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10

    All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.

    Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
    The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his disarmed Berkut could not protect him.

    As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
    Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much today?

    That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.

    Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43

    Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for the junta.

    Listen to the babushka [turn captions on] --

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQjmwVC_Dts

    preventallwarsdotorg 9 Feb 2015 19:40

    From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in 'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.

    Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
    Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.

    National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.

    But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against Russia!
    If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?

    Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
    Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!

    Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02

    And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,

    Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up)

    Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57

    "But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup.....

    EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45

    amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in deterring its continued military support for separatists.

    I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?

    You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second, Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which, I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.

    Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.

    Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30

    Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the streets en masse if they value their lives.

    Come gather 'round people
    Wherever you roam
    And admit that the waters
    Around you have grown
    And accept it that soon
    You'll be drenched to the bone
    If your time to you
    Is worth savin'
    Then you better start swimmin'
    Or you'll sink like a stone
    For the times they are a-changin'.

    alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57

    US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."

    So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.

    PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22

    Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas... It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.

    Huge explosion at Donetsk chemical plant, Kiev blames 'dropped cigarette butt' (VIDEO)

    The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the accident.

    "This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.

    "Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well, it's chaos, and they are barbarians."

    Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.

    The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on his Facebook page.

    According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because they were shooting based on coordinates."

    Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.

    PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13

    Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to build up Ukraine.

    One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia".

    [Feb 10, 2015] Merkel to meet Obama amid growing US scepticism over Ukraine peace talks

    Notable quotes:
    "... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
    "... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
    "... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
    "... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
    "... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
    Feb 10, 2015 | The Guardian

    sodtheproles ID1439675 10 Feb 2015 16:51

    Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.

    caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52

    Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U., NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements? More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground & leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history books on how not to be a "world leader".

    Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12

    And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.

    Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.

    Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support fascist government Poroshenko.

    EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46

    Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin

    Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.

    What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.

    Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the Ukraine crisis

    Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is. People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.

    Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53

    As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!

    This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the trapped army may be NATO. !

    Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked civilian targets.

    If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.

    Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!

    This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken captive, what then?

    Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland, Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.

    Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29

    Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should it Invade the Region

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/07/powerful-documentary-on-the-people-of-donbass-and-why-nato-will-be-in-a-tough-fight-should-it-invade-the-region/

    And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and now here in Ukraine."

    Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10

    All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.

    Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
    The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his disarmed Berkut could not protect him.

    As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
    Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much today?

    That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.

    Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43

    Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for the junta.

    Listen to the babushka [turn captions on] --

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQjmwVC_Dts

    preventallwarsdotorg 9 Feb 2015 19:40

    From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in 'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.

    Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
    Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.

    National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.

    But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against Russia!
    If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?

    Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
    Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!

    Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02

    And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,

    Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up)

    Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57

    "But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup.....

    EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45

    amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in deterring its continued military support for separatists.

    I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?

    You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second, Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which, I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.

    Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.

    Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30

    Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the streets en masse if they value their lives.

    Come gather 'round people
    Wherever you roam
    And admit that the waters
    Around you have grown
    And accept it that soon
    You'll be drenched to the bone
    If your time to you
    Is worth savin'
    Then you better start swimmin'
    Or you'll sink like a stone
    For the times they are a-changin'.

    alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57

    US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."

    So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.

    PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22

    Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas... It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.

    Huge explosion at Donetsk chemical plant, Kiev blames 'dropped cigarette butt' (VIDEO)

    The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the accident.

    "This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.

    "Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well, it's chaos, and they are barbarians."

    Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.

    The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on his Facebook page.

    According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because they were shooting based on coordinates."

    Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.

    PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13

    Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to build up Ukraine.

    One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia".

    [Feb 09, 2015] The west must talk to Vladimir Putin about Ukraine

    Looks like guardian staff got new different instructions from their MI5 handlers...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hove, East Sussex ..."
    Feb 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    David Stainwright, Hove, East Sussex

    I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for Vladimir Putin, but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi ideology.

    For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions. Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.

    As David Owen has pointed out (26 August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato, threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report, 8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.

    Tim Dyce, London

    The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine. Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy within a unified Ukraine. This is something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to let us do it.

    Stephen Mennell, Dublin

    David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report, theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in mediation.

    [Feb 09, 2015] The west must talk to Vladimir Putin about Ukraine

    Looks like guardian staff got new different instructions from their MI5 handlers...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Hove, East Sussex ..."
    Feb 09, 2015 | The Guardian

    David Stainwright, Hove, East Sussex

    I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for Vladimir Putin, but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi ideology.

    For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions. Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.

    As David Owen has pointed out (26 August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato, threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report, 8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.

    Tim Dyce, London

    The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine. Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy within a unified Ukraine. This is something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to let us do it.

    Stephen Mennell, Dublin

    David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report, theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in mediation.

    [Feb 08, 2015] Ukraine conflict: four-nation peace talks in Minsk aim to end crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed. ..."
    "... Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded. ..."
    "... The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand. ..."
    The Guardian

    ID5868758 -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44

    CIA and Americans caught in the cauldron, or whatever they're calling it? That's what some on a German comment thread were saying today.

    EugeneGur -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44

    Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed.

    TuleCarbonari -> EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:31

    What is special about the East? It is richer in natural resources than the West. Joe Biden's son and other businessmen won't be able to operate in a politically volatile area. It must be pacified somehow.

    Bullybyte -> WiseOldManNo476 8 Feb 2015 23:43

    There will be no war.

    Earth to WiseOldManNo476. You obviously haven't noticed. There already IS a war; it is about to escalate; and the UK will be involved in it right up to its neck.

    The problem being a bully (the US) is that it becomes arrogant and expects its own way all of the time, when someone pushes back, they fold. This isn't Iraq you know.

    And who is pushing back? You?

    Looks like the EU will be choosing the lesser of two evils.

    Yes. Listen to the tough talk by Cameron. Look how the EU ratcheted up their sanctions on Russia only a few days ago. The EU have already chosen the lesser of two reasons.

    BTW, enjoy your collapsing petro dollar and associated hyper inflation coming your way very soon.

    And this will be happening when? After your kids have been killed?

    KrasnoArmejac Roodan 8 Feb 2015 23:20

    no roodan, we should not go to war. it is ukraines fight, not ours. but we should not treat putin like he is a normal politician (or person for that matter). we should not have our newspapers asking questions that have been answered a million times before, just so we could be proud of our political corectness. you know those questions, right? questions like: are those really russians that are fighting the ukranians? it's like answering the question: is the sky blue? over and over and over again. we should not keep satellite images proving russian tanks crossing the border classified, just so mister putin could have a face-saving exit once this is all over with. because my dear roodan, contrary to what your mother (and all mothers for that matter) told you: ignoring the bully will not make him stop punching you. it will just make you a loser-for-life. if you don't trust me ask mister neville chamberlain and his piece of paper

    EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:13

    the latest Franco-German peace initiative . . . was driven by the urgent desire to avoid a new bloodbath in the besieged Ukrainian-held town of Debaltseve

    Really? What is so special about Debaltsevo that makes the European leaders so concerned about its fate? What sets it apart so decisively from Donetsk, Gorlovka, Krasnoarmeisk, Shakhtursk, and a dozen of other Donbass towns that have been pounded by artillery fire for months. Hundreds of civilians died, and the only response from our European friends was deafening silence about the killings and loud accusations against Russia of everything and anything.

    I'll tell you what's special about Debaltsevo. A large number of Ukrainian troops are trapped there, and unless something is done, there are likely end up dead. This means another devastating defeat for the Ukrs, from which they are unlikely to recover. So, Merkel and Hollande rushed (or were dispatched?) to the rescue of their little nazi Ukrainian protegees. One cannot help but feel contempt for such European "leaders" and generally for what Europe turned into under American patronage.

    sbmfc 8 Feb 2015 10:22

    Given the still unfolding disasters in Syria and Libya surely the policy of the west attempting to pick a winner in a local conflict is completely discredited.

    It may be the case that war in Europe suits the American agenda but the EU should only be focused on a peaceful solution. Borders in Europe have always been fluid and it is impossible to see the rebel areas now ever peacefully existing within Ukraine.

    snowdogchampion -> Strummered 8 Feb 2015 10:17

    there ARE English speaking troops that sound AMERICAN Foreign fighters filmed on ground with Kiev army not to mention the CIA agents ;-)

    Kal El -> Eric Hoffmann 8 Feb 2015 10:13

    And where is Kiev getting all its weapons etc from ? Their stuff was 20 year old USSR stuff. Mothballed and rusting.

    Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded.

    NoBodiesFool 8 Feb 2015 10:12

    If peace breaks out what will the poor weapons dealers and their bankster backers do? Someone please think of the poor children of the weapons dealers and the banksters. Also, think of the poor children of the fossil fuel cartels that all of this is really about. They really don't have enough money and they so would like another Bugatti for New Year's. Please, give war a chance - for the children.

    Rialbynot 8 Feb 2015 10:12

    When the German-speaking population in South Tyrol rebelled against Italian rule in the late 1960s, the Italian government initially attempted to put down the rebellion using force.

    However, a campaign of sabotage and bombings by German-speaking separatists led by the SouthTyrolean Liberation Committee continued.

    Finally, the issue was resolved in 1971, when a new treaty was signed and ratified by the Austrian and Italian governments. It stipulated that disputes in South Tyrol would be submitted for settlement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and that the province would receive greater autonomy within Italy. The new agreement proved broadly satisfactory to the parties involved and the separatist tensions soon eased.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trentino-Alto_Adige/S%C3%BCdtirol

    Europe has a blueprint for resolving the (far more deadly) East Ukraine crisis.

    Asimpleguest -> CaptainBlunder 8 Feb 2015 10:09

    strange - I read otherwise

    ''MOSCOW, December 10. /TASS/. Russian military led by Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces Alexander Lentsov are providing assistance to the Ukrainian south-east conflict sides in reaching compromise for deescalation of tension and troops' pullout, Chief of the Russian General Staff General Valery Gerasimov said on Wednesday.

    The mission was sent at the request of the Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff, Viktor Muzhenko, said Gerasimov.''

    snowdogchampion 8 Feb 2015 10:09

    thanks god! mind that the US warmongers will not be part of the PEACE talks cause they want WAR at our doorstep.. McCain & Co. must be p!ssed off.. hope Merkel's security has been increased, you never know, there might be a CIA agent around

    SHappens 8 Feb 2015 10:08

    Merkel is due to meet Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington on Monday, in a bid to synchronise US and western European positions on Ukraine ahead of the Minsk summit. Or how to make a peaceful initiative go jeopardized. All Putin has to do is sit and wait. And let them EU and US paddle.

    Merkel feels they owe the East Ukrainians to stop the war they promoted and encouraged for months but McCain says that these poor Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. I suppose he is referring to the East Ukrainians, as they did not attack anybody in Kiev and are indeed defending themselves from undiscriminated shelling from Kiev. Let's hope the Nobel prize will honor it.

    Koninklijk 8 Feb 2015 10:08

    Even if there is no further escalation, these repercussions are going to be felt in Europe for a long time. We'll just have to hope nobody really wants a war in Europe, in the short or long term.

    Kal El 8 Feb 2015 10:05

    The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand.

    Which when you think about is more of a truer number given that Ukraine is currently on its 4TH, yes 4TH mobilisation/conscription wave.

    If the number of dead/injured is what Kiev claims, quite clearly they would NOT need all of these mobilisations in the last year. The current mobilisation even includes women.

    [Feb 08, 2015] Remarks at the Congress of Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia

    Russia revolt against neoliberal empire with the capital is Washington...
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order. ..."
    "... Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government. ..."
    [Feb 07, 2015] President of Russia

    PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:

    ... ... ...

    Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.

    Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government.

    ... ... ...

    Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible attitude to our job, we will succeed.

    Thank you very much.

    [Feb 08, 2015] Remarks at the Congress of Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia

    Russia revolt against neoliberal empire with the capital is Washington...
    [Feb 07, 2015] President of Russia

    PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN:

    ... ... ...

    Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.

    Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government.

    ... ... ...

    Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible attitude to our job, we will succeed.

    Thank you very much.

    [Feb 07, 2015] Fear of Vladimir Putin grows in EU capitals amid spectre of total war

    theguardian.com

    FranklyMrShandy -> demdike 7 Feb 2015 11:57

    Oh, that sounds like a great solution!

    You may as well bomb Moscow if you do that, because (as the article makes clear) to Putin the two would be equivalent.

    Why the F*** were Obama and Nato so keen to have more pieces on their pie... this really bugs me. Ok, so Ukraine was not "neutral in the right way" and was under heavy Russian influence. And so? It's on Russia's doorstep for f***'s sake! What do you expect!

    If China masterminded a coup in Mexico with the aim of bringing the country into a defense treaty with Beijing ... do you think that Washington would not do everything possible to stop it?

    jeeeeez

    Amazon10 7 Feb 2015 11:43

    What people seem to have forgotten is that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union but a free market state that like all others and wants to protect it's own interests. It is confronted by agressive NATO states that have encroached on territories that they agreed they would not.

    In addition thay have a circle of nuclear based with missiles pointing at them. Ukraine, which was a past soviet state but then became neutral after the fall of the Soviet Union. However the US had other ideas as voiced by their representative to the EU Newland who inadvertently had her plans for the Ukraine exposed. Their intended coup took place despite a democratically elected being in place and a government was installed committed to Western imperialism and expansion of NATO.

    The population of the eastern region rejected this coup and it's nazi composition and found that the only way they could resist the military forced brought upon them by Kiev and it's western supporters was by fighting back. This is where we are at today. I am sure that Russia have aided the east with military weapons and have accept over 1million refugees. There has not been a single piece of evidence to show that Russian forces have involved on Ukraine soil. The aggressive rhetoric from the West towards Russia make the likelihood of war real and could have grave consequences for us all if we allow the real truth to be distorted in order to bring this about. The leaders of Europe must be made aware that we will not let this happen and that our constant aggression towards whoever we disagree with is not an excuse for war

    dylan kerling -> Spockdem 7 Feb 2015 11:42

    his post clearly implied it and if you've seen any of his other posts in other articles you would realize he clearly does seem to look at this situation as a dichotomy of good vs evil, west vs Russia.

    When someone lists some atrocities while only referring to one side and completely ignoring the fact that the other has done all of it only more frequently and with less of a reason I would say he's excusing the west from it.

    Lastly I'm not condoning Russia, I'm pointing out US hypocrisy and the fact that we still hear all this talk of how Russia is doing all these terrible things from our political leaders while completely white washing that we've done the very same time and time again.

    If anyone is a shill is all of you that seem to think it's OK when the west does it but if those evil Russians do anything oh boy are they in trouble.

    LarsNil -> Ram2009 7 Feb 2015 11:41

    "Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is identified in State Department documents as an informant for the U.S. since 2006. The documents describe him as "[o]ur Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko." The State Department documents also report that Poroshenko is "tainted by credible corruption allegations."

    The most recent top official to join the Ukrainian government is Natalia A. Jaresko, a long-time State Department official, who went to Ukraine after the U.S.-sponsored Orange Revolution. Jaresko was made a Ukrainian citizen by the president on the same day he appointed her finance minister. William Boardman reports further on Jaresko:

    Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen who managed a Ukrainian-based, U.S.-created hedge fund that was charged with illegal insider trading. She also managed a CIA fund that supported 'pro-democracy' movements and laundered much of the $5 billion the U.S. spent supporting the Maidan protests that led to the Kiev coup in February 2014. Jaresko is a big fan of austerity for people in troubled economies."

    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chomsky_and_kissinger_agree_avoid_historic_tragedy_in_ukraine_20150206

    Vatslav Rente 7 Feb 2015 11:35

    Fakes of the Ukrainian government. The Best.

    September 9, 2014 The head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Gontareva during a round table in Kiev, said: "200 FSB agents work on loosening the Ukrainian banking system and the hryvnia" :)

    February 5, 2015 "The reasons for the fall of the hryvnia - no," - said the Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Abramavičius.

    February 4, 2015: $ 1/17 hryvnia, February 7, 2015 $ 1/26 hryvnia.

    February 6, 2015 Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on Ukrainian TV channel 24: "spirit of the Ukrainian soldiers the best in the world. If you give them the necessary knowledge, skills and weapons, they will be able to capture the whole of Russia "

    Damn sclerosis. Apparently he forgot how as Russia routed the Georgian army for 4 days.

    Let me remind you, this man was considered for the post of head of the Anti-Corruption Committee of Ukraine. In Georgia, he declared a national search in. The Prosecutor's Office indicted in absentia Saakashvili of abuse of power, embezzlement of budget funds, the attempt to seize other people's property. The investigation is conducted from 25 October 2013, and during this period were collected 80 volumes of evidence, questioned nearly 100 witnesses.

    2013 Yatsenyuk in an interview with Ukrainian TV: "In the Ukrainian authorities are amateurs!" Prime Ministers of Ukraine Azarov, Foreign exchange reserves of more than 22 billion dollars, the rate of $ 1 / 8.5 hryvnia.
    Now Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, gold and currency reserves of $ 6 billion, the rate of $ 1/26 hryvnia.

    Davos January 21, 2015 President of Ukraine Poroshenko: "In my country there are more than 9000 troops from the Russian Federation, 500 tanks, heavy artillery and armored vehicles."
    Wow, it's strange that the separatists have not yet reached the border with Poland :)

    February 7, 2015 security conference in Munich. Showing the passport of Russian citizens and military tickets Poroshenko said: "What you still need more facts, evidence of the presence of Russian troops in Ukraine?"
    Ok, but the soldiers of the Russian Army during the service do not have passports, only military ID. But of course when traveling to Ukraine they are given a complete set, in case of capture. Ha ha ha :)

    The Mayor Of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko. At a meeting with Ukrainian soldiers: "they Say that there is no body armor, but it is physical protection. The main armor for each of you, is have a mother, wife, children... Social standards - this is the armor. When everyone knows that if something happens, his family will receive good compensation and will not have to beg" :) Uh... good consolation for the soldiers...

    You do not cast doubt on the adequacy of the new government of Ukraine? I think that these clowns, already tired most of the Ukrainians.

    cherryredguitar Yubin Underok 7 Feb 2015 11:16

    Here is why: Russia has an army of online shills.

    Of course, those nice trustworthy people at GCHQ and Langley wouldn't do stuff like that, would they?

    [Feb 07, 2015] Putin and Ukraine leader to hold phone talks after inconclusive end to summit

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
    "... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
    "... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
    "... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
    Feb 06, 2015 | The Guardian

    1waldo1 7 Feb 2015 10:05

    To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is in the interest of all affected:

    The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.

    "The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not against it." Wise words.

    Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00

    NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....

    Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," - he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to" throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."

    According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."

    Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21

    Putin today:

    "Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world.

    "War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state.

    "Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"- said Putin.

    snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08

    here Merkel's speech (1hr) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-dr-angela-merkel/

    and Lavrov (45min) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-sergey-lavrov-1/

    and more

    [Feb 07, 2015] Merkel downbeat as world awaits Putin's response to latest Ukraine peace plan by Julian Borger in Munich

    Feb 07, 2015 | The Guardian


    Nickel07 Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:15

    of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in power...

    centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14

    international isolation

    Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank) A majority is over 50%.

    centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10

    Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.

    John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07

    The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.

    Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.

    Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04

    I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty man.

    MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01

    Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement. According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article being commented on.

    John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56

    I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.

    If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the idiot Obama.

    centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56

    Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)

    [Feb 07, 2015] Putin and Ukraine leader to hold phone talks after inconclusive end to summit

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
    "... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
    "... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
    "... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
    Feb 06, 2015 | The Guardian

    1waldo1 7 Feb 2015 10:05

    To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is in the interest of all affected:

    The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.

    "The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not against it." Wise words.

    Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00

    NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....

    Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," - he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to" throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."

    According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."

    Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21

    Putin today:

    "Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world.

    "War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state.

    "Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"- said Putin.

    snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08

    here Merkel's speech (1hr) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-dr-angela-merkel/

    and Lavrov (45min) https://www.securityconference.de/en/media-library/video/single/statement-and-discussion-with-sergey-lavrov-1/

    and more

    [Feb 07, 2015] Merkel downbeat as world awaits Putin's response to latest Ukraine peace plan by Julian Borger in Munich

    Feb 07, 2015 | The Guardian


    Nickel07 Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:15

    of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in power...

    centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14

    international isolation

    Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank) A majority is over 50%.

    centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10

    Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.

    John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07

    The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.

    Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.

    Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04

    I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty man.

    MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01

    Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement. According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article being commented on.

    John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56

    I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.

    If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the idiot Obama.

    centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56

    Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)

    [Feb 06, 2015] Merkel and Hollande to present Ukraine peace plan to Putin

    Those who are responsible for soaking Donbass in blood will not stop. They need to be stopped by force. Ukrainian citizens have become either consumable or brainwashed. And for Western Ukrainians, the core supported of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko clan (forme junta that now is integrated into Porosheko government) the war is far from their territory. People are dying there in Debaltsevo and Uglegorsk, Donetsk and Luhansk, while the military and mercenaries are trying to prove their side of the story through shelling of infrastructure and killing citizens. Donbass meetings and referendums were a result EuroMaidan, and emergence of separatst are direct result of absurd actions of the new Ukrainian government, which turn their county into a death factory for the sake of enforcing on the country Western Ukranian brand of nationalism. Those who are living in peace and whose relatives are protected from conscption are demanding the continuation of the war the most loudly. They nurture and inspire her, feeding infernal demons. They created a diabolical request to victims. and they got them: woman, children, eldery, like in any civil war. But they now infected with their bloodthirsty bacillus and can't stop. So people like Yatsenyuk and Turchinov need to be stopped first, removed from this current position and sent to the Hague court before we can talk about peace. And let's don;t forget that the blood of victims of Odessa massacre in also on them. We are talking about repetion of civil war in Spain here with their 200 thousand victims. Looks like Europeans learned nothing from two world war and as soon the the generation the fought the war is in graved a new war is immediately started.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them. ..."
    theguardian.com

    Laurence Johnson -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 15:51

    There are two proxies in the West. Poroshenko is clearly the EU"s man in Ukraine, and Yatsenyuk is very clearly the US's man in Ukraine.

    Whatever Merkel and Hollande come up with for a peace plan, you can guarantee that Yatsenyuk will derail it as soon as possible.

    For Yats, only the supply of weapons, and many more billions of handouts and debt forgiveness will do. In the world for Yats, the war must go on.

    hodgeey nino45 6 Feb 2015 15:27

    I think most people who write here are compassionate; there are few people who have not been touched by tragedy and they learn to be both sympathetic and empathetic, but hesitate to show it.

    Having worked with Russians in Russia I can tell you we are not very different.

    nino45 ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 15:19

    Thank you for your concern, maybe I said it in a wrong way.. my English is not that good. I wanted to express the feeling our elders here have when watching the news. Many people have friends and relatives there, so it is very hard on them. I just wanted to say that ordinary Russian people show compassion in many ways, well not writing comments here in English, but calling their relatives and sending them packages...


    JCDavis -> ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 14:45

    If the US has advisors and a CIA office in Kiev they are there by invitation

    It's the other way around. The CIA invited the present government -- traitors all -- to join in their coup.

    JCDavis -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:58

    You are badly misreading the situation. Ukraine is pawn in a geopolitical struggle for world empire. It will be sacrificed in an instant if it suits the purposes of any of these people. Except Yats, the CIA's pick for the coup, a traitor who will be sacrificed in any case. Who could trust such a person?

    Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:48

    Let them negogiate peace. Merkel wants peace, Hollande needs peace, Putin desperately is seeking peace. Poroshenko is reasonable and negogiable. But imbecile Yatzenuk is non-negogiable. Let us pray that tkhe talks end with peaceful project.

    JCDavis -> harryphilby 6 Feb 2015 13:23

    The Yanks don't do peace.

    This is true. Obama is Cheney's blackmailed puppet, and Cheney was the only neocon in Bush's criminal administration who actually wanted to fight Russia. He is quite mad, and he is the most powerful man in the world. Bad combination.

    Euphobia1 6 Feb 2015 13:21

    One problem is the history of the Ukraine which except for very short periods has always been part of Russia. Only an accident of fate made Ukraine a country and many of its citizens feel Russian and still want to be part of Russia.

    Russia never invaded the Ukraine because it didn't have to as it was Russia. It would be like say East Anglia becoming a separate state in UK just because a politician who lived there thought it might be nice and then finding itself a sovereign state. Khrushchev did this for the Ukraine when he was the boss. Khrushchev never thought the Soviet Union would break up and Ukraine become a separate country for only the second time in it's history.

    When the Soviet Union collapsed the USA treated it so badly. Instead of embracing it when it asked to join the EU Russia was rejected and the West has been encroaching on to it's borders ever since. No wonder Russia is fearful. The USA likes to fight wars in other people's countries. Good for business.

    Russia is big powerful and proud country. Ukraine used to be the major part of it and many living there may still want to be part of it too. The West should wake up and start seeking solutions fast. War is not an answer.


    Justthefactsman 6 Feb 2015 13:20

    Anybody seen pictures that confirm that Russian Federation troops are in the Eastern Ukraine ?

    With todays satellite technology it is almost possible to recognise a packet of cigarettes, how come we haven't seen any satellite images of these massive troop movements ?

    What has happened about the inquiry that is supposed to be investigating the shooting down of the Malayan airliner? Why is the progress not being reported.?

    Shit, it those crafty nasty Russians who are holding up the investigation. How? By asking to see the whole truth about the situation, and we wouldn't want to embarrass the coup inheritors in Kiev by revealing the truth, would we ?

    TrueCopy -> Eric Hoffmann 6 Feb 2015 13:17

    Dude there is no military solution to the mess. The most effective forces on the ground on the Ukraine regime side are Ukrainian "volunteer" paramilitary forces, who are coming from the western part of Ukraine, no one is talking giving them weapons, although Poland has been supporting them for a while. The Ukrainian army isn't going to fight any better no matter what they get. The best thing US can provide them is satellite intelligence, that is already doing. Russia isn't directly involved, but even if the invade Ukraine, there is not much we can do, it is better to just cut a deal and move on.

    JCDavis 6 Feb 2015 13:14

    So Hollande and Merkel and threatening Putin with early membership of Ukraine in NATO, completing Obama's new iron curtain earlier rather than later. Thus this stupid ploy will fail and Congress will throw gas on the fire (boneheads that they are) and Russia will move in with real troops and take all of southern Ukraine. This seems inevitable. Ukraine's goose was cooked when Ukrainian traitors conspired with the CIA Only the carving up is not complete.


    zchabj6 6 Feb 2015 13:13

    It is in the US strategic interest to have a war on Russia's border indefinitely as they already had a part in in Chechnya and Georgia. Georgia is now part of NATO so it worked quite well for the US despite the unnecessary loss of life, not that any nation cares anymore it seems.

    It is not in the interest of Russia, Eurozone, EU or any European state .

    Hence the Russian organized Minsk peace process and some belated EU help to make it happen while the US considers prolonging the war through weapons transfers as they have done and continue in Syria, another Iran/Russia ally.

    Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them.

    [Feb 06, 2015] U.S. Pushes For War In Europe

    Feb 06, 2015 | www.moonofalabama.org

    It is pretty obvious that significant forces in Washington push for a big war in Europe, cold at least but hot if possible. European countries, aside from some small U.S. puppets, are well aware that they would be hit hard in such a war, and do not want it.

    The U.S. wants to deliver additional weapons to Ukraine and to thereby goad Russia into such a wider war. The arguments made that such weapon delivers would somehow restrict Russia are just stupid and only hide the real plans: Escalation until Europe is (again) up in flames.

    There is full steam lobbying by the U.S. to widen the conflict in Ukraine which it instigated in the first place:

    As President Barack Obama's pick to run the Pentagon said Wednesday he's inclined to support lethal weapons transfers, Ukraine's president said he was confident the U.S. would do so. Meanwhile, outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry were flying to discuss Ukraine and other issues with allies in Europe. Vice President Joe Biden is due to follow them Thursday.

    France, the U.K., Germany and other Europeans have spoken out against any such weapon deliveries and the escalation they bring.

    Kerry has flown to Kiev today to push for the Ukraine puppets into escalation. Merkel and Hollande will also fly to Kiev and will hopefully try to convince Poroshenko to deescalate and to make peace with the federalists in east-Ukraine. I have my doubts about their independence though and it may be that their appearance is is just part of the show. Why else did they agree to NATO's increase in capacities and infrastructure in east Europe?

    The solution for the Ukraine is simple. Federalization, official acceptance of the Russian language which is spoken in the East and democratic elections of local governors. These have been the demands in the east and these have been solutions even U.S. foreign policy luminaries urged to accept a year ago.

    The Ukraine is bankrupt. This morning its currency lost 30% in just a few hours. Instead of further instigating a civil war and pushing for its escalation it is urgently time to discuss how that problem can be solved. The solution can not be waging war and permanent subsidization of Europe's most corrupt country.

    Federalization and constitutional reform (i.e. Point 3 Decentralization of power ...) are a major point agreed upon by both sides in the Minsk protocol about a ceasefire in east-Ukraine. But despite insisting on other points of the agreement himself Poroshenko still rejects those most important agreed upon conditions.

    Should the U.S. win in its drive to escalate the situation by delivering more weapons to Kiev Russia will not cave in. History suggest that a Ukraine under NATO at its border is a deadly danger. Russia must and will take countermeasures. The U.S. will then cite those countermeasures as signs of "further aggression" and as justification for another round of escalation. A few more rounds of such and Europe will be up in flames.

    That would be good for the U.S. economy but terrible for the Ukraine and Europe.

    Update Funny. What "important" people are told:

    Cont. reading: U.S. Pushes For War In Europe

    Posted by b at 07:57 AM | Comments (132)

    somebody | Feb 5, 2015 8:36:29 AM | 2

    ... going up in flames, here is a demonstration

    Russian animation with matches - conflict

    Actually, I am not sure Kerry is in Kyiv to make a gift of weapons. Here is the official statement

    And obviously, we'll be talking about the dire security situation in the east of Ukraine and the grave acceleration of the fighting over the Minsk lines by the separatists enabled by Russian weapons, Russian expertise, Russian command and control. He will be endeavoring to support efforts by the Ukrainians to get to a ceasefire, to get back to serious negotiations in the Trilateral Contact Group where the Minsk signatories – Russia, Ukraine, and the separatists – sit. And he will be offering U.S. support to any diplomatic framework that can be successful in this context.

    I guess, Ukraine and the West desperately need a ceasefire now. To throw weapons on it won't help. The IMF has linked further loans to peace and territorial integrity.

    Willy2 | Feb 5, 2015 8:47:15 AM | 5

    Is more chaos not just what the US Empire wants ? "Divide & Conquer", right ? And that chaos would/is bound to spill over into Russia.

    "Mission Accomplished", right ?

    somebody | Feb 5, 2015 9:16:27 AM | 7

    Re: Petrodollar System | Feb 5, 2015 8:39:39 AM | 3

    If Russia decides that is is attacked by NATO and not just threatened by a NATO proxy force within Ukraine and decides to counterattack, then what? Where to end? So much for the feasability of NATO weapons in Ukraine - some are supposed to be there already.

    The vast majority of Ukrainians expect federalization as the end result. They are not stupid. They know this is all about the Petrodollar.

    Not really. It is about Russian influence in South East Europe via gas pipelines. A Russia friendly government in Kiew and federalization would be not an issue apart from Western Ukraine that does have close connections with the EU.

    Hopefully the brinksmanship going on now is really just a way of bettering the NATO negotiating position about who, with federalization, will really control which province. I have a hope the negotiations are down to one particular province now; the sticking point far from the current front. I can see that being worked out. Maybe UN forces can patrol the area of the sticking point.

    I doubt that very much as no one wants to cede the pipeline routes. Nor is it really open to negotiation as Ukrainian infrastructure and flow of goods are hard to reverse.

    US/EU negotiating position just went from bad to worse. UN peacekeepers will be Russian.

    ǝn⇂ɔ | Feb 5, 2015 10:08:30 AM | 10

    From a quick posting troll - inaugural member of the 77th battalion? - said:

    "the only country involved in a war in a Europe is RussiaAmerica. It's supplying arms, men, logistics. It lies about it, because it can. It's not a democracy, it neveronce was and it {will} never will be {again}. It can do what it likes, it controls the media, the industry (as crappy as it is). It silences any opposition, either through outright murder, by imprisonment or by whatever means necessary. {through horizontal censorship and military/intelligence agency sponsored social media trolling} "

    http://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-satire/

    Edited for accuracy...

    fairleft | Feb 5, 2015 10:13:11 AM | 11

    It could not be any more obvious that Kerry is in Kiev to keep the bloody war going. His first words are to back up Ukrainian propaganda and blame the entire conflict on Russia and then set impossible conditions:

    pulling back heavy weapons beyond the range of civilian populations, removing foreign troops and heavy equipment from Ukraine, and closing the Russia-Ukraine border.

    The only way the conflict gets solved is to deal respectfully with the legitimate grievances of Eastern Ukraine, and that is exactly what Kerry didn't say a word about. The ridiculous appointment by corrupt Kiev of oligarchs as governors in the regions is the biggest offense, and democratic federalization has always been the reasonable solution. Poroshenko is STILL not talking to the East and still calling them terrorists.

    This is the guy Kerry is hugging and reassuring with these wonderful words: "LET'S HAVE A WAR!"

    dh | Feb 5, 2015 10:42:35 AM | 12

    Kerry can't be that stupid. He must know that even if Kiev gets more 'defensive' weapons one month later and they'll be asking for planes and cruise missiles.

    farflungstar | Feb 5, 2015 10:44:28 AM | 13

    USSA plans to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, makes it seem like it's all Russia's fault. I hope Russia wastes no expense in reminding the average Ukrainian who the real monstrous a$$hole is here, pulling conflicts out of thin air and playing everyone like pawns.

    I have a sneaking suspicion the Ukraine will ultimately look back with grim nostalgia at the peace they had before the Maidan.

    Alberto | Feb 5, 2015 10:52:27 AM | 14

    The main objective of the Ukraine putsch appears to be the perpetuation of NATO by manufacturing a war with Russia? Do not ever forget that the Czar of WHITE RUSSIA backed the colonists in the Revolutionary War against England. The same actors of 250 years ago are still the propelling force behind all present weapons manufacture/sales, genocide, violence and civil wars.

    22 COUNTRIES NEVER INVADED BY ENGLAND ...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html

    WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE

    Noirette | Feb 5, 2015 11:02:13 AM | 15

    Btw the previous Ukr. currency failed in 1996. It was called the Kupon! (Inflation, mis-management.)

    The PTB in the Kiev-coup Gvmt will not hear of federalization. I even doubt anybody could coerce them into agreeing with that. No matter how dominant or powerful one considers the US, the EU, the CIA or whomever. The Donbass is now (and was previous) a cancer to extirpate.

    In fact besides cutting off all usual country ties (pensions, teachers salaries, state services, police, taxation..), Kiev has cut off the banks and financial services.

    Also, set up checkpoint so that nobody can leave. (A request with a pile of paper has to be made, then, zilch, turned back at the border. Yes a border.) Kiev has also cancelled public bus/train transport, trains no longer run. into the Donbass. Poroshenko when he stated "their children will starve in the cellars while ours go to school" was not kidding. So the Donbass, for ex., can no longer import meds. Besides its hospitals being shelled to bits…

    Palestine, anyone?

    From the other side, Donesk + Lugansk Rs will not turn back, the killing has been too atrocious. Putin and the W may still be mouthing about a 'unitary Ukraine', that ship has sailed. Federalization can take place in certain conditions, not these. I reckon the parties who propose it know that very well.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 5, 2015 11:03:19 AM | 16

    @6 This is why I don't think the Russians have been more active. A collapse in Kiev will leave an angry and bitter populace behind which will have a hard time moving East.

    I suspect a sense of national betrayal to develop in greater Kiev against the West. They will say, "the jews betrayed us," because that is traditional and create terrorist operations against nominally anti-Russian countries such as Poland who won't be interested in helping Kiev when the going gets tough.

    radiator | Feb 5, 2015 11:57:20 AM | 18

    I actually believe that the tide is turning against nato. Open supply of arms would, imho, make the population in western ukraine go and throw poroshenko from the rooftop - people are not so stupid that they wouldn't notice that the us uses them as cannon fodder to fight its wars, like they do everywhere else on the globe. it's just my opinion but i believe that among what used to be the soviet countries, there's still somewhat more sensitivity and insight for the evil ways of the us empire.

    So to me, this merkel-hollande-kerry visits look more like a panicked effort to either gain time or push for a ceasefire and maybe even federalization before the Ukrainian nazi militias are obsolete and the country takes a reconquista coup from their own population.

    Should there come an anti-maidan with support of the sensible parts of the ukrainian army, the whole country might be back under russian influence for some time. The western politicians are trying to avoid that if possible.

    The way the russians have played this game thus for I am firmly convinced that they'll know how to play this, now advantage, for the best.

    Pat Bateman | Feb 5, 2015 12:15:54 PM | 19

    @Noirette#15 - You are right about Kiev's attitude to federalism. Is there a disconnect here?

    Having watched Willy Wonka's press conference with Kerry, Porky was reminded that Donbass should have a special status. But I noticed in his earlier interview with Germany's Welt newspaper, the idea of federalism was rejected by Poroshenko as a solution to separatist demands. Has he now been publicly put in his place by Kerry, or are the aims of Kiev disconnected from Washington? Does Porky fear being turned into bacon if he caves in to the will of the East; to being dragged through the streets by the same fun loving criminals used to bring down his predecessor?

    Just who really can control the spirits unleashed?

    S-true | Feb 5, 2015 12:40:28 PM | 20

    Well...this is kinda interesting:

    AJC calls for western support of Ukraine

    The American Jewish Committee concluded a solidarity mission to Ukraine on Thursday, expressing its support for the former Soviet republic in its conflict with Russia.

    "First and foremost, we visited Kiev to express our ongoing solidarity with, and support for, the Ukrainian quest to chart its own destiny," AJC Executive Director David Harris said in a statement.

    "We applaud the current government's determination in the face of overwhelming adversity. With so much at stake for Ukraine and regional and global security, it is critical that Western governments respond with appropriate support for the country. This is nothing less than a defining era."

    The delegation met with senior officials -including security officials and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk- as well as Jewish leaders, the American organization said in a statement.

    Among the topics discussed were "financial, military, and other forms of international support needed by Ukraine" and the well-being of Ukrainian Jewry, the AJC stated.

    JerusalemPost

    Don't know about you, but I find this support for the Kiev government (which obviously has some radical right-wing elements) by a Jewish Association truly remarkable, if not stunning.
    UNLESS they're doing it guided by "some higher interest"...

    radiator | Feb 5, 2015 1:15:12 PM | 27

    Re: #23

    well imho having a nato controlled portion of ukraine nearby would be a danger and defeat for russia. it's already bad enough to have poland and the baltics under nato control... i guess they'd make other concessions, have some persona non grata in the ukrainian government or whatever, as long as they can make sure that ukraine stays militarily neutral. the best outcome for russia would surely be a somewhat federalized but in any case unified ukraine that's not a member or associate of nato. soon they'll have the means to accomplish exactly this (would be my guess).

    Fernando | Feb 5, 2015 2:01:27 PM | 31

    The plan is for war in Ukraine, Moldova and inside Russia if possible. The USA doesn't really want war in UK, Germany or France. It's to be a limited war, a fast food war but in ebbs and flows that helps the economy grow stupid doncha know?

    VietnamVet | Feb 5, 2015 2:40:02 PM | 32

    The Clash of Civilizations never went away; it was tamped down for a while by realists who avoided a nuclear war between the West and the East. This century ideologues and true believers seized power in the West. Today it is everybody for themselves.

    Aggregating wealth, flushing sovereign government down the toilet, regime change and chaos are the goals of the Western Rulers. It all has come together in the Ukraine. The realist position is a neutral federated Ukraine.

    Instead a civil war was started and prodded along until mankind is just one mistake away from Armageddon.

    Laguerre | Feb 5, 2015 3:29:50 PM | 37

    I don't know much about Ukraine, in comparison to others here, but I would have thought it obvious that if Merkel, Hollande and Kerry are in Kiev, it is because the Kiev regime is on the point of collapse, as already appreciated by b and others.

    The collapse is military, not financial, even if Ukraine is also bankrupt. Otherwise immediate presence would not be necessary. Many countries fight wars while being bankrupt.

    The US talks of offering defensive arms. That seems inappropriate, a proposal more adapted to Syria. Ukraine has plenty of arms, indeed manufactures them. The problem is human, not weapon-related. Conscript Ukrainians are fleeing in large numbers. No-one wants to fight for Kiev.

    I doubt that Russia is intervening actively, in the sense of a desire to integrate Novorussiya into Russia. I recall the discussions last autumn, where the lack of interest for Putin was emphasised. Nevertheless Russia is obligated to help its relatives, and equally, if they don't do it, it would be a shame. I don't see any way that Russia has passed beyond what is necessary to help their relatives.

    One could compare to the Kurds, where it was thought OK for the Peshmerga to depart from Erbil to help their relatives far away in Kobani.

    Ulster | Feb 5, 2015 3:37:03 PM | 38

    @25 No doubt that Kulikov knows what he's saying about the war in "highly populated areas" as he was commanding Russian forces in Chechnya. He chose tactics that was indeed much more effective compared to the one Ukrainians now use in Donbass - Russians in Chechnya just bombed everything from artillery and air until it was burned to the ground (but a high number of civilian casualties was never a significant problem for Russian army).

    But I would be still skeptical as it comes to Ukrainian army "being close to defeat". Everyone in Russia - and on MoA - was repeating this mantra over and over again since April last year. Ukraine was "close to defeat" in April, in August, in November and so on. But since then the Russia backed separatist made literally no progress, neither military, nor political.

    NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 5, 2015 3:41:24 PM | 39

    @37 Kerry and the gang might not be offering new arms as much as trying to find an explanation for existing arms especially if the current Ukranianian cauldron surrenders.

    Anonymous | Feb 5, 2015 3:58:00 PM | 40

    Just read that Ukraine nazis will start murdering soldiers that refuse to wage war in the east.

    ruralito | Feb 5, 2015 4:27:40 PM | 41

    @ Ulcers "But since then the Russia backed separatist made literally no progress, neither military, nor political."

    So, Kiev doesn't need military supplies from the west?

    Justin O | Feb 5, 2015 4:29:33 PM | 42

    The crisis in Ukraine has nothing to do with "freedom and democracy" (or free-dumb and demo-crazy as I like to call it). The root cause of the crisis is the overwhelming desire on the part of the US to prevent a Eurasian integration project dominated by the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet space. It is the US/EU who have interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and are destabilising Ukraine not Russia.

    The criminal nature of the Ukrainian government is well known and understood by US and EU policy makers but their crimes are being downplayed or totally ignored.

    Any decent human being with a conscience would understand that it is the US-led "democratic" project that is responsible for the bloodshed in Ukraine.

    Demian | Feb 5, 2015 4:33:53 PM | 43

    @Ulter:

    You must be Ukrainian. I don't think even Poles or Latvians would harp on the Chechen wars while the UAF are intensively bombarding populated areas of Donbass. In any case, there is absolutely no comparison between what the junta is doing and what Russia did in Chechnya. Russia was brutal with Chechnya yes, but there was no other way of putting down the foreign jihadists. Those were brutal wars, but every action Russia took had a military purpose. In contrast, Kiev's murder of civilians and destruction of infrastructure, kindergartens, schools, and hospitals has absolutely no military purpose. It is genocide, plain and simple. The objective was to eliminate Ukrainians who identify as Russian from Ukraine, because only Ukrainians who identify as Russian resist fascism and hence the junta. But now Kiev knows that it has lost the Donbass. The bombing is now done out of nothing but spite: if Ukrainians can't have Donbass, they will leave Novorossiyans with a wasteland.

    New York Observer:
    The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs

    On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo-a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.

    One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process. He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.

    The people now running the Ukraine are more psychotic than the original Nazis ever were. America's Great Generation who fought against the Nazis must be turning in their graves.
    Demian | Feb 5, 2015 6:05:38 PM | 54

    @NotTimothyGeithner #51:

    I'll disagree about the Kiev government being crazier than the nazis.
    German nationalism makes sense, because Germany is a great nation. Ukrainian nationalism makes no sense at all, because not only is Ukraine not a great nation - it's not even a nation. It is an artificial construct clumped together from parts of other countries. The reason that the Banderites are so dead set against federalization is that they realize this, and they want to solve the problem by forcibly Ukrainizing all Ukrainian citizens who are not ethnically and/or culturally Ukrainian.
    I'm positive Hillary and Obama would be devastated if they met victims of their crimes.
    I seriously doubt that. They know the consequences of their actions. They just place no value on human life. They are both psychopaths. Hillary with her joke "We came, we saw, he died"; Obama with his pride about his personally going over the White House kill list.

    @Scott #52:

    This might be a pivotal weekend boys and girls.
    Yes, that's what Russian bloggers are saying. A Russian general said on Russian TV that NAF should advance to the administrative borders of DPR and LPR.

    Israel likes to talk about "facts on the ground". It doesn't seem to have sunk into the Obama regime yet that the facts on the ground in Donbass are not in its favor. Obama and Kerry continue their bluster.

    The Empire's fall back plan, in case it could not hold on to the Ukraine, is perpetual chaos in the area between NATO and Russia. But I think that if Russia was able to pacify Chechnya, it will be able to eventually pacify Ukraine. Of course, that will largely depend on the Ukrainians coming to their senses. That process will begin by their suffering a decisive military defeat won by non-fascist Ukrainians. Hopefully that will teach them that being a fascist is a losing proposition.

    [Feb 05, 2015] Merkel and Hollande to fly to Moscow in new effort to resolve Ukraine crisis by Shaun Walker in Kiev, Ian Traynor in Brussels, Dan Roberts in Washington and Alec Luhn in Moscow

    Notable quotes:
    "... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
    "... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
    "... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
    "... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
    "... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
    "... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
    "... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
    "... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
    "... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
    "... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
    "... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
    "... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
    "... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
    "... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
    "... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
    "... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
    "... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
    "... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
    Feb 05, 2015 | The Guardian


    Soul_Side -> Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:16

    Dick Harrison

    Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is

    Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens, has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.

    You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.

    thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15

    I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,

    AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13

    The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.

    The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.

    Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to expand. Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.

    Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11

    General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.

    NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09

    I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis.

    nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07

    The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet.

    desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04

    I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.

    Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03

    Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.

    Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01

    laSaya said:

    Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.

    Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes, livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?

    Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.

    angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56

    Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!

    Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that cannot be won.

    AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56

    Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??

    Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at Russia, don't you think they would have used it?

    glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50

    courtesy of google translate:

    Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal actions.

    In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar actions, while not causing the death of soldier.

    If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person against whom he may apply such measures

    suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38

    suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America

    He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!

    cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36

    While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see them as idiots.

    Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join such an adventure.

    AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40

    CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.

    AlienLifeForce -> MentalToo 5 Feb 2015 19:35

    Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.

    Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement can be made.

    He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.

    The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?

    he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.

    If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.

    He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.

    Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.

    All this was simply because his ego was hurt.


    It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash by now.

    If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.

    KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57

    Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What possible benefit is that to you and me?

    Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.

    This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In "Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".

    They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.

    roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55

    "We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's territorial integrity."

    That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous?

    Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary war.

    I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on Ukraine be strike no 3?

    Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55

    Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied with Russia.

    Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.

    I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house.

    I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with.

    Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54

    Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency reported here; http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419

    Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53

    They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.

    BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52

    Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.

    In regard to Georgia

    The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.

    Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.

    Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all Georgians today".

    During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and Augusta.

    In regard to the Crimea

    The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the Crimea.

    Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine? When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.

    In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev

    The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"

    However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.

    Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.

    ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45

    "Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".

    [Feb 05, 2015] How Kremlin TV Covers America and Why It Matters by Lincoln Mitchell

    Another signal from 2015 about forthcoming clump down on RT. RT is Russian propaganda site, but that does not exclude them providing high quality critical coverage of US and European events. In any case RT is preferable to BBC, although comparing two can get you at higher level of understanding, than watching just one
    Notable quotes:
    "... simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, ..."
    "... at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news. ..."
    "... Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter ..."
    Feb 03, 2015 | Observer

    At first glance, Lee Camp, Thom Hartmann and Larry King don't seem to have a lot in common. Mr. Camp is a comedian who seeks to fuse progressive politics with humor. He is perhaps best known for his "Moment of Clarity" rants, where he colorfully, and occasionally profanely, analyzes an issue from the news. Mr. Hartmann is a progressive radio host, author and pundit who has written numerous books, articles and blogs. Larry King is legendary talk show host and erstwhile Little League coach. He has interviewed presidents, actors, musicians and even Oprah.

    All three of these media personalities, however, share a link to RT (formerly Russia Today), the English-language arm of the Russian government's media operation. In less diplomatic terms, it is a Kremlin propaganda machine. RT's coverage of Russia, the conflict in Ukraine and other issues having direct bearing on Moscow's role in the world, include headlines that sound like they could have been written by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Mother Russia is portrayed as a force for only good and peace in the world. It's anchors and "reporters" have enthusiasm for euphemisms such as "stabilizing force" ("invading army") and "humanitarian aid" ("military intervention"). RT's coverage of Russian politics is heavy-handed, unsubtle and, in the U.S., not particularly effective. Despite RT's best efforts to gin up sympathy for Russia in the current Ukraine conflict, most mainstream politicians and media outlets continue to compete with each other to see who can demonize Putin most.

    RT's coverage of the U.S., however, is different. While it certainly has an political agenda, one that is not of the left or the right, but simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, RT covers news, and offers perspectives that are not often seen American broadcast television. RT touts itself as offering a "second opinion," through its American media campaign, described by Ronn Torossian recently here at the Observer. RT is certainly neither objective or balanced, but it is at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news.

    Recent RT headlines such as "Police Brutality Activists Angry Obama Glossed Over Ferguson 'Events' in SOTU" and "Majority of America's Public School Children are Living in Poverty," span a reasonably broad ideological range, but seek to consistently to portray the U.S. in a negative light. These are also stories that much of the media overlooks. This approach, and similar language can also be found in RT America's busy Twitter feed. If RT were funded through advertising or the largesse of a quirky American billionaire and only covered domestic politics here in the U.S., it would be viewed by many as a useful component of a diverse media environment. For these reasons, RT is now the most watched foreign news outlet in the U.S., with an audience that is estimated to be 6.5 times as large as its closest rival, Al Jazeera America.

    In addition to its news coverage, RT has also become a clearinghouse for the opinions of American dissidents, including those on the far left like Noam Chomsky, the far, if twisted, right like Pat Buchanan, and increasingly fringe Libertarians like Ron Paul. While opinions like these are provocative, unpopular and often a little wacky, RT gives American audiences access to ideas and opinions that are considerably beyond the narrow bandwidth in which most debate in the media usually occurs. Clearly, these opinions are more extreme than the more genial progressive politics of Mr. Camp or Mr. Hartmann or of the generally politically neutral work of Mr. King, but taken as a whole, RT provides a very broad range of political outlooks.

    Somebody who only watched RT would have an image of the U.S. as a place of radical economic inequality, widespread civil unrest, corrupt politicians, racial animus and a collapsing economy, committed to expanding its global influence through military might. Of course, somebody who watched only Fox News, would understand the U.S. to be a country that is in the throws of a socialist takeover where an oppressed minority of white, heavily Christian citizens, are now losing the country that was given to them by the almighty, to hordes of illegal immigrants, non-whites, homosexuals and atheists. Both Fox and RT are propaganda organs espousing very biased views of American politics. The major difference may be that Fox represents one extreme of the domestic political spectrum while RT is the propaganda arm of a foreign government. While RT draws more viewers than other foreign news networks like CCTV from China, Al Jazeera America or even the BBC, its viewership is dwarfed by major American news stations like Fox; RT America has 194,000 Twitter followers compared with Fox News has 4.83 million Twitter followers.

    But dismissing RT's coverage as simply a Russian propaganda, however, is a mistake. The insights of people like Mr. Camp and Mr. Hartmann, while not universally agreed upon, certainly resonate with many Americans. It is significant that it is only on a Moscow-funded station that voices like those can be heard, reflecting how the major media outlets still only present a relatively narrow range of views on most topics. Second, providing a critical and resonant portrayal of American politics to American viewers will eventually make those viewers more open to RT's dubious presentation of foreign affairs and Russian politics. The Kremlin hopes that the same people who watch RT's US programming and wonder why stories about, for example, why the US is classifying information about aid to Afghanistan, will soon begin to question why so few voices on American media are critical of the Ukrainian government.

    Consider RT's coverage of American politics as a bait and switch, from critical insight about the US to dishonest propaganda regarding Russia.

    Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter

    Alfred Cossi Chodaton

    RT does nothing different from what major media outlets do.

    Ilya Nesterovich

    Lie, lie and lie. That's all. RT show different opinion from official, and, of course, USA doesn't like it.

    Mstislav Pavlov

    In Russia there is no need for propaganda. Your media better than any propaganda. Kremlin even do not need anything :)

    [Feb 05, 2015] Merkel and Hollande to fly to Moscow in new effort to resolve Ukraine crisis by Shaun Walker in Kiev, Ian Traynor in Brussels, Dan Roberts in Washington and Alec Luhn in Moscow

    Notable quotes:
    "... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
    "... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
    "... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
    "... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
    "... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
    "... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
    "... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
    "... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
    "... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
    "... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
    "... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
    "... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
    "... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
    "... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
    "... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
    "... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
    "... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
    "... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
    Feb 05, 2015 | The Guardian


    Soul_Side -> Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:16

    Dick Harrison

    Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is

    Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens, has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.

    You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.

    thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15

    I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,

    AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13

    The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.

    The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.

    Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to expand. Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.

    Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11

    General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.

    NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09

    I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis.

    nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07

    The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet.

    desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04

    I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.

    Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03

    Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.

    Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01

    laSaya said:

    Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.

    Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes, livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?

    Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.

    angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56

    Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!

    Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that cannot be won.

    AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56

    Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??

    Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at Russia, don't you think they would have used it?

    glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50

    courtesy of google translate:

    Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal actions.

    In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar actions, while not causing the death of soldier.

    If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person against whom he may apply such measures

    suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38

    suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America

    He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!

    cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36

    While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see them as idiots.

    Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join such an adventure.

    AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40

    CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.

    AlienLifeForce -> MentalToo 5 Feb 2015 19:35

    Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.

    Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement can be made.

    He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.

    The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?

    he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.

    If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.

    He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.

    Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.

    All this was simply because his ego was hurt.


    It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash by now.

    If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.

    KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57

    Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What possible benefit is that to you and me?

    Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.

    This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In "Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".

    They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.

    roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55

    "We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's territorial integrity."

    That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous?

    Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary war.

    I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on Ukraine be strike no 3?

    Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55

    Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied with Russia.

    Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.

    I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house.

    I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with.

    Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54

    Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency reported here; http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419

    Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53

    They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.

    BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52

    Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.

    In regard to Georgia

    The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.

    Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.

    Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all Georgians today".

    During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and Augusta.

    In regard to the Crimea

    The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the Crimea.

    Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine? When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.

    In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev

    The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"

    However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.

    Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.

    ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45

    "Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".

    [Feb 04, 2015] Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine – video

    Note the headline " Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine". No one is responsible for shelling. It was just hit. Compare this with headlines about supposed "separatists" shellings.
    theguardian.com

    At least three people were killed in a series of shellings in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Wednesday that pro-Russian separatists said were Uragan missiles fired by Ukrainian forces. Earlier, the Ukrainian military said two of its soldiers had been killed and 18 wounded in fighting against pro-Russian separatists in the previous 24 hours

    [Feb 04, 2015] Q A: Should US send lethal military assistance to Ukraine?

    Feb 03, 2015 | The Guardian

    AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29

    Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
    Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.

    Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian civil war is being waged.

    The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

    In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

    The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

    Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

    Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.

    If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false, then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html

    USCricketer 3 Feb 2015 22:06

    While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.

    Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??

    And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?

    Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?

    Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..


    greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14

    the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.

    poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The real civil war has yet to start.

    PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13

    i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians

    I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.


    EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12

    I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.

    [Feb 04, 2015] Q A: Should US send lethal military assistance to Ukraine?

    Feb 03, 2015 | The Guardian

    AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29

    Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
    Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.

    Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian civil war is being waged.

    The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

    In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

    The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

    Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

    Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.

    If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false, then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html

    USCricketer 3 Feb 2015 22:06

    While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.

    Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??

    And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?

    Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?

    Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..


    greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14

    the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.

    poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The real civil war has yet to start.

    PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13

    i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians

    I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.


    EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12

    I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.

    [Feb 02, 2015] Ukraine crisis: Kiev hopes talks will go ahead despite renewed violence

    So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that reminds me Spanish civil war.
    Notable quotes:
    "... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
    Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

    The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.


    fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48

    The situation is far more complex than that.

    it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.

    IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48

    Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing cities killing civilians and destroying property.

    What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.


    AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58

    Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to explain with all those drones they have?


    AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29

    There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web, like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html

    AlienLifeForce

    The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

    In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

    The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

    Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

    AlienLifeForce

    Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to get Russia involved in conflict but failed.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html


    fedupwiththeliesalso -> jezzam 1 Feb 2015 17:52

    "democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"

    What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.

    Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19

    The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the third, forth ones.

    So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the command of the Big 6.

    LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57

    "
    The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
    How long will it take you?

    GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46

    I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence, violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East Ukraine will be forever thankful.

    [Feb 02, 2015] Ukraine crisis: Kiev hopes talks will go ahead despite renewed violence

    So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that reminds me Spanish civil war.
    Notable quotes:
    "... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
    Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

    The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.


    fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48

    The situation is far more complex than that.

    it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.

    IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48

    Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing cities killing civilians and destroying property.

    What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.


    AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58

    Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to explain with all those drones they have?


    AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29

    There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web, like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2576490/Are-Blackwater-active-Ukraine-Videos-spark-talk-U-S-mercenary-outfit-deployed-Donetsk.html

    AlienLifeForce

    The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."

    In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.

    The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.

    Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.

    AlienLifeForce

    Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to get Russia involved in conflict but failed.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/01/ukrainian-government-russian-troops-fighting-us.html


    fedupwiththeliesalso -> jezzam 1 Feb 2015 17:52

    "democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"

    What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.

    Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19

    The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the third, forth ones.

    So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the command of the Big 6.

    LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57

    "
    The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
    How long will it take you?

    GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46

    I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence, violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East Ukraine will be forever thankful.

    [Feb 01, 2015] US considers providing arms to Ukraine as rebels step up attacks, says report

    It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From comments:
    "The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
    and
    "Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts"
    Notable quotes:
    "... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
    "... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
    "... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
    "... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
    Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

    TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

    There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts" ...

    For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

    Why is the Guardian doing this?

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29

    Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be talking about truce.

    This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.

    edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29

    Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?

    What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?

    What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate a civil war in Europe!

    scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28

    I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate another country's borders, officially.

    Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot more convincing ten years ago than they do today.

    ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28

    The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?

    TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

    There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...

    For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

    Why is the Guardian doing this?

    Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07

    Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.

    Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.

    BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.

    GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06

    I'm English, but I think you are American.

    And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.

    GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02

    Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused, assaulted, and disappeared.

    There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup that toppled Yanukovych.

    HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00

    Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.

    GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57

    Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine, there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in Kiev, nor do they want to.

    Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations.

    When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what was the US response?

    "Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.


    MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56

    Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts

    Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54

    This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.

    MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51

    German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary Victoria Nuland.

    Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!

    MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45

    Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!

    MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42

    Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right, I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.

    Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41

    The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the fascists. All you need to know, everyone.

    MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40

    Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan of democratic transional government.

    Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on Ukraine.

    Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.

    Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.

    Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34

    Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for sure!

    Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44

    Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you HAVE.

    HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32

    How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?

    TommyGuardianReader , Feb 1, 2015 21:31

    Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free" article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes only guns can stop guns",

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/putin-stopped-ukraine-military-support-russian-propaganda

    It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big money.

    During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.

    He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.

    By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The Willing?

    As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":

    "The men who build the planes and make the tanks
    Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
    While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
    Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."


    Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30

    Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)

    GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21

    Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs" from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
    It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however, was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets, and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.

    And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at last. The warmongers have their war.

    Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21

    Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?

    AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08

    So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession

    [Feb 01, 2015] Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns

    If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co Persona non grata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
    Notable quotes:
    "... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
    Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

    CityCalledNain 1 Feb 2015 16:54

    From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers.

    Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....

    This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO funds.


    Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54

    Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)

    Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53

    "We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than the BBC."

    I couldn't stop laughing!

    Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better, Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes, the need to confront Russia at all cost.

    Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?

    The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments, very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!

    Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is gaining the field? All three?


    halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52

    And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail, cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and agents of influence in EU capitals"?

    Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
    Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.


    micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52

    Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like Guernica.


    whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48

    Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but that of the US president himself.

    So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?


    RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46

    Putin must be stopped.

    Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.

    Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be stopped!!?

    '' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months from their general election.

    Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of, Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo Nazis; thugs.

    Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts every monning.

    But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon, bite the bastards on the arse.

    These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.

    Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.

    If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now. This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.

    And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.

    We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO. So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country without a mandate from our Parliament?


    herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44

    The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.

    In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.

    There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.

    The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and BMWs.


    Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44

    As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.

    When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their throats - especially American 'democracy'.


    rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43

    "Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in tears.

    NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41

    "German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."

    Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after all.

    The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was torn to shreds with that.

    [Feb 01, 2015] Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns

    If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co Persona non grata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
    Notable quotes:
    "... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
    Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

    CityCalledNain 1 Feb 2015 16:54

    From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers.

    Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....

    This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO funds.


    Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54

    Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)

    Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53

    "We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than the BBC."

    I couldn't stop laughing!

    Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better, Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes, the need to confront Russia at all cost.

    Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?

    The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments, very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!

    Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is gaining the field? All three?


    halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52

    And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail, cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and agents of influence in EU capitals"?

    Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
    Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.


    micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52

    Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like Guernica.


    whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48

    Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but that of the US president himself.

    So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?


    RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46

    Putin must be stopped.

    Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.

    Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be stopped!!?

    '' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months from their general election.

    Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of, Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo Nazis; thugs.

    Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts every monning.

    But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon, bite the bastards on the arse.

    These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.

    Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.

    If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now. This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.

    And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.

    We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO. So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country without a mandate from our Parliament?


    herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44

    The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.

    In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.

    There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.

    The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and BMWs.


    Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44

    As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.

    When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their throats - especially American 'democracy'.


    rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43

    "Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in tears.

    NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41

    "German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."

    Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after all.

    The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was torn to shreds with that.

    [Feb 01, 2015] US considers providing arms to Ukraine as rebels step up attacks, says report

    It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From comments:
    "The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
    and
    "Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts"
    Notable quotes:
    "... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
    "... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
    "... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
    "... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
    Feb 01, 2015 | The Guardian

    TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

    There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts" ...

    For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

    Why is the Guardian doing this?

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29

    Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be talking about truce.

    This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.

    edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29

    Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?

    What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?

    What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate a civil war in Europe!

    scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28

    I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate another country's borders, officially.

    Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot more convincing ten years ago than they do today.

    ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28

    The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?

    TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.

    There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...

    For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian. Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.

    Why is the Guardian doing this?

    Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07

    Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.

    Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.

    BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.

    GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06

    I'm English, but I think you are American.

    And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.

    GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02

    Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused, assaulted, and disappeared.

    There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup that toppled Yanukovych.

    HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00

    Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.

    GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57

    Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine, there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in Kiev, nor do they want to.

    Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations.

    When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what was the US response?

    "Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.


    MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56

    Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature. Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of research it helps with facts

    Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54

    This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.

    MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51

    German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary Victoria Nuland.

    Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!

    MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45

    Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!

    MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42

    Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right, I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.

    Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41

    The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the fascists. All you need to know, everyone.

    MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40

    Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan of democratic transional government.

    Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on Ukraine.

    Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.

    Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.

    Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34

    Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for sure!

    Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44

    Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you HAVE.

    HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32

    How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?

    TommyGuardianReader , Feb 1, 2015 21:31

    Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free" article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes only guns can stop guns",

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/01/putin-stopped-ukraine-military-support-russian-propaganda

    It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big money.

    During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.

    He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.

    By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The Willing?

    As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":

    "The men who build the planes and make the tanks
    Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
    While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
    Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."


    Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30

    Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)

    GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21

    Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs" from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
    It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however, was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets, and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.

    And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at last. The warmongers have their war.

    Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21

    Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?

    AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08

    So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession

    [Jan 31, 2015] Le couvercle de la marmite commence à sautiller by Oscar Fortin

    Slightly edited Google translation
    January 29, 2015 | AgoraVox

    The lid of the pot begins to hop

    One may ask how far will the patience of Putin and the Russian People, the victims just as much an aggressive sanctions of the West (Washington and NATO) that the misinformation in the guilty of everything that is happening in the Ukraine. For that closely follows the true frame of events and decode the scenarios that all have a same goal, it is enough to ask whether the West can do is simply not to trigger the Great War, the elimination of all his enemies, real and potential.

    Three months before the overthrow of the legitimate President of Ukraine, specifically in November 2003, a member took the floor to the Parliament to sound the alarm on the actions concern the u.s. Embassy in Ukraine. An intervention is now complete. His speech begins with the following words :

    "In my role, as a representative of the Ukrainian people, activists of the public organization "Volya" addressed to me and have provided clear evidence that on our territory, with the support and direct involvement of the US embassy in Kiev, the project "TechCamp" is put in place under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.

    The project "TechCamp" prepares specialists in the information war using modern media to discredit the institutions of the state, in order to create conditions to organize violent demonstrations and the overthrow of the rule of law. "

    There is no doubt that everything that is currently happening in Ukraine corresponds to a scenario coldly prepared months in advance. The offensive is of the size and proportion that there are many who think that it can lead up to nuclear confrontation. The ex-president Gorbachev worried about the fate that awaits Europe if she lets herself be drawn into that conflict. I refer you to this excellent article by Paul Craig Roberts.

    One may ask what can justify such an offensive against Russia through Ukraine, which serves as cover for sanctions and a campaign of misinformation of diabolical proportions against Putin and Russia. Allow me to offer a few consideration regading this potencially life and death scenario.

    Putin, supported unconditionally by people of Russia, is the bearer of a vision multi-polar world that substitutes for a unipolar world dominated by the neoliberal Empire, led by United States. This vision of a multipolar world intersects with the concerns and interests of many countries that do not want to be vassals of the Empire, but exist as independent sovereign nations, all equal in their rights. Already, this trend is visible among countries that are grouped under acronym BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) who already made this choice and have laid the first stone in the construction of this multi-polar world, when they met in South America, last June.

    Putin is the one who voiced his opposition to the neoliberal Empire, refusing to submit to attempts of conquest and domination of West over Russia. His position strengthened after the invasion of Libya, he was able to draw lessons from this experience and understood that West neve accepts his people as equals. The West adventure of the conquest of Syria on the basis of a scenario similar to the one used for the conquest of Libya has encountered a conscientious objector in the person of Vladimir Putin. Supported by his people and a large majority of the international community, he with intelligence and determination pursued his position about necessity of a multi-polar world where the nations can regain their dignity and the respect of other nations.

    The Empire is hit hte wall with the head and its only honorable exit would be to return to the respect of international law, which does not grant any special prerogative to any empire. This path does not seem to suit the ego of US elite and that means that the empire must deploy his muscles of great military power to make a clean sweep of the undisciplined vassals.

    However, this is not her custom to present himself as the bad light, who just attack and hurt other nations. His approach is rather to present themselves as the great saviour who is the rescue mission for the oppressed. In this sense, and in this case, he will be able to transform Putin in a real "devil" as some of its allies, such as the Prince Charles (who already compated Putin with Hitler), and that an orthodox patriarch of Ukraine has compared him with devil.

    Ukraine as a strategic boder between the Russia and NATO, became the ideal choice to cause harm to Putin and the Russian People. They are betting that Putin will not tolerate that Washington coup in Kiev and NATO attempt to install their military junta in Ukraine. How could Russian allow that Washington and NATO have come to take full control of this strategic territory and set up a military base ?

    Since last February, nothing is left to chance : the change of government, the aggressive policies against the people desire for independence in the south-east of Ukraine, discrimination in the language and culture of Russians. The new government has taken legislative measures, among other things, to dismiss the Russian language as an official language of Ukraine. The main cities of this region are the object of armed attacks indiscriminate killing of civilians and bombings,

    In July, a plane to Malaysia Air Line is shot down by a missile. Immediately, Obama, and the government of Kiev accuse the pro-independence fighters and Russia to be the authors. The facts will demonstrate to 99% that it was an action planned by Kiev and NATO. Moreover, the country responsible for the investigation, including Kiev, have signed an agreement between them to the effect, but only give them the information with which they would all agree. This agreement goes against the resolution 2166 of the Security Council of the United Nations, which had called for transparency and independence. It must be said that the government of Kiev is part of this group. To this day, Putin has withstood the taunts and has maintained a moderate position, making use of political means to solve the problems that arise in the Ukraine. Although he was accused of invading the Ukraine and that Russian army participated in the fight for the separatists, he denies that the Russian army is present in this conflict and its opponents, Washington and the OSCE report that they do not have direct evidence of this presence.

    However, we must not forget that red lines have been set, the lines not to cross. One of these lines is that NATO must not settle in Ukraine. The second is that the cold war is no longer an option. As reported recently, the minister of external Relations of Russia : We will not allow the repetition of the cold war.

    Some of the important personalities in the United States are starting to ask serious questions about Obama and his principal advisors. A senior u.s. official speaks of the need to purge the White House. There is also this recent article by Thierry Meyssan "Washington revolt against Obama," which discusses the same topic.

    Ukraine can become the spark that can ignite our world.

    Oscar Fortin

    January 29, 2015

    Kiev talks war when situation calms down, talks peace when things get worse

    January 27, 2015 | RT Op-Edge

    Clashes, Conflict, EU, Human rights, Military, NATO, Politics, Putin, Russia, Ukraine, Violence
    Kiev has made no sustained attempts to look for a peaceful settlement to the crisis and the Russians are starting to lose faith that it's ever going to happen, Alexander Mercouris, International Affairs Editor for Russia Insider, told RT.

    READ MORE: Putin: Ukraine army is NATO legion aimed at restraining Russia


    RT:Russia's President called Kiev's forces "essentially a NATO legion." Would you agree that the war in Ukraine is being fought now by foreigners?

    Alexander Mercouris: I think that what Mr. Putin said goes slightly beyond that. Because if you look at what he said a few days ago at the meeting of a Security Council of the Russian Federation, he was already talking there about criminal orders and was referring pointedly to the Ukrainian government not as the Ukrainian government, but as official Kiev. Now he is talking about the Ukrainian army as a "NATO legion."

    Essentially he is distancing the whole of the Ukrainian political and military system from the interests of the Ukrainian nation and is implying quite clearly that they are fighting for a greater political goal that is not a Ukrainian one but a NATO one.

    RT: Putin also suggested that Kiev doesn't want to use peaceful measures to resolve the conflict. Yet the Ukrainian president has been pledging his commitment to a peace deal. So why are we seeing the escalation of violence?

    AM: The problem here is that Ukraine has repeatedly committed itself to peace deals and entering into constitutional negotiations with the people who are opposed to it in these Eastern regions. Kiev has always withdrawn from these negotiations, they've never happened. What tends to happen is that when the situation seems to calm down, Kiev talks war; when the situation becomes more difficult for Kiev, it then comes back and once again talks about peace.

    But there has never been from Kiev any sustained attempt to look for a peaceful settlement. And my feeling about this is that the Russians are starting to lose any faith that that's ever going to happen. And this is what we are hearing from Mr. Putin now.

    RT: Ukraine's president also declared a high alert across the country and a state of emergency in the East. What does that mean for the public in Ukraine?

    AM: Well, at one level it's rhetorical because of course the Eastern regions have been in a state of war for the better part of the year now. So it's hardly going to increase the violence there. But I don't think it is just an escalation of rhetoric. Making these kinds of statements increasingly puts the whole of the Ukraine on a war footing. And given that there are protests increasing not just against the government in the Eastern regions, but in other places, Kharkov and Odessa, and against military mobilization in other parts of the country it strengthens the legal position of the Ukrainian government to deal with protests in these places.

    What we are looking at is a general escalation in rhetoric and in actions. And I'm afraid that has to suggest more conflict too.

    [Jan 30, 2015] Ukraine Through the Fog of the Presstitutes by Paul Craig Roberts

    Mar 06, 2014 | CounterPunch

    Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.

    Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately fired.

    Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not honor.

    I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her program a number of times.

    My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character. I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.

    For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.

    Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.

    As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.

    Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington.

    It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.

    They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian Troops into Crimea."

    No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.

    So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

    It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most independent journalists can escape its influence.

    What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?

    The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production. The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: "There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened." Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here: http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

    What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's help.

    The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.

    Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.

    [Jan 30, 2015] Ukraine Through the Fog of the Presstitutes by Paul Craig Roberts

    Mar 06, 2014 | CounterPunch

    Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.

    Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue (MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately fired.

    Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not honor.

    I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her program a number of times.

    My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character. I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.

    For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.

    Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.

    As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.

    Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated by Washington.

    It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.

    They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian Troops into Crimea."

    No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.

    So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.

    It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most independent journalists can escape its influence.

    What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?

    The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production. The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports: "There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened." Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here: http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/

    What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's help.

    The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.

    Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.

    [Jan 29, 2015] Putin Ukraine army is NATO legion aimed at restraining Russi

    RT News

    The Ukrainian army is essentially a 'NATO legion' which doesn't pursue the national interests of Ukraine, but persists to restrict Russia, President Vladimir Putin says.

    "We often say: Ukrainian Army, Ukrainian Army. But who is really fighting there? There are, indeed, partially official units of armed forces, but largely there are the so-called 'volunteer nationalist battalions'," said Putin.

    He added that the intention of Ukrainian troops is connected with "achieving the geopolitical goals of restraining Russia." Putin was addressing students in the city of St. Petersburg.

    READ MORE: Ukraine military 'to boost forces in the east' as Poroshenko calls to stick to Minsk accord

    According to Putin, the Ukrainian army "is not an army, but a foreign legion, in this case a foreign NATO legion, which, of course, doesn't pursue the national interests of Ukraine."

    Kiev has been reluctant to find political solutions to the crisis in eastern Ukraine and only used the ceasefire to regroup its forces, the president stressed.

    "Unfortunately official Kiev authorities refuse to follow the path of a peaceful solution. They don't want to resolve [the crisis] using political tools," Putin said, adding that first Kiev authorities had first used law enforcement, then security services and then the army in the region.

    "It is essentially a civil war [in Ukraine]. In my view, many in Ukraine already understand this," Putin added.

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has reacted to President Putin's words, calling his statement "nonsense."

    "The statement that there is a NATO legion in Ukraine is nonsense. There is no NATO legion," Stoltenberg told reporters.

    Already tense situation in eastern Ukraine gone downhill in past 2 weeks. The escalation of violence came after a controversial incident at a Kiev-controlled checkpoint near the town of Volnovakha, where 12 passengers were killed on January 13.

    [Jan 28, 2015] Ukraine at war: 'People feel abandoned'

    Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk, one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
    "... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
    "... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
    "... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
    "... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
    "... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
    Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

    The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.

    More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.

    It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to pass.

    Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the case for months. When Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.

    After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic diseases; everything is affected.

    ... ... ...


    Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56

    More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to the west to kill. More like the other way around.


    Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04

    Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.

    And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.

    Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57

    What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.

    Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07

    And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.

    Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33

    Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).

    Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26

    Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser" peoples to serve as cannon fodder.

    Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14

    Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out, he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and refugees.

    The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those actions. If it walks like a duck...

    buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51

    Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?


    Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43


    They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn (with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing. They are hiding behind Yats.


    Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25

    Until recently, I also thought as you.

    But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.

    Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.

    Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)


    EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58

    You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.

    I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.

    However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.

    To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics.

    EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52

    There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.

    So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown, they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.

    The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko, Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.

    You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.


    BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51

    Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper strength, NOT the real strength).

    Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to leave.

    Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).

    It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered) to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.).

    Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.


    EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12

    What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?

    When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they have failed the ultimate test.

    These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany after 1918 and 1945.

    Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.

    Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace and political stability.

    That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.

    EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02

    You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.

    ID8787761 -> alpamysh 27 Jan 2015 15:12

    Not true. US or UK solider caught on camera in Mariopul:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-25/out-my-face-please-why-are-us-soldiers-mariupol

    The general is far from alone.

    Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your statement of 9000 people is meaningless.

    EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11

    What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.

    For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian defections.

    The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.

    At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these troops?

    What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize the things that might happen.

    But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.

    EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05

    Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by the rebels.

    Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.

    For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.

    All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of reasonable people.

    [Jan 28, 2015] Doubt everything – Ukrainian students warning to Russian counterparts

    Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
    Notable quotes:
    "... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
    Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

    axiomparadigm -> MrBepec 28 Jan 2015 19:59

    A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is a right wing nazi supporting rally.

    Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47

    Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.

    Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42

    Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.

    yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30

    ...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world, it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.

    yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17

    "Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
    I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
    Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.

    BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26

    If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.

    US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.

    If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.

    centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23

    The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.

    Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.

    Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Full-spectrum_dominance.html

    unended 28 Jan 2015 18:18

    From the article:

    It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.

    From the Pew Research Center:

    Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .

    For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

    I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?

    Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57

    And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/19/-sp-ukraine-new-ministry-truth-undermines-battle-for-democracy

    Was it a US initiative?

    Ukraine freedom support act.
    Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
    Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda

    Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?

    I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.

    Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.

    jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46

    And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.

    New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin

    A five year old could write the script....

    http://www.rferl.org/content/greek-syriza-deep-ties-russian-eurasianist-dugin/26818523.html

    1waldo1 28 Jan 2015 17:30

    And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
    And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?

    [Jan 28, 2015] Doubt everything – Ukrainian students warning to Russian counterparts

    Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
    Notable quotes:
    "... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
    Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

    axiomparadigm -> MrBepec 28 Jan 2015 19:59

    A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is a right wing nazi supporting rally.

    Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47

    Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.

    Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42

    Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.

    yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30

    ...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world, it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.

    yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17

    "Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
    I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
    Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.

    BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26

    If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.

    US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.

    If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.

    centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23

    The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.

    Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.

    Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

    https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Full-spectrum_dominance.html

    unended 28 Jan 2015 18:18

    From the article:

    It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.

    From the Pew Research Center:

    Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .

    For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/

    I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?

    Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57

    And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/19/-sp-ukraine-new-ministry-truth-undermines-battle-for-democracy

    Was it a US initiative?

    Ukraine freedom support act.
    Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
    Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda

    Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?

    I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.

    Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.

    jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46

    And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.

    New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin

    A five year old could write the script....

    http://www.rferl.org/content/greek-syriza-deep-ties-russian-eurasianist-dugin/26818523.html

    1waldo1 28 Jan 2015 17:30

    And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
    And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?

    [Jan 28, 2015] Ukraine at war: 'People feel abandoned'

    Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk, one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
    "... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
    "... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
    "... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
    "... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
    "... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
    Jan 28, 2015 | The Guardian

    The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.

    More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.

    It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to pass.

    Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the case for months. When Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.

    After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic diseases; everything is affected.

    ... ... ...


    Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56

    More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to the west to kill. More like the other way around.


    Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04

    Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.

    And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.

    Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57

    What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.

    Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07

    And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.

    Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33

    Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).

    Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26

    Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser" peoples to serve as cannon fodder.

    Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14

    Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out, he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and refugees.

    The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those actions. If it walks like a duck...

    buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51

    Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?


    Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43


    They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn (with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing. They are hiding behind Yats.


    Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25

    Until recently, I also thought as you.

    But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.

    Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.

    Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)


    EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58

    You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.

    I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.

    However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.

    To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics.

    EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52

    There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.

    So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown, they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.

    The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko, Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.

    You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.


    BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51

    Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper strength, NOT the real strength).

    Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to leave.

    Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).

    It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered) to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.).

    Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.


    EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12

    What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?

    When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they have failed the ultimate test.

    These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany after 1918 and 1945.

    Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.

    Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace and political stability.

    That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.

    EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02

    You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.

    ID8787761 -> alpamysh 27 Jan 2015 15:12

    Not true. US or UK solider caught on camera in Mariopul:
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-25/out-my-face-please-why-are-us-soldiers-mariupol

    The general is far from alone.

    Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your statement of 9000 people is meaningless.

    EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11

    What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.

    For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian defections.

    The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.

    At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these troops?

    What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize the things that might happen.

    But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.

    EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05

    Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by the rebels.

    Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.

    For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.

    All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of reasonable people.

    [Jan 26, 2015] Ukraine's advantage for the new German empire is precisely that it doesn't exist by Olivier Berruyer

    EMMANUEL TODD GERMANY'S FASTHOLDON THE EUROPEAN An interview CONTINENTby Olivier Berruyer

    OB: The integration of the Ukrainian population by the German system would represent a qualitative jump in this dynamic unbalance. Granted, it is a numerous population, but it is poor and produces little…

    ET: Yes, but annexing the geographically contiguous and politically controllable poor, in a globalized world craving low-cost labor forces, can be an advantage. Our world is now post-democratic and un-egalitarian; it therefore fosters virtual expansion in zones of very low salary rates.

    And Ukraine's advantage for the new German empire is precisely that it doesn't exist. It is double, even triple. It is a disintegrating system. In reality, Ukraine has never existed as a correctly functioning national entity. It's a false state, and it is bankrupt. The fundamental proof of Ukrainian incapacity of statehood, and this has not been stressed, is the role played by the leaders of the Western Ukrainians, at the periphery of the country. One sometimes gets indignant over this, and starts counting their deputies, their ministers, but the Western Ukrainians, altogether, do not represent much. However, what is striking, is the inaction of the central Ukrainians, that is, those who speak Ukrainian, who do not like the Russians that much, who belong originally to the Orthodox religion but who are not tempted by the far-right. The rise in power of Western Ukraine shows at what point Central Ukraine, which is the majority, is atomized, incapable of organizing itself, in a state of pre-statehood.

    The confrontation playing itself out between the Ukrainian far-right and the pro-Russians in Eastern Ukraine makes evident the historical inexistence of the country. The Western Ukrainians want to adhere to Europe. This is perfectly normal as far as they are concerned: why would extreme-right movements which have a tradition of collaborating with Nazi Germany refuse to join a Europe under German control?

    All this said, this exceptional Ukrainian catch has not yet been bagged by Germany. The game, or rather the war, is only beginning.

    As for the Central Ukrainians, I think that the question has been taken care of. The system will continue disintegrating: the GDP will contract, the situation will get worse, and I think that this is the real reason why the Russians are so prudent, are so little inclined to go to war and, contrarily to what is being asserted, do not want to annex bits and pieces of Ukraine. Russia is not afraid of Western sanctions. But it does not want to become hated in Central Ukraine. In its central mass, Ukraine is mistrustful of Russia at the present stage, but one must recognize to the Russians a great historical capacity to play with space and time. After two years of being handled by German Europe, what will the people of Kiev think? Maybe they will want to return to Moscow. A disintegrating system does not adhere, it continues disintegrating.

    OB: Let's return to the global might of the American system, which is so far away from Ukraine, and therefore has very little capacity to benefit from its integration-disintegration through the " Western system."

    ET: The American system, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the control by the United States of the two great industrial regions of Eurasia, Japan and Germany. But this can function only under the condition of the hypothesis where America itself is clearly superior in terms of industrial weight (see table on the right )

    As early as 1928, the American industrial production represented 45% of the total world industrial output. After the war, in 1945, America still represented 45%. Now America is down to 17.5 %: the Brzezinski system of a control of Eurasia cannot hold in regard of the present numbers. As I observed in After the Empire, its economic exchanges with Ukraine are insignificant. In Eastern Europe, NATO is in fact securing a German space. One should re-actualize, for the sake of Washington, the French expression "to wage war for the King of Prussia".

    OB: In such a context, what future can there be for German-American relations?

    ET: If you live in the enchanted world of the presently dominant ideology of the newspaper Le Monde, of François Hollande, which is also the ideology of naive anti-imperialists, the Western block, a union of America and Europe, with its ward Japan, must and can contain Russia. In the hypothesis that presuppose a good strategic understanding and a strong collaboration between partners, the West could defeat the Russian economy. Maybe… But then there is China, India, Brazil, the world is big…

    But if we move into the world of strategic realism, which sees the reality of the relationships of power without a reference to real or mythic values, we see that there exist presently two great developed industrial worlds, America on the one side and this new German empire on the other. Russia is a secondary question. We must therefore foresee a completely different future for the twenty years to come than the East-West conflict: the rise in power of the German system suggests that the United States and Germany are moving in the direction of conflict. This is an intrinsic logic founded upon relations of force and domination. In my view it is unrealistic to foresee a peaceful co-existence for the future.

    Yet at this stage, we may reintroduce the notion of value. But precisely in order to stress that, for an anthropologist, in his own way a realist, or for a historian of the long term, the United States and Germany do not share the same values. Confronted with the economic stress of the Great Depression, America, the country of liberal democracy, produced Roosevelt, whereas Germany, a country of an authoritarian and non-egalitarian culture, produced Hitler.

    Granted that the belief of Americans in equality is very relative. The United States are the leading country in the rise of economic inequalities – even when putting aside segregation towards the Blacks, a problem which is far from having been solved, as can be seen from the riots in Ferguson. But it is also, at the present stage, a leading country

    But it is also, at the present stage, a leading country in its attempt to create a unified world, with populations of very diverse origins. In this sense, the election of Obama remains strongly symbolic, despite the evident wear and tear shown by the President during his second term.

    If one takes only into account the corpus of citizens of Germany, we can say that the rise of inequalities remains very reasonable, much lower to what we can observe in the Anglo-American world. But if one observes the German system in its European globality, integrating the low salaries of Eastern Europe and the compressions of salaries in the South, one can identify a system of a much stronger un-egalitarian domination in a state of gestation. The equality in this case is left as a concern for only the dominant, German citizens.

    At this stage, I will take up this concept of political science of the Belgian anthropologist Pierre van den Berghe : the Herrenvolk democracy, that, is the democracy of the master people. Now don't jump to the ceiling! These words are not going to bring down the world – I have recently expressed myself in these terms in an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit.

    At the beginning, Pierre van den Berghe was applying this concept of an ethnic democracy to apartheid South Africa, where there existed a corpus of equal citizens which was functioning perfectly well according to the liberal and democratic rules, but whose liberty and democracy could only hold because there existed these dominated groups. It was the same for America at the time of segregation: the internal equality of the white group was assured by its domination over the Indians, the Blacks… One could in the same way characterize Israel as being a Herrenvolk democracy. What cohesion and liberty there is in the Israeli democracy is bolstered by the existence of an enemy mass of Arabs.

    If I had to describe present day Europe, if I had to comment the economic map at the political level, I would say that Europe, or the German Empire, is beginning to take the general shape of a Herrenvolk democracy with, at its heart, a German democracy reserved for the dominating people and, around it, a whole hierarchy of populations more or less dominated, whose votes no longer have any importance. It is easier to understand, in such a model, why, when one elects a President in France, nothing happens. Because he no longer has any power: particularly not on the monetary system.

    So one finds oneself in a democracy in which the liberties of the press, of opinion, and others, are perfectly respected; where there is no problem but where, fundamentally, the stability of the system rests on the subconscious solidarity inside the dominating group. In the Europe taking shape, one can see the Germans as the Whites in segregation America.

    Presently, political inequality is evidently stronger in the German system than in the American system. The Greeks and others cannot vote in the elections to the Bundestag, whereas the Blacks and the Latinos can vote in presidential and congressional elections. The European Parliament is baloney, the American Congress is not.

    OB: After such an indictment, do you think that we should be more vigilant to-wards Germany?

    ET: It's true that I am pessimistic. The probability that Germany will turn out right is getting lower every day. It is quite small already. The authoritarian German culture generates a systemic mental instability of the leaders when they are in a situation of domination – something that has not happened since the war. Their frequent historical incapacity – in a situation of dominance – of imagining a peaceful and reasonable future for everybody re-emerges today in the form of an export mania.

    To this is now added, for these leaders, the interaction with Polish absurdity and Ukrainian violence. Sadly, the fate of Germany doesn't appear to me as a total unknown.

    In what way will the Germans turn wrong? The median age or the absence of a military apparatus may put a brake to the process, but one notices every week a radicalization in the German posture. Contempt for the English, for the Americans, shameless visit of Merkel to Kiev. The relationship to the French, the voluntary servitude of whom is essential for the control of Europe, will be revelatory.

    But we know already. With the affair of the sales of the Mistral to Russia: the German leaders are now asking the French to liquidate whatever military industry they have left. The German culture is un-egalitarian: it makes difficult the acceptance of a world of equals. When they are feeling that they are the strongest, the Germans will take very badly the refusal of the weaker to obey, a refusal which they perceive as unnatural, unreasonable.

    In France, it would rather be the contrary. Disobedience is a positive value. One lives with it, it's part of the French charm because in France, too, there exists a mysterious potential for order and efficiency.

    The relationship of America to discipline and inequality is complex in another way, and would deserve many pages of analysis. Let's be brief and jump to the conclusion: a disciplined inferior-superior rapport of the German type will not pass easily. Anglo-Saxon culture is not egalitarian but it is truly liberal. Equal, unequal, it's the same thing in the end. The reasonable difference made within families between brothers leads to the notion of a reasonable difference among individuals, among peoples. This is actually the reason for the success of the American model: the Anglo-American culture is capable of managing reasonably international differences.

    In the end, we cannot but observe that both blocks – the American and the German – are antagonist by nature. They combine all the elements which generate conflict: rupture in the brute economic balance, difference in values. The faster Russia will be out of the game, either broken or marginalized, the faster these differences will come to express themselves.

    For me, the real historical question at present, the one nobody is asking, is the following: will the Americans accept to see this new reality of a Germany which is threatening them, and if yes, when?

    OB: When you are prophesizing a conflict between the American nation and the new German empire, are you sure of yourself?

    ET: Of course not. I am only broadening the prospective field. I am describing one possible future among other possible futures. Another would be a solidifying of the group Russia-China-India in a continental block opposing the Western Euro-American block. But this Eurasian block can only function with the addition of Japan, who alone is capable of bringing it up to the Western technological level. But what will Japan do? For the time being, it is more loyal towards the United States than is Germany. But it might get tired of the old Western conflicts.

    The present shock is paralyzing its rapprochement with Russia, which should be completely logical for it from the energetic and military point of view, an important element in the new political course engaged by the Japanese Prime Minister Abe. This is another risk for the United States, deriving from the new aggressive German course.

    OB: Several futures are possible, but not an infinity; 4 or 5,maybe…

    ET: I have gone back to reading science fiction in order to deep-cleanse my brain and open my mind. I much recommend an exercise of the same type to the people who are our leaders and who, without knowing where they are going, are pressing ahead with such a firm step.

    [Jan 26, 2015] Putin Ukraine army is NATO legion aimed at restraining Russia

    Jan 26, 2015 | RT News

    The Ukrainian army is essentially a 'NATO legion' which doesn't pursue the national interests of Ukraine, but persists to restrict Russia, President Vladimir Putin says.

    "We often say: Ukrainian Army, Ukrainian Army. But who is really fighting there? There are, indeed, partially official units of armed forces, but largely there are the so-called 'volunteer nationalist battalions'," said Putin.

    He added that the intention of Ukrainian troops is connected with "achieving the geopolitical goals of restraining Russia." Putin was addressing students in the city of St. Petersburg.

    READ MORE: Ukraine military 'to boost forces in the east' as Poroshenko calls to stick to Minsk accord

    According to Putin, the Ukrainian army "is not an army, but a foreign legion, in this case a foreign NATO legion, which, of course, doesn't pursue the national interests of Ukraine."

    Kiev has been reluctant to find political solutions to the crisis in eastern Ukraine and only used the ceasefire to regroup its forces, the president stressed.

    "Unfortunately official Kiev authorities refuse to follow the path of a peaceful solution. They don't want to resolve [the crisis] using political tools," Putin said, adding that first Kiev authorities had first used law enforcement, then security services and then the army in the region.

    "It is essentially a civil war [in Ukraine]. In my view, many in Ukraine already understand this," Putin added.

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has reacted to President Putin's words, calling his statement "nonsense."

    "The statement that there is a NATO legion in Ukraine is nonsense. There is no NATO legion," Stoltenberg told reporters.

    Already tense situation in eastern Ukraine gone downhill in past 2 weeks. The escalation of violence came after a controversial incident at a Kiev-controlled checkpoint near the town of Volnovakha, where 12 passengers were killed on January 13.

    [Jan 25, 2015] Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, Klichko ought to take poison or shoot themselves, like Hitler and Himmler.--A View From Ukraine By Mikhail Mishchishin

    Jan 24, 2015 | fortruss.blogspot.com | Translated from Russian by J.Hawk

    I can't imagine how the Ukrainian government is planning its undeclared war against Russia, especially in the East which borders Russia.

    The Maidan anarchy broke the Ukrainian army and all security services. Volunteer battalions are useful against unarmed civilians and excel as marauders and executioners. But they do not know how, do not like, and do not want to fight, withdrawing as soon as the fighting against militiamen and Russian volunteers gets serious.

    Our highly praised volunteer commanders tend to receive very timely wounds so as to be evacuated from the battlefield ahead of the cannon fodder, in the same fashion as they disappeared (along with Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, and Klichko) from the Maidan just before it was fired upon by snipers. Or, even better, they became Rada deputies and are now defending Ukraine there, not at the front.

    What is the Ukrainian government hoping for? NATO help? But NATO will not send its soldiers to their deaths in the same fashion as Ukraine's leaders.

    Maybe the Americans will defend us? Oh, sure, they'll fight willingly. But they also don't hurry to help. US military personnel may not show up in Ukraine at all. It's obvious they'll get another Vietnam or Afghanistan here. War against the Russians will once and for all bury the Hollywood myth of the invincibility of the US Marines.

    This myth is worth much more than the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Far more billions of dollars were invested in it than in the democratic dismantlement of the Ukrainian state through "for sale" politicians, journalists, experts, sociologists, and economists. Five billion dollars is small change for the US. They can easily write off the loss. No, the US intent is for Russians to fight against Europe. The US wants to look at the slaughter from afar, participating in it just as they participated in World War 2. They'll arrive in Kiev just as they arrived in Berlin. To divide Germany, not fight against fascism.

    I see only one natural exit from the dead end of the Maidan and civil war. Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, Klichko ought to take poison or shoot themselves, like Hitler and Himmler. Their suicides saved the Germans and Germany from complete annihilation. If Ukraine's leaders are patriots, as they claim, they can simply leave the game. Thus saving Ukraine and Ukrainians from death, a total economic collapse, and the destruction of Ukrainian cities.

    The time to die for Ukraine has come. But not for simple workers and peasants. The time has come for you. Weren't you the ones shouting for Yanukovych to leave? He left. Now it's your turn. Just leave us once and for all. And then the war in Ukraine will end.

    [Jan 25, 2015] How can the West solve its Ukraine problem? by Anatol Lieven

    This news, supported by the USA, Drang nach Osten can proved to be costly to EU and, especially, Germany and ruinous to Ukrainian economy.

    Quote: "As far as Ukraine's eastern Donbass region is concerned, any solution has to involve very extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, guaranteed by the international community - not the ridiculous offer of temporary three-year autonomy which Kiev has offered so far... In addition, the EU should back the guarantee of Russian language rights in Ukraine - not because Moscow is demanding it, but because the West badly needs to assert its own values in the face of the growing power of neo-fascist groups in Ukraine."

    Dec 3, 2015 | BBC News

    Russia badly overplayed its hand last year when it tried to bring Ukraine into the Eurasian Union against the passionate opposition of many Ukrainians.

    The European Union is now risking the same thing by trying to bring Ukraine into the West without reference to economic reality or the willingness of European publics to bear the enormous costs involved, and at a time when the EU itself is in deepening crisis.

    Russia is suffering badly as a result of Western economic sanctions - but Ukraine's situation is far worse, with a predicted fall in GDP of 7% this year.

    If this decline continues, the Ukrainian state will face collapse,

    Throughout the 23 years since the end of the Soviet Union, too many members of the Western media and policy worlds have ignored or misrepresented key aspects of the Ukrainian-Russian economic relationship.

    The West simply does not have the means or the will to integrate Ukraine into the West while isolating it from Russia.

    This allowed them in turn to ignore crucial features of the economic balance of power in Ukraine between Russia and the West.

    In their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the total of Western aid during this period.

    This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence and into that of the West.

    Russian trade vital

    Western commentators were not wrong to portray Russia as supporting a deeply corrupt and semi-authoritarian system of government in Ukraine - but they too often forgot to mention that trade with Russia has also been responsible for preserving much of the Ukrainian economy.

    It is not just that Russia remains Ukraine's largest partner, with trade in 2013 exceeding that with the whole of the EU; it is also a question of what is being traded. Ukraine exports manufactured goods to Russia, thereby supporting what is left of Ukrainian industry.

    A gas pressure gauge on the main gas pipeline from Russia, in the village of Boyarka near the capital Kiev, Ukraine. Russian gas has been key to the Ukrainian economy
    To the European Union, Ukraine mostly sends raw materials and agricultural products - with the latter in particular heavily restricted by EU quotas and tariffs.

    Ignoring this enabled Western commentators to ignore the question of how - in order to move towards the EU - Ukraine could restrict its trading relationship with Russia without ruining its economy in the process; or, on the other hand, whether the EU would be willing to change its own rules so as to admit Ukrainian imports.

    Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.

    As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to the economies of several Ukrainian regions.

    This is at least three times the number of Ukrainians working legally in the whole of the European Union.

    In order to bring Ukraine into the West, would EU members be willing to allow free movement of Ukrainian labour?

    And - as is necessary if the EU is to turn Ukraine into a strong anti-Russian ally - to do so not in some almost impossible future of Ukrainian EU membership, but tomorrow?

    The answer is obvious.

    No integration

    The UK Independence Party is soaring in the polls and mounting a strong campaign to take Britain out of the European Union in a referendum backed by the Conservatives and scheduled for 2017.

    All over the EU, right-wing parties are gathering strength.

    In France, sober commentators are warning that there is a real chance that in 2022 the National Front could win the French elections and Marine Le Pen could become President of France.

    And all of these developments are driven above all by hostility to immigration.

    On the one hand, therefore, the West is clearly not prepared to make the economic sacrifices necessary to support the Ukrainian economy in the face of Russian hostility.

    The existing conflict in Ukraine makes it impossible for any Ukrainian government to conduct the kind of economic and political reforms on which the EU is insisting

    On the other, the existing conflict in Ukraine makes it impossible for any Ukrainian government to conduct the kind of economic and political reforms on which the EU is insisting, and on which Ukrainian progress towards the West depends.

    By slashing subsidies and closing down much of Ukrainian industry, such reforms would drive much of the population of eastern and southern Ukraine into the arms of Russia.

    By attacking corruption, they would destroy the position of oligarchs in those regions who are key to enforcing Kiev's authority there.

    Kiev's dependence on these oligarchs and on nationalist militias to fight the war in eastern Ukraine represents a serious and growing threat to Ukrainian democracy and to the spread of liberal values in Ukraine.

    A worrying sign in this regard was the appointment last month of Vadim Troyan as regional chief of police in Kiev. His regiment, the Azov battalion, is known for links to the far right and his promotion seems largely in reward for his group's participation in the fighting in eastern Ukraine.

    This was counter-balanced by the appointment of a Jewish speaker in Parliament.

    Compromise needed

    But the lessons of all this should be obvious. The West simply does not have the means or the will to integrate Ukraine into the West while isolating it from Russia.

    The effort to do so is not strengthening but undermining Ukrainian democracy.

    The time for blowhard posturing is over

    If there is to be any chance of Ukrainian economic and political progress, a compromise must be found whereby Ukraine can continue to trade as openly as possible with both the EU and Russia and Ukrainians can continue to work freely in Russia.

    That would leave Ukraine free to carry out the internal reforms that it needs to undertake, whether or not it is headed for EU membership.

    This will be impossible unless at the same time there is a political compromise with Russia; and the terms of such a compromise are equally obvious.

    In the first place, Ukraine should be neutralised.

    This cuts both ways. Russia would formally have to abandon - as in effect it already has - hopes to bring Ukraine into a Russian-led bloc.

    The West would formally have to abandon the possibility of bringing Ukraine into Nato; and the West too has in effect already done this by demonstrating again and again its unwillingness under any circumstances to fight to defend Ukraine.

    As far as Ukraine's eastern Donbass region is concerned, any solution has to involve very extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, guaranteed by the international community - not the ridiculous offer of temporary three-year autonomy which Kiev has offered so far.

    In addition, the EU should back the guarantee of Russian language rights in Ukraine - not because Moscow is demanding it, but because the West badly needs to assert its own values in the face of the growing power of neo-fascist groups in Ukraine.

    Opposition to such a deal in certain Western quarters will be bitter; but once again, these opponents need to ask themselves just how much they are prepared to sacrifice and to risk in order to turn Ukraine into a pro-Western and anti-Russian state.

    The time for blowhard posturing is over. The time for hard economic calculation has begun.

    Anatol Lieven is a professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Qatar. He is author among other books of Ukraine and Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry.

    Signs That Russia Has Tired of Waiting for West to Restrain Kiev

    Russia Insider
    There have been many important days in the Ukrainian conflict but it is possible 23rd January 2015 may turn out to be a key day. Consider what happened:

    The Russian Security Council met. This is the Russian government's key decision making body on questions of foreign, defence and security policy. As President and Commander in Chief, Putin chairs it.

    We do not have a full account of what was said. What we do know is that the situation in Ukraine was the topic under discussion.

    Putin's website has provided us with an extract from the address he made to open the meeting. It repays quoting this extract in full:

    "Good afternoon, colleagues.

    We are witnessing a dramatic deterioration of the situation in southeastern Ukraine, in Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic. In this connection I would like to inform you again that a week ago, on Thursday, I sent a letter to the President of Ukraine, a written proposal to withdraw heavy weapons – artillery and multiple rocket launchers – to such a distance from which it would be impossible to fire at populated areas.

    I would like to inform you further that this proposal almost completely coincided with the requirements of the official Kiev. You know that there may be one disputed area along the line of separation between the parties to the conflict. So we suggested that weapons and heavy equipment should be withdrawn to the line that Kiev authorities themselves consider fair and corresponding to the agreements reached in Minsk on September 19, 2014.

    Unfortunately, we received no clear answer to our proposal; in fact, we also saw the reverse action, namely the Kiev government has given an official order to launch large-scale combat operations along almost the entire perimeter of contact between the opposing sides.

    The result: dozens of dead and wounded, and not only among servicemen on both sides, but, even more tragically, there has been loss of life among the civilian population, including children, the elderly and women. The artillery, multiple rocket launchers and aircraft are firing indiscriminately, directly at densely populated areas.

    All of this is happening to the accompaniment of propaganda slogans about the quest for peace and the search for those responsible. The responsibility is borne by those who issue such criminal orders. The people who do this should know that there is no other way to solve such conflicts but through peace negotiations and political means. We often hear, including from today's official Kiev, that this is their preferred method of addressing issues, but the reality is quite different. I hope that common sense will eventually triumph.

    I would like to call for a moment of silence to honour the victims, including those who died at a bus stop in Donetsk.

    (Moment of silence.)"

    The western media has focused on that part of this address where Putin refers to the "criminal orders" that have led to the indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian areas by the Ukrainian military.

    Those are indeed important words. They are not however the most important words in this address.

    The most important words in the address are the ones where Putin refers to the political leaders in Kiev not as "the government of Ukraine" or "the Ukrainian government" or even "the Ukrainian side" but as "official Kiev" or "the Kiev authorities".

    This is extraordinary language since it calls into question for the first time the degree to which the political leaders in Kiev represent Ukraine as a whole, as opposed to just Kiev.

    Putin does refer to Poroshenko as "the President of Ukraine", something he has done since shortly after Poroshenko's election.

    The Russians have always treated Poroshenko differently from other members of the Ukrainian government ever since Poroshenko was elected President. They have represented him as a moderate surrounded by extremists and on that basis they have tried to negotiate with him.

    Whether there is any truth to the idea of "Poroshenko the moderate" is another matter. Since Poroshenko is the President the Russians have however had no alternative but to persist with it if they are going to negotiate with the Ukrainian government at all.

    The fact that Putin still refers to Poroshenko as "the President of Ukraine" suggests the Russians have still not completely given up on this idea. However, the wording suggests that they may be coming close to doing so. Putin conspicuously does not refer to Poroshenko by name. His comments are factual and cold. This suggests a relationship on the point of collapse.

    As important as Putin's words about the Ukrainian government are the words Putin uses to describe the two east Ukrainian rebel republics.

    For the first time Putin refers to them - without qualification - by the names they have given themselves: "the Donetsk People's Republic" and "the Lugansk People's Republic".

    This is the closest Putin has yet come to treating these republics as legitimate political entities. Taken together with his words he used to describe the Ukrainian government, it suggests that Putin in his own mind no longer thinks of the Ukrainian government as the legitimate authority in the Donbass.

    To those who will argue that this is to over interpret Putin's words, I would point out that Putin is the President of Russia and a trained lawyer who chooses his words carefully and that these words were published on his website.

    Later on the same day, Putin has also had a telephone conversation with Lukashenko, the President of Belarus.

    Lukashenko is a key Russian ally and a key partner in the Ukrainian conflict. He has not always seen eye to eye with the Russians in relation to it.

    We do not know what Putin and Lukashenko said to each other but we do know that Ukraine was the subject of the discussion.

    It looks as if Putin, after meeting with his Security Council, spoke to Lukashenko to tell him what decisions had been taken there in order to keep Lukashenko both informed and on side.

    Russia's other key ally, Nazarbayev the President of Kazakhstan, will surely also have been kept informed of what decisions the Russians have taken.

    Meanwhile, on the same day at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Shuvalov, the Russian Deputy Prime Minister in overall charge of the economy, warned the delegates there that Russia will not submit to sanctions and will not change its government because of them. One of Russia's leading bankers, Kostin, who heads VTB Bank, also warned the delegates at Davos of any attempt to exclude Russian banks from the SWIFT interbank payment system.

    Shuvalov also made it clear in his comments in Davos that Russia is in continuous contact with China and that it is expecting both political and economic support from there. It is a certainty that the Russians are consulting with the Chinese before every decision they take and that the Chinese have been told of whatever was discussed and of what decisions were taken concerning Ukraine at the meeting of Russia's Security Council.

    The Financial Times has a good summary of the comments Shuvalov and Kostin made in Davos. I attach it below.

    Meanwhile, rounding out Russian news relating to Ukraine in a packed day, the Russian Justice Ministry announced that a number of Ukrainian nationalist organisations, including Right Sector have been banned from operating on Russian territory. Some of us are surprised that they had not been banned already.

    Elsewhere, in Ukraine itself, the Donetsk rebel leader Zakharchenko announced that the Minsk Memorandum no longer applies, confirmed that the secession of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics from Ukraine is final and said that they are now committed to liberating all their territory from Ukraine.

    The Minsk Memorandum is not the same document as the Minsk Protocol, which was the original ceasefire agreement that was signed on 5th September 2014. It is the technical follow-up document that was signed on 19th September 2014.

    The Minsk Memorandum purported to set out the detailed terms of the ceasefire that had been agreed by the Minsk Protocol of 5th September 2014. It set out the ceasefire line and provided for the mutual withdrawal of heavy weapons by each side for a distance of 15 km from the ceasefire line.

    Neither the Minsk Protocol nor the Minsk Memorandum have ever been implemented. The constitutional talks required by the Minsk Protocol have never taken place. Ukraine has unilaterally cancelled the law of special status it granted the rebel regions of the Donbass in accordance with the Minsk Protocol and has failed to agree terms or recognise the elections that were held there in November. Neither side has withdrawn its troops to the ceasefire line and the withdrawal of heavy weapons has never happened.

    By saying the Minsk Memorandum no longer applies Zakharchenko is simply stating the obvious and has freed the rebels to pursue offensive operations, which it is currently what they are doing with reports of rebel advances on Mariupol and Debaltsevo.

    Now it may be that all these statements made on 23rd January 2015 amount to little. It could be that they were not coordinated and that Russian policy has not changed.

    However, on the face of it, they do suggest a hardening of the Russian position, suggesting that the Russians have for the moment simply given up hope of a negotiated solution to the war, which can only happen if there is concerted Western pressure on Kiev, of which there is no sign.

    If this is right, then the Russians have given the rebels the green light to pursue their offensive whilst Shuvalov's and Kostin's comments suggest they are preparing to batten down the hatches in anticipation of more Western sanctions to come.


    From the Financial Times

    One of Russia's top bankers on Friday warned that excluding the country from the Swift banking payment system would be tantamount to "war".

    The suggestion that Russia could be shut out of Swift triggered widespread alarm in Moscow's financial community when it was floated by western politicians last summer. Russia's banks rely heavily on the Belgium-based payments system for both domestic and international payments. However, the move was at the time considered too punitive a sanction, being described by one adviser as "the nuclear option".

    Speaking at a panel in Davos on Friday Andrei Kostin, chief executive of VTB, Russia's second-largest bank, said: "If there is no Swift, there is no banking . . . relationship, it means that the countries are on the verge of war, or they are definitely in a cold war."

    "The next day, the Russian and American ambassadors would have to leave the capitals," he added.

    Mr Kostin's comments highlight how the west's sanctions regime is creating a sense of anger and defiance among the Russian political and business elite.

    "The more you press Russia, I do not think the situation will change," he said, pointing out that the country was moving to reduce its reliance on western payment systems such as Swift.

    "We have already created a domestic alternative to the Swift system . . . and we need to create alternatives internationally."

    He drew attention to efforts under way between Russia and China to create a separate platform of their own, outside western control.

    Igor Shuvalov, Russia's deputy prime minister, echoed this theme. "We are developing our eastern vector," Mr Shuvalov declared, pointing out that although efforts to build links with China had been under way before the crisis, they had dramatically intensified since sanctions started, as Russia looked for alternatives to the west.

    Mr Shuvalov said that the so-called Bric countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) were ready to help each other in a financial crisis too. "Large Chinese investors are coming to us," he said.

    The "pivot to Asia" has become a key part of Vladimir Putin's foreign policy since the breakdown in relations with the west over Ukraine. While several flagship deals have been signed, such as the $400bn contract to supply Russian gas to China for 30 years last May, few Russian policy makers or businesspeople believe China can save the Russian economy from a painful recession.

    "The present situation looks like it is softer than [the 2008-09 financial crisis] but we are going into a long crisis situation and it may be protracted," Mr Shuvalov said.

    But he added that foreign pressure would not succeed in changing the political leadership of the country.

    "We will survive any hardship in the country - eat less food, use less electricity," he said.

    Alexei Kudrin, the respected former finance minister, predicted Russia could see capital outflows of $90bn this year after a record $151bn in 2014. "We should clearly understand the price we are paying for sanctions," he said.

    [Jan 24, 2015] A typical pattern of behaviour of western MSM in Ukraine civil war coverage

    Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization, or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
    Notable quotes:
    "... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
    Jan 24, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    karl1haushofer , January 24, 2015 at 7:34 am

    Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels.

    Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that try to point of the media hypocrisy.

    [Jan 24, 2015] A typical pattern of behaviour of western MSM in Ukraine civil war coverage

    Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization, or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
    Notable quotes:
    "... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
    Jan 24, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    karl1haushofer , January 24, 2015 at 7:34 am

    Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels.

    Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that try to point of the media hypocrisy.

    [Jan 22, 2015] Donetsk trolleybus explosion blows Ukraine peace negotiations apart by Shaun Walker

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport? ..."
    "... You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you? ..."
    The Guardian

    CityCalledNain 22 Jan 2015 17:33

    Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport?

    After the fiasco of the Graun/BBC trumpeting Ukrainian's supposed victory just before they were crushed at Ilovaisk you should have learned your lesson.

    But, once again you have made yourselves look like idiots, and once again Russian and Novorossiyan news sources have been proved to be accurate


    Vermithrax -> ShermanPotter 23 Jan 2015 07:38

    In my youth the USSR stood at the West German border with a 13-1 tank superiority. Then they were a threat. Now they are hundreds of miles further east with a fraction of the forces at their disposal. They are being used as a convenient bogeyman for policies that do not benefit Europe one jot. They have all the oil and gas Europe needs without the fundamentalist religion. In many ways now they are a natural ally, especially as the alternative is that China will benefit from it.

    I suppose there will always be some Grima Wormtongue's who think being America's fawning client state is a good idea.

    unclesmurf ijustwant2say 22 Jan 2015 17:32

    Putin, is being attacked by the same mechanism that has been attacking governments around the globe for the last seventy years. The one described here:

    http://williamblum.org/books/americas-deadliest-export

    And of course the do not care *at all* about Putin. What they care about, is that how they may get their hands on the huge natural resources of the vast slab of the planet called Russia. You see, Putin, the bad guy, is keeping everything PUBLIC, with the earnings of everything, oil, gas, weapons, going to the Russian state and nor to the bank accounts of very few, insanely rich individuals.

    But I assume you are ok with the UK privatizing British Aerospace, and having now to pay a huge surcharge to the shareholders of QinetiQ. Simply to buy the *same* weapons, designed by the *same* engineers and built by the *same* technicians. But No: "We HAVE to privatize it".

    I also assume you are ok with the trains here in the UK being a complete ripoff, because they are of course private, even if it is the government who pays for the track and even if it they private rail companies are subsidized (as if the huge ticket prices were not sufficient) by the Government, to the tune of BILLIONS annually.

    But No: "We have to privatize it".

    You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you?

    thingreen -> edwardrice 22 Jan 2015 17:28

    Interesting, though that working 'class' people make up bulk of soldiers is not exactly a startling revelation in any war - if you looked at the casualty lists for our anti-terrorist operations against the freedom fighters of PIRA you'd see a similar make up of people who I suspect many here would consider as dupes and economic conscripts.

    Simon311 Damocles59 23 Jan 2015 07:31

    How are they "so-called" rebels?

    It is clear these areas are beyond Kiev' s control and it is time to acknowledge this.

    And If Abkhazia and Ossetia are "basket cases" why are they not asking to join the wonderful nation of Georgia?

    Simon311 Robert Looren de Jong 23 Jan 2015 07:29

    Whatever it is clear that the people in these regions are not going to be reconciled to the Kiev Government.

    Time to recognise this and end the fighting.

    wombat123 -> Custodis 23 Jan 2015 07:26

    The people labeled "rebels" started off by refusing to recognize the leaders of the coup as a lawful government, which in fact, they were not under the Ukrainian constitution. These people included most of the police officers in eastern Ukraine. The killing started when the supporters of the coup came east and attacked those refusing to accept the coup so the fighting did not start with a rebellion as the term is normally understood.

    It is perverse to label those who oppose the violent overthrow of lawful authority as "rebels". It was clear that most people in the east thought the coup was a criminal act and its leaders were not the lawful government. It is quite clear that it was the supporters of the coup who are the aggressors and they came east and attacked people who did not accept the coup as lawful.

    Some of the first combat started when supporters of the coup started attacking police in the east. Were the police officers "rebels" for opposing the armed overthrow of their country's constitutional order and elected government? "Rebel" does not seem like an honest term for someone in that situation.

    DCarter -> Gaz0007 23 Jan 2015 07:06

    The USSR collapsed largely because it's people, particularly in the non-Russian republics, desired the same rights and freedoms as people in Western Europe and North America...all of whom managed to maintain those freedoms throughout the Cold War by forming a military alliance called NATO.

    In retrospect though those freedoms were illusory, or at best transient, and all we did was to trade domination by a party apparatus for domination by a corporate oligarchy. And it is in those corporate interests that NATO now acts, not in the interests of the people if Eastern Europe or Western Europe or even North America.

    Solongmariane -> Spiffey 23 Jan 2015 07:01

    DNR is getting experienced with the ceasefires from KIEV. It's just asking a time-out to recuoerate losses, to send re-inforcements, and to get new weapons. It was so at 6 sept, and 19 dec. Not again, such time out.

    SHappens 23 Jan 2015 06:42

    The main pro-Russian rebel leader in eastern Ukraine says his troops are on the offensive and he does not want truce talks with Kiev anymore.

    At lest this has he merit to be clear. No more hypocrisy as Kiev never intended to respect any ceasefire but used this time to regroup.

    On the other hands, when you read this below, the dice are loaded and the US goals is war against Russia whatever on the ground. This is a dialogue of the deaf.

    ---

    "This tactic of avoiding questions about what the Ukrainian government is doing by pointing to Russia is becoming increasingly obvious," the journalist said.

    Here is an excerpt from the briefing:

    Gayane Chichakyan: Do the actions of the Ukrainian government comply with the Minsk agreement?

    Jen Psaki: In general Russia has illegally – and Russian-backed separatists have illegally – come into Ukraine, including Donetsk. Ukraine has a responsibility and an absolute right to defend itself. We certainly expect both sides to abide by the Minsk agreements. We have not seen that happen, we've seen a lot of talk, not a lot of backup from the Russian side.

    GC: I am specifically asking about the actions of the Ukrainian government. Can you give a more definitive answer, whether or not they comply with the Minsk agreements?

    JP: You are not talking about a specific incident, I think I'll leave it at what I said.

    GC: With the Minsk agreement, do they comply? You pass a judgment that Russia is not complying with the agreement, can you assess whether Ukraine is complying?

    JP: I listed a range of specific ways Russia is not complying.

    GC: Under the agreement sides must avoid deploying and using heavy artillery. Isn't it what the Ukrainian government is doing right now?

    JP: First of all, let's start again with the fact that Russia has illegally intervened in Ukraine and come into a country that was a sovereign country. So I am not sure that you are proposing that a sovereign country doesn't have the right to defend themselves.

    GC:I am asking specifically about the actions of the Ukrainian government, you are veering off.

    JP: I think we are going to leave it at that.

    [Jan 20, 2015] The Guardian View of war in Ukraine maintain the pressure on Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
    "... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
    Jan 20, 2015 | The Guardian

    EdwardGreen1968 -> IngAzazello 20 Jan 2015 19:04

    Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.

    For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war. After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.

    Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.

    EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57

    That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow "win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.

    The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?

    EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45

    Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.

    From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle -- to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.

    EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38

    Cargo 200 reports are all false?

    They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000 Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers, but that nobody denies.

    Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34

    Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC. They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant fascist gear, why worry?

    Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people wear is in the end less important that what they do.

    The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS insignia?

    wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13

    Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.

    Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the civil war but serious war crimes as well.

    MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42

    At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.

    EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28

    We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.

    The info is from

    http://rusvesna.su/

    They've proven to be reasonably reliable before.


    Manolo Torres -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 17:19

    Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces deployed.

    At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.

    A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will not do.

    Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12

    I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view, description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if you provide some facts, I have not noticed

    unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11

    Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.

    Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?

    Here's one to try on

    It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.

    Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
    Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.

    Kiev MOHYLA school of journalism, partners:

    Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media for Universities Project.

    If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:

    © 2007 Kyiv-Mohyla School of Journalism
    Design: Yuri Panin. Programming: Bogdan Tokovenko. Powered by ExpressionEngine.
    The web site is created with an assistance from the U.S. Department of State through the Educational Partnership Program.

    BBC: Ukrainian tycoon Rinat Akhmetov confronts rebellion

    Separatist leaders have threatened to "nationalise" Mr Akhmetov's assets.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov

    As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in organized crime.

    EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
    There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw.

    Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.

    The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

    To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.

    Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will finally end this war.

    EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48

    The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost. Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

    Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015

    Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!

    EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015

    A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

    That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about. They'll lose their jobs if they do.

    Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.

    EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28

    What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.

    On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would be a decisive victory for the rebels.

    It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what I really want to see).

    EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015

    DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective).

    Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians are being backed down at multiple points on the front.

    ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19

    What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is pointless.

    Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in the political world towards actually caring about the people.

    A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that BOTH sides have played games.

    Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong, biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.

    However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record of backing the 'right' groups.

    Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.

    There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.

    When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both sides.
    Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?

    You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units - under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?

    Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even though these cost far less to provide.

    The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become, for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).

    This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic' media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?

    But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!

    But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour, nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.

    Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.

    A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

    JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18

    Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers , MH-17 , buss etc .

    Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.

    PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17

    To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.

    What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from their airports, is not it?

    Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war."

    If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for you.


    Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17

    No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...

    But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other positions.
    Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.


    EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15

    Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk

    I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
    I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup, and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so? Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.

    graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside

    Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.

    For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?

    [Jan 20, 2015] The Guardian View of war in Ukraine maintain the pressure on Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
    "... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
    Jan 20, 2015 | The Guardian

    EdwardGreen1968 -> IngAzazello 20 Jan 2015 19:04

    Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.

    For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war. After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.

    Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.

    EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57

    That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow "win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.

    The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?

    EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45

    Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.

    From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle -- to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.

    EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38

    Cargo 200 reports are all false?

    They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000 Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers, but that nobody denies.

    Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34

    Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC. They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant fascist gear, why worry?

    Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people wear is in the end less important that what they do.

    The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS insignia?

    wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13

    Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.

    Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the civil war but serious war crimes as well.

    MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42

    At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.

    EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28

    We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.

    The info is from

    http://rusvesna.su/

    They've proven to be reasonably reliable before.


    Manolo Torres -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 17:19

    Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces deployed.

    At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.

    A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will not do.

    Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12

    I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view, description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if you provide some facts, I have not noticed

    unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11

    Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.

    Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?

    Here's one to try on

    It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.

    Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
    Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.

    Kiev MOHYLA school of journalism, partners:

    Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media for Universities Project.

    If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:

    © 2007 Kyiv-Mohyla School of Journalism
    Design: Yuri Panin. Programming: Bogdan Tokovenko. Powered by ExpressionEngine.
    The web site is created with an assistance from the U.S. Department of State through the Educational Partnership Program.

    BBC: Ukrainian tycoon Rinat Akhmetov confronts rebellion

    Separatist leaders have threatened to "nationalise" Mr Akhmetov's assets.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinat_Akhmetov

    As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in organized crime.

    EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
    There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw.

    Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.

    The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

    To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.

    Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will finally end this war.

    EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48

    The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost. Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.

    Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015

    Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!

    EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015

    A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

    That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about. They'll lose their jobs if they do.

    Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.

    EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28

    What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.

    On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would be a decisive victory for the rebels.

    It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what I really want to see).

    EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015

    DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective).

    Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians are being backed down at multiple points on the front.

    ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19

    What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is pointless.

    Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in the political world towards actually caring about the people.

    A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that BOTH sides have played games.

    Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong, biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.

    However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record of backing the 'right' groups.

    Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.

    There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.

    When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both sides.
    Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?

    You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units - under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?

    Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even though these cost far less to provide.

    The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become, for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).

    This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic' media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?

    But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!

    But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour, nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.

    Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.

    A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy ending!

    JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18

    Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers , MH-17 , buss etc .

    Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.

    PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17

    To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.

    What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from their airports, is not it?

    Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war."

    If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for you.


    Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17

    No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...

    But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other positions.
    Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.


    EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15

    Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk

    I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
    I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup, and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so? Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.

    graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside

    Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.

    For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?

    [Jan 19, 2015] They were never there: Russia's silence for families of troops killed in Ukraine by Alec Luhn

    From comments: "With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely professional. "
    The Guardian

    freedomcry iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:42

    I still don't see what Putin is getting out of his Novrossya rampage.

    Bingo. He's getting nothing, and that's why he's so dovish and reluctant to commit. It's just one of those instances where he can't ignore the fact that he's got a people to answer to. We all want a free Novorossia and a Crimea that's reunited with the rest of us and forever safe from Ukrainian petty imperialism.

    We don't need Putin or the television to tell us that. On the contrary, it's because of the Russian people that Putin, however hard he might try to be his usual neither-here-nor-there self, can't afford to not have a bottom line in this.

    Tom20000 Eye Spy 19 Jan 2015 19:45

    I don't think you understand what free speech is. The guardian is a private organisation with no obligation to show all comments.

    Georgethedog 19 Jan 2015 19:52

    "During a meeting with the president, Krivenko even handed Putin a list of about 100 soldiers killed in eastern Ukraine"

    With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely professional.

    Good Luck Kiev Junta!

    Vignola1964 -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:31

    There is much I do not know about this and other conflicts taking place around the world at the moment, but we can all feel the sinister hands behind the scenes, driving ordinary people into hostilities. There are no innocents anywhere.

    In my opinion, the 1% profit from the other 1% constantly at conflict at any one time. The more the merrier as far as they are concerned. For me this is evil.

    kowalli -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:16

    It must be embarrassing for the general public.

    ??? general public just think why west can't give any real proof, but give us bunch of lies. You really think that this 7 guys can do anything?
    You didn't even tell us results of mh17 Boeing or why ukrainians are shelling civilians like USA in Iraq.
    West just copypasting what USA tell them and think that they are exceptional people.

    RicardoFloresMagon -> vr13vr 19 Jan 2015 19:14

    Whether the claims have any merit or not, just the existence of all those groups who file petitions and challenge authorities suggests there is much more democracy in Russia than it is in the US. I can't even imagine similar organizations in the US criticizing and pressuring Obama's administration or questioning military commanders whether the death of their sons in Iraq was justified.

    InternationalANSWER
    United for Peace and Justice
    Iraq Veterans Against the War
    Code Pink
    Not in Our Name
    GI Rights Network
    and a few more...
    ... not to mention millions protested the war before it even started in every major city.

    JanZamoyski -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:11

    A nice leverage to control an escaped satellite state. Either by constant war which will bleed Ukraine and damage it chances of joining EU / NATO or by planting an autonomous, hostile region which MPs are going to paralyse the Ukrainian parliament. Like they need more fist fights...

    Christine Cannon -> Alexander Sokolov 19 Jan 2015 19:11

    So why are these young boys killing their neighbors. what is in it for them. Death

    psygone -> Vignola1964 19 Jan 2015 19:10

    "UK observers" is a little bit different than "deployments of HM Special Forces"

    Popeyes 19 Jan 2015 19:04

    This is nothing more than a proxy war between the West and Russia, and as Russia supports and arms Donbass, Washington has been supplying Kiev with weapons including stingers, anti-tank missiles, anti-armor weapons and other heavy weapons, as are many NATO countries.

    Poroschenko has just signed a decree that mobilizes up to 50,000 "healthy men and women" aged 25 to 60 to the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine... just how does that sit with the E.U? The U.S wanted a full scale war when this all started last year and it seems nothing has changed.

    JanZamoyski -> cheburawka 19 Jan 2015 19:03

    The same silly argument yet again. Kremlin isn't interested in occupying Ukraine. Putin is too smart for that.

    This isn't Chechnya with its 1 million population, but a much bigger country with 45 million population. Despite some sympathetic population, many Ukrainians would react with hostilities to such occupation. This would mean long bloody and expensive conflict Putin doesn't want to pay for.

    Chechnya despite it size was hell for Russia and Putin who was PM during second Chechnyy war realises Ukrainian occupation would be the end of him.

    In the end in Chechnya Putin found some locals to fight his war for him and that's what happened to some extent in Crimea and Donbass.
    The overblown issue of ethnic Russian population being oppressed was a joke, but with some external military help it doesn't matter now.
    Thanks to 5000+ dead in this conflict is fuelling itself and all Putin has to do is feed the flame with equipment, ammo and some "volunteers" if necessary.

    FFS this "war" has been on for seven months now. Where do you think the rebels are getting their money, ammo and vehicles from ? From babushkas donations and not existing pensions ?

    This region needs regular humanitarian food conveys but somehow has never ending supply of military vehicles and ammo. Stop trolling or open your eyes.

    Anette Mor 19 Jan 2015 19:03

    260 russian nationals secretly killed in east ukraine? Out of 5000? Totally looks like an invasion to me. There are at least half a million with Russian passports permanently living or visiting close family. Time to stop writing this useless none stories and start contributing to finishing that war.

    cherryredguitar -> False_Face 19 Jan 2015 19:42

    You haven't got a bit of evidence that there is some sort of American conspiracy here.

    I've got a documented American admission that they funded these Russian Soldiers Mothers groups.
    Now you may think that it's entirely a coincidence that the Russian Soldiers Mothers groups are saying exactly what the Americans who fund them would want them to say, but some of us are a tad more cynical, made that way by the lies of the warmongers.

    tanyushka -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:39

    Actually, Kiev was the first capital of Russia & the first royal dinasty, the Ruriks, lived there & then moved to Moscow... once in Moscow came the time of Romanovs, but much later...

    do you suggest Russia should also claim Kiev since it was its first capital?

    Putin has only said he's going to seek re-election, which is perfectly legal... why shouldn't he if he is a popular president? do you suggest Russia should change its Constitution to please its enemies?

    about economic ruin... well, that was Boris the drunkard, the favourite of the West, & oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, Brezovsky, etc. Never Heard of the Wild, Wild East?

    Putin brought order and control & the economy has been doing great so far... check your info instead of repeating lies...

    onu labu -> MacCosham 19 Jan 2015 19:39

    Note that hundred of military personnel die every year in Russia from various causes.

    noted.

    Vignola1964 -> psygone 19 Jan 2015 19:38

    It might not occur to you but special forces operatives tend to know potential adversaries quite well. They know how they are trained, might even have worked alongside them. They are professional. Hague was not. He should never alluded to any official or unofficial UK presence in Maidan. The fact that he did was worse than poor form..it endangered those same observer's lives. Were Hague to utter the words that would deny you your rejoinder to my point, even you would question his sanity.

    Eye Spy -> Robert Looren de Jong 19 Jan 2015 19:34

    are you for real.

    So the people of Crimea were all forced to go and vote at gunpoint and all these Russian guns at the heads of the voters were airbrushed out of the images that were beamed into our homes...well I never

    that means that there were thousands of Crimeans who were shot and buried because they decided to take the bullet....oh my gosh

    that means when the Americans roll in to liberate the captive Crimean' they are going to be met with flowers being thrown at their feet and they will discover mass graves....sounds like Iraq.

    You are fanciful but I can be just as inventive.

    Scipio1 19 Jan 2015 19:34

    I see the Guardian has published a photograph of the latest friend of freedom and democracy - Yatsenuik - who was part of the corrupt Orange regime of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko, 2004-2010, and who also recently accused the USSR of invading Ukraine and Germany after 1941. Does this mean something I wonder?

    As for Russian troops being in eastern Ukraine, well this seems probable. However, this is quite different from an invasion. An invasion would involve tens of thousands with air support and taking of towns and large areas of land.

    Clearly this has not and will not happen. Principally because no-one wants to take on a basket case like Ukraine. Russian troops are probably present but this is to ensure that their kith and kin in the Don Bas are not ethnically cleansed and murdered by Russophobic neo-Nazi outfits like the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, Pravy Sector (whoops, I mean the National Guard of course) whose multiple atrocities in the East have been blacked out by the western media, even the trendy faux media like ....

    It is difficult to work out exactly what the Kiev regime is trying to do in its anti-terror operation. Obviously not trying to win hearts and minds in the east by systematic bombardment and wiping out the infrastructure (very much in the style of the IDF - the hasbara doctrine). One would have thought that the massive despoliation of the most productive region of the Ukraine was against their national interests. It would have been a bit like the British during their long war against the IRA shelling Cross Maglen or West Belfast.

    But of course there is no genuine government in Ukraine, this insofar as Yatsenuik, Poroshenko and Kolomoisky are simply carrying out the orders the US Ambassador in Kiev. The US simply wants to keep the pot boiling and making maximum chaos of Russia's western borders. Yes, the US will fight to every last Ukrainian.

    Oh, and by the way there are plenty of foreign troops in West Ukraine, including Poles, US advisers, international fascist and neo-Nazi groups like the above mentioned Azov Battalion. And arms are also pouring in from NATO.

    Did the EUSA-NATO juggernaut, in their relentless push eastwards, think they could prompt yet another colour revolution in a country that had democratically voted in Yanukovich who wanted to maintain a non-aligned status. Russian reaction was very predictable to what they considered to be a massive provocation, and yet regime change was pursued a l'outrance by the US and its vassal states in Europe. And of course the regime change in Ukraine was to be followed by regime change in Russia.

    So who exactly are the aggressors here? Who is the genuine threat to world peace? Well of course it depends who you ask. But outside the Anglosphere the answer of the majority of the world's population is resounding. The great rogue state is .....

    kowalli 19 Jan 2015 19:33

    Western guys are funny - they keep talking about anything, but when they are asked about facts - they can give you anything except of more lies...

    [Jan 19, 2015] Lithuanian politician Rolandas Paulauskas: To understand the Ukraine.

    International Observatory of Ukrainian Conflict

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAEwyaHeuc4#t=203

    Politician and Signatory of the Act of Independence of Lithuania Rolandas Paulauskas – one of the brightest minds in Lithuania – explains the situation in the Ukraine to the very root of the ongoing conflict.

    This video has been previously removed from Youtube by Lithuanian authorities.

    metascapism5

    Sadly, majority of Lithuanians are not able to accept this information due to their lack of understanding of US imperialistic neo-colonization. People grown brainwashed on pro-western propaganda envision Putin as evil dictator and they will hate him and Russia no matter what they have to sacrifice: their sovereignty, their national currency, their lands and accept being slaves (cheap working power in European countries).

    kaunas5

    We as Lithuanians will never see talks of Rolandas Paulauskas in our TV or articles about him and his position in any news site in Lithuania. Our information channels provides information only in one way, always from left to right. So why it is? Because his position totally disagree from position of our government, Reuters, which news we see every and each day, his talks officially named propaganda in Lithuania by our media.

    I am really sad not because i hate Russia or like Europian Union/USA politics, it really doesn't matter. it's about that here in Lithuanian in main media channels, where 90% of Lithuanian read, we don't hear two different opinions or two different positions.

    I do not know which is better for our country, position which gives our government/media (it's like one object here) and Rolandas Paulauskas and i really want to know. Bad things happening here, i hope Latvia and Estonia are in better position.

    BurundukasNarkomanas

    Lithuanian people are, what they are, yes their perception of political reality preconceive west and us point of view, but that is what they preferred in the first place by electing the same people over 20 years, over and over again, who did nothing but put LT from one union to another.

    [Jan 18, 2015] The US mind is diseased with the syndrome known as "Manifest Destiny"

    Jan 18, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill, January 18, 2015 at 2:42 pm
    The US mind is diseased with the syndrome known as "Manifest Destiny". A type of rabid exceptionalism and nationalist chauvinist ideology.

    My theory is that the US always saw Russia as having the potential to be greater than itself (given its vast land mass and capable people) and hence an enemy to be destroyed. The USA actively financed and promoted forces to depose the Czar. They succeeded in 1917 with the assistance of the UK and Germany. The tens of millions of Russian victims that followed are due to US machinations. Now the the USA is trying to isolate Russia and turn it into some sort of tribal reservation.

    I say it is high time to subvert the USA. It needs to be sunk both literally and figuratively. It deserves punishment and badly.

    james@wpc, January 18, 2015 at 3:18 pm
    I agree. Russia has always been a threat to the economies that are run by the banking thieves because their economies are hobbled by their thieving. To remain on top, the bankers have to cripple competitors through war and revolutions and they have done an exceedingly good job of it over the last centuries.

    But who is 'the USA'? The enemy has always and only ever been the psychopaths in charge if this and other countries. Let's target the psychopaths and not make more enemies out of the many dupes, patsies and the ignorant. The psychopaths' chief weapon is deceit about who and what they are. Expose them and their nature to defeat them

    [Jan 18, 2015] Poroshenko rejected Putin's artillery withdrawal plan, began assault - Kremlin

    RT News
    Kiev resumed its military assault in eastern Ukraine on Sunday despite receiving a proposal Thursday night from the Russian president that both sides of the conflict withdraw their heavy artillery, Putin's press secretary said.

    "In recent days, Russia has consistently made efforts to mediate the conflict. In particular, on Thursday night, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a written message to Ukrainian President Poroshenko, in which both sides of the conflict were offered a concrete plan for removal of heavy artillery. The letter was received by President of Ukraine on Friday morning," president's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, said as cited by RIA Novosti news agency.

    "The latest developments in Ukraine connected with the renewed shelling of populated areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions cause grave alarm and put in jeopardy the peace process based on the Minsk memorandum," Putin's letter reads.

    Putin suggested the immediate withdrawal of artillery with a caliber more than 10mm to the distance defined by the Minsk agreements. Russia is ready to monitor the fulfillment of these moves jointly with the OSCE, the letter concludes.

    However, Peskov stressed, the Ukrainian leader rejected the plan without offering alternatives and "moreover started military actions all over again," resulting in an "absolute degradation of the situation in the southeast of Ukraine."

    Russia's Foreign Ministry accused Kiev of using the ceasefire to "regroup its forces, trying to take a course for further escalation of the conflict with a purpose to 'settle' it in a military way."

    "We are deeply concerned by the fact that the Ukrainian side continues to increase its military presence in the southeast of the country in violation of the Minsk agreements," the ministry said in a statement.

    Ukrainian troops launched a massive assault on militia-held areas on Sunday morning.

    The order from Kiev came after several days of violent clashes at the ruins of Donetsk International Airport – a scene of constant fighting over the months amid a shaky ceasefire between the Ukrainian army and local militia forces.

    It was also the scene of a deadly bus shelling earlier this week; 12 people were killed on Tuesday when the bus was targeted at a Kiev-controlled checkpoint near the town of Volnovakha.

    DNR forces denied accusations that local militia were responsible, saying the bus was targeted by Ukrainian troops.

    A sharp escalation of clashes has also been reported across the frontline in Donetsk and nearby regions.

    Russia has urged all members of the international community, specifically the OSCE, to demand that Kiev unconditionally give up its policy of forced suppression of the conflict.

    "There is an urgent need to cease hostilities and resume the 'silence' mode in Ukraine; the OSCE mission should play a special role in this," the statement reads.

    Moscow has stressed the necessity to continue talks within the contact group to fulfill the Minsk agreements, saying it will do all it can so that the group can meet at the beginning of next week.

    "We are calling on all members and those who have influence on the situation, to not let another breakdown [in talks happen]," the Foreign Ministry said.

    Russia has expressed readiness "to use its influence on militia" in southeast Ukraine so they voluntarily agree to withdraw heavy armament from the frontline, so that its geographic coordinates correspond to Kiev's demands "to avoid more victims among the civilian population."

    The Foreign Ministry has linked the deadly attacks in Donetsk and Kiev's "massive fire" order with the upcoming EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting on January 19.

    It has noted that "such attempts coupled with the apparent provocation (similar to the situation with the Malaysian Boeing and the incident with a bus in Volnovakha) come, as a rule, on the eve of the European Union and other Western states meetings, which deal with the situation in Ukraine."

    Read more: 12 killed, 13 injured as shell hits bus near Donetsk, E. Ukraine - reports

    [Jan 18, 2015] Why Putin Will Not Dump Novorossia Moscow's and Kiev's Models of United Ukraine are Mutually Exclusive

    Fort Russ

    The much talked about "dumping" of Novorossiya, which is notoriously promoted by Ukrainian, Western and partially the Russian press [tr. and State Dep. social media warriors], in reality is unlikely, said in an interview with the news agency News Front a prominent intellectual and political analyst Anatoly Wasserman. The rhetoric about "united Ukraine", which is really voiced by the Kremlin officials, is fundamentally different from what is meant by the official Kyiv.

    And Moscow's conditions are unacceptable to Kiev, as much as the Kiev regime's model of "united Ukraine" is absolutely unacceptable to Moscow. Wasserman believes such nuances are too significant to leave them out of discussion.

    "A few words about "united Ukraine". Yes, this slogan sounds from the mouth of Putin and Lavrov almost as often as from the mouth of Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk. But, you know, the medieval scholastics used to say that if two people say the same thing, it does not necessarily mean the same thing. In this case, it is important for me that every statement of Putin and Lavrov about "united Ukraine" is accompanied by a description of the conditions under which Ukraine can in principle be united. A list of these conditions shows that the current Kiev usurpers cannot fulfill a single demand from this list. That is, in the words of Putin and Lavrov's the phrase "united Ukraine" actually means a radical change, constructing a completely new government, capable of ensuring equal rights, bilingualism and much more of what is really needed. Anything similar to what Kiev usurpers consider "united Ukraine" Russia will not accept," - said Wasserman.

    According to the analyst, despite the diversity of opinions in respect to Donbass, which, of course, exists in Russian elites, overall there are no opponents of Novorossia there. Moreover, even pro-Western non-systemic opposition is promoting pro-Ukrainian rhetoric only because it is removed from power. In other circumstances, their screams would have exactly the opposite angle, says Wasserman.

    "I'm talking about Russia, as a whole, although in my domestic publications I repeatedly emphasise that the Russian government is divided into two parts, as, indeed, the authorities in most countries of the world. One of these parts represents the interests of manufacturers and is grouped around the security block of the government and is headed directly by the President. Another part protects the interests of the merchants and is grouped around the economic block of the government and is headed respectively by the Prime Minister. The balance of these two parts explains and defines many of the oddities in the behaviour of the Russian Federation. But in relation to Ukraine, as far as I can tell, the positions of both parts of the Russian government are practically identical simply because in case of victory of the U.S. and its puppets in Kiev, not only the manufacturers in the Russian Federation will be destroyed, but a significant proportion of the merchants will pushed aside and they already understand this.

    Given all the contradictions in Russian domestic affairs, I am quite convinced that neither Putin nor Medvedev can dump Novorossia. Moreover, even if by some miracle the dreams of, what in Russia is called non-systemic opposition, but, in fact, are mostly ordinary agents of American propaganda, - will come true, even they will be forced to defend the interests of Novorossia and not Kiev", - said the expert.

    Translators Note:

    At a Ukraine debate in USA a prominent Russian opposition member was asked a question: "How can Putin's high approval rating be lowered?" His answer was: "By making Putin look weak". Ironically the Western information machine has changed it's tune from blaming Putin for supporting Novorossia to blaiming Putin for not supporting Novorossia enough. This battle is raging on Russian internet pages, and is spilling over onto the pages of Western Novorossia supporters. Every event in Ukraine and Novorossia is evaluated by its utility to "Putin is a traitor" claim. Since the West had failed in its mission of nurturing any semblance of Russian opposition, and Putin's rating took off after Crimea, the West headed by Russia's main nemesis - the USA, has correctly refocused its attention on the untapped power of Russian patriotism. As a result the US has gotten Putin between a rock and a hard place. He is damned if he helps Novorossia, and he is damned if he doesn't. Russian patriots have been successfully divided into a pro-Putin and anti-Putin camp. The anti-Putin camp is outraged by negotiations, the halting of hostilities, calling for a march to Kiev, Russian boots on the ground yesterday, condemns any deals with Kiev and says Putin caved to Russian elites, which caved to the West. The pro-Putin camp trusts in the "PSP" (Putin's Secret Plan, even if evolving), Lavrov's charm, measured steps, the building of a vertical of power and unified command, invisible aid, Russian resolve, consolidation of elites around the center and the ultimate goal of turning the entire Ukraine Russia-friendly, which would not be achieved by its invasion. The debate rages on, but ironically, Putin's replacement would be faced with the same tasks as Putin, if he was to hold on to power, according to Vasserman. The question is - would he be more successful?

    (PS The above article may and should be used as State Dep. troll repellent)

    [Jan 16, 2015] Don't worry. The authorities will quickly explain to you what "freedom of speech" means but putting you in jail, if you uttered something stupid by Olga Tukhanina

    vz.ru

    Neoliberal Empire is so close in spirit to late USSR that closeness of event strikes everybody. As in cult soviet satirical film "Kin-DZA-DZA: "You now find yourselves in cells, because you say things without thinking, and think about things that you should not think at all". If Kafka were alive, these days he would have definitely died again. The only thing unclear whether from laughing or from envy. Although it can be both.

    "No respectable publication in the citadel of the free world reprinted the cartoons"

    The Associated Press reported from Paris that after the most massive in the history of mankind demonstrations in defense of freedom of speech, 54 people were arrested for wrong words which supposedly demonstrate hate and support of terrorism. Then the arrests continued, and now the number of arrested exceeded sixty people.

    Among them is the famous comedian Dieudonne Mbala Mbala. The funny thing is that this comic was ideologically close ally of cartoonists from Charlie Hebdo . It now looks as if cartoonists, who were perished were Communists, they would be so left to the Chairman of Communist Party of Russia Gennady Zyuganov, that he on their background looks like obnoxious right-wing conservative.

    The absurdity of what is happening, when in support of freedom of speech government can immediately arrest the person just saying something politically incorrect, and put him in jail for six months, it has become evident even for selected Russian neoliberals. They, however, try to ignore the obvious concern by saying that those events happened in backward France, and that's why Obama did not fly to the largest demonstration of the freedom of speed in world history.

    However, in the citadel of the free world, where freedom of speech is protected by a separate amendment to the Constitution, for some reason no respectable publication reprinted the cartoons.

    Talking about large multinationals, it's funny that on the English version of the Apple website, for example, there were no words in support of the victims, but on the French page sacramental Je suis Charlie was hanging. Looks like variant of support of Freedom of expression with severely restricted export channels

    Within the neoliberal worlds almost nobody is supposed by those inconsistencies. They explain that freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize and make fun of all religions. And believers must bow their heads and endure. But hate speech is a completely different matter; it is about inciting hatred and ethnic strife. and you can be jailed for such an action.

    Let's try to give a Russian example of such a behaviour. It looks like this: when satirist Shenderovich rhetorically asks the priest why he did not learned anything from the events of the twenties, this is a freedom of speech. But when the Shenderovich asked why Jews learned nothing from events of 30th, this is hate speech and anti-Semitism. Here Article 282 of Russian Criminal codex might be applicable.

    For a normal person it is extremely difficult to understand nuances of interpretation of the subtle difference between "free speech" and "hate speech" in the neoliberal world. But neoliberals suck the right interpretation with their genetically modified neoliberal milk. Such an interpretation looks as following "Freedom only for the free men, and all the barbarians mouth should better be shut".

    For anybody who lived in Brezhnev's USSR it looks like ideological poles of modern world just reversed and West happily adopted the model used in the USSR 40 years ago. Now we can understand why the US and Western European citizens were so stunned by absurdity of Soviet propaganda and millions of people who on May 1 come to street to march for Freedom of people from exploitation, against oppression and for personal liberties including the Freedom of expression. Under the strict guidance of the party and government and watchful eyes of KGB.

    There were also a lot of talk about the "freedom of expression" in late USSR, and you really can criticize decadent West as much as you can, but openly criticizing Soviet regime could sometimes get you a jail term for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. However, I will make a special reservation: the Soviet Union was my homeland. and despite all the shortcomings and broken economic model life for ordinary people in late USSR was very good. We have had something that today can be found nowhere - there was no unemployment, no homeless children, no crime, and for children especially it was a great environment to grow up with state provided free education (including university education) and medicine.

    However, I repeat, to Western public Communist rituals looked f*cking ridiculous. But at the same time Soviet people have perfect understanding of of this situation and nobody took them seriously; everybody felt that the system was completely rotten from inside and that communist ideology is no longer viable. In the 70s the Soviet ideology lost any hold of people minds. Ideology of Neoliberal Empire in Europe is still relatively new and smell with flesh layer of "free markets" utopia paint and new level of neoliberal hypocrisy after the events of 2008. It still hold minds of a lot of Western European lemmings.

    It's pretty telling that Neoliberal Empire strikes former citizens of the USSR as ideological reincarnation of "Brezhnev USSR" in all its rotten ideological glory and absurdity. But it's still relatively clean on the streets of Western capitals (but not New York). And infrastructure is still relatively in order. And people have rather high standard of living. But the real situation with the "freedom of expression" is exactly like in the cult Soviet satirical film "Kin-DZA-DZA": "You now find yourselves in cells, because you say things without thinking, and think about things that you should not think at all". And it is this parade of hypocrisy that we observe right now. There are powerful and corrupt guys who define in what cases "Freedom of expression" is applicable and when it is not. And you need to obey. Or...

    But, of course, what Russian people living under authoritarianism can understand in Western European events. Those savages in work robes as neoliberal journalists from "Echo of Moscow" would characterize us. And after such a characterization, the journalist from "Echo of Moscow" will go to have one or two Americano, and is not afraid of being arrested and jailed for some time for inciting hatred and enmity. He is serving the right boss, for the right convertible currency, so why should he/she? Exactly like in "Kin-DZA-DZA". In other words, not everybody can pretend that "We are Charlie" in this neoliberal world. Only selected few.

    Semiofficial neofascism

    http://nahnews.com.ua/134719-platon-besedin-samyj-omerzitelnyj-aspekt-vyskazyvaniya-yacenyuka-on-absolyutno-v-trende/

    I think Besedin not quite grasp the logic of Yatsnyuk.

    Who is that Yatsenyuk. Completely controlled by Washington obcom he can demonstrate aggression only when his owner stands behind him. He is just an American lackey, humbly begging for money from direct and indirect owners. Germany in the latter case. And at the same time he wants money from Russia, so that Russia did not feel too cozy about the situation, and also to reduce the costs for the owners. That's why Washington Obcom assigned him this position.

    What exactly Yatsenyuk said. That Russia attacked Germany and Ukraine. What does this mean, and how this, at first glance, such a crazy logic can be interpreted?

    It is very simple. The Germans are tired of the responsibility for Hitler, which today represents absolute evil (usually in caricature or speculative form). From responsibility for Auschwitz. From liability to the Jews, and, in general, from paying the bills for old crimes. After WW2 there were already several generations of German burghers which grew up on the films in which the Germans were presented as bastards, criminals, cannibals, etc.. And then they'll have a window of opportunity.

    What is the "Russia invaded Ukraine?". Just an oxymoron? As the Russians could attack the Russians in the process of liberation of the territory captured by the Germans?

    No, not an oxymoron. Not at all. There is a certain logic. It is something like this: you, the Germans, in 1941-43 represented Europe. And in 1941 you "liberated" us. Then in 1943 Russia "invaded" us. And That means that what Germany did in 1941 was Zer gut. As long as you attacking Russia it does not metter how many people you killed, we would have closed our eyes. We relieve you from liability in this respect. Just show more initiative, regenerate the framework of neo-fascism, play a more significant role in Europe. Be aggressive. But only in one direction.

    ... ... ...

    It remains to understand how the German establishment susceptible to the speeches of the American lackey.

    [Jan 15, 2015] The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs by By Mikhail Klikushin

    OK. First WashPost. Now Observer. So much for State Department propaganda efforts...
    Jan 14, 2015 | observer.com

    Prominent Ukrainian MP denounces Obama's weakness, calls him a 'shot-down pilot'

    By Mikhail Klikushin | 01/14/15 8:05am

    There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors are even imaginable.

    But that was then - a previous regime.

    On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern, attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his government.

    Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets. They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.

    In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.

    The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared. In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money from the European Bank and the IMF.

    The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.

    On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.

    Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.

    By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.

    As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.

    Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.

    These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.

    One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process. He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.

    Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza. This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.

    Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed 2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny. We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"

    Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.

    [Jan 15, 2015] The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs by By Mikhail Klikushin

    OK. First WashPost. Now Observer. So much for State Department propaganda efforts...
    Jan 14, 2015 | observer.com

    Prominent Ukrainian MP denounces Obama's weakness, calls him a 'shot-down pilot'

    By Mikhail Klikushin | 01/14/15 8:05am

    There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors are even imaginable.

    But that was then - a previous regime.

    On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern, attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his government.

    Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets. They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.

    In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.

    The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared. In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money from the European Bank and the IMF.

    The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.

    On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.

    Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.

    By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.

    As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.

    Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.

    These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.

    One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process. He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if he dies.

    Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza. This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.

    Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed 2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny. We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"

    Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.

    [Jan 14, 2015] Russia's Aggressive Isolationism by Ivan Krastev & Stephen Holmes

    Look at whom you quote and I will who you are ;-). While both guys are pathological neocons, there are some interesting considerations is usually steam on neocon nonsense. The extent to which the US corporations will be kicked in a chin in Russia was probably underestimated by the US elite. McDonalds and other food companies now have real difficulties. and Russian government now adopted official program of kicking international from Russian market. It is called the program of import substitution. German auto exports are already in trouble, but it looks like German equipment manufactures will have real troubles to return to Russian market whan and if sansion are lifted. With planned by State Department color revolution in Russia also not everything is smooth. After Ukraine Russina neoliberals (aka liberasts) now is so universally hated that they can be written off as a viable political force for now. And who will be fired for misusing the US taxpayers funds in this particular case. Yes, you are right, nobody. But closing a couple of neocon outlets would be a step in right direction. Removing authors like those two from payroll would be another one.
    Ron Paul warned that the adoption of sanctions is on a par with the declation of war. It is unwise to provoke a strong opponent, if he does not threaten your vital national interests. However, such interests in Ukraine and in the Crimea from the United States, the wrath of Congress and the White house against Russia is a very dangerous policy. The USA once tried such a policy with Japan.
    The American Interest
    ... In 1989, only 13 percent of Russians believed that their country had external enemies; now 78 percent of Russian respondents say they do.

    ... ... ...

    Realists such as John Mearsheimer are not wrong to assert that the West's policies of enlarging both NATO and the EU eastward have contributed to Russia's sense of insecurity. But the Kremlin's aggression against Ukraine is best explained not by Russia's geopolitical interests but by the aforementioned internal weakness of Putin's regime. This underlying weakness was dramatically exposed during the protests of winter 2012. Until that time, public support for the system had been periodically demonstrated by the absence of public protests in the wake of rigged elections in which incumbents were able to choose hopeless challengers against whom to run. The impressive street demonstrations in Moscow that winter destroyed this legitimacy formula. Asked if the large protests that greeted the legislative and presidential elections of 2011–12 had surprised the Kremlin, senior United Russia member Yuri Kotler vividly captured how Russia's rulers viewed the new reality: "Well, imagine if your cat came to you and started talking. First of all, it's a cat, and it's talking. Second, all these years, the government fed it, gave it water, petted it, and now it's talking and demanding something. It's a shock."4

    The frantic search for a substitute legitimacy formula began immediately after Putin returned to the presidency in the spring of 2012. This search led directly to the Crimea annexation, which filled the streets of Moscow with cheers, not protests, and subsequently to the bloody proxy war in eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin may have feared that, if it failed to occupy Crimea, angry crowds of ethnic Russian nationalists were ready to occupy Moscow. In the autumn of 2013 the independent Levada Center registered a dramatic upsurge of nationalistic and xenophobic sentiments among the Russian public, crowding out and replacing anger at the regime.

    Putin's improvised Ukraine gambit had more to do with his fear of remote-controlled street protests than with his fear of NATO expansion. The surprising and disconcerting developments inside Ukraine, which led to a problematic Russian client being chased from office only to be replaced by an unabashedly anti-Russian successor, suggested that Western ways of thinking, not NATO tanks, were the most threatening forces advancing on Moscow. After the fall of Yanukovych, preventing Moscow street protests from spiraling out of control, as they had done in Kiev, became a priority for Putin. He and his extravagantly domiciled billionaire friends were also appalled, presumably, as ordinary Ukrainians ogled Yanukovych's luxurious mansion in Mezhyhirya. Formulated differently, "Occupy Crimea" was an impulsive response to both "Occupy Maidan" and "Occupy Abai", the anti-Putin protest staged by Muscovites a year earlier under the shadow of the Kremlin.

    Putin seems never to have doubted that the 2011–12 anti-government street demonstrations in Moscow, like those that took place in Ukraine in 2013–14, were sponsored and orchestrated by the West and that their ultimate goal was, if not thoroughgoing regime change, at least his personal removal from power. He was also bothered by the unseemly readiness of his own elite, some of them Kremlin insiders, to collaborate openly with the protesters in 2012. Putin concluded that his regime was vulnerable and that the West was malevolently plotting to exploit that vulnerability.

    Russia's behavior toward Ukraine, properly understood, reveals a paradox. Putin's regime is strong in the sense that it can crush weak and isolated domestic resistance and make a divided Europe look impotent in its moral outrage. It is simultaneously fragile, however, because it lacks any agreed-upon succession mechanism, because personal networks remain more important than impersonal institutions, because the decade of hydrocarbon-fueled economic growth is over, and because the Kremlin cannot impose serious discipline on its bloated and predatory bureaucracy. Kleptocratic schemes can only be stopped from the top, after all; those in the middle ranks and below have no choice but to continue because they must deliver for their protectors above. These weaknesses are deeply rooted in the system and cannot be traced solely to personal peculiarities of the curent President. "It is impossible to say when the system will fall", observed Putin's former adviser Gleb Pavlovsky, "but when it falls, it will fall in one day, and the one to replace it will be a copy of this one."5

    From Putin's own perspective, his regime's vulnerability lies in the Russian elite's cultural and financial dependence on the West. Putin controls everything in Russia except the things that really matter: the price of oil and gas, and the loyalty of the rich. Putin controls everything in Russia except the things that really matter: the price of oil and gas, and the loyalty of the rich. His sway over an economic elite that does so much of its business offshore is very limited. This is why the re-nationalization of the country's globe-trotting business classes became one of Putin's major objectives, especially after 2012.

    ... ... ...

    Speculations aside, Putin's efforts to reconsolidate power after the protests of 2012 strongly suggest that instability within states, rather than rivalry among them, is the leading cause of international crises today. The behavior of many influential global actors, including arguably the United States, is shaped less by their strategic security interests narrowly defined than by their need to manage a domestic backlash against globalization. Russia is perhaps the most spectacular example of this disturbing pattern. Although the Kremlin wants to increase Russia's insulation from the world, it lacks the capacity to do so on its own. That is arguably why it has provoked a crisis that could induce the West to slam the door not only on it but also for it. In the tidy world of academic realists, governments mobilize domestic resources in order to project power abroad; in today's untidy reality, some governments leverage global resources to stabilize shaky situations at home, while other governments, including Russia's, try to strangle domestic opposition by cutting them off from the global resources that could embolden resistance to the ruling power.

    ... ... ...

    Sanctions were of little use during the Cold War because the leverage they presuppose exists only in an economically interdependent world. They can be effective today, to be sure; but if perceived as a weapon aimed at splitting the sanctioned country's elite, they guarantee that elite solidarity will be coercively enforced by dismantling the interdependent world that makes the sanction weapon so punishing. There is considerable evidence that the Russian leadership desires such a dismantling. In mid-November, the Duma passed new legislation criminalizing the concealment of offshore income from Russian authorities. At the end of September, Russia's Security Council discussed the possibility of creating an independent Russian internet. Its attempt to sell oil for rubles, and its exotic idea of raising taxes on tickets for international flights while reducing taxes on the tickets for domestic flights are two further examples of a Kremlin-orchestrated de-globalization policy designed to shred connective tissue between Russia and the West.

    Moreover, the damage inflicted by sanctions, however precisely targeted, cannot be limited to those on the sanctions list. "You [in the West] reason that the sanctions will split the elite and force Putin to change course, but that's not what is happening", a billionaire investor told the Financial Times. "On the contrary, you are destroying those in Russia who are friends of the West. The soloviki ["the heavies"] have been strengthened more than ever before."6 The recent house arrest and pending indictment of pro-Western oligarch Vladimir Yevtushenkov makes this judgment sound prescient.

    In effect, contrary to the stated intentions of Western policymakers, the sanctions being imposed on Russia may facilitate Putin's plans for limiting Russia's exposure to the West. They are helping him nationalize his elites by pushing them to close their bank accounts abroad and to limit their contacts with Western business partners. They may or may not re-orient Russia's trade toward China, but they are certainly consolidating anti-Western public opinion inside Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Resisting Putin's attempts to insulate his country from the world should be the principal aim of Western policy toward Russia. That doesn't mean that the West's political leaders should encourage Western banks to launder capital escaping from Russia, or otherwise act as accomplices to Russian kleptocratic habits. Countering Putin's aggressive isolationism, however, means deepening Western engagement with all facets of Russian society, not helping him transfer wealth from Russia's relatively pro-Western economic elites to its adamantly anti-Western economic elites. If at the same time we can manage to disabuse ourselves of the notion that Western power cannot by definition trouble others, so much the better.

    1Brooks, "The Revolt of the Weak", New York Times, September 1, 2014.

    2Cited in Moisés Naím, The End of Power: From Boardrooms to Battlefields and Churches to States, Why Being in Charge Isn't What It Used to Be (Basic Books, 2013).

    3Tsimbursky, "Island Russia", Polis Journal, Part I (December 2000), Part II (March 2001).

    4Quoted in Julia Ioffe, "The Loneliness of Vladimir Putin", New Republic, February 2, 2014.

    5Quoted in Julia Ioffe, "Vladimir Putin Might Fall. We Should Consider What Happens Next", New Republic, August 6, 2014.

    6Kathrin Hille, "Sanctions extend influence of hardmen in Putin's Kremlin", Financial Times, September 18, 2014.

    [Jan 11, 2015] Ukraine's forgotten city destroyed by war by Oleg Orlov for Echo Moskvy

    Notable quotes:
    "... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
    Jan 07, 2014 | The Guardian

    Mr. Russian, Jan 8, 2015 20:50

    I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
    Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?

    PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35

    That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent responsible for its success or failure.

    What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100% responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???

    For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:

    Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
    Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
    Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
    DPR and LPR leaders

    Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36

    £2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled, then £3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!

    HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26

    The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.

    Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59

    You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply than main Ukraine.

    The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.

    [Jan 11, 2015] Ukraine's forgotten city destroyed by war by Oleg Orlov for Echo Moskvy

    Notable quotes:
    "... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
    Jan 07, 2014 | The Guardian

    Mr. Russian, Jan 8, 2015 20:50

    I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
    Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?

    PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35

    That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent responsible for its success or failure.

    What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100% responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???

    For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:

    Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
    Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
    Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
    DPR and LPR leaders

    Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36

    £2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled, then £3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!

    HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26

    The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.

    Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59

    You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply than main Ukraine.

    The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.

    [Jan 11, 2015] Better Putin Than Weimar Russia By Justin Raimondo

    Support Antiwar.com one of the very few anti-militarist sites on the Internet !!!

    January 6, 2015 | The American Conservative

    The current Russian regime is preferable to the reactionary chaos that would accompany its collapse.

    I must admit to being a bit baffled by Jon Basil Utley's "Libertarians and Putin's Catastrophic Corruption," wherein we are presented with a litany of all that's wrong with Russia's un-free economy: bribery, no respect for property rights, corrupt courts, dependence on imports-and, perhaps most disturbing of all, "lousy roads!" (I'd advise Jon to pay me a visit out here in the wilds of northern California if he wants to see some really bad roads).

    I'm baffled because I have to wonder how this is different from the rest of the world, or at least most of it. Utley is describing the general condition of what we used to call the "Third World," before political correctness eliminated that designation. That Russia has fallen into that category after the implosion of communism is hardly surprising: indeed, it was nearly inevitable.

    I also have to wonder about the conclusion Utley draws from his indictment of today's Russia. He writes: "Yet many leading libertarians have been very soft on Putin's elimination of political freedoms and ruination of his country, excusing Russia because of NATO expansion and Western support for the overthrow of Ukraine's Moscow-backed Yanukovych government. Some conservatives have even argued that Putin is an ally in supporting traditional 'family values' because of his public opposition to homosexuality and gay marriage."

    One has to ask: what "political freedoms"? Western neocons complain that Russia's elections are rigged, although the evidence for this is sketchy, at best-aside from which it's undeniable that Putin, for all his faults, is immensely popular in Russia. That's why he's still in power. The Yeltsin government that preceded Putin's ascension was far worse in terms of corruption: the country was literally plundered by ex-Communist apparatchniks who "bid" on formerly nationalized industries without any competing bids being allowed. This led to the rise of the hated oligarchs, who propped up a drunken Yeltsin while he sold his country down the river-and for a pittance! It was looting, plain and simple. Putin's popularity is based, in part, on the fact that he reined these crooks in. No, he didn't inaugurate laissez-faire capitalism-but then again, neither has any country in the world, including our own.

    Utley claims "Ron Paul defends Putin," with a link pointing to a smear piece in the National Journal that starts out: "It used to be that blaming America for crisis abroad was largely the province of liberals. That folk wisdom appears to be changing-just ask Ron Paul." The article goes on to rail against the fact that the Russian propaganda apparatus picked up on Paul's remarks, as if that alone was proof of Paul's perfidy. But if we look at what Paul actually said, it turns out he was absolutely correct:


    Just days after the tragic crash of a Malaysian Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine, Western politicians and media joined together to gain the maximum propaganda value from the disaster. It had to be Russia; it had to be Putin… President Obama held a press conference to claim-even before an investigation-that it was pro-Russian rebels in the region who were responsible. His ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, did the same at the U.N. Security Council-just one day after the crash.

    Every word of this is true: the U.S. government and media didn't wait two seconds before concluding the separatists and their Russian sponsors were behind the downing of the plane. Minutes after the incident Twitter was ablaze with anti-Russian propaganda: yet another example of the evil Putin's perfidy!

    The international investigation launched shortly after the crash still hasn't reached a definitive conclusion, and one isn't due until August. And even if-or rather when-the investigation cites the separatists as the culprits, it's clear they didn't intend to target a civilian airliner, which for some reason was flying over a war zone avoided by other airlines. In any case, Paul's point remains valid: the rush to judgment was unseemly and indicative of a troubling trend-the Russophobia that is driving our policy toward the Kremlin.

    Utley makes the argument that Russia is in danger of becoming a "failed state." Yet Russia is nowhere near becoming anything like, say, Somalia, a classic failed state. And its current economic troubles aren't only a result of its statist economic policies, although they do play a major role: the economic sanctions recently imposed by the Obama administration, with full support from congressional conservatives, are a major blow, precisely as intended by our new Cold Warriors. Utley never mentions the sanctions; indeed, his piece gives the pro-sanctions crowd moral if not explicit political support.

    What kind of libertarian supports such sanctions? I'll tell you what kind: over at the Cato Institute, we see a piece by Christopher Preble opining that "the goal of the sanctions should be a negotiated settlement to the Ukrainian crisis that favors western interests. Economic pressure raised the costs of Russia's revanchism in Ukraine and might deter Putin from trying to foment trouble elsewhere along Russia's border."

    In other words, the sanctions are a good thing: for the first time ever, the Cato Institute is endorsing what Daniel Drezner calls the "weaponization of finance" in order to pursue Washington's foreign-policy agenda. This didn't even happen during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq! Which tells us that the Russophobia that has swept through Georgetown's cocktail parties has breached the towers of what used to be the premier libertarian think tank, and Cold War II is in full swing. When Washington has regime-change on its mind, the pressure on anti-interventionists in the nation's capital can be tremendous.

    If we want to prevent Russia from become a failed state, imposing draconian economic sanctions is counterintuitive. Thanks to the Obama administration's open hostility to the Kremlin, the joint U.S.-Russian program charged with tracing and securing "loose nukes" has come to a halt. Does anyone think Washington's current anti-Russian hysterics are going to bring it back?

    Russia is very far from being a "dictatorship," as Utley avers. It's easier for a new or "third" party to get on the ballot in Russia than it is in the United States. True, the major media are pro-government, but most of the media is in formally private hands. And our own media is concentrated in just as few hands-and doesn't exactly have a great track record when it comes to challenging the narratives spun by government officials.

    Utley is right that Putin won't be thrown out-but not because Russia is a dictatorship. It's because he's enormously popular, not because opposition parties are banned (they aren't) or because his enemies are all in prison (they aren't). Is Russia a Jeffersonian republic? Nope. But then again, neither are we.

    American hostility to Russia is based on two things: 1) Putin's scathing and largely accurate critique of U.S. intervention in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and his refusal to countenance NATO expansion, and 2) Putin's offer of sanctuary to America's number one political dissident, Edward Snowden. Of course, the neocons were ready for regime change when Putin denounced the U.S. assault on Iraq, but it wasn't until Snowden's hegira that the U.S. government got fully on board the regime-change train.

    The current wave of Russophobia is the most dangerous phenomenon since the wave of war hysteria that greeted the 9/11 terrorist attacks. We are in danger of creating a "Weimar Russia"-wracked by economic ruination, resentful of the West, and seething with ancient ethnic hatreds. So you think Putin is bad? You haven't seen anything yet-just wait until you see his successors. The ultra-nationalists waiting in the wings are truly scary: the irony is that the scenario of a "revanchist, revisionist" Russia will turn out to have been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    The Versailles Treaty, with its draconian terms designed to humiliate and impoverish a defeated Germany, ushered in Hitler and the National Socialists. Russia, defeated in the first Cold War, is being treated in a similar fashion. We have been down this road before-so why haven't we learned the right lessons? If even the heroic Jon Utley, publisher of the nation's leading anti-interventionist magazine-and a great friend to Antiwar.com-hasn't learned the right lesson, then I tremble at the future we have before us.

    Justin Raimondo is editorial director of Antiwar.com. Support Antiwar.com !!!

    Russia's Foreign Policy Is Full of Contradictions Opinion By Mark Adomanis

    Jan. 11 2015 | The Moscow Times
    As is customary after such atrocities, Russian President Vladimir Putin rushed to offer sympathy to the French government and people. The similarity to 9/11, when Putin was famously the very first foreign dignitary to call on U.S. President George W. Bush, is not accidental.

    Islamist terrorism is the most significant entry on an ever-shorter list of issues on which Russia and the West are in general agreement. Given the depth to which relations have plunged, it was perfectly understandable that the Kremlin would do its best to remind the West that, whatever its own faults, when it comes to fighting al-Qaida it is in the same foxhole. "Say what you want about us," the argument goes, "at least we're not chopping people's heads off."

    It was noteworthy that RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan echoed almost identical sentiments. On Twitter she said that not only would a third world war start in the not too distant future, but that when it does Russia and the West will be fighting together - against whom wasn't made explicit, but the implication was Islamist terrorists.

    marknesop, January 11, 2015 at 9:56 am

    Dear God; where to start? Just as an overall observation, Mark Adomanis is an American analyst, and the foreign policy of any country which refuses to cooperate with American foreign policy and further its goals as if they were their own almost always appears schizophrenic and contradictory because…well, because it doesn't further American goals, which are a world at peace led by the World's Indispensable Power, which is only entitled to exact tribute from the rest of the world for its role as peacemaker.

    This post was a bit of an epiphany for me – I previously thought Mark Adomanis had kind of a soft spot for Russia, and that he was impatient with it because it would not get with the program and Americanize, which is best for everyone. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that he does not care much for it at all, and when he says anything positive about it, it is because he likes to argue and he knows any positive item about Russia – albeit it is factual – will attract argument in which he can showcase his glittering and superior education. Make no mistake – he is a smart guy. But he seems to take a sort of Madelaine Albright approach to it: what's the point of having this big expensive education if you can't use it to crush people?

    Well, then, let's take a look at it. Something else which becomes immediately apparent is that he is a believer in the "sanctions are working" philosophy which – despite the USA just having acknowledged that five decades of sanctions against Cuba have done diddly to bring it into the American Circle Of Dominance and that it is as resistant as ever – now holds that the USA has accomplished its goal of forcing Russia to its knees and making it kiss American boots and acknowledge it is beaten.

    • If Putin did not call the French leader to express sympathy on behalf of his country, it would be because he is a cold and heartless machine-man dictator who cares nothing for human suffering.
    • If he does, it is because he is rushing to score brownie points with the United States, thus acknowledging its victory, pathetically nuzzling its hand as he tries to apologize and make friends.

    What a ridiculous and insulting Manichean dualism, although by now perhaps it is to be expected. Of course it was not accidental – it's what you do if you are a statesman who wishes to maintain good relations with all your neighbours, although the parallel Adomanis draws with 9-11 is absurd.

    As is the implication that Russia is striking while the iron is hot so as to "remind" the Great United States, Earthly Arbiter of Heavenly Justice, that it is not as bad as Islamic fundamentalists. It's actually a little sad that America is so earnestly stirring the bones, looking for signs that everyone still thinks it is Oz the Great and Terrible. Russia does not need to suck up to the United States in order to curry favour – for the love of God, is it still not clear what it wants? To be respected and treated with courtesy; no more, no less. Stuff your pats on the head up your ass.

    "The problem, however, is that over the past year the Kremlin has pressed the "anti-Western rhetoric" button with such reckless abandon that not everyone got the message that the West was Russia's friend once again." I will be very surprised if this is the case, because Russia is not like the west – if it were, there would be no problem because it would long ago have submitted to western efforts to remake it in its own image. It is the west that now rages and screams, and now smiles benevolently as soon as it has had its way. The Russian position has not changed, and its drive to decouple from such western dependence as is dangerous to its continued free existence will continue, as will its strengthening alliance with Asia and the BRICs.

    In fact, it is the USA and American media which are making small overtures and exploratory gestures to see if the apparent course of events cannot be turned aside or arrested. But I encourage you to prove me wrong, and show signs where Russia is begging for the west to ease up on sanctions. I think you will find it is the west which is becoming more emphatic that it will lift them if it sees signs of improvement, and those appear to be getting increasingly fluid in their nature. Once again, the west never repeats its position when it is winning – it is for its enemies to remember its terms, and conform. But since it is important for the west that it always win, it simply moves the goalposts.

    Of course it is "ludicrous" to suggest the CIA or some other western agency might have been involved: the very idea! As if it were common for American intelligence services to intervene in other countries to steer events and attitudes toward a desired conclusion! Who ever heard of that happening?? Far more likely to have been just what it looks like, a fundamentalist Muslim outrage, although there is the minor inconvenience that France is one of the most Muslim-friendly countries in Europe, and voted in favour of Palestinian statehood, as others have pointed out.

    And yes, it was inevitable that a parallel to Pussy Riot would be drawn – I swear, Mark Adomanis has a fantasy about a menage a trois with the Pussy Riot gurlz, because he was adamant on the occasion of their trial for hooliganism that they should be allowed to take a shit on the altar if their natural and beautiful inclinations toward freedom should indicate that was required. Not literally, although he insisted the notion of private and respected space for believers was a quaint and outdated notion that had been swept aside in the free world, where people are deliberately offensive because it is a beautiful expression of freedom and people should cheer because such offensive displays give us an opportunity to demonstrate our wonderful tolerance, which is just one more thing we have over creaking and medieval Russia.

    [Jan 11, 2015] Semiofficial neofascism

    Regarding http://nahnews.com.ua/134719-platon-besedin-samyj-omerzitelnyj-aspekt-vyskazyvaniya-yacenyuka-on-absolyutno-v-trende/

    I think Besedin not quite grasp the logic of Yatsnyuk.

    Who is Yatsenyuk? He is a completely controlled by Washington obcom puppet. As such he can demonstrate aggression only when his owner stands behind him. In a more general sense he is an American lackey, humbly begging for money from direct and indirect owners. Germany in the latter case. And at the same time he wants money from Russia, so that Russia did not feel too cozy about the situation, and also to reduce the costs for the direct and indirect owners. That's why Washington Obcom assigned him this position.

    What exactly Yatsenyuk said. That Russia attacked Germany and Ukraine. What does this mean, and how this, at first glance, such a crazy logic can be interpreted?

    It is very simple. The Germans are tired of the responsibility for Hitler, which today represents absolute evil (usually in caricature or speculative form). From responsibility for Auschwitz. From liability to the Jews, and, in general, from paying the bills for old crimes. After WW2 there were already several generations of German burghers which grew up on the films in which the Germans were presented as bastards, criminals, cannibals, etc.. And now they are offered a window of opportunity by an American lackey. Who speaks for his master no matter in how clumsy form.

    What "Russia invaded Ukraine?" means in this context. Just an oxymoron? As the Russians could attack the Russians in the process of liberation of the territory captured by the Germans?

    No, not an oxymoron. Not at all. There is a certain logic. It is something like this: you, the Germans, in 1941-43 represented Europe. And in 1941 you "liberated" us. Then in 1943 Russia "invaded" us.

    That means that what Germany did in 1941 was Zer gut. As long as you attacking Russia it does not matter how many people you killed and cities destroyed, we would have closed our eyes. We relieve you from liability in this respect. Just show more initiative, regenerate the framework of neo-fascism, play a more significant role in Europe. Be aggressive. But only in one direction.

    ... ... ...

    It remains to understand how the German establishment susceptible to the speeches of the American

    [Jan 11, 2015] Oil Price Blowback by MIKE WHITNEY

    CounterPunch

    ... ... ...

    Vladimir Putin: Public Enemy Number 1

    Let's cut to the chase: All these oil shenanigans are really aimed at just one man: Vladimir Putin. There are a number of reasons why Washington wants to get rid of Putin, the first of which is that the Russian president has become an obstacle to US plans to pivot to Asia. That's the main issue. As long as Putin is calling the shots, there's going to be growing resistance to NATO's push eastward and Washington's military expansion across Central Asia which could undermine US plans to encircle China and remain the world's only superpower. Here's an excerpt from Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard which helps to explain the importance Eurasia is in terms of Washington's global ambitions:

    "..how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31) (Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book)

    Get it? Prevailing in Asia is the administration's top priority, which is why the US is rapidly moving its military assets into place. Check this out from the World Socialist Web Site:

    "Under Obama's "pivot to Asia," the Pacific Command will account for more than 60 percent of all US military forces, up from 50 percent under the Bush administration. This includes new US basing arrangements in the Philippines, Singapore and Australia, as well as renewed close military ties to New Zealand, and ongoing US military exercises in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Taiwan….(as well as) large troop deployments in Japan and South Korea, including nuclear-armed units." (The global scale of US militarism, Patrick Martin, World Socialist Web Site)

    The "Big Shift" is already underway, which is why obstacles have to be removed and Putin's got to go.

    Second, Putin has made himself a general nuisance vis a vis US strategic objectives in Syria, Iran and Ukraine. In Syria, Putin has thrown his support behind Assad who the US wants to topple in order to redraw the map of the Middle East and build gas pipelines from Qatar to Turkey to access the lucrative EU market.

    Third, Putin has strengthened a number of coalitions and alliances –the BRICS bank, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization–all of which pose a challenge to US dominance in the region as well as a viable alternative to neoliberal financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank. Going back to Brzezinski's "chessboard" once again, we see that the US should not feel threatened by any one nation, but should be constantly on-the-lookout for "regional coalitions" which could derail its plans to rule the world. Here's Brzezinski again:

    "…the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

    "Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55) (Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book)

    As a founding member and primary backer of these organizations, (and initiator of giant energy deals with China, India and Turkey) Putin has become Washington's biggest headache and a logical target for regime change.

    Finally, Putin is doing whatever he can to circumvent dollar-denominated business and financial transactions. The move away from the buck is a direct attack on the US's greatest source of power, the ability to control the de facto international currency and to require that other nation's stockpile dollars for their energy purchases which are then recycled into US financial assets, stocks bonds and US Treasuries. This petrodollar-recycling scam allows the US to run gigantic current account deficits without raising interest rates or reducing government spending. Putin's anti-dollar policies could diminish the greenback's role as reserve currency and put an end to a system that institutionalizes looting.

    This is why Putin is Public Enemy Number 1. It's because he's blocking the US pivot to Asia, strengthening anti-Washington coalitions, sabotaging US foreign policy objectives in the Middle East, creating institutions that rival the IMF and World Bank, transacting massive energy deals with critical US allies, increasing membership in an integrated, single-market Eurasian Economic Union, and attacking the structural foundation upon which the entire US empire rests, the dollar.

    Naturally, Washington's powerbrokers are worried about these developments, just as they are worried about the new world order which is gradually taking shape under Putin's guidance. But, so far, they haven't been able to do anything about it. The administration's regime change schemers and fantasists have shown time-and-again that they're no match for Bad Vlad who has beaten them at every turn.

    Bravo, Putin.

    [Jan 10, 2015] Russian Repayments: Who Owes What, When

    36 billions of loans are coming due in 2015
    WSJ.com
    Oil, sanctions, and a crumbling currency have all already beaten up Russian markets. This looks set to be the year when ratings firms join the fray.

    The country could face its first credit-rating downgrade of the year as soon as Friday, when Fitch Ratings is slated to announce the results of its scheduled review (find the full calendar of ratings decisions here.)

    Also this month, Standard & Poor's is likely to wrap up a downgrade review initiated in December. That could result in the country getting junked; S&P currently rates Russia just one level above non-investment grade, but on Dec. 23, the ratings firm said it was reviewing Russia's credit rating, with at least a 50% chance that it would lower the rating within the next 90 days. Fitch ranks Russia triple-B, or two notches above junk.

    Markets are already alive to the risk that ratings firms could spark outflows from Russian bonds. The cost of insuring Russian debt against default surged higher in recent weeks. It now costs about $574,000 a year for five years to insure $10 million of Russian government debt, according to Markit. It cost less than $250,000 at the start of November.

    And the impact will not only be on government bonds. Emerging-market credit analysts at BNP Paribas reckon a host of Russian firms will see their ratings slashed to junk.

    "We only expect a handful of corporates to keep their investment-grade ratings," said Tatiana Tchembarova, an analyst at BNP Paribas. "Names downgraded to non-investment grade will face the short-term risk of forced selling on the possibility of exclusion from global investment-grade bond indices."

    Already, Moody's Investors Service has lowered the maximum rating allowed for Russian firms to two notches above junk-in line with how it currently rates Russia. Moody's subsequently placed 45 companies and 16 banks on review for downgrade. S&P also has 12 Russian companies and 15 financial institutions on review for a possible rating cut.

    Firms that are likely to maintain their investment-grade ratings include Sberbank SBER.MZ -3.96% and Norilsk Nickel, BNP Paribas notes. Firms including Gazprom OGZPY -3.68%, Gazprom Neft SIBN.MZ -1.01% and Lukoil could maintain their investment-grade ratings if Moody's holds back from junking the sovereign and if S&P concludes those firms are robust enough to rate them above Russia.

    A cut to junk will make it even more expensive for Russian firms to borrow, adding to already inflated funding costs amid the violence in eastern Ukraine. On average, Russian corporate bonds yield a whisker above 12%, having yielded just under 5.5% this time last year, according to a Markit index.

    One small consolation: foreign-currency debt payments, in the short-term at least, are relatively light. The Russian government and many of the country's companies have taken advantage of record low global rates by extending their debt repayment schedules, with only a modest amount of bonds and loans falling due this year.

    Here's a rundown of who owes what and when (data is limited to publicly traded bonds and syndicated loans, other types of debt aren't included).

    Maturity Issuer Value, in billions
    of dollars
    Category
    1/17/2015 Jomolin Investments 0.09 Loan
    2/2/2015 TNK-BP Finance (Rosneft) 0.50 Bond
    2/4/2015 Gazprom 1.01 Bond
    2/8/2015 Tatneft 1.00 Loan
    2/13/2015 Rosneft 11.88 Loan
    2/22/2015 Gazprom Neft 1.50 Loan
    3/2/2015 Gazprombank 0.10 Bond
    3/4/2015 VTB Capital 1.25 Bond
    3/6/2015 Credit Europe Bank 0.03 Loan
    3/6/2015 Credit Europe Bank 0.05 Loan
    3/11/2015 Alliance Oil 0.35 Bond
    3/18/2015 Alfa Bank 0.60 Bond
    3/20/2015 Absolut Bank 0.09 Loan
    4/11/2015 RM Group 0.04 Loan
    4/28/2015 Acron 0.40 Loan
    4/29/2015 Government 2.00 Bond
    6/1/2015 Gazprom 1.19 Bond
    6/16/2015 Technopolis St Petersburg 0.01 Loan
    6/16/2015 Technopolis St Petersburg 0.03 Loan
    6/30/2015 Brunswick Wagon Leasing 0.03 Loan
    7/1/2015 Lotte Rus 0.22 Loan
    7/5/2015 Novy Urengoy Gas and Chemical Complex 0.50 Loan
    7/7/2015 Sberbank 1.50 Bond
    7/21/2015 Brunswick Rail 0.15 Loan
    8/24/2015 TNK-BP Holding (Rosneft) 1.50 Loan
    9/12/2015 Strikeforce Mining and Resources 0.12 Loan
    9/14/2015 Sberbank 0.33 Bond
    9/21/2015 TNK-BP International (Rosneft) 0.68 Loan
    9/23/2015 Gazprombank 0.95 Bond
    9/24/2015 Novy Urengoy Gas and Chemical Complex 0.31 Loan
    9/29/2015 VTB Capital 0.40 Bond
    10/16/2015 Sberbank 1.50 Loan
    11/10/2015 Evraz Group 0.14 Bond
    11/10/2015 Otkritie Financial 0.12 Loan
    11/12/2015 Gazprom 0.70 Bond
    11/17/2015 VTB Capital 0.30 Bond
    11/17/2015 Promsvyazbank 0.10 Loan
    11/17/2015 Promsvyazbank 0.02 Loan
    11/29/2015 Gazprom 1.00 Bond
    12/3/2015 Monolit 0.03 Loan
    12/4/2015 Southern Kuzbassal 0.50 Loan
    12/4/2015 Yakutugol 0.50 Loan
    12/14/2015 SDS Ugol 0.05 Loan
    12/14/2015 SDS Ugol 0.15 Loan
    12/16/2015 VTB Capital 0.60 Bond
    12/18/2015 VEB 0.80 Loan
    12/18/2015 Slavneft 0.73 Loan

    [Jan 09, 2015] Latvia proposes 'alternative' to Russian TV propaganda

    Jan 07, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , January 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    euractiv: Latvia proposes 'alternative' to Russian TV propaganda

    http://www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/latvia-proposes-alternative-russian-tv-propaganda-311109

    Latvia, which took over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 January, intends to launch a Russian-language TV channel to counter Kremlin propaganda, with EU support, a high ranking government official told journalists in Riga

    Some 40% of Latvians are native Russian speakers and regularly watch several Russian TV channels, including RBK Ren TV, RTR Planeta, NTV Mir .

    Makarovs regretted that the majority of Russian channels broadcasting for Latvia were registered in the UK and in Sweden, and that the regulators of those countries paid no attention to the content and put no pressure whatsoever on the broadcaster. He also argued that the procedure should be that if a media is targeted toward a specific country, it should be registered in that particular country .
    ###

    Firstly, the Balt states announced at various times over the last year or so that they would ban or block Russian channels. But they can't. They are EU member states, so this whole alternative programs is an actually an admission of defeat.

    Secondly, if Russian propaganda is so absurd and unbelievable, then why would alternative programing be necessary? It is cognitive dissonance par excellence!

    What is fairly clear is that the Pork Pie News Networks of 'Europe' and the US are facing much more skepticism than ever before, mostly through incompetence and simply repeating the same old tropes and propganda tactics they have been using for over twenty years now. It doesn't fool anyone any more.

    As for Latvia's presidency of the EU, it is little more than spokesstate since the rotating Presidency was gutted a few years ago to make it much more efficient (i.e cheaper). With small countries, yes they choose certain aspects that they wish to promote for their six months of fame, but the logistics and heavy lifting is usually done (sponsored) by a larger EU state like UK, Nl, DE, Fr etc..). It's not that much different to Mogherini's job as spokeshole for the European External Action Service, aka the EU's foreign minister (and Katherine 'Gosh!' Ashton before her). They don't make policy, just vocalized the lowest common denominator position of 28 EU member states.

    [Jan 08, 2015] Past Russian wars: a quick look at history

    Jan 2, 2015 | The Vineyard of the Saker

    Between 1700 and 1940 Russia/USSR fought in 34 wars and won 31 and in 392 battle and won 279. We could say that Russia won 91% of her wars and 71% of her battles. Russia's opponents included: Swedes, French, Germans, Turks, Poles, Tatars, Finns, Caucasians, Japanese, Chinese, Austrians, Hungarians, British, Italians and Central Asians.

    In the author's opinion Russia lost only three wars: the Crimean one, the Russo-Japanese one and the one against Poland in 1920. He considers that Russia won the first world war because no enemy ever stepped on any part of the Russian land (If you are interested, here is a link to an the original book in Russian, to an article summarizing the book, and to a machine-translation of this article into English).

    I would just add that Crimea was fought against what I call a "great ecumenical coalition" (including Anglican British, the Latin French and the Muslim Turks) which outnumbered the Russians by over 200'000 people (there was almost a MILLION "ecumenical attackers" for just over 700'00 Russian defenders. But yes, Russia did lose this one.

    Did Russia lose the war against Japan? I would argue that the Russian Fleet sure was defeated by the Japanese Navy, but Japanese historians have a very different view of what happened and consider that Japan's military was spent by the time the peace treaty was drafted (by the Russian side, by the way) and that Japan had been forced to accept very bad terms. At the very least, I would call this one a draw.

    As for the Russian-Polish war, yes, the Soviet's lost this one badly. But look at the kind of Soviet Union we had in 1920: a country in the midst of a civil war, with many uprising taking place, with a "worker-farmer" "army" with no real officers and let by clueless commissars. So while the outcome was a defeat, the circumstances of that defeat are, I think, so unique as to be irrelevant.

    But whatever the fine print and different views of the significance of individual outcomes, I think that these figures strongly suggest that attacking Russia is an exceedingly bad idea, even when only conventional wars are considered. Attacking Russia while she has the powerful nuclear arsenal on the planet is utter lunacy.

    Let's hope that this short reminder will reach at least one of the crazies who think that playing a game of chicken with Russia is a sound policy and that the Russians will "blink first" impressed by the US/NATO military prowess.

    [Jan 05, 2015] US and Russia in danger of returning to era of nuclear rivalry by Julian Borger

    Sign of emergence of this anti-Russian witch hunt from 2015...
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress. ..."
    Jan 01, 2015 | The Guardian
    A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring back a dangerous rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals.

    Tensions have been taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in Europe after a 23-year absence.

    On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the first of two experimental "blimps" over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander, General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced "some significant challenges" in countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.

    Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying nuclear warheads.

    The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually increased last year, and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals. Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his country's nuclear arsenal and declared other countries "should understand it's best not to mess with us".

    The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet regime, published an article in November titled "Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato", which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.

    "The Americans are well aware of this," the commentary said. "They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too late."

    Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military doctrine, published on 25 December, left its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which "would put in danger the very existence of the state". It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike, as some in the military had proposed.

    However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia's nuclear weapons, reflecting Moscow's renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.

    The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month Russia announced it would re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.

    There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking shipping container until the moment it is fired.

    However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.

    At a contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the administration's leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for continuing to observe the INF treaty.

    Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile "about a dozen times" with her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.

    The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.

    McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.

    "We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go down that path," McKeon said. He later added: "We don't have ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one option to explore."

    Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the Russian missile.

    The US military has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as "boomers", and attack submarines that are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in 2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily rebounding and reasserting its global reach.

    There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.

    "They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically designed to deliver cruise missiles," Jacoby told Congress.

    Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at least once or twice a year.

    "The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas It normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It will have nuclear-capable missiles on it," he said.

    Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland, which triggered a Nato submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.

    He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. "They go across to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].

    "It's something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern about the American ability to track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on."

    The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

    On any given sortie, Roberts said, "it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped".

    A Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.

    The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile numbers.

    Pavel Podvig, a senior research fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of Russian nuclear forces, said: "The bottom line is that we don't know, but it's safe to say that it's quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].

    Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and founding publisher of ArmsControlWonk.com, believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack submarines with nuclear weapons.

    "For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they have," Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.

    The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin's strategy of "de-escalation", which involves countering Nato's overwhelming conventional superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict "tailored damage" on an adversary.

    Lewis argues that Putin's accentuation of Russia's nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.

    "The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: 'I'm going to go ahead and invade Ukraine and you're going to look the other way. As long as I don't call it an invasion, you're going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don't want to push this,'" he said.

    With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of "deepening military competition".

    He added: "It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both sides."

    InvisibleOISA -> Ethelunready 4 Jan 2015 23:53

    Just how many warheads have the Iranians lofted towards Europe in the past quarter century? Anyhow, the Yanqui ABM system is a pathetic blunderbuss. But extremely profitable for Boeing.

    For instance:

    US ABM test failure mars $1bn N. Korea defense plan
    06.07.2013 10:03

    A $214-million test launch of the only US defense against long-range ballistic missile attacks failed to hit its target over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Missile Defense Agency. There have been no successful interceptor tests since 2008.

    InvisibleOISA 4 Jan 2015 23:41

    Hey Julian. What a wussy propaganda piece. How about a few facts to put things in perspective.

    "All told, over the next decade, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the United States plans to spend $355 billion on the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear enterprise,[3] an increase of $142 billion from the $213 billion the Obama administration projected in 2011.[4] According to available information, it appears that the nuclear enterprise will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.[5]

    Beyond these upgrades of existing weapons, work is under way to design new weapons to replace the current ones. The Navy is designing a new class of 12 SSBNs, the Air Force is examining whether to build a mobile ICBM or extend the service life of the existing Minuteman III, and the Air Force has begun development of a new, stealthy long-range bomber and a new nuclear-capable tactical fighter-bomber. Production of a new guided "standoff" nuclear bomb, which would be able to glide toward a target over a distance, is under way, and the Air Force is developing a new long-range nuclear cruise missile to replace the current one."

    And what about NATO, the u$a poodle.

    NATO

    "The new B61-12 is scheduled for deployment in Europe around 2020. At first, the guided bomb, which has a modest standoff capability, will be backfitted onto existing F-15E, F-16, and Tornado NATO aircraft. From around 2024, nuclear-capable F-35A stealthy fighter-bombers are to be deployed in Europe and gradually take over the nuclear strike role from the F-16 and Tornado aircraft."

    Source: Arms Control Association

    VikingHiking -> Rudeboy1 4 Jan 2015 23:25

    To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment, aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."

    "Imperialist Powers paid for the blood of Soviet soldiers with limited supplies of obsolete weapons, canned food and other war materiel which amounted to about 4% of total Soviet production during WarII".

    During Cold War all traces of Lend Lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized and removed; photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines.

    Five eights of the total German War effort was expended on the Russian front.

    So it was a combination of allied arms and resources which kaputed the Nazi's, namely
    1) The Russian Army
    2) THE American Air Force
    3) The British Navy and Merchant Marine
    4) Hitler's Stupidity

    Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 4 Jan 2015 23:03

    Are you done with your boasting? By the way, you forgot Hollywood and GMO foods.

    Leaving aside the one-side nature of your list (internet or web were also invented in CERN by a European team), technology or business are not the same as intelligence.

    Most Americans simply don't understand the world, its history, other cultures, don't see others as having independent existence with other choices. They don't get it because they are isolated and frankly quite lazy intellectually. Thus the infamous "we won WW2 in Normandy" boast and similar bizarre claims.

    Are other often similar? Yes, absolutely. But most of the others have no ability to provoke a nuclear Armageddon, so their ignorance is annoying, but not fatal. The article was about the worsening US-Russia confrontation and how it may end (or end everything). The fact that US has actively started and provoked this confrontation in the last few years, mostly out of blissful ignorance and endless selfishness. Thus we get "defensive missiles against Iran on Russia's border", coups in Ukraine, endless demonizations...well, I think you get the picture. If you don't, see the original post

    irgun777 4 Jan 2015 22:59

    " increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines "

    What motivates the Cry Wolf tune of this article ?
    Don't we also conduct nuclear and nuclear capable submarine patrols ? Even our allies
    and friends operate routinely " nuclear capable submarines "

    Our military budget alone is 10 times the Russian , we have over 600 military bases around
    the world , some around Russia. We still continue to use heavy , nuclear capable bombers
    for patrol , something Russia stopped doing after the Cold War. Russia did not
    support and financed a coup in our neighbors . Something Ron Paul and Kissinger warned us
    not to do.


    Georgeaussie 4 Jan 2015 22:55

    This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress. I think its interesting that Americans believe their military personal are defending there country when the United States is usually the aggressor. And that is my view,. And as for people saying Russian bots and Korean bots(which i don't know if they exist) you are sounding just as bad as them, every country has propaganda and everyone has a right to believe what they want, wether its western media or eastern media. People on here don't need people like you with you extreme biases, yes have an opinion, but don't put other peoples opinion down because you think your right, collectively there is no right or wrong, do you know whats going on around closed doors in your govt? Well sorry you probably know less then you think, i like to read different media reports and its interesting, do you "obama bots" know that Russia is helping look for the black box of the air asia flight? I just thought it was interesting not reading that in my "western media" reports over the weeks. So comment and tell me if you honestly think "western bot" are correct and "eastern bots" aren't b/c i would like too know how there i a right and and wrong. In my OPINION there isn't if anything you are both wrong.


    Veritas Vicnit 5 Jan 2015 00:05

    p1. 'Russian General: We Are At War'

    "Gen. Leonid Ivashov... issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis unfolding in Ukraine: "Apparently they [US and EU officials] have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is a project of the West, a new type of war: ... wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . under the cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine. They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is being prepared." (Russian General: 'We Are At War', February 22, 2014)

    "what David Petraeus has done for counter-insurgency warfare, Stuart Levey [later David Cohen] has done for economic warfare" [Sen. Joe Lieberman]

    Russian military sources have disclosed their recognition that offensive operations (economic warfare, proxy warfare, regime change operations, etc.) are active as is the mobilisation of military architecture.

    MattTruth 5 Jan 2015 00:05

    Russia is not a threat to USA. The elite of USA just need a war and need it soon.

    afewpiecesofsilver -> Continent 5 Jan 2015 00:00

    That's exactly why the US/NATO is trying to 'wedge' Ukraine into their EU. Then they can develop military bases in traditionally, socially, culturally, verbally Russian Ukraine, right on Russia's border....After the well known, publicized and continuous international bullying and abuse of Russia and Putin over the last couple of years, and now the recent undermining of it's oil economy by US and NATO, anyone who is condemning Putin and Russia obviously can't read.

    moosejaw12999 5 Jan 2015 00:00

    Might give a few minute warning on cruise missiles but will do nothing against drones will it Barry ? When you start a game , you should think for a minute where it might end . Americas worst enemy is always her own disgruntled people . Drones will be the new weapon of choice in Americas upcoming civil war .

    Ross Kramer 4 Jan 2015 23:58

    "Russia is a regional power" - Obama said last year. Yeah, sure. Just by looking at the map I can see it is twice bigger than the US in territory. Its tails touches Alaska and its head lays on the border with Germany. How on Earth the biggest country in the world with the nuclear arsenal equal to that of the US can be "just a regional power"?

    [Jan 05, 2015] Do Svidanya 2014

    Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine. On of distinct features of psychopaths is a lack of 'strategic empathy'. One onw commenter noted: "for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i "
    Jan 05, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

    The most moving event to me in 2014 was the closing ceremony (vid, best parts of opening start here) of the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

    Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine.

    That illegal regime change was itself part of a bigger plan to restart a cold war, which will allow the U.S. to assert even more control over Europe, and eventually for regime change in Russia.

    I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves. As my Do Svidanya Sochi piece said:

    The Russians will be very proud of these games. They will be grateful to their government and president for having delivered them. The internal and external message is understood: Russia has again found itself and it is stronger than ever.

    The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of serious miscalculations.

    My hope for 2015 is that any miscalculations will be avoided and that peace will mostly prevail.

    My very best wishes to all of you for a happy year 2015.

    Posted by b at 12:19 PM | Comments (56)

    KMF | Dec 31, 2014 12:50:24 PM | 2

    Happy new year to you too.

    On what you say: 'Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine.' This strikes me as placing too much emphasis on design as opposed to miscalculation, or perhaps, as this blogpost suggests, a lack of 'strategic empathy': http://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/the-need-for-strategic-empathy/

    GoraDiva | Dec 31, 2014 1:33:23 PM | 6

    Best to you and thanks for running a great blog!

    Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that.

    After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet would be if the two countries cooperated.

    Combining Russian knowledge and creativity with American ingenuity and entrepreneurship... - yes, one can only dream. All we have now is an unstoppable desire to dominate and a complete failure of imagination. But nothing lasts forever... so let's hope for a brighter and more honest future.

    Oui | Dec 31, 2014 3:19:45 PM | 7

    Great stuff!

    Oliver Stone on the narrative USA In Ukraine.
    Always love those comments, 2,473 and counting.

    Links to Pepe Escobar's analysis "The new European 'arc of instability,'" which indicates growing turbulence in 2015, as the US cannot tolerate the idea of any rival economic entity.

    james | Dec 31, 2014 6:56:35 PM | 17

    hey sloth.. for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i

    live in canada and when i see the country being raped by corps that have only as much concern for the environment as our politicians will demand, i get discouraged. these same politicians don't represent me or ordinary canucks, but these same corps wanting to take the resources while giving few jobs in return..

    it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet..

    they will switch to another whore when the us$ is no more.. this isn't about hero worship.. it's about recognizing how we in the west are being conned and lied to by financial interests who own the press and have nothing to do with my best interests.. no hero worship on my part.

    you saying folks put putin on a pedestal is your own wishful thinking bullshit.

    okie farmer | Dec 31, 2014 7:05:26 PM | 18

    BBC World Service this morning said Moscow's riot police had dispersed Navalny's demonstrators keeping them off the sidewalks etc. I watched a live feed of the demonstration for hours, I counted about 80 demonstrators and about 20 police. Actually the demonstration was in a small plaza and no one was "dispersed". The police, however, were on the sidewalks watching the demonstrators in the plaza, which BBC turned on it's head for propaganda purposes.

    Copeland | Dec 31, 2014 8:43:40 PM | 23

    2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris.

    I go into the New Year cheering b, our host at this bar. And I feel so much respect for those among us who resist, who constantly refuse to capitulate to the Forces of Darkness; and so I believe the spirit that sustains us will be here in abundance, in 2015: solidarity, imagination and ingenuity, indignation and revolt, love and catharsis, all strength of character to encourage, and yes, an ample measure of good luck.

    May we live to see a better year.

    Demian | Dec 31, 2014 10:18:13 PM | 26

    To address the matter of the Sochi Olympics. I had wondered about what the performances were like, and since I don't have a TV, b's linking to a video of the highlights was the first opportunity I had to see what the Russians had done in an apparent effort to represent Russia as a solid part of Europe. (This is what reports said was the purpose of putting so much effort into these Olympics. Warning: I am not into ballet.)

    I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics, because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped. This is some of the best film making I have ever seen. Every single scene in the Rammstein video is mind blowing. Particularly notable are the sequence with the girls swinging their arms in tandem and the women and men diving into water. As far as I know, there is nothing like that elsewhere in cinema. It is a war crime that with cinematography and editing like that, Riefenstahl wasn't permitted by the occupying powers to continue making films.

    It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat of fascism.

    Compared to Olympia, what the Russians did with the Sochi Olympics is nothing but Kitsch.

    jfl | Jan 1, 2015 12:23:07 AM | 27

    And in addition to Saker himself and Paul Craig, there is the WHITE PAPER posted by the former and alluded to by the latter : The DOUBLE HELIX: CHINA-RUSSIA. Seems very solid.

    And towards the end, the Larchmonter makes some interesting observations on North Korea, and so, obliquely on the 'Lost U.S. Credibility On Cyber Claims'.

    fairleft | Jan 1, 2015 6:29:10 AM | 29

    Posted by: slothrop | Dec 31, 2014 6:08:50 PM | 14

    I don't see b or this blog in that way, but blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief.

    But Putin's actions show he _is_ a real Russian nationalist, and he has a real-world, non-imperialist understanding of what Russian nationalism covers and doesn't cover.

    Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. I just wish he (and China) had woken up sooner, in 2013, and maybe the rape of Libya could've been prevented. So, Putin is a major actor in world affairs, he's on the anti-imperial side of history, and as far as I can tell he is on the side of all who fight the Western financial borg's world dominance and austerity crusade.

    However, the next twenty years is about China and what it decides to do and who it decides ultimately to ally with. Maybe Putin fever can be cured a bit if we imagine him checking his every major move with Xi Jinping. Quiet Xi is the real man going forward. Not as much fun at parties, not as animated facial expressions, not as direct or as artful in expression as Putin, but he (and what he represents) is the real power.

    And, if Xi and Putin remain allied, this may really turn out to be the Chinese century. Hope no feelings are hurt but I don't guess it will be known as the Eurasian Century.

    That said, the only thing I remember from Sochi are Yu Na and the other beautiful Asian figure skaters.

    Happy New Year everyone!

    guest77 | Jan 1, 2015 2:37:36 PM | 33

    Looks like the US is already playing its games in Cuba.

    Here is an event presented in the New York Times: a "sweeping roundup of dissidents":

    [A performance artist] was detained at her mother's home hours before the event and released Wednesday afternoon, along with several others.

    That's a "sweeping roundup of dissidents" - briefly questioning someone at their mother's home.

    Of course the job of the New York Times is to blow things out of proportion. How else to can the NYTimes present the enforcement of mundane laws in Cuba (laws which all countries have) to the American people, who see their police forces daily murder people? The NYTimes has a job to do (as does any propagandist): they have to convince the home population that they are living under the best conditions possible while giving the impression that life anywhere else is a dystopian nightmare. Truth be told - for a significant sector of the US population, as events in NYC and Ferguson have recently shown - the reality is exactly reversed!

    Consider too, what she was briefly detained for - seeking to assemble without a permit - and ask yourself: what happens in the United States when people attempt to assemble without a permit in some of the most heavily trafficked areas of the US largest cities? What would occur, should, say, the New Black Panther Party attempted to set up a rally in Times Square unannounced? What happened, indeed, when the Obama Administration had enough of the Occupy Movement? The tear gassing, the pepper spraying, the ejection of people from a park where they had a right to be.

    Face the facts. The US allows no public displays of dissent without the approval of the authorities. Yet what is presented in the US as "public order" is, in Cuba, portrayed as some sort of totalitarian repression. This is sheer hypocrisy from those who have an interest in smashing an independent government in Cuba, and convincing the American people that we live in a "free" society.

    It sort of says it all that she chose the location of the memorial to the sunken Maine Battleship - the incident that brought the most recent wave of US Imperialism to Cuba.

    "She then announced a news conference and public gathering on the Malecón, ...at the memorial to the Maine, the American battleship that sank in Havana Harbor in 1898."
    guest77 | Jan 1, 2015 2:53:39 PM | 34
    You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Matthew 7:5

    There is no statement more appropriate to present to those sitting in the US, smug in their conviction that their country is the righteous one, and that Russia and "evil" Putin are the aggressors.

    The fact is, there is little in Russian behavior - at home or internationally - which one can point at negatively in which the United States doesn't out do them by a long stretch. From the military sphere, to the way it treats its smaller partners and neighbors, to the way it provides for its people at home.

    May 2015 be the year hypocrisy faces consequences.

    nomas | Jan 1, 2015 4:02:32 PM | 37

    @ Oui @ 7

    Yes that's great stuff. Cant say I enjoy reading the comments but over and over it becomes clear that the pro-US, pro NATO, pro IMF rah rah fools have NOTHING.

    The most they can manage is "Putin lover" or "why don't you marry Putin if you love him so much"...etc., some turn it around and say instead "why don't you move to Russia if you hate America so much"..LOL.

    The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over. Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the same paragraph, and literally nothing else. When they do attempt to argue the extant facts they merely invert them and mimic the arguments of we anti imperialists, standing reality on its head. These are classic, textbook reactionary rhetorical "styles"...They cant argue facts because any facts they are willing to admit to almost never support their opinions. In the end they often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good as a win. The best way to deal with these trolls and shills ? Don't engage them directly at all, but address their nonsense obliquely and restate the true facts clearly and repeatedly .

    Nana2007 | Jan 1, 2015 4:25:30 PM | 38

    fairleft@29- Watching the 2008 Chinese Olympics opening ceremony I remember being bowled over by the precision and artistry. I remember thinking we in the US are truly screwed. With Sochi not so much -- kitschy as you would expect. However I think Russia's actions in 2014 were duly impressive. Your post made me think of Putin re Knut Rockne's quote: "One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than a hundred teaching it."

    It 's funny I know next to nothing of Xi Jingping- I'll have to remedy that this year.

    Happy new year everybody.

    somebody | Jan 1, 2015 4:58:24 PM | 39

    slothrop | Dec 31, 2014 6:08:50 PM | 14

    I agree, it is not rational. But would you really say causing something like this is Putin's fault?

    From the Washington Post

    But now several of these units, especially those linked to oligarchs or the far right, are revealing a dark side. In recent months, they have threatened and kidnapped government officials, boasted that they will take power if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fails to defeat Russia, and they served as armed muscle in illegal attempts to take over businesses or seize local governments.

    In August, members of the Dnepr-1 battalion kidnapped the head of Ukraine's state land fund to prevent him replacing an official deemed inimical to business interests. On Dec. 15, these volunteer units interdicted a humanitarian convoy destined for the Russia-controlled Donbas, where a major emergency is emerging.

    On Dec. 23, the Azov brigade announced that it was taking control of order in the eastern port city of Mariupol, without official approval from local or national officials.

    Government prosecutors have opened 38 criminal cases against members of the Aidar battalion alone.

    A pattern of blatant disregard for the chain of command, lawlessness and racketeering is posing a growing threat to Ukraine's stability at a critical juncture. Concern about volunteer groupings is widely shared in the Poroshenko administration, which reportedly raised the question of dealing with these dangers at a meeting in November of his National Security and Defense Council.

    Most alarming, however, is the role of Ukraine's interior minister, Arsen Avakov. Instead of reining in these fighters, conducting background checks on their records and reassigning those who pass muster, he instead has offered them new heavy weapons, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, and given them enhanced brigade status. Amazingly, in September he even named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region.

    Equally worrying is the activity of Ihor Kolomoyskyy, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Kolomoyskyy, who played a crucial and widely respected role in stabilizing his East Ukrainian region, is now flouting central authority by interdicting aid convoys headed to the Donbas and permitting brigades he finances to engage in activities that contravene the law.

    What can be done? Poroshenko clearly wants this problem resolved but has been reluctant or unable to act. For him to succeed will likely require coordination with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who has also been slow to address the threat, possibly because Avakov is one of his key political allies.

    Now, we all know that Yatseniuk is Victoria Nuland's guy - so the US support war lordism in Ukraine?

    It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya ....

    Demian | Jan 1, 2015 5:33:31 PM | 40

    @somebody #39:

    haha, here is how the author is described in that op-ed:

    Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he co-directs the "Ukraine in Europe" initiative.
    The author complains about "warlordism" in Ukraine, but it is the "Ukraine in Europe" "initiative" which has produced the warlordism. You really have to wonder how these people can live with themselves and keep on producing such pieces which studiously ignore the obvious.

    brian | Jan 1, 2015 5:45:35 PM | 42

    Today in Kiev, a torchlight parade honoring Ukrainian Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZPV1MmrLo

    MRW | Jan 1, 2015 8:27:59 PM | 44

    GoraDiva | Dec 31, 2014 1:33:23 PM | @6

    I couldn't agree with you more, GoraDiva. But you have to understand how badly educated we Americans are. Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries, or their history.

    And, literally, no Americans know how well-educated Russians are who went to university under the USSR system; they have no idea of the rigor. None. No one. They think Putin is some KGB agent who studied at the equivalent of a Police Academy, and managed to get lucky and win a few elections, and view him as someone similar to a Brooklyn mafia don. They don't know about Putin's Master's and PhD degrees, or what they were in.

    They don't know that Lavrov can run rings around Kerry intellectually, and speaks, what? Five or six languages fluently?

    They regurgitate what the former house-painter Sean Hannity thinks of Putin, who regurgitates what he heard growing up on the streets of New York. These guys don't read.

    MRW | Jan 1, 2015 11:43:57 PM | 45

    slothrop | Dec 31, 2014 6:08:50 PM | @14

    I really don't understand why this blog became a living monument to Putin. At times, I think that b's hatred of the US has something to do with the gutless murder of civilian Hamburgers by allied bombers. On the other hand, the Red Army raped and murdered countless thousands of German civilians. And rather unlike the Russians, the American occupation was colossally more favorable to Hamburgers that was to anyone living in the Soviet bloc.
    Maybe reading some history will help.

    A Serious Case of Mistaken Identity by Benjamin Schwarz, LA Times
    http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/22/local/me-43656

    But the biggy is what Eisenhower did to German POWs just after the war. He killed a million, dumped lye on them, and ground them into the dirt. Story in Saturday Night, 1989. Make sure you scroll down to see the photos. Eisenhower made them live in hole in the ground.
    Eisenhower's Death Camps-The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two by historian James Basque
    http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html

    fairleft | Jan 1, 2015 11:53:29 PM | 46

    MRW | Jan 1, 2015 8:27:59 PM | 44

    It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist, grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush Jr., can graduate with a B- average.

    And then the magic of connections and just doing what you're told can push an unqualified, uninterested dolt all the way to the top or near top.

    Looking at Obama/Biden, Bush/Cheney, the only one who seemed smart and who knew and cared about what he was doing was the sociopath Cheney.

    Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons.

    A Presidential candidate who is engaged, very smart and well-informed sticks out like a sore thumb and has a hard time earning the trust of the powers that be. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is a good example. (She's done a lot (of horrible things) since then to earn the PTB's trust, though.)

    For the reason that being smart, engaged and well-read means you are potentially independent-minded in a sudden crisis. What if, for example, a sudden huge economic/mortgage crisis occurs and the extremely obvious thing to do is help homeowners directly, let the foolish banks who bankrupted themselves suffer the consequences, and pour money into public works and workers' pockets? In such a crisis, the PTB wants a bored, conformist, "don't give a shit" President who'll do exactly what Goldman Sachs tells him to do, not a smart, engaged, well-informed and potentially independent thinker/decider.

    So the U.S. will continue to have an intellectual deficit at the top, and Russia will continue to win diplomatic and other battles with the U.S. even in situations where it's significantly 'outweighed'. Brains are too untrustworthy, they make the Wall Street boys nervous.

    somebody | Jan 2, 2015 12:02:10 AM | 47

    rufus magister | Jan 1, 2015 8:13:33 PM | 43

    You have the same problem as b. The world is shades of grey not good and bad.

    The "novorussian" side is fighting in the areas where Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs have interests who lost when Yanukovich was ousted. By withdrawing his own Russian nationalist fanatics Putin left the field to them. The non-destruction and shake down of Mariupol is a good case study of what is going on. Kolomoisky (Dnepopetrovsk) is in a take over fight with Akhmetov (Donbass).

    There seems to be an agreement between Putin, Poroshenko and the EU (devolution and Donbass remaining part of Ukraine), just Poroshenko has not got the power (the security/military apparatus is in the hands of the Yatseniuk/Avakov/Kolomoisky faction backed by Victoria Nuland) to deal. Poroshenko's statements are devoid of any logic as he tries to cover the divide in his political coalition. At the same time obviously, he is in it for himself. On the other hand there is the issue of the funding of the Novorussian side. A lot of that will be a shake down of the oligarchs, too, and the genie probably has come out of the bottle there, too.

    There is something intriguing about the Dniepopetrovsk private civilian and military airport run by Kolomoisky's airline. And there is a gap in the conspiracy theories of the usual Russian linked, Western left media outlets. Indian media is full of it, just google it.

    According to reports in the media, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to take off at 1 PM from Frankfurt on his way back to India from Brazil where he had gone for a meeting of the leaders of the BRICS countries. His flight eventually took off at 1:22 PM. Had Modi's flight taken off at 1 PM as the earlier reports had indicated, it would have been in the vicinity of the shooting within six minutes of the Malaysian Airlines flight being shot down. ... What makes the claim that MH 17 was mistaken for an Ukrainian military plane a highly questionable one is that the plane was just 20 miles from the Russian border and the Ukrainian government would not dare provoke Russia by sending military planes to cross over into Russian airspace. It is unlikely that the anyone could have mistaken a plane headed for Russia as an Ukrainian military aircraft. ... Modi's election in May as the Indian Prime Minister caused a huge geopolitical earthquake, and any harm to him will have great ramifications around the world.

    Actually, Modi was on his return from Brazil where BRICS had just voted on the founding of a BRICS development bank.

    Now, this is a very good conspiracy theory with all the necessary ingredients. How come this has been restricted to India?

    fairleft | Jan 2, 2015 12:46:21 AM | 49

    Well happy bad new year, the Western media works harder to whitewash fascist/Nazi Bandera. An absolutely brilliant comment by 'Jack' below the AFP puff piece:

    This US imperialist propaganda piece must be written by one of the staff comedians! Bandera is Che Guevara! Chocolate king Poroshenko fought on the barricades!

    Notice the backhanded support to these n@zis? Our propaganda machine wants you to think that only "Moscow" says Bandera fought on the side of Hitler and the N@zis. Notice how the article tries to justify Bandera's fighting with the n@zis by blaming the 1930s famine -- but not mentioning the famine affected the whole USSR and was made worse by US economic embargo (just like today!)

    These are the n@zis on whom our US government of hypocrites spent 5 billion of our tax dollars to bring to power and overthrow an elected government. These n@zis have attacked all media and parties in Ukraine that oppose the US puppet junta.

    The people of the east are overwhelmingly Russian speaking working class people, miners and factory workers, who refused their appointed oligarch governors and declared their independence of the junta.

    Our US government wants to turn Ukraine into a low wage colony and establish first-strike nuclear missile bases in Ukraine directed against Russia. The restoration of capitalism in Ukraine has brought disaster.

    No surprise that some US politicians mingle with N@zis in Louisiana!

    brian | Jan 2, 2015 2:08:01 AM | 52

    the nonpoodle parts of europe will have to be aware of sedition from its own peoples as with the various Arab springs and Ukraine's Maidan, where locals serve to agitate for a foreign power while talking about 'freedom and democracy'

    Mina | Jan 2, 2015 2:25:14 AM | 53

    Fascism in Ukraine
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/119309/World/International/Thousands-of-Ukraine-nationalists-march-in-Kiev.aspx

    And happy new year to all here!

    Ghubar Shabih | Jan 2, 2015 3:20:03 PM | 54

    Sergey Lavrov said on 15 Dec 2014: "We have overestimated the independence of the European Union [from the US]." http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/767282 . Lavrov made that comment in contemplation of the trade sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia last summer & autumn including particularly the manner in which the sanctions were discussed and not debated by EU political society.

    It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of the "non-poodle" components of Europe. 'b' makes a bold declaration in his above post that "I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves."

    It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good and for ill, for better and for worse.

    I repeat, the "non-poodle parts of Europe" have no teeth in Europe. You've seen that consistently in recent years, and you've no intelligent basis for supposing you're not going to be seeing it in 2015.

    rufus magister | Jan 2, 2015 9:12:58 PM | 56

    s'body @ 47 --

    I'm sorry that I did not make my intent clear. I've been posting about the dangers posed by the militias and the rivalry btw. Poroshenko and Kolomoisky for a bit (good to see the WaPo has caught up, as you advise in 39 -- NYT is my MSM paper-of-record of choice, so I don't see the Post, thanks). I offered it as evidence of growing discord amongst the junta, not praise for Poroshenko's virtue. I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell.

    I see the junta as shades of black -- midnight, charcoal, jet, ebony, etc. The Opposition Bloc is grey.

    More grist for the mill -- nice pc. from Fort Russ, Is Poroshenko Preparing for Peace or War?. The whole pc. is worth reading, thorough consideration of Poroshenko's position, but here's the bottom line.

    "It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums even if he wishes to."

    [Jan 05, 2015] 2015 The Year of the Bear 5 Ways Russia Can Regroup by Nikolas Gvosdev

    The National Interest

    This brings us to the third priority: forging the Chinese-Russian partnership on the best terms possible for Moscow. Russia had already announced its own "pivot to Asia" well before Maidan, but events in 2014 gave the impression that Russia was becoming more desperate for Chinese support and that Moscow would, on a number of issues, agree to terms that were less favorable for Russian interests because of that need. Russia needs the Chinese relationship just as China finds security in having its northern and western frontiers secured by a strong Russia capable of standing up to the West, and having in Russia a secure source of energy and raw materials that cannot be interdicted or sanctioned by the United States. But Moscow also needs to preserve some balance in its relationship with Beijing, which is why Putin's planned summit in Tokyo later this year and further movement on Russian projects in the Korean peninsula are so important.

    ... ... ...

    Russia closed out 2014 boxed in by Western sanctions and its own economic crisis. It needs to regain its freedom of movement in 2015 by limiting the damage in its Western vectors, push ahead with its Eurasian dream and strengthen its Asian options. The APEC summit in Beijing and the G-20 summit in Australia this past fall showed that Putin is under pressure, but not completely isolated and not without options. If the Obama administration intends to continue its efforts in 2015 to make Putin more of a pariah on the international stage, it will need much-more-intensive efforts to reach out to a whole cadre of leaders-from Hollande to Shinzo Abe to Narendra Modi and Nazarbayev-to make Washington's case. It will also have to decide how much to invest in the success of Poroshenko's government in Ukraine-and balance desired outcomes with achievable objectives.

    But the most critical point is this: Washington cannot sit back and assume that the problems of the Russian economy will decrease Russian activity on the global stage.

    Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.

    [Jan 04, 2015] 2014 "End of Year" report and a look into what 2015 might bring

    Quote: "My best guesstimate is that Novorussia will probably be able to beat back this attack, albeit with great effort and big losses. The Russian economy will continue to suffer and appear to be sinking for the next six months or so at which point it will gradually start reversing that trend.
    The EU economy will enter into full and deep recession resulting in widespread social unrest.
    As for the USA, they probably will be able to pretend like nothing big, not big disaster, is happening, if only thanks to the money printing machine and the best propaganda machine in history. "

    Dec 30, 2014 | vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

    Introduction:

    By any measure 2014 has been a truly historic year which saw huge, I would say, even tectonic developments. This year ends in very high instability, and the future looks hard to guess. I don't think that anybody can confidently predict what might happen next year. So what I propose to do today is something far more modest. I want to look into some of the key events of 2014 and think of them as vectors with a specific direction and magnitude. I want to look in which direction a number of key actors (countries) "moved" this year and with what degree of intensity. Then I want to see whether it is likely that they will change course or determination. Then adding up all the "vectors" of these key actors (countries) I want to make a calculation and see what resulting vector we will obtain for the next year. Considering the large number of "unknown unknowns" (to quote Rumsfeld) this exercise will not result in any kind of real prediction, but my hope is that it will prove a useful analytical reference.

    The main event and the main actors

    A comprehensive analysis of 2014 should include most major countries on the planet, but this would be too complicated and, ultimately, useless. I think that it is indisputable that the main event of 2014 has been the war in the Ukraine. This crisis not only overshadowed the still ongoing Anglo-Zionist attack on Syria, but it pitted the world's only two nuclear superpowers (Russia and the USA) directly against each other. And while some faraway countries did have a minor impact on the Ukrainian crisis, especially the BRICS, I don't think that a detailed discussion of South African or Brazilian politics would contribute much. There is a short list of key actors whose role warrants a full analysis. They are:

    1. The USA
    2. The Ukrainian Junta
    3. The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)
    4. Russia
    5. The EU
    6. NATO
    7. China
    I submit that these seven actors account for 99.99% of the events in the Ukraine and that an analysis of the stance of each one of them is crucial. So let's take them one by one:

    1 - The USA

    Of all the actors in this crisis, the USA is by far the most consistent and coherent one. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland were very clear about US objectives in the Ukraine:

    Zbigniew Brzezinski: Without Ukraine Russia ceases to be empire, while with Ukraine - bought off first and subdued afterwards, it automatically turns into empire…(...) the new world order under the hegemony of the United States is created against Russia and on the fragments of Russia. Ukraine is the Western outpost to prevent the recreation of the Soviet Union.

    Hillary Clinton: There is a move to re-Sovietise the region (...) It's not going to be called that. It's going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, (...) But let's make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

    Victoria Nuland: F**k the EU!

    Between the three, these senior US "deep-staters" have clearly and unambiguously defined the primary goal of the USA: to take control of the Ukraine to prevent Russia from becoming a new Soviet Union, regardless of what the EU might have to say about that. Of course, there were other secondary goals which I listed in June of this year (see here):
    As a reminder, what were the US goals in the Ukraine: (in no particular order)
    1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
    2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
    3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
    4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
    5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
    6. Further devastate the EU economies
    7. Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony"
    8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
    9. Politically isolate Russia
    10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
    11. Justify huge military/security budgets
    I have color-coded objectives these objectives into the following categories:
    Achieved - black
    Still possible - too early to call - blue
    Compromised - pink
    Failed - red
    Current "score card": 1 "achieved", 5 "possible, 2 "compromised" and 3 "failed".
    Here is how I would re-score the same goals at the end of the year:
    1. Sever the ties between Russia and the Ukraine
    2. Put a russophobic NATO puppet regime in power in Kiev
    3. Boot the Russians out of Crimea
    4. Turn Crimea into a unsinkable US/NATO aircraft carrier
    5. Create a Cold War v2 in Europe
    6. Further devastate the EU economies
    7. Secure the EU's status as "US protectorate/colony"
    8. Castrate once and for all EU foreign policies
    9. Politically isolate Russia
    10. Maintain the worldwide dominance of the US dollar
    11. Justify huge military/security budgets
    New score card: 6 "achieved", 1 "possible", 1 "compromised" and 3 "failed"

    At first glance, this is a clear success for the USA: from 1 achieved to 6 with the same number of "failed" is very good for such a short period of time. However, a closer look will reveal something crucial: all the successes of the USA were achieved at the expense of the EU and none against Russia. Not only that, but the USA has failed in its main goal: to prevent Russia from becoming a superpower, primarily because the US policy was based on a hugely mistaken assumption: that Russia needed the Ukraine to become a superpower again. This monumental miscalculation also resulted in another very bad fact for the USA: the dollar is still very much threatened, more so than a year ago in fact.

    This is so important that I will repeat it again: the AngloZionist Empire predicated its entire Ukrainian strategy on a completely wrong assumption: that Russia "needed" the Ukraine. Russia does not, and she knows that. As we shall see later, a lot of the key events of this year are a direct result of this huge miscalculation.

    The US is now facing a paradox: "victory" in the Ukraine, "victory" in Europe, but failure to stop a rapidly rising Russia. Worse, these "victories" came at a very high price which included creating tensions inside the EU, threatening the future of the US shale gas industry, alienating many countries at the UN, being deeply involved with a Nazi regime, becoming the prime suspect in the shooting down of MH17 and paying the costs for an artificially low price of gold. But the single worst consequence of the US foreign policy in the Ukraine has been the establishment of a joint Russian-Chinese strategic alliance clearly directed against the United States (more about that later).

    Can the US stay the course next year? That is hard to predict but I would say that in terms of direction the US policy will be more of the same. It is the magnitude (in the sense of will/energy to pursue) of this policy which is dubious. Traditionally, US policies are typically very intensive in the short term, but lack the staying power to see them through in the long term and there is no reason to believe that this case will be different. Furthermore, the US foreign policy establishment is probably simply unable to imagine a different approach: the United States do not really have a real foreign policy, rather they issue orders and directives to their vassal states and threats to all others. Finally, just as some banks are considered "too big to fail" the US policy towards the Ukraine is "too crazy to correct" thus any change of course would result in a major loss of face for an Empire which really cannot afford one more humiliating defeat right now. Still, when the political and financial costs of this policy become prohibitive, the US might have to consider the option to "declare victory and leave" (a time-honored US practice) and let the EU deal with the mess. There is also the very real risk of war with Russia which might give some US decision-makers pause. This is possible, but I am afraid that the US will try to play it's last card and trigger a full-scale war between the Ukraine and Russia.

    Why would the US want to do that? Imagine this:

    A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine

    The Ukrainians are told to attack Novorussia again. This time, they are more numerous, better equipped and their attack is fully supported, if not executed, by American "advisers" and retired US Army officers. Imagine further that the Ukrainians are given full intelligence support by US/NATO and that their progress is monitored 24/7 by US/NATO commanders who will help them in the conduct of the attack. Finally, let us assume that the Novorussians are overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude and speed of the attack and that Lugansk and Donetsk are rapidly surrounded. At this point the Russians will face a stark choice: either to abandon Novorussia to the Nazis or intervene. The first option would be catastrophic for Putin politically, and it would "solve" nothing: the Ukrainian junta, the US, EU, NATO have all clearly and repeatedly stated that they will never accept the reincorporation of Crimea into Russia. Furthermore, if the Russians let the Nazis overrun Novorussia, the next logical step for the Ukrainians will be to move south and repeat the very same operation in Crimea at which point Russia will not even have a choice and she will be forced to engage the Ukrainians to defend Crimea. Thus, if the Russians realize that the Ukrainians will push on no matter what, then Russia would be far better of engaging the Ukrainians over Novorussia then over Crimea.

    If the Russians make the call that they have to openly intervene to save the Donbass from the Nazis, the Ukrainians don't stand a chance and everybody knows that. The Russians would very rapidly defeat the Ukrainian forces. Such a Russian move would be greeted by a massive media campaign denouncing the Russian "invasion" and Kiev would probably declare the Ukraine at war in which case the combat operations would probably spill over into other parts of the Ukraine or even Russia (the Ukrainians could, for example, try to strike Russians airports around Rostov or in Crimea). Whatever the Ukrainians decide, it is certain that they would have nothing to lose by escalating the situation further. In military terms, Russia can easily handle whatever the Ukrainians can try to throw at them. However I would not expect the Russians push to Kiev or the Dniper River, even if they could. They are most likely to do what they did to Saakashvili in 2008: protect the attacked region and only go as far as needed to disarm their enemy (in 2008 Russia could *easily* have occupied all of tiny Georgia, but she ended up withdrawing behind Ossetian and Abkhaz lines).

    Such a Russian victory would be a crushing military defeat for Kiev, but not for the USA. The Americans would have their 'proof' of Russian imperial "aggression" and declare that the EU needs "protection" from the "Russian bear". The US would finally have the Cold War v2 it wants so badly, the EU politicians would play along, just to terrify their own population, and a "wonderful" arms race and a situation of extreme tension would pit all of Europe against Russia for a long, long time. Even for the junta in Kiev a military defeat might be a wonderful opportunity to blame it all on Russia and a way to get the population to rally against the "aggressor". Such a war between Russia and the Ukraine could also justify the introduction of martial law and a massive and vicious crackdown against "Russian agents" (i.e. any opposition) who would be designated as "saboteurs" and responsible for the inevitable Ukrainian defeat.

    In the Ukraine and in Russia there is this black-humor joke which says that "the USA will fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian" and this is exactly what might happen as this option offers a lot of major advantages for the USA. For one thing, it is a win-win proposition: either the Ukrainians re-take Novorussia and then the very same plan can be repeated in Crimea, or they are defeated by Russia, in which case the resulting crisis offers huge benefits for US imperial ambitions.

    Now let's look at the options for the Ukrainian junta.

    2 - The Ukrainian Junta

    For the Nazi regime currently in power things are not going well and unless something changes they are headed for disaster: Crimea is gone, the Donbass is slowly but surely building up its instruments of statehood, the economy is basically dead and the "holes in the dam" harder and harder to plug. An explosion of popular unrest is inevitable. Worse, there are exactly *zero* future prospects for the Ukrainian economy and an official default is quasi inevitable. So what can the junta do?

    Here it is crucial to remember that no Ukrainian politician has any real power, not even Poroshenko, Iatseniuk or Turchinov. The real rulers of the Ukraine are the US ambassador and the Kiev CIA station chief. These are the people who literally administer the Nazi junta on behalf of the US deep state and its imperial interests. As for the Ukrainian members of the junta, they all perfectly understand that their future is 100% dependent on being a faithful servant of the AngloZionist Empire. They all understand that they came to power by means of an completely illegal coup, that the elections they organized this year were a total farce and that they will soon have to use repressive measures against their own population just to stay in power. Last but not least, these are the folks who not only used chemical munitions, cluster bombs and even ballistic missiles against their own people, but who also send their own armed forces to be slaughtered in useless and criminally irresponsible "surprises" ordered by Poroshenko (the attempt to encircle Novorussia and to cut it off from the Russian border). We are talking about hardened war criminals here, people with no conscience whatsoever, sociopaths with a total lack of any moral compass. These are the folks who spoke a "barbecue of insects" in Odessa when 100+ people were tortured to death or burned alive and who giggled about shooting down the wrong place about MH-17 (Kolomoisky video). In fact, they are currently engaged in a racist hate-campaign.

    Check out these posters which were recently shown in Kiev as part of a competition of patriotic posters. If a picture is worth one thousand words, just glancing at these few will tell you all you need to know about the wordview of the Nazi junta: (note: I translated the meaning of the slogans)

    ... ... ...

    I have to explain the last one: what you see is a "Colorado beetle" (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) which has colors similar to the ones seen on the Russian Saint George Ribbon. In other words, this poster says that if you pass by a Russian you should kill him. Notice the other themes: the Maidan was God's voice, the Russians are "Eurasians" who are beasts who should have no right, not even the right to speak or live. This is exactly the same propaganda style as used by Hitler against Jews and we all know how this ended (yet again another proof that to refer to the junta as "Nazi" is perfectly justified).

    But there is much more then just words to pay attention to.

    The Ukrainian budget has finally been adopted by the Rada. It can be summarized as such: less services, more taxes and everything for the military and security services (3% of the GDP for the former, 2% for the latter). For a country which is essentially bankrupt this is a huge effort. Not only that, but the junta has also announced that it will execute another mobilization next year (the 4th one in less than one year!!). Now ask yourself a basic question: could such a truly titanic effort have been made without some very real expectations of a "return on investment"? When you see a regime stirring up racial hatred against part of its own population and against a neighboring country while putting all of its tiny and much needed resources towards preparations for war - is that not a surefire sign that a war in imminent?

    As a former military analyst myself I can tell you that by now the Russian intelligence community's "indicators and warnings" should be "flashing red" and that in all likelihood Russia is already preparing for war (more about Russia later). But before we look at the Russian position, we need to look into the situation of Novorussia.

    3 - The Novorussians (DNR+LNR)

    The Novorussians are finishing the year in which they have achieved an absolutely amazing feat: from literally being *nothing* they spontaneously got together to stand up against the Nazi junta and they prevailed even with the entire Ukrainian military was launched at them. It is hard to believe that just 12 months ago the Donbass only meekly requested some language rights and some local autonomy or that earlier this year very almost nobody predicted that the Donbass would rise up and defeat the junta's death squads. And yet this miracle happened. How much did Russia really help? I would argue that not that much at all.

    Initially, the Russian move to protect Crimea and the subsequent resolution of the Council of the Federation to allow Putin to use military power to protect the Russian minority in the Ukraine definitely played a key role in the first seizure of state buildings in Slaviansk and other town. Furthermore, Strelkov apparently believed that if he held on long enough the Russian armed forces would come and relieve the exhausted Novorussian militias. It never happened.

    There is no doubt whatsoever that this apparent Russian "zag" left a lot of bad feelings in Novorussia and the theory that the Kremlin is about to "sell out" Novorussia is still discussed not only in the Russian blogosphere, but even on Russian TV (including yesterday on the most famous weekly talk show "Sunday evening with Vladimir Soloviev). Here is how this version goes: Putin is inherently weak and tries in vain to appease the West while Russian oligarchs are making a behind the scenes deal with their Ukrainian counterparts. Truth be told, this version is plausible, even if incorrect. The Kremlin's policy towards the West sure does look like appeasement while Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs have tried to arrange deals whether with or without the knowledge of the Russian government.

    Any model is valid as long as it helps to explain the observed reality and this "Kremlin sells out Novorussia" does explain a lot. But it fails in many crucial aspects:

    • It fails to explain why following Strelkov's removal the Novorussians went on their highly successful offensive which pushed the Ukrainians as far as Mariupol.
    • It fails to explain the Russian Voentorg.
    • It fails to explain why the Russian government has done nothing to stop the volunteers and supplies coming from Russia.
    • It fails to explain why Russia would provide full informational support for a region and it's leaders if she intended to trade it away.
    But most importantly this theory is completely out-of-character if we look not only at what Putin says and writes, but at his entire political career. Simply put, there is nobody on this planet which has done more to oppose the AngloZionist Empire than Vladimir Putin. I think that the hysterical and vicious demonization campaign against him in the western media is the best proof of that. I shall give my own explanation for the Russian zig-zags towards the West and the Ukrainian war in the next section, but so far let's just state that it created a lot of bad blood and anxiety amongst the Novorussians, including several of their field commanders.

    For a while we witness the short lived but strong development of a "let's not stop before we win" party. These are the folks who advocated at the very least liberating Slaviansk and Mariupol and who were absolutely disgusted when Russia clearly ordered the Novorussians to stop and pull back. This party of what I could also call "let the strength of arms decide" has clearly lost as one after the other the top Novorussian commanders accepted, however bitterly, the Kremlin's demands. Some gave their strong and total support to Putin (Givi, Motorola, Bezler) while others gave a more reluctant acceptance of the fait accompli (Mozgovoi, Strelkov).

    I won't even bother discussing the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" about whether the Novorussians could have freed Mariupol, Slaviansk or other cities. What is important here is something else: Novorussia and Russia have different priorities, different goals, different interests and if the two sides disagree, the bigger one - Russia - imposes her will. In other words, the Novorussians simply cannot fight the Nazi death squads and try to politically prevail against Putin in the court of Russian public opinion. They tried, and they failed.

    So what's next?

    The sad reality for the Novorussians is that they are stuck in the middle of a much bigger war and that what they see as "their" war is but a minor skirmish for the big players. Yes, the future of Novorussia is crucial to Russia, but it is not enough. Russia simply cannot live with a situation where a Ukrainian-Nazi equivalent of ISIS in Iraq remains in power in Kiev, regardless of who is in power in Novorussia (I would argue that neither can Novorussia, but that is an argument I made elsewhere already). Clearly the Kremlin analysts made the call that while Novorussia should be protected from the Ukrainian Nazis it should not be allowed to fight an open-ended war to free all of Novorussia or, even less so, the entire Ukraine (I happen to agree with this conclusion, but that is immaterial for this discussion).

    For a while I was under the impression that Strelkov might become a "spokesman for Novorussia" in Russia, but that clearly did not happen (for whatever reason). In fact, right now there is no such ambassador or spokesman for Novorussia in Russia, nobody to make the Novorussian case in front of the Russian public opinion. I don't think that this is a good thing, but that is the reality.

    As a result, the Novorussians are basically stuck. They have to prepare for the almost inevitable Ukrainian assault and pray that they will have the strength to push it back. Should they fail, they will have no other option than to pray for a Russian intervention which, considering the undeniable Russian zigs-zags in this matter, will not appear certain to all. This is a bad situation for the Novorussians, but they have no other options. Putin has successfully imposed his will on the Novorussians and now their future depends on him, for better or for worse.

    4 - Russia

    So far Russia stands undefeated by the AngloZionist empire, but she is far from having prevailed either. In fact, Russia is waging a much bigger war or, more accurately, a number of much bigger wars.

    • First, Russia is trying to survive the attempt by the AngloZionist Empire to economically blockade her.
      Second, in order to survive that blockade, Russia is trying to reform her economy to make it less dependent on the export of raw materials, more autonomous and connected to new partners, especially in Asia and Latin America.
    • Third, Russia is trying to de-fang the Empire by pulling herself out from the dollar and the US/UK controlled international financial system.
    • Fourth, Russia is trying to prevent the USA from permanently installing a russophobic Nazi regime in power.
    • Fifth, Russia is preparing for both a major war in the Ukraine and a full scale US/NATO attack on Russia.

    It is important to stress here that point #5 does not mean that the Kremlin has come to the conclusion that a full-scale war with the Empire is inevitable. That only means that the Kremlin has decided that such a war is possible, even if most unlikely. You think I am exaggerating?

    Let me show you two videos. One a commentary by the most senior journalist in Russia - Dimitri Kiselev - while the other one is a video report shown to President Putin at the end of the year by the Ministry of Defense during a conference on the status of the Russian military and later posted on the Ministry of Defenses' website.

    Combine the two and you will clearly see that a) nobody in Russia has any illusions about what the Empire really wants (submit Russia) or about the tools the Empire is willing to use (full scale war). And to leave no doubt in anybody's mind, Russia has also revised her 2010 military doctrine to designate NATO expansion eastwards by name as the bigger threat to Russia and to restate that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if her conventional forces fail to protect her.

    When in Mach of this year I wrote that Russia was ready for war I got a lot of replies accusing me of being over-the-top. Today the writing is all over the wall: Russia does not want war, but she is definitely preparing for it.

    I would, however, argue that the biggest threat for Russia is internal, not external. Nothing is more dangerous for the future of Russia then what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" and which Putin even called the "5th column". And make no mistake here, we are not talking about Khodorkovsy in New York or Navalnii in the streets of Moscow. We are talking about powerful, rich, influential people who for decades (since Gorbachev's times, or even before) have infiltrated all the levels of government and who today are even in the government of Prime Minister Medvedev. True, these pro-AngloZionist 5th columnists have suffered a series of setbacks and they have been weakened by Putin's relentless assault on their power, but what does "weaker" really mean in our context? According to Mikhail Khazin the Eurasian Sovereignists and the Atlantic Integrationists are now roughly at 50/50 in terms of power. That's right, Putin is far from having total control of Russia and he is in fact locked into a war for survival against a formidable foe who will try to capitalize on every setback Russia suffers, especially in her economy. Putin knows that and he is therefore in a race against time to de-couple Russia from the economic and financial mechanisms which make it possible for the AngloZionists to hurt Russia.

    How much does this 5th column account for the apparent zig-zags and apparent appeasement of the West by Russia?

    I honestly don't know. Neither does anybody else who is not a true Kremlin insider. In some cases, such as the Minsk agreements, I think that this apparent "zag" was an true expression of Russian political goals. But when I see that Russia is selling coal to the Ukraine on credit (?!) I can only conclude that this is a case of sabotage of Russian national interests. But we will never know for sure. All we can do is to accept that Russia is like a ship or aircraft which is generally holding a specific course, but which regularly zig-zags on the way because the folks in the cockpit are fighting for the control of the helm. In practical terms this means that next year Russia will mostly stay the course. Why? Because time is on Russia's side. For Russia every month, week or day which can delay an overt confrontation with the Ukraine or the West is one day won for preparation internal reform. It is also one more day for the junta in Kiev to slide down one further notch, for the EU economies to carry the full impact of anti-Russian sanctions and for the US to suffer the political consequences of their arrogant, irresponsible and generally unpopular imperial policies.

    The single most important political development for Russia is the Russian-Chinese Strategic Alliance (RCSA) which fundamentally changes the entire strategic posture of Russia. I will discuss this tectonic shift in world politics further below, but right now I want to the position of the EU.

    5 - The EU

    2014 was truly a historical year for the EU marked by the wholesale and abject surrender of the EU political leaders to the United States. From the EU guaranteed agreement between the opposition and Yanokovich which was broken the very next day, the Victoria Nuland's famous words which were never challenged, to the introduction of sanctions the day after the signing of the Minsk agreement, to the political and economic seppuku against South Stream, to the shameful silence and even collaboration with the murderers of the passengers of MH17 - the EU has proven to all that it is only a spineless colony of the AngloZionist Empire and that the EU and the Ukraine are equally subservient puppets of the United States. There is no EU to speak of. It is a US controlled territory whose administration is entrusted to Germany to whose power all the EU nations have bowed. And in this system, countries such as Poland or Lithuania have a special role: to lead the EU in subservience to the USA.

    From the latest statements of Putin and Lavrov it is pretty clear that they fully share Victoria Nulands opinion of the EU which they now seem consider as some kind of "geopolitical Conchita Wurst" not worthy of any respect or credibility.

    Truly, the EU and its Eurobureaucratic elites have passed a point of no return. If in the past they could still pretend like the EU project was making the EU stronger and that in maintained the sovereignty of its member, now this kind of statement will only be met with a disgusted laughter. As a system the EU has committed suicide and nothing can be further expected of it until it collapses. The riots which have taken place in almost every country of western Europe are a clear sign that most Europeans are either fed-up or desperate or both. In a way, we could say that the EU is run by a Soviet-style nomenklatura which lives in complete detachment from the rest of the European people in a kind of US-built ivory tower high above the common people. Exactly the kind of situation which results in bloody uprisings and revolutions. I am personally convinced that an explosion of anger could happen anytime, especially in the EU countries bordering the Mediterranean. But unlike the Russians, the Europeans prefer their revolution in the warm weather. So maybe next summer?

    6 -NATO

    The Russians have now officially declared that the NATO expansion into the east was the biggest threat for Russia. And yet I will make the case that NATO is a paper tiger, at least in military terms and that NATO simply does not have what it takes to attack Russia (for my reasons for stating that, please see here). I recently explained that on the blog, and I think that it is worth repeating this once more today:

    One more thing: the Russians are most definitely upset about the very aggressive NATO stance because they - correctly - interpret it as a sign of hostility. But, contrary to what a lot of bloggers say, the Russians have no fear of the military threat posed by NATO. Their reaction to the latest NATO moves (new bases and personnel in Central Europe, more spending, etc.) is to denounce it as provocative, but Russian officials all insist that Russia can handle the military threat. As one Russian deputy said "5 rapid reaction diversionary groups is a problem we can solve with one missile". A simplistic but basically correct formula. Putin said the very same thing when he clearly spelled out that in case of a massive conventional attack by "anybody" Russia would engage tactical nukes. In fact, if NATO goes ahead with its stupid plan to deploy forces in Poland and/or the Baltics I expect Russia with withdraw from the IRNF Treaty and deploy advanced successors to the famous RSD-10 (SS-20). As I mentioned before, the decision to double the size of the Russian Airborne Forces and to upgrade the elite 45th Special Designation Airborne Regiment to full brigade-size has already been taken anyway. You could say that Russia preempted the creation of the 10'000 strong NATO force by bringing her own mobile (airborne) forces from 36'000 to 72'000.
    This is typical Putin. While NATO announces with fanfare and fireworks that NATO will create a special rapid reaction "spearhead" force of 10'000, Putin quietly doubles the size of the Russian Airborne Forces to 72'000. And, believe me, the battle hardened Russian Airborne Forces are a vastly more capable fighting force then the hedonistic and demotivated multi-national (28 countries) Euroforce of 5'000 NATO is struggling hard to put together. The US commanders fully understand that, and they also know that the real purpose of NATO is not to attack Russia, but to maintain the US control over Europe. As early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, candidly admitted that NATO's true goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" (notice that in the typical russophobic way of the western elites, Russians are considered as the source of the threat even though in 1949 a Georgian was at the helm of the Soviet Union and that Russians had paid a much higher price in repressions then the non-Russian ethnic groups).

    Little has changed since, except that with the "Soviet threat" gone NATO had to scramble to find a justification for itself and that it now wants to find it in the "need to protect European democracy from the resurgent Russian Bear". In other words, the ideal situation for NATO is a crisis just one notch below a full-scale war. In case of a real, shooting, war against Russia NATO will be crushed, but as long as NATO can *pretend* it is defending Europe against Russia it is justifying its existence. Hence the silly hunts for Russian ghost submarines, the "interception" of Russian aircraft in international airspace and the constant stream of dramatic statements that NATO will never allow Russia to attack Poland or Lithuania (as if Russia wanted to do that in the first place!).

    NATO will continue doing exactly that: pretend like Russia was going to attack Moldova next and that NATO must prevent that. The flow of incendiary and even frankly irresponsible statements will continue, NATO official will continue to deliver stark warnings to Russia with all the required gravitas and the Empire's corporate media will report them as if they had a factual connection to reality. Keeping the Russians out, the German down and the Americans in will be an easy mission since the Russians don't want in, the Germans have totally surrendered along the rest of Europe, and the Americans are already fully in charge.

    7 - China

    It is amazing for me to see that most observers and analysts have apparently failed to realize that China is now a key actor in the Ukrainian war. Anybody doubting this claim should read the Vineyard of the Saker White Paper written by Larchmonter 445 entitled The Russia-China Double Helix. To make a long story short, China and Russia have decided to keep their own "hands" (their armed forces) and their own "heads" (their political leadership) but to share a common "torso" (their economies, natural and human resources, their industrial and technological know-how and everything else which allows a society to prosper). I call this the Russia-China Strategic Alliance (RCSA) but really it is something even bigger then that - it is a long term decision to share a common fate and to take the risk to become inseparable. An alliance, a treaty, can be broken or withdrawn from. But once your "internal organs" are shared with another entity you are bound together, for better or for worse. What has happened is truly a tectonic geopolitical shift: two empires have decided to join together while remaining sovereign and independent. To my knowledge this has never happened in history and Putin and Xi have already changed the course of history by this monumental decision.

    The two countries are ideal symbionts: everything one has the other needs and vice versa. China needs Russian raw materials, especially energy, Russian high technology (aerospace, engines, power plants, etc.) and Russian armaments (everything from the rifle bullet to the ICBM). Russia needs two things from China: money and "Walmart" (consumer goods). Together these two giants not only have immense currency resources but the biggest stash of physical gold on the planet. And, to make things even better, Russia and China are the undisputed leaders of BRICS and SCO. Taken together these two countries are already far more powerful than the AngloZionist Empire and that trend will only grow.

    Of course, China will not intervene militarily in the Ukraine. Remember - each country keeps its own "hands" so long as the other is not directly threatened. But in the Pacific Russian and Chinese navies are already training together and even creating joint command centers.

    In the Ukraine, China still play a crucial role by providing Russia will all the economic aid needed to overcome the western sanctions and restructure the Russian economy. The Chinese have now officially declared that. It is both ironic and beautiful that after decades of Russian fears that China might try to conquer Siberia (even Solzhenitsyn shared these fears) Putin and Xi have found a much more intelligent solution - Russia will sell Siberia's riches to China while China will protect Russia from the West. Again, this is truly a historic development whose importance cannot be overstated.

    Adding up all these vectors

    So let's add it all up now. In summary:

    • The USA now has no other option then to press on their assault on Russia because what is at stake is quite literally the future of the AngloZionist Empire and, therefore, the future of our planet. China uniting with Russia is definitely bad news, but it is too late for the USA to back down now or even to change course. The Americans probably realize that they have fired their best shots already and that the Ukrainian junta is in deep trouble and that the collapse of their Nazi "Banderastan" is just a matter of time. In other words, the Empire is now in a "use them or lose them" situation and "fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian" is now the best option for the US 1%ers.
    • The Ukrainian Junta members are basically in the same situation as the USA: they must realize that their days are numbered and that their best chance is to do the US bidding and trigger a huge crisis.
    • The Novorussians are stuck: they have to do whatever the Kremlin wants them to do, hope for the best, prepare for the worst and courageously face anything in the middle.
    • Russia needs to avoid an open confrontation with the West for as long as possible.
    • The EU will remain as irrelevant and pathetic as ever.
    • NATO will play a dangerous game of brinkmanship trying to create as much tensions as possible without triggering an actual conflict.
    • China will do whatever it takes to protect Russia from the economic war waged against her.

    Conclusions

    From the above I conclude that unless some major development substantially alters the current dynamic the resulting vector clearly points at the inevitability of a full-scale war between Russia and the Ukraine along the scenario outlined above ("A full scale war between Russia and the Ukraine"). There is no reason whatsoever to expect the US, the Nazi junta, NATO or the EU to begin acting in a responsible or constructive manner. For these reasons, Russia will be alone in trying to avoid an intervention the Donbass and the inevitable war with the Ukraine following it. The best way for Russia to achieve this goal is to arm Novorussia to the teeth, to provide much more humanitarian support then now, to try re-launch as much of the Novorussian economy as possible (preferably by investments and contracts, not just grants) and generally help to make Novorussia as viable as possible under the current conditions. If the Novorussian could repeat their amazing feat once more and repel or, even better, deter the future Ukrainian attack this would be a crushing defeat not only for the junta in Kiev, but also for all its supporters in the AngloZionist Empire. The "equation" is simple: if Novorussia can stand up to the Ukrainians and Russia is not forced to intervene the Nazi regime in Kiev is finished along with the entire Neocon plan against Russia. If Russia is forced to intervene, Novorussia will be saved and the junta finished, but the Neocons plan will have succeeded and Russia will suffer a major geostrategic setback

    Russia desperately needs more time and I expect the Russian diplomacy to try every possible delaying tactic imaginable to buy as much time as possible before the inevitable Ukrainian attack on Novorussia. I am even willing to consider that the recent sale (really, a gift) of coal to Kiev might be such a delaying tactic, I don't know. What is clear for me that most of these delaying tactics will look like "appeasement" to the external observer and that, in the end, our perception of these moves will depend on our assumptions and, basically, our take on the person of Vladimir Putin. I might be wrong, but I personally trust him and short of very strong evidence I will never believe that he will "sell out" Novorussia or anybody else in the Ukraine. Not only do I believe that he is way too smart to do such a stupid and self-defeating thing, but I have also come to the conclusion that he is a highly principled person who will never betray the people he took an oath to defend.

    My very tentative "guesstimates" for 2015:

    2014 has been a historic year and so will be 2015, if only because 2014 set a great deal of things in motion, but resolved none of them. I have come to the conclusion that there is a 80% chance of a massive Ukrainian attack on Novorussia next year, probably in the first part of the year. My best guesstimate is that Novorussia will probably be able to beat back this attack, albeit with great effort and big losses. The Russian economy will continue to suffer and appear to be sinking for the next six months or so at which point it will gradually start reversing that trend.

    The EU economy will enter into full and deep recession resulting in widespread social unrest.

    As for the USA, they probably will be able to pretend like nothing big, not big disaster, is happening, if only thanks to the money printing machine and the best propaganda machine in history. What the US will be unable to do is to prevent the gradual but inexorable de-dollarization of more and more of the world economy, lead by China and Russia. The true and final collapse of the AngloZionist Empire is inevitable, but not for the next couple of years.

    I wish you all the very best for 2015 and, above all, I wish you peace.

    May God protect us all from war!

    The Saker

    PS: I am now taking a couple of days of rest (I worked 16 hours yesterday to write this report and I am exhausted) and, barring some major event, I will not post anything here until January 2nd. The "donate" button on the left will still work (hint, hint). I will continue to moderate so please feel free to use the comments section below as an "open thread".

    PPS: The credit for both videos used in this report should go to:

    Transcript & Translation: Mikhael, Dancing Queen, S, Marina, Natasha, DzhMM, Roobit & Eugene
    Production: Marina & The French Saker
    Crucial assistance: Marina, Francois, Augmented Ether

    [Jan 03, 2015] 'Premier of war': Czech president says Yatsenyuk not seeking peaceful solution for E. Ukraine

    rt.com

    Czech President Milos Zeman has slammed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk, calling him "a prime minister of war" because he is unwilling to peacefully solve the civil conflict in the country.

    "From the statements byPM Yatsenyuk, I think that he is a 'prime minister of war', because he does not want a peaceful solution to the crisis [in Ukraine] recommended by the European Commission," Zeman told Pravo, a Czech daily newspaper.

    Yatsenyuk wants to solve Ukrainian conflict "by the use of force," added the Czech leader.

    According to Zeman, the current policy of Kiev authorities has two "faces." The first is the "face" of the country's president, Petro Poroshenko, who "may be a man of peace."

    The second "face" is that of PM Yatsenyuk, who has an uncompromising position toward self-defense forces in Eastern Ukraine.

    Zeman said he doesn't' believe that the February coup, during which then-President Viktor Yanukovich was deposed from power, was a democratic revolution at all.

    "Maidan was not a democratic revolution, and I believe that Ukraine is in a state of civil war," Zeman said, responding to what he described as "poorly informed people" who compared Maidan with Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution in 1989.

    In November 2013, the initially peaceful demonstrations which started as a reaction to then-President Viktor Yanukovich's refusal to sign the EU association deal became violent in early 2014.

    Kiev's central Independence Square - Maidan Nezalezhnosty - was turned into a battlefield as Ukrainian protesters clashed with police through January and February.

    The unrest resulted in a coup that toppled Yanukovich and his government in February.

    The Republic of Crimea's withdrawal from Ukraine was followed by a conflict in the country's southeast.

    According to UN figures, at least 4,317 people have been killed and 9,921 wounded in the conflict in eastern Ukraine since April when Kiev authorities launched a so-called anti-terrorist operation in the region.

    [Sep 07, 2014] The Why is Behind the Ukraine Crisis by Robert Parry

    Ukraine was a typical neoliberal color revolution. With standard set of players known from Iraq and Libya. And standard methods. But this time the goal was actually not Ukraine but Russia. And this crisis has shown pretty well that the EU is not an independent player. It is a vassal of Washington.
    Notable quotes:
    "... by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change." ..."
    "... Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. ..."
    "... There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. ..."
    "... Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity. ..."
    "... "You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base. ..."
    "... "When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.' ..."
    Sep 03, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

    Given the very high stakes of a nuclear confrontation with Russia, some analysts wonder what's the real motive for taking this extraordinary risk over Ukraine. Is it about natural gas, protection of the U.S. dollar's dominance, or an outgrowth of neocon extremism, asks Robert Parry.

    A senior U.S. diplomat told me recently that if Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine and even neighboring Belarus that there would be zero impact on U.S. national interests. The diplomat wasn't advocating that, of course, but was noting the curious reality that Official Washington's current war hysteria over Ukraine doesn't connect to genuine security concerns.

    So why has so much of the Washington Establishment – from prominent government officials to all the major media pundits – devoted so much time this past year to pounding their chests over the need to confront Russia regarding Ukraine? Who is benefiting from this eminently avoidable – yet extremely dangerous – crisis? What's driving the madness?

    Of course, Washington's conventional wisdom is that America only wants "democracy" for the people of Ukraine and that Russian President Vladimir Putin provoked this confrontation as part of an imperialist design to reclaim Russian territory lost during the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. But that "group think" doesn't withstand examination. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Who's Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]

    The Ukraine crisis was provoked not by Putin but by a combination of the European Union's reckless move to expand its influence eastward and the machinations of U.S. neoconservatives who were angered by Putin's collaboration with President Barack Obama to tamp down confrontations in Syria and Iran, two neocon targets for "regime change."

    Plus, if "democracy promotion" were the real motive, there were obviously better ways to achieve it. Democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych pledged on Feb. 21 – in an agreement guaranteed by three European nations – to surrender much of his power and hold early elections so he could be voted out of office if the people wanted.

    However, on Feb. 22, the agreement was brushed aside as neo-Nazi militias stormed presidential buildings and forced Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Rather than stand behind the Feb. 21 arrangement, the U.S. State Department quickly endorsed the coup regime that emerged as "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. press dutifully demonized Yanukovych by noting, for instance, that a house being built for him had a pricy sauna.

    The key role of the neo-Nazis, who were given several ministries in recognition of their importance to the putsch, was studiously ignored or immediately forgotten by all the big U.S. news outlets. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's 'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]

    So, it's hard for any rational person to swallow the official line that the U.S. interest in the spiraling catastrophe of Ukraine, now including thousands of ethnic Russians killed by the coup regime's brutal "anti-terrorist operation," was either to stop Putin's imperial designs or to bring "democracy" to the Ukrainians.

    That skepticism – combined with the extraordinary danger of stoking a hot war on the border of nuclear-armed Russia – has caused many observers to search for more strategic explanations behind the crisis, such as the West's desires to "frack" eastern Ukraine for shale gas or the American determination to protect the dollar as the world's currency.

    Thermo-Nuclear War Anyone?

    The thinking is that when the potential cost of such an adventure, i.e. thermo-nuclear warfare that could end all life on the planet, is so high, the motivation must be commensurate. And there is logic behind that thinking although it's hard to conceive what financial payoff is big enough to risk wiping out all humanity including the people on Wall Street.

    But sometimes gambles are made with the assumption that lots of money can be pocketed before cooler heads intervene to prevent total devastation - or even the more immediate risk that the Ukraine crisis will pitch Europe into a triple-dip recession that could destabilize the fragile U.S. economy, too.

    In the Ukraine case, the temptation has been to think that Moscow – hit with escalating economic sanctions – will back down even as the EU and U.S. energy interests seize control of eastern Ukraine's energy reserves. The fracking could mean both a financial bonanza to investors and an end to Russia's dominance of the natural gas supplies feeding central and eastern Europe. So the economic and geopolitical payoff could be substantial.

    According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet, an inviting target especially since other European nations, such as Britain, Poland, France and Bulgaria, have resisted fracking technology because of environmental concerns. An economically supine Ukraine would presumably be less able to say no. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Beneath the Ukraine Crisis: Shale Gas."]

    Further supporting the "natural gas motive" is the fact that it was Vice President Joe Biden who demanded that President Yanukovych pull back his police on Feb. 21, a move that opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias and the U.S.-backed coup. Then, just three months later, Ukraine's largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings, appointed Biden's son, Hunter Biden, to its board of directors.

    While that might strike some of you as a serious conflict of interest, even vocal advocates for ethics in government lost their voices amid Washington's near-universal applause for the ouster of Yanukovych and warm affection for the coup regime in Kiev.

    For instance, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, dismissed the idea that Hunter Biden's new job should raise eyebrows, telling Reuters: "It can't be that because your dad is the vice president, you can't do anything,"

    Who Is Behind Burisma?

    Soon, Burisma – a shadowy Cyprus-based company – was lining up well-connected lobbyists, some with ties to Secretary of State John Kerry, including Kerry's former Senate chief of staff David Leiter, according to lobbying disclosures.

    As Time magazine reported, "Leiter's involvement in the firm rounds out a power-packed team of politically-connected Americans that also includes a second new board member, Devon Archer, a Democratic bundler and former adviser to John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. Both Archer and Hunter Biden have worked as business partners with Kerry's son-in-law, Christopher Heinz, the founding partner of Rosemont Capital, a private-equity company."

    According to investigative journalism in Ukraine, the ownership of Burisma has been traced to Privat Bank, which is controlled by the thuggish billionaire oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, who was appointed by the coup regime to be governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, a south-central province of Ukraine. Kolomoysky also has been associated with the financing of brutal paramilitary forces killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine.

    Also, regarding this energy motive, it shouldn't be forgotten that on Dec. 13, 2013, when neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland reminded Ukrainian business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations," she was at a conference sponsored by Chevron. She even stood next to the company's logo.

    So, clearly energy resources and the billions of dollars that go with them should be factored in when trying to solve the mystery of why Official Washington has gone so berserk about a confrontation with Russia that boils down to whether ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine should be allowed some measure of autonomy or be put firmly under the thumb of U.S.-friendly authorities in Kiev.

    There's also the issue of Russia's interest in exploring with China and other emerging economies the possibility of escaping the financial hegemony of the U.S. dollar, a move that could seriously threaten American economic dominance. According to this line of thinking, the U.S. and its close allies need to bring Moscow to its geopolitical knees – where it was under the late Boris Yeltsin – to stop any experimentation with other currencies for global trade.

    Again, the advocates for this theory have a point. Protecting the Mighty Dollar is of utmost importance to Wall Street. The financial cataclysm of a potential ouster of the U.S. dollar as the world's benchmark currency might understandably prompt some powerful people to play a dangerous game of chicken with nuclear-armed Russia.

    Of course, there's also the budgetary interest of NATO and the U.S. "military-industrial complex" (which helps fund many of Washington's "think tanks") to hype every propaganda opportunity to scare the American people about the "Russian threat."

    And, it's a truism that every major international confrontation has multiple drivers. Think back on the motives behind the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Among a variety of factors were Vice President Dick Cheney's lust for oil, President George W. Bush's psychological rivalry with his father, and the neocons' interest in orchestrating "regime change" in countries considered hostile to Israel. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War."]

    There are also other reasons to disdain Putin, from his bare-chested horseback riding to his retrograde policies on gay rights. But he is no Stalin and surely no Hitler.

    The Neocons' 'Samson Option'

    So, while it's reasonable to see multiple motives behind the brinksmanship with Russia over Ukraine, the sheer recklessness of the confrontation has, to me, the feel of an ideology or an "ism," where people are ready to risk it all for some larger vision that is central to their being.

    That is why I have long considered the Ukraine crisis to be an outgrowth of the neoconservative obsession with Israel's interests in the Middle East.

    Not only did key neocons – the likes of Assistant Secretary Nuland and Sen. John McCain – put themselves at the center of the coup plotting last winter but the neocons had an overriding motive: they wanted to destroy the behind-the-scenes collaboration between President Obama and President Putin who had worked together to avert a U.S. bombing campaign against the Syrian government a year ago and then advanced negotiations with Iran over limiting but not eliminating its nuclear program.

    Those Obama-Putin diplomatic initiatives frustrated the desires of Israeli officials and the neocons to engineer "regime change" in those two countries. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu even believed that bombing Iran's nuclear plants was an "existential" necessity.

    Further, there was the possibility that an expansion of the Obama-Putin cooperation could have supplanted Israel's powerful position as a key arbiter of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama-Putin relationship had to be blown up – and the Ukraine crisis was the perfect explosive for the destruction. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]

    Though I'm told that Obama now understands how the neocons and other hardliners outmaneuvered him over Ukraine, he has felt compelled to join in Official Washington's endless Putin-bashing, causing a furious Putin to make clear that he cannot be counted on to assist Obama on tricky foreign policy predicaments like Syria and Iran.

    As I wrote last April, "There is a 'little-old-lady-who-swallowed-the-fly' quality to neocon thinking. When one of their schemes goes bad, they simply move to a bigger, more dangerous scheme. If the Palestinians and Lebanon's Hezbollah persist in annoying you and troubling Israel, you target their sponsors with 'regime change' – in Iraq, Syria and Iran. If your 'regime change' in Iraq goes badly, you escalate the subversion of Syria and the bankrupting of Iran.

    "Just when you think you've cornered President Barack Obama into a massive bombing campaign against Syria – with a possible follow-on war against Iran – Putin steps in to give Obama a peaceful path out, getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons and Iran to agree to constraints on its nuclear program. So, this Obama-Putin collaboration has become your new threat. That means you take aim at Ukraine, knowing its sensitivity to Russia.

    "You support an uprising against elected President Viktor Yanukovych, even though neo-Nazi militias are needed to accomplish the actual coup. You get the U.S. State Department to immediately recognize the coup regime although it disenfranchises many people of eastern and southern Ukraine, where Yanukovych had his political base.

    "When Putin steps in to protect the interests of those ethnic Russian populations and supports the secession of Crimea (endorsed by 96 percent of voters in a hastily called referendum), your target shifts again. Though you've succeeded in your plan to drive a wedge between Obama and Putin, Putin's resistance to your Ukraine plans makes him the next focus of 'regime change.'

    "Your many friends in the mainstream U.S. news media begin to relentlessly demonize Putin with a propaganda barrage that would do a totalitarian state proud. The anti-Putin 'group think' is near total and any accusation – regardless of the absence of facts – is fine."

    Yet, by risking a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia - the equivalent of the old lady swallowing a horse – the neocons have moved beyond what can be described in a children's ditty. It has become more like a global version of Israel's "Samson Option," the readiness to use nuclear weapons in a self-destructive commitment to eliminate your enemies whatever the cost to yourself.

    But what is particularly shocking in this case is how virtually everyone in U.S. officialdom – and across the mainstream media spectrum – has bought into this madness.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

    Recommended Links

    Google matched content

    Softpanorama Recommended

    Top articles

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon Published on May 06, 2014 | mondoweiss.net

    Oldies But Goodies

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    [Sep 14, 2016] The story of Chile s popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today s must-read, and provides unsettling similarities to current events

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Jan 09, 2016] Allen Dulles and modern neocons

    [Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

    [Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

    [Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

    [Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

    [Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Dec 14, 2017] With the 2018 midterms on the horizon, Moscow proposed a sweeping noninterference agreement with the United States. The Trump administration said no

    [Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

    [Dec 12, 2017] When a weaker neoliberal state fights the dominant neoliberal state, the center of neoliberal empire, it faces economic sanctions and can t retaliate using principle eye for eye

    [Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

    [Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

    [Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

    [Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

    [Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

    [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

    [Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

    [Dec 02, 2017] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo

    [Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

    [Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

    [Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson

    [Nov 29, 2017] The Russian Question by Niall Ferguson

    [Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

    [Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

    [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras

    [Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

    [Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

    [Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

    [Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

    [Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

    [Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis

    [Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

    [Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

    [Feb 26, 2019] THE CRISIS OF NEOLIBERALISM by Julie A. Wilson

    [Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

    [Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

    [Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

    [Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

    [Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

    [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

    [Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

    [Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

    [Sep 18, 2017] Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish partnerships with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

    [Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

    [Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

    [Sep 16, 2017] Empire of Capital by George Monbiot

    [Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

    [Sep 19, 2017] Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world by Stephen Metcalf

    [Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte

    [Jul 30, 2017] Fascism Is Possible Not in Spite of [neo]Liberal Capitalism, but Because of It by Earchiel Johnson

    [Jul 26, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIAs Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

    [Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

    [Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

    [Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

    [Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

    [Jul 01, 2017] Seeing Russia Clearly by Paul Starobin

    [Jul 01, 2017] MUST SEE video explains the entire 17 Intelligence Agencies Russian hacking lie

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    [Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    [Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

    [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [Dec 31, 2017] Truth-Killing as a Meta-Issue

    [Dec 30, 2018] RussiaGate In Review with Aaron Mate - Unreasoned Fear is Neoliberalism's Response to the Credibility Gap

    [Dec 29, 2018] -Election Meddling- Enters Bizarro World As MSM Ignores Democrat-Linked -Russian Bot- Scheme -

    [Dec 24, 2018] Jewish neocons and the romance of nationalist armageddon

    [Dec 24, 2018] Income inequality happens by design. We cant fix it by tweaking capitalism

    [Dec 22, 2018] British Security Service Infiltration, the Integrity Initiative and the Institute for Statecraft by Craig Murray

    [Dec 22, 2018] If Truth Cannot Prevail Over Material Agendas We Are Doomed by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Dec 16, 2018] The 'Integrity Initiative' - A Military Intelligence Operation, Disguised As Charity, To Create The Russian Threat

    [Dec 16, 2018] Neoliberalism has had its day. So what happens next (The death of neoliberalism and the crisis in western politics) by Martin Jacques

    [Dec 14, 2018] Neoliberalism has spawned a financial elite who hold governments to ransom by Deborah Orr

    [Dec 09, 2018] Neoliberalism is more like modern feudalism - an authoritarian system where the lords (bankers, energy companies and their large and inefficient attendant bureaucracies), keep us peasants in thrall through life long debt-slavery simply to buy a house or exploit us as a captured market in the case of the energy sector.

    [Dec 08, 2018] Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games

    [Dec 05, 2018] Beleaguered British Prime Minister Theresa May is wailing loudly against a Trump threat to reveal classified documents relating to Russiagate by Philip Giraldi

    [Dec 05, 2018] Who are the Neocons by Guyenot

    [Dec 03, 2018] Neoliberalism is a modern curse. Everything about it is bad and until we're free of it, it will only ever keep trying to turn us into indentured labourers. It's acolytes are required to blind themselves to logic and reason to such a degree they resemble Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses more than people with any sort of coherent political ideology, because that's what neoliberalism actually is... a cult of the rich, for the rich, by the rich... and it's followers in the general population are nothing but moron familiars hoping one day to be made a fully fledged bastard.

    [Nov 27, 2018] 'Highly likely' that Magnitsky was poisoned by toxic chemicals on Bill Browder's orders

    [Nov 27, 2018] US Foreign Policy Has No Policy by Philip Giraldi

    [Nov 27, 2018] terms that carry with them implicit moral connotations. Investment implies an action, even a sacrifice, undertaken for a better future. It evokes a future positive outcome. Another words that reinforces neoliberal rationality is "growth", Modernization and

    [Nov 27, 2018] The Argentinian military coup, like those in Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Nicaragua, was sponsored by the US to protect and further its interests during the Cold War. By the 1970s neoliberalism was very much part of the menu; paramilitary governments were actively encouraged to practice neoliberal politics; neoliberalism was at this stage, what communism was to the Soviet Union

    [Nov 24, 2018] Anonymous Exposes UK-Led Psyop To Battle Russian Propaganda

    [Nov 24, 2018] British Government Runs Secret Anti-Russian Smear Campaigns

    [Nov 24, 2018] Now we know created MH17 smear campaign, who financial Steele dossier and created Skripal affair ;-)

    [Nov 24, 2018] When you are paid a lot of money to come up with plots psyops, you tend to come up with plots for psyops . The word entrapment comes to mind. Probably self-serving also.

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Jewish Political Power

    [Nov 22, 2018] Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power

    [Nov 14, 2018] Is Orwell overrated and Huxley undertated?

    [Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism

    [Nov 12, 2018] The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Nov 12, 2018] Protecting Americans from foreign influence, smells with COINTELPRO. Structural witch-hunt effect like during the McCarthy era is designed to supress decent to neoliberal oligarcy by Andre Damon and Joseph Kishore

    [Nov 10, 2018] US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 by Jason Ditz

    [Nov 09, 2018] Globalism Vs Nationalism in Trump's America by Joe Quinn

    [Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

    [Oct 20, 2018] I am most encouraged by the apparent Putin's realisation that the First Strike is possible now if not even likely. If the Russians expect an attack they are much less likely to be totally surprised, as usual. In fact, never in history was such attack by the West more likely than now, for various reasons which would take a while to explain.

    [Oct 20, 2018] Cloak and Dagger by Israel Shamir

    [Oct 09, 2018] The Skripals Are an MI6 Hoax - 'Not Worthy of Ladies' Detective Novels' - Israeli Expert Demolishes UK Case

    [Oct 08, 2018] British intelligence now officially is a by-word for organized crime by John Wight

    [Oct 08, 2018] Hacking and Propaganda by Marcus Ranum

    [Sep 23, 2018] UK Begged Trump Not To Declassify Russia Docs; Cited Grave Concerns Over Steele Involvement

    [Sep 21, 2018] One party state: Trump's 'Opposition' Supports All His Evil Agendas While Attacking Fake Nonsence by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Sep 16, 2018] Perils of Ineptitude by Andrew Levin

    [Sep 16, 2018] I m delighted we can see the true face of American exceptionalism on display everyday. The last thing I want to see is back to normal.

    [Sep 15, 2018] Why the US Seeks to Hem in Russia, China and Iran by Patrick Lawrence

    [Sep 15, 2018] BBC is skanky state propaganda

    [Sep 14, 2018] English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte s Bought Journalists Suppressed

    [Sep 07, 2018] New York Times Undermining Peace Efforts by Sowing Suspicion by Diana Johnstone

    [Sep 02, 2018] Open letter to President Trump concerning the consequences of 11 September 2001 by Thierry Meyssan

    [Sep 02, 2018] Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia.

    [Aug 22, 2018] The CIA Owns the US and European Media by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Aug 14, 2018] US Intelligence Community is Tearing the Country Apart from the Inside by Dmitry Orlov

    [Aug 13, 2018] Imperialism Is Alive and Kicking A Marxist Analysis of Neoliberal Capitalism by C.J. Polychroniou

    [Aug 11, 2018] President Trump the most important achivement

    [Jun 06, 2018] Why Foreign Policy Realism Isn't Enough by William S. Smith

    [Aug 08, 2018] Ten Bombshell Revelations From Seymour Hersh's New Autobiography

    [Aug 05, 2018] Cooper was equally as unhinged as Boot: Neoliberal MSM is a real 1984 remake.

    [Jul 31, 2018] Is not the Awan affair a grave insult to the US "Intelligence Community?

    [Jul 20, 2018] What exactly is fake news caucus99percent

    [Jul 20, 2018] Is President Trump A Traitor Because He Wants Peace With Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jul 17, 2018] I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn t hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked.

    [Jul 16, 2018] Putin Claims U.S. Intelligence Agents Funneled $400K To Clinton Campaign Zero Hedge

    [Jul 15, 2018] As if the Donald did not sanctioned to death the Russians on every possible level. How is this different from Mueller's and comp witch hunt against the Russians?

    [Jul 13, 2018] False flag operation covering DNC leaks now involves Mueller and his team

    [Jul 05, 2018] Britain's Most Censored Stories (Non-Military)

    [Jul 03, 2018] Russia has a lot of information about Lybia that could dig a political grave for Hillary. They did not release it

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

    [Jul 03, 2018] Musings II The "Intelligence Community," "Russian Interference," and Due Diligence

    [Jul 03, 2018] When you see some really successful financial speculator like Soros or (or much smaller scale) Browder, search for links with intelligence services to explain the success or at least a part of it related to xUSSR space , LA and similar regions

    [Jun 19, 2018] How The Last Superpower Was Unchained by Tom Engelhardt

    [Jun 17, 2018] Mattis Putin Is Trying To Undermine America s Moral Authority by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia

    [Jun 17, 2018] The Necessity of a Trump-Putin Summit by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Jun 14, 2018] Problem with US and British MSM control of narrative

    [Jun 13, 2018] Sanction Trump not Bourbon

    [Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

    [Jun 12, 2018] The real reason for which 'information apocalypse' terrifies the mainstream media

    [Jun 09, 2018] Still Waiting for Evidence of a Russian Hack by Ray McGovern

    [Jun 09, 2018] Spooks Spooking Themselves by Daniel Lazare

    [May 31, 2018] Journalists and academics expose UK's criminal actions in the Middle East by Julie Hyland

    [May 27, 2018] America's Fifth Column Will Destroy Russia by Paul Craig Roberts

    [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press

    [May 24, 2018] The diversion of Russia Gate is a continuation of former diversions such as the Tea Party which was invented by the banksters to turn public anger over the big banking collapse and the resulting recession into a movement to gain more deregulation for tax breaks for the wealthy

    [May 23, 2018] If the Trump-Russia set up began in spring 2016 or earlier, presumably it was undertaken on the assumption that HRC would win the election. (I say "presumably" because you never can tell..) If so, then the operation would have been an MI6 / Ukrainian / CIA coordinated op intended to frame Putin, not Trump

    [May 22, 2018] Cat fight within the US elite getting more intense

    [May 04, 2018] Media Use Disinformation To Accuse Russia Of Spreading Such by b

    [May 03, 2018] Mueller's questions to Trump more those of a prosecuting attorney than of an impartial investigator by Alexander Mercouris

    [May 03, 2018] Skripal case British confirm they have no suspect; Yulia Skripal vanishes, no word of Sergey Skripal by Alexander Mercouris

    [May 03, 2018] Despite all the propaganda, all the hysterical headlines, all the blatantly biased coverage, the British haven't bought it

    [Apr 24, 2018] The Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

    [Apr 15, 2018] The Trump Regime Is Insane by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Apr 24, 2018] America's Men Without Chests by Paul Grenier

    [Apr 23, 2018] The Tony Blair Rule: The Truth Takes 15 Years to Come Out, Skripal Countdown Starts Now - Simonyan

    [Apr 21, 2018] It s a tough old world and we are certainly capable of a Salisbury set-up and god knows what else in Syria.

    [Apr 20, 2018] Stench of hypocrisy British 'war on terror' strategic ties with radical Islam by John Wight

    [Apr 18, 2018] The Great American Unspooling Is Upon Us

    [Apr 16, 2018] British Propaganda and Disinformation An Imperial and Colonial Tradition by Wayne MADSEN

    [Apr 11, 2018] Female neocon warmongers from Fox look like plastered brick walls – heartless and brainless.

    [Apr 10, 2018] The Ghouta Massacre near Damascus on Aug 21, 2013 was not a sarin rocket attack carried out by Assad or his supporters. It was a false-flag stunt carried out by the insurgents using carbon monoxide or cyanide to murder children and use their corpses as bait to lure the Americans into attacking Assad.

    [Apr 09, 2018] When Military Leaders Have Reckless Disregard for the Truth by Bruce Fein

    [Apr 05, 2018] The Three Most Important Aspects of the Skripal Case so Far and Where They by Rob Slane

    [Apr 05, 2018] An Interview with Retired Russian General Evgeny Buzhinsky The National Interest

    [Apr 03, 2018] This Washington Post Headline Is Fake News

    [Apr 03, 2018] Exercise TOXIC DAGGER - the sharp end of chemical warfare

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

    [Apr 02, 2018] Russia 'Novichok' Hysteria Proves Politicians and Media Haven't Learned the Lessons of Iraq by Patrick Henningsen

    [Apr 02, 2018] The Litvinenko Conspiracy

    [Apr 01, 2018] UK may have staged Skripal poisoning to rally people against Russia, Moscow believes

    [Mar 31, 2018] FBI Director Mueller testified to Congress that Saddam Hussein was responsible for anthrax attack! That was Mueller's role in selling the "intelligence" to invade Iraq.

    [Mar 27, 2018] Indian Punchline - Reflections on foreign affairs by M K Bhadrakumar

    [Mar 27, 2018] Perfidious Albion The Fatally Wounded British Beast Lashes Out by Barbara Boyd

    [Mar 25, 2018] A truly historical month for the future of our planet by The Saker

    [Mar 25, 2018] Cambridge Analytica Scandal Rockets to Watergate Proportions and Beyond by Adam Garrie

    [Mar 24, 2018] Why the UK, the EU and the US Gang-Up on Russia by James Petras

    [Mar 23, 2018] Inglorious end of career of neocon McMaster

    [Mar 22, 2018] If it's correct, the Brits made a very nasty error that shows the true nature of their establishment.

    [Mar 22, 2018] Vladimir Putin: nonsense to think Russia would poison spy in UK

    [Mar 21, 2018] Arafat and Litvinenko: an Interesting Turn to a Mysterious Story

    [Mar 21, 2018] Washington's Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen

    [Mar 21, 2018] Whataboutism Is A Nonsensical Propaganda Term Used To Defend The Failed Status Quo by Mike Krieger

    [Mar 21, 2018] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

    [Mar 16, 2018] Corbyn Calls for Evidence in Escalating Poison Row

    [Mar 16, 2018] NATO to display common front in Skripal case

    [Mar 16, 2018] Are We Living Under a Military Coup ?

    [Mar 14, 2018] Russian UN anvoy> alleged the Salisbury attack was a false-flag attack, possibly by the UK itself, intended to harm Russia s reputation by Julian Borger

    [Mar 14, 2018] UNSC holds urgent meeting over Salisbury attack

    [Mar 14, 2018] Jefferson Morley on the CIA and Mossad Tradeoffs in the Formation of the US-Israel Strategic Relationship

    [Mar 12, 2018] New Huge Anti-Russian Provocation ahead of Russian election by Robert Stevens

    [Mar 11, 2018] Washington s Century-long War on Russia by Mike Whitney

    [Mar 11, 2018] Reality Check: The Guardian Restarts Push for Regime Change in Russia by Kit

    [Mar 11, 2018] The Elephant In The Room by Craig Murray

    [Mar 11, 2018] It is highly probably that Steele and Skripal knew each other

    [Mar 11, 2018] Ramping Russophobia is the most convincing motive for the Skripal attack

    [Mar 10, 2018] Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko s death.

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 10, 2018] Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in Obama policy and HRC campaign long before any Steele s Dossier. This was a program ofunleashing cold War II

    [Mar 10, 2018] From Yeltsin to Putin: Chubais, Liberal Pathology, and Harvard's Criminal Record

    [Mar 10, 2018] There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this

    [Mar 08, 2018] Cue bono question in Scripal case?

    [Mar 08, 2018] In recent years, there has been ample evidence that US policy-makers and, equally important, mainstream media commentators do not bother to read what Putin says, or at least not more than snatches from click-bait wire-service reports.

    [Mar 06, 2018] The U.S. Returns to 'Great Power Competition,' With a Dangerous New Edge

    [Mar 06, 2018] The current anti-Russian sentiment in the West as hysterical. But this hysteria is concentrated at the top level of media elite and neocons. Behind it is no deep sense of unity or national resolve. In fact we see the reverse - most Western countries are deeply divided within themselves due to the crisis of neolineralism.

    [Mar 04, 2018] Generals who now are running the USA foreign policy represents a great danger. These men seem incapable of rising above the Russophobia that grew in the atmosphere of the Cold War. They yearn for world hegemony for the US and to see Russia and to a lesser extent China and Iran as obstacles to that dominion for the "city on a hill

    [Feb 26, 2018] Democrat Memo Lays Egg by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 26, 2018] Why one war when we can heve two! by Eric Margolis

    [Mar 06, 2019] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 23, 2018] NSA Genius Debunks Russiagate Once For All

    [Feb 22, 2018] Bill Binney explodes the rile of 17 agances security assessment memo in launching the Russia witch-hunt

    [Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia

    [Feb 20, 2018] Russophobia is a futile bid to conceal US, European demise by Finian Cunningham

    [Feb 19, 2018] Nunes FBI and DOJ Perps Could Be Put on Trial by Ray McGovern

    [Feb 19, 2018] The Russiagate Intelligence Wars What We Do and Don't Know

    [Feb 19, 2018] Russian Meddling Was a Drop in an Ocean of American-made Discord by AMANDA TAUB and MAX FISHER

    [Feb 18, 2018] This dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia is extremely lucrative for the war profiteers, the retired generals intelligence members who prostitute themselves as media pundits, the members of Congress who get $$$ from the war profiteers, and the corporate media which thrives on links to the war profiteers as well as on war reporting

    [Feb 16, 2018] A Dangerous Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy

    [Feb 16, 2018] The Deep Staters care first and foremost about themselves.

    [Feb 14, 2018] Recused Judge in Flynn Prosecution Served on FISA Court

    [Feb 14, 2018] A Russian Trump by Israel Shamir

    [Feb 12, 2018] The Age of Lunacy: The Doomsday Machine

    [Feb 12, 2018] Too many sport disciplines, too much cheating, too much money and too many politics involved in the Olympic

    [Feb 12, 2018] Ike's Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex Is Alive and Very Well by William J. Astore

    [Feb 08, 2018] Try Googling Riggs Bank – a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar. So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a comprador oligarchy who could loot Russia s raw materials resources

    [Feb 11, 2018] How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war

    [Feb 10, 2018] More on neoliberal newspeak of US propaganda machine

    [Feb 09, 2018] Professor Stephen F. Cohen Rethinking Putin – A critical reading, by The Saker - The Unz Review

    [Feb 08, 2018] Control of narrative means that creation of the simplistic picture in which the complexities of the world are elided in favor of 'good guys' vs. 'bad guys' dichotomy

    [Jan 30, 2018] Washington Reaches New Heights of Insanity with the "Kremlin Report" by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 30, 2018] The Unseen Wars of America the Empire The American Conservative

    [Jan 28, 2018] Russiagate Isn t About Trump, And It Isn t Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 28, 2018] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Russiagate Isn't About Trump, And It Isn't Even Ultimately About Russia by Caitlyn Johnstone

    [Jan 27, 2018] The Rich Also Cry by Israel Shamir

    [Jan 26, 2018] Warns The Russiagate Stakes Are Extreme by Paul Craig Roberts

    [Jan 25, 2018] Russiagate as Kafka 2.0

    [Jan 24, 2018] Brazen Plot To Exonerate Hillary Clinton And Frame Trump Unraveling, Says Former Fed Prosecutor

    [Jan 22, 2018] Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation With Russia and China by Bill Van Auken

    [Jan 17, 2018] Neoconning the Trump White House by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

    [Jan 16, 2018] The Russia Explainer

    [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

    [Jan 06, 2018] Russia-gate Breeds Establishment McCarthyism by Robert Parry

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Dec 31, 2017] What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

    [Jan 02, 2018] The Still-Missing Evidence of Russia-gate by Dennis J. Bernstein

    [Jan 02, 2018] Some investigators ask a sensible question: "It is likely that all the Russians involved in the attempt to influence the 2016 election were lying, scheming, Kremlin-linked, Putin-backed enemies of America except the Russians who talked to Christopher Steele?"

    [Jan 02, 2018] Neocon warmongers should be treated as rapists by Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Jan 02, 2018] What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

    [Jan 02, 2018] Jill Stein in the Cross-hairs by Mike Whitney

    [Jan 02, 2018] Who Is the Real Enemy by Philip Giraldi

    [Jan 01, 2018] Putin Foresaw Death of US Global Power by Finian Cunningham

    [Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

    [Dec 31, 2017] Is [neo]Liberalism a Dying Faith by Pat Buchanan

    [Nov 03, 2019] How Controlling Syria s Oil Serves Washington s Strategic Objectives by Nauman Sadiq

    [Oct 28, 2019] Expert Panel Finds Gaping Plot-Holes In OPCW Report On Alleged Syrian Chemical Attack by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Oct 26, 2019] The Plundering of Ukraine by Corrupt American Democrats by Israel Shamir

    [Oct 24, 2019] Joltin' Jack Keane wants your kids to fight Russia and Syria over Syrian oil by Colonel Patrick Lang

    [Oct 23, 2019] The treason of the intellectuals The Undoing of Thought by Roger Kimball

    [Oct 23, 2019] Neoconservatism Is An Omnicidal Death Cult, And It Must Be Stopped by Caitlin Johnstone

    [Oct 20, 2019] How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is NATO expansion

    [Oct 20, 2019] Putin sarcastic remark on Western neoliberal multiculturalism

    [Oct 10, 2019] There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect: he is a war criminal, who escaped justice

    [Sep 22, 2019] US reconnaissance plane operated drones that attacked Hmeymim

    [Sep 22, 2019] Shoigu calls US belief in its superiority the major threat to Russia and other states

    [Sep 22, 2019] It was neoliberalism that won the cold war

    [Sep 20, 2019] Trump Whistleblower Drama Puts Biden In The Hot Seat Over Ukraine

    [Sep 18, 2019] To End Endless Wars, We Must Give Up Hegemony by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 17, 2019] The Devolution of US-Russia Relations by Tony Kevin

    [Sep 15, 2019] Demythologizing the Roots of the New Cold War by Ted Snider

    [Sep 12, 2019] The Brain-Dead Maximalism of [neocon] Hard-liners by Daniel Larison

    [Sep 10, 2019] The idea tha the USA won the Cold War is questionable

    [Sep 10, 2019] It s all about Gene Sharp and seeping neoliberal regime change using Western logistical support, money, NGO and intelligence agencies and MSM as the leverage

    [Aug 27, 2019] House Niggers Mutiny by Israel Shamir

    [Aug 24, 2019] Peace plan for eastern Ukraine As divisive as the causes of the war by Fred Weir

    [Aug 17, 2019] The Unraveling of the Failed Trump Coup by Larry C Johnson

    [Aug 17, 2019] Debunking the Putin Panic by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Aug 17, 2019] Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTDS)

    [Jul 29, 2019] Peace in Ukraine by Stephen F. Cohen

    [Jul 28, 2019] Antisemitism prejudices projection on Russians

    [Jul 23, 2019] John Helmer MH17 Evidence Tampering Revealed by Malaysia – FBI Attempt To Seize Black Boxes; Dutch Cover-Up of Forged Telephon

    [Jul 23, 2019] Ukraine Election - Voters Defeat Second Color Revolution

    [Jul 13, 2019] Mueller Does Not Have Evidence That The IRA Was Part of Russian Government Meddling by Larry C Johnson

    [Jul 09, 2019] Epstein and the conversion of politicians into "corrupt and vulnerable" brand

    [Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then

    [Jul 06, 2019] In practice, the USSR behaved exactly like a brutal totalitarian theocracy

    [Jul 05, 2019] Globalisation- the rise and fall of an idea that swept the world - World news by Nikil Saval

    [Jul 05, 2019] The World Bank and IMF 2019 by Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner

    [Jun 29, 2019] Latest Weapon Of US Imperialism Liquified Natural Gas

    [Jun 27, 2019] The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East by C.J. Hopkins

    [Jun 22, 2019] A new policy issued by the United States Department of Defense, in conjunction with online platforms like Twitter and Facebook, will automatically enlist you to New Departement of Defence rule: Internet Users Who Call For Attacking Other Countries Will Now Be Enlisted In The Military Automatically

    [Jun 22, 2019] Chuck Schumer 'The American People Deserve A President Who Can More Credibly Justify War With Iran'

    [Jun 22, 2019] Bolton Calls For Forceful Iranian Response To Continuing US Aggression

    [Jun 22, 2019] Why The Empire Is Failing The Horrid Hubris Of The Albright Doctrine by Doug Bandow

    [Jun 21, 2019] America's Confrontation With Iran Goes Deeper Than Trump by Trita Parsi

    [Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters

    [Jun 09, 2019] The looming 100-year US-China conflict by Martin Wolf

    [May 31, 2019] Mahathir bin Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, in an interview with FCCJ (Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan) stated that he did not believe in Russia's involvement in the crash of the Boeing MH17

    [May 28, 2019] Any time you read an article (or a comment) on Russia, substitute the word Jew for Russian and International Jewry for Russia and re-read.

    [May 22, 2019] NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries

    [May 20, 2019] "Us" Versus "Them"

    [May 19, 2019] Some Shocking Facts on the Concentration of Ownership of the US Economy

    [May 19, 2019] Intel agencies of the UK and US are guilty of fabricating evidence, breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing fake analysis and operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity

    [May 14, 2019] iJews and the Left-i by Philip Mendes A Review, by Brenton Sanderson - The Unz Review

    [May 14, 2019] Despite a $ 22 Trillion National Debt, America Is on a Military Spending Spree. 800 Overseas US Military Bases by Masud Wadan

    [May 13, 2019] US Foreign Policy as Bellicose as Ever by Serge Halimi

    [May 12, 2019] Charting a Progressive Foreign Policy for the Trump Era and Beyond

    [May 11, 2019] Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart -- Say Hello to Fancy Bear

    [May 11, 2019] Leaked USA s Feb 2018 Plan For A Coup In Venezuela

    [May 11, 2019] Christopher Steele, FBI s Confidential Human Source by Publius Tacitus

    [May 11, 2019] CIA Paid $100,000 To Shadowy Russian For Dirt on Trump, Including Sex Video by Chuck Ross

    [May 08, 2019] Obama Spied on Other Republicans and Democrats As Well by Larry C Johnson

    [May 07, 2019] Chris Hedges: The Demonization of Russia is Driven by Defense Contractors

    [May 05, 2019] The Left Needs to Stop Crushing on the Generals by Danny Sjursen

    [May 02, 2019] Russian and Eurasian Politics by Gordon M. Hahn

    [Apr 29, 2019] The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory by Aaron Maté

    [Apr 28, 2019] The British Role in Russiagate Is About to Be Fully Exposed

    [Apr 26, 2019] Jared Kushner, Not Maria Butina, Is America's Real Foreign Agent by Philip Giraldi

    [Apr 22, 2019] FBI top brass have been colluding with top brass of CIA and MI6 to pursue ambitious anti-Russian agenda

    [Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany

    [Apr 21, 2019] Psywar: Propaganda during Iraq war and beyond

    [Apr 21, 2019] John Brennan's Police State USA

    [Apr 21, 2019] Deciphering Trumps Foreign Policy by Oscar Silva-Valladares

    [Apr 21, 2019] Whenever someone inconveniences the neoliberal oligarchy, the entire neoliberal MSM mafia tells us 24 x7 how evil and disgusting that person is. It's true of the leader of every nation which rejects neoliberal globalization as well as for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

    [Apr 16, 2019] CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump

    [Apr 13, 2019] America as a Myth of good life is a powerful tool of color revolutions

    [Apr 13, 2019] Russophobia, A WMD (Weapon Of Mass Deception) by Jean Ranc

    [Apr 12, 2019] Putin was KGB agent crowd forgets that Bush Sr was long time senior CIA operative and the director of CIA

    [Apr 10, 2019] Habakkuk on cockroaches and the New York Times

    [Apr 09, 2019] NYT: It Is, in Fact, All About the Benjamins by Philip Weiss

    [Apr 09, 2019] The ruthless neo-colonialists of 21st century

    [Apr 06, 2019] The Magnitsky Act-Behind the Scenes ASEEES

    [Apr 06, 2019] Trump is for socialism but only when it comes to funding US military industry Tulsi Gabbard

    [Apr 04, 2019] How Brzezinski's Chessboard degenerated into Brennan's Russophobia by Mike Whitney

    [Apr 03, 2019] Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the US

    [Apr 02, 2019] 'Yats' Is No Longer the Guy by Robert Parry

    [Apr 01, 2019] Amazon.com War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate (9781510745810) Stephen F. Cohen Books

    [Mar 31, 2019] Because of the immediate arrival of the Russia collusion theory, neither MSM honchos nor any US politician ever had to look into the camera and say, I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump

    [Mar 31, 2019] What is the purpose of Russiagate hysteria?

    [Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil

    [Mar 30, 2019] The Real Costs of Russiagate

    [Mar 24, 2019] The accountability that must follow Mueller's report

    [Mar 20, 2019] In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts

    [Mar 18, 2019] Journalists who are spies

    [Mar 18, 2019] FULL CNN TOWN HALL WITH TULSI GABBARD 3-10-19

    [Mar 18, 2019] Doublethink and Newspeak Do We Have a Choice by Greg Guma

    [Mar 18, 2019] The Why are the media playing lapdog and not watchdog – again – on war in Iraq?

    [Mar 06, 2019] Disinformation destroys reality

    [Mar 06, 2019] American Meddling in the Ukraine by Publius Tacitus

    [Feb 21, 2019] The Empire Now or Never by Fred Reed

    [Feb 19, 2019] Tulsi Gabbard kills New World Order bloodbath in thirty seconds

    [Feb 19, 2019] Warmongers in their ivory towers - YouTube

    [Feb 17, 2019] The goal of any war is the redistribution of taxpayer money into the bank accounts of MIC shareholders and executives

    [Feb 13, 2019] MoA - Russiagate Is Finished

    [Feb 13, 2019] Stephen Cohen on War with Russia and Soviet-style Censorship in the US by Russell Mokhiber

    [Feb 10, 2019] Pussy John Bolton and His Codpiece Mustache by Fred Reed

    [Feb 05, 2019] The neocon s strategy

    [Feb 04, 2019] Trump s Revised and Rereleased Foreign Policy: The World Policeman is Back

    [Feb 02, 2019] According to the recipes devised by Reagan: why the methods which successfully destroyed the USSR do not work with modern Russia? by Alexey Makurin

    [Jan 29, 2019] These 2020 hopefuls are courting Wall Street. Don t be fooled by their progressive veneer by Bhaskar Sunkara

    [Jan 29, 2019] Guardian became Deep State Guardian

    [Jan 26, 2019] Can the current US neoliberal/neoconservative elite be considered suicidal?

    [Jan 22, 2019] War with Russia From Putin Ukraine to Trump Russiagate

    [Jan 21, 2019] Beyond BuzzFeed The 10 Worst, Most Embarrassing US Media Failures On The Trump-Russia Story by Glenn Greenwald

    [Jan 20, 2019] Doctor, nurse, Chief Nursing Officer of the Army, whatever.

    [Jan 19, 2019] Coincidence - Chief Nurse Of British Army Was First Person To Arrive At Novichoked Skripal Scene

    [Jan 11, 2019] New Documents Reveal a Covert British Military-Intelligence Smear Machine Meddling In American Politics by Mark Ames

    [Jan 11, 2019] How President Trump Normalized Neoconservatism by Ilana Mercer

    [Jan 11, 2019] Facts does not matter in the current propoganda environment, the narrative is everything

    [Jan 08, 2019] Shock Files- What Role Did Integrity Initiative Play in Sergei Skripal Affair- - Sputnik International

    [Jan 08, 2019] Skripal spin doctors- Documents link UK govt-funded Integrity Initiative to anti-Russia narrative

    [Jan 08, 2019] No, wealth isn t created at the top. It is merely devoured there by Rutger Bregman

    [Jan 06, 2019] British elite fantasy of again ruling the world (with American and Zionist aid) has led to a series of catastrophic blunders and overreaches in both foreign and domestic policies.

    [Jan 02, 2019] Russian bots - How An Anti-Russian Lobby Creates Fake News

    [Jan 02, 2019] The Only Meddling "Russian Bots" Were Actually Democrat-Led "Experts" by Mac Slavo

    [Jan 02, 2019] Did Mueller Patched Together Much of His Indictment from 2015 Radio Free Europe Article ?

    [Jan 02, 2019] That madness of the US neocons comes from having no behavioural limits, no references outside of groupthink, and manipulating the language. Simply put, you don't know anymore what's what outside of the narrative your group pushes. The manipulators ends up caught in their lies.

    Sites

    ...



    Etc

    Society

    Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

    Quotes

    War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

    Bulletin:

    Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

    History:

    Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

    Classic books:

    The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

    Most popular humor pages:

    Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

    The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


    Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

    FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

    This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

    You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

    Disclaimer:

    The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

    Last modified: March, 12, 2020